On Prudes and Sanctimony

At age 60, I still enjoy the revelation - the grand "ahaaa" - that comes from learning the meaning and origin of words.

A number of years ago, I was invaded with the accusation of being "sanctimonious" for discourging my family from watching a certain movie I felt was inappropriate at the time. I later learned that being called that word was a good thing, despite the negative intent of the name caller, as well as current usage. In fact, being sanctimonious is acting as though one has been sanctified; set apart; made holy through Christ. Of course our behaviors should be different from those who are neither sanctified nor sanctimonious. Those who are not sanctified tend to have a natural dislike of those who are. They like to ridicule.

Another word, "prude" comes to mind. Although I haven't been called a prude lately, I suspect some people think I am. But I was reminded by Laura Ingraham, speaking on her radio program, that the origin of "prude" is from "prudent" - a positive word suggesting thoughtfulness and care. I suppose since it is no longer fashionable (in the eyes of many) to be prudent, the natural thing to do is to ridicule those who are with a negative connotation via the word "prude."

I guess it boils down to this: If a person is and acts sanctified and you are not, ridicule him with the word "sanctimonious." If a person is more prudent than you believe is appropriate, ridicule him with the word "prude." The person who is called these things can take these words as a complement. As the Scriptures say, "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive."

So, to all you sanctimonious prudes out there - keep it up! We need more people like you.

Immature jackasses in need of adult supervision...

Here they are, the immature, irresponsible stupid guys - the lower end of the advertising professions' bottom feeder food chain.

Clever, but stupid. And what do you want to bet that these hacks will try to spin the circumstances to make the Boston officials sound like they over-reacted to their ill-conceived publicity stunt?

The truth is, these stupid guys fail to understand or care about the reality of the serious aspects of life. They clearly suffer from a lack of adult supervision, both from their parents and from CNN hierarchy. Apparently, the hierarchy at CNN also require more adult supervision, but I digress. Many "adult children" today have this same innate la la land mentality in common - an emotional IQ in the negatives.

This points to the larger issue involving the disconnectedness of generations in our culture. Parents are often too busy with sports, dancing, Hollywood gossip, divorce, watching TV, making money, and being otherwise too self-absorbed to maintain effective communication and respect to influence the next generation in a positive manner. Fortunately, despite parental lapes, some kids surprise their parents on the side of responsible and mature behavior.

In this case, though, what kind of parental upbringing, if they had any, do these apes reflect? Or are they degenerates inspite of parental influence?

Moderate Islam - More Moderate Than What?

A local Catholic priest published this in his church bulletin...

I'm glad that some folks are catching on that so-called "moderate" Islam is not as moderate as they would have us believe.

Click on the image to enlarge.

Attack on Christianity - Warning from a Rabbi

Daniel Lapin, an Orthodox Jew, highlights the growing badmouthing of Christians by secularists in this nation. He brings to our attention that many, such as Rosie O'Donnel and other media "stars", claim that conservative Christianity is more of a threat to this nation than fundamentalist Islam. What kind of agenda are these fools promoting? My educated guess is they are so keen on defending their perverse lifestyles that anything that gets in the way will be ridiculed. They are blinded by their defense of their perversions. Amazingly, they are so hellbent on justifying themselves that they mock the values that founded this nation. And consider Islam less of a threat to their own radical freedoms? Boy, are they in for a shock.

Read it here: http://www.towardtradition.org/index.cfm?PAGE_ID=284

The Challenge of Islam in America…

These comments are in response to those who wonder why some of us seem to be so concerned about the Muslim religion, including its’ practice in the United States. Let me explain my concern in a reasoned way – an argument other than “I’m not paranoid – they really are out to get us!!!!”

First, see if you agree with any of my opinions:

• Most Americans consider the great majority of Muslims to be moderate, benign, freedom-supporting people.

• The great majority of Americans don’t understand the basic doctrines of the Islamic faith nor the alignment of their “moral compass” as contrasted with that of practicing Christians.

• The great majority of Americans consider Islam through Christian-colored glasses, that is, from the religio-moral perspective of Christianity

• The great majority of Americans believe that most Muslims in the US are Americans first (believers in the values of freedom of expression, choice, etc.) and Muslims second.

• Most Americans greatly underestimate the Muslim threat in this nation.

Many Americans probably do not agree with the last bullet. So, I will especially focus on that issue: Why we are underestimating the Muslim threat in this nation.

Here is why I hold these opinions - based on the reality many do not yet understand.

Muslim growth and numbers:

Nothing is wrong with the growth of a benign group which has no intention of imposing its moral will and their form of government on me and my country.. I have no concern about the growth in numbers of Hindu’s, Buddhists, Shinto’s, Jews, or Baptists. It is the growth of an organization whose primary beliefs include coercion as the ultimate means of essential conversion and a highly repressive legal/moral code that is enforced by means that our culture believes is barbaric that is a problem. This spells trouble, especially for our culturally liberal friends (who are defenders of the Islamic faith) who hold the ability to do anything they please, no matter how morally outrageous or irresponsible, as their highest value. What an irony this will prove to be in the coming years! I almost wish I could be around to watch.

Back to the numbers. There are currently about 1.3 billion Muslim in the world and 3.9 million in the United States. The numbers of Christians is in decline in the world and in the United States. The rate of increase in the numbers of Muslims is increasing in both the world and in the United States.

Based on the rate of growth of Islam and the rate of decline of Christianity, in 2025 (18 years from now) Islam will be the majority religion in the world, with 30% (over 2.3 billion) versus 25% Christian. The number of Muslims in the United States will almost double, to over 7 million.

What difference do these numbers make? Let’s assume for a moment that the great majority of the 2.3 billion are “moderate” Muslim. Let’s say 90% are peaceloving and don’t really want to blow people up as an acceptable means of imposing their Sharia law and placating Allah. That leaves only 10% who tend toward the more literal version of Jihad…but how many constitute “only 10%.” Let’s see, that would be only 230,000,000 people that want to blow themselves up in our malls, restaurants, subways, and aircraft for their reward in heaven.

Muslim doctrine:

The point is, even 3, 4, or 5% who believe in and practice violent Jihad is a lot of folks creating a lot of trouble. But that is not my major concern. What exactly is a “moderate Muslim” and what does he believe?

Christianity went through a “reformation”, a return to traditional teachings of the faith, back in the 1500’s. These rebels against the Catholic church attempted to expunge the sectarian abuses and influences that crept into the Catholic church up till that time. They returned to the teachings of Christ, which centered on love, forgiveness, mercy, worship. The Catholic church itself instituted many reforms to correct the acknowledged abuses. In any event, neither coercion nor forced conversion were ever a teaching of Christ or of the early Church.

Many considered Islam a benign religion up until the last two or three decades. (Unfortunately, many still do.) A number of Muslim leaders themsleves have acknowledged that they have been a religion in decline in need of resurgence. Islam is felt to have strayed from its' roots, its' basic doctrinal teachings. That is why they have been benign until recently – they have not been practicing what their founder, Muhammad, has preached.

Islam is in a period of reformation – a return to their roots. Although unlike Christianity, their roots are not love, forgiveness, mercy, the sweet Christ-like attitudes that we take for granted. They are the attitudes of Muhammad. Let’s just say that they are the opposite of Christ. While during the early part of his life Muhammad practiced a degree of tolerance, during the latter part he practiced anything but. He taught war, he taught retribution, he taught conquest. He developed Sharia law (this is a whole topic unto itself). Let’s just say it involves the removal of various body parts for various infractions of the law. And oh yes, it does not involve freedom of expression, or religion, or women’s rights – take note, cultural liberals!

Those who point to portions of the Koran that sound peaceful and Kum Bay Yah-like…those are mostly in the early sections, the equivalent to the sequence of our Old Testament relative to the New Testament. The violent teachings occur in the latter portions of the Koran. And just as in Christianity where the later teachings of Christ supercede the teachings in the Old Testament (turn the other cheek, not eye for an eye), the Koran sequence is just the reverse. It started with turn the other cheek and later became “cut off the other cheek”. These later sections of the Koran supercede the earlier sections in this current Islamic “reformation.

So, who is a moderate Muslim? Who are the 90+% who are not involved in violent Jihad? What do they really believe? Are they the equivalent to the liberal Christians who doubt the literal messages and real significance of the New Testament? Are they in fact liberal Muslim who do not literally believe the teachings of Mohammad in his later life? Or are these “moderates” to some degree sympathetic to the recent Muslim reformation – the return to the glory days of the conquests of Muhammad? How many are sympathizers and in what ways are they lending support to the "reformed" core values of their faith?

Violent Jihad aside for the moment, there are several basic tenets of Islam. These deserve separate study apart from the space I want to allocate here for their understanding. But I will simply remind you what they are:

· The strictly narrow and subservient role of women
· Sharia law: Muslim law that takes precedence over all other forms of national government
· Dhimmitude: The second class and extra taxed condition of those who do not claim the Islamic faith.
· Taqiyya: The divine right to lie to advance the cause of Islam.. Examples of the use of this doctrine include Muslims deceptively pointing only to the early portions of the Koran to illustrate how peace-loving they are. A more outrageous example is the President of Iran claiming there was no holocaust and others claiming 9-11 was perpetrated by the United States or Israeli government to incite anti-Muslim outrage.
· Role of free choice in selecting a religion or no religion: None.

This latter tenet, the suppression of free choice, presents a real moral dilemma for this country. We cherish freedom and free choice as our highest value. Yet there is an organization out there (Islam) that wants to use our freedom of choice as a means to install their form of government and religious values that contends that free choice is evil.

Many of us question what business is it of ours to be concerned about a religion that does not share their values with most of us. How narrow minded and bigoted it is to be concerned about another religion in this manner.

Let’s pretend, for a moment, that Islam is not a religion, but is a political party. Let’s say that political party desires to overthrow our government by violent means and install an oppressive government that the political organization promotes? What would our attitude be toward that political party? Should such political group be outlawed?

This is exactly what is being taught in many of the Islamic schools within this nation, and certainly in most Muslim nations. Except for the fact of it being a “religion”, the resurgent “Islam” is another organization that desires to impose an oppressive form of government and faith on the people of the world and of this nation.

We are grossly and dangerously under prepared for the next jihadist event in this nation. Our national ignorance of the basics of the reformed Islamic faith are a big part of our problem. Blind tolerance and political correctness is another.

There are more Islamic jihadi sympathizers and helpers willing to assist in the next attack and the establishment of Sharia law in this nation than the public and possibly the federal government imagines.

For every example that can be shown of an American Muslim condemning terrorism or Jihadi terrorist acts by fellow Muslims, there are ten examples where they defend such actions, make excuses for such actions, or express outrage and offense that we are singling out Muslims for their terrorist acts. Nine out of ten times, Muslims express more concern over protecting their rights and privacy than they do over Islamic violence, murder, and terror.

I want to elaborate on this last point through the words of Brigitte Gabriel. She says it much better than I because she has lived through the Muslim torment.

Brigitte Gabriel is a Lebanese Catholic who, as a child in Lebanon experienced the Islamic revolution in her former Christian country. In her book “Because They Hate”, she ponders the "moderate" Muslim American…

“It is certain that there are genuinely moderate Muslims, perhaps a substantial number, who do not seek to impose Islam on this country and the world through violent jihad. However, they are conspicuous by their silence regarding the more problematic doctrines of Islam. To the extent that Muslim “leaders” and lobbying organizations in the United States even address the issue, they offer nothing more than vague, tepid condemnations of terrorist violence and heated denials that the behavior of Islamic terrorists has any connection with Islam.

Where is the Muslim outrage in this country over the supposed few who hijacked their religion? Where is the Million Muslim March on the Mall in Washington, D.C., sending a message to all Muslims in the Arabic world condemning the killing of human beings in the name of Allah? Where is the cry to raise the consciousness of the rest of the Muslim world about their hijacked religion? If something of yours had been stolen, wouldn’t you scream to the world that someone had hijacked it?

Where are the voices of Western Muslims, particularly the American Muslim community, sending a clear message to the Arabic world that we are American, and when you attack one of us you attack all of us? We condemn and consider the enemy Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, al Gamaat al Islamiya, and the rest of the collection of barbaric Islamic thugs and murderers who have neither conscience nor humanity. Where is the outrage of the Muslim community? Why aren’t the imams of every mosque holding press conferences, and inviting the media to tell the American public, “We are Americans first. Any enemy of America is our enemy. We will work to find, stop, arrest, turn in, and condemn anyone in our community who aspires to radicalize our religion and harm our country”?

Why do we not hear this condemnation? Because their allegiance is to their Muslim religion, not to America. They may be “moderate” Muslims. But that moderation is only an abstention from violent Jihad. They still maintain their allegiance, and it does not include us.”


Sources for further information:

http://jihadwatch.org/
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/
“Because They Hate” by Brigitte Gabriel (book)
http://www.danielpipes.org/
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/

Obama Presidency: Why we should be concerned

I recently reviewed Barack Obamas’ book “The Audacity of Hope.” [see previous blog] The two most troubling concerns I came away with after reading it were:

• The self-described tentative manner he embraces his religious and moral beliefs, and

• The influence he received in his childhood from his parents and his religious training

While he claims he was influenced little as a child by his Muslim/atheist parents or his Muslim and Catholic schooling, he also claims in essence that there isn’t a Christian principle in Scripture that he holds as an absolute standard. He appears to be avoiding any claim of holding an absolute standard about anything, except being totally opened minded to whatever he deems appropriate. This attitude makes for a great politician but a poor leader.

This moral/religious ambivalence would not be so troublesome if it were not for his Muslim background, and the potentially latent Muslim tendencies he may yet harbor beneath his politically-correct veneer. This veneer appears pretty thin, given his statement that he could be dead wrong about any Christian principle he believes at the moment.

So, on one hand, Barack has a Muslim family heritage that goes back to beyond his great grandfather plus his Muslim education, and on the other hand he claims a recent conversion to Christianity, with a self-avowed open mind revealing that he could be dead wrong on his Christian-beliefs-of-the-moment.

To me, this adds up to a giant red flag. And this is what I gleaned from his own book, not from his opponents.

I was asked why I am concerned about Barack’s Muslim heritage. Why would I be concerned about a president with potential, latent Muslim tendencies while America is not afraid of a Catholic or even a Mormon President? Do I really hold a “double standard?” It seems so patronizing of me to have to explain my answer – the distinction seems so obvious to me. Some of the reasons are so old and so often restated that many have become immune to their significance – or, bless your heart – many may not have learned or been taught these things. So here goes…

• Our nation was created as a haven for Christians to avoid religious persecution.

• Our constitution and laws were established by those who were Christian of one form or another.

• The principles of Christianity were the bedrock for the system of laws and legal system adopted and embraced here.

• While indeed this nation was a melting pot, the primary heritage is Christian. The melting pot was comprised initially mostly of Christians.

• In our most recent century we have maintained a Judeo-Christian value system which shares basic moral, legal, and ethical value.

• Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Mormons, and Jews are all on the same page with regard to the foundational and continuing values of this nation.

• To the contrary, the prevailing beliefs and teachings of the Islamic faith have, especially in the last several decades, demonstrated that they are diametrically opposed to the nature of the freedoms and principles that this nation upholds.

• The training in many if not all Islamic schools for children and adults throughout the world and in the United States promote Sharia law and a disdain for western Judeo-Christian principles. We have yet to learn or accept these facts.

• Moderate Muslims are not as moderate as they put on. One day they will expound a moderate sounding Koranic prayer in the US Senate, and the next will be advocating the violent imposition of Sharia law in this nation and installing a mullah as our leader.

• The differences are as day and night between these two value systems. One teaches tolerance and forgiveness and free choice of religion and a government influenced by all sects and not controlled by any. The other teaches retribution, intolerance, the superiority and necessity of Sharia (Islamic) law, offers only three choices for religious preference: conversion to Islam, dhimmi status (second class citizenship), or death.

The liberals of this nation have a logic problem they are not facing. Liberals purport to be so open minded, somewhat libertarian, embrace the ACLU which fights for the most perverse minority rights. Freedom, freedom is their call. However, liberals also appear to be defenders of the Islamic faith which stands 180 degrees opposite their own expressed values. Or if they are not defenders, they seem to recognize no distinction between the Islamic faith and most others. Just the contrast between the liberal’s call for “freedom of choice” in all things, including sexual orientation of marriage partners, gay rights, abortion rights, and religious diversity compared with the Islamic mandate for absolute adherence to unforgiving Islamic law that absolutely prohibits these choices should get the liberals’ attention. But it doesn’t. Do they ever draw a line? I think this explains how the blind momentum of a species causes their eventual extinction.

Why am I wary of Barack Obama? With his tentative embrace of Christian values, he could easily, in the blink of an eye, flip over to his Islamic heritage. If such flip is not announced, there will always be the strong potential for his latent Islamic biases to influence his choice of advisors, his choice of alliances and his choice of policy, all to the detriment of the value system that enables this nation to remain free and prosper.
____________________________

Here are two more voices in the wilderness expressing concern about Baracks’ background:

http://www.out2.com/ 's independent contrarian columnist, Andy Martin says:

“His grandfather was named 'Hussein.' That is an Arabic-Muslim, not African, name. Hussein was a devout Muslim and named his son, Barack Senior, 'Baraka.' Baraka is an Arabic word meaning 'blessed.' Baraka comes out of the Koran and Arabic, not Africa.

"Barack Senior was also a devoted Muslim, and also chose a Muslim name for his son, our own Barack Obama, Junior. Again, his name was an Arabic and Koranic.

Obama has spent a lifetime running from his family heritage and religious heritage. Would his father have given his son a Koranic name if the father was not a devout Muslim? Obama's stepfather was also a Muslim. Obama will be the first Muslim-heritage senator; he should be proud of that fact. There is nothing to be ashamed of in any of the three great Abrahamic religions. [Obviously he must be referring to the non-Sharia law loving Muslim, whereever they may be found. ed.]]

"Fiction: Obama Senior was a harmless student 'immigrant' who came to the United States only to study. Fact: Obama was part of one of the most corrupt and violent organizations in Africa: the Kenyatta regime. Obama's father ran back to Kenya soon after the British left. It is likely Obama's father had Mau Mau sympathies or connections, or he would not have been welcomed into the murderous inner circle of rapists, murderers, and arsonists. I believe Obama's secret shame at his family history of rape, murder and arson is what actualizes him. Our research is not yet complete. We are seeking to examine British colonial records. Our investigation to date has drawn on information on three continents.

"And what about Obama's beloved Kenyan brothers and sisters? None of his family was invited to Boston to share his prominence. Are his relatives being kept in the closet? Where are they? More secrecy, more prevarication.

"It is time for Barack Obama to stop presenting a fantasy to the American people. We are forgiving and many would still support him. It may well be that his concealment is meant to endanger Israel. His Muslim religion would obviously raise serious questions in many Jewish circles where Obama now enjoys support," Martin states.

"Our investigation is continuing. In he meantime, Crown Books should stop selling Obama's novelization of his life. We have asked Crown to do that. Obama is living a lie."

Nicholas Stix says http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0804/0804obamafaith.htm :

Obama the Christian is a devout believer in unlimited abortion rights. He denies the existence of Hell. He came to Christianity through social organizing with activist religious. His devout Christianity derives from the secular humanist "values" his atheist mother imbued him with. He believes, with all his heart, in the separation of church and state – except when he campaigns in black churches, in violation of that separation, and in violation of the tax code. Obama wears his religion on his sleeve in churches, but in dealing with the mainstream media criticizes such behavior.

The only recognizably Christian position Obama takes is his opposition to same-sex marriage, due to the "religious connotations" of marriage. ("Religious connotations"? What about "civic religion"; the "separation of church and state"; the "enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God's mandate"? Don't ask.) This is surely due to the fact that blacks are the racial/ethnic group most adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage, and Obama does not want to rile the one voter bloc on which his candidacy is most dependent. However, I would expect his position on same-sex marriage to begin "evolving" around, say, … November 3. Once Obama is safely ensconced in the U.S. Senate, he knows that his base will stick by him, for richer or for poorer, for better or for worse. Then he will doubtless begin the sort of "education" of the Christian black electorate in matters of same-sex marriage, which black leaders earlier conducted in the matter of abortion.

Regarding Obama's religiosity, which appeared out of nowhere during his social activist work, following his graduation from law school, a line from Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass comes to mind, when the latter explained why Mike Ditka was not prepared for political life. "Ditka doesn't need a political life. And he hasn't spent decades planning for the scrutiny."
Obama's closest religious advisers -- Fr. Pfleger, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, and Illinois State Sen. James Meeks, who moonlights as the pastor of Chicago's Salem Baptist Church – may have quotes from Scripture always handy, but are theologically closer to Karl Marx and black nationalism, than to Christianity. The transcendent-non-transcendent motto the Rev. Wright has given Trinity is, "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian."

According to State Sen./Rev. James Meeks' humble, personal church Web page, "Meeks' practical and charismatic style of instruction motivates the hearer to take action and has resulted in accomplishments of miraculous proportions." When the good Senator/Reverend is not accomplishing miracles and other feats "never before documented in history," he serves as the executive vice president of Jesse Jackson Sr.'s National Rainbow-Push Coalition. Why a man of God would want to be identified with Jackson's personal den of iniquity is a question only the Rev. Meeks can answer.

Now that Obama has a Republican opponent in Alan Keyes, Obama's media acolytes are working hard to discredit Keyes, a talk-show host who is a former ambassador, and presidential and senatorial candidate. Meanwhile, Obama, who when Jack Ryan was his opponent wanted six debates, has no desire to debate Keyes. Obama & Co. had better stick to their new script or Keyes, a brilliant man who knows the Constitution better than "Professor" Obama does, and whose own Christian faith comes not from Karl Marx or black nationalism (or possibly Unitarian Universalism), but from Christianity, might put some hard questions to Barack Obama.

The Audacity of “The Audacity of Hope...

...the tome of a “Rock-Star.”

A much loved person gave me this book by Barack Obama for Christmas. I think the gift was in retribution for my gift of an Ann Coulter book to her a couple of years ago.

Before I explain what I really think of the book, I want to digress into my distinction between the mindset of a conservative and a liberal.

A conservative (of many degrees) appreciates and acknowledges the heritage of this nation and attempts to perpetuate and refine and improve those qualities that made her great.

A liberal (of many degrees) tends to minimize or dismiss the heritage of this nation that made her great. Even the historical definitions of “great” tend to be castigated as less than good.

The phrase “of many degrees” acknowledges that “conservative” and “non-conservative” labels are not intended to be black and white. There are indeed many shades of grey as well as the potential of excess toward one extreme or another. But the “absolute” that I ascribe to is that there is a frighteningly large number of influential people in this nation who have little appreciation for the qualities that made this nation great and who are, in fact, changing the definition of “great” to mean something less than desirable. Barack Obama is one of these people.
The reality is we are as a nation, polarized. Barack contributes to this polarization with such comments as “when I see Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity baying across the television screen, I find it hard to take them seriously.” That is not a unifying statement that a presidential candidate needs to express. I am one of millions who embraces the message of these individuals. That statement is dismissive of our opinions and values.

Before I digress too far into rambling narrative, I will shorten this book review into a number of bullet points that provide examples of things I find troubling about Baracks’ position on a variety of issues. These are just a few of the many that jumped off the page at me:

• Page 22 – Health Care: Barack infers that there needs to be more centralized control of our health care system because it “is broken: wildly expensive, terribly inefficient, etc. Our health care system is not yet intended to be an all-inclusive, full bore, government run socialist system. It is intended to be a safety net – with the individual primarily responsible for his own health care. Barack seems to favor minimizing individual responsibility and maximizing federal government responsibility. Most people probably do prefer this “easier path” until they realize that they are the ones who will pay for it through increased taxes. And then these same people will want their taxes reduced which will gut the effectiveness and quality of the socialized healthcare program. But, as Barack does, complaining about the existing system is great for political points.

• Page 23 – Terrorism: Barack frames our battle against terrorism as either “belligerence or isolationism.” Such framing in extremes is not helpful, if that is how he sees it. Apparently he sees our current policies as “belligerence” and anything less would be “isolationism.” It sounds like he is suggesting we can eliminate the basic Islamic doctrine of intolerance and violence by eliminating “global poverty and failed states.” This is just one of the many areas of the book where he dismisses or ignores the basic character of Islam and assumes it is just another mouth to feed. Could he have a bias toward Islam? More on that later.

• On several pages (36-38) Barack rails against what he calls “absolutism.” He seems to be concerned that there is a moral distinction between right and wrong. Feeling strongly about the goodness or appropriateness of a particular path is considered narrow-minded. He appears to believe that there is no right path – it is all good. His religious confusion bears this out. As much as I liked Jimmy Carter personally, his presidency is noted as being among the most ambivalent (wishy-washy). Barack seems to mirror Jimmy.
  Page 56: Barack “firmly believe(s) … since 9/11, we have played fast and loose with constitutional principles in the fight against terrorism.” I firmly believe we have done too little.

• Page 199: He calls the reasons for Pilgrims coming to our shores and the religious basis for our civil rights movement “religiosity”. My understanding of the term, confirmed by a quick web-scan of the definition, portrays the word as somewhat negative: “Excessive or affected piety.” “Exaggerated or affected piety and religious zeal.” I don’t know if he just carelessly used the word, or if he really believes that the Pilgrims’ or Martin Luther King’s faith and piety were excessive, affected, and exaggerated.

• Pages 202-205: Barack speaks of his “insight into this movement toward a deepening religious commitment…” and then describes the beliefs and experiences of his parents. He recalls, “For my mother, organized religion too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the garb of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of righteousness.” Is this how he sees religion? His father was almost entirely absent from his childhood, was raised Muslim, and later became a confirmed atheist. His mother remarried to an equally skeptical Indonesian who “saw religion as not particularly useful…” and “who had grown up in a country that easily blended its Islamic faith with remnants of Hinduism, Buddhism, and ancient animist traditions.” He continues, “I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then to a predominantly Muslim school.” I wonder what they taught in that Muslim school? Was it sharia law? Was it dhimmitude? Was it jihad? We need to get a better handle on this kind of background before we entertain it for our president. For those who are ignorant of what Islamic schools teach, even in this country, this may seem to be an insignificant concern. But in Indonesia? Hmmm.
  
• Page 206: I have great respect for Alan Keyes. Barack is antithetical to Alan. Alan gets under his skin. That demonstrates how opposite Barrack’s views are from mine.
  
• Page 211: Barack again paraphrases Alan Keyes, a characterization I agree with, but one with which Barack intends to discredit Alan, his faith and principles.
  Many pages: Barack favors abortion rights. I guess for some, this is a good reason to vote for him. But it demonstrates again that Alan is right about Barack’s lack of religious principle.

• Pages 213-214: Barack appears to argue for including a bit more “religiosity” into political debate, while he disagrees with the major principles of such religions. The message I get from all this is that he is confused. It is almost funny how Barack devotes an entire chapter to “Values”. Yet just about every value he discusses he semi-embraces so tentatively. His highest value appears to be doubt!
  
• Page 218: Barack is revealing his ignorance of and confusion about Christian scripture when he publicly exposes his uncertainty of which principles should be followed: e.g. stoning your child and advocacy of slavery (from the Old Testament) or the Sermon on the Mount which is a “love everybody” statement not pleasing to the Defense Department. He admonishes the religious folk for being too “black and white”, but then portrays these two extremes of interpreting Scripture. Hrummph.
  
• Page 222: (re: “For many practicing Christians…”) Barack states his belief that an acknowledged transgression disqualifies the Christian from any future discernment of right and wrong in others. Any of us who have had lapses in our behavior must now embrace everyone else’s choice of continuing transgression of what we understand to be God’s moral law. My one-time transgression now requires me to accept and support everyone else’s continuing immoral behavior. That philosophy will lead to absolute moral decay and degeneracy. There will be no one left to defend what is morally right anymore. Barack is wrong on this one
  
• Page 233-234: Barack sounds like he cannot accept any “truth” as truth. With him, everything is tentative, especially his faith belief system. When he reads the Bible, he says, “I must be continually open to new revelations – whether they come from a lesbian friend or a doctor opposed to abortion.” Or, I might add, or from a convicted child molester, a serial killer, or an Islamic suicide bomber. I don’t think so. Where does Barack draw the line? So, revelation from God should be accepted no matter the source – no matter what the character of the individual? That is so far removed from reality it sounds like the voice of “Chuckie” in a rock-star’s body.
  
• Page 278: He continues his longing for the Indonesia of his childhood, despite the calls for the imposition of sharia law, the “vice squads” that attack churches, nightclubs, casinos; the bombings and the absolute loss of any semblance of civil rights. What was he taught in his Muslim school?
  
• Page 279-280: No wonder he’s snowed much of the American population, who have difficulty or lose interest in reading beyond the 8th grade level. Here, starting with the last paragraph on the bottom of page 279, we have a 150+ word sentence. This would probably be classified as an incomprehensible graduate-level sentence. This example jumped out at me. Much of the book is written in this style. His erudition is mind-boggling.
  
• Page 307: “In coping with the asymmetrical threats that we’ll face in the future – from terrorist networks and the handful of states that support them…” What? Only a handful of states support terrorist networks? Where has he been? Let’s see, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia (good ‘ol Indonesia), several nations in Africa, and Iraq is still questionable. Whether these states willingly support terror networks or are intimidated into supporting terror, they still support terror. Many more states harbor some level of terrorist cells out of fear or inability to control them. This clearly constitutes more than a “handful.”
  
• Page 315: Barack doesn’t “dismiss these critics out of hand,” those who “take their lead from left-leaning populists like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, or … to more traditional principles of social organization, like Islamic law.” Well, now, let’s dissect this statement. Barack seems open to just about any and every idea. How open minded of him. Hugo is merely a “left-leaning populist?” Islamic law is merely “a more traditional principle of social organization?” It is statements like these that cause concern. And if Barack’s convoluted writing style or my ignorance of the English language causes me to misunderstand what he’s saying, then I can assure you that there are millions who are also misunderstanding. That leaves me with the conclusion that Barack either cannot express himself clearly without misunderstanding, or he is a threat to the future of this nation.
  
• I note there isn’t any entry in the Index on Islam or Muslim, although references are sprinkled throughout the text.
  
• He demonstrates little interest in or understanding of the nature and magnitude of the Islamo-fascist threat to this nation and the civilized world.
  
• He avoids use of the word “illegal immigrant” or “illegal alien” (the word “illegal” does not appear in the index. He is apparently concerned that feelings might get hurt. In fact, he substantially ignores the difference between an immigrant (“legal” by definition) and illegal aliens. He instead focuses on the need to “recognize the humanity” of illegals. I’ll try to use the “humanity” approach with the cop the next time I get pulled over for violating a law much less significant than the numerous laws most illegal aliens are breaking.
  
  

Other than these few minor annoyances, the book was warm and very human – wink wink.

To be fair, there are several positions Barack takes that I agree with. The need for energy independence is one of them. Making the nation more competitive in the world market is another. Simplifying federal programs is another. His occasional criticism of liberals is promising, if not token. Creating opportunity for greater participation in national decisions is another, however unrealistic such participation may be (it makes a great populist statement).

Why is Barack so instantly popular with much of the nation? His good looks – his charisma – his endorsement by Oprah - his “rock star” aura – and his Hollywood-esque disdain of most things reflecting the heritage of our nation.

Overall, Baracks’ background and attitudes frighten me. He will not be good for this nation. No – I will not vote for him.

A Review of "No More Christian Nice Guy"

The title above provides a link to a review of this refreshingly provocative book that turns the tables on the "politically correct" but useless Jesus.

Here are some excerpts of the review...

"Yes, Christ taught his followers “not to judge” unwisely, but context is important here. He also praised individuals for making wise judgments. Remember John the Baptist? When Christian Leftists hypocritically judge people for judging, they are promoting mindless populism.

"Christians are called to be shakers, not pontificators of slippery values. But the truth is getting out there.

“'Nice' can’t confront this world’s sources of pain. Niceness makes people agreeable, not good. Somehow we have mistaken niceness for righteousness,” maintains Coughlin. American men, of course, need to toughen up for the challenges ahead. They need to stop “making nice” with Martini Marxists."

Sir Elton - Poster "Boy" for Anti-Religion

Its human nature: Smokers do it...alcoholics and addicts do it...gays do it... perverts do it... abortionists do it... thieves do it... Islamo-fascists and their sympathizers do it...illegal aliens and those who benefit from their law-breaking do it. When they tire of hearing that their behavior is wrong, they attempt to eliminate the source of the standard that constrains their behavior.

Sir Elton John is defending his Royal Gayness with a call to ban all religion. You can substitute any of the above-listed destructive predispositions for "gay" and end up with the same hope on the part of the lover of absolute libertarian behavior. You can substitute "law" or "ethics" for "religion" to refer to any standard that is inconveniently constraining.

I've actually heard a smoker defend her addiction by denying the validity of the studies that say smoking causes cancer. She rationalizes that if the same intensity of study were applied to stringbeans that stringbeans will be found to cause cancer, too. Addictions, habits, and predispositions, whether perverted or not, can be mind-bending, indeed.

So much so that a self-rationalization mechanism kicks in creating a Napolean complex that demands the outrageous. Case in point: Gay Sir Elton's defence of his behavior demands a ban on all religion as reported by Matt Drudge:

"ELTON JOHN: 'I WOULD BAN RELIGION COMPLETELY'Sat Nov 11 2006 15:42:55 ET
Sir Elton John wants religion banned completely -- because he believes it promotes hatred of gays. Speaking to the Observer Music Monthly Magazine the singer said religion lacked compassion and turned people into "hateful lemmings". The PRESS ASSOCIATION reports: In a candid interview for a dedicated Gay issue of the magazine he shared his views on topics as varied as being a pop icon to Tony Blair's stance on the war in Iraq. He said there was a lack of religious leadership, particularly in world politics, and complained that people do not take to the streets to protest any more. Sir Elton said: "I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people. Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays." But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their religion. From my point of view I would ban religion completely." Organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."

Yes, Sir Elton, and our standards against murder and rape cause people to have a problem with murderers and rapists. How awful of us. How "lemming" of us. Sir Elton, why don't you just thank your "God of no standards" that you don't have aids...yet...and that you're not burdened with the "hassle" of procreation.

They Got the Wrong Guys!

But, hey, they're implementing President Bush's "Open Borders" policy.

So, there are these two border patrol guys near the Mexican border...they spot a couple of known drug smugglers; they attempt to apprehend them - they resist - the border patrol guys shoot one in the buttocks. Ouch!

So, there is this prosecutor who is trying to make President Bush happy by making an example of the border patrol guys. The audacity of them trying to stop illegal alien drug smugglers! So this dutiful prosecutor offers the buttocks-challenged drug smuggler immunity if he testifies against the border patrol guys. Hey, if you were an illegal alien drug smuggler, what would you do? "Somebody's got to do it" the smuggler thought to himself. Offer accepted. The result? Border patrol guys were sentenced 11 and 12 years in jail. Sore butt goes back to doing what he does best -being a drug smuggling illegal alien.

And so, in response to receiving a little criticism from the American public (well, OK, a lot), the prosecutor holds a news conference where he proclaims, "We are a nation of laws" at which time I vomit all over my TV set.

Is there something wrong with this picture? This is just too insane/inane for me to comprehend.

This chain of events reflects the priorities of our current presidency - open borders at any price - this will teach the damned, over-diligent border patrol agents a lesson. Viva la corruptionne. Viva la screw the laws of these nationee.

Know Your Enemy - The President Doesn't

After reading a portion of the transcript of a recent White House speech given by our President, I couldn't resist writing him to tell him what I thought. Click the title for the context.

Here it is...

Dear Mr. President:

I have read the following transcript of a talk you recently gave:

"Islam is a religion that brings hope and comfort to more than a billion people around the world. It has transcended racial and ethnic divisions. It has given birth to a rich culture of learning and literature and science... ...Ramadan is the holiest month in the Muslim calendar. For Muslims in America and around the world, Ramadan is a special time of prayer and fasting, contemplation of God's greatness, and charity and service to those in need. And for people of all faiths, it is a good time to reflect on the values we hold in common, including love of family, gratitude to God, the importance of community, and a commitment to tolerance and religious freedom."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061016-6.html Link to White House press release of transcript of Iftaar dinner at the White House

Mr. President, with all due respect, you must be kidding. Your words are contributing to the confusion of a nation.

If what you said is true, then...

• Why is Islam known for such extreme violence?
• Why does Islamic violence increase during Ramadan, their "holiest month"?
• Why are Islamic women denied their human rights?
• Why is Islam known to be the most intolerant religion on the planet?
• Why does a central point of Islamic theology require forced conversions?
• Why are the majority of teachers of Islam teaching conquest and Sharia law?
• Why is this nation spending billions of dollars defending against the Islamo-fascist threat?

The better question is, why are you pandering to such a religion? Are you hoping your kind, but erroneous words will change their theology?

The concept of "Moderate Islam" is a hopeful, but self-deluding myth. Your statements reflect a head-in-the-sand understanding of today's Islam. Or at best, reflect the state of Islam 50 years ago. Islam is going through a reformation - a return to their theological roots. These roots are vested in violence and conquest. The Muslims who may be "moderate" based on our Christian world view are in a reformist-Islam intimidated minority. Few speak out against their violent mainstream counterparts.

We will experience success when we know our enemy. You do not speak as if you know our enemy. God help us.

Back Surgery: Don't Leave Home Without It

It began within months of taking Vytorin for high cholesterol. The "muscle pain" in the buttocks and leg increased over the weeks. I finally went to my cardiologist and asked "what's up with this statin (which is what Vytorin is)...I heard it causes muscle pain and it could be serious and the warnings say I should see my doctor and I'm having muscle pain and here I am, doc." So he took me off of Vytorin. My imagination told me the pain went away over the following weeks...but in fact it was still there and a little worse.

The primary symptoms included soreness and tingling in my theigh, and occasionally, when standing for more than a few minutes, a numbness all the way down my leg, and a loss of feeling. I went to my GP a few months later who immediately guessed "spinal stenosis", a narrowing of the passage in the vertibrae where the nerves pass through. Click on the title of this blog for a web site that describes spinal stenosis.

After a series of x-rays and an MRI, the diagnosis was confirmed. There was indeed a narrowing in the lumbar that was pinching the nerves that run into the butt and leg. A myelogram (a dye-sensing x-ray) was then prescribed and I was referred to a neurosurgeon for further evaluation. Based on the myelogram, he noted a total constriction of fluid between L-2 and L-3 and scheduled surgery. The surgery occurred last Tuesday, six days ago. Its name: laminectomy. It involved the removal of some of the material between two vertibrae, and drilling away some of one vertibra to expand the opening to allow a bit more room for the nerves. The surgery took about an hour. This procedure is described here: http://www.spine-health.com/topics/surg/overview/lumbar/lumb04.html

The surgery began at around 1pm and I was in my hospital room by 3pm. I was up walking a bit later that evening. The next day I walked the halls for an hour or two which later led to a discovery that I had muscles I didn't know I had. It's amazing how we substitute the use of one set of muscles for another - which I did. The doc checked me out that afternoon (Wednesday) and I was home by 6pm.

I've been able to perform a bit more unencumbered activity each day... the leg pain is gone, and I've noted a slight daily reduction in back pain at the site of the incision. The doctor and the literature state that this procedure will not reduce pain from arthritis, which is typically also a part of the condition. I am advised not to drive for another week. I expect to be back at work (primarily a desk job) next week. Clarinet practice can begin in two weeks; tennis in a month.

My advice to others who exhibit similar symptoms: Have it checked out...follow through. At this point, the juice seems to be worth the squeeze. It will be interesting to see how many years it takes for the symptoms to return, which I am promised they will. One of my nuggets of wisdom: Everything is temporary. By the way, in case my comments about Vytorin (or statins in general) lead you to believe this was the cause, I can assure you it had nothing to do with my stenosis. Stenosis is a clearly observable physical condition.

Oh, one other thing: If you go for it, please have good medical insurance or lots of money.