Christian Representation in Iraqi Councils?

Increased Christian representatin on Iraqi Councils? Snowball's chance in hell.

Christians are being massacred in Iraq because they peaceably demonstrated for representation in the Iraqi government. So much for the promise of Iraqi democracy. As common sense and history should teach, there will be democracy in Iraq long enough for their leaders to fully implement Sharia law. For those not understanding that implication, Sharia law does not tolerate other religions very well.

There is a better chance that Obama will find a pro-American mentor than there is for the Iraqi government to tolerate demonstrations, never mind representation of Christians in their "democratic" government.

Democracy, by the way, is a two-edged sword: The majority can represent tyranny. Tolerance and liberty are much better ideals. But, unfortunately, the great majority of folk in Iraq are Muslim. 1,400 years of Islamic influence doesn't allow Muslims to tolerate. McCain's suggestion that it might take 100 years to achieve US objectives in Iraq might not be long enough to reverse 1,400 years of ingrained intolerance and violent habits.

We as a nation, especially our leaders, haven't yet grasped the fact that Muslims aren't Christians. They have a different value system. Their Koran is closer to our Old Testament on steroids without the New Testament. Legalism and vengence prevail. Grace, forgiveness, and tolerance are foreign to those folk. It is a safe bet that democracy is the wrong goal for us in Iraq. And I don't hold out much hope that the US will stomach devoting several hundred years of our resources to try to instill "grace, forgiveness, and tolerance" in that land.

Known by the Company You Keep...

But who really cares? Apparently, not many.

Ever since Jeremiah Wright's rabid feelings and philosphy about America became widely known last year, there has been radical after radical revealed as having been Obama's mentors, friends, and associates. Here are some of those associations along with some of his decisions based on those associations...

First his Muslim father,
...Then his Muslim stepfather,
...Then his aetheist mother,
...Then his decision to change his name from Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama
...Then his not-so-hot-on-America wife,
...Then Rev. Wright,
...Then his personal and business relationships with Tony Rezko, the corrupt Syrian Chicago developer,
...Then his expression that the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."
...Then his personal and community organizer relationships with Bill Ayers, the terrorist, which certainly went well beyond "just being in his neighborhood."
...Then the many associations with and support from leaders of the Nation of Islam, Islamic front groups, welfare, Communist and socialist organizations...

Is there any non-radical, non-socialist, non-Black Liberation thologist, non-Islamic, non-America hating, pro-American individual that has mentored Barrack Hussein Obama over the years?

The sad reality is, even if supporters of Barack Hussein Obama were convinced beyond any doubt that the above is all true, none of this would matter to them.

Why?

Because none of those "radicals" are radical or distastefull in the eyes of those who support Obama. There is such a lack of appreciation - not just lack of appreciation, but disdain for our culture and political system that none of Obamas' associations are seen as a negative. In fact, I would guess that while a small minority of his supporters may be put-off by these associations and influences, the greater majority are either indifferent or energized by them.

Note that most of Obama's supporters are from among Generation Ys (age 20-35 group) with a strong showing from the Xs (35 to 50).

A disproportionately large number of these folks are the ones who have slouched into becoming liberal (takeoff of William Bennett's "Slouching Toward Gommorrah") out of ignorance of our Christian heritage, and the history of our nations' struggles over the last couple of generations with their inherent sacrifices. They have no point of reference to what has made America great, most conspicuously, our founding sense of self-control and sacrifice.

So, it is only natural that these ignorant and deprived souls support a candidate who promises the easy way: fewer taxes and a massive increase in federal programs and entitlements. This is Obama's claim to fame - where his heart is - providing entitlements to those who lounge in their comfort zone of being the "oppressed" and "disadvantaged", mostly at the hands of the "enablers." Yes, the "enablers" - the well-off among us who have such pity for the "entitled" that they deprive them of the will to be self-sufficient by providing esteem and incentive squealching government handouts. There is much self-esteem, power and immediate gratification garnered by the enablers by arranging for these handouts.

After the "boomers" quit producing and paying taxes, the Gen Y/X liberals will go from feeding off the old folks to feeding off themselves - sort of like eating their young.

The election may or may not be a sqeaker - depending on the degree "the Bradley effect" is at play. But there is a growing liberal population who sees nothing wrong with radical causes and behaviors, and thus sees nothing wrong with associations with radicals.

God: Why Science Exists

As I was reading the introduction to The Shack by William P. Young, this thought about those atheists and agnostics who have a narrow but abosolute faith in Science crossed my mind. I thought I'd share...

It is this: There would be no need for science if there were not an unlimited number of undiscovered, unexplained, unknown, and seemingly unknowable things for science to prove or disprove. God fits in the category of things that science hasn't figured out. If it ever did, there would be no need for science. In the meantime, it would serve devotees of science well to accept the fact that God exists. Some scientists know him; some consider him unknowable. But to assert he does not exist is foolish - and unscientific.

In Bed...

Here's the picture:

Wachovia, a large "plum" financial institution in trouble.

Merger with a healthier institution required by FDIC.

FDIC arranges a $2.1 billion purchase by Citi Bank.

Wells Fargo offers $14.8 billion, which is favored by Wachovia stockholders and would not cost the taxpayers anything.

FDIC objects and files an injunction against the $14.8 billion deal. Further background is explained here.

This is a snapshot of the FDIC in bed with Citi Bank, ya' think?

Weird Presidential candidate pleas about economy

Both presidential candidates and many in Congress are pleading to pass the $700 billion bailout to enable Americans to get more credit to keep the economy going. In their next breath they bemoan the fact of our excessive national and personal debt. Isn't there a disconnect here?

Am I the only one confused by this?

From Wikipedia: "As of September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion[2], about $31,700 per capita (that is, per U.S. resident). Of this amount, debt held by the public was roughly $5.3 trillion.[3] Adding unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, and similar obligations, this figure rises to a total of $59.1 trillion, or $516,348 per household.[4] In 2007, the public debt was 36.9 percent of GDP [5], with a total debt of 65.5 percent of GDP.[6]"

Consumer debt alone is nearly $2.6 trillion dollars. This is about $8,500 in debt for every man, woman and child - not including mortgage debt.

We have been warned for decades that this magnitude of national and consumer debt is excessive and will come back to bite us some day. While that debt is in the midst of biting us (it is the root cause for the current failure of our financial system), our leaders are in the process of getting us $700,000,000,000 MORE in debt so that that consumers can get themselves more in debt.

What am I missing here. I know there are two theories of national fiscal policy. One is that we ought to avoid "excessive" quantities of national and personal debt. The other, and the one that we are told we need to follow to "survive" is that national and personal debt are essential (without limit?) to maintain our national and personal prosperity.

Have we, as a nation, passed the fiscal "point of no return" whereby we have no choice but continue to embrace suicidal economic policies to prolong the agony? Or does someone really know what they are doing and things are not as bad as they seem?

Announcing: The Politically Correct Bill Marriott

Last night I viewed the Marriott Hotel web site and noticed a blog by the firms president, Bill Marriott. Here it is, along with comments he invites from others who offered their condolences and heartfelt expressions of how terrible the tragedy was.

I similarly responded, expressing my sincere condolences along with my concerns about how long it took for firefighters to respond to contain the blaze - which they never did. I commented with words similar to my previous blog on this topic, below. I followed up by adding that my hope is that this terrible event should not dissuade democracies from asserting our efforts for freedom to overcome worldwide Islamic fascist terrorism.

Mr. Marriott chose not include my comments among the responses to his blog. Let me speculate as to why my comments were not included.

In his politically and corporately correct style which is shared by many of his American corporate cohorts, he chose not to call a spade a spade for fear of offending someone. He is not into feather ruffling. He wouldn't want to turn the Pakistani government, or, Allah forbid, the Islamabad Fire Department against him. He wouldn't want his hotel to burn to the ground. Oh, wait, it already did!

He is, obviously, taking the "long view." He will continue to be "easy to get along with" and "not easily offended" so he can get back to making the big bucks in a nation that is likely to kill his employees, a nation whose firefighters and top leadership are likely secretly wallowing in the success of their retribution.

This priority is consistent with Mr. Marriott's other top buck making priorities of continuing the policy of showing porn throughout his hotel chain, despite his purported religious beliefs.

This is so typical of our political and corporate "leaders." Their personal beliefs mean practically nothing in the practice of their governmental and business affairs. This is true whether the personal belief is "pro-life" or "pro-morality". If the belief doesn't get them elected or does not enhance "the bottom line" then to hell with it - literally.

For anyone who wonders why we are a declining nation, this is as good a starting point as any.

Slowest Response to a Major Fire I've Ever Seen

I was watching live scenes of the Islamabad, Pakistan, Marriott hotel fire this morning. The first scenes broadcast on Fox cable appeared to be about 30 minutes or so after the initial Islamic terrorist bombing occurred. No fire fighting was in sight. Only after 30 to 40 additional minutes of broadcast time (well over an hour after the initial blast) did any visual of firefighting appear - one lone stream of water aimed erratically at the hotel.

Like Saudi Arabia, one has to wonder about the dedication of this "significant ally" toward the defense of American interests. I would not be surprised if there was a purposeful deference toward allowing the hotel to burn - a show of Pakistani and radical Islams' disdain toward American efforts to thwart Islamic "extremism" (or Islamic "mainstremism" is perhaps more accurate) in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Pakistan appears to have gotten a bit edgy since the US has become more effective in thwarting al Quida activity in the border regions between itself and Afghanistan. This is our "slap on the wrist" for daring to be effective - which Pakistan does not have the will to be.

The Stockholm Syndrome and Trickle Down Theory

As a conservative, a blasphemous thought has encroached into my mind concening the benefits of the "trickle down" theory we often hear about during discussions of how to stimulate the economy. I wonder whether most of us might be subject to the Stockholm Syndrome in this regard.

The conservative's solution to economic woes is usually centered around "the trickle down" theory. The opposite solution embraced by most liberals and many moderates is "tax the rich and tax big business" because they can afford it.

In an article entitled "Trickle-Down Ignorance" by Thomas Sowell (April 2, 2005) he states:

"What is often confused with a trickle-down theory is supply-side economics, such as that advocated by Arthur Laffer. That theory is that tax cuts can generate more tax revenue for the government because it changes people's behavior, causing more economic activity to take place, leading to more taxable income, as well as a faster growing economy.

Sowell continues: "Whether it will happen in a given set of circumstances is what is controversial, but none of this has anything to do with money trickling down from the rich to the poor. It has to do with the creation of more wealth in the economy as a whole."

The question I am plagued with: Does "the creation of more wealth in the economy as a whole" necessarily mean that the middle and lower classes benefit? Or do we just hope we will benefit? Does this merely result in the rich just getting richer and the middle and poor getting poorer?

Turning to the "Stockholm syndrome" for a moment, as Wikipedia defines it, the

"Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which they have been placed. The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg, Stockholm, Sweden, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28 in 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their victimizers, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal."

The Stockholm Syndrome is "Loyalty to a more powerful abuser — in spite of the danger that this loyalty puts the victim in — is common among victims of domestic abuse, battered partners and child abuse (dependent children). In many instances the victims choose to remain loyal to their abuser, and choose not to leave him or her, even when they are offered a safe placement in foster homes or safe houses. This mental phenomenon is also known as Trauma-Bonding or Bonding-to-the-Perpetrator."

I wonder if the poor and middle classes who support the idea of the "trickle down theory" are subject to the Stockholm Syndrome?" Out of years of conditioning, are we being loyal to a more powerful abuser - in spite of the disadvantages we might reap from buying into the alleged benefits of trickle down theory espoused by the wealthy and big business (the "abuser")?

Before we buy into the alleged benefits of the trickle down theory with its' tax cuts for the wealthy and big business, let's understand whether or not there are any real economic benefits for the rest of us. Let's dare to step out of the shadow of the abuser and look at objective evidence. As Sowell wrote, all too often we take one side of an issue for granted and blindly accept it as fact without bothering to understand the other side.

It is way too easy for us to feel excessively dependent on the wealthy to make our economy work as the easy way to continue feeling comfortable and taken care of.

Let's not be intimidated by those who might be abusers who use us to further their quest for tax-free and often obscenely excessive wealth.

Suddenly Seasoned Sarah

Two days ago (pre-convention speech), Sarah Palin's liberal critics declared her a small town nobody, a run-of-the-mill soccer mom, lacking experience, and not fit for the vice-presidency, never mind president.

Well, irony of ironies, after the speech those same critics now disdainfully declare her to be "a seasoned politician" and acting like a "Washington insider." After those diametrically opposed characterizations, they are likely next to declare her "schizophrenic", all self-invented fabrications by McCain's opponents.

What is even more confusing (and disingenuous) are the comments from liberal feminists and their close friends, the mainstream media. They whine that she will be neglecting her family if she is VP, after their decades of trying to bust women through the glass ceiling. Why isn't the same criticism leveled against the male fathers in office? They chastise her daughter for an out of wedlock pregnancy while screaming for "freedom of choice." I guess they would have preferred to assert their "freedom of choice" to abort the pregnancy, aka "kill the baby." They minimize and mock the courageous and right choice made in raising a downs syndrome child. (Again, abortion is their answer.) Make up your minds, fems. Which way do you want it? You're confusing me!

Politics is strange. It verges on other-worldly insane. If an individual exhibited the same inconsistent spoutings as the left has exhibited over the past week, there would have been a family intervention by now. Perhaps these inconsistent rants are the early signs of a liberal campaign becoming unraveled. Hmmm.

My previous post expressed initial doubts about McCains' VP selection, doubts based on knowing very little about his choice. Frankly, I thought there were better choices - most notably Mit Romney. However, the more I hear from and about Sarah Palin, the more confident I am becoming about her likely effectiveness and the good she may do for this country. She will definitely be one who will be fun to watch in the coming weeks as she goes head to head with the Obama camp and the derisive media.

First Thoughts About Palin as McCain's VP

Yes, she's a conservative...good
Yes, she is pro-life...good
Yes, she is a woman...good
Yes, she is well-spoken and spunky...good.

But beyond that who is she? A maverick? A governor for a couple of years?

She is, to most of us, a great unknown. And there is not enough time for the public to get to know her well enough in the next two months for her to be an asset to the ticket. Will she be effective in her new responsibilities? Is she equipped to assume the presidency when the President dies in office? She will likely add some female and conservative boost to the ballot. Yes, she is likely to do these things for the ticket. But does she help create the best ticket for this nation? Is her level of experience what we need at this point in our history? She is too green for the job in spite of whatever talents she has.

In fact, my first impression is that McCain missed the mark by putting "getting elected" above securing the best candidate. But then, this is politics - the art of argument and compromise. As McCain sees it, if he doesn't do everything to get elected, there is nothing on the other side.

One of two things will happen. The electorate will agree that she does not add sufficient credibility to the ticket, and McCain will not be elected. Or, McCains' primary reason for selecting Palin - to get himself elected - will work, and the American people will have a Vice President ill-equipped for the task.

Time will tell. I hope I'm wrong.

Fiddling while Washington's Nuked - Why We Aren't Prepared

The current tendencies of this nation and much of our population are troublesome in several respects:

Immigration: Inability to assimilate as fast as immigration is being allowed, inviting excessive and violent cultural change in the coming years; disregard for the law by not enforcing the immigration standards we have.

Cult of "cultural diversity" and "tolerance": Belief that anyones values, culture, beliefs, religion, and behaviors are as good as, if not superior, to our own - being "tolerant" to the point of self-destruction.

Ignorance about the breadth and intent of radical Islam: What proportion of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world would like to control our nation and dictate their religious standards to the rest of our population?

Lack of defenses for the most likely violent threats to our political system, economy, and infrastructure.

Here is a site worth exploring that describes these threats in vivid detail.

The Obama Nation: Why It is Bad for Our Wellbeing

A must read about Barack Hussein Obama - "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality" by Jerome Corsi. My daughter gave me Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" for Christmas 19 months ago. I may just buy her this book for a pre-election present. Here is Amazon's website for it.

The reviews of this book on Amazon reflect the polarization of this nation's readers. This is a love it or hate it book. Based on the number of pro and con reviews, most readers are Obama supporters which apparently means reading doesn't necessarily equate with common sense.

Now my take on the polarization of review comments for this book:

Reviewers either want their country to remain strong and free or weak and subject to the tyranny of others.

Reviewers either want to keep more of their own money to do what they believe is best with it, or agree to have more of their money forcibly taken by the government to give to others who won't do for themselves.

Reviewers either cherish their heritage, beliefs and culture, or believe any other heritage, belief, and culture is just as valuable, whether it be that of radical Islamists, perverts, or socialists.

Reviewers either respect and trust the wisdom and experience of age, or they are viscerally attracted to youthfulness, groundless promises, and ignorant ideas.