Muccings

Florida Highway Patrol Priorities Screwed Up

2012-01-29T19:15:00.001-05:00

Several months ago the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) made the news with their illegal, self-serving practice of citing drivers for flashing their headlights at oncoming vehicles to warn of a speed trap ahead. Apparently some officers were put off by the good Samaritans who kept others from getting ticketed which messed up the cop’s quotas for the month.

Today the FHP made the news by failing to close off a section of I-75 north of Orlando where they were aware of heavy smoke and fog resulting in 12 deaths.

Several dead in multiple crashes on I-75: MyFoxORLANDO.com

Twelve cars and seven semi’s were involved in the accident. More HERE. The FHP closed the road briefly, and inexplicably opened it up again. Moments later the deadly crashes began.

Let’s see: Ticketing drivers for encouraging other drivers to slow down and then failing to close down a highway resulting in a dozen deaths. Hmmmm.

It seems obvious to me that some pretty poor decision-making has been going on in that agency. Does anyway else see a problem with this?

“Judge not…”: The most abused verse in Scripture

2012-01-27T23:16:00.001-05:00

I participated in a Bible study on Matthew at a Catholic church the other night.

The video-taped teacher quickly glossed over Matthew 7:1 “Judge not lest ye be judged.” Or another translation: “Do not judge, so that you won’t be judged.” He gave a six second reprise of the the common admonition to refrain from judging because we are all sinners and who are we to point out sin in others.

Our post-Christian culture has aborted the real meaning of this verse in favor of abstaining from discernment of right and wrong, good and evil. This goes a long way in explaining the decline of morality in our nation.

This mistaken interpretation was demonstrated by another class member who said “we should never judge an individual because he has his reasons for doing what he is doing that we may not be aware of. We should never judge another’s motives.”

Wrong ! Wrong! Wrong!

This verse needs to be understood in context. Jesus is addressing the problem of hypocrites. Jesus never says “everyone” is a hypocrite. And not everyone is a hypocrite. Even if you believe most people are hypocrites, maybe even ourselves, you probably know some fine people who are not. He is pointing out that those who ARE hypocrites have no credibility when they call attention to the shortcomings of others.

So, is it ok for the “non-hypocrite” to point out the sins of others? Absolutely. When we cease being hypocrites – when we take the log out of our own eye - we are then in a position to take the speck out of our brother's eye. (verse 5). As one commentary states: “Believers DO have a responsibility to help one another repent of sins, but only after first dealing with their own serious sins.”

And yes, we are called to judge the character and motive of others. The Holman Bible Dictionary declares: “The interpretation of Matthew 7:1 that Christians should not make value judgments of the behavior of others is shown to be erroneous by multiple commands in Scripture to do exactly that.”

The Bible is replete with examples of a Godly mandate to judge. The prophets of the Old Testament surely judged. Look at Isaiah for example. And in the New, look at Matthew 7:15-20, John 7:24, and 1 Timothy 3:10. Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:10 called for distinguishing between spirits, evil and otherwise. Paul in Romans doesn’t hold back in judging homosexuality as sin. Are we not to judge the behavior and chosen lifestyle of the homosexual? Or the thief, or the adulterer?

We shouldn’t judge the “motive” of others? Really? A finding of guilt or innocence of someone charged with a crime requires determination of “motive” in addition to “means” and “opportunity.” The business person is wise to judge the motive and character of one he chooses as a business partner.

What would become of our culture if…

We eliminated judging character and morality as a couple of the most important criteria for voting for the best candidate?
All judges across the land were prohibited from judging because we are all sinners?
We determined that faithfulness and character in choosing a spouse was off limits?
Judging character and loyalty as the best reasons for choosing our friends was declared unscriptural?
We no longer could judge faith, loyalty, and dedication as the basis for choosing leaders in our churches?

This leads to the biggest cancer of all: Moral relativity. This is the cultural disease where we believe no one’s actions, words, religion, or politics are better or truer than anyone else’s. They are all just as good. They are all just as true. The Muslim on the plane should not be judged because Islam is no better, no worse than Christianity. And that Muslim probably doesn’t know any better, just like the child predator may not know any better. That’s just their beliefs. Their motives should not be judged.

You’ve GOT to be kidding.

Our rampant erroneous interpretation of Matthew 7:1 denies the concept of good and evil, right and wrong, truth and lies. This is the very thought pattern that is leading this nation into moral decay. This is why our mainline religious denominations have accepted abortion, gay ministers, and gay marriage. This is why we are tolerating all manner of vile entertainment and immoral behavior of teenagers and selfish greed among our electorate.

Just as we as a nation must become energy-responsible by adopting the policy of “drill, baby, drill”, we also need to become morally responsible by adopting a personal policy of “judge, baby, judge.” But we can do this only after we do all we can to build our own character so that we are worthy to put into practice the judging God calls us to do.

Hundreds of military tanks move in California…

2012-01-23T20:37:00.001-05:00

Take a look at this video of a very long train full of military tanks heading southbound south of Santa Cruz, California…

Then tell me what you think these tanks are going to be used for.

Either….

A. Recently manufactured as routine replacement in various parts of the world.

B. For use in the Middle East/Iran

C. For use in Korea

D. For use in the United States.

E. All of the above

F. Other ______________________________________________

I could understand that these tanks were simply new off the production line if there were a merely dozen or so being transported such as we see when new cars are in transit, 6 or 8 at a time, on auto carriers on the Interstates. But this many tanks in one haul represents a major repositioning.

I lived in South Florida during the Cuban Missile crisis and remember seeing convoys of military vehicles of this magnitude heading toward Homestead Air Force Base. That sight gave pause.

Gingrich in surprise SC win…

2012-01-21T20:35:00.001-05:00

Well, it surprised me, anyway.

A week ago I predicted a Romney/Santorum win in this conservative and evangelical state with Gingrich coming in third. I wasn’t alone.

Thanks to a timely rant that resonated with the South Carolina electorate against a shallow Desperate Housewife-type question by CNN’s John King, Gingrich is the winner. Not by a small margin, either. Early indications are Gingrich 44%, Romney 22%.

In fact Gingrich’s spirited chastening resonated so well nationwide that FOX Business commentator Neil Cavuto was endowed with hundreds of irate comments on his web site for being critical of Newt’s criticism. Cavuto continues his uphill obsession with defending his fellow newsmen on his website HERE.

What Cavuto and most media do NOT understand is this: There is waaaaaaay too much media pandering to gossip, social screw-ups of the rich and famous, and fun but insanely insignificant trivia of everyday life. The neighborhood gossip is Mother Teresa compared to the content priorities of the media.

Those of us who are really concerned about the direction of our country are also really pissed off at the lack of serious discussion about the serious issues facing our country. I’m glad Gingrich won for this reason alone.

Who endorses Gingrich, Romney?

2012-01-21T17:48:00.001-05:00

A check of who is endorsing who helps to identify deeper ideological differences between the candidates.

While there is an exception or two, governors and moderates tend to endorse Romney and conservatives and Tea Party folks tend to endorse Gingrich.

Here is a sampling of who has endorsed who so far…

Gingrich:

Chuck Norris

Michael Reagan

Rick Perry, Texas Governor

Sarah Palin

Tim LaHaye

Frank Gaffney

Romney:

John Huntsman

Bob McDonnel, Virginia Governor

John Bolton

Nikki Haley, South Carolina Governor

Bill Haslam, Tennessee Governor

What does this tell us about the candidates? Let’s see what we can learn from this.

The most obvious, Governors gravitate toward former governors.

John Bolton is an interesting case. His endorsement is odd because of Romney's weak stance on Islam compared to Gingrich’s. But then again this may be understandable since Bolton was an advisor to Bush when Bush claimed Islam was a “religion of peace.” Bush received some pretty poor advice. I suspect Bolton has some antipathy toward Gingrich since earlier Gingrich said he would like Bolton as his Secretary of State, although this could have been an endorsement bribe.

This list, or an expanded version of it, may be a good guide to who you may want to vote for. Which endorsers do you most respect?

I have a great deal of respect for Chuck Norris, Michael Reagan, Sarah Palin, and Frank Gaffney. Gaffney in particular has one of the clearest understandings of Islam, even to the extent that he has been labeled an Islamophobe by the Soros-funded far left. That is a good thing. From what I’ve learned from Romney’s national security advisors, I would rather have Frank Gaffney advise Gingrich than Walid Phares advise Romney.

Gingrich comes closer to defining Islamic threat…

2012-01-21T10:36:00.001-05:00

Even Newt Gingrich, in his attempts to tell the truth about Islam, falls short in his description of that particular enemy. Here is his statement from his website:

Understand our enemies and tell the truth about them. We are engaged in a long war against radical Islamism, a belief system adhered to by a small minority of Muslims but nonetheless a powerful and organized ideology within Islamic thought that is totally incompatible with the modern world.

This is somewhat more accurate than Romney’s position which is basically “Jihadism is no part of Islam.” At least Gingrich dares to name the name “Islam.” Romney disassociates Islam from Jihadism which is both cowardly and wrong. Obama disassociates all Islamic terror from any term associated with Islam, whether it be Jihad, terrorism, or any word the media has used in the last 10 years associated with violence in the name of Islam.

The kind of speech given in the video below at least gives hope that someone understands:

But saying “…radical Islamism [is] adhered to by a small minority of Muslims… within Islamic thought…” also misses the mark.

Radical Islamism is the CORE of Islamic thought. It may not be the core of most Muslim thought, but it IS the core of Islamic thought.

C’mon people, wake up!

Romney’s position on Islam makes little sense…

2012-01-20T17:19:00.001-05:00

I like Mitt Romney as a person. But some of his statements about Islam are beyond odd. They show a shallow, misinformed understanding of the nature of that ideology and the threat we face from Islam. One misinformed sounding quote is “Jihadism is no part of Islam.” Most recently he called Lebaonon “a democracy” and praised Hezbollah for its health care program.

Desiring clarification of the statement that “Jihadism is no part of Islam,” and understanding that Walid Phares is a national policy advisor to Governor Romney, I emailed Dr. Phares and asked if he would straighten out my rather unfavorable understanding of Romney’s statement.

Beth Malik, on behalf of Dr. Phares replied. She provided a link (below) to an American Thinker article that elaborates Romney’s position which, in essence, is that Jihadism is the national security threat, and not all of Islam.

I replied that my concerns were not resolved by her answer but in fact were confirmed.

Beth replied once again, and again confirmed that Romney’s concern is limited to Jihadism, not Islam –they only consider Jihadism as the threat and not the ideology (Islam) that promotes that threat. She further stated that Romney’s position is “very sophisticated” and “very advanced”, especially in comparison with the other candidates who only use the term “radical Islam” without defining it.

Unfortunately that comparison is NOT true. Here is a quote from the New York Times on one of Newt Gingrich’s views on the Islamic Threat:

Long before he announced his presidential run this year, Newt Gingrich had become the most prominent American politician to embrace an alarming premise: that Shariah, or Islamic law, poses a threat to the United States as grave as or graver than terrorism.

That doesn’t sound like an ill-defined comment on “radical Islam.” It is a statement that defines the real threat of the political essence of Islam: Sharia Law.

The facts surrounding Islam’s founding, doctrine, historical practice, and statements of Islam’s leaders today lead me to believe that the Romney campaign is grossly out of touch with the Islamic threat to our way of life.

Read through the sequence of emails, below, and then let me know, with your comments, if you believe Romney’s position on Jihad and Islam are adequate to address the threat.

__________________________

My Original Message…

From:

To: phares@walidphares.com

Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 5:05 PM

Subject: internet visitor

Walid:

Are you still an advisor to Mitt Romney (Ihope)?

If so, is he listening to you?

I ask this because of an occasional quote I hear from him such as this one:

“Jihadism is not part of Islam.”

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/06/03/mitt-romney-jihadism-is-not-part-of-islam

That may as well be Barack Obama saying this. And we don’t need that kind of ignorance in the White House.

Please straighten out my understanding of this.

Thanks,

________________________________

Phares Reply…

From: Walid Phares [mailto:phares@walidphares.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:19 PM
To:
Subject: Re: internet visitor

Dear

I have forwarded your message to Professor Phares who indeed is a Senior Advisor to Governor Romney

He asked me to forward this article to you, which he recommends. He believes these notions are somewhat explained in the piece

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/gingrich_and_romney_on_jihad.html

From what I understand the Governor meant that Jihadism is the actual national security threat and it is not all of Islam. Meaning it is the doctrine that openly threatens the US. One can still debate any religion theologically in a free society but the component that is a direct menace is Jihadism. It targets non Muslims and moderate Muslims aliek. That's my reading of the Gov.'s position

Don't hesitate to contact Dr Phares in the future.

Can you send us your web site, blog or your CV to have it on file?

Best

Beth Malek

Assistant

___________________________________

My Reply….

From:

To: 'Walid Phares'

Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:46 PM

Subject: RE: internet visitor

Beth:

Thank you for your reply.

I understand the essence of the American Thinker article, that Mr. Romney does not dwell on the literalist interpreters version of Islam, that he thinks Islam itself is benign, that there is a radical element that has attached itself to Islam that is the problem.

It is exactly that position with which I whole-heartedly disagree. The historic Islamic doctrine, as taught and promoted by the dominant Islamic leaders today, is what informs and serves as the basis for Islamic intolerance and hatred toward the west today. Yes, there are Muslims who are uninformed about their faith, nominal Muslims who prefer western values just as there are “nominals” of every religion. But unlike Christianity, devoutness of Muslims increases what we call the “radicalization of Muslims.” The more devout Muslims tend to be the more radical Muslims become, do they not? Doesn’t that inform us at all about the nature of Islam?

I’m sorry to say that the answer you offer only adds to my concern about Mr. Romney’s position on Islam.

Sincerely,

_________________________

Phares Reply…

From: Walid Phares [mailto:phares@walidphares.com]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: internet visitor

Let me try one more time to explain a notion that is very sophisticated.

I don't think Governor Romney is saying that Islam is benign or not. These are your words. There are some in town who state that either one would take a position on all of Islam and Muslims based on texts or not.

In theological debates one can proceed in religion and philosophies analysis. You are free to base your theological or political judgement on your understanding of it. There is no quarell.

But the Governor and decision makers do not state their position based on theological grounds. They look at the threat and defines it. The threat that actually targets and organize, and is moving forward is not theological texts. It is made of networks, finances and political forces. He coins them as Jihadists. If you have noted he didn't say Islam is a religion of Peace or Islam is a religion of war. He said a majority of Muslims are peaceful, and that is a reality. And said the organized force that is targeting us are the Jihadists (including regimes and groups) and that too is a fact.

Reaching that point in national security is very advanced. The other candidates said the threat is "Radical Islam" thinking they made an advance. In fact they aren't able to define what it is.

Now, if you as a citizen wish to declare that the threat is a theology in the absolute, that is your view not the one of Governor Romney, not even the other ones, as they make a distinction between 'radical Islam" and Islam

I do respect your views and hope you success in your debates

Best

Beth

_______________________________

My Reply…

Thank you again for your reply, Beth.

Many believe it is foolhardy to isolate the tactics (Jihadism) from the ideology (Islam). Such separation squanders potential understanding of the motivation behind the Jihadism that we are fighting. It results in us not knowing our enemy as well as we need to.

In fact, here is something more advanced than separating the tactics from the ideology: Consider Islam as (primarily) a political ideology using “religion” as a protection. Think “Communism or Fascism cloaked in religious zeal.”

After all, as many point out (Warner, Spencer, and others), the Islamic holy books devote most of their space to how Muslims should think and act with regard to the “infidel”, “unbeliever”, and “apostate.” Their ideology is political also because their belief system is mandatory/coercive, not optional, e.g. Sharia Law. It is enforced through force – I’m certain you know all this.

This raises a question: Do Walid or Mitt believe the attempt to impose Sharia law in this country is either part of Islam or part of Jihadism?

Ignoring the texts of this ideology is like ignoring Mein Kampf or the Manifesto. There is little difference. The only reason for ignoring this parallel that makes any sense to me is perhaps in the mind of some ignoring these similarities may be out of fear of offending or inciting Muslims predisposed to hate us. If we persisted with such fears with regard to the other two cited ideologies, we would be speaking Russian or German. I hope that is not the thinking of the Romney advisors.

Sincerely,

Willful ignorance vs. Shallow convictions

2012-01-19T18:29:00.001-05:00

Have you ever encountered a situation where you thought you were on the same page with someone concerning a moral issue, but they turn on you when discussing this topic with a third party friend of theirs?

This is a “Peter denial, cock-crowing moment”. This is a situation where siding with a friend (or peers, as in “peer pressure”, or “political correctness” as in politics) was more important than that individual’s so-called “moral convictions.”

I experienced this recently concerning the topics of abortion and gay marriage. The “third party” individual I was having this discussion with has spent most of her 40 years of life in la la land* and claims “I should be able to do what I want with my body” referring to her right to abort. At the same time 1) she claims to know and believe the Bible, 2) she understands that there is another body – not her own – inside the body of an aborter, 3) she proclaims belief in gay marriage, and 4) she self-righteously exclaims “don’t tell me what to believe” when I challenged the basis for her opinions.

Short review: She is clueless about this whole issue and doesn’t care a whit about the illogic of her attitude – which goes far in explaining why she has achieved little in life.

Enter now the individual who has consistently expressed her convictions that abortion and gay marriage are both wrong. Witnessing the immoral and illogical statements of her friend, instead of supporting the Biblically moral position that she has expresses in private many times, she instead tells me I am wrong and demands the end of the discussion. Whoa!! A voodoo head-spin moment. Blindside alert! Time to shake the dust off my sandals.

This brief encounter included this paraphrased exchange:

Her: “I can do whatever I want to do. I want to do what I want to do.”

Me: “The essence of the Bible chronicles our human willfulness against God.”

Her: “Don’t tell me what I know. I know the Bible.”

Voodoo head spin lady to me: “She’s right. Be quiet.”

Me, thinking to myself: Shocked, dumbfounded, betrayed, silenced.

And I concluded to myself that it is more difficult witnessing the denial of one who you thought believed than the denial of one who never did.

John 18:25-27 –Meanwhile, as Simon Peter was standing by the fire warming himself, they asked him again, “You’re not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it, saying, “No, I am not.” But one of the household slaves of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Didn’t I see you out there in the olive grove with Jesus?” Again Peter denied it. And immediately a rooster crowed.

Denying the truth of the Scriptures is the same as denying Christ.

__________________________

* La la land: An attitude toward life that maintains no serious commitment or endeavor, that dwells on pop-entertainment and gossip, that rejects moral principle, that relies on the largess of others for survival, and who is satisfied in that condition. A place that is remote from reality.

Why moderation toward Islam won’t work

2012-01-17T17:53:00.001-05:00

Today I heard one possible defense of the terminal political correctness concerning Islam embraced by most of our political leaders. And it comes from law enforcement professionals.

Here it is:

Don’t offend Muslims with the truth: They may be our best snitches.

Here is the rationale. If we avoid the truth about Islam – it’s historical intolerance, its advocacy and practice of violent Jihadism, its hatred of Jews and Christians, its vile treatment of women, its lying and deceit to further its cause, its barbaric Sharia law, and its demands for tolerance from the infidel – if we disassociate Islam from all of these beliefs and practices, we will be less likely to offend Muslims and better able to recruit Muslim informants so we can discover the really bad stuff being promoted by the “radicals” within Islam.

Mitt Romney has done this by saying “Jihadism is no part of Islam.” Did he say this so that we can gain the confidence of “moderate” Muslims to assist in our intelligence gathering efforts against the “radicals?” Or did he say it out of ignorance? It is hard to tell the difference. Either way – an accommodation tactic or ignorance - it is not the truth.

The question becomes: How do we “not offend” and tell the truth at the same time? Especially since the Muslim version of slander isn’t our version of slander: Lies to demean the good character of another. The Muslim understanding of slander is anything that offends, whether it is the truth or not. The Islamic culture will not tolerate the truth if it offends them. They consider such truth “immoral” just as much as we (well, most of us) consider lying immoral.

So, the standard that we need to accept so that we do not offend Muslims is to avoid the truth about Islam. This appears to be the course that most of our politicians have adopted, including much of our law enforcement.

The problems with this approach will ensure our defeat as a nation and culture.

First and foremost, it sacrifices the very core of the morality upon which our nation is founded and continues to exist: Truth. If we are forced to evade the truth about an enemy that seeks to destroy us, we have lost.

Which brings up the second problem - ignoring the first rule in Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”: Know your enemy. More completely, it reads:

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

In a republic such as we are endowed with, if the truth about the enemy is kept from the masses, it is the same as the enemy not being known. The people, if kept in ignorance, will not be informed well enough to elect the leadership required for our survival. The people are kept in the dark. This is the sad consequence whether the intelligence community and political leadership know the truth or not.

The third problem is that the strategy of not offending Muslims has its roots in the mistake of considering Islam a religion. This results in our blind defense of Muslims. Why do we do this? We feel that it is un-Christian, or unkind, or inappropriate to insult Muslims because we are conditioned to accept ALL religions as worthy of respect and protection. This certainly wasn’t true concerning Warren Jeffs of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who now spends his life in jail. What is the difference? He based his actions on the teaching of his religion. Here it is: Muslims are excellent at playing victim and threatening others with litigation or intimidation of various sorts. The rest of us are not that good at playing the victim card.

If not a religion, then what is Islam? And what difference will it make in how we tip-toe around their “rights” and how much we feel it necessary to respect, condone, and protect their actions?

Since the majority of the verses of Islam’s sacred texts and teaching center on the infidel, how evil he is, how inferior he is, how he is to be treated, and how he is to be governed, judged, and punished, then Islam is clearly a political ideology every bit as much as Fascism and Communism are.

Once Islam is identified for what it is, an intolerant, fascist, seditious political ideology hell-bent on destroying our nation and our freedoms, then the “informants” will come out of the woodwork. We won’t have to worry about lying – hiding the truth about Islam – so that we can attract snitches. In my mind, when the truth becomes the predominant value, what were formerly illegitimate “snitches” become legitimate “informants.” The morality of our battle would be raised several notches by being truthful about who our enemy is instead of being deceptive and politically correct out of expediency.

We should not encourage any aspect of Islam by believing there is a moderate Islam worthy of our respect or protection and a “radical” Islam that is the only problem. Islam is the problem. There may be non-practicing Muslims, those who are ignorant of or indifferent to Islamic teaching. That does not make one a moderate Muslim. It makes one a non-Muslim.

Here is the essence of the truth about Islam and why we cannot afford withholding the facts about it:

The majority of Islam’s “Holy Scriptures” describe the evils of the unbeliever, how he is to be treated, what is required of him and how the unbeliever (infidel) and unworthy Muslim shall be governed, judged, and punished.
This makes Islam a political ideology – an ideology that mandates the beliefs and behavior of others.
Many abrogating sections of the Qur’an call for the killing of Jews and other infidels.
This makes Islam an intolerant, supremacist fascist ideology.
Islam demands tolerance by the infidel while demanding intolerance toward the infidel.
Western culture requires tolerance of all religions and considers Islam a religion.
We are applying our tolerance to protect Islam so it can destroy us.

This is why Islam should NOT be considered a religion. This is why moderation toward Islam won’t work.

Why Captains are last to abandon ship

2012-01-17T16:01:00.001-05:00

I’ve finally discovered why ship captains have traditionally been the last to abandon ship. It has nothing to do with responsibility or bravery or gallantry. It is because most previous calls to abandon ship have been out at sea where there is nowhere else to go. Drown now. Drown later. They prefer to remain on the ship and drown later.

However, when a ship sinks within a stone’s throw of land, why stay on the ship when you can swim or ride 1 minute to land?

That was likely the thinking of Captain Francesco Schettino of the Costa Concordia. He took it even one step further with his “what, me worry” attitude after he refused an order to get back to the ship to lead the rescue.

Here is more about the Captain’s refusal to get back on his sinking ship.

Tell-it-like-it-is-aphobia

2012-01-15T20:44:00.001-05:00

Criticism of Romney’s “firing” comment is yet another troubling sign of our stifling political correctness, aversion to blunt frankness on issues, and wanton distortion of sincere words spoken.

For those of you who missed the context of his “I like being able to fire people” comment, here it is:

"I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

Some suggest Romney shouldn’t have used the word “fire”, that it was too harsh. Or that he should have known that word would be used against him – perhaps thinking “what kind of naïve politician is he anyway?”

I would rather have a slightly naïve politician than a slick politician any day.

But there was no naiveté in what Romney said. None. He spoke the bare truth.

Public relations consultants and ad men are the spokesmen for Romney’s Republican opponents. They were put off by Romney’s bluntness. They saw it as an opportunity to go after his “evil” capitalist experience. They led the charge of snarkiness against Romney’s comments. Romney’s bluntness is upsetting to public relations and advertising types who are especially practiced in their use of verbal nuances and psychological manipulation via words. They use words every day to skillfully influence folks into buying products or services or doing things that they might not otherwise buy or do. It must be unsettling for them to hear a candidate use words like “fire” in such a blunt way. “Fire” omagosh, he used the word “fire!”

I love bluntness when “blunt” is the truth. And not just the truth, but expressive of the feelings we all share. Who doesn’t love the ability (if not the act) to fire those who are doing a crummy job, who are wasting our time or ripping us off?

Along the same lines as Romney’s bluntness, we have the words of the Mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, whose video is making the rounds on the net. What responsible father would not love his speech on behalf of responsible behavior? He is not being politically correct. In fact, much of the black community is probably critical of what he is saying. Start at 9:20

Nutter using blunt, truthful words–not politically correct at all.

I am bored and disgusted with the political correctness of carefully chosen words that avoid the truth. There is little difference between such political correctness and a huckster peddling swamp land in Florida, or an ad man crafting a slick infomercial for a product of marginal utility or those who tip-toe around the truth of fascist Islam. The words may sound plausible but they miss the truth just enough to be deceptive lies.

Asymmetric anger from Karzai

2012-01-13T21:15:00.001-05:00

You’ve heard of asymmetric warfare where one side spends $10 on a bomb and the other side spends $1,000,000 defending against the bomb.

Well, Hamid Karzai is expressing asymmetric anger at the US for an indiscretion of several US Marines. We sacrifice thousands of US troops to prop up his lousy Islamist government, and he rages at peeing on 3 dead Taliban. Quoting Diana West from this weeks syndicated column:

Rather than calm passions, Karzai stokes them: “The government of Afghanistan is deeply disturbed by a video that shows American soldiers desecrating dead bodies of three Afghans.”

Afghans, Taliban – no distinction.

I have to ask: What the hell are we doing in that lousy place, with our pathetic butt-kissing military leadership and even more pathetic President? We are peeing on ourselves in reaction to Karzai’s asymmetric anger.

Here is Diana West’s column. Please bookmark her site at http://www.dianawest.net/Default.aspx She is definitely worthwhile tracking.

Granted, it’s not civil, palace etiquette, or, more important, U.S. military doctrine to urinate on battle-killed enemy fighters – in this case, three dead Taliban in Afghanistan. But could we just move on?

That’ll be the day. Get set for Abu Ghraib 2, a national wallow in a wholly manufactured and inflated evil, the kind of masochistic frolic our twisted elites, safe on their sound stages, find so extremely pleasurable. Get set for the exclusion of any and all context related to heat-of-battle conditions, battle fatigue or Taliban depredations. We have met the enemy and he is us, again – and thank God. Or is that thank Allah?

Most distressing is watching the International Security Assistance Force’s PR machinery crank up. The desecration of Taliban bodies – killed according to ISAF orders and assorted United Nations-NATO-focus-group preferences – is of immeasurably greater concern than the recent cold-blooded murder of a 20-year-old U.S. soldier in Afghanistan, shot in the head while playing volleyball by an Afghan army member. (Three other Americans were wounded.) By my unofficial count, this makes Kill No. 43 of NATO forces by Afghan security forces inside the wire over the past two years.

Also distressing is the fact that such deadly Afghan assaults against the very nations that shore up Hamid Karzai’s crummy government don’t get a rise out of the Afghan leader. This freak videotaped incident, however, does. Years of all-too-faithful sacrifice by U.S. and allied forces to end the jihad in Afghanistan count for nothing; years of restrictive rules of engagement designed to save Afghan lives at the expense of Western lives are disregarded. And forget about the billions of dollars spent by the West to build an Afghanistan of unimaginable grandiosity. Karzai has.

Rather than calm passions, Karzai stokes them: “The government of Afghanistan is deeply disturbed by a video that shows American soldiers desecrating dead bodies of three Afghans.”

Afghans, Taliban – no distinction.

Karzai continued: “This act by American soldiers is simply inhuman and condemnable in the strongest possible terms. We expressly ask the U.S. government to urgently investigate the video and apply the most severe punishment to anyone found guilty in this crime.”

But don’t mention the frequent Afghan shootings of U.S. and other infidel soldiers. Their wounds and deaths (not indignity after death) are not worth condemning. Or noticing. They’re just what happens in war (“counterinsurgency”); what happens on the battlefield (volleyball court); what happens to men who break down in battle under stressful conditions (watching a volleyball game).

The four American service members videotaped somewhere on patrol, quite possibly after a harrowing firefight, however, are “inexplicable” monsters. ISAF said as much in language that, for an official press release, verges on the hysterical. “ISAF Denounces Deplorable Act Portrayed in Video” is the headline. The release says:

“A video recently posted on a public website appears to show U.S. military personnel committing an inappropriate act with enemy corpses.

“This disrespectful act is inexplicable and not in keeping with the high moral standards we expect of coalition forces. ISAF strongly condemns the actions depicted in the video, which appear to have been conducted by a small group of U.S. individuals, who apparently are no longer serving in Afghanistan.

“Nevertheless, this behavior dishonors the sacrifices and core values of every service member representing the 50 nations of the coalition.”

I strenuously object to this grotesque inflation of such an incident to the magnitude of dishonoring all ISAF forces, up to and including their immense “sacrifices” – nearly 3,000 dead and tens of thousands more wounded and damaged. It doesn’t dishonor their “core values,” either. In fact, it has nothing to do with such values, which beat the Taliban’s every time, from child rape (sanctioned by polygamous “marriage”), to normalized pederasty (dancing boys), beheadings, Islamic male supremacism and zero freedom of conscience. I would bet that these Taliban values – shared, by the way, by average Afghans – played some role in the videotaped act of contempt.

The ISAF reaction, however, is to grovel. In so doing, it does more to weaken the morale and safety of troops than anything I can imagine. Except, of course, making a global disciplinary example of these haplessly outed military personnel.

I’m afraid that’s coming. The ISAF release concludes: “Therefore, a United States Criminal Investigatory agency has launched an investigation. It will be thorough, and any individuals with confirmed involvement will be held fully accountable.”

Look out. Incoming fire from ourselves.

Mid-campaign assessment of candidates

2012-01-11T13:11:00.001-05:00

Here is my mid-campaign assessment of presidential candidates thus far – after the New Hampshire primary and prior to the South Carolina primary.

First off, I intend to contribute to and work for any Republican nominee before I will face the cold day in hell that I would vote for Obama, the great destroyer of our heritage and our future.

Next up: Jon Huntsman. I cannot seriously consider Mr. Huntsman. His credentials of serving in the Clinton regime and being an ambassador to China would be ok if he were a Democratic candidate. He is the most liberal and RHINO of any of the candidates. His third place showing in New Hampshire reflects both the liberal social (don’t care if he’s Mormon) and political bias of that New England state. I expect him to poll near the bottom in South Carolina. He may or may not stick around for the Florida primary.

Rick Perry’s record on illegal immigration remains a deal killer for me. And his inability to express himself effectively under pressure will be a problem in debates with Obama and in his role as President. Finally, and this may seem nit-picky, but is a real concern nonetheless: Perry is too similar to Bush in his mannerisms, accent, and attitudes. He is somewhat “cowboy-esque” which will garner disdain by too much of the nation’s electorate. Coming in a distant last in the New Hampshire primary has probably sealed his fate. I would expect his withdrawal from the race after South Carolina.

Ron Paul is considered by many to be the best remaining candidate on fiscal and economic matters. Some believe his desire to eliminate the fed is a bit extreme, but I am not concerned about that. We can certainly use some extreme fiscal reform. But Paul represents two deal killers for me.

The big one is his ignorance of Islam related to his misinformed foreign policy. He mimics Obama’s mantra that the United States is to blame for provoking Muslims into seeking revenge for our meddling in their affairs. This ignorance is akin to keeping police in their squad cars for fear of pissing off the criminals. Paul is advised by socialist Muslim sympathizers who ignore Islam’s centuries of intolerant, supremacist, warring behavior perpetually seeking conquest – centuries before the US existed to ruffle their over-sensitive feathers. HERE is an insight into the Islamist sympathizers Paul gets his information from about Islam. He is fatally naïve in the area of national security and foreign policy.

The other negative is his non-presidential persona. He comes across as excessively whiney, snarky, and Ross Perot-ish (weasly in demeanor), even though I favored Ross over his competition. But we have better choices now. Virtually every other candidate is superior in this quality.

Rick Santorum is the most socially conservative of the remaining candidates. And he and Gingrich have the best understanding of the threat of political Islam. But he is criticized for taking some un-conservative stands in his political career. Is he electable? Of course his supporters say he is. But most of the rest of us think he is not. He will do a lot better in South Carolina than his next to last place showing in New Hampshire. But I expect his undoing will be Florida after which he will secede from the race.

Newt Gingrich did poorly in New Hampshire with his distant 4th place showing. I don’t expect he will do much better in South Carolina where he will be bested by both Romney and Santorum. He has garnered a “love him” or “hate him” reputation, especially among conservatives. It is difficult for me, and maybe the average voter, to know what to believe about Gingrich. I don’t think I would enjoy the First Lady for four years. But Gingrich does have among the best understanding of the threat of Islam and national security challenges of any of the candidates. He would make a good president and probably has as good a chance of beating Obama as Romney does.

Mitt Romney is considered outside the Tea Party fold, but he is endorsed by several notable Tea Party leaders such as South Carolina’s Nikki Haley and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. He has said some ignorant things about Islam, such as Jihadism has nothing to do with Islam. On the other hand, among his band of foreign policy advisors is Walid Phares, a well-versed and respected expert on the Middle East and Islam. However, Phares suffers from wishful thinking about how the Arab Spring will turn out. He predicts there will be a secular backlash against the Muslim Brotherhood’s recent victories, but he doesn’t say in which century.

Romney is criticized for raising taxes and fees in Massachusetts. Condemnation of Romney for that is totally without merit. He was Governor in the most liberal state in the Union, with a legislature that was several notches to the left of him. The governor does not have absolute control over the state legislature or the will of the proliferation of liberals who control the votes in that state. To the contrary, Romney’s Massachusetts experience endows him with the experience to overcome the minority liberal tendencies in this nation. He has shown that he is one to advocate on behalf of the will of the people as opposed to promoting the self-serving liberal agenda of the minority as Obama has been doing.

Romney distinguishes Massachusetts health care from nationwide Obama care based on states rights. He is clear that if states don’t want it, they shouldn’t be forced by an over-reaching federal government to have it.

With Herman Cain’s departure, Romney is the one remaining candidate with extensive business experience. Some of it is being used against him – by those who twist the meaning of the word “fire” Romney used to describe the ability of individuals to choose their preferred insurance companies. Both Republicans and Democrats have taken his words out of context to slander his private sector experience.

His runaway first place showing in relatively liberal New Hampshire is not as significant as the outcome will be in South Carolina and Florida . Conservative South Carolina will be a big test of how the Bible Belt will react to Romney’s religion this second time around.

Other pluses for Romney: He appears to have no moral baggage, he is a social conservative, he has an idyllic family, and he does indeed appear presidential. He is not a bad debater, either.

Here are the results of the New Hampshire primary:

	Votes	%	Estimated Delegates
Mitt Romney	95,666	40.0%	5
Ron Paul	55,451	23.2%	3
Jon Huntsman	40,903	17.1%	2
Newt Gingrich	22,920	9.6%	0
Rick Santorum	22,685	9.5%	0
Rick Perry	1,709	0.7%	0

Tebow, Goldwater, and moderation

2012-01-09T10:20:00.001-05:00

You’ve heard the expression “all things in moderation...”

And someone saying “That was ‘over the top’” when they are critical of another’s emotion?

“All things in moderation” is a familiar and right sounding truism for life, right? Bull pucky! It’s really rather stupid when you think about what it really is saying. “All things” presumes that everything is equally good and fulfilling. And that nothing is worth actions or emotion beyond moderation. That sounds rather lukewarm and milk-toastish to me.

In reality some things are absolutely worth avoiding at all cost. Death and murder are good to avoid. We aren’t encouraged to murder in moderation. So, obviously, "all things in moderation" cannot be taken literally. And “moderation.” There are many things that are worth doing well beyond “in moderation.” Can you imagine a great musician practicing in moderation? Or a football coach urging his team to “go out there, but whatever you do, go out in moderation!” And he better say that without sounding “over the top.”

A more valuable motto would be "moderation in things worth doing; and energy and great enthusiasm in doing things that are most worthwhile."

Tim Tebow is mocked for being “over the top” with his prayer of thanks after games. Really, too much prayer? At the wrong place and time? I don’t know how that is really possible.

I can think of a number of things I would be “over the top” about: defending my family, defending my neighbors and my country, and blogging.

“Over the top” is used in the same manner as racist, homophobe, and bigot. These expressions are thoughtlessly used against anyone with whom you disagree.

Barry Goldwater was a victim of the cult of moderation when he was condemned for saying:

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

I really liked Barry Goldwater. And Tim Tebow is right there with him.

US Israel buildup: Routine, counter-Iran, or political Obama?

2012-01-08T12:48:00.001-05:00

The US is sending thousands of troops into Israel for joint exercises. See also HERE. Similar exercises have been conducted in the past, but the timing of this buildup warrants enhanced speculation.

Here are the major options of what we can expect:

1. Routine exercise: Apparently every few years we conduct joint exercises with Israel to sharpen our ability to coordinate with Israeli defense systems - to test and practice integration of our military plans and systems, especially rocket defense systems. This has the added benefit of sending a message to hostile nations about our resolve to defend Israel and to encourage Iran to stand down with its nuclear program.

2. Not routine, but urgent: This build-up may in fact be preparatory to legitimate joint military action against Iran. There has been additional credible evidence that Iran now has the capability to assemble nuclear bombs and the ability to deliver them throughout the region as well as for terrorist purposes overseas, including to the US and elsewhere via a variety of platforms – missile, freighter-missile, freighter-truck, or cross-border transit.

3. Illegitimate action: There has been speculation over the past year that Obama will initiate some dramatic event to take the focus off the election to benefit the odds of his being elected to a second term. This could be that event. Military action against Iran may be considered by some to be legitimate, but may not be in reality.

The second justification for suspicion about such action has broader, trans-Obama implications in the minds of some. This suspicion is based on the economic theory that we need go to war to bolster our economy and we have a pretext to do so regarding Iran, whether they actually have the will and means to produce and deliver a nuke or not.

I will stand with option 2: This is a necessary action. We have been hearing from international experts for years that Iran’s nuclear weapons capability is 3 years, 2 years, 1 year away. Their Islamist rantings expressing hatred toward Jews and calling for the annihilation of Israel show clear intent. The three criteria for carrying out a crime are Means, Motive, and Opportunity. Do we wait for the execution of a crime that could kill 10’s of thousands of residents of one of our best allies before we act?

And no, I don’t think preemptive action against Iran will improve Obama’s ability to be re-elected. It will demonstrate his failed foreign policy of sucking up to our enemies, not acknowledging their hatred and intent, and emboldening them to the point that we are forced into taking last-resort action of military confrontation.

“Ask not…” John Kennedy omitted the best option

2012-01-01T22:40:00.001-05:00

President Kennedy’s famous “ask not” quote is canonized by the media as one of the most stirring statements since Roosevelt’s “…a date which will live in infamy” proclamation given after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Here it is, as the liberal media would like it to appear following the Book of Revelation in the New Testament:

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

What we have here are two socialist choices:

1. Asking what our country can do for us: Demanding government services and entitlements, or

2. Asking our fellow citizens to do more for country/government: pay more taxes; support more programs, urge bigger government.

Both of these options beg for more and bigger government. Both of these options ignore asking the people to do things for themselves. The spirit of self-determination, self-sufficiency and independence are what made our country great prior to its decline of the last 50 years propelled by socialist tendencies.

The third, ignored but better, option is this:

Ask not what not what your country can do for you; ask not what you can do for your country; but ask what you can do for yourself and for your neighbors.

This best represents and promotes the enlightened self-interest that enabled the success of our nation and our liberties.

Leave “country” (synonymous with “government”) out of it. Those are both socialist options. The freedom option is the one that emphasizes individual responsibility for our own needs, not the “needs” of the country that, in the end, just lead to bigger government and smaller freedoms.

Connection between religion and civilizational survival

2011-12-31T23:02:00.001-05:00

Thirty some years ago I acquired a computer game called Civilization. It was the global version of Sim City where you started as an aboriginal and gradually developed your tribe, region, and entire civilization. Growth and success involved trading with neighboring tribes, inventions, exploration, and one odd component I really didn’t see a legitimate purpose for at the time: religion. To be successful in the game, to advance your civilization, there needed to be some measure of religion. I never progressed much in the game because I didn’t understand and thus ignored that civilizational advancement prerequisite built into that game.

Fast forward to today. I just completed a book called “How Civilizations Die (and why Islam is dying too)” by David P. Goldman. For internet junkies, Goldman wrote for First Things under the name of Spengler until early 2011.

Goldman explains that civilizations die because they cease believing in a reason to perpetuate their existence. As their belief in the future dies, they lose hope. As their birthrate and thus their populations decline they lose influence in their region or in the world, and are eventually overrun by more motivated, enthusiastic thronging hoards, however civilized or uncivilized they may be. He developed convincing cause and effect evidence that the lack of religion creates this sense of purposelessness and hopelessness of a culture or nation.

He asserts that the current decline of Europe is due primarily to the decline of Christianity. And the decline of Christianity in Europe, he demonstrates, is due to an inseparable alliance of Christianity to the political systems of their nations rather than coming from the bottom up through spiritual belief and motivation of individuals within those nations. This creates the situation where if the nation suffers difficulty for any reason, be it war, a bad economy, famine, the faith of the people suffers equally. The nation is the god as much as the religion’s god. This reasoning sounds circular because it is; because religion and state are bound together so tightly. In recent centuries individuals in those nations, for the most part, lacked the deep and personal religious belief that is held in other parts of the world, especially by most in the United States.

Goldman makes a convincing case for the connection of cultural spiritual vitality with birth rate. Where spiritual vitality is strong, birthrates are higher. Where spiritual vitality is lacking, birthrates are lower. Birthrates of native Europeans are below the level of sustainability. The higher the level of education and social and economic attainment, the birthrate and the level of spirituality are both lower. This runs true across all national lines except when governments intervene to limit child-bearing, as in China.

The case of Islam is interesting, because popular wisdom tells us that the birthrate among Muslims in Islamic nations is high. Goldman has discovered demographic trends that indicate younger Muslims are not maintaining the birthrates of their parents. This indicates a longer term, 20+ year trend of Muslim birthrates declining to levels approaching barely sustainable levels, and declining further thereafter. Goldman believes these rates will continue to fall because Islam will prove to be a failed religion. Why? First, because Islam is an unadaptable religion (actually a “political ideology.”) Second, for the same reasons that Europe's religion is failing. From its inception, Islam has been an authoritarian, top down religion. It is a political religion that demands submission, whether one actually believes the religion or not. And whether people are outwardly religious or not, they will not have the motivation to reproduce if their reason for existence and hope for the future is lacking because of their own spiritual deficiencies.

Europe’s Christianity of the past several centuries has been nationalistic, top down, not from the heart and soul. Likewise, the recent return to Islamic fundamentalism results in a top down imposition of that faith on its people. The heart and soul of most Muslims will not be in it. Their spirit, confidence, and hope for the future will die along with their birthrates and civilizations. That is the view of Goldman.

However, as Goldman further points out, Islam will not go away quietly. As it realizes its decline and death are on the horizon, like a wounded animal, it will violently lash out. Which it is certainly doing today. There is a realization among some of its mullahs that the Islamic-driven culture is in desperate straits. And out of desperation, they are doing desperate acts.

The problem is compounded further for the west because not only is this what typical wounded and dying civilizations usually do, but the historic, fundamentalist behavior taught, promoted, and practiced by Islam demands the type of supremacist, warring aggression as part of their ideology. Consequently we should expect a uniquely motivated hoard of roaring banshees emanating from Islamic cultures, both foreign and domestic, in the coming years unlike that experienced in centuries.

Why progressives call Islamic resurgence “the Arab Spring”

2011-12-31T07:46:00.001-05:00

Volatile events in the Middle East this past year have been called “the Arab Spring.” Called that by whom? Mostly by progressives and their mainstream media mouthpiece.

Why would such events be called by such a cheery sounding, flowers and butterflies name? Those of us who understand the resurgent, orthodox character of Islam understand this to be the roiling in of a new Middle East dark ages that is likely to boil into a supremacist, fascist Caliphate and become an even greater threat to our only real ally, Israel and to international stability.

What do our progressive enabler-allies of Islam see?

They see masses of people having an opportunity to express and govern themselves through their faith. They equate the Islamic faith with any other faith. Big mistake. They see the shackles of decades of restraint on the practice of this political faith finally being removed. They see young people expressing themselves like they couldn’t before. They assume that removing government constraints in the Middle East will result in the same kind of democracy we have in the United States.

They value the illusion of freedom and democracy ahead of the reality of political Islam. They are ignorant of the historic predisposition of Muslim hoards: Chaos, violent supremacism, intolerance, conquest. They failed to appreciate the necessity of the authoritarian forms of government that were essential to maintain order where those who would spread chaos are so many, so willing, and so motivated.

To borrow a line from Obama’s pal, the Rev. Wright: “The chickens are coming home to roost.” The atheist, agnostic, lapsed Christian, religio-phobic progressive elite in Washington DC wouldn’t recognize the Christian foundation necessary to sustain a democracy if they tripped over it and fell on their face in it. They believe the Islamic roots of the Middle East Arab Spring will sustain democracy. They are absolute ignorant fools. Rather the proverbial camel will pass through the eye of a needle.

Here is to a new year of enhanced chaos, bloodshed, and destabilization in the Middle East, thanks to the ignorant progressive enablers in the West.

What very well could happen in 2012…

2011-12-30T23:31:00.001-05:00

Very few of us believe there will be a December 12, 2012, Mayan calendar end of the world debacle.

Nonetheless, there are plenty of other events that can keep us on the edge of our seats in front of the computer watching Drudge, Atlas Shrugs, GBTV, Town Hall, Newsmax and your other favorite current affairs web sites.

Let’s take a look at what might happen at home and around the world. I will list what I we might expect in three probability categories:

Very likely
Fairly good chance
Maybe but not likely

Here they are.

Very Likely:

Mitt Romney will be elected president. Urban riots will follow in several cities.

Obama will make himself look as much like a conservative as he can possibly stand to attempt to win the election. This will be his Islamic taqiyya demonstration.

One or more Euro-zone nations will undergo a sovereign default

The political power of the Muslim Brotherhood that represents fundamentalist Islam will continue to sweep through countries of the Middle East increasing the threat to Israel and the oil markets.

The “occupy movement” will resume in the Spring. The national guard will be called out in at least one location.

The unemployment rate will go back up to above 9%.

Food prices will inflate by at least 10% while the price of many manufactured products will decline

Some experts will label our economic condition a “deflation.”

Fairly good chance:

Unemployment rate will go above 10%

There will be widespread rioting in several Eurozone cities.

We will have QE 3 to counter the perceived deflation.

Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities

The price of gasoline will exceed $4/gal.

Maybe, but not likely:

Widespread rioting in several American cities during the summer

Unemployment will fall below 7%

Unemployment will exceed 11%

Obama will be re-elected

The DOW will hit 14,000

The price of gasoline will exceed $5/gal.

What do you think? What have I missed?

Delayed reaction to over-stimulating our economy…

2011-12-23T14:46:00.001-05:00

Some folks, including myself, are wondering why our economy isn’t yet experiencing run-away inflation, given all the billions of dollars created to stimulate ourselves out of our economic malaise.

One reader correctly reminded me that the government thrives on inflation, but cannot accomplish everything it sets out to do, as much as it tries to stimulate us back into inflation through its persistent draconian measures.

I suggest that there are unanticipated delayed reactions that result from government intervention and “tweaking.” Stimulus is provided in the form of very low interest rates and pumping several hundred billion into the money supply. No response. Interest rates are lowered again, this time to near zero and additional hundreds of billions are pumped into our money supply. Still no response. But an unseen tension is building in the economic system and in our psyches until ***POW*** all the built up fiscal tension finally takes hold and swerves our economy into places never anticipated (by government) and never intended to go creating never intended cataclysmic consequences.

This “over-steering” of our economy by an overly-paternalistic and impatient federal government reminds me of over-steering a semi-trailer truck on an icy highway at high speed. The driver is the hyper-involved federal government. The truck is our economy. The motorists on the near side of the median are the rest of us. Take a look at what the unintended consequence of over-meddling can be…

Oh, and the motorists delayed expletives will be ours as well.

The driver of the speeding, careening, out-of-control truck is our government, the truck is our economy, and the traffic is the rest of us.

Nice, but insidious–Part 1

2011-12-22T20:40:00.001-05:00

I often hear defenders of Islam speak about “the wonderful Muslims next door who were the nicest people they have ever known.”

I hear expressions of the highest regard when friends describe the homosexuals in their church who are the most polite, creative, and Christ-like people they ever met, contrasting them with the impolite straight boors who are the “typical” Christians.

During WWII there were thousands of Americans who expressed appreciation for the wonderful Nazi’s who helped their neighbors and invited children in the neighborhood to their Nazi youth camps to help them grow up to be fine young adults.

And I don’t doubt that more than a few parents have shown appreciation to the kindness of men (coaches, priests, teachers, day care workers, ministers) who shower super-attentive “loving attention” on their children.

These are all instances of our gullibility.   Too often we are taken in by remarkably kind, helpful, polite behaviors that are merely a pretentious front for gross immorality or evil.

The “Muslim next door” often privately contributes to Jihadi organizations, learns or teaches anti-Semitic lessons, or promotes seditious activities all the while being the “good neighbor.”

The polite, artistically gifted homosexual is likely an influence on others to follow his lifestyle choice, failing to understand that we all have immoral predispositions that we struggle to control.

The wonderful Nazi “helping our kids” was training them to infiltrate and overthrow our government.

The “super-attentive” men turn out to be some of the most prolific child predators.

Kindness, attentiveness, helpfulness, and politeness are all very good things.   But they are not better than sound morality. All too often these “very good things” overshadow underlying immoral or evil intentions or actions. We too often hold kindness and politeness above the higher values of traditional morality. Granted, traditional morality is out of style today. The ten commandments, God’s feelings about the sanctity of life and marriage, and his revulsion toward sexual perversion are thought of as oppressive, quaint relics of an outmoded culture. We act as if three thousand years of sound Biblical admonition is suddenly without merit. We have lost our perspective of what is most important. We have lost our desire and ability to discern one good above another.

Or more accurately, we have lost our desire to discern good from evil.

The next time you hear someone praise or swoon over the superficial behaviors of a person you know to be involved in or promoting perpetual immorality or evil, think twice about what is most important – about what are the most valuable attributes of that person. Judge not, you say? We are always judging. We often commit errors in judgment when we respect a person on the basis of their politeness rather than on the more significant basis of their character and morality.   Be careful how you judge.

We all judge. We need to judge the right things.

Nice, but insidious–Part II

2011-12-22T20:22:00.000-05:00

Of all the places where the value of morality should rise above the pretentions of outward behavior is The Church.

I have the least respect for churches and priests who grant communion to those individuals who are known to be involved in continuing and unrepentant sin.

I have the greatest respect for churches and priests who refuse communion to such individuals.

Individuals who are given a wink and a nod are often the most popular, hold the highest positions, and are the largest contributors to the church. Sometimes not. Sometimes they are given a pass out of a misplaced compassion, or just an outright failure of church leaders to maintain Biblical standards – usually because of a low view of Scripture.

These leaders exhibit a liberal tolerance that make Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses appear more orthodox than their supposed “orthodox” liberal mainline church.

This indifference to the ongoing, unrepentant immoral practices of church teachers, leaders or recipients of the Eucharist demeans the sacrament and blasphemes the God represented. The “niceness” or the “wealth” of or “compassion” toward the unrepentant sinner ought not to be the highest standard for eligibility of these blessings or positions. The entire premise of Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran and other church services is repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation, and the taking of the blood and body of Christ (transsubstantiated or symbolic) to fortify us to become more Christ like.

Without the repentance, the very first step, there should be no participation with Christ.

A further problem arises when the Church no longer believes that certain behaviors are sin. Some churches don’t believe that the continuing practice of homosexuality is sin or that homosexual union is sin. Or, as I recently experienced at a local Episcopal Church, their belief is that individuals are free to believe whatever they want to believe about the Eucharist, and I suppose, about what sin really is. Sin can be whatever the individual wants it to be – or not. The church no longer has reliable, definable doctrine; all doctrine lies with the individual however far his definition of morality falls from traditional Scriptural morality. This is like the heart patient in line at the cafeteria who chooses a full helping of cholesterol in lieu of the green beans while his family depends on his continued health for their well-being.

These churches undermine the credibility of the entirety of Scripture with this gross reinterpretation of hundreds of years of faith and practice.

This is an insidious practice of "faith."

Behold, you trust in deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, 'We are delivered! - only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, declares the Lord.
Jeremiah 7:8-11

Sermons missing from our churches…

2011-12-21T22:58:00.001-05:00

A friend and I were discussing what is missing in most of our churches – and why we are both having difficulty finding a church that is politically incorrect enough to tell the truth and discuss the topics that are too offensive to be acceptable by many congregations.

We want to learn about the topics our churches refuse to discuss. So we decided to start our own Bible study group to explore the Biblical basis of these topics.

Here is our preliminary list of sermons missing from our churches – I am certain many other topics will come to mind:

1. Fiscal conservative/Cultural conservative: Fiscal doesn’t work without the cultural – The Biblical roots of fiscal conservatism and why they are essential.

2. Social gospel versus personal gospel: The differences. The consequences of each. The Biblical foundation for one; the Biblical fabrication for the other. The views of John MacArthur (promotes personal gospel) vs. the views of Jim Wallis (promotes collective/social gospel).

3. Why the churches ignore the Islamic threat to our culture, government, religion, and freedom. The cults of cultural diversity and moral relativism. Focus on misapplied portions of Scripture dealing with not judging, turning cheeks, and acceptance of perpetual sinners, blasphemers and those who vow to eradicate the infidel. Shake off the dust of your sandals and go to the next house.

4. Homosexuality. How outmoded and intolerant the Bible really is. NOT! Humans have many predispositions offensive to God. Why are some singled out for special protection in our culture? The “sin” lobbies.

5. The Old Testament origins of Islamic ideology and other anti-God belief systems. The distortions of the Old Testament by Islam.

All of these would make great blog topics. Some already have. But all would also make excellent sermon topics but I know of no churches that touch them. I wonder why? Let me guess: They may be controversial and cause dissention. They may lose members and revenue. The truth be damned.

Ron Paul: Run from him as fast as you can!

2011-12-17T20:33:00.001-05:00

Ron Paul went on an irresponsibly wild squeal today, accusing Michelle Bachman of hating Muslims and accusing Rick Santorum of hating gays and Muslims.

If this is how he distinguishes nuances of foreign policy and social issues, Ron Paul is way out of touch and has no legitimate claim to any public position except maybe dog catcher.

Ron Paul is dangerously ignorant about Islam and the more than obvious threat both violent and stealth Islamic Jihad pose to our nation and the west. Calling anyone “hateful” toward individuals because they reveal the truth about an evil ideology is a thoughtless, ignorant, bigoted accusation and is acting like a bull in a China shop. Bachman does not “hate” Muslims. She is appropriately very concerned about Islam. Paul is playing the game of demonizing the messenger out of his ignorance of the message. Shame on him.

Part two: Gays. Santorum does not “hate” gays. He hates the clear fact that our nation is in moral decline. What has been called grave sin for centuries is now a protected “right” that we not only have to respect but give special privilege to. Homosexuality is not the only perverse behavior that has come out of the closet. Abortion, higher divorce rates, rampant pornography, child molestation are all behaviors that are more commonplace and worthy of disdain. I would not be surprised isf Ron Paul found delight in ridiculing those of us who hate divorce and child molestation – or even child molesters themselves. What Ron, you love child molesters? Sheesh!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ron-paul-on-michele-bachmann-she-hates-muslims/

I missed the obvious about liberal denominations…

2011-12-13T00:38:00.001-05:00

During my recent hunt for a new church home, I missed a couple of major characteristics about liberal denominations: Even the more conservative churches within their respective liberal denominations maintain form over substance, and they didn’t turn “liberal” overnight. Not even in the past 2 or 3 decades. They are liberal because they started liberal. They started liberal by their initial disagreement with the main body they broke away from. These comments are based on recent experiences in mainline Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Episcopal churches. Using the Episcopal church as an example, the Church of England (Anglican Church) broke from the orthodox Catholic Church. The Episcopal’s roots were in rebellion from the rules of the Catholic Church. Their roadside signs today say “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You.” And that is much more than a catch phrase. That is the present day manifestation of the sincere invitation offered to those who were thrown out of or threatened with execution by the Catholic Church at the churches beginnings.

The Episcopal Church for decades has been a place where those who have been shunned in other denominations feel more welcomed. This is all well and good and very Christian sounding. The problem comes about when so many “outcasts” are attracted to a particular liberal church that it becomes dominated by them. The doubters and rebels against orthodox doctrine and Bible teaching not only begin occupying most of the pews, but they begin occupying leadership and teaching positions. They become first tolerated, then respected, and later dominant in denominational seminaries. Soon the church becomes all form and little substance. And they continue to attract like minded people.

At the same time, the orthodox folks in those churches are leaving in droves, either forming new more conservative spin-off denominations of a similar form, but with substance, or becoming involved in a different denomination altogether. The liberal churches are the ones whose membership is declining most rapidly.

The churches that are growing most rapidly, oddly to some, are the ones that are considered “cults” by the mainline churches: Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. Neither of these churches can be labeled as liberal or conservative in the sense of conservative meaning “orthodox.” Both are unorthodox as all heck, but they are conservative insofar as a literal interpretation of their versions of Scripture and demands made of their followers. They both also have aggressive evangelizing programs at the core of their doctrine. Jehovah’s Witnesses, even more than Mormons, have deliberatively separated themselves from our culture in a number of ways. Members of both of these denominations are known, perhaps more than those of any other denomination, for their high regard for moral principles associated with traditional Bible teaching.

The charismatic Assembly of God Churches are also among the fastest growing. They, too, maintain a more literal (fundamental) interpretation of Scripture, and in their own way also have greater expectation of their members.

Many churches change to adapt to changing culture and reap the consequences. But Christianity does not change. It values a constant morality that transcends culture. As church growth and decline data testify, those churches that maintain the truth and spirit of Scripture will prevail while those that don’t will change and die along with the decadent culture that they chose to follow. Until the last 50 years or so the church has seen its mission as leading and transforming the culture. More recently most churches have relinquished that mission and have settled for being led and transformed by the culture.

A lesson on faithfulness…

2011-12-11T18:50:00.001-05:00

My recent experience in a “conservative” church in a “conservative” diocese within a very liberal denomination taught me a lesson. See previous post, HERE.

I should have expected this after I was informed by various members that the church has no established doctrine in many areas. You are free to believe what you want to believe about any number of spiritual matters. For example, when asked whether the “host”, the bread and wine at the Lord’s supper, is considered the body and blood of Christ as Catholics and conservative Lutherans believe, the answer was “ you can believe whatever you want it to be; we have no specific doctrine on that.” Well, that spirit of “tolerance” didn’t stop there.

Apparently the church has no position on homosexuality, gay marriage, or Islamic supremacism either, given that a church-sanctioned regularly scheduled Bible teacher proclaims that the Bible does not really teach that homosexuality is sin and that the US, not Islamic ideology, may very well be to blame for Islamic terror against us.

One lesson learned is this: A conservative church is a very relative thing. Conservative relative to what? Conservative relative to its very liberal denomination? Or conservative relative to the average church? These can be two entirely different levels of “conservative.” As it turns out, this church is conservative relative to a very liberal denomination. It is NOT conservative relative to other churches.

A second lesson learned is this: A church which considers itself conservative or orthodox will not be for long if it gives free reign to the teachers it sanctions within its walls. Allowing an” anything goes” permissiveness just because a teacher may be an ex-pastor or decent Bible teacher is opening the door to the teaching of heretical doctrine. This is especially troubling when teaching in one area of established Bible interpretation is so far “out there” that it casts doubt not only on the integrity of the Bible teacher, but, if believed, on the reliability of other essential areas of Bible interpretation. An unorthodox teacher creates a very slippery slope of trust in the Bible.

This gives me a renewed appreciation for truly conservative churches that require all who take communion to profess belief in the doctrines of that church. With that standard, sound teaching is more assured and the long trek toward a liberalizing, watered-down, meaningless faith will not be allowed to begin.

A permissive, uber-tolerance regarding Christian doctrine may enhance the self-esteem and good feelings of many church goers. But it does little for our Christian faith. In fact, such tolerance of “a diversity of beliefs” within a church body eventually leaves a gaping hole where shared doctrinal beliefs were the norm. What is left is fellowship. Not the spiritual fellowship that has been the a significant purpose of the church, but the same kind of fellowship that can be experienced at a bar, nightclub, bowling alley, symphony concert or Elk’s Lodge. If a church is no longer where faith in a common, shared doctrine can be relied upon, then private, individual worship can logically and successfully substitute for a church.

It is no wonder that membership in this denomination is falling more rapidly than most.

2000 Years of Getting it Wrong…

2011-12-08T13:48:00.001-05:00

I finally found a church I could live with. It is a compromise. It is a conservative congregation with a conservative pastor in a conservative diocese within a liberal denomination. The liberal denomination part is the compromise. But the locals seem to have themselves pretty well isolated from the national denomination on key doctrine as well as finances.

So I began attending a Bible study at this church. On my first visit with the group I was introduced to the study leader, a semi-retired pastor, not a member of this church. My first impressions were that he was a good teacher, a good communicator, a good discussion facilitator, knew his Bible well and gave a good first impression that he was solid in his interpretation of the Bible.

On my second visit the topics of homosexuality and abortion came up. Boy, was I in for a surprise. The study leader, I’ll call him Hank, asserted that if it wasn’t for right wing politics, homosexuality and abortion would not be issues in the church. Huh? That’s right. The ordination of openly practicing gay priests, the blessing of gay marriage, and the support of abortions (he says “who really knows when the fetus is a child?”) would not be divisive issues if the right didn’t bring attention to them. Hank claims that the Bible does not prohibit any of these actions nor call them sin. He believes they are made up issues of the right for political power and for political purposes.

In this man’s opinion these practices have always been part of the church, but it is right wing politics that has raised the level of awareness and made them into divisive issues. Apparently it matters not to this man that these practices, when subjected to the full counsel of Scripture, are sin. No, it doesn’t matter to him because he denies that the Bible teaches that these behaviors are sin.

Apparently he believes the orthodox interpretation of Scripture has been wrong for 2000 years regarding these issues.

I suggested to him that blaming the right for “divisiveness” because they raised these issues is like blaming America for Islamic attacks against us. His reply: “Maybe America IS to blame.” I reminded him that Islam has practiced an aggressive, supremacist, warring ideology antithetical to individual liberty well before the United States was around to blame.

Well, thank God for the right, then. Apparently without the influence of the right, the church would have apostatized and self-destructed long ago. Is “the right” the only influence for morality? Do those not of “the right” prefer amorality? It almost seems the case with Hank.

Hank has demonstrated to me that he believes as long as sin is unnamed, it is not a problem. Nobody notices – nobody cares. Don’t sin. We’re all cool with that. But as soon as someone gives sin a specific name, like “abortion”, or sanctioning homosexuality, or ordaining gay marriage, it is trouble-making by reactionary right-wingers creating new doctrine.

Hank and those of like mind would probably not have much trouble with pedophilia or rape. Those who bring such problems to the church’s attention will probably be accused of being divisive right wingers looking for power.

If Hank is so far off base on these 2000 year-old orthodox teachings of Scripture, how can any of his other Bible interpretations be trusted? Apparently he is attracted to teaching at this church because it is thought of as being part of a liberal national denomination ripe for his views. He is in a position to sway members of this, thus far conservative, church to his liberal, unorthodox ideals. I have to wonder under what authority is he sanctioned to promote his unorthodox beliefs at this “conservative church.”

I thank God this man is NOT a member of this church. It is bad enough I need to run as far away from his Bible study as I possibly can. I hope I don’t have to leave a church that my wife and I finally felt good about attending together.

This experience reinforces in my own mind the extent of compromise churches have made over the last several decades to survive. Some promote themselves through a “feel good” shallow gospel, some promote themselves through entertaining their flock, while still others profess a “believe whatever you want to believe” doctrine. Rare and mocked is the church that teaches a solid, Bible-based morality and promotes the clear historical teachings of Scripture as a light to transform not just fallen individuals but also to stand against a corrupt and corrupting culture.

One of the better Christmas stories…

2011-12-07T08:47:00.001-05:00

I love history when it is retold in the current vernacular. And here is an excellent rendition of the story of St. Nick, the pugilist from the past, by Ann Barnhardt.

Santa Claus: Bishop and Pugilist for Christ

Posted by Ann Barnhardt - December 6, AD 2011 6:42 PM MST

Today is the Feast of St. Nicholas, who died on December 6, AD 343. Saint Nicholas is well-known by his Dutch moniker, "Santa Claus". Don't be fooled by the crass, commercialized image. Saint Nicholas was a stone-cold butt-kicker for Christ and His Church.

Early in the Fourth Century, there was a terrible heresy in the Church put forth by a very persuasive man named Arius. Arius contended that Christ was not fully divine, but a creature, created by the Father. This heresy was threatening to schism the Church. (Back then everyone understood this to be totally and completely evil and thus unacceptable - the Church is ONE. Christ has ONE Bride, not a harem. There is ONE Truth. Not multiple "truths". As soon as you start saying that there are "multiple truths", what you have done is denied Truth Itself, of which there is only ONE.) So, the First Council of Nicea was called in AD 325 to hash this out and put the Arian heresy down once and for all.

Arius was at the Council, of course, and was called upon to defend his position on the inferiority of Christ. Being a bishop, Nikolaos of Myra (in present-day Turkey) was naturally in attendance. Arius' nonsensical, destructive and insulting lying contentions about Our Lord became too much for Bishop Nikolaos, who stood up and proceeded to haul off and go all Manny Pacquiao on Arius with a left jab directly to Arius' piehole.

Everyone was alarmed by Bishop Nikolaos' violent outburst, and he was immediately summarily stripped of his bishopric. In those days, the two things that designated a man a Christian bishop were a personal copy of the Gospels and a pallium, which is like a stole. Now you may taken aback by the "personal copy of the Gospels" thing. Well, of course! How could a bishop NOT have the Gospels? But you must remember that the printing press wasn't invented until AD 1439. Before that, if you wanted a book, it had to be written out BY HAND. And what were you going to write on? Try vellum. Every piece of vellum had to be harvested from an animal and made. So you see, for a man to have a personal copy of any written text was a HUGE, and frankly EXPENSIVE, deal. So, poor Nikolaos was stripped of his Gospel and his pallium AND thrown in the hoosegow.

Now here is where it gets really good.

While Nikolaos was in the clink, he received a visit from both Our Lord and the Virgin Mary. Jesus asked Nikolaos, "Why are you here?" And Nikolaos replied, "Because I love You, my Lord and my God."

At this, Jesus then presented Nikolaos with his copy of the Gospels, and Mary put his pallium back on him, thus restoring his rank as a bishop. When Nikolaos was discovered sitting calmly in his cell, still under guard, with his Gospel and his pallium, which the other bishops had locked away themselves far from Niklaos' prison cell, Nikolaos was released, welcomed back by his brother bishops, and rejoined the Council. The heresy of Arianism was struck down once and for all, and the Nicene Creed (which we still recite today) was authored. The anti-Arian part is this:

". . . Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum, (And [I believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ)
Fílium Dei Unigénitum, (the only begotten Son of God)
Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula. (And born of the Father, before all ages.)
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, (God of God: Light of Light:)
Deum verum de Deo vero, (true God of true God)
Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri: (Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father)
Per quem ómnia facta sunt." (by Whom all things were made.)

Bishop Nikolaos (left) in righteous anger borne from intense charity for mankind which sprang from his intense love of God, delivering a powerful left jab to a rather terrified-looking Arius, who totally had it coming.
DOWN. GOES. ARIUS! DOWN. GOES. ARIUS!

I post this because it speaks directly to our question of love and defense of Truth and defense of those we love. Arius was attacking Christ and His Church with his heresy just as viciously as if he had been leading an army - and Nikolaos stepped into the breach to defend his Beloved. PHYSICALLY. The reason Nikolaos stepped in was because Arius was attacking CHRIST, and His Bride, the Church, which is made up of Niklaos' fellow human beings - whose immortal souls were being put at risk by Arius. We are in no way taught by Christ to stand by and watch as our loved ones are attacked. The miracle in Nikolaos' cell is proof of this. Nikolaos did the right thing by going all Pacquiao on Arius and dropping him on his heretical keister before God and everyone.

"Why are you here?"

"Because I love You, my Lord and my God."

Go Santa.

A Season to Celebrate our Culture…

2011-12-03T17:55:00.001-05:00

When we speak of defending our “culture” or if we speak of “culture wars”, what do we really mean by that? What represents our culture more than anything else?

President Obama certainly does not understand the concept at all because he has spent his life either outside of our culture or soaking up the influence of those who despise it. He declared that we are not a Christian nation at all. We are one of the largest Muslim nations, he said.

To me, one of things that represents and celebrates our culture, even more than the 4th of July, is Christmas. The 4th of July celebrates our nation. Thanksgiving celebrates our beginnings. Christmas celebrates our essence. This “essence” is why a friend of mine ultimately rejected a lasting relationship with a Jehovah’s Witness sweetheart in college. Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas. That non-practice took away too much of the essence of our culture for my friend to feel “like home.” It wasn’t as much a religious thing as it was a cultural thing.

Christmas represents the high reverent celebration of what formed, guides, and protects this nation. Despite the harangues of progressives and their atheist allies, we have strong and undeniable Christian roots. And, though weakened by the god of cultural diversity and tolerance of immorality and competing ideologies, Christianity remains the predominant, strong fabric our society.

Most of our parents and grandparents were influenced and comforted by Christianity more than any other religion or ideology. Most of us have warm memories of mystery and family and giving from childhood through our child raising years through the experience of dozens of years of celebrating Christmas. Mystery manifests itself in Divine grace God bestowed on our nation and families depicted in the spirit of Christmas. Family represents the unity and love shared by those closest to us in the spirit of Christmas. Giving is the generosity that families, churches, and average Americans have shown though our nation’s history mirroring the spirit of Christmas.

And the deepest of our cultural roots in Christmas is the miracle of the gift of life given by our Savior, Jesus Christ and the hope for the future He brings to us all. The best way to fight the battles that rage against our culture is to return to our heritage – to our faith in the miracle of Christ and the spirit of Christmas. May this season bring this kind of renewal to all Americans.

May you have a Merry, Spirit-filled and renewing Christmas.

The remaining choices…

2011-12-03T16:33:00.001-05:00

Now that Herman Cain has dropped out of the race, who do we have left?

We still have Obama, the neo-Muslim, anti-Semite, Marxist in populist, entitlement-promoter’s clothing who favors enlarging government over the private sector, and who is a huge fan of income redistribution.

And who are the strongest challengers?

Mitt Romney, whose strengths include a presidential persona, a strong business background, his promotion of states rights, his sound moral character, and his articulate communication. His liabilities include his failure to relate Islam with Jihadists, his flip-flop stance on health care and abortion, and his inability or unwillingness to generate excitement which is the flip side of his presidential persona.

Newt Gingrich is the best debater, and may be the more conservative among the two (Romney and Gingrich) who have the best chance of winning the Republican nomination – but not conservative enough for many. His liabilities include his moral character and several flip flop events involving his characterization of Paul Ryan’s plan as “social engineering” and several other very unconservative remarks that he has since repented for. I am also learning that he has a dismally deficient understanding of the nature of orthodox Islam.

Ron Paul is the most libertarian of the bunch, promoting the audit, if not the abolition of the Federal Reserve and reversion to some form of hard currency. His liabilities include a foreign policy that resembles Obama’s with regard to his belief that US foreign policy incites the Islamic world against us and that we should immediately withdraw our military forces and our influence from predominantly Islamic nations. I agree with doing this, but for entirely different reasons. Paul’s attitude is an iteration of Obama’s “Blame America First” campaign which ignores the 1,400 year long orthodox Islamic ideology of supremacist conquest.

The remainder of the field has even less chance of winning the nomination than Ron Paul. Of the remainder, Rick Santorum has the best understanding of the Islamic threat along with sound and consistent conservative positions. Without consideration of electability, he best represents my views among those remaining in the field.

To recap, Romney and Gingrich both have been accused of being flip-floppy, although both have plausible reasons for denial. I formerly thought Gingrich had the best understanding of the Islamic ideology. However, after reviewing his website the other day, he, too, believes we are merely “engaged in a long war against radical Islamism, a belief system adhered to by a small minority of Muslims…” A small minority of Muslim? A small minority of Muslims? He has GOT to be kidding, or at least woefully ill-informed.

Ron Paul has been in Congress about as long as Gingrich, but has been in the margins while Gingrich has been much more influential. And Paul’s foreign policy beliefs are little different from Obama’s: Blame America First – we are the first cause of Islamic violence against us.

Going with the one who appears “most moral” is not necessarily the best approach – look at Jimmy Carter, the very Christian Southern Baptist.

I am torn at the moment between Romney and Gingrich. However, I give a slight edge to Romney because he is much more the outsider, has more private sector experience, and is the better role model for human behavior.

One last controversial thought: Anyone who votes against Romney primarily because he is a Mormon is strongly partial to his own group, religion, race, or politics and is [ignorantly] intolerant of those who differ. Guess what word that last phrase is a definition of?

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

2011-12-02T20:52:00.001-05:00

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.

Potential for massive inflation winning over potential for deflation

2011-12-01T22:18:00.001-05:00

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!

What “sells” indicates health of a culture

2011-11-29T12:38:00.001-05:00

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?

Movie warning: J. Edgar

2011-11-27T21:21:00.001-05:00

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.

Fewer children caused by fewer farms?

2011-11-25T13:19:00.001-05:00

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.

Bachman according to Barnhardt

2011-11-24T13:44:00.001-05:00

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.

On the Road to Argentina…

2011-11-23T15:34:00.001-05:00

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…

More PowerPoint presentations from JAY FREDERIC

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…

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

2011-11-20T20:54:00.001-05:00

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

2011-11-20T16:12:00.001-05:00

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

Islam-embracing Al Gore network alert...

2011-11-19T17:39:00.001-05:00

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?

Occupy Wall Street Screwing the 99%

2011-11-18T16:35:00.001-05:00

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/

Occupy envy, jealousy, and covetousness = Anarchy

2011-11-16T17:00:00.001-05:00

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.

Why deflation is worse than inflation…

2011-11-13T21:59:00.001-05:00

Several of us were discussing Harry S. Dent’s new book “The Great Crash Ahead”, where he pronounces that we are headed toward – not hyper-inflation – but toward an op-ed-esque debilitating deflation. Scratching our heads in response to the question, “what is so bad about deflation” and in spite of the opinion of some that, like a dead clock, Harry can be correct two times out of 24, we pursued the answer. During that discussion I proffered this reason:

When we have an economy like we have in the West where having vast amounts of debt is considered normal, deflation is a very bad thing. If we had little or no debt, economists would not get nearly as excited about the prospect of deflation. But here is the reason they do get excited – not just excited, but somewhat panicky.

With inflation, debt is paid off over a period of years with cheaper dollars than if there was no inflation. So the cost of that debt is actually less than we anticipated when we first took out the loan. A 30-year mortgage paid off in constant-valued dollars over that period would cost “X”. But 3% annual inflation over that period makes the total cost considerably less in real value because while the dollar buys less, that “worth less” dollar still has the same ability to pay off the mortgage. And typically with inflation, incomes rise to some extent to keep pace with inflation.

On the other hand, with deflation, the opposite is true. Paying off a 30-year mortgage, or paying off any debt, personal or sovereign, costs more because the value of the dollar increases. So we end up paying off something that should only cost “X” over that 30-year period when in fact because of deflation it costs us X plus Y. True, the price of other goods and services may decline, but so will wages and other forms of income. So there is a double whammy that is inherent in large debt-holding economies: a higher payoff costs of debt PLUS less income to pay off the debt. In essence, the same number of more valuable dollars are paying off our debt, while fewer dollars will be available to buy other goods and services.

Even worse, many families, as well as local, state, and national governments may not be able to pay off their debts with higher valued dollars without drastically reducing what they can afford for other goods and services which worsens the deflationary spiral.

This is whey Keynesians hate deflation and love inflation. Deflation ruins their debt-promoting party.

Here is an article written by someone more knowledgeable than I on the topic of…

Why Deflation Is Worse Than Inflation

by Rick Newman, US News and World Report

On the surface, it sounds appealing: Prices fall, things get cheaper, and consumers catch a break. But deflation is a pernicious problem that can strangle an economy for years—and it's a growing worry for the watchdogs minding the anemic recovery that has followed the Great Recession.

One of the Federal Reserve's primary responsibilities is to keep inflation under control, which generally means shepherding the economy along with benign inflation of 1 to 3 percent per year. But inflation has been close to 0 so far this year, and with economic growth slowing, the odds are rising that overall prices could decline. That's a rare phenomenon most Americans have never experienced.

[See 14 things that are getting cheaper.]

Poobahs at the Fed have started debating what to do, and liberal columnist Paul Krugman recently called the Fed "feckless" for talking about deflation but taking no action. John Makin of the conservative American Enterprise Institute calls deflation "a classic prolonger of crises" and predicts it will be here by the end of the year. Investors are worried too, with stock prices vacillating on fears that price declines could undermine corporate profits.

If you're confused, welcome to a club that includes most Americans. In the midst of the recession, economists warned us not about deflation, but about runaway inflation, thanks to aggressive government stimulus spending, record-low interest rates, and more than $1 trillion in new money injected into the economy by the Fed. In a normal economy, all that liquidity would ratchet up demand for assets, which in turn would drive up prices. Voila: Inflation.

As you've no doubt heard dozens of times, however, this isn't a normal economy. Consumers need way more than the traditional pick-me-ups provided by low rates and government spending. Many are out of work, with falling income—or no income. Debt loads are so high that many consumers couldn't borrow if they wanted to, so they're using unspent cash to pay down debt. After a few hopeful months earlier this year, consumer spending is slipping. That worries CEOs, who are reluctant to hire when spending is down, while shoppers worried about scarce jobs respond by shutting their wallets. Consumers and corporate chiefs have basically formed a mutual-worry society.

[See why raises are so scarce.]

Low inflation has been a blessing for consumers, with a few things getting more expensive but many things getting cheaper. The microprocessor revolution, for example, has driven down the cost of computers, televisions, and other kinds of electronics, while growing imports from low-cost countries like China has made clothing, furniture, and appliances cheaper. Economists call this "good deflation," because it makes people and companies more productive and helps improve living standards.

"Bad deflation" happens when the price of everything falls. And that can harm everybody. Economist Gary Shilling cites three factors needed for bad deflation: A financial crisis, a deep recession, and a spike in unemployment. Gulp. We've had all of those. When the economic pain gets intense enough, demand for all products falls far below supply, simply because people don't have enough money to buy all the stuff companies are geared up to produce. That has clearly happened in the market for homes, cars, many retail items, and the commodities used to make a variety of products. The danger comes when falling demand for some products creates so much slack in the economy that the demand for all products—as measured by the consumer price index, for example—tumbles.

[See 10 states where taxes are up, services down.]

If all prices fall, it's a disaster. Falling prices means lower revenue and profit margins for companies, which as we know leads to layoffs, less hiring, stagnant wages, and outright pay cuts. Consumers with lower incomes have less money to spend, which tends to lock the cycle in place: With sales down, firms have to cut prices even more to get business. The worst part comes when everybody realizes that prices are falling, because nobody wants to buy something today if it will be cheaper tomorrow. That's why our housing market is such a disaster: When prices are falling, you've already lost money on your investment the day after your big purchase. Buyers would rather sit on the sidelines and wait for prices to bottom out.

Deflation also wreaks havoc with routine borrowing and other aspects of a normally functioning economy. For people (or countries, ahem) in debt, inflation actually eases the burden because the real value of fixed debt goes down over time. If inflation is 5 percent per year, for instance, your income keeps pace with inflation, and you pay $1,000 a month toward a fixed-rate mortgage, your nominal income goes up over time but your mortgage payment doesn't. So the mortgage effectively gets cheaper over time. The opposite happens with deflation, which makes debt more expensive over time. If deflation were 5 percent per year and your income fell at the same rate, the mortgage payment would take an increasingly big bite out of your paycheck.

[See how the economy will look on election day.]

That turns the basic machinery of the economy inside out. Under deflation, cash becomes a highly valued asset, since a 0 percent return is better than a negative one. Banks have no incentive to make loans, since they'd lose money. Defaults would skyrocket, exacerbating the problems we already know about: broke consumers, money-losing banks, frozen credit markets. Everybody would hoard cash and consumers would only buy essentials.

That's been the situation in Japan since 1995, a case study that economists have been paying a lot of attention to lately. The circumstances are different in the United States, but Japan is hardly a medieval society with illiterate central bankers. In other words, if it can happen there, it can probably happen here.

There are lots of technical lessons from Japan's battle with deflation, but the most important takeaway is that deflation is the economic equivalent of an STD: Once you've got it, you're stuck with it for awhile. "Prevention of deflation remains preferable to having to cure it," said Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, in a long-ignored 2002 speech that's found new life as an ironic prophesy.

[See 5 reasons a double-dip recession could happen.]

Bernanke and other Fed officials think they know what to do if deflation strikes, but they haven't had a lot of practice: Full-blown deflation hasn't been a problem in the United States since the early 1930s, when widespread fire sales caused overall price drops of about 10 percent per year. So they'd rather deal with inflation, which is common enough that it essentially comes with a dog-eared troubleshooting manual. The Fed, of course, doesn't get to decide what problems it has to confront, as the last few years have shown us. Maybe they'll get one more chance to show their creativity in crisis.

Reasons for decline of Christianity in the West

2011-11-12T20:31:00.001-05:00

Militant Islam and Militant Secularism are identified in the article below as the primary reasons for the precipitous decline of Christianity in England. I’ll add one more “militant” to that list: Militant Self-absorption.

We become uneasy, impatient, and sometimes angry when our self-absorption is interrupted. “Don’t mess with my ballgame!” “Don’t mess with my vacation!” “Don’t mess with my computer game!” “Don’t mess with me, I’m angry, tired, I don’t give a cr-p!”

What enables self-absorption? Our national and personal security is one. There is no need to defend and fight. We feel little need for unity. We are a safe and secure people. We are in control. There is no need for God to help us. We felt somewhat less secure the days following 9-11 when church attendance spiked. But the comfortable security resumed weeks later and church attendance declined to its previous levels.

Prosperity is security’s companion. Prosperity enables freedom from want. Freedom from want frees us from the need to ask or beg. This frees many of the need for prayer – or for a God to pray to. And if perchance our security or prosperity fail, we have another God substitute: Big Government. Big Government comes to the rescue relieving the need for God who is now considered an extraneous “middle man.” Again, there is little need for God.

All of these replacements for God give folks lots of room to be critical of God’s book, the Holy Bible. It is easier to be critical of something once you discover you have little use for it. Academics call it “Higher Criticism.” The faithful call it destroying the credibility of Scripture.

higher criticism, the name given in the 19th century to a branch of biblical scholarship concerned with establishing the dates, authorship, sources, and interrelations of the various books of the Bible, often with disturbing results for orthodox Christian dogma. It was ‘higher’ not in status but in the sense that it required a preliminary basis of ‘lower’ textual criticism, which reconstructed the original wording of biblical texts from faulty copies.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/higher-criticism#ixzz1dXjJiN3j

While England is a decade or two ahead of the US in terms of decline of church attendance, we are on the same road. Should you have any doubt about the decline of Christianity in America, the Schaeffer Institute provides some dismal facts to put your doubts to rest.

Here is the article about the state of Christianity in England…

Is this the end of Christianity in England?

By: Bill Muehlenberg
Christian Today Australia Columnist

One way or another, the lights seem to be going out for Christianity in England. If the secularists do not destroy the church there, the Islamists are happy to have a go at it. Just last week it was announced that the BBC has appointed a Muslim to be “the Head of Religion and Ethics”. This is simply the latest in a long list of Islamist initiatives which may well turn England into a Muslim nation.

As Melanie Philips documented in her important book, Londonistan, the Islamisation of England is steadily rolling on. See my review of this vital book here: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/08/31/a-review-of-londonistan-how-britain-is-creating-a-terror-state-within-by-melanie-philips/

And of course there are also the secularists, especially represented by the militant homosexual lobby. They too have had a tremendously powerful impact on the silencing of Christianity. This is another issue I have frequently documented in these pages.

Consider the latest indication of this, as detailed in the Telegraph: “Churches will be banned from turning down gay job applicants on the grounds of their sexuality under new anti-discrimination laws, a Government minister said. Religious groups are to be forced to accept homosexual youth workers, secretaries and other staff, even if their faith holds same-sex relationships to be sinful. Christian organisations fear that the tightened legislation, which is due to come into force next year, will undermine the integrity of churches and dilute their moral message.”

The article continues, “It comes amid growing concern that Christians are being unfairly targeted by discrimination laws, following a number of high-profile cases of courts finding against believers who stand up for their faith. Religious leaders had hoped to lobby for exemptions to the Equality Bill but Maria Eagle, the deputy equalities minister, has now indicated that it will cover almost all church employees.”

This is what Ms Eagle told delegates at the Faith, Homophobia, Transphobia, & Human Rights conference in London: “The circumstances in which religious institutions can practice anything less than full equality are few and far between. While the state would not intervene in narrowly ritual or doctrinal matters within faith groups, these communities cannot claim that everything they run is outside the scope of anti-discrimination law. Members of faith groups have a role in making the argument in their own communities for greater LGBT acceptance, but in the meantime the state has a duty to protect people from unfair treatment.”

A spokesman for a religious charity, the Christian Institute, said this: “It would be absurd to pass a law demanding that the Labour Party employ card-carrying Conservative members, but that is effectively what churches are being told to do. We just want the same exceptions as political parties. Christians are sick to the back teeth of equality and diversity laws that put them to the back of the queue. We are quite prepared to accept that people will take a different view to use on moral and ethical questions, but that should not mean we have to withdraw from public life.”

But that is the whole point of such laws: to forever rid Christianity from the public square. Consider what a Government Equalities Office spokesman said: “The Equality Bill will not force a church to accept someone as a priest regardless of their sexual orientation or gender. Churches, synagogues, mosques and others will continue to have the freedom to choose who they employ in jobs which promote their religion. But where they provide services to the public they will have to treat everyone fairly.”

This is just typical secular double talk. As if services provided by the church have anything other than a very public outworking. Christianity is a public faith, and everything about it will have an impact on the public arena. So the removal of religious exemptions will effectively silence the church for good.
And that is just what the homosexual activists and the militant secularists have long been working toward. They have been very clever about this. They say that religious people are welcome to practice their faith, just as long as it is not done in public.

It is all about the privatisation of a faith which by its very nature is a most public faith. Believers are commanded to go into the whole world and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ. But the secularist mafia want believers to be shut at up home in their little prayer closets, or have church services which have absolutely no bearing on the world around them.
Sorry, but that is not biblical Christianity. Jesus told us to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. The secularists are seeking to de-salt Christianity and remove its light, hiding it under a barrow. This of course is the very thing Jesus said we should not be doing as believers (Matt. 5: 13-16).

So these anti-Christian bigots are being quite sneaky about all this: “Sure, you can still practice your faith! Just make sure it impacts no one, affects nothing, and influences absolutely zippo. We are quite happy with a faith like that!”

This is a war of worldviews. Just as the early Christians clashed head-on with the ruling powers of the day, proclaiming Christ - not Caesar - as Lord, so too today we have a full-on battle taking place. The secularists want us to be a silent, obedient and docile bunch who do not ruffle any feathers or make any waves.

But that just cannot be. It is said of the early church that they turned the world upside down (Acts 17:6). That forever must be the true nature of the church of Jesus Christ. Christianity will always have a significant social impact, and Christians will never share their allegiance with any other contender to the throne.

We will certainly seek to be good citizens, but we will not bow the knee to Caesar. Nor will we bow the knee to a militant secularist state that is seeking to drain the lifeblood out of the church of Christ. Christians are always people with divided loyalties. We are citizens of two kingdoms, and when the kingdom of this world challenges the kingdom of God, the latter must take precedence.

At the moment many forces are warring against the Christian church. In England, and much of the Western world, the two main opponents are militant Islam and militant secularism. Both are seeking to crush the life out of Christianity.

The good news is, we know that in the end the church will prevail. But that does not mean that we should now sit idly by, and just pretend the assaults are not taking place. We must be involved in these battles, and do all we can to withstand the twin forces seeking to wipe out Christianity from England and elsewhere.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5357247/Law-will-force-churches-to-employ-gay-staff.html

“All-American anti-Semite” coming to a TV near you…

2011-11-11T15:45:00.001-05:00

A new TV show, “All-American Muslim” begins soon on “The Learning Channel.” As expected, the producers will portray these kinky folk as “main-stream Americana, struggling to survive in a deeply hostile society.”

How much truth of Islam and Islamic culture and ideology do you think will be revealed. I will guess “none.”

This is little different from a radio show in the early 40’s depicting an all-American Nazi family joining in conversation around the dinner table sharing stories of how they are persecuted and how great their anti-Semitic Nazi culture is.

I expect some network will soon produce a show titled “All-American Pedophile”. That should be good for ratings.

Here is the complete story of the new Muslim-embracing show from World Net Daily.

School wins suit prohibiting American flag…

2011-11-11T15:10:00.001-05:00

If you are a group who threatens violence should someone wear an American flag, you will prevail. This is exactly the result when a California school prohibited students from wearing an American flag displayed on their shirt during Cinco de Mayo. The students sued the school on the bases of violation of first their amendment right to freedom of expression – and LOST.

This is exactly the form of political correctness that keeps the truth from being told about Islamic evil. Two events planned by Pam Geller to inform her audience of the Islamic threat were cancelled by the venue hotels after the hotels were told there might be violence. Who warned about potential violence? Islamists from CAIR. What was the only potential source of such violence? The very Islamists who complained, the ones who didn’t want Pamela to speak.

Who did the school get threats from when the students wore the American flag? The Mexican students who threatened violence, the ones who didn’t want to see the American flag displayed.

In both instances the cowardly individuals in authority over each situation apparently couldn’t care less about our freedoms and pulled the plug on two things reflecting American culture: Our flag and our freedom of speech and expression. Their priority was caving in to intimidation by those who are intent on destroying everything American.

Here is the complete article from The Blaze:

_____________________________

Education Fed Judge: Calif. School Was Right to Forbid Students’ American Flag T-Shirts on Cinco de Mayo

Should public school officials have the right to prevent students from wearing pro-American garb on Cinco de Mayo?

This question has been at the heart of a California court battle between the Morgan Hill Unified School District and students who were told by a principal and assistant principal that they could not wear American flag t-shirts on the Mexican holiday back in 2010.

Following the incident, a lawsuit against the district was launched by the students and their families. This week, the case came to a close, with a federal judge ruling against the students — a blow that is likely to infuriate some free speech advocates.

Photo Credit: Lora Schraft

According to U. S. District Court Judge James Ware, the district did not violate the students’ first amendment rights. The judge also found that officials‘ concern over the potential violence that could be incited by the students’ pro-American outfits justified the school’s actions. The Morgan Hill Times has more about the case:

[The parents and students] filed the lawsuit against the school district alleging violations against their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights after their children wore American-themed T-shirts to Live Oak and were sent home after refusing to remove the shirts and apparel after Boden and Rodriguez were concerned about the potential for violence on campus…

The lawsuit sought nominal damages including changing school policies to clearly state students’ rights and protections under the Bill of Rights and reimbursing lawyer fees and expenses for the cost of litigation.

Here’s a bit more of the background: After noticing that the students were wearing pro-American garb on May 5, 2010, Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez subsequently approached the kids, telling them to to either remove the garments or to turn their shirts inside out. School Principal Nick Boden was apparently also concerned over the potential for the outfits to create issues between Hispanic students and those wearing the clothing (both men were named in the lawsuit as well).

Following their refusal to comply, the students were allegedly taken to the school’s office where Rodriguez talked with them about Cinco de Mayo. He apparently told them that their clothing would offend Hispanic students who observe the holiday.

Here’s a KSBW-TV story from 2010 that provides background on the incident:

Video: Lawsuit Filed In Morgan Hill Flag Flap

The Rutherford Institute and the Thomas More Law Center teamed up to represent the students and their families. John Whitehead, the president of Rutherford, was obviously less than content with the final decision. “This is nothing more than political correctness,” he said. “If these kinds of decisions are upheld, they will destroy our First Amendment rights.”

The school district, though, defends the principal’s actions and is elated by the recent decision. Wes Smith, who served as superintendent of the school district, says that he is very satisfied by the outcome. “We were encouraged to hear that the federal court found student safety paramount,” he said.

These comments seem somewhat disconnected from the statements Smith made just days after the incident unfolded. ”This has certainly been a very difficult time for our school district,” he said at a press conference on May 7, 2010. ”School leaders have to make judgment calls on when to take preventative measures to pre-empt a possible incident or conflict. In this situation, it appears that a decision was made too quickly.”

Rutherford is planning to appeal the court’s decision.

Pamela Geller: “Truth is the new hate speech”

2011-11-11T12:55:00.001-05:00

Pamela Geller, writer for the blog “Atlas Shrugs” and founder of the group “SOIA” (Stop the Islamization of America), and the companion book by the same name spoke at the Florida Tea Party Convention last week.

She speaks of the leftist/Islamic alliance, the stark differences between the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the education, media, and legal jihad taking place in America. She correctly observes that it makes no difference whether Obama is truly a Muslim or not. He is doing the exact same thing as if he were. He is this nation’s Islamic enabler and promoter-in-chief.

Pamela is one of the clearest truth tellers about the Islamic threat in the world today. Take the time to view this important video.

Also visit the Islamic Threat Simplified website to be convinced of the grave danger of Islam to America.

Cognitive dissonance: Separating principle from action…

2011-11-09T10:42:00.001-05:00

Why don’t people “practice what they preach?” Why don’t we act in ways we say we believe?

The answer: What we believe is too difficult to do. What we do is easier than what we believe.

Is this one of the reasons for the liberalizing of the American church – to bring the church’s belief systems into conformity with what is easier for us to do? You bet it is.

This is also one of the reasons why the church is becoming less relevant to millions of people. The church is less “salt and light”, less a “shining city on a hill” to aspire to, and more a bland mush of conformity with the culture. In fact, it is turning into a defender and promoter of pop culture, pushing government to enact laws that demand tolerance for what were a few years ago universally considered gross immoralities. The mainline denominations, including Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian, have blended in with and have become so indistinguishable from the rest of pop culture that their relevance is lost and reasons for attending are disappearing. This explains, in great part, why these denominations have experienced such a precipitous decline in membership over the last several decades. It is getting difficult to distinguish the church from the Socialist Party from the Man-Boy Love Association.

What churches are growing? Assemblies of God, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon), Jehovah’s Witnesses have shown the greatest growth. Smaller conservative spin-offs of main line churches that maintain their significant orthodox, conservative distinctions have shown some modest growth, but even these are few and far between. Unfortunately for those of us who feel our nation needs politically active Christians, Jehovah’s Witnesses abstain from the fight by refusing to participate in elections, politics, and the military as their means of avoiding the corrupting influence of politics.

Each of these relatively prospering bodies, in their own way, demand something from their members to counter the culture that threatens our survival. They each have strong stands against the rampant acceptance of abortion, against the acceptance of “gayness” as the new “cool” , and against the general immorality that is the new normal. These churches promote traditional, strong families, moral absolutes, respect for life, a literal interpretation of the Bible (as they understand it) and perpetuation of our species. On this last point, perpetuation of our species is one of the main objectives of our worship of God in the first place, apparently quite distinct from the beliefs demanded by both anything goes liberals and anything blows Islam. Both of these epitomize cognitive dissonance.

The growing denominations work to eliminate the cognitive dissonance that keeps members from acting on their beliefs. They demand something of their members. They are counter-cultural. These churches promote as “normal” the actual living of their beliefs. As regards competing ideologies like Islam, growing churches clearly lay out the evils of Islam instead of attempting to highlight misleading and ill-informed similarities. As regards big government, socialism, and the “social gospel”, these churches emphasize the need for personal responsibility required by personal decisions required to embrace personal salvation and living a new life.

The liberal church is a dying church trying to avoid cognitive dissonance.

The conservative church is a growing church, successfully integrating beliefs into actions.

Our cognitive dissonance and failure of our churches is also closely related to the failure of our public education system. Here is the trailer to the eye-opening 90-minute video, “Indoctrination”, that gives a sweeping overview of the destruction of our Judeo-Christian culture in our schools…

Trailer to the movie “Indoctrination”

The rates of growth and decline among the 25 largest churches in the U.S. reported in the 2008 Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches are:

US MEMBERSHIP CHURCH RANKING: Largest 25 Churches
Denomination Name	Current Ranking (Ranking in 2007 ed.)	Inclusive Membership	Percentage Increase or Decrease
The Catholic Church	1(1)	67,515,016	0.87%
Southern Baptist Convention	2(2)	16,306,246	0.22%
The United Methodist Church	3(3)	7,995,456	-0.99%
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints	4(4)	5,779,316	1.56%
The Church of God in Christ	5(5)	5,499,875	0.00%
National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc.	6(6)	5,000,000	0.00%
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America	7(7)	4,774,203	-1.58%
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.	8(8)	3,500,000	0.00%
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)	9(9)	3,025,740	-2.36%
Assemblies of God	10(10)	2,836,174	0.19%
African Methodist Episcopal Church	11(11)	2,500,000	0.00%
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America	11(11)	2,500,000	0.00%
Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.	11(11)	2,500,000	0.00%
The Lutheran Church-- Missouri Synod (LCMS)	14(14)	2,417,997	-0.94%
Episcopal Church	15(15)	2,154,572	-4.15%
Churches of Christ	16(16)	1,639,495	0.00%
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America	17(17)	1,500,000	0.00%
Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc.	17(17)	1,500,000	0.00%
The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church	19(19)	1,443,405	0.21%
American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.	20(20)	1,371,278	-1.82%
United Church of Christ	21(21)	1,218,541	-0.47%
Baptist Bible Fellowship International	22(22)	1,200,000	0.00%
Christian Churches and Churches of Christ	23(23)	1,071,616	0.00%
The Orthodox Church in America	24(24)	1,064,000	0.00%
Jehovah’s Witnesses	25(25)	1,069,530	2.25%
TOTAL		147,382,460	0.24%
*Percentage changes in italic/bold signify that membership was not updated from previous reported*

“Radical Muslim” this and “Radical Islam” that…

2011-11-06T16:36:00.001-05:00

I continue to be annoyed by media, commentators, and politicians referring to the daily heinous events perpetrated by Muslims as being caused by “radical Islam” or “radical Muslims.”

Here is the latest: Nigeria radical Muslim sect kills security agent

Whether from the media on the left or the right, there is a gross misrepresentation of the aspect of Islam that is engaging in terror, murder, and chaos.

Saying these ongoing atrocities are being committed by “radical Muslims” or “in the name of radical Islam” is erroneous. It is like saying the bombing of London during WWII was carried out by “radical Nazi’s.” Hey, it was carried out by Nazis! That’s who they are. That’s what they did!

Islam itself is radical. It is not some deviant “radical” offshoot that commits these acts. It is Islam. Historic, orthodox Islam as created by Muhammad and as promoted and taught by the majority of Islamic leaders and scholars since its beginning. Islam began “radical” and remains radical – the main body of the Islamic ideology is radical – not some distorted, misinterpreted off-shoot of Islam.

The “radicals” of Islam are the tiny minority of Muslims who disavow Sharia law and the “lesser jihad”, that is, violent jihad. The “radicals” are the tiny minority of powerless Muslims who argue that Islam is not supremacist and that there is no desire or intention of subverting the republican constitutional form of government in the United States. Zudhi Jasser comes to mind. He is so radical that he needs to eliminate or reinterpret half of Islamic scripture to come up with a peace-loving Islam that even vaguely approaches what Judeo-Christian culture understands as “peace-loving.” Portraying Jasser as the poster boy of Islam is a deception. He is the poster boy for a tiny, powerless, unorthodox fringe of Islam.

The vast body or Muslim leadership around the world favor the use of violent jihad, favor the imposition of sharia law as broadly around the world as Allah allows, and promotes the ideology of Islamic supremacism through subversion or violence as fits the occasion. This is orthodox, mainstream Islam. This is not a radical offshoot.

Why else would so many dozen acts of terror each week around the world be carried out in the name of Islam?

The sooner our political leaders and media can grasp this reality, the sooner we will understand what we are really dealing with and begin to make progress in preserving our culture and form of government.

Call it what it is: Muslim atrocities. Islamic atrocities. Not “radical Muslim” atrocities or atrocities in the name of “radical Islam.”

Here is another perspective of the same problem of denial – a revelation of the number of deaths from Islamic Jihad over the centuries by Bill Warner:

The Black Hole of History by Bill Warner

Posted in HomePage, Newsletter / Make a Comment (1) /

Everybody knows that Turkey, Egypt, North Africa, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and other Islamic nations (there are 57 in all) are nearly 100% Muslim. Those countries were Christian, Buddhist and Hindu. Exactly how did this change to Muslim happen?

When you read history it seems that Islam came, and, magically, the countries are Islamic. But of course an event of this magnitude did not simply happen. But our schools insist that Islam “just happens.” In fact, the entire history of the rise of Islamic imperialism is denied in the curriculum of our private, state and religious schools. Our schools don’t teach how Islam transforms each and every nation it invades to pure Islam, how it happens and what the consequences are. This is the law of Islamic saturation.

Our history denies the truth of the Islamification of civilizations. Actually, our history denies that Islam is even involved. It was the Turks, the Arabs, the Moors and so on. There is no Islam, just some ethnic group.
Look even closer at the history and ask this question: how many Kafirs (non-Muslims) died in Islamic conquest? You may find a number of dead here and there at a particular battle, but the establishment answer of the number murdered by jihad is zero, zip, none. In fact, there was not even a category called “jihad deaths.” You see Islam just happens.

After 9/11, there was an intellectual response to the establishment intellectual vacuum about how Islam actually functioned. A revolution of new scholarship on Islam was created by those amateur scholars who are outside the brain-dead establishment academy. The minds and labors of Bat Ye’or, Spencer, Trifkovic, Bostom, Warraq, Warner, Phares and many others tackled the problem of the true nature of Islam. The new scholarship gave answers to all of the questions Islamic colonization of the world.

The Center for the Study of Political Islam coined the name, Tears of Jihad, for the deaths caused by Sharia law. There is no way to actually come up with a precise number of deaths, because Islam has written the history (after all, they were the winners) and, of course, the history is all beautiful. There is only one way to even get close to a precise answer and that is for the academy to take up this subject and treat it as a priority. Conferences would be held, papers given, journals published with peer reviews and the rest of the academic critical thought process would go on for decades and many papers.

If the answer to the total jihad deaths is not zero, then CSPI proposes that 270 million Kafirs have been murdered over the last 1400 years. This figure includes 60 million Christians and 80 million Hindus. What if only 30 million Christians had been killed? Does that mean that we should continue for churches to ignore the Coptic murders in Egypt today and deny the million Armenians killed in the 20th century? Would Hindus have more or less courage if only 50 million, instead of 80 million had been murdered?

This is a civilizational problem, not an accounting problem. It is not that we deny that 270 have been killed by jihad; we deny that Islam is even at war with all Kafirs and Kafir civilization. A better kill number won’t erase the cowardice that blinds us today to an acknowledgment that Islam has a history of annihilating all civilization—the law of Islamic saturation.

It is interesting to see people’s reaction to the numbers. The vast majority ignore them. They don’t want to know. The most political figure is the number of Africans killed in jihad for the slave trade. The establishment tells us that all slaves were bought here from the West coast of Africa by Christians. It turns out that the slave trade was also on the Mediterranean and the east coast of Africa and each and everyone of the wholesalers in Africa were Muslims. This knowledge violates the establishment dogma of Christian evil.
One of the failures of the number 270 million is that it does not include the number of the Zoroastrians killed in Persia and other minorities such as the Sabians and Bahai. Who knows how many peasants died in some village without a name, simply because they did not believe that Mohammed was the prophet of Allah?

So, if the number is not 270 million, then what is a better number? Use critical thought to answer this problem, and don’t tell us that the number is zero. Give us an improvement, not a denial. We have had denial for 1400 years.

Facts and numbers are important but the real tragedy here is that our schools don’t teach the history that is the source the world’s greatest suffering caused by Islamic jihad imperialism. Since establishment professors and historians refuse to touch the subject of the Tears of Jihad, we must depend upon other scholarship to address the question of how we get the exact numbers. To that end, if you can improve any of the death figures with factual data, go to /blog/the-black-hole-of-history/ and give us your information.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink /blog/the-black-hole-of-history/
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com

Cain: Damned if you do; damned if you don’t

2011-11-02T16:32:00.001-04:00

Cain's accusers, whoever the heck they are, have successfully put Herman Cain in a “damned if you do – damned if you don’t” situation.

First, an “anonymous” source provides some vague innuendo about an alleged harassment incident 12 years ago by Cain. Then Cain provides an equally vague response to it that is criticised by the media for being too vague. So then Cain says a bit more about the anonymous accusation. Then the attorney for the accuser comes forth and says Cain broke the “silence” agreement concerning the settlement which frees the accuser to spill her guts about the alleged incident. Now the anonymous accuser says she is “wary of revisiting the episode.”

This is a classic game of gotcha. Whether the person accused is totally innocent or not. This is exactly why I hate politics.

This incident is typical of a whiny complaining human whose initial accusation is used only to provoke actions designed to incite, discredit, distract, and make her feel like she is getting some sort of self-aggrandizing vindication for a perceived slight. Come to think of it, this is the exact same tactic used by the Occupy Wall Street crowd. Incite and provoke the cops at every turn. Then out of the thousand times the cops have to respond, they make one slip up which is then used against all cops. The left has become expersts at this.

And the casual observer, not having all the facts, is left with doubt in his mind about BOTH the accused AND accuser.

Here is the remedy for that dilemma:

Go with what you know. If you know anything about the ACCUSED and you know NOTHING about the accuser because they choose to remain anonymous, give the benefit of the doubt to the accused and dismiss the accuser’s accusations. In this case, Herman Cain’s personal integrity has not been an issue and has not been questioned by anyone. We do need to discover the history and character of the accuser – which may be the very reason she chooses to stay anonymous. Perhaps she needs a new attorney.

Dick Morris agrees with the need for more information in the clip below…

width=480 height=270>

Near the end of this clip, Dick promotes his really neat sounding children’s book, Dubs Goes to Washington. Listen to find out more.

Worse than a delusional drug addict…

2011-10-30T11:47:00.001-04:00

At least a delusional addict doesn’t jeopardize the lives of thousands or perhaps millions. But the United States shares many of the same characteristics of a delusional addict, and with worse consequences. Among these characteristics are a schizophrenic personality when dealing with friends and enemies, an absolute denial of his consumption problem, denial of the evil of the source of his substance abuse, and a total disregard for the consequences for the supplier’s indefensible and likely deadly actions.

In this case the delusional addict is the United States, the abused substance is oil. The source of the substance is Saudi Arabia, the evil is Saudi Arabia’s ideology and anti-Semitism, and the consequences are our blindness to Saudi duplicity and the great potential for another 9-11, the annihilation of Israel, or worse.

How much of our substance of choice comes from Saudi Arabia? Nearly 10% of our imports. And we need to remember that Saudi Arabia is the “Don” that greases the palms of other Middle Eastern Islamic countries who supply another 15 to 20% of our total imports.

Now, let’s address our delusion.

How many of the 19 9-11 hijackers were Saudi?

American Airlines Flight 11 - One World Trade Center

Hijackers: Mohamed Atta (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian).^[7]

United Airlines Flight 175 - Two World Trade Center

Hijackers: Marwan al-Shehhi (United Arab Emirati), Fayez Banihammad (United Arab Emirati), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).^[7]

American Airlines Flight 77 - Pentagon

Hijackers: Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian).^[7]

United Airlines Flight 93

Hijackers: Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).^[7]

Well, golly gee, 14 our of the 19 were Saudis. We’ve all known that since a week after 9-11. But what have we done with that knowledge? Saudi Arabia continues to be our 2nd best ally in the Middle East after the only nation whose values we share, Israel. Oh, I forgot. In Obama’s mind Saudi Arabia is No. 1.

I’ve often wondered why we went after Afghanistan and Iraq while we totally buddied up with Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is also the number one funder of Islamic Mosques in the United States which are used as sites of sedition and promoters of Sharia Law in the US.

And now look who is rewarding the capture of Israeli soldiers who will be kept as ransom for Islamic terrorists who randomly blow up buses, schools, and kids in Israel?

Saudi royal offers $900,000 reward for capture of Israeli soldiers

Khaled's offer comes days after the prominent Saudi cleric, Awad al-Qarni, put $100,000 on the head of every Israeli soldier.

By DPA Tags: IDF Palestinians Hamas Gilad Shalit

RIYADH - A Saudi royal offered a $900,000 reward to anyone who captures an Israeli soldier, on Saturday. Prince Khaled bin Talal, the brother of business tycoon Walid bin Talal, told the Saudi-based broadcaster Al Daleel that the captive would then be released in exchange for Arabs held in Israeli prisons.

Khaled's offer comes days after the prominent Saudi cleric, Awad al-Qarni, put $100,000 on the head of every Israeli soldier.

Al-Qarni's statement - posted on Facebook - was severely criticized, and messages posted online even warned of death threats.

Khaled told the broadcaster: "My offer also comes in response to the threats made against Sheikh al-Qarni."

The Saudi offers follows the recent deal between the Israeli government and Hamas, when Israel agreed to release 1,027 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit.

Am I the only one who feels betrayed by our policy toward Saudi Arabia? Oh, I forgot. We are an addict. Saudi Arabia is a major supplier. Our addiction causes our delusion.

They won’t do the work Americans will do

2011-10-29T11:12:00.001-04:00

It has finally happened. Foreigners refusing to do the work Americans will do. In this case it is a group of college-aged students from Turkey who were promised wonderful things by our State Department – instead finding themselves actually working – working, I say - in a Hershey candy factory in Pennsylvania.

Just in from the “I would not be surprised” department: I would not be surprised if many of these foreign students joined the Occupy Wall Street Movement complaining about the cruelty of capitalism. And I would not be surprised if the State Department bused them to Wall Street so they can experience “American Democracy in Action.”

Lucy and Ethyl at the candy factory doing jobs Americans do, although their technique leaves a little to be desired.

Here is the story from the Washington Post:

Foreign students say visa program abused

By Pamela Constable, Saturday, October 29, 9:30 AM

For years, it has been touted as a form of vacation diplomacy: a U.S. government program that selects college students from across the globe to come work at beach resorts, amusement parks and other seasonal jobs. In the process, the visitors are expected to imbibe American culture, practice English and take home fond memories.

But this August, a group of students complained that their work conditions were closer to a sweatshop than a summer break, sparking demands for government intervention and a firestorm of bad publicity that federal officials are now trying to tamp down.

More than 300 young foreigners, packing candy in a warehouse in Pennsylvania, staged a high-profile walkout and protest against their employers and the State Department, which oversees the program. They alleged that they had been worked to exhaustion and had met few Americans except supervisors who pressed them to pack faster and threatened to have them deported.

“My parents agreed to send me because it would be a way to improve my English,” wrote Aysel Kiyaker, a student from Turkey who paid $3000 for her airfare and work visa. “They told us the job would be easy and fun and they would have pizza parties for us.”

Instead, Kiyaker found herself lifting heavy boxes on long shifts in the rural factory, owned by the Hershey Company. “After work my whole body was numb,” she wrote in an affidavit for the National Guestworker Alliance. She said one friend was threatened after she complained, and another was fired for not working fast enough. “After that happened, people were more afraid.”

The non-profit guest-worker group took up the students’ cause and filed a formal complaint against the State Department, as well as Hershey and the Council for Educational Travel USA (CETUSA), charging that they had exploited the students as cheap labor. The strike ignited a media frenzy and raised alarms in Congress, in part because of concerns that American workers were being displaced.

CETUSA, which manages the program for the State Department, denied the allegations. Company officials suggested the striking students had been misled by union activists, and said they had placed other students at Hershey for seven summers without any problems. Hershey officials said they owned the building but had no role in hiring or supervising the students, which were handled through sub-contractors.

“If any of them were dissatisfied, we were not hearing it,” said Terry Watson, CETUSA’s president. “We sponsor thousands of students every summer. The great majority of them have a wonderful experience and go home spreading the good word of America.”

But the bad publicity stunned and embarrassed the State Department. Officials there promised to investigate the alleged abuses and review the program, which brings more than 100,000 foreign students to the U.S. every summer. This week, department officials said they are planning a major overhaul to prevent such problems from recurring and reinforce the program’s diplomatic purpose.

“We want to make sure it meets our goals for worthwhile exchanges that promote better relations with other countries,” said Michael Hammer, an acting assistant secretary of state, adding that the summer jobs are supposed to be part of a “positive cultural experience.”

In July, before the Hershey case erupted, the department tightened program rules after reporting an increase in “fraudulent job offers, lax job vetting” and other problems. Yet Hammer said that more than 90 per cent of students report being satisfied with their experiences — and that many re-apply for a second summer.

Vlad Bicu, 26, a student from Romania, worked in Colonial Williamsburg for two summers and returned this June to work at an amusement park in Ohio. Each time he has saved his wages to travel around the United States before returning home. “I have seen all America now,” Bicu said this week while visiting New York City. “Your Grand Canyon is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen.”

Yin Fung Tan, 23, a student from Malaysia, spent this summer at Morey’s Piers, an amusement complex on the New Jersey shore, earning an average of $300 a week as a cashier and ride operator. The most important thing she learned was “to look people in the eye and speak to them. In our culture we never do that,” she said.

Company officials at Morey’s Piers said they recruit more than 700 foreign students each summer, travelling to job fairs from Singapore to Dublin. All start at $7.25 per hour and work alongside American students. “They learn from each other, and it changes their lives,” said Denise Beckson, director of human resources.

Labor activists, however, asserted that the alleged abuses were far more typical than officials acknowledge. They said even students in lighter hospitality jobs are often underpaid, poorly housed and threatened with losing their visas or right to return if they complain.

“While the State Department was asleep at the wheel, this entire program has turned into a captive labor source where students are exploited for profit,” said Saket Soni, executive director of the guest-worker group. He said the program left U.S. workers “locked out” of steady jobs and foreign students “locked in.”

The State Department already has rules in place to protect foreign student workers, who must be paid minimum wage and are banned from certain risky or sensitive jobs, such as patient care and adult entertainment. This week, department officials said they are planning to add further safeguards before the next students arrive.

In the Hershey case, however, officials said only that their investigation is “ongoing,” and they have taken no action against CETUSA, Hershey or its sub-contractors. In detailed formal complaints, the guest-worker group described systematic efforts to intimidate students who complained and charged that government investigators had worked in tandem with factory managers.

CETUSA, in turn, has fought back with competing affidavits from former Hershey workers. It quoted Lenka Vavrova, a Polish student, as saying she was “ashamed” of her co-workers for causing a fuss. They all knew what to expect at the candy factory, she wrote. “If they did not like it, they should have chosen something else.”

Economic uncertainty: Is it Europe or is it Obama?

2011-10-27T12:48:00.001-04:00

Wall Street seems to be greatly comforted by the deal struck by European leaders to bolster their bailout stash. Up yesterday on the “hope” of a deal, and up twice a much today on the reality.

While it is too soon to tell whether Europe’s fiscal precipice or Obama’s fiscal pubescence has been the primary cause of our economic doldrums, Europe seems to be winning at the moment.

If it turns out that the majority of our economic plight has been Europe-inspired and not Obama-inspired, and the unemployment rate begins to decline as a result, the Presidential race will become enormously more challenging for conservatives.

Not to wish economic doom and gloom, but a decisive, clear cut failure of the incumbent is much easier to deal with than a murky revival.

This is all to say that conservative candidates MUST, MUST, MUST promote talking points beyond the economy and the unemployment rate and jobs. As mentioned in a previous blog, there are a number of other hot-button topics that are campaign-worthy. These need to begin to be rolled out in earnest.

They include:

Government spending, waste, and collusion with wall street, big banks, and big business
Foreign policy, especially as regards our acknowledgement of the wastefulness in throwing money and resources at Islamic cultures while we ignore our long time allies.
Energy independence – drill, baby, drill and other things
Illegal immigration continues to sap our resources and dilute our culture
Excessive environmental regulation and taxation that chase business overseas.

Let’s hope we are not caught flatfooted with a single (jobs) issue campaign.

More dissimilation from Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-26T22:40:00.001-04:00

In the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” category is Karl Denninger. Denninger is a “virtual” OWS protester who is weirdly portrayed as a conservative. He is a rather strange animal who dabbles in economics and has embraced the credit of starting the Tea Party, along the lines of Al Gore inventing the internet.

His latest two very UN-conservative acts are 1) highlighting police peace keeping actions taken out of context to incite anti- police outrage (not mentioning that the intent of the protestors is to bait police a hundred times a day, and 2) bragging on Russia Today that he is supporting the OWS movement – a very Dixie Chick-esque anti-American thing to do.
Here is Denninger’s entry on Wikipedia:

Karl Denninger was the CEO of MCSNet in Chicago, one of the area's first Internet providers. He is a founding contributer to conservative blog market-ticker.org and was one of the early members of the Tea Party movement ("I cannot take credit for the idea floated on the forum, but I do like it").^[1] Rick Santelli's CNBC mention of a tea party followed Mr. Denninger's blog entry on January 20th.
On January 20, 2009 Denninger published a blog post regarding the suggestion to mail tea-bags to the White House and Congress. The title of his post was "Tea Party February 1st?" It was written on the same day and in response to President Obama's inauguration^[2], even though Denninger had voted for Obama.^[3] The blog-post took issue with the bank bailouts, the US national debt and "the fraud and abuse in our banking and financial system" which included the predatory lending practices at the center of the home mortgage foreclosure crisis.^[4]
Denninger, who helped form FedUpUSA in the wake of the March 2008 Federal Reserve bail-out of Bear Sterns, has been a guest on MSNBC, Glenn Beck and CNBC Reports.^[5]^[6] By February 1, the idea had spread to various conservative and libertarian-oriented blogs, forums, websites and through a viral email campaign.^[7]
On Oct 20, 2010, he blogged that Republicans had hijacked the Tea Party movement, and perverted its original goals to the standard Republican concerns of "guns, gays and God."^[8].
Denninger stated on Russia Today that he supports the Occupy Wall Street movement.^[9]

Denninger’s rants on his website take on a decidedly pro-anarchy, left wing community organizer slant. Yes, anarchy and left wing do fit together just as well as Denninger and the OWS movement. First comes anarchy – mock the idea of getting permits for protests, break the rules, discredit any authority, do all you can to incite the cops, flaunt the laws, raise hell, create chaos. That is the anarchy part. The leftist part is to get rid of capitalism and get the government involved in wealth redistribution. The leftist part is also a huge dose of personal irresponsibility – an infantile urge to have others provide for them. Denninger fits the mold of an uppity intellectual who believes he is god’s gift to socialism. Perhaps he is. Odd bird, indeed. In fact there is a whole flock of them in the OWS movement. Many well meaning people will be deceived. It will not end well.

Beware when socialists sing The Star Spangled Banner

2011-10-26T17:48:00.001-04:00

There is a new tactic that will confuse patriotic conservatives and independents. It is the singing of patriotic songs by socialists, communists, radicals, America-haters, and Islamists. Very confusing. In fact, it is confusing by design.

You see, the left understands that voters, in fact, most Americans, don’t pay much attention to the politics going on around them. Most are easily fooled by superficial bull-crap. That is not to say that patriotic songs are “artificial bull-crap.” But when such songs are used by those who disbelieve and actually dislike the words and meaning behind them in order to deceive the masses, that is unadulterated bull-crap piled exceedingly high.

But the fact is that these deceitful actions by the anarchist mobs desiring to create chaos and destroy our government also desire to divide and conquer those who sincerely stand for our way of life, personal initiative, and capitalism.

So, beware the wolves wrapped in patriotic garb. We are the ones who will look sheepish if we fall for their deceit.

latuphoto:

Occupiers sing the national anthem, while an Orlando Police Officer takes down the American flag and removes it from the occupation site.

City with 11% unemployment invites immigrants to revive the City

2011-10-25T12:08:00.001-04:00

This story has nothing to do with illegal immigrants – it has to do with insane City policy.

Dayton, OH, with an 11% unemployment rate and a rapidly declining population, is apparently desperate for “economic development.” So what do they do to economically develop? They consciously adopted “a plan to encourage immigrants to come and feel welcome here…to use them to help pull out of an economic tailspin.”

Of course, the fact that “Dayton officials said their plan still needs funding and volunteers to help put it in place…” could be a challenge. What wealth redistribution plan doesn’t need funding?” And what is the extra funding for? “…Increasing information and access to government, social services and housing issues; language education and help with identification cards, and grants and marketing help for immigrant entrepreneurs to help build the East Third Street section.”

Let me understand this. Dayton has a significant unemployment problem and a rapidly declining population resulting from the lack of jobs. The folks who left are probably the ones who could afford to eat out occasionally. The ones who remain are the poor. Their recovery plan is to encourage repopulation with thousands of immigrants who don’t have an education, who don’t have any visible means of support, who have minimal skills, and who need significant amounts of government funding to make it all work. They will fill jobs and create businesses that serve the remianing declining population who can afford to buy anything.

What the article fails to mention is the source of these “local government funds” that support this counterintuitive plan. My use of the word “counterintuitive” is not in the sense of “inspiring out-of-the-box thinking” but more in the sense of “non-sensical” and “insane.”

What do you want to bet that “local government funding” is from you and me –our tax dollars that went to Washington, had 20% taken out in federal administrative costs, repackaged, much like derivatives, into grants and associated doles to the City of Dayton for this “inspiring” socialist program headed toward the infamy of text books on local government policy under the category of “the dumbest local economic development policies ever.”

Here is the full story:

Dayton, Ohio, welcomes immigrants as policy point

By DAN SEWELL

By DAN SEWELL

DAYTON, Ohio On the same afternoon thousands of Hispanics in Alabama took the day off to protest the state's strict new immigration law, Mexican-born Francisco Mejia was ringing up diners' bills and handing containers piled with carnitas to drive-thru customers on the east side of Dayton.

His family's Taqueria Mixteca is thriving on a street pockmarked with rundown buildings and vacant storefronts. It gets packed with a diverse lunchtime clientele of Hispanic laborers, white men in suits and other customers, white and black. "Business is very good," Mejia said, smiling broadly between orders.

It's the kind of success story that leaders in Dayton think offers hope for an entire city. It has adopted a plan not only to encourage immigrants to come and feel welcome here, but also to use them to help pull out of an economic tailspin.

Dayton officials, who adopted the "Welcome Dayton" plan unanimously Oct. 5, say they aren't condoning illegal immigration; those who come here illicitly will continue to be subject to U.S. laws.

While states including Alabama, Georgia and Arizona, as well as some cities, have passed laws in recent years cracking down on illegal immigrants, Dayton officials say they will leave that to federal authorities and focus instead on how to attract and assimilate those who come legally.

Other cities, including nearby Columbus and Indianapolis, have programs to help immigrants get government and community help, but Dayton's effort has a broader, and more urgent, feel.

Mayor Gary Leitzell told the city commission before the vote that immigrants bring "new ideas, new perspectives and new talent to our workforce. ... To reverse the decades-long trend of economic decline in this city, we need to think globally."

Hard-hit for years by the struggles of U.S. manufacturing, particularly in the auto industry, the recession pounded Dayton, which as the Wright Brother's hometown calls itself "the birthplace of aviation."

Thousands of jobs were lost with the crippling 2009 exodus to Georgia of NCR (formerly National Cash Register), one of Dayton's signature corporations, after 125 years, and by the 2008 shutdown of a General Motors plant in suburban Moraine.

Dayton's unemployment is nearly 11 percent, 2 percent higher than the national average, while population has fallen below 142,000, down 15 percent from 2000. Meanwhile, the city's official foreign-born population rose 57 percent, to 5,102, from 2000 to 2010, according to census figures.

City leaders aiming to turn Dayton around started examining the immigrant population: Indian doctors in hospitals; foreign-born professors and graduate students at the region's universities; and owners of new small businesses such as a Turkish family's New York Pizzeria on the city's east side and Hispanic-run car lots, repair shops and small markets. They say immigrants have revitalized some rundown housing, moving into and fixing up what had been vacant homes.

"This area has been in a terrible recession, but it would be even worse without them," said Theo Majka, a University of Dayton sociology professor who, with his sociologist wife Linda Majka, has studied and advocated for Dayton's immigrants. "Here we have this underutilized resource."

Dayton officials say their plan still needs funding and volunteers to help put it in place; they hope by the end of the year. Its key tenets include increasing information and access to government, social services and housing issues; language education and help with identification cards, and grants and marketing help for immigrant entrepreneurs to help build the East Third Street section.

"We will be more diverse, we will grow, we will have more restaurants, more small businesses," said Tom Wahlrab, the city's human relations council director, who helped lead the plan's development.

Besides thousands of Hispanics, there are communities in Dayton of Iraqi refugees, Vietnamese and other Asians, Africans from several countries, and Russians and Turks who, officials say, are already living here quietly and industriously.

"Immigrants are hard workers with a propensity to create jobs, and this will invigorate the economy," said Festus Nyiwo, an attorney in his home country of Nigeria who has been a small-business entrepreneur since coming to Dayton about eight years ago.

Around the country, the bad economy has helped inspire new laws targeting illegal immigrants, seen as taking scarce jobs and overburdening schools, police and services.

In Alabama, a new law allows police to detain indefinitely those suspected of being in the country illegally and requires schools to check new students' status; some farms and businesses say they're losing workers because of it. Georgia and Arizona also added tough restrictions.

The immigration debate continues in Hazleton, Pa., where officials five years ago passed a law aimed at driving out illegal immigrants they blamed for drugs, violent crime and overwhelming schools and hospitals. The measure has since been tied up in court challenges.

Dorothy Balser, manager of refugee resettlement services for Catholic Social Services, said that finding jobs can be a struggle, but that refugees have generally been able to fit into the Dayton community. She thinks the Welcome Dayton plan will have a "natural positive effect" on those already here without causing a significant rise in numbers immediately.

Dayton's schools say they're helping 525 students learn English, up from 420 less than two years ago. About half are native Spanish-speakers; the rest are a mix of Turkish, Arabic, Swahili and more. They're ready to accept more.

"We already are currently experiencing many students from many nationalities living in Dayton. That is a reality," said Jill Moberly, a spokeswoman for Dayton Public Schools.

Opponents fear it will encourage illegal immigration and give preferences to immigrants.

"If Dayton wants to help build its economy by letting people know that legal immigrants are welcome, that's their prerogative," said Steve Salvi, founder of Ohio Jobs & Justice PAC, an advocacy group that focuses on illegal immigration. "But when they accept a plan that clearly has the purpose of including those (illegal) people, that's a problem for everyone."

Roy Barber, who owns Roy's Lock Shop on East Third Street, says he's been in business for 30 years and doesn't like the city's plan.

"Nobody ever talked to me," he said. "Why not help us?"

Barber said most of the neighborhood's Hispanic immigrants work hard and cause no problems. But he predicts Welcome Dayton will bring more illegal immigrants.

"You see people out on the street and you know they're illegal," he said.

Rich Lober, 50, a lifelong Dayton resident, said Mexican and other immigrants have helped East Third.

"I like the idea of rejuvenating this neighborhood," Lober said. But he said Dayton should look to draw back former residents.

"I'd like to see a 'Welcome Back.' They should include American citizens, too," Lober said.

Black resident David Dewberry told city officials it's important not to neglect predominantly black neighborhoods, where residents might wonder where their welcome plan is.

"Rightfully so, there are some lifelong residents who are disenchanted," he said.

At Taqueria Mixteca, Mejia's mother and restaurant manager, Marta Guzman, believes Welcome Dayton will help relieve stereotypes.

"I know there are some (immigrants) who are causing crime and problems," said Guzman, who has lived in the United States for three decades, legalized through the 1986 amnesty program.

"I have struggled a lot in this country, working two jobs, raising three children" as a single mother, she said. "Most of us are here to work hard and to live the American dream."

Will the new policy bring more immigrants? Mejia smiled again.

"We're already hearing that there are some Mexicans who are planning to come here from Alabama," he said.

---

Contributing to this report were Associated Press reporters Lisa Cornwell in Cincinnati, Michael Rubinkam in Allentown, Pa.; Jacques Billeaud in Phoenix and Jay Reeves in Birmingham, Ala.

Contact this reporter at http://www.twitter.com/dansewell.

Cain’s detractors

2011-10-22T15:34:00.001-04:00

Who are Cain’s detractors? Presently they include all of the other eight Republican contenders and their fans, plus most of the mainstream media. Each detractor is motivated by their own special interests to provide reasons to discredit Herman Cain and his proposals. Some comments are silly and contrived. Others are superficial without sufficient analysis and understanding. And what have these detractors come up with to disparage Cain and his agenda?

Here are a few along with my comments about their irrelevance:

“I thought 9-9-9 was the price of a Godfather pizza” – Cute but meaningless.
“999 is too simple” – If you want complex, stick with what we have. This comment is laughable.

“9-9-9 opens up a new source of taxation by Congress.” - This sounded like a credible concern until I gave it a little thought. Our present system’s years of convoluting, adding, laundering, pork barreling, exemptions, special favors, and complexity upon complexity have created unimaginable overhead costs, a huge industry desiring to perpetuate this monstrosity, and continuing undecipherable new tax laws from Congress.   And we are concerned about Congress screwing around with this new, simple, transparent tax system? A system that if Congress attempts to change one number, that event will be clearly on the radar of every American?   Compare that to the hidden shenanigans that Congress thrives on today. Plus, changing the tax rates for any of the three components of 9-9-9 will require a 2/3 majority of each house of Congress to change. And, as I understand it, even the legislation creating the 9-9-9 plan could not be amended without a 2/3 majority by each house of Congress. So the 2/3 majority rule could not be eliminated without a 2/3 majority. This is as good as a Constitutional Amendment.

“Cain has no foreign policy experience” - First, none of the debates thus far spent more than a fraction of the time on foreign policy issues, and the few questions asked have been superficial at best. So none of the candidates have really had an opportunity to address what they know and don’t know.   Question: How much “foreign policy experience” do any of the candidates have? Obama? Arrggghhh!   Obama proves that even with his now going on three years of foreign policy experience one can do great damage to our foreign policy.

What is more important in a candidate - Experience or values and principles? Evidence indicates that these are most important: Having a firm grasp of guiding principles for the role of this country in the world; having an appreciation for our foundational culture compared to that of other nations and cultures; and a clear understanding of who our friends and enemies are and using our limited resources accordingly. And finally, assembling a knowledgeable team who shares these common values – if there are any such creatures existent in the State Department or academia.

“Cain is too hard on Islam” - Yes, early in his campaign Cain expressed some firm language concerning the Islamic threat to this nation and what he would do about it. In fact, he is one of the few candidates who clearly understands the Islamic threat. Compare Cain’s understanding of the Islamic threat with that of other candidates HERE.

Cain was part of and supports the Federal Reserve: Conservatives who want to abolish the Federal Reserve claim that Cain is a big fan of it because he was President of the Kansas City Board of the Federal Reserve for a few years. True, Cain served on the Board of the Federal Reserve from 1992 to 1996.  Since then, Cain admits, the Federal Reserve has made some inappropriate decisions. Cain wants the Fed to stop worrying about unemployment and foucs on keeping inlation low. In his words, "the Fed's fous needs to be narrowed."   Cain has never been an "insider" of the Federal Reserve and is not a apologist for it.

“After Obama, I will never vote for another Afro-American” - It is true. Obama’s failed presidency tainted the idea of a “black” president. However, this is a thoughtless position.   First, Obama is not black, or Afro-American. He is a good part Caucasian. Some speculate with good reason that he may by primarily Indonesian.

Such speculation aside, a potential president should be selected on his merits, not on his race. If you were dumb enough to vote for Obama in the first place because of race, you are an idiot.

But, detractors and their issues will change over time.

If Cain wins the Republican nomination (in fact, whoever wins the Republican nomination) another crop of detractors will evolve: The entire Democratic, Obama, Pelosi, Soros progressive/socialist machine.

This is where the republican campaign has to be nimble and ready to address topics other than those that have been beaten to death during the Republican debates. The economy, jobs, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been the topics of today. The topics of the summer and fall of 2012 have a good chance of being entirely different.

We will be out of Iraq. We will be well on our way out of Afghanistan. Obama can point to dissing Osama and Kaddafi. There is a good chance that unemployment could be below 7% and declining. If these things all occur, what are the issues for the Republicans?

Let’s look at a few. Cain is best suited to addressing these other issues which should include at least the following:

Promoting growth in the private sector: Romney is the only one who comes close to matching Cain's private sector record of experience and successes. But as Cain points out, Cain's experience is more related to Main Street than to Wall Street.

Islam and national security: The designs of Islam and Sharia Law our greatest national security threat. The president must create an awareness of this threat in the same vein as knowing who are our friends and who are our enemies and why. The ignorant dhimmi attitude that prevails in the Justice Department must be reversed.

Environmental regulations: Their excesses and detrimental effect on the growth of jobs and businesses in this nation is well documented. The EPA needs to be defanged and a Department of Commerce and EPA merger may be one way to achieve this.

Energy:   Related to the gross excess of environmental regulations, energy independence is a huge weakness of the Obama administration. A focus on shaking up the obese and useless Department of Energy should be paramount. Its mission when it was created in 1977 was to make the US energy independent.   With a $26 billion a year budget and 24 years later we are MORE energy dependent on enemy nations around the world.

Tax reform: Whether 9-9-9 or some other program of radical tax reform, this is a good topic to highlight democrat weakness.

The whole American exceptionalism, Judeo-Christian basis of our nation’s founding and related cultural promoting attitudes of our next president should be high on the priorities of our campaign trail. This is the paramount weakness of Obama. This is explored HERE.

The liberation of independence…

2011-10-19T14:40:00.001-04:00

How often do you have to bite your tongue, stifle your opinions, or otherwise feel you have lost your right to speak your mind on matters important to you because of your job? This is a fact of life whether you have a job with government or in the private sector, whether you work for someone or are self-employed.

If you want to keep your job or your customers, you have to watch what you say. You need to be careful not to offend your boss, your coworkers, your customers, your shareholders, or even the media. Especially the media because even if bosses, coworkers, and customers agreed with what you said, the media often distorts our words to further their own agenda – letters to the editor included.

I understand there are consequences to our words and opinions – we are always responsible for what we say or write.

But being one who is predisposed to thinking and forming opinions on government policy, ideology, and morality, I find it exhilaratingly liberating to be not be working – having neither boss nor customers nor coworkers to worry about offending. I didn’t realize how shackled my alleged “freedom of expression” was in my employment (most often for a local government) until I retired a few years ago.

Having to be merely “politically correct” isn’t the half it when we are subject to the constraints of employer and customer. When we are indoctrinated in a particular profession, along with that profession comes a myriad of taboos, sacred cows, and ill-conceived fads. Professions are full of thought police in government, in education, in businesses. My former city planning profession is full of proponents of human-caused global warming, “green” development and construction standards (which often prove not cost effective), poorly thought through “sustainable development” requirements, and proponents of constrictive and wasteful top down regional and state planning.

Peer review of new ideas is one thing. Peer intimidation and out-casting is quite another. Fortunately, these things have not happened to me for two reasons. One is because I hewed the line and didn’t roam far afield from the politically correct way to think. Secondly, I found a way to relate to the objectives of the places I chose to work so there was a minimum of cognitive dissonance.

But until I removed myself from my profession, employer, and customers, I didn’t appreciate how constrained I was and how liberated I feel now. I really hate to say this, but as long as we have to be beholden to anyone for our income, we are NOT free – freedom is a myth - with one exception: Welfare recipients. Those who receive government welfare as their source of income are more free than those who earn their living. How? Because laws require welfare recipients to receive their checks no matter how outspoken they are about anything. They can march and protest and flash mob to their heart’s content without fear of loss of their income. Ironic, isn’t it.

This makes me wonder how much better our society might be if employees were totally free to responsibly express themselves publicly on any topic without consequences. That is a Pollyanna-esque thought, with the weasel word being “responsibly.” One mans’ “responsibly” is another mans’ “irresponsibly.”

By the way, from the number of posts in my “Blog Archive” in the top right column of this blog can you guess what year I retired?

Dual economy killers: “Free” trade and enviro-Nazism

2011-10-13T14:27:00.001-04:00

Two of the major causes of a crappy and declining US economy are the false promises of “free” trade and the reality of enviro-Nazism. These two politically correct but destructive policies, together, result in unsustainable trade deficits, loss of jobs, greater national indebtedness, higher interest payments and will lead to the eventual collapse of our economy.

The two articles below summarize these joint self-imposed curses on our country. Together they make it impossible for us to prosper and grow.

First, the enviro-Nazism article from The Blaze titled “Business ‘A Clear Overreach’: Gibson CEO Blasts Justice Department.” This article describes the strong-armed tactics of our government in seizing raw materials from the Gibson Guitar Company without any charges being filed. The Justice Department (aka Department of Injustice under Obama) says they are enforcing a US law that protects the environment of another country. Sources in that other country disagree.

Following that is the article from The Market Ticker titled “Free Trade = Free Financial Rapes.” This article explains the pitfalls of our persistent $40 to $50 billion annual trade imbalance that requires our nation to increase its indebtedness each year. Too many politicians have fallen into the trap of believing free trade is next to godliness when such beliefs are sinking our economy.

We must seek Presidential and Congressional candidates whose clear agenda is to eliminate these destructive legislative handcuffs on our economy.

Business ‘A Clear Overreach’: Gibson CEO Blasts Justice Department

Gibson Guitar Corp.’s chief slammed the U.S. government on Wednesday for sending armed agents to raid two Tennessee factories under a law aimed at curbing the illegal harvest of tropical hardwoods, reports Reuters.

“Armed people came in our factory … evacuated our employees, then seized half a million dollars of our goods without any charges having been filed,” Gibson CEO Henry Juszkiewicz told reporters and others at a Washington lunch.

“I think it’s a clear overreach,” he said.

Government agents seized a total of over $1 million worth of rosewood, ebony and finished guitars from Gibson factories in Memphis and Nashville in raids in 2009 and August of this year, Juszkiewicz told Reuters.

Gibson’s factories remain open “under great difficulty” because the raids took most of the company’s raw materials, the CEO said. In a Capitol Hill forum Wednesday, Juszkiewicz told Republican lawmakers the raids have so far cost the company more than $3 million in legal fees and manufacturing disruptions.

The price of their products will likely go up because of the financial hit they have taken.

Furthermore, the CEO cautioned that American jobs could be sent overseas as a result of the federal harassment.

“You know, there’s a very real possibility we will have to move at least some processing [jobs] overseas,” the Daily Caller reports Juszkiewicz saying. “I’m trying to avoid that. But you know, I have to do what the business requires, and that’s a very realistic possibility.”

The U.S. Justice Department declined on Wednesday to comment on the case but provided information on the Lacey Act, which aims to curb trafficking in wildlife, fish and plant products, including illegally obtained timber.

“By prohibiting trafficking in wood illegally harvested overseas, the Lacey Act prohibits companies from undercutting law-abiding U.S. wood products companies … by trading in artificially inexpensive raw materials that have been illegally harvested from foreign forests,” Justice and Interior department officials wrote in a letter.

Gibson Guitar uses a small fraction of the world’s tropical hardwoods, compared to that used for furniture and flooring, and because it uses so little it can use it sustainably, Juszkiewicz said.

“The issue here is not illegal logging or some conservation abuse,” he said. “The laws that are being identified by the Department of Justice have to do with protectionism by the country of origin, keeping work in that country and therefore not allowing something that isn’t that value-added to be exported.”

Gibson has filed suit in federal court in Nashville to recover the seized material, but that suit has been stayed while the investigation continues, reports Reuters.

Furthermore, the guitar manufacturer has hired a Washington law firm to lobby on its behalf.

The Tennessean reports that Crowley & Morley LLP will lobby against the Lacey Act, which federal officials are investigating Gibson of violating.

Gibson’s chief said the law should be changed.

“I believe in the intent of the law … but I do believe that the way it‘s currently written allows what’s happening to me to happen to other companies, and that’s wrong,” he said.

"Free Trade" = Free Financial Rapes

And nowhere is it more evident than in the trade balance report for this month.

The U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, through the Department of Commerce, announced today that total August exports of $177.6 billion and imports of $223.2 billion resulted in a goods and services deficit of $45.6 billion, virtually unchanged from July, revised. August exports were $0.1 billion less than July exports of $177.7 billion. August imports were $0.1 billion less than July imports of $223.3 billion.

We are constantly told how "free trade" is good for America, and how it boosts our exports (and thus helps GDP - and employment.)

The truth is something else entirely. Indeed, at this point one can no longer claim this is a "mistake"; it's an intentional fraud that is pushed by multinational corporations and the politicians in their pockets. How can one realistically argue with this chart?

You might as well print that gap in red, for the blood of our workers (and monetary balance.) Or maybe yellow is accurate (you pick the pejorative that fits your particular worldview.)

When all is said and done this sort of utter crap requires the explicit "support" of the monetary authority (read: Bernanke) to be sustained. Trade deficits cannot be sustained otherwise, as the shift of capital causes a change in the relative value of currencies (in a floating fiat currency regime) that cuts off the ability to sustain the imbalance.

So what has The Fed and Congress done? Conspired to create credit to replace capital in the economy to the tune of nearly a half-trillion annually!

This in turn appears to make these trade deficits sustainable. But all credit comes with interest due, and there is no such thing as a free lunch in this regard. All we do is temporarily delay and compound the negative effects, shifting them to the nation's citizens.

Inflation-adjusted (that is, looking at purchasing power) wages have declined in the last decade... there's your consequences!

"Free trade" is misnamed - when you hear it, repeat back at the speaker "free financial rapes", because that's exactly what these policies are.

Herman Cain at the Values Voter Summit…

2011-10-08T22:46:00.001-04:00

This is a speech that is too good to ignore.

Cain is the most dynamic speaker of the lot of Republican candidates. This is someone who has ideals and is confident enough about them to promote them with enthusiasm.

You gotta listen to this…