Friday, December 02, 2011

Moderate Muslims: “Non-practicing” Muslims who defend and promote Islam

The guest article below is an exceptional portrayal of the real Islam by a former Muslim.  He cuts through all the politically correct “Islam is Peace” deception and ignorance and describes the truth about the “moderate Muslim” juxtaposed against the truth about Islam.  This description parallels what I have been saying that even holding to just the culture of Islam, even if not to the entire ideology, is enough to garner deception and support for Islam among moderates.  An eye opener.

Introduction from Bill Warner of “Political Islam” web site:

Counter Sharia/Islam articles are produced by the dozen each day, but this one by a former Muslim is a cut above. I rarely reprint an article, but this one is worth the effort. (All emphasis is mine.)

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/02/non-muslim-muslims-and-the-jihad-against-the-west/

The article:

My name is Bosch and I’m a recovering Muslim.

That is, if Muslims don’t kill me for leaving Islam, which it requires them to do. That’s just one of the reasons I’ve been writing and drawing against Islam and its Jihad for a number of years now. But fortunately for us, Islam hasn’t been able to make every Muslim its slave, just as Nazism wasn’t able to turn every German into a Nazi. So there is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t.

But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.

So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us.

Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.

Non-observant Muslims are not our problem, but neither are they the solution to our problem. Our problem is Islam and its most consistent practitioners. There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims. If an individual Muslim is personally peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice, which is why I often say that your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, to their own religion. The very rare Muslim who helps us against Jihad is acting against his religion, but that doesn’t stop some among us from thinking that his existence somehow means that he represents more than himself.

The only reason we’re talking about Islam is because it doesn’t mean peace. Islam wasn’t hijacked by a “small minority of extremists” on 9/11, it was hijacked by a very small minority of moderates whose embarrassment in being associated with such an immoderate religion leads them to engage in moderate truth telling about it, proving their irrelevance as allies.

In addition to these politically active moderates, when you see well-assimilated Muslims in the West, you’re not seeing Islam in action, you’re seeing individuals living up to the old adage, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. They’re essentially post-Islamic Muslims who have rejected Islamic values and have embraced Western ones. But since the process of their assimilation was implicit – as it happened naturally by their exposure to Western, i.e., pro-life, values – both Muslims and non-Muslims alike prefer to generously give Islam some credit for it. But a good Muslim, by our standards is a bad Muslim by Islamic standards. Objectively good human beings, who identify themselves as Muslim, give Islam a good face, one far better then it deserves. This only gives us a false impression about what it is we’re facing, with just another excuse not to face it. And this leads to our acceptance into our culture of stealth jihadists who have figured out how to say what we want to hear, while they scheme behind the scenes to further Islamize the West.

In the name of distinguishing the enemy from Muslims who mean us no harm, far too many Western commentators have avoided using the name “Islam” for the enemy’s ideology, and instead have decided to create their very own terms for the threat we’re facing, terms that are alien to the enemy. Terms such as:

Islamic Fundamentalism.

Islamic Extremism.

Totalitarian Islam.

Islamofascism.

Islamonazism.

Political Islam.

Bin Ladenism.

Radical Islam.

Militant Islam.

Islamism.

Jihadism.

We didn’t use terms such as “Radical Nazism”, “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism” in the past. “Militant Islam”, Political Islam”, etc., are redundant terms. Our pretending otherwise has proven disastrous. Thousands of American lives, both civilian and military, have been sacrificed because of policies predicated on the myth that “Islam means peace.” We didn’t try to reform Shinto or Nazism during World War II; the major changes in those cultures took place only after we thoroughly de-militarized them.

And it’s no accident that Western analysts of Islam who are most informed about Islam are also most critical of it, while those least informed are least critical. But then there are those who, in their study of Islam, have become so enamored with their subject that, instead of sticking to what Islam is, they often write about what it isn’t, what they hope it might be. They seem preoccupied with doing their part to save Islam from those who have allegedly corrupted it.

The Muslim world is where the true meaning of Islam can be found in practice. Islam – not any alleged deviant form of it – means misogyny, censorship, anti-Semitism, homophobia, wife-beatings, beheadings, honor killings, pedophilia/“child marriages”, murdering infidels, etc. This is evil, and Islam sanctions every bit of it, but we’ve been told that we must respect “one of the world’s great religions” because it’s a religion. Following 9/11, the only thing George W. Bush knew about Islam was that it was a religion, and that apparently was a good enough reason for him to exonerate it as he did. And his advisor on Islam, David Forte, told Bush exactly what he wanted to hear, that “Nothing this evil could come from religion.” But 9/11 did come from a religion. Whatever else 9/11 was, it was an act of faith.

And Bush saying “Islam is peace” shortly after 9/11 gave the enemy a gift they couldn’t have foreseen. Here was the one man who was charged to defend America from their attack and here he was defending the very ideology that motivated the attackers. Honesty is the best policy in general, and when it comes to war, it’s a moral imperative to find out the truth, to tell the truth and to act on the truth, no matter what sacred cow is killed in the process. And so a big part of why nearly 3,000 victims of jihad on 9/11 haven’t been avenged is because of respect for religion, even for a religion that calls for our destruction.

Muslims who really care about Islam are part of an organized effort to spread Islam, and I sometimes refer to this collective effort by Muslims as “Organized Islam.” No matter the means involved, Muslims working towards a more Islamic world want the same thing the jihadists want. This organized effort includes Mosques, Muslim organizations, Muslim individuals writing books, blog posts, etc. And they all invariably engage in anti-Western, Anti-Israeli propaganda, at the very least.

I often hear that we should be working with the Muslim world. Working towards what? As Ayn Rand writes, “In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.” Any time we spend “working” with a culture that calls for our destruction, we are working towards our own destruction, consciously or not.

While it’s true that jihadists don’t represent most Muslims, they do represent Islam. But then why don’t most Muslims engage in jihad? Like in any culture, heroes are a small minority, and that goes for Islamic culture as well. The jihadists are Islam’s heroes; they are the ones most dedicated to following Allah’s commands and they’re celebrated in the Muslim world for it. They are also the only ones to whom Islam guarantees paradise. And their rarity was made even clearer when we learned that only the pilots of 9/11 knew it was a suicide mission. Our enemy knows that it’s tough to get even hardcore Muslims to sacrifice their lives for Islam, but they don’t want us to know that. Just as they don’t want us to know that behind their boast that they love death is the fact that they hate life.

And while Muslims who blow themselves up in order to kill non-Muslims are a small minority, Muslims who would explicitly condemn them are an even smaller minority. And while I think that Muslims are mere sheep to their Jihadist wolves, there are also too many Muslim cheerleaders for jihad. How many Muslims celebrated 9/11? Far too many. Even in my own lax Muslim upbringing in America, there was an omnipresent anti-Semitism and misogyny. Some members of my family admired Adolph Hitler, who I refer to as “Islam’s Favorite Infidel.” Regarding misogyny, the birth of a girl became a day of mourning for Muslim women in my family; they understood the suffering this girl would endure under Islam, even in America.

Though we say we’ve been at war for over ten years, we haven’t even begun to fight the war the way we should be fighting it. And those calling for a change within Islam during this war would be surprised at how much Islam can be changed through an honest war on our behalf. You can’t make a violent religion like Islam non-violent by argument, only by greater retaliatory force against state sponsors of jihad terrorism.

The future of Islam and the well-being of Muslims is said to be of importance to us. Post – 9/11, the defense of our culture, our values, our very lives has been optional, but our defense of Islam has been absolute. It began with Bush’s “Islam is peace” and it continues with Obama, who said in his Submission Speech in Egypt in 2009, in front of members of The Muslim Brotherhood, “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” If only he felt the same about America.

We can’t be both for Islam and for ourselves. This enemy is fully on their own side and fully against us and they’ve made themselves believe that they’re the good guys and that we’re the bad guys, and our actions have done nothing but turn their hatred of us into an ever-deepening contempt. Before we see the enemy for what it is, we need to see ourselves for what we are. Only then can we, with full moral conviction, make them pay for what they’ve done and move us towards victory.

Our problem is not “Islamophobia”, but Islamophilia. It is this uncritical, uninformed, absolute defense of Islam by Western elites after 9/11 that I refer to as Islamgate. It’s a scandal for the ages that few involved would ever admit to being part of.

I care about the truth. I care about Western Civilization. I care about myself, my loved ones and my friends. I care about Iife. And that’s why I don’t care about Islam.

Our altruistic concern for the future and well being of the Muslim world has come at the expense of American lives and treasure. We’ve placed the well being of “The Muslim World” above our own self-defense. We’ve placed today’s Big Lie, “Islam means peace”, above the truth we need to act on. We’ve placed the lives of Muslim civilians above the lives of our soldiers, placing them in absolutely unnecessary danger in order to protect innocent (or even guilty) civilians. Our Rules of Engagement might as well be renamed the Golden Rules of Engagement, as our soldiers have been forced to treat the enemy the way we’d like to be treated. And the enemy takes full advantage of that, as they do of all of the policies our morally vain politicians have concocted. We need to shift the focus onto our own well-being at the enemy’s expense for a change.

We’ve tried everything since 9/11 except real war. War is the answer to Jihad.

So who cares about Islam? Muslims, Jihadists, Islamophiles, Leftists who naturally side with anti-American ideologies, guilt-ridden fellow travelers who think America is usually in the wrong, and religionists who believe any religion is better than none. But since Leftists and Islamophiles usually know very little about Islam, who truly cares about Islam? Those who are at war with us.

In the end, I care about Islam and the Muslim world as much as the Muslim world cares about America and the West. This is war. We can’t be on both sides. I’m not rooting for Islam or the Muslim world.

I’m rooting for us.

Bosch Fawstin is an Eisner Award nominated cartoonist currently working on a graphic novel, The Infidel, of which the first chapter is now available as a digital comic. Bosch’s first graphic novel is Table for One. He is also the author of ProPiganda: Drawing the Line Against Jihad, a companion to The Infidel, and the 1st print appearance of Pigman.

Copyright © 2009 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.

Thursday, December 01, 2011

Potential for massive inflation winning over potential for deflation

Up until the past week I was torn between the probability of the US economy heading into deflation or heading into significant inflation.  Experts such as Harry Dent in his recent new book “The Great Crash Ahead” gave a sound argument for deflation in the coming decade.  However, with all due respect to Harry, I don’t think he considered that the scale of perpetual “quantitative easing” (aka printing hundreds of billions of dollars out of nothing) – to not only prop up our own US banks, but to prop up banks around the world -would reach the level it has.

The Euro’s crash appeared imminent to many, perhaps within days.  With the interconnectedness of international banking, the risk of the failure of the Euro has the additional risk of crashing banks not only throughout Europe, but in the US as well.  Earlier this week the US Fed took the unprecedented action of providing US dollars in exchange for risky Euro’s to avert Euro Armageddon and the likely follow-on world banking Armageddon.  More details of this move by the Fed and other banking systems are given HERE.

This action is seen by some experts as the Fed embarking on “perpetual quantitative easing.”  Never mind QE 3 or QE 4.   We now have QE infinity.

This puts a whole new twist on Dent’s predictions.  The clearer direction at this point is significant inflation

The following are several resources I have reviewed to come to these revised conclusions:

Perpetual Q.E. Without The Billboard, Hyper Monetary Inflation

Currency Wars, a highly rated new book on Amazon

The Great Supercycle

When Money Dies: The Nightmare of Deficit Spending, Devaluation, and Hyperinflation in Weimar Germany

This last book explains why a government in debt up to its eyeballs prefers wealth-stealing inflation over deflation:

The Inflation Deception: Six Ways Government Tricks Us...and Seven Ways to Stop It!

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

What “sells” indicates health of a culture

Urban Meyer, formerly the head football coach with the University of Florida, is undeniably one of America’s great coaches and a good model of a human being.

Meyer’s recent hiring by Ohio State for $4 million per year, plus bonuses, six-year contract got my attention.

I am no Occupy Wall Street punk who wants to deny anyone the ability to earn as much as he can.  I don’t deny the right of Meyer earning one of the top salaries in his field.  And I don’t deny the universities the right to establish sports programs as major “profit centers” to help fund their educational programs.

So what is my beef?  It is the value our culture places on various skills and fields.  Here, for example, is the value our culture places on college football coaches.

USA TODAY College Football Coach Salary Data

School

Head Coach

Total Pay

Max Bonus

     

Texas

Mack Brown

$5,193,500

$850,000

Alabama

Nick Saban

$4,833,333

$700,000

Oklahoma

Bob Stoops

$4,075,000

$819,500

Ohio State

Urban Meyer

4.000,000

$700,000

LSU

Les Miles

$3,856,417

$700,000

Iowa

Kirk Ferentz

$3,785,000

$1,750,000

Arkansas

Bobby Petrino

$3,638,000

$650,000

Auburn

Gene Chizik

$3,500,000

$1,200,000

Michigan

Brady Hoke

$3,254,000

$500,000

Florida

Will Muschamp

$3,221,000

$450,000

Georgia

Mark Richt

$2,939,800

$525,000

Compare this with the value our culture places on teachers, doctors, nurses, pastors, police, and our military.  Not even the best and brightest in these fields come close to the earnings of the top salaried college football coaches.

Football attracts patrons and advertisers who pay the big bucks because there is a demand for the “product.”  Why isn’t there as great a demand for great school principles?  For great head doctors of hospitals?  For great military leaders?  For the great leaders of churches?

Yes, the salaries are based on the cultural reality of what sells.  My beef is “what sells.”  Don’t you agree that a culture is in trouble when entertainment and games sell for much higher prices than the core of what makes a great culture:  Education, health, religion, and defense?

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Movie warning: J. Edgar

The perverts on the Hollywood left have been masterful on this one.  Not only have they assumed all the innuendo about J. Edgar Hoover’s alleged perversities in this movie, they hammer them into the viewers psyche by making these perversities the major theme.

In fact one statement toward the conclusion of this smear, portrayed as an objective 3rd party conclusion to Hoover’s life, is this line which I loosely quote:

“Love will flourish once the unnatural divisions of mankind can be overcome.”

The “unnatural divisions of mankind” that are referred to in the context of this statement is the distinction between male and female, and the gender roles to which our religion, culture and morality have historically ascribed .  In other words, those who abide by the heterosexual standard are the perverts, and those who eliminate those “horrible divisions” are the real heroes.

Is that a quote from something Hoover actually pronounced or is it the creation of the movie producers?  Since the movie proclaimed that virtually all of Hoover’s secret documents were destroyed, it is most likely a made up Hollywood wish.

Friday, November 25, 2011

Fewer children caused by fewer farms?

I remember my anthropology, sociology, and urban geography texts from a few decades ago in unison proclaiming:

With the decline of family farming it was no longer necessary to have large families to work on the farm, and thus entered the era of fewer children and smaller families.

Now at a safe distance from agenda-driven textbooks, I can proclaim that the reasons they gave for the decline in family size was a bunch of bull crap.  It was an agenda driven by the society-planning lust of the Zero Population Growth (ZPG) movement.  Remember Paul Ehrlich and The Population Bomb?   We will be living belly to belly, the earth will run out of resources,  and we will run out of food and die of slow, agonizing starvation.  That was the scare-demographics of the 60’s.  That was gospel.  When it was written, it was all the rage. Look at that book on Amazon today – most reviewers giving it one star with one reviewer correctly proclaiming “it can’t survive hindsight.”

Today we find ourselves in the US near zero population growth - on the edge of an unsustainably low birth rate.  At the same time native Europe has gone over the precipice into negative growth while the immigrant populations from impoverished North Africa and the Middle East, primarily Muslims, are burgeoning with 8 and 10 child families.

So, what caused the ZPG fad?  And is farming’s decline and industrialization’s growth the primary cause of the decline in the birth rate in the US?

I contend that the sociologist’s claim that families were large so there could be more cheap farm labor and families became smaller because family farms were displaced by industry is less relevant than they claimed.  It is true that many went to the cities for factory work.  And now those jobs are in the cities because of finance, banking, information technology, retailing, and a myriad of other employment opportunities.  But do any of these represent legitimate reasons for moms and dads producing fewer children?

Certainly there are other forms of family enterprises besides farming.  Farming isn’t the only enterprise that requires unskilled, semi-skilled, and skilled labor.  Restaurants, retail shops, numerous forms of small scale manufacturing, insurance, finance, real estate, construction; in fact dozens of forms of businesses are appropriate to be run by large families.  These businesses would benefit by a large tight-knit family every bit as much as a family farm would benefit.  What’s wrong with a few kids sweeping the floors?  A few teenagers waiting on customers and stocking the shelves, loading and unloading trucks?

So, getting the decline of farming out of the way as an excuse for falling birth rates, what else may be the cause?  The ZPG movement was one.   And what was behind that movement?  Could it be the same progressive, socialist, government planning and control-driven agenda that we have a renewed awareness of today – part of the top-down government-directed social planning liberals thrive on?  The “big government knows best” mentality? 

Is it the decline of religion in our country that taught “be fruitful and multiply?”  After all, most of the largest mainline denominations are declining in membership, and worse, their remaining membership has a declining belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.  So all the Biblical admonitions regarding procreation and the high value of the family are somewhat out of favor.

Nature abhors a vacuum.  To distort a phrase:  What religion has joined together, our lack of faith has cast asunder.  The decline of personal responsibility, reliance and initiative, the decreasing importance of the family,  the increasing reliance on government, and the decline of  faith and the church have all contributed to our declining birth rate.

Every change has consequences.  Not all consequences are good, and not all are intended.  We see the results, and the unintended consequences.  Jobs that have to be filled by illegal immigrants.  Other cultures and languages overrunning our own.  Such a dependence on illegal immigrants that we are politically paralyzed from taking action to stem the tide, even in an era of high unemployment, when millions of legitimate citizens are without work.  The demographics of many European countries are such that there are not enough young productive workers to support the huge and growing retirement populations in their socialist, entitlement societies.  That is a significant reason for Europe’s financial difficulties, along with their refusal to acknowledge and address this problem.  And this is the reason why there will be a shock-shift in European culture and religious influence from their comfort zone of centuries, to the shock of Islam and barbaric cultures of North Africa and the Middle East.

The US is not far behind.  It has the benefit of looking at Europe and seeing itself in that mirror 10 or 15 years from now.  We gave our kids over to government to educate.  We gave our health care over to government to heal, we gave our retirement obligations over to government to provide, we gave our moral standards over to government to bless.  Even the ability to procreate has been relinquished to government in the form of sanctioning gay marriage and abortion rights – both destroyers of families and sustainable population growth.

Don’t blame our failure to reproduce on our shift from agrarian to industrial, to an information economy.  Blame it on our selfish desire to reduce our responsibilities, to avoid God,  to avoid work, to marry late,  to avoid morality, to abort, to be entertained, to be uninformed, to have “someone else do it”, and our automatic expectation that "it is the job of government.”

Addendum:

I have received a few comments on this post.  One commenter got the impression from the post that I inferred a “conspiracy.”  This is my reply:

No, not a conspiracy. That relieves too much responsibility from our culture - it shifts the blame. It is an easy "out."

What has happened is the normal course of a successful society as it becomes more and more self-satisfied, comfortable, and complacent. We get bored. We become more "progressive". In our comfort zone we are confident enough to experiment more - to stray away from the historically tried and true.

The part that appears to be planned or a conspiracy because it occurs so universally at the same time is the "progressive" component of our culture on the order of the social planning in China - except we use more subtle means without the teeth. This comes primarily from the public schools, universities and liberal social media which accomplish nearly as much as the Chinese government but instead via peer pressure. It's "cool to do X"; it's "not cool to do Y". You can easily figure what X and Y are. They are usually opposites of what our culture has traditionally considered to be immoral and moral. The old tradition: Begin raising a family when you're in your early 20's; the new: Don't raise a family until after you establish a career - maybe by 35. The old: Don't have sex until you're married; The new: Have sex before you're married. After that the "new morality" became "don't have sex until you're 17"; now the "new cool" has become "have sex when you're 14." Old morality: Homosexuality was nearly universally considered as taboo a perversion as bestiality; New morality: Anyone who publicly opines that homosexuality is a perversion is ostracised if not charge with a hate crime. You get the drift.

No, not a conspiracy, but just as effective as if it were.

Another suggested it was a conspiracy via the secret consequences of fluoridated water.  This was my reply:

There are a number of reasons for a declining birthrate that are much more obvious than the effects of flouride in the water.

Isn't it obvious that the following would have a substantial, direct negative effect on birth rates?

    • Millions of preborn infants being aborted each year.
    • Millions of couples choosing not to have children until they are financially established well into their thirties.
    • Millions of couples choosing to have only one child or no children at all so they can spend more on themselves.
    • The very idea of marriage being discredited as an obsolete religious ritual
    • The very unreproductive gay lifestyle and gay marriage being glamorized and promoted by the media and protected by the law.
    • Sexual release being primarily a recreational activity than a procreation activity; and promoted more by pornography than by love and a desire to procreate.

Don't you think these more obvious things are the real reasons?

If flouride in the water were known to cause selfishness and immorality, THEN you may be on to something.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Bachman according to Barnhardt

Michelle Bachman’s judgment is not worthy of her presidency.  Nobody calls out her lack of judgment better than Ann Barnhardt.  As Ann says in so many words, if you have to rely on moral degenerates to energize your campaign, you may as well kiss it off.

On the Bachmann-Fallon Incident

Posted by Ann Barnhardt - November 23, AD 2011 8:59 PM MST

So, Ann, who are you supporting for President?

NO ONE. It's like a pageant has broken out on the fantail of the Titanic amongst the oblivious at 2:00am on the 15th with the winner to be announced upon docking at the port of New York. That's what this election cycle is like.

But just a quick word about the Michelle Bachmann appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show on NBC, wherein Fallon's band played a song called "Lying @$$ Bi***" to introduce Bachmann.

It goes without saying that Fallon, his band leader and production team are moral degenerates. That's obvious. What I want to talk about is Bachmann.

Okay. You want to be the President of the United States of America, Michelle? You want to be the Commander in Chief? You want to be the leader of the free (?) world? Um, if you can't see an ambush coming from Jimmy Flipping Fallon, who is a former SNL cast member (after the Phil Hartman era which is when SNL stopped being funny), and thus, by definition, a flaming liberal with no class who is wholly reliant on adolescent gutter humor, do you really think that you're qualified to be the CiC? I'm serious. If you and your staff aren't smart enough or self-aware enough to figure out that you don't go walking into obvious set-ups with slack-jawed TV talk show hosts, then do you REALLY think you are going to be able to go up against Putin or the ChiComs? Hon, if you get rolled by JIMMY FALLON, then you won't stand a chance against Hu Jintao.

But then, the very fact that the gateway to the Oval Office is now kept by the likes of undignified flotsam like Jimmy Fallon and these other TV carney hacks is just more proof that this country is officially, totally and irrevocably screwed.

My name is Ann Barnhardt, and I'm #OccupyingReality.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

On the Road to Argentina…

On this Thanksgiving Day in our United States we look at the news and can see how fragile our civilization is.  Our huge deficits, the unwillingness of our Congress to reverse old spending habits, the disdain of our President for the things that made our country prosperous and great, the ignorance and entitlement mentality of the Occupy Wall Street protestors who are clueless about the human qualities it takes to make a great civilization. 

While we have much to be thankful for, we also have a lot of work to do to overcome complacency and fear of how we can so easily lose what we have taken for granted.

This short history of what happened to Argentina is a frighteningly realistic prospect for the United States.  We have fulfilled much of Argentina’s blueprint that led to her failures.

Turn up your volume. 

This is a bit of a quirky video, so if a blue screen doesn’t come up, please hit your “refresh” button on your browser.

Don’t Cry for Me Argentina…

 
A first had account of what Argentina’s society became in 2000 after its moral, political and fiscal abuses is amply portrayed in the book “Surviving the Economic Collapse – Based on First Hand Experience of the 2001 Economic Collapse in Argentina” by Fernando Aguirre.
.
Below are three audio compilations of the views of Occupy participants and promoters assembled by Glenn Beck.  He did this to share with his family.  These clips chillingly show the direction we are headed.  HERE is the main page these are taken from.
 
.
.
For those who would like an alternative “Don’t Cry” to Madonna’s, here is a great one…

Sunday, November 20, 2011

“Tea Party” and “Occupy” Movements: How similar?

Have you heard claims that the Occupy movement is very much like the Tea Party?  Strange - it seems only the commentators on the left attempt to reach such conclusions.  What similarities does the left cite?
  • They are both large, politically motivated groups.  This is partially true.  They are both politically motivated.  But a deeper look at the Occupy movement reveals most participants are  clueless joy riders and riff raff participating in anarchist activities with no understanding of their purpose except to disrupt the lives of average citizens in the vicinity of their protests.
  • They both demonstrate.  True, but look at the characteristics of the way they each demonstrate.  There is a day and night contrast.
  • They are both concerned with corruption. Both are concerned about government and corporate corruption; the Occupy movement is more concerned about corporate existence.
  • They are both spontaneous.  Actually, most leftists portray the Tea Party movement as artificial; Astroturf, they call it.  The fact is, the Occupy movement has been planned for many months by a core group of Marxists.  The formation of the Tea Party was a true grass roots event.
That is the extent of similarities.
Now let’s take a look at the differences between the Occupy movement and the Tea Party movement:
Characteristics
Occupy Wall Street
The Tea Party
Who planned and formed it Marxists and radicals who hate America and desire revolution Conservatives who love America and want to reform it

Personal responsibility Little.  Relies on government for most needs

A core focus of the group.
Patriotism/love of country Dislikes America, the economic system and the political system; proposes revolution Proposes reform, not revolution.  Strongly exhibits patriotism.  How many American flags at Occupy events?  At Tea Party events?

Constitution Revolution is promoted which would replace the constitution Promotes returning to constitutional principles.

Spontaneous Organized, funded, and promoted by a core group of leftists and Marxists over the previous year Spontaneous alliances resulting from expansion of government into mandatory universal health care

Civil disobedience This is the core tactic of the movement; promotes anarchy Totally abstained from civil disobedience as a tactic; promotes order; speeches and education are primary tactics

Violence/arrests Significant violence and hundreds of arrests

No violence; no arrests
Littering/sanitation Demonstration sites became hovels of litter, poor sanitation and infectious disease

Demonstration sites left cleaner than found.
Capitalism/free enterprise Capitalism and free enterprise are the major targets of the movement Promotes capitalism and free enterprise as core values

Big vs. smaller government Want bigger government; more governement spending, welfare, and entitlements Want smaller government, less government spending and fewer entitlements

Marxism/income redistribution Promotes Marxist ideals and income redistribution Disdain Marxist principles; promotes principles of personal freedoms and responsibility

Respect for laws Little respect for law; incites violence through provocation, civil disobedience, and anarchy

Great respect for laws; no provocations; promotes ideal of “nation of laws.”
Knowledge of history/governance Great majority of demonstrators cannot express a coherent or rational reason for the protests or have a concept of historical forms of governance and their consequences. Most have a significant understanding of our government compared to competing forms.  This is the reason why they choose to promote a reformation of it - to more closely adhere to its founding principles.
So, there you have it.  Is the left correct?  Are these movements pretty much alike?  Oh yeah, as much as darkness and light.   This comparison is hardly “fair and balanced”, but it is the truth.  Give me the truth over “fair and balanced” any time.

Gingrich preparing for attacks–new web site

I know some of us are taking a second look at Newt Gingrich after Herman Cain’s recent stumble.  (We can be pretty fickle, can’t we.)

So, for those of us who are giving Gingrich a look and would like to intelligently come to his defense, he has a new website called “Answering the Attacks.”  Take a look at that site and book mark it.  It gives the Gingrich side of all the attacks he’s likely to face in the coming months.

He has written more books and made more speeches than any other candidate.  His previous words are a double edged sword:  They can be used to promote or attack.  He is preparing for attacks.

Just for the heck of it, here are Newt’s,  Herman’s and Mitt’s official web sites:

Newt Gingrich

Herman Cain

Mitt Romney

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Islam-embracing Al Gore network alert...

During some TV surfing, I came across a documentary titled “Islamophobia” on the “Current” network.  What I saw motivated me to write this blog to inform you of yet another leftist media outlet twisting the truth.

How many of you are aware of this new Al Gore-owned TV and web outlet?”

“Current” is a far left, America-hating, Islam and Marxist-embracing network that distorts facts , dismisses the Islamic threat and demonizes those who have studied and speak out about that threat.

From the Current website about Al Gore:

Former Vice President Al Gore is chairman of Current TV, an Emmy award winning, independently owned cable and satellite television nonfiction network for young people based on viewer-created content and citizen journalism. He also serves as chairman of Generation Investment Management, a firm that is focused on a new approach to sustainable investing.

About the company:

Current Media, the Peabody-and Emmy Award-winning television and online network founded in 2005 by Al Gore and Joel Hyatt, features the very best in political and news commentary and information programming. Home to the newly launched “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” as well as a number of celebrated programs including “Vanguard,” Current is dedicated to providing insightful analysis of important issues --- and digging deep into real stories to uncover how they affect real people. Current shines a light where other networks won’t dare and boldly explores provocative subjects – opening minds, sparking conversations and forming deep connections with its viewers.

Now showing on Current TV is a documentary titled “Islamophobia.”  Click HERE to see the trailer.   This Adam Yamaguchi-produced video is a leftist exercise in role reversal, portraying ACT! For America, Pamela Gellar and those of us who have studied and have learned the truth about Islam as dangerous, bigoted Islamophobes.  At the same time it portrays Islam in England and America as a benign non-threat, merely just another “religion” seeking peaceful coexistence.

The facts reveal otherwise.  Current, Gore, and Yamaguchi are blowing smoke, and frankly are seditious sympathizers with and promoters of an ideology that seeks to destroy our country.

Knowing what I know about Islam, the documentary “Islamophobia” is so far in left field that it discredits anything else Gore has to say about anything, and further discredits anything he has to say about his already discredited position on “global warming”.

And guess what. This network also hosts Islam-defending Cenk Uygur and leftist Keith Olbermann.

By the way.  Cenk Uygur was born and raised in a Sunni Muslim family and is a self-described "fervent agnostic".[1][38]  Yes, don’t most taqiyya-inspired Muslims claim they are “fervent” anything except Muslim.

What else do you need to know?

Friday, November 18, 2011

Occupy Wall Street Screwing the 99%

Ok.  Most of us realize that Occupy Wall Street planners and promoters represent Marxists, Socialists, and those who hate and wish to destroy Capitalism.  We understand that most participants are clueless pawns who have little desire to be decent productive citizens or who are leftists who love the idea of forced income redistribution.

The last bit of sympathy for any aspect of that anarchist movement dissolves when I understand what they are actually doing.  They are blindly attacking every American institution that supports our quality of life.  Not only do they target retail stores that our middle class relies on, not only do they target low cost transportation systems (the New York City subway system) that most workers use,  but here is something else to anticipate.

Next week is the Macy’s day parade – an All-American institution that celebrates Thanksgiving.  What do you think the Occupy Wall Street anarchists will do with THAT event?

How many laws do you think have been flaunted by Occupy participants in the dozen or so cities around the country?

How much tax money was spent on the law enforcement required to keep the mobs at bay?

You also need to understand that the Occupy movement is not just a domestic protest.  It is a global Marxist movement.

Study this poster for a moment.  “Mass…Direct Action” is NOT non-violent.  Shutting down cities, streets, transportation, and businesses cannot be non-violent.  The whole movement is a lie.

Look at the bottom text of this poster:  “Resist Austerity”  What does that mean?  Promote endless spending that has long since bankrupted our nation?  Perpetuate handouts so that the masses of able bodied protestors don’t have to work? 

“Recreate our democracy”:  Does that refer to the desires of these protestors to dominate the rest of us?  Pure democracy has been correctly termed “tyranny of the majority.”  Except in this case, the tyranny is being conducted by mobs of ignorant souls who would like to make us believe they represent the majority.  No way!

Here is a website that focuses on OWS events, organizers, and plans.  Use this resource in addition to your other sources of timely information.  I complement you for staying informed.  Spread the word. 

http://kleinonline.wnd.com/category/expose-occupy/

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Occupy envy, jealousy, and covetousness = Anarchy

I was thumbing through a Forbes and a Smart Money magazine while waiting at a bank this afternoon and several reasons for Occupy Wall Street came to mind.  What did I see that triggered these thoughts?

Ads.  The ads got my attention.  The primary purpose of advertising is to stimulate a strong desire for a product,  service, or idea.  In Smart Money and Forbes, and a dozen magazines and web sites just like them, the proliferation of full page and full color ads are dripping with $10 million Lear Jets, $120k Jaguars, $5k watches whose brands I’ve never heard of, and all manner of materialism that only those whose incomes are a million a year or more could possibly afford.  I would imagine that each ad cost tens of thousands of dollars to produce and twice as much to publish.  It is not just the fact that these advertised products are out of reach of 90% of our population.  It is the visceral feeling of many of us when we view such things is ostentatious, insatiable greed, and material one-upsmanship.  

Envy on one side

Those involved in Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and those who sympathize with them are emotionally impacted by the material display of wealth wagged in their face through both the advertising and the consumption of these wealth-flaunting objects .  What is the unintended consequence of this flaunting of materialism among the 90% of the “have nots?”  Jealousy, envy, and covetousness.  The acting out of many of these envious and jealous souls is socially irresponsible and in many cases unlawful.  The authority figures who  are supposed to be defending society against OWS lawlessness have not taken decisive action because many of these political leaders are sympathetic to the wealth disparity that the occupiers are protesting.

Greed on the other side

Granted, many wealthy individuals do a lot of good – in fact are the engine of prosperity for much of the rest of us.  I have no doubt that most who own the objects of wealth worked hard to earn every penny required to purchase them.  That is not the point.  The point is their decision to flaunt their wealth by their ostentatious display of materialism which many interpret as a form of superiority and taunting of those who haven’t reached their “level” for whatever reason. A good number are self-absorbed extravagant consumers who couldn’t care less about those beneath them.

Moral failures on both sides

This situation can best be described as a two-sided moral failure headed for a collision.  On the side of the wealthy, the moral failure is their material greed and their flaunting thereof.  On the side of the OWS/sympathizers is the moral failure of envy, jealousy, and covetousness.

The morally healthy person on either side of this divide would not act as they do.  The wealthy would not flaunt.  The non-wealthy would not covet.  Sure, government could force a redistribution, but that would not cure the moral conflict.  Redistribution would have equally bad, if not worse consequences, by reducing incentive to be productive (among both the “have mores” and the “have lesses”) and create a collective poverty.

Bottom line:  The confrontation we are seeing is not so much an economic problem; not even so much a political problem.  It is a moral problem.