Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Reform or Rebellion?

Whether a paradigm-shifting social action is”reform” or “rebellion” depends on what side you are on – the point of view of the participants. 

Reform sounds more civil.  Rebellion sounds, well, rebellious.

We’ve had several mega-event “reform-rebellion” examples throughout history.   The ministry of Jesus Christ was, in hindsight, a reform.  Its objective was to reform the excessively legalistic attitudes of the Sadducees and  Pharisees and their sympathizers by introducing what God intended all along:  An attitude of grace and forgiveness for sinners.  Some Jews accepted the concept, most did not.  To those who accepted, it was reform.  For those who rejected, Jesus represented rebellion against the law of the Jews.

The Reformation is another example.  Martin Luther and other who promoted reformation in the 1500’s intended to reform the Catholic Church, to force the Church to renounce its corrupt practices and return to the essentials of the faith.  The reformation snowballed into a rebellion against the Catholic Church, and became the protestant revolution.  Today protestants called it reformation.  Catholics consider it a rebellion against the Church. 

A couple of decades later, another mega-event occurred, this time in England.  On the coattails of the Reformation, the Church of England separated from the Catholic Church.  This was more of a rebellion than it was a reform in anyone’s book.  The elite in England did not appreciate the Catholic Church dictating who could marry or divorce whom.  So they jettisoned not just the doctrine of the limitations on marriage, but the entire Catholic Church and reverted to their separate and distinct Church of England. 

Was the US Civil War “reform” or “rebellion?”  At the time, that depended on which side you were on.  The South saw the north turning the screws on the slavery issue.  They may have considered the North rebelling against the South's livelihood and economy.  The North saw the south as rebelling against the authority and unity of the nation.  Retrospective history labels the North as the reformers and the South as the rebels.

So what should we call the jettisoning of moral standards today?  Are those who promote gay marriage, abortion, and legal protections of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender behaviors “reformers” or “rebels?” 

If they are reformers, what are they reforming back to?  What is the wayward behavior they are reforming?  Traditional morality?  Was there ever a time when overt lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender behaviors were the norm?  No!  They are reforming behaviors “back” to nothing that has ever existed before.   The behaviors they are promoting have never been sanctioned by any religious system or legitimate national government.  So no, it is not “reform.”

If they are rebels, what are they rebelling against?  Traditional morality.  Religious values.  Their parents and grandparents.  And God.  They are rebelling against all things holy and sacred.  This is every bit as much a “rebellion” as the Protestant “reformation” turned into, the creation of the Church of England turned into, and the rebellion that fomented the Civil War.  Except instead of merely turning back several decades or several centuries of established social, religious, or political norms, this new cultural revolution is erasing multi-millenia of social and religious norms. 

I am no prophet, but I would guess that this sort of rebellion against God will not stand.  At least I pray not.  I will be on God’s side on this one.  The consequences of this rebellion will not be pretty.

Saturday, May 26, 2012

“Islam is Radical” Part II: A message to ACT for America leadership…

I can understand why the mainstream media, academia, and even Barack Hussein Obama sugar-coat Islam.   The media and academia are populated by value-neutral, irreligious liberals who don’t take religion seriously and are willing to defend any ideology or religion (except Judaism and Christianity) because their highest value is tolerance and not offending, no matter the vileness of the ideology or behavior they confront.  Barack, in addition to being a leftist himself, has close ties with Islam from childhood as well as close Muslim relatives.  Consequently he holds a warm and very protective place in his heart for all things Islam.   So warm that he refuses to allow anyone in his administration to associate the word “Muslim” or “Islam” with any act of Islamic Jihad.

I have a more difficult time understanding the thinking of ACT! for America.  ACT is the nation’s largest organization dedicated to educating Americans about the dangers of “radical Islam” while actively addressing its challenge to America’s national security, culture, religious freedoms, and form of government. 

What could I possibly be concerned with ACT about?  They are doing a great service in confronting “radical Islam” in a variety of ways.

Here is my problem:  ACT is withholding their accurate understanding of the problem from the American people.  They admit privately that the problem is “Islam is radical”, and not merely “radical Islam.”  They privately acknowledge that orthodox Islamic ideology, which is based on the trilogy of Islamic writings, is the source and motivator of Islamic Jihad and the violence, terror, supremacism and intolerance waged against the west.  They privately acknowledge that the radicals are merely the military arm – the foot soldiers -  of Islam.   Yet ACT’s public face denies Islam is radical and insists that only “radical Islam” is the problem.

Why do they do this?  So they can retain their credibility with the liberal, head-in-the-sand media and political leaders.  ACT’s leadership believes that asserting that “Islam is radical” is more truth than many in our nation can grasp or accept.  As one leader suggested to me, admitting this truth about Islam publicly is “outrunning our headlights.”  Translated, that means telling the truth about Islam before the public is ready to hear the truth will hurt their cause.   He calls this distinction a “semantic dilemma.”  Are you freakin’ kidding me?  It is much more than “semantics” and there is clearly no need for it to be a “dilemma.”

Does anyone else see a problem with such thinking?

I have to ask:  Will the truth hurt their cause or will it hurt their organization?

I submit that the truth will temporarily hurt their organization which is more important to them than their cause.  They are afraid of negative press from our liberal media.   The truth will make their job more difficult.  They will be called names by Islamic sympathizers (as if that isn’t already occurring  - check out THIS nasty website; it can’t get much worse).  The truth can be difficult – even offensive to some.  But truth can do nothing but help their cause.  Unfortunately ACT apparently does not hold much faith in “truth” because they are more concerned about protecting their organization than their cause.

One ACT leader stated:  “I think the day is coming when the unsugar-coated reality of Islam can be freely exposed. Until then, we must  understand that I/we are often speaking with people who think that Islam is just another religion and the Muslim Brotherhood is its version of the Knights of Columbus."   Since when does withholding the truth result in people learning the truth?  Does this ACT leader really believe that such people will miraculously learn the truth of Islam without an organization like ACT revealing it to them?  This is circular reasoning several times around.  This is mind-bending stuff!

Which brings me to a sad and rather disgusting analogy between ACT and Islam.  A significant doctrine of Islam is “taqiyya”:  Purposeful lying or deceit, i.e. withholding the truth of Islam to further the cause of Islam in infidel lands.  You see, if too much truth about Islam (its history, beliefs, and practices) is revealed to Westerners, individual Muslims and Islam itself will lose their credibility, friendships, influence and effectiveness with the media and government officials.

Sound familiar?  Isn’t ACT! for America doing the same thing:  Withholding the truth about Islam to protect their credibility, friendships, influence and effectiveness with the media and government officials?  Apparently ACT finds the doctrine of taqiyya to be a useful tool in furthering their organizational goals.

We must know this stark distinction between Islam and Christianity.  Islam condones lying to promote its cause.  Christianity promotes truth to further its cause.  This is just one of dozens of substantial differences between the doctrines of Islam and Christianity that cause our respective cultures to be so diametrically opposite.  Yet we find an American organization led by a Christian using Islamic tactics to maintain the reputation of their organization.

The truth has many more advantages than taqiyya.  Here are several:

  1. The truth reflects our own values that we are fighting to preserve against a hostile Islam and its immoral and coercive doctrines.
  2. The truth trusts the intelligence and common sense of the American people who would be the most likely to join with them to defend our culture, liberties, and Judeo-Christian ethic.
  3. The truth will preserve ACT’s credibility and legitimacy as the go-to organization in providing the truth about Islam and the solutions to its encroachment.
  4. The truth equips the  American people to understand the real threat of Islam, not just the threat from the so-called “radicals.”  Once so equipped, the people will know instinctively to elect representatives who share their insight and knowledge about Islam and take appropriate steps to guard against the incursion of Islamic dogma in our laws, finance, culture, and religion.
  5. The truth is the moral high ground. 

It appears to me that part of ACT’s problem is it has one or more politicians leading their effort.  The comfort level of these politicians lies in typical political practices that involve manipulation and deceit, much like taqiyya.   As in our response to corrupt or apostate churches, there are two choices:  Either demand reform from within or leave the church.  It is past time to consider these options with regard to ACT.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

What’s more correct? “Radical Islam” or “Islam is Radical?”

The term “radical” Islam is en vogue to describe the Islam that is worthy of our concern.  Is there an Islam that isn’t radical? 

Some suggest that the phrase “Islam is radical” as distinct from the more popular term “radical Islam” is merely a nuance – an unnecessary nitpicky rhetorical exercise that ought to be avoided.  The belief is most people aren’t ready for the “nuance” of Islam being portrayed as inherently radical.  

Others, like most media and even ACT for America, the major Islamic awareness group in America, insist on the use of the term “radical Islam” to describe the threat to our existence.  You see, they don’t want to offend anyone with the use of the more accurate and truthful phrase “Islam is radical.”  The fear is that if we express the truth, people will hear something different.  But if we express a lie people will somehow hear the truth.  I don’t know about you but that sounds insane!

The “politically correct” philosophy:  “It’s not what you say. It’s what they hear.”   Frank Luntz, pollster.

The “morally correct” philosophy:  “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”  Jesus, savior.

We do not win the high ground by being less than truthful.

But is Islam itself really radical?  Radical compared to what? It depends on who you talk to.  No aspect of Islam is radical to those who have no deeply held values about anything to contrast with it.  For people who simply don’t care, nothing can be truly radical.  Even Muslims who have bombs strapped to their chests may not be considered radical in the mind of the person who believes everyone's values are equally good and should be protected and respected.  After all, if these Muslims are oppressed and feel justified to blow up people for their cause, by Allah, they should be allowed to do it.  Who am I to judge another?  So says the progressive liberal.

Granted, that is an extreme example. But believe me, I have met people who come pretty close to using that line of reasoning.

So, is ACT’s “dancing around the truth” for the benefit of those who have no deeply held values that they feel are worth defending and contrasting as the basis for calling Islam’s ideology “radical?”   Such people cannot sense darkness (of Islam) because the have no light (of their own values).  Our failure to expose these people to the truth will not bring them light.  They are a lost cause either way.

Back to the question, “radical” compared to what? Radical compared to western culture, western ethics, our system of common law, and Judeo-Christian religion and morality.  So with this definition, an ideology whose founding leader and whose mainstream interpretations of their primary religious texts that call for the elimination of the infidel, wife beating, beheading of homosexuals, eradication of Jews, multiple wives, concubines, intolerance, and military conquest of other nations, including ours, has to be considered “radical” wouldn’t you think?

But no.  We cannot call Islam radical because there are many very nice Muslims.  And most Muslims don’t practice violent Jihad (many may agree with it and seek opportunity to practice it, but they don’t currently practice it - yet.)  And just like any religion, there are many Muslims who don’t understand fully what their “religion” teaches.  So there are many nominal, in-name-only Muslims who really really don’t identify with a “radical” religion.  Wait a minute!  Ignorance of ones RADICAL religion does not make the religion UN-radical now, does it.

Aside from the moral problem of not expressing the truth as we know it, what are some of the other problems created by the media and ACT for America when they continue to refer only to “radical Islam” as being the problem for us?

Here is my litany of problems with referring to “radical Islam” instead of admitting that “Islam is radical”:

  1. It misrepresents the truth.
  2. It misleads people into believing that there is a form of Islam that is not radical.  There is not.  The historic, orthodox form of Islam that the great preponderance of Islamic scholars teach today is radical by the above definition.
  3. All known forms of Islam hold up Muhammad as the ideal man, all of his sayings and actions.  And all known forms of Islam hold to the absolute truth of every word of the Qur’an.  Muhammad and the Qur’an define the essence of Islam.  Muhammad was radical.  The Qur’an is radical.  Here the meaning of radical includes vile, immoral,and repulsive mandates, and a threat to our way of life.
  4. Those who insist only “radical” Islam is the problem damage their credibility and discourage those of us who know better from working with them to address the real problem.
  5. When the US intervenes in Islamic nations, we fail to address the fundamental beliefs and predispositions of Islamic populations, expecting them to have values similar to ours when in most cases they are diametrically and hatefully opposed.
  6. Most mosques in the US are funded by Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations which are known to have outspoken Islamic leaders who desire Islamic conquest of America.  Failure to understand Islam is radical results in failure to understand the teaching inside mosques is both radical and seditious.
  7. Islam at its core is a seditious political ideology promoted by a multitude of organizations in religious garb.  Every Islamic organization in the US has a seditious intent.
  8. Even those Muslims who appear absolutely benign, such as Zuhdi Jasser who draws the ire of hard-core Islamists and other Muslim apologists, still promote the establishment of new mosques and stand by the principles of Islam.  I and others have asked Jasser what portions of the Qur’an and other Islamic texts does he ignore or interpret differently from the teachings of the mainstream Islamic Imams.  He has not replied.
  9. It cripples our accurate understanding of Islam which delays effective actions.
  10. The lack of accurate knowledge of Islam suppresses the attitudes and will of the people necessary for us to elect leaders who will adopt policies required to effectively address the seditious influence of Islam in our land.

Let us please rely on the higher value of truth rather than the corrupt value of “not offending.”  Yes, truth will usually offend someone.  Those it offends are part of our problem whether we offend them or not.  Failure to promote the truth is much more offensive to those of us who know the truth. Those of us who know the truth about Islam are the only ones who can effectively warn others.  Withholding the truth because the truth may be offensive to some is political gamesmanship and immoral.   Shading the truth with regard to Islam reminds me of Obama pandering and apologizing to Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations.  His false hope is that not offending via his pandering will somehow cause those societies that hate America to love us.  As with ACT’s deception concerning the truth of Islam, such pandering only makes us look weak and stupid.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Jamie Dupree: Personification of the amorality of a Washington insider…

There are some otherwise decent people who I just cannot respect.  Jamie Dupree has become one of them.

Jamie Dupree is an articulate Washington insider who frequently reports on the Neil Boortz radio show.  Apparently Neil thinks a lot of him.  I no longer share Neil’s admiration.

In a conversation with Jamie a couple of days ago on his show, Neil correctly observed that those who voted for Obama acted stupidly, or words to that effect.  Jamie quickly defended the electorate as acting intelligently in electing Obama.  Neil briefly challenged Jamie’s logic.  Jamie  dismissed Neil's challenge with some half-assed comment about everyone having intelligent opinions that may be different from ours.

So I wrote to Jamie about my feeling of his apparent lack of conviction or ideals.  I wrote:

“That attitude is devoid of any discernment of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, beauty vs. ugly, dumb vs. smart, peaceful vs. violent and any other word combination that recognizes differences in values. You sound absolutely "value neutral", which, in a couple of words, equates to "amoral" and "useless." Do you see everything through undiscerning rose colored glasses? That makes me ill.”

Jamie responded within a half hour (it almost felt as though I was “instant messaging” him.)  Anyway, he replied:

“Hi …  To some people, electing Obama was intelligent, to others it was dumb. That sounds about right, because the people who voted for Bush did so because they thought he was best prepared for the job, while there were others who couldn't stand him for a minute. That's what makes our system so frustrating - and yet so good.

The listeners/readers/viewers are the ones who make the personal judgments on "right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, beauty vs. ugly, dumb vs. smart, peaceful vs. violent" (as you wrote).

Sorry that makes you "ill" but it's not my job to declare who is right and who is wrong. Your views are naturally different from other listeners of mine. If I side with you, then others are angered. If I side with them, then you are angered. That's not my job.

It may seem odd to you, but I really don't care who wins the elections; my job is to cover them and report on the action in DC from the White House to the Congress, in order to give you a better perspective on what is going on.

If that makes me "value neutral," so be it. I am not in this job to decide which party is right or wrong, which side better represents good or evil.

Thanks for listening and see you on the Boortz show tomorrow.

Jamie Dupree”

I have the same reaction to this reply as I did to the reply of Romney’s Middle East advisor defending Romney’s ignorant statement that “Jihadism is no part of Islam.”  It is sickening to me to hear ignorant statements from people we trust to know better.

Jamie justifies his defense of the ignorant electorate by saying, in effect, it is not his job to judge.  He has listeners/readers/viewers that have different views and he must not offend.   Great. I get the distinct impression that if he was a reporter in 1939 Germany that he would try his damnedest to remain neutral so he would not offend anyone, especially Hitler supporters.

Jamie’s “thou shalt not judge” career priority causes him to appear dangerously out of touch with the reality of significant characteristics of the electorate.  The liberals and others I have spoken with who voted for Obama are at the bottom of the food chain of awareness of anything political or economic.  For the most part they either have no interest in the news, expose themselves only to the liberal main stream media, have a vested interest in greater taxpayer funded government largess, or voted purely because of race.  They are uninformed and prefer it that way.  Conservatives I have spoken with about this claim the same observation of their liberal friends.

And Jamie denies electorate ignorance?  He wants to remain neutral so that he does not offend?  Actually, Jamie, I’m offended.  And I would wager that thousands of others of your listeners are also offended by your lack of discernment and principle in your defense of the ignorant electorate.  This is little different than the amoral mafia attorney defending the indefensible, or the used car salesman hyping an overpriced oil burner.   After all, its only a job and he has to make a living.  Now THAT is a media whore!

Yes, Jamie, you do make me ill.  And no, Jamie, I doubt I’ll be listening tomorrow.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Who do you trust: A “moderate” Muslim who claims he is a “devout Muslim” or a devout Christian who warns there are no “moderate” Muslims?

This just in from the Oxymoron Department of Muccings:

I just got back from attending a meeting where Usama Dakdok was the guest speaker.  His topic:

Moderate Islam:  Fact or Fiction?

Usama is an Egyptian-born Christian who speaks fluent Arabic, translated the Qur’an from Arabic to English, is an Islamic expert and who speaks around the country teaching the truth about Islam.

Usama went to great pains in his 1 1/2 hour presentation to convincingly make the case that 1) A Muslim of any sort (moderate, Sunni, Shia, radical, etc.) considers himself to be a follower of the Qur’an and Muhammad (through cultural association or through study), otherwise he would not call himself a “Muslim”, 2) the Qur’an and Muhammad teach that the infidels (Jews and Christians) are evil and must die by the sword, and 3) therefore there is no such thing as a “moderate” Muslim.

A comment from the audience cited Zudhi Jasser, self-described as a “devout Muslim”, as an example of a “good Muslim” (from the non-Muslim perspective) because he speaks of freedom and democracy and against the Muslim Brotherhood while traveling his FOX News circuit among other news outlets.

Usama attempted to convince this person from the audience that nothing could be further from the truth; that Jasser, like all Muslims who feign “moderation”, is a deceiver.  He is buying time to allow the water to reach the boiling point so that the frog (us!) become inert enough so that we are incapable of jumping out of the pot.

Was Usama successful convincing this person?  Time will tell.

But let me put some logic into perspective to help this person over the mental hurdle which is currently an oxymoron.

1.  Islam is an ideology based entirely on the life and teachings of Muhammad which is reflected in the Qur’an, Hadith, and Suna.

2.  This “trilogy” of books has been the basis for the teaching and belief of Muslims for over 1400 years.

3.  Those who call themselves “Muslim” do so on the basis of at least identifying with the teaching of Muhammad and the Trilogy, if not actual faith in every word.

4.  The core teaching based on predominant historical orthodox interpretation of the Trilogy is that the infidel (Jews and Christians) who do not convert to Islam shall be killed.  Many Qur’anic verses state this.  There are many other satanic proclamations of the Islamic Trilogy that call for other forms of equally vile treatment of unbelievers as well as fellow Muslims.

5.  Islam clearly teaches the practice of “taqiyya”, lying and deception to further Islam.

5.  Zudhi Jasser calls himself a “devout Muslim.”

Question:  How can Jasser be a “devout Muslim” while dismissing major portions of the Islamic Trilogy and most of the teachings of Muhammad?   Taqiyya, anyone?

Why, after listening to one and one half hours of the Dakdok presentation would anyone retain their belief that a person who claims he is a “devout Muslim” be trusted and respected for whatever else he claims to be?

What  is the basis for insisting that Jasser is a “good Muslim?”  The only basis I can think of is from the perspective of Islam.  Jasser is buying time through confusing the truth of Islam so the pot can be brought to a boil.  If he is thought to be a “good Muslim” from the Judeo-Christian perspective, he is a “bad Muslim” or “apostate Muslim” from the Muslim perspective, NOT a “devout Muslim”.

Here is a partial explanation of why this member of the audience would consider Jasser an ally:  Her reliance on the use of the word “reform”  as applied to Reformed Jews.  Reformed Jews gave up many “Orthodox” Jewish traditions.  They gave up a number of outward traditions.  They did not give up the heart of Judaism.  Similarly, Reformed Jews hope that there is such a thing as “reformed Muslims”:  those Muslims who give up many of their Muslim traditions.  That is a severe case of “wishful thinking”, especially when referring to a Muslim who insists he is “devout.”

A Muslim becoming a Zudhi Jasser has to do a lot more than give up a few whacky Islamic traditions to be considered a “good Muslim” from our perspective.  He would have to extinguish hundreds of verses, thousands of words, and centuries of Islamic teaching from the Trilogy – he would have to jettison the heart of Islam.  That would not be Islamic “reform”; that would be Islamic “obliteration”:  making Islam into something it never was.

“Reform” in most other religious contexts, especially in the Christian context, refers to a reform back to the original teaching of the founders of the religion.  The Christian “reformation” attempted to reform Catholicism back to the pre-corruption basics of the faith.

The only version of Islam that has been corrupted is that which deviates from the teaching of the Qur’an and fails to emulate the life of Muhammad.   “Reforming” Islam would be to eliminate the corruption of Islam that FAILS to perform Jihad, intolerance, and supremacism for the sake of Allah.  Islam’s current resurgence is the result of Islamic reformation.  Jasser’s version of reform is an oxymoron.

Those who believe Jasser is promoting Islamic reform are those who failed to understand what Usama Dakdok had to say throughout his one and one half hour presentation.  The ultimate question is:  Do you believe Jasser, the devout Muslim, or Dakdok, the devout Christian?  What makes the most sense?  Which one eliminates the oxymoron?

Monday, May 21, 2012

Step right up to see the amazing, unbelievable mind-bending undecided “moderates”…

I occasionally hear from friends who tell me they are still undecided about who they will vote for for president.   Several such cases of indecision even come from those who claim they are “moderates.”  This is mind-bendingly astonishing to me.

I have three choices when I hear these sorts of things.

1)  I can believe I am out of touch or going insane, perhaps acquiring an earlier than expected case of Alzheimer's or other form of dementia.

2) I can believe that such folks are not moderate at all, but have merely been feigning moderation and I never really knew them, or

3) They are isolated from reality themselves, choosing to remain uninformed about the stark differences in the choice they have between two totally different candidates, the debacle first term and the debacle a third Obama term as president would be for this country.

I ask myself “do they see no problem with, or are they simply ignorant of the origins, associations, ideologies, appointees, and numerous statements of disdain for America that Obama expressed and that served as the basis for his nation-destroying policies?”


His childhood origins and influences from third world countries (Kenya, Indonesia) that have little in common with the culture, ideology, religions, morality, and government of the United States, e,g. Dreams from my Father.

The preponderance of influence from Communist, Islamic, and Black Nationalist mentors, associates, and father figures from his early years well through current adulthood, e.g. Muslim parents/relatives, Communist mentors (Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorn and others), and 20 years in a Black Nationalist church led by racist Jeremiah Wright.

The numerous communist and Muslim appointees in prominent positions of power within the US Government is as close to a coup de tat and sedition as I have observed in my lifetime.  He has facilitated the rapid infiltration even intp sensitive Homeland Security posts by Muslims who certainly do NOT have the principles of democracy as an objective except as a means to facilitate the growth and power of Islam in this nation.

The policies Obama has promoted via his administration, power and influence reflect these foreign, seditious, America-hating associations and beliefs he holds dear.  A casualty of his policies has been capitalism and a healthy economy that he has dragged into the gutter of disrespect and loathing.

The contrasting candidate is Mitt Romney who is as American as apple pie.  We know his origins.  His family has been here long enough to assimilate American culture, ideals, and principles that facilitate our growth and prosperity.  Contrast this with Obama whose life history created contempt for America – he merely mouths smooth-sounding words of Americana when opportunism dictates.   Romney has substantial, successful, and respected business experience.  Obama has none, and he is attempting to discredit the success that Romney achieved and represents.  If Obama can discredit Romney’s accomplishments in the private sector, he can discredit any free enterprise loving entrepreneur and business person in the nation.

Why a person has to ponderously ponder and remain undecided about a candidate with these stark differences is completely beyond my understanding.

Such puzzling over the obvious does answer one question for me:  This ignorance explains how Obama was elected in the first place.



Thursday, May 17, 2012

Will the real Obama please exit stage left…

Many Americans who care a whit wonder who Obama really is and where he came from.  We know of his communist influences throughout his life, his Muslim preferences and appointments,  and his “loath and destroy America first” policies.  His birth place has been questioned as has his qualifications to be president.

Now we have a new Drudge headline:


The source is a 1991 publication by Obama’s then literary agent promoting a proposed book titled “Journies in Black and White”, a never published precursor to “Dreams from My Father.”  Thank you for being more diligent, professional, and honest than the vast majority of other reporters and news agencies in this nation.

HERE is more on this, including more details on the assistance this “young foreign student” received from Bill Ayers.  Courtesy of World Net Daily

What do you think Michelle means in this video when she says “…when we took our trip to Africa and visited his home  country in Kenya…”  

…or is it Indonesia, or Kansas, or Hawaii…gee, I’m not sure.

I was born in the US with grandparents born in Lithuania and Italy. No one during my many decades on earth has ever referred to my “home country in Lithuania” or “my home country in Italy.” I visited Italy two years ago and no one ever even hinted Italy was my “home country.”

Then we have this from 2004…


More from InfoWars HERE.

All of this is no thanks to the MSM’s outrageous massive cover-up that should make Watergate seem like a tiny white lie. distances itself from it own facts by claiming:

The real mystery is not where Obama was born--which has long been settled--but why Goddard failed to ask her agent a single relevant follow-up question about how the 'fact checking error' occurred in the first place.

Long since settled?  Since when?  Who settled this?  Based on what?  Why in the world would the Breitbart site discredit their own reporting?  Are they, too, trying to be politically correct in opposition to what the facts are showing?  Doesn’t a Kenyan-born president add credence to the birther’s claim of presidential disqualification?  Are these facts that hard to face?   Diana West, author of the best selling book “Death of the Grown Up” comments on this excellent question HERE.

I never could figure out why most media dismiss those who have done research into Obama’s past and resort to demeaning name calling the diligent researchers “birthers.”  Those O’Reillys, Huffingtons, Maddows, Matthews, Courics, Winfries, and now Breitbarts of the “head-in-the-sand, too-“politically correct”-to-accept-the-facts” crowd demean their profession and discredit the media they represent.

These same characters will, in the coming hours and days, declare the 1991 Obama promotion piece either a misprint, an editorial error, or a fabrication.  They will not even consider it could be the truth – just like their non-reaction to the overwhelming evidence that the “revealed” Hawaii birth certificate is a fabrication. 

Update:  Wow.  It has not been more than two hours since this tidbit was originally posted that  a defender and promoter of Obama who is still his literary agent claims it was a “fact checking error.”  

"This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me--an agency assistant at the time…" claims Miriam Goderich, now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients.

How nice of her to cover for him.  Of course she has to.   Her firm has a fiduciary relationship with him.  After all, she is the one who failed to expunge this revelation from the public record.  More HERE.

Monday, May 14, 2012

“…we’re both practicing Christians…” saith Obama

“In taking on same-sex marriage, Mr. Obama made a point of couching his views in religious terms. ‘We’re both practicing Christians,’ the president said of his wife and himself in the ABC News interview in which he discussed his new views. ‘And obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others.’”  New York Times, May 13, 2012

No joke, Sherlock.  Which brings us to the great “Christian” divide.  If Obama or Michelle are practicing Christians, I am a practicing moon goddess.

Seriously (if anyone can take Obama seriously),  Obama epitomizes the great divide in Christianity.  There is a greater distinction in this divide then there is between denominational differences.  There are biblical Presbyterians and liberal Presbyterians, there are conservative Methodists and progressive Methodists.  There are traditional Catholics and there are communist Catholics.  Conservative Presbyterians have more in common with conservative Lutherans, conservative Methodists, and conservative Catholics than they have with liberal Presbyterians, and on down the line.  Based on my personal experience, these differences and commonalities extend to Christians and Jews as well.

Denominational doctrinal differences pale in comparison to the differences between the conservative and liberal versions of most Christian  and Jewish sects.   Liberal Christians want unbridled sex.  Conservative Christians, not so much. (I had to throw that in there.)

What are these conservative/liberal differences that create such a chasm?

Here are a few that come to mind:

Biblical authority:  Conservative Christians respect the Bible as the inerrant word of God.  Liberal Christians dismiss major portions and themes as either relegated to past cultures and not applicable today, or they discredit major portions with their academic, atheist-inspired “higher criticism”, giving the benefit of the doubt to their disbelief and generally rebellious attitude.

Role of God and faith in government and society:  Conservative Christians believe their faith and moral principles should not be limited to their private lives and the church but should extend to all areas where they have influence -  and not by coercion or legislation, but by sound reasoning.  Liberals, oddly, have more restrictive views, mandating the exclusion of Judeo-Christian Biblical moral influences from government and society.

Value of life: Conservative Christians value life.  Based on traditional Biblical morality, they fight for the life of the unborn, elderly, and infirm, despite the cost.  Liberals favor abortion and euthanasia to enhance their personal levels of comfort and convenience.

Prayer in public places:  Conservative Christians want to maintain the centuries old American tradition of prayer in public schools and other public places.  Liberals want to stifle this public demonstration of faith as “offensive to some.”

Morality:  Conservative Christians embrace the fact of moral absolutes.  Liberals are moral relativists.  They call anyone who believes otherwise a “bigot” and any manner of “-phobe.”  These differences include opposite opinions on homosexuality, gay marriage, pornography, music, clothing and pop culture.

Islam:  Conservative Christians understand Islam, all of it,  as historically in opposition to and incompatible with Christianity and Judeo-Christian morality.   It is considered subversive and a threat to religious freedoms and western civilization generally.  Liberals embrace “moderate” Islam as benign religion worthy of protection, often giving preferential treatment over Christianity.

Which gospel?:  Conservative Christians focus on a personal, Christ-centered gospel which promotes personal responsibilities for our faith and actions in assisting others.  Liberals have embraced a “social gospel” that relies on coercive big government authority via legislation, taxation and government bureaus and programs to impose their version of social good.

The currently en vogue new wave, new age, progressive, politically correct, nicey nicey, loosey goosey, uber-tolerant, anything goes, never judge, cum bey Yah, rock band, feel good version of Christianity is a gross, satanic distortion of Christianity.  And Obama, the pro-Muslim taqiyya-inspired deceiver, is front and center in what is much worse than any of the major non-orthodox Christian religions that have been called “cults”:  Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, and Christian Science.  At least these have a high regard for Biblical morality and the truth and value of Scripture.  The Obama-esque liberal Christians have devolved into a “worse-than-a-cult” anti-Christ.

Interestingly, each side thinks the other is nuts, weird, or out of touch.  They can’t both be right.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Gay marriage: Cultural evolution or devolution?

There are political discussions about Obama’s preference for gay marriage all over the place.  Many of the more liberal and ignorant among us proclaim that both the president’s and American’s attitude toward gay marriage has been evolving from what it was 10 or 20 years ago.Controversial: Newsweek released their cover early, likely hoping to drum up attention for their next issue and their same-sex marriage coverage

About this cover:  After Time magazine went with a cover shot of a young blonde mother breastfeeding her 3-year-old boy, Ms Brown is said to have taken it in stride, saying 'let the games begin!'

The article accompanying the cover was written by the news magazine's regular blogger, Andrew Sullivan, who is an openly gay self-titled conservative political pundit.

Read more:

First, let’s understand Obama’s history of multiple flip flops on this issue.  Before his candidacy for president in 2007, he said he was for gay marriage.  During his 2007 presidential campaign he claimed he was opposed to gay marriage but still thinking about it.  Now he is saying he is personally for gay marriage, but wants to leave it up to the states to decide.  There is a better than even chance he has been for gay marriage all along, but for political reasons before the 2008 presidential election, he was not completely honest about.  OMG!

Now, either because of loose canon Biden, or more likely, because of his political strategy, Obama let loose with his amoral bombshell.  A reasonable scenario is that Biden was part of Obama’s play on this issue.  In Obama’s mock “forced” outing, he garners the vote of the amoral left with his statement that he, personally, supports gay marriage.  In the next breath he seeks the support of the more moderate “states rights” advocates saying it is an issue he prefers to leave for the states. 

Since gay marriage is something Obama personally believes in, and at the same time we have NO evidence that Obama really support states rights on any issue, we can bet that he will direct his Justice Department to bear down on individuals, institutions, and states who are opposed to gay marriage.

There is a very real prospect of another multi-millennia-old moral standard being shattered by the actions of our federal government.  First the legalizing of the killing of pre-born infants, next the elimination of prayer in public schools; then a prohibition of the ten commandments in public places;  next attempts to force religious institutions to pay for abortions; and now the real likelihood that the federal government will force acceptance of gay marriage as a civil right.

A civil right?  Like race equality and gender equality?  No, no, no!  There is no equivalence between the rights of individuals because of race or gender and the rights of individuals because of their chosen life-style and perverted gender identification.  No race or gender has been considered an immoral condition in either Judeo-Christian tradition or our current culture.  The same cannot be said about the practice of homosexuality.  The practice of homosexuality has, from the beginning of history, been considered an immoral behavior.   Race and gender are conditions.  Homosexuality is a behavior.  There is no basis for legal protections of historically immoral behaviors any more than there should be legal protections for murder, child molestation, rape, and incest.

Liberals/progressives/leftists believe demanding universal legal rights for gay marriage is “evolving” our culture.  The rest of us believe such irrational and immoral mandate is devolving our culture into an anything goes animalistic maelstrom.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Even “” is corrupted…

I’ve had an internet  Christian forum as one of my “Favorites” for over a year for one of my sources in my research of the beliefs of various denominations.  The other day I decided to post one of my blogs, the one about Obama “coming out” in favor of homo-marriage on the “Christian current affairs” section of that forum.  I expected general support and affirmation of my comments.

Well, let me tell you, it might as well have been titled “The ‘Current Affairs’ of Christians” section of the forum.  I estimate a four to one ratio of those those who favor homosexuality and homosexual marriage over those who still believe it is a perversion, as in “perverts.”

Additional perverted views of those promoting homosexual marriage were also on full unabashed display as they argued their defense of homosexuality.  Here are a few of their comments:

  • “The Bible is full of inconsistencies and contradictions; therefore Christians are free to choose any behavior they like.”  Those of this opinion have either never made the effort to understand the Bible or have over-analyzed it using the critical methods of the faithless skeptics.
  • “We were never a Christian nation; we were an “anti-Christian” nation.”  Those of this opinion practice sloppy history, failing to distinguish between the oppressive sect-driven politics of the Old World from Christianity.  They refuse to admit that almost all the founders were Christian as were most of the immigrants decades before and after our nation’s founding and that our form of government is based on Biblical Christian principles.
  • “Obama is just one of many world leaders that endorse gay marriage.”  Those of this opinion dismiss the significane of the leader of the free world coming out with his immoral pronouncement.  While there may have been leaders of minor nations who have expressed this opinion, I am not aware of a leader of a major world power ever declaring his support of homosexuality and gay marriage.

Most who commented appeared to be staunch Obama supporters and promoters of a very liberal brand of Christianity, if they are Christian at all.  They demonstrated to me that they hold a very low view of the Bible and traditional Christian teaching and morality. The so-called “cults” have greater faith in the Bible and Biblical morality than these.  In fact, the frequenters of that Forum dismiss the moral teachings of the Bible as obsolete and irrelevant quirks of ancient cultures that oppose the full flowering of our human potential and liberties.  Nauseating at best.  Satanic at worst.   They are in fact in open rebellion against God.

These “Christians” believe that liberty should be without moral constraint.; that liberty can exist without responsibility; and that Biblical morality is the problem.  This reminds me of  the view from a former Baptist minister who now teaches Bible at a local Episcopal church I met a few months ago.  He believes conservative Christians distort the teaching of the Bible and are the primary cause for conflict in politics and in the church today.  He may have a point.  He would prefer that Christians who believe the Bible means what it says, is true and the word of God, and that it should be applicable to the world today, these people should just shut up and sit down because they make too much trouble.  I say “nuts” to that.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Ann Barnhardt on Obama’s Gay Marriage Endorsement

The following is the full text of Ann Barnhardt’s  concerns regarding the consequences to our nation resulting from the actions of our fallen president.  It is not pleasant reading.

Mashing the Throttle on the Highway to Hell

Posted by Ann Barnhardt - May 9, AD 2012 9:20 PM MST

I'm not much for people declaring their "gut feelings" and "women's intuition" and stuff like that, but I will now say that I have the very, very strong feeling that we are on the final countdown to the shit well and truly hitting the fan. Europe is imploding and is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Nigel Farage delivered an address on the floor of the EU today in which he predicted full-on hot war in Europe and the re-ascendency of totalitarian National Socialism very soon. He said that events are unfolding almost exactly like they did in 1932 with the collapse of the center, and thus the rise of the hard right and hard left, which are THE SAME THING, namely totalitarianism. The hard left is all about totalitarian oligarchy and total, lawless control by means of brute force. The hard right is the anarchist model with zero lawful government with power coming once again from brute force. Either way, you end up with exactly the same thing: a small cadre of oligarchs imposing their will and playing "god" on everyone else with millions and millions of dead bodies left in their wake and ZERO RULE OF LAW. Every evil path leads to the same place: hell, and the Father of Lies is the father of ALL lies, both the lies of the hard left and the hard right. Satan has humanity flanked. He always has.

Today, something happened in the "political" sphere that is truly unprecedented, although I hesitate to call it "political", because it is obvious to anyone who is not in a Level One coma that we are way, way beyond the mere domain of "politics" at this point.

Barack Obama, who is the face and frontman for the government now controlling the territory and assets formerly called the United States of America, said and did something that has never, ever been done. He did something so evil that it literally has no precedent, and in itself guarantees that God's wrath will be poured out on this nation and its people, and that wrath will probably be more intense than anything yet experienced by man. Yes, I fully appreciate the enormity of what I just said. Let me say it again: God's wrath will be poured out on this nation and its people, and that wrath will probably be more intense than anything yet experienced by man. The Noahic flood brought relatively swift death to the people killed in it. I anticipate that people will be begging for death before God's wrath is fully poured out and His Justice satisfied on the former United States of America.

What did Obama say?

Barack Obama directly correlated the Perfect Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross to sodomy.

“This is something that, you know, [Michelle and I have] talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated…”

So, according to the antichrist Obama and his antichrist "wife", the perfect, infinite act of charity, namely God freely choosing to give Himself totally and without reserve on the Cross for humanity in order to make reparation for the sins of the world, is an ANALOGUE to one man jamming his erect penis up into the feces-laden descending colon of another man, and using that as a point of friction for masturbation. Both actions, according to the antichrist Obama, are manifestations of "love", and thus Christ Crucified points, through the prism of the Golden Rule, to the "do unto others" of sodomy in all its forms, including anal sex, oral sex, masturbation in all its forms and every perversion known to man. Thus, the act of sodomy, because, according to Obama, it is a subset of the perfect Charity of Christ Crucified, MUST be celebrated by calling it "marriage".

There ARE NOT WORDS to express the enormity of the blasphemy in this. There are four sins that cry out to God for vengeance. Yes, God's vengeance - that thing that all of these superfun rockband and Marxist-homosexualist clergy are trying so desperately to convince you does not exist - GOD'S VENGEANCE. In reverse order, here they are:

4. Depriving the laborer of his just wage. (This is the core objective of Marxism - human slavery.)

3. Injustice to widows and orphans. (Death panels, ponzi scheme government healthcare and retirement entitlements, and abortion, which is the slaughter of children not wanted by their parents, also known as "orphans", just to name a few manifestations.)

2. Murder.

and finally, in the number one position, the number one sin of mankind that CRIES OUT TO GOD FOR VENGENACE:

1. Sodomy.

Barack Obama just completed the quadfecta and used the Sacrifice on Calvary of Our Blessed Lord to promote, ratify and celebrate sodomy.

Folks, God will not be mocked. I don't know much, but I do know with every fiber of my being that this WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. This nation will pay for this blasphemy and sacrilege, the likes of which I don't think has ever happened before in human history. Hitler never said anything like this. Neither did Lenin, Stalin, Mao or any other despot for the last 2000 years. Even in pagan cultures where sodomy may have been promoted, never did the leader of pagan hordes specifically use the Holy and Perfect Sacrifice of Calvary to promote sodomy.

And you know the saddest part? Hardly anyone in this culture is going to do anything more than shrug their shoulders and shake their head at this. The offense that has been given to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is unfathomable by human minds, and yet I doubt EVEN ONE PRIEST will mention this on Sunday in his sermon, because, you know, the IRS might take away the 501(c) exemption, or something. Not only should every priest on earth be bringing the hellfire and brimstone on Sunday in his sermon, but every bishop and every priest should immediately start offering DAILY masses specially for reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus for this blasphemy, and admonishing every God-fearing person to get their butts to Mass and pray for mercy like they have never prayed before.

Finally, I just want to point out that the antichrist Obama's motives in this were 100% demonic. Think about it. There was a referendum in North Carolina on same-sex marriage yesterday and it came out overwhelmingly AGAINST same-sex marriage. The left is already in Obama's pocket. He's not picking up any "votes" by doing this now. In fact, North Carolina proves that independents are firmly AGAINST same-sex marriage, so he's pissing off independents too. No, he said these things because he is, in his heart and in his soul, pure, sulfuric evil from the deepest pit of hell. Remember, to call this a "political mis-step" means that you are naively assuming that there are going to be fairly contested elections in November. People, I'm telling you, the last free elections in this country are BEHIND US. Obama is perfectly willing and happy to piss off the majority of the country because he knows that "elections" will be pure theatrical fiction, if they are held at all.

I suspect we are very close to the end of our lives and our civilization as we have known them, and deservedly so. This simply CAN NOT go on. Prepare yourselves and your families, both physically and spiritually.

Kyrie Eleison.
Christe Eleison.
Kyrie Eleison.

Immorality flood gates opened wider…

Our culture is toast.  Another nail  has been pounded into the coffin of our nation’s moral standards.

Barack Hussein Obama is the one who hammered it.

For the first time in our nation’s history, and I think it is safe to say, the first time in several thousand years that the leader of a leading nation, one the world has looked up to, has declared that homosexual marriage should be performed and recognized as a right and respected by the laws of the land.Controversial: Newsweek released their cover early, likely hoping to drum up attention for their next issue and their same-sex marriage coverage

About this cover:  After Time magazine went with a cover shot of a young blonde mother breastfeeding her 3-year-old boy, Ms Brown is said to have taken it in stride, saying 'let the games begin!'

The article accompanying the cover was written by the news magazine's regular blogger, Andrew Sullivan, who is an openly gay self-titled conservative political pundit.

Read more:

Oh contraire, you say.  Dick Chaney endorsed gay marriage in 2009.  First, he did not make this pronouncement when he held any official government position.  Second, he justifies his position on the basis that one of his daughters is gay. Ask yourself this:  If he had a son who engaged in pedophilia, would he endorse pedophilia?  Hmmm.  One of Obama’s justifications for coming out is that he has staff who are gay.  If he had staff who were members of the Muslim Brotherhood who engaged in acts of terror, would he endorse acts of terror?  Oh wait.  He does and he does!  Does an immoral set of behaviors among family or employees really justify endorsing that behavior?  C’mon!  I can see being supportive of friends and family, but to defend immoral behaviors really brings ones own morality into question.  Judge not?  Bull s—t.

Of course those who have no foundation in traditional Judeo-Christian or any other religious morality will applaud Obama’s coming out.

It is perfectly logical to me that such sanctioning of homosexual union is another domino in the chain of falling moral standards.  The first was the sanctioning of killing of pre-born infants.  The next is this sanctioning of homosexual marriage.  What universally recognized immoral practice do you think will be next to receive the endorsement of our pandering national leaders?  Here is a list of possibilities:

  • Polygamy (practiced by Muslims and formerly by Mormons; still by one Mormon sect)
  • Man-child love (currently known as pedophilia and practiced by some Catholic priests and other abusers)
  • Bestiality (yes, there are advocates)
  • Rape:  (Islamic ideology sanctions this practice in marriage; part of Sharia law that liberal judges promote; one small step from political correctness)
  • Incest:  (a common Muslim practice in many nations; we may be forced to accept this under the banner of “cultural diversity”)
  • Euthanasia of the non-productive elements of society (i.e. the very young, the infirm, the elderly.  This approach is embodied by default in the “death panels” of Obama-care.)
  • Government sponsored assassinations based on political non-conformity:  This practice has reached new heights in the Obama administration.

Google any one of these behaviors and you will see an organization or special interest group that practices or promotes these currently immoral behaviors.  Which ones are gaining most in popularity or usefulness to our society?  Which ones will receive the imprimatur of our next amorality-pandering leader?

Homosexuality is just the most recent among the moral taboos to be tossed into the dustbins of bigotry.  But of course today if we are critical of anyone's immoral, anti-social, destructive, obscene, or terrorist behavior we are called a bigot, homophobe, racist, or gun-toting Bible-thumper.

The ones who call us that are destroying the moral fabric of our nation – as if they really care.  No, no, no.  Its all about them.  Its all about their rebellion.  They want their freedoms without any responsibility, without any limits without any regard for the standards that enable a society to be orderly and productive.

I don’t think the direction our nation is headed is going to end well.

See also Ann Barnhardt’s powerful warning about Obama’s announcement HERE.

Tuesday, May 08, 2012

High unemployment rate blamed on local government

A Wall Street Journal article laments the fact that state and local governments laid off tens of thousands of workers to balance their budgets.  The article suggests that if these layoffs did not occur, the unemployment rate would be 7.1% instead of 8.1%.

Then by all means let all levels of our government go into gut wrenching, irresponsible debt so we can continue to fund what we cannot afford.

Just kidding of course.

Most state and local governments are acting responsibly.  The federal government is not.

But what causes the state and local government revenues to decline to the point where all these layoffs and service cuts were required?  Its not as if their populations are smaller, the trash doesn’t still have be collected and disposed of, or that fewer cops are required because crime rates suddenly drop.  In fact, crime rates increase due to unemployment.

The problem is the source of tax revenues state and local governments rely on:  The value of real estate, aka “ad valorem taxes.”  When the housing market gets a cold, tax revenues get pneumonia.  The housing market is still in ICU; tax revenues have long passed away.

What would more reliable tax revenues be for state and local governments?  Income taxes won’t help much when 15 to 20% (the more accurate unemplyment rate) of the available workforce is not earning any taxable income.  The two biggest underutilized options include user fees and impact fees.  In both instances, those who benefit pay. 

In the case of user fees which include park fees, activity fees, facility fees, library fees and even tolls for the most expensive road networks, those who benefit by using these things, pay.  Even those who don’t directly use these types of facilities benefit indirectly, such as the delivery of goods and services that require the use of these facilities.  User fees in this instance will originally be paid by the producer or delivery service and will ultimately be reimbursed by the consumer through marginally higher prices.

Impact fees, most appropriate for high growth areas, pay the one time infrastructure costs for additional capacity of new services and facilities (roads, drainage, water, sewer, solid waste, parks, library, etc.) required to service the new development.  This is in lieu of taxpayers paying the incremental costs for these new facilities. 

Both of these are a form of “user fee”, the most equitable form of revenue known to man.  The “safety net” for those who can’t afford squat should be provided by relatives, friends, neighbors, churches, and other not for profit entities.  Government should supplement these sources only under narrowly defined and well enforced criteria, something the federal government obviously does not do well.

If only the federal government would adopt a local government fiscal mentality:  If you can’t afford it, you don’t provide it.  The electorate that continues to demand what we cannot afford  is comprised of insatiable, irresponsible and ignorant  ravenous wolves.

Sunday, May 06, 2012

Stalin and Snopes: Two peas in a pod

There is a widely circulated quote from Stalin that Snopes claims is “probably false” although they have no way of proving this.  They can cast doubt but they cannot disprove.

Here is the quote:
“America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold:  its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life.  If we can undermine these there areas, America will collapse from within.”
One very credible source of this quote is the Canada Free Press in an article from January 2010 titled “Joseph Stalin:  Memoirs of a Leftist Madman” by Kelly O’Connell.  There are many other credible sources for this quote for anyone who seeks them.

One of the reasons Snopes declares this quote is “probably false” is “this statement doesn’t really sound like something Stalin would have said, as its subtext is praise for the strengths of American patriotism, morality, and spiritual life.”

What an ignorant claim.  This excuse is not even up to Snopes questionable standards of rebuttal.  This quote is exactly something Stalin would have said.  He harbored a great disdain for patriotism, morality, and spiritual life.  These three were the key impediments to his communist revolution.  Communism is atheistic.  It has no use for the “spirtual life” of people.  Morality was part and parcel of that spirituality and it certainly got in the way of his new morality of coercion and killing.  And the patriotism inherent in his “mother Russia” worked against his lust for a new order.  He applied each of these principles to the United States.  His point was the same impediments he experienced in Russia could be overcome in the United States if these three qualities could be eradicated.

Why would Snopes attempt to discredit this particular Stalin quote?  Because they are part of the liberal effort to bring leftist change to our nation.  This quote hits too close to home in revealing the essence of the leftist methodology for achieving their objectives.  Just about all radical leftists,and communists, from Cloward and Piven to Bill Aires, to Bernadine Dohrn - and I’m convinced Barack Hussein Obama - subscribe to the methods encompassed in this quote.

Progressives, socialists, leftists, Communists, whatever you want to call those who seek radical change toward bigger governments, higher taxes, more regulations and ultimate chaos in this country are following Stalin's advice.  And unfortunately they have had remarkable success in destroying these three qualities of American culture.

Obama is a cheerleader for the demise of patriotism, morality, and spirituality, although he publicly feigns his support during his more careful appearances.

Those conservatives who claim that only fiscal conservatism is important; that “cultural” conservatism is an unimportant distraction miss this important lesson from Lenin and all leftists of the previous century.  Patriotism, morality, and spirituality are essential cornerstones to the continuing prosperity of our republic.

Saturday, May 05, 2012

Race-based voting: Which race is doing it now?

Many African Americans voted for Obama because he was perceived as African American, not because of the ideology and policies he represented.  Race trumped ideology.  That equals racism.

Whites did not vote for McCain because he was white.  They voted for him because of the ideology and policies he represented compared to Obama’s.

Here is the proof:

First, what proportion of blacks voted for Obama?

“All major exit polls showed between 96% and 97% of African Americans who voted, voted for Obama.”

What proportion of whites voted for Obama?

“Between 44 and 45% of Caucasians voted for Obama and about 55 to 56% voted for McCain.”

What do these numbers indicate?  That nearly all blacks, despite their political persuasion, voted for Obama.  There is not nearly that high a proportion (96%!) of blacks who agree with Obama’s ideology, as I will demonstrate in a moment.

White votes were distributed along substantially ideological lines, not race – close to half and half. 

Now we need to compare black ideology with black  votes cast.

What is the political ideology (conservative/liberal) of blacks in the US.  Let’s take a look.

Here are facts from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, a study entitled “A religious Portrait of African-Americans.”  Scroll halfway down that Pew page to “Section III:  Social and Political View”.  Here are some excerpts:

“Like the overall population, African-Americans are more likely to describe their political ideology as conservative (32%) or moderate (36%) than as liberal (23%).”

Yet 96+% of blacks decided to vote for Obama despite their ideology .    Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate.  Yet most conservative blacks voted for him anyway.  Why?  Because he was perceived to be “black.”

“Overall, 49% of African-Americans favor keeping abortion legal in most or all cases, while 44% want abortion to be illegal in most or all cases.”

Yet the great majority of the 44% who oppose abortion voted for Obama, the abortion proponent, anyway.  Why?  You know the answer.

“Significantly more African-Americans (70%) report that they prefer bigger government compared with the total population (46%), who are much more divided on the issue (43% prefer smaller government).”

Of the 30% of blacks who prefer smaller government, nearly all of these voted for a man who demonstrated he is a champion of bigger government – the most liberal politician in the Senate.  Why?  Racism and hypocrisy.

Listen.  It doesn’t matter to me that those of whatever race who are liberal vote for a liberal candidate. But it is racist for those who are not liberal to vote for a liberal candidate because he is black.

If 96% of whites voted for McCain, I would know there is racism in River City.  They didn’t.  44% voted for Obama.  But because 96% of blacks voted for Obama, I know there is racism in River City.

What is sad is that most blacks won’t deny it.  They will justify it.  Conversations I have had confirm this. They will say their time has come.  The man could be Satan incarnate.  Or Mao, or Stalin, or Hitler, or Bin Laden.  He is black…he is one of us, and by God, I’m going to vote for him.  That is racism, my friend.  And foolishness and self-destructive because it goes against the good that a large proportion of blacks claim they stand for.  But I guess not.  Many stand for race over common sense.

Just for the record, here are several examples of things that Obama has done that I am certain are contrary to the preferences of between 30 and 50% of all blacks:

  • Foreign affairs:  He thwarts our allies and apologizes to our enemies.
  • Islam:  He panders to Islam as though he were a Muslim.
  • Economy: He promotes more governement spending when our big problem is our national debt. 
  • Taxes and regulation:  He proposes higher taxes and more regulation when the private sector requires more freedom from taxes and regulation to create jobs.
  • Jobs:  He directs taxpayer money to create jobs overseas.
  • Energy:  He stifles exploration, drilling and transport of oil and gas within the US.  He promotes “skyrocketing” (his words) energy costs to encourage inefficient and much more costly “green energy.”
  • Civil unity:  He has promoted more discord between classes and races than any president in recent history with his quick uninformed comments about various police incidents.
  • Middle class:  In a nation that has been proud of the size and success of its middle class, he comes from a church that disavows “middleclassness”.  His policies reflect his desire to disavow (aka “destroy”) the middle class in America
  • Capitalism:  His background and past and current associations are tied to those who avow socialism, communism, and radical, sometimes violent action to achieve their aims.  His policies and appointments reflect these associations.  His policies are aimed at killing capitalism.
  • Abortion and other social issues:  He has been the most anti-Christian president in America’s history.  His policies are in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic church and most protestant moral principles
  • 9-11 trial:  The Obama administration attempted to try the 9-11 perpetrators in domestic civil courts blocks from the World Trade Center, creating a media circus and an al Qaeda propaganda gold mine.  How nice.   Oh, just for grins, here is a live blog of the performance of these little sweethearts during their arraignment yesterday.  Can you imagine the theatrics if it was on world wide TV in NY?
  • Terror threat:  Obama promotes removal of any reference in State Department, FBI, and Military training manuals to Islam or Islamic terrorists, or Islamic or Muslim radicals being associated with any of the acts of terror around the world and in the United States.
  • Islamic terrorists:  The Obama administration calls Major Hasan’s acts of Islamic terror that killed 13 and wounded 29 US soldiers at Fort Hood  “work place violence” despite his avowed Islamic ideology and stated Islam-related reasons for the killings.  It is ***still*** under investigation, with no charges yet filed and no prosecution date in sight.  Hey, it's only been two and a half years!

I could go on, but I didn’t want to spend the rest of the night doing this – it’s depressing.

So, I’m wondering.  Are the blacks who vote for Obama happy with this situation?  Is race-based voting really doing it for you?  Is voting for someone because of race versus the religious and ideological values you otherwise believe in really worth it to you?  Do you have any concern that this whole “vote-race-at-all-costs” gambit you are on will backfire and poison the well for a more mainstream black candidate even a generation from now?

Ahh, hope and change.  Race-based voting.  Sixty years later, it’s now the black’s turn.  From what I hear, I don’t expect much change in this next election, either.

Friday, May 04, 2012

If we had the draft today…

In 1967 during the peak of the Vietnam war, I volunteered for the US Army.  At the age of 20, after 2 years of college, my patriotism and “will to win” kicked in.  This is a picture of the front bumper of my 1955 Plymouth where I expressed my pre-enlistment attitude…Bumper stickerWhat also helped my decision was the promise of my desired military occupational specialty, which in my case was fulfilled.

General Hershey, the head of the selective service at the time, estimated that out of every man drafted, three or four volunteered because of the threat of the draft.  That threat to me back then played little part in signing up.  This was a job I wanted.

But tens of thousands  my age protested the Vietnam war primarily because of the draft.  Many political observers today believe there are no war protests today because there is no draft.  In fact Nixon proposed the end of the draft during his election campaign because he saw that as a means of undermining the anti-war movement which indeed it did.  The draft was discontinued in 1973.

What can we learn from this?  Foreign policy and the kind of wars we fight mean little to 18 through 30 year-olds; most couldn’t care less, at least not enough to protest – unless they are threatened to become personally involved in them such as in “drafted.”

Can you imagine the protests today if we had a draft going on?

I, a guy decades beyond draft age, would be part of them.  With my understanding of our rules of engagement and our ignorance of the ideology that motivates the so-called “enemy” and the duplicity of our so-called allies in the nations we are fighting in, I conclude such war is a waste of time and a waste of life. 

What bothered me about the Vietnam war was we were not in it to win.  Winning was not defined and was not pursued.    The same applies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Islam-dominated Middle East.  The governments and their leaders we choose to support are not trust-worthy.  They do not share our morality, never mind our interests.   They are double dealers who are informed by a different morality based on centuries of immersion in Islamic ideology.

If I was 20 years old today and there was a draft, I would be on the front lines shouting “hell no, I won’t go.”    Not because I am not patriotic; not because I don’t like the military – but because we are engaged in countries where we have not defined the enemy, where we have not defined winning, where we fail to accurately understand the ideology that motivates the enemy.  My new bumper sticker would be “Fight Islam at home”.

We are fighting wars where we have an agenda that I neither understand nor respect.  Is the agenda “national security?”  Not from what I can gather since we fail to recognize the enemy is Islam and all that it teaches.  This is a problem that has greater impact at home than abroad.   Is the agenda oil?  It doesn’t have to be.  We have plenty at home.  Is the agenda feeding  “the war machine” that generates tens of thousands of jobs?  Possibly.  Is the agenda the enrichment of Middle East interests promoted by sympathizers who have infiltrated our government.  That is also possible, but I don’t know.   

If faced with the draft today I cannot fathom wasting my life on something I do not agree with and don’t understand.   And on my list of priorities, volunteering would fall just below having all my teeth extracted and shooting my dog.

This would also make a great bumper sticker…

Thursday, May 03, 2012

And we think we will influence China?

There is much being made of Chinese human rights activist Chen Guangcheng and the confusion about his on again/off again/on again desire to escape China.  Chen has been a thorn in the side of China’s birth control policies for years.

Many in the US are hopeful that the US will intervene on Chen’s behalf against China’s oppressive population control policies and use this occasion to influence China to adopt more humane measures to adapt its population to its economic goals.

Dream on.  The trouble is the current leadership in this country has much in common with China’s leadership concerning abortion.

In a nation that has performed 50 million abortions since 1973, most as a means of birth control,  where do we think we stand with our moral authority to influence China’s birth control policy and methods?  In a nation whose highest court in the land has sanctioned the killing of children in the womb, from where do we summon the will to influence China’s abortion policies?  With a presidency and senate whose political party and ideology defend and promote abortions of convenience do you think there will be any motivation to confront China’s human rights policies pertaining to abortion?

You.Have.Got.To.Be.Daffy to think this will happen.

In a nation that performs over a million abortions a year, why would we have any influence on China at the government-to-government level?

Sure, the motivating force for abortions is different in China and the US.  In China, the government mandates abortions.  In the US, the government simply allows abortions.  But the results are nearly the same.  What these two nations have in common is the sad part.  The legal systems in both countries have no regard for the life of a pre-born child.  The purpose of killing babies in China is to control the population and improve the state economy.  The purpose of killing babies in the US is to control family size and improve the economy of the family.  Both the means and the end are the same:  Kill babies to enhance the economy – just at different levels of governance.

There is a reason why Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department looks like Frick and Frack dealing with China on this issue.  We have no desire to pursue Chen’s agenda.  The only difference between the abortion industry in the US and in China is the party that mandates the abortion.  In the US, it is the mother.  In China it is the state.  In both countries, the state sanctions the killings.

We have a lot of soul searching to do before we pretend to dictate abortion policies to China.