This article appears on the World Net Daily website today. I post a few quotes.
Shariah for Dummies
Posted: August 27, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
By Nonie Darwish © 2010
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claims that the U.S. Constitution is Shariah compliant. Let us examine below a few laws of Shariah to see if Imam Rauf is truthful or a fraud:
1. Jihad, defined as "to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion," is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (caliph). Muslim caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Shariah and unfit to rule.
2. A caliph can hold office through seizure of power, meaning through force.
3. A caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.
4. A percentage of Zakat (charity money) must go toward jihad.
5. It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.
6. A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.
. . .
8. A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.
9. A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostate, 2) an adulterer, and 3) a highway robber – making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.
. . .
11. Shariah never abolished slavery or sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.
12. Shariah dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging – even for crimes of sin such as adultery.
13. Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims under the law. They must comply with Islamic law if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their Scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.
. . .
16. Banks must be Shariah compliant, and interest is not allowed.
17. No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or bathhouse attendants. Women in low-level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.
This guarantees that a practicing Muslim will always be a pain in the ass to govern. They will never stand for being a good neighbor and however they behave will be but a pretense until they are in control. SCB
18. A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslim minority.
Shariah Law hard on homosexuals. SCB
19. Homosexuality is punishable by death.
And women. SCB
20. There is no age limit for marriage of girls. The marriage contract can take place any time after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.
21. Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband's obligation to support her, and gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.
22. Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying, "I divorce you," and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.
23. There is no community property between husband and wife, and the husband's property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.
24. A woman inherits half what a man inherits.
25. A man has the right to have up to four wives, and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.
26. The dowry is given in exchange for the woman's sexual organs.
27. A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married, her marriage is annulled.
28. The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.
29. A woman loses custody if she remarries.
30. To prove rape, a woman must have four male witnesses.
31. A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.
32. A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body, which is considered "Awrah," a sexual organ. Not all Shariah schools allow the face of a woman exposed.
33. A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife at the time he caught her in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he "could be married to the woman he was caught with."
The law that has a practicing Muslim unable to be a business partner, marriage partner or even a good neighbor - as we are seeing in the attitude of Imam Rauf. SCB
34. It is obligatory for a Muslim to lie if the purpose is obligatory. That means that for the sake of abiding with Islam's commandments, such as jihad, a Muslim is obliged to lie and should not have any feelings of guilt or shame associated with this kind of lying.
The above are clear-cut laws in Islam decided by great imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Muhammad's life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us what part of the above is compliant with the U.S. Constitution.
_________________________________________________________
Nonie Darwish is the author of "Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law" and founder of Former Muslims United.
_________________________________________________________
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Has Islam Already Beaten America?
Notice that we are besieged by the Ground Zero mosque story. It is constantly on the news and the Imam gets on every TV in the country and makes one outrageous statement after another. He says we have more blood on our hands than Al Qaeda, that we are the most dangerous killers on the planet, etc., etc. We may as well have a poison spewing, anti-American machine sitting in the living room of every household.
And with every moment that we construe this mosque and the Muslims in terms of freedom of religion and freedom of speech, we miss the point. The point is that the 9/11 attack and all the terrorist activities in the United States and Europe in the past 10 years minimum are in the name of Islam. That's a fact.
So, there should be no free passes for Islam and I don't give a damn what they say about their rights. The US Government's job is to protect our individual rights inside the borders of the United States. In order to do its job, it needs to be the gatekeeper. It doesn't let any yahoo in here who isn't willing to be a good neighbor and operate by our laws.
The Muslim religion as now constituted is not a candidate for having mosques in this country. Why? Because it advances Sharia Law and that is a political act, not just speech nor religion. When it sets aside Sharia Law as something it seeks to institute here, then it is welcome. And our government needs to say that straight out and be done with it. If the s--t hits the fan, so be it. It needs to.
If there are moderate Muslims who can show that they are not interested in establishing Sharia Law here, then they need to speak out and voice an opinion different from the current spokesmen for the Ground Zero mosque. If that doesn't happen, I think we should treat these people as the children they are and relegate them all to the same decision. No dice.
The hardest thing to face during this Obama administration is that we the people have been abandoned by our government. It does nothing for the people - maybe a few cronies and partisan groups - but that's it and that is not governance. That's special interest Chicago thug politics. And how disgusting is that.
And with every moment that we construe this mosque and the Muslims in terms of freedom of religion and freedom of speech, we miss the point. The point is that the 9/11 attack and all the terrorist activities in the United States and Europe in the past 10 years minimum are in the name of Islam. That's a fact.
So, there should be no free passes for Islam and I don't give a damn what they say about their rights. The US Government's job is to protect our individual rights inside the borders of the United States. In order to do its job, it needs to be the gatekeeper. It doesn't let any yahoo in here who isn't willing to be a good neighbor and operate by our laws.
The Muslim religion as now constituted is not a candidate for having mosques in this country. Why? Because it advances Sharia Law and that is a political act, not just speech nor religion. When it sets aside Sharia Law as something it seeks to institute here, then it is welcome. And our government needs to say that straight out and be done with it. If the s--t hits the fan, so be it. It needs to.
If there are moderate Muslims who can show that they are not interested in establishing Sharia Law here, then they need to speak out and voice an opinion different from the current spokesmen for the Ground Zero mosque. If that doesn't happen, I think we should treat these people as the children they are and relegate them all to the same decision. No dice.
The hardest thing to face during this Obama administration is that we the people have been abandoned by our government. It does nothing for the people - maybe a few cronies and partisan groups - but that's it and that is not governance. That's special interest Chicago thug politics. And how disgusting is that.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Mr. Everything - Mr. Nothing
Cartoon by John Cox.
Is Obama everything or is he nothing? Or simply evil? I wouldn't care except that he can force his way on all of us and that ain't right.
First he's multi-racial, so he's black, no he's white, he's everything - but then he's neither. He's whichever until it comes to accountability and then he's the other race.
He was raised a Muslim, now he's a Christian, he's everything - but then, he's not really either. In Washington he doesn't go to church. Maybe he's an atheist. Hmm, a nothing?
He's supposedly an American, although none of us are quite sure about that. He certainly doesn't act like an American. He kisses the rings and asses of everyone except Americans. He tries to act like he's a citizen of the whole world, but who wants him? Anyone who would claim him would find he would have to work to not be them. I asked an African if he was an African. He said, "No, he's certainly not an African."
He sounds like he wants to build the world but what has he built? He destroys relationships right and left and isn't building new ones. He fritters our wealth away to worthless recipients - worthless because they cannot build it into something that would sustain them. I read yesterday where his State Department is spending millions for the building and rehabilitation of mosques in the Middle East, southern Europe and Africa. Aren't they at war with America?
Or remember when he was the Illinois Senator who postured that he was everything - except that he could not take a stand on a tough issue and would push the "present" button? That happened almost a 130 times. Mr Everything transformed to Mr. Nothing.
He entered the gulf oil spill matter as our savior. The gulf healed itself and our only cost was the damage done by Obama. He did his best to ruin the oil industry there. First he was everything and then he was nothing - now wait, a minute, he was a negative everything.
First he tells us that the Constitution is lacking because it only lists negative rights. He then stands for the negative rights for our enemies - the Muslims who have yet to own their spiritual connection to 9/11 - and that is something he would never do for us citizens. Isn't it interesting that the Imams want to make use of our negative rights, those things listed in the Constitution that Obama thinks are its flaw? They could give a damn about his so-called positive rights.
He's transparent, no, he's murky. I see; no, I don't. Screw it.
He's metrosexual. Good suits. Perfect everything. Is that masculine? Feminine? Both? Nothing? Hmmm.
He won because everyone mapped their view of him, their hope for him, on him. Now we are pissed. Betrayal reigns.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Ground Zero Mosque?
President Obama has come out in support of the right of Muslims to have a mosque on their private property. Although we in America take it for granted that we have the right to use our property as we wish, we are beginning to learn that is not the case - unless, of course, you are a Muslim, whereupon the President lets us know that they have that right. The rest of us undergo way too many stupid, irritating regulations that do nothing other than stop the use of one's intelligence.
What is wrong with this picture? Why should the Muslims not be able to use their property as they wish?
Use of property is not a primary. It is subject to moral law, the moral principles that grant validity to the political principles of the State. In the United States where every man has a right to his life while living in society, it is immoral, and illegal, for a man to use his property to concoct the means necessary to murder his neighbor, i.e., to deprive him of his fundamental piece of property, his life.
The 9/11 debacle was in the name of Allah, the Muslim god. It was done for the glorification of Islam and Allah. To allow an enemy to erect a monument next to the site of the destruction they caused is obscene. Not until the Muslims give up their right to kill other people for their religious reasons can they be allowed to spread their word in America. Only in this era when morality has been pushed from the scene would it ever be possible to give this mosque a pass. I say, Islam (meaning the political equivalent of that) gets its mosque when the political entities who advocate it surrender to the United States - and not until then.
Beyond this, Islam is not simply a religion in the meaning of that term applicable in the United States. Here a religion means that one may organize and advocate and teach principles to live by. However, people in the name of their religion have no right to judge people and then administering severe punishments and even death sentences if the followers do not follow their rules. Although some may admire Islam for sticking to its principles, it is forever damned because it is acting on the wrong principles - principles which are anti-human life.
A human being possesses his life which is dependent upon his rational faculty. He has to be able to make mistakes in order to learn. This is an individual process and is necessary for all people. Provided a person hasn't initiated force against another, he must be able to make mistakes and pay for the damages - real damages, i.e., not to one's weird view of his honor. Burying a person up to his neck and throwing stones at his head until his skull is crushed is not appropriate punishment. Honor killings are immoral, evil, and should be renamed, "dishonor killings" because they bring dishonor to all the individuals who sanction such an institution.
Following Obama's support of the Ground Zero Mosque, he stepped back, stepping into an even bigger "cow pie." He said he wouldn't be the one to tell the Muslims that it was the wise thing to do. Thanks, O, you barbarian.
Obama is America's president. His job more than any other is to be a political leader - which means, be a leader such that the society as constituted by the principles which generated this country are maintained and the society continues. He is failed utterly at this task. I mean, he failed so badly that it is unconscionable. Without any reference to the abhorrent evil of Islam in jihadist practice, he sanctioned it. I am finally and absolutely clear that Obama is not interested in being a leader for the United States. He has no inclination toward it.
Frankly, given that 9/11 has Muslim stamped all over it and he could not take a stand for America when he took an oath to protect the Constitution and the country, I think he committed an impeachable offense. He deserves to be removed from office for treason.
P.S. I see that the Germans shut down a Hamburg mosque where the 9/11 attackers met. Here.
What is wrong with this picture? Why should the Muslims not be able to use their property as they wish?
Use of property is not a primary. It is subject to moral law, the moral principles that grant validity to the political principles of the State. In the United States where every man has a right to his life while living in society, it is immoral, and illegal, for a man to use his property to concoct the means necessary to murder his neighbor, i.e., to deprive him of his fundamental piece of property, his life.
The 9/11 debacle was in the name of Allah, the Muslim god. It was done for the glorification of Islam and Allah. To allow an enemy to erect a monument next to the site of the destruction they caused is obscene. Not until the Muslims give up their right to kill other people for their religious reasons can they be allowed to spread their word in America. Only in this era when morality has been pushed from the scene would it ever be possible to give this mosque a pass. I say, Islam (meaning the political equivalent of that) gets its mosque when the political entities who advocate it surrender to the United States - and not until then.
Beyond this, Islam is not simply a religion in the meaning of that term applicable in the United States. Here a religion means that one may organize and advocate and teach principles to live by. However, people in the name of their religion have no right to judge people and then administering severe punishments and even death sentences if the followers do not follow their rules. Although some may admire Islam for sticking to its principles, it is forever damned because it is acting on the wrong principles - principles which are anti-human life.
A human being possesses his life which is dependent upon his rational faculty. He has to be able to make mistakes in order to learn. This is an individual process and is necessary for all people. Provided a person hasn't initiated force against another, he must be able to make mistakes and pay for the damages - real damages, i.e., not to one's weird view of his honor. Burying a person up to his neck and throwing stones at his head until his skull is crushed is not appropriate punishment. Honor killings are immoral, evil, and should be renamed, "dishonor killings" because they bring dishonor to all the individuals who sanction such an institution.
Following Obama's support of the Ground Zero Mosque, he stepped back, stepping into an even bigger "cow pie." He said he wouldn't be the one to tell the Muslims that it was the wise thing to do. Thanks, O, you barbarian.
Obama is America's president. His job more than any other is to be a political leader - which means, be a leader such that the society as constituted by the principles which generated this country are maintained and the society continues. He is failed utterly at this task. I mean, he failed so badly that it is unconscionable. Without any reference to the abhorrent evil of Islam in jihadist practice, he sanctioned it. I am finally and absolutely clear that Obama is not interested in being a leader for the United States. He has no inclination toward it.
Frankly, given that 9/11 has Muslim stamped all over it and he could not take a stand for America when he took an oath to protect the Constitution and the country, I think he committed an impeachable offense. He deserves to be removed from office for treason.
P.S. I see that the Germans shut down a Hamburg mosque where the 9/11 attackers met. Here.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
No, Shirley! Let's Try That One More Time!
The story this week is that of Shirley Sherrod talking about her judging people by race and transforming to a person who judges them by class.
Beep!
Both wrong Shirley! Both lead to the same consequences: No freedom and the theft of one man's life (I know it looks like a benefit at first) at the expense of another man's life - as public policy.
The Obama Administration immediately cast itself into a deeper HELL by falling all over itself to apologize for its quick judgment. Whoops! Another quick judgment! And just as bad!
Mr. Intelligence jumped from the racism of Sherrod to the thieving of Sherwood. So Robin Hood is the good?
Puh-leaze! If that's the case then it ought to be quite alright to relieve Obama of his millions. And Soros of his. And let me see how many there are that ought to cleanse their souls.
Not only is this pure hypocrisy as advocacy, it is simply wrong. To succeed, to excel, to achieve, and yes, to become wealthy is something that a person ought to want if he is actually seeking to better himself. Money is one measure. It's not the only one. Michael Jordan is an example of wealth - in basketball talent and works. Michelangelo is an example of wealth - in artistic talent and works. Others are example of wealth - in marketing talent and works, in entertainment talent and works, in manufacturing talent and works, etc.
No wealth, no future. So what Sherrod did by robbing the rich and giving to the poor was rob the poor man of his future. The underlying lesson was to be rich meant he would be robbed and probably no better off if he were to become rich. "Oh well, being rich was never my thing anyway."
None of this is America as conceived. None of it. It is as foreign to America as the Mandarin of China or Bantu of South Africa. Here, every man is protected in his life. He can work and earn property and live his life. It's his. He has a right to his life - ALL OF IT. Not a tiny piece of it. All of life and all that he sees is possible for life. This is America.
The thing that America used to do well but has literally been taxed out of doing is taking care of those that need a helping hand. Once the government started doing this, it has grown an industry of its own and it is no longer related to life. It's become the death industry - surviving on the blood of the poor for its existence. It survives on the sob stories of the poor. Their blood is the fertilizer that they must constantly give up so that the government can justify its need for the blood of the rich. What a horrible industry. Hideous to the hilt. I want to puke.
We are under a scourge. One that has been growing for a hundred years. It's the scourge of the little people - the people who hold individual human beings as small. The little people's biggest fear is that people can actually be great and large as a possibility that we can all aspire to. Rather than let man yearn and grow and fill these possibilities of his imagination and shape our government to allow this freedom (which is what it was designed to do), the little people strap down everything, regulate everything, tax everything, and in one way or another constrict everything and bend everything until is is some distorted, tortured, grotesque mis-shape of what it could be. This is the real pain of living in the United States right now.
When this passes, and only then, can we exhale.
And then...and then... we can inhale the sweet air of life once again.
Beep!
Both wrong Shirley! Both lead to the same consequences: No freedom and the theft of one man's life (I know it looks like a benefit at first) at the expense of another man's life - as public policy.
The Obama Administration immediately cast itself into a deeper HELL by falling all over itself to apologize for its quick judgment. Whoops! Another quick judgment! And just as bad!
Mr. Intelligence jumped from the racism of Sherrod to the thieving of Sherwood. So Robin Hood is the good?
Puh-leaze! If that's the case then it ought to be quite alright to relieve Obama of his millions. And Soros of his. And let me see how many there are that ought to cleanse their souls.
Not only is this pure hypocrisy as advocacy, it is simply wrong. To succeed, to excel, to achieve, and yes, to become wealthy is something that a person ought to want if he is actually seeking to better himself. Money is one measure. It's not the only one. Michael Jordan is an example of wealth - in basketball talent and works. Michelangelo is an example of wealth - in artistic talent and works. Others are example of wealth - in marketing talent and works, in entertainment talent and works, in manufacturing talent and works, etc.
No wealth, no future. So what Sherrod did by robbing the rich and giving to the poor was rob the poor man of his future. The underlying lesson was to be rich meant he would be robbed and probably no better off if he were to become rich. "Oh well, being rich was never my thing anyway."
None of this is America as conceived. None of it. It is as foreign to America as the Mandarin of China or Bantu of South Africa. Here, every man is protected in his life. He can work and earn property and live his life. It's his. He has a right to his life - ALL OF IT. Not a tiny piece of it. All of life and all that he sees is possible for life. This is America.
The thing that America used to do well but has literally been taxed out of doing is taking care of those that need a helping hand. Once the government started doing this, it has grown an industry of its own and it is no longer related to life. It's become the death industry - surviving on the blood of the poor for its existence. It survives on the sob stories of the poor. Their blood is the fertilizer that they must constantly give up so that the government can justify its need for the blood of the rich. What a horrible industry. Hideous to the hilt. I want to puke.
We are under a scourge. One that has been growing for a hundred years. It's the scourge of the little people - the people who hold individual human beings as small. The little people's biggest fear is that people can actually be great and large as a possibility that we can all aspire to. Rather than let man yearn and grow and fill these possibilities of his imagination and shape our government to allow this freedom (which is what it was designed to do), the little people strap down everything, regulate everything, tax everything, and in one way or another constrict everything and bend everything until is is some distorted, tortured, grotesque mis-shape of what it could be. This is the real pain of living in the United States right now.
When this passes, and only then, can we exhale.
And then...and then... we can inhale the sweet air of life once again.
Monday, July 12, 2010
What is Obama?
People are trying to categorize Obama. Is a socialist? Is he a fascist? Is he a statist?
The one thing everyone agrees with is that he is not a capitalist. He hates freedom and fights it at every turn. Not a day goes by when he doesn't infringe freedom in one way or another.
Socialism is a social system where the state owns all the property. To own property means to direct its use and disposal.
Capitalism is a social system where all the property is privately owned - which is to say that the means of production are owned by the individuals, not the state.
Fascism is a social system where the individuals possess the title, but the property's use and disposal is regulated and directed by the state. The net effect of fascism is that individuals possesses the liability for the property but not the benefits as those are directed/controlled by the state.
Statism is a social system where the state dominates life. It possesses all the liberties and the individual possesses none. Both socialism and fascism are statist systems. Capitalism is individualist, and not statist, since it is grounded in the individual and his rights.
Obama damns business, but he is completely in bed with business in that he's overtly made GM, Chrysler, the banks, and now the Medical system all parts of the government. They possess a form that looks like business, but they are actually government bureaucracies in another form. This makes Obama a fascist.
Fascism doesn't have to look like Hitler. Mussolini was a fascist. All progressives are fascists. They intend to create a so-called partnership of business and government. Since the government possesses the guns, it calls the shots and all the decisions of the business are based on politics, not supply and demand. The major failure of socialist and fascist systems is that they lose their bearings and become unable to direct the flow of goods for their best use. The politicians ultimately get so self-serving and paranoid that they direct everything for their use as they see it. The fact that they may couch those uses in terms that sound like they would benefit the country is for the purpose of selling it to the populace, not benefiting the country. This is being borne out in the Obama Administration and will get progressively worse as he carries it to new heights and as the fascism gets further entrenched.
Fascism sources corruption and so this administration is taking corruption to a new level. We need to purge ourselves of this scourge, and it is going to take some intense investigators and prosecutors to bring those who have corrupted our system to justice. Although corruption always exists in government as it does in other segments of society, to allow it to thrive as it is now thriving is to render this country to the status of a third-world country. A hallmark of the third-world is corruption with bribery as the means for getting anything done.
Capitalism is a self-cleansing system. The freer it is, the more this happens. A person has to stay straight in order to compete. This discourages all kinds of unproductive behaviors and encourages productive behaviors.
The one thing everyone agrees with is that he is not a capitalist. He hates freedom and fights it at every turn. Not a day goes by when he doesn't infringe freedom in one way or another.
Socialism is a social system where the state owns all the property. To own property means to direct its use and disposal.
Capitalism is a social system where all the property is privately owned - which is to say that the means of production are owned by the individuals, not the state.
Fascism is a social system where the individuals possess the title, but the property's use and disposal is regulated and directed by the state. The net effect of fascism is that individuals possesses the liability for the property but not the benefits as those are directed/controlled by the state.
Statism is a social system where the state dominates life. It possesses all the liberties and the individual possesses none. Both socialism and fascism are statist systems. Capitalism is individualist, and not statist, since it is grounded in the individual and his rights.
Obama damns business, but he is completely in bed with business in that he's overtly made GM, Chrysler, the banks, and now the Medical system all parts of the government. They possess a form that looks like business, but they are actually government bureaucracies in another form. This makes Obama a fascist.
Fascism doesn't have to look like Hitler. Mussolini was a fascist. All progressives are fascists. They intend to create a so-called partnership of business and government. Since the government possesses the guns, it calls the shots and all the decisions of the business are based on politics, not supply and demand. The major failure of socialist and fascist systems is that they lose their bearings and become unable to direct the flow of goods for their best use. The politicians ultimately get so self-serving and paranoid that they direct everything for their use as they see it. The fact that they may couch those uses in terms that sound like they would benefit the country is for the purpose of selling it to the populace, not benefiting the country. This is being borne out in the Obama Administration and will get progressively worse as he carries it to new heights and as the fascism gets further entrenched.
Fascism sources corruption and so this administration is taking corruption to a new level. We need to purge ourselves of this scourge, and it is going to take some intense investigators and prosecutors to bring those who have corrupted our system to justice. Although corruption always exists in government as it does in other segments of society, to allow it to thrive as it is now thriving is to render this country to the status of a third-world country. A hallmark of the third-world is corruption with bribery as the means for getting anything done.
Capitalism is a self-cleansing system. The freer it is, the more this happens. A person has to stay straight in order to compete. This discourages all kinds of unproductive behaviors and encourages productive behaviors.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Our Incredibly Shrinking President
(Today I would like to register a rename for this article. It should read, "Our Incredibly Shrunken President." It's clear to me that Obama has never had a stature that he could shrink. He's been operating from the premises he's operating from now for a long, long time. He is stricken with the incredible facility to be Alinksy incarnate. I think he is a monster, my category for his character. 
Allowing Louisiana, to the tune of blocking efforts to save her shores and her industry and then suing Arizona when the Federal Government's role is to protect her borders, is beyond the pale. This man, to me, is on the order of all the heartless dictators the world has known and I don't see how he can do anything except get worse. His work to keep America in a perpetual Jerry Springer drama as a way of life has me write him off as a misguided, evil human being. It's definitely unfortunate for us that he has so much power to wield, and I hope we get him out of office before he develops paranoia to a degree whereby he feels justified to act even more irrationally. He's definitely animating the forces to vote him out of office. July 6, 2010)
_______________________________________________________
Yesterday was a new low for President Obama. We are now witnessing the "chickens coming home to roost" on a host of his bad premises. This happened yesterday in his remarks about the oil spill.
First, and I think the most despicable, happened when he used his daughter to create an appeal to his listeners' emotions. He said his daughter said to him, "Plug the hole, daddy." That was theater, nothing more. However, it was revealing because he threw his daughter under the bus and ran over her privacy all in service of his "any means necessary" modus operandi premise. Because this statement came off as inauthentic, his use of his daughter opened her to public "use" in service of political points and who knows what else.
This morning on the Glenn Beck show, who, by the way, I'm liking more all the time (see next paragraph), he had a segment where his associate played the daughter, asking her "daddy, the President", all kinds of questions and offering her observations about the world. Obama opened his daughter to this. We can now look forward to a "do as I say, not as I do" upbraiding of Beck. I suppose this megalomaniac will attempt to ban free speech rather than apologize to his daughter and stop using her as pawn in his political power games.
Today I ran across this quote of Obama's about 9/11: "The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity." Yet, when it came to using his daughter as a pawn in his games, he forgot all of this and used her anyway. Obama is the disconnect that he names in his 9/11 remarks.
(About Beck: Beck is doing such investigative and historically integrative work. The last couple days he has been showing how the structure of the Progressive Administration of the "evil" (his description and one I agree with) Woodrow Wilson was picked up by FDR and now picked up by Obama, albeit using different particular forms for the same basic purposes in the latter two cases. Also, I give Beck a big medal of courage for the "teaching" he is doing. Really great. He's one of the amazing media people of our time. And my accolades are in spite of his ultimate grounding in God [faith] rather than in nature [facts] when he gets to the roots of his conceptual structure.)
The second thing O did was tell us his experience in his own bathroom, looking morning and night in the mirror at his constantly worried face. I was listening to his remarks for the facts I could learn about what is going on and what his plans are in relation to it. Instead I get this trip to his bathroom. (Faulty premise: The personal trumps our common values.)
Talk about whiplash. I wondered: "Where has this man's mind gone?" It is gone, I'm sure of that. He's not capable of knowing what is on purpose and what is not, and where his listeners are, and so he's now trying to enroll us that he, after all, is worrying about this problem. Sorry. Doesn't fly, Barack. We expect that. That would be normal and not mentionable.
(Makes you wonder if he had to say that. Is it because he isn't worrying about it? Or is he worrying that people who mean something to him are getting upset with him? Or maybe he really likes the oil spill and wants to use it to kill energy production in all traditional forms through taxation and regulation. I don't know, but his behavior raises such questions - especially when he is going off to Chicago over the weekend, playing golf, and generally living life as he always does - I'm sure justifying, all the while, that this current trouble requires getting away to clear his head. Actually I think he is doing that because he suffers from victim's disease - "I'm entitled." (Faulty premise: I'm somehow not constrained by the morality that mere mortals are constrained by.)
One thing I do know. THIS MAN IS NOT COUNT-ON-ABLE! He will never be there when the country needs him. Frankly, I think he's committing disloyalty to our country, our home, on a grand scale - treason - and he needs to be called to account as soon as possible.
The last thing he did was address people accusing him of not getting on the problem and causing a solution. He's been railing against BP and big oil, capitalist, and the all of it. So in his fear, he runs for the high ground only to see that it's not solid. (Faulty premise: Words is all that matter. Deeds and the meaning of words count for nothing.)
His answer is to declare that he and his Administration have been in charge of this matter from the first hours of its happening. So, if he's responsible, he owns it - all of it. So all the vituperation to BP and anyone trying to get the problem fixed is now useless by him when uttered in public. After all, it is only Barack being pissed at himself since he is the owner of it all. Woops!
Obama's mind is shot. There is no doubt about that. Our work is to maintain the grounding to be sure that we can see what is true and what is b--s---. True to a sociopath's nature, his job is to get us to think he is God and we don't know what we are talking about. Good luck. It's woolly out there.
A person, by the way, doesn't have to have a degree from Harvard or Columbia and in fact, one is likely better off if he doesn't have that. That's because these universities are notoriously intellectually corrupt, and in order to have power to produce results in the world depends on one's solidly grounded, conceptual structural. Then when some high blown guy comes along, one can hear where his assertions and underlying premises don't jive with the basics. Obama has no clue about this. Nada. He thinks we cling to our guns and our religion. Oh my.
Have a great Memorial Day weekend in this great country that still enjoys the bounty of the independent minds that have continued to create it.
Allowing Louisiana, to the tune of blocking efforts to save her shores and her industry and then suing Arizona when the Federal Government's role is to protect her borders, is beyond the pale. This man, to me, is on the order of all the heartless dictators the world has known and I don't see how he can do anything except get worse. His work to keep America in a perpetual Jerry Springer drama as a way of life has me write him off as a misguided, evil human being. It's definitely unfortunate for us that he has so much power to wield, and I hope we get him out of office before he develops paranoia to a degree whereby he feels justified to act even more irrationally. He's definitely animating the forces to vote him out of office. July 6, 2010)_______________________________________________________
Yesterday was a new low for President Obama. We are now witnessing the "chickens coming home to roost" on a host of his bad premises. This happened yesterday in his remarks about the oil spill.
First, and I think the most despicable, happened when he used his daughter to create an appeal to his listeners' emotions. He said his daughter said to him, "Plug the hole, daddy." That was theater, nothing more. However, it was revealing because he threw his daughter under the bus and ran over her privacy all in service of his "any means necessary" modus operandi premise. Because this statement came off as inauthentic, his use of his daughter opened her to public "use" in service of political points and who knows what else.
This morning on the Glenn Beck show, who, by the way, I'm liking more all the time (see next paragraph), he had a segment where his associate played the daughter, asking her "daddy, the President", all kinds of questions and offering her observations about the world. Obama opened his daughter to this. We can now look forward to a "do as I say, not as I do" upbraiding of Beck. I suppose this megalomaniac will attempt to ban free speech rather than apologize to his daughter and stop using her as pawn in his political power games.
Today I ran across this quote of Obama's about 9/11: "The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity." Yet, when it came to using his daughter as a pawn in his games, he forgot all of this and used her anyway. Obama is the disconnect that he names in his 9/11 remarks.
(About Beck: Beck is doing such investigative and historically integrative work. The last couple days he has been showing how the structure of the Progressive Administration of the "evil" (his description and one I agree with) Woodrow Wilson was picked up by FDR and now picked up by Obama, albeit using different particular forms for the same basic purposes in the latter two cases. Also, I give Beck a big medal of courage for the "teaching" he is doing. Really great. He's one of the amazing media people of our time. And my accolades are in spite of his ultimate grounding in God [faith] rather than in nature [facts] when he gets to the roots of his conceptual structure.)
The second thing O did was tell us his experience in his own bathroom, looking morning and night in the mirror at his constantly worried face. I was listening to his remarks for the facts I could learn about what is going on and what his plans are in relation to it. Instead I get this trip to his bathroom. (Faulty premise: The personal trumps our common values.)
Talk about whiplash. I wondered: "Where has this man's mind gone?" It is gone, I'm sure of that. He's not capable of knowing what is on purpose and what is not, and where his listeners are, and so he's now trying to enroll us that he, after all, is worrying about this problem. Sorry. Doesn't fly, Barack. We expect that. That would be normal and not mentionable.
(Makes you wonder if he had to say that. Is it because he isn't worrying about it? Or is he worrying that people who mean something to him are getting upset with him? Or maybe he really likes the oil spill and wants to use it to kill energy production in all traditional forms through taxation and regulation. I don't know, but his behavior raises such questions - especially when he is going off to Chicago over the weekend, playing golf, and generally living life as he always does - I'm sure justifying, all the while, that this current trouble requires getting away to clear his head. Actually I think he is doing that because he suffers from victim's disease - "I'm entitled." (Faulty premise: I'm somehow not constrained by the morality that mere mortals are constrained by.)
One thing I do know. THIS MAN IS NOT COUNT-ON-ABLE! He will never be there when the country needs him. Frankly, I think he's committing disloyalty to our country, our home, on a grand scale - treason - and he needs to be called to account as soon as possible.
The last thing he did was address people accusing him of not getting on the problem and causing a solution. He's been railing against BP and big oil, capitalist, and the all of it. So in his fear, he runs for the high ground only to see that it's not solid. (Faulty premise: Words is all that matter. Deeds and the meaning of words count for nothing.)
His answer is to declare that he and his Administration have been in charge of this matter from the first hours of its happening. So, if he's responsible, he owns it - all of it. So all the vituperation to BP and anyone trying to get the problem fixed is now useless by him when uttered in public. After all, it is only Barack being pissed at himself since he is the owner of it all. Woops!
Obama's mind is shot. There is no doubt about that. Our work is to maintain the grounding to be sure that we can see what is true and what is b--s---. True to a sociopath's nature, his job is to get us to think he is God and we don't know what we are talking about. Good luck. It's woolly out there.
A person, by the way, doesn't have to have a degree from Harvard or Columbia and in fact, one is likely better off if he doesn't have that. That's because these universities are notoriously intellectually corrupt, and in order to have power to produce results in the world depends on one's solidly grounded, conceptual structural. Then when some high blown guy comes along, one can hear where his assertions and underlying premises don't jive with the basics. Obama has no clue about this. Nada. He thinks we cling to our guns and our religion. Oh my.
Have a great Memorial Day weekend in this great country that still enjoys the bounty of the independent minds that have continued to create it.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
In Defiance of the Law of Cause and Effect
How many times have we heard this same refrain? Act against your nature, people! Our President pretends that somehow, when people have a purpose and build their life on it, they won't chose to act consistent with that purpose - that they can be seduced into changing their purpose - or more like this, "because of me, my charm and my idealism, you will want to change". It garners no credit for anyone to believe (and hope) for such a magical "transformation." It isn't generous. It isn't intelligent. It's stupid. Why? Because it defies a law of nature.
What law? The Law of Cause and Effect!
Listening to John Allison III of BB&T fame,(a recorded speech I possess) he said it this way. The Law of Cause and Effect: Everything in nature has a nature and it acts consistent with its nature. Tigers are tigers, stones are stones and people are people.
So what is the nature of a person? At root, a person is consistent with his purpose. One cannot operate for a minute without a purpose of some kind. An idea that comes into one's conscious mind is the event which unites spirit with body, mental with physical to cause a result of some kind.
Suppose a person laid in bed until he had some idea that he wanted to get up. He can say all kinds of things to himself - like, "I've got to get up because I've got to go to work. Yah, no one should have to work and because I have to, life is hell. I'm consigned to the burden and drudgery of life" - in other words, he may consider himself completely at the effect of, a victim of life. Of course there are zillions of positive reasons for getting up too.
No matter, what had to happen - regardless of the reason - was that an idea had to pop into the person's head and that became his purpose for the next few minutes or hours or longer. Whether he's willing to be responsible for that is another matter in this discussion. One simply could not operate without a purpose - at even the most rudimentary level above the automatic functions that the body provides so long as it lives.
But, creating a purpose for which one lives his life is more than a momentary undertaking. That goes far beyond waiting until one is struck by an idea or a feeling. It is something that one can create in the largest sense and generated from one's loves and one's ideals for an eminently fulfilling life. Or it is something one can create from the unquestioned beliefs he got from his childhood - but to the same scope. It can provide motive for a moment, a month or a lifetime.
A purpose sets the aspect of one's personal nature - his character. And this doesn't change in the broadest sense. It is possible to change it, but not without a lot of serious self-examination and work extending oneself into new, uncharted areas of his life.
When any leader has gotten to where he is, by virtue of his purpose and by enrolling, willingly or unwillingly, millions of followers, and further, when his purpose is rooted in the soil of centuries, that person is not going to change. To pretend otherwise and enroll the American people on that idea is immensely, horrendously disingenuous. (It could only be done with such people who defer to faith as a valid mental action, be it in a specifically religious form or in a modern mystical form. Anyone who lives in and is oriented to the real, everyday world and is working to manifest their larger and long-range purposes and have some capacity to integrate ideas and the events of life, simply would not buy this idea. One has to revert to the "magical thinking" of childhood [a stage in an individual's development] in order to consider this a real possibility.)
And yet, this is the foreign policy of this Administration that we are asked to swallow.
The cartoonists are reacting. (I got these from Sultan Knish's blog.)
What law? The Law of Cause and Effect!
Listening to John Allison III of BB&T fame,(a recorded speech I possess) he said it this way. The Law of Cause and Effect: Everything in nature has a nature and it acts consistent with its nature. Tigers are tigers, stones are stones and people are people.
So what is the nature of a person? At root, a person is consistent with his purpose. One cannot operate for a minute without a purpose of some kind. An idea that comes into one's conscious mind is the event which unites spirit with body, mental with physical to cause a result of some kind.
Suppose a person laid in bed until he had some idea that he wanted to get up. He can say all kinds of things to himself - like, "I've got to get up because I've got to go to work. Yah, no one should have to work and because I have to, life is hell. I'm consigned to the burden and drudgery of life" - in other words, he may consider himself completely at the effect of, a victim of life. Of course there are zillions of positive reasons for getting up too.
No matter, what had to happen - regardless of the reason - was that an idea had to pop into the person's head and that became his purpose for the next few minutes or hours or longer. Whether he's willing to be responsible for that is another matter in this discussion. One simply could not operate without a purpose - at even the most rudimentary level above the automatic functions that the body provides so long as it lives.
But, creating a purpose for which one lives his life is more than a momentary undertaking. That goes far beyond waiting until one is struck by an idea or a feeling. It is something that one can create in the largest sense and generated from one's loves and one's ideals for an eminently fulfilling life. Or it is something one can create from the unquestioned beliefs he got from his childhood - but to the same scope. It can provide motive for a moment, a month or a lifetime.
A purpose sets the aspect of one's personal nature - his character. And this doesn't change in the broadest sense. It is possible to change it, but not without a lot of serious self-examination and work extending oneself into new, uncharted areas of his life.
When any leader has gotten to where he is, by virtue of his purpose and by enrolling, willingly or unwillingly, millions of followers, and further, when his purpose is rooted in the soil of centuries, that person is not going to change. To pretend otherwise and enroll the American people on that idea is immensely, horrendously disingenuous. (It could only be done with such people who defer to faith as a valid mental action, be it in a specifically religious form or in a modern mystical form. Anyone who lives in and is oriented to the real, everyday world and is working to manifest their larger and long-range purposes and have some capacity to integrate ideas and the events of life, simply would not buy this idea. One has to revert to the "magical thinking" of childhood [a stage in an individual's development] in order to consider this a real possibility.)And yet, this is the foreign policy of this Administration that we are asked to swallow.
The cartoonists are reacting. (I got these from Sultan Knish's blog.)
Friday, May 14, 2010
Obama the Petulant
Later, at a Democratic fund-raising speech in Manhattan, Obama was blistering in his criticism of Republicans who are poised to pick up seats against Democratic majorities in November elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.
Obama said Republicans have "done their best to gum up the works" and said they generated much of the country's fiscal deficit that they now complain about.
"Their basic attitude has been, if Democrats lose, we win. After they drove the car in the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want the keys back. No. They can't drive. We don't want to have to go back in the ditch," he said.
It seems unbelievable that he would say something like this. This is a petulant 2 year old's behavior. He's not going to look good when it doesn't go his way and, guess what, it isn't his say as to who drives the car.
Obama lives in a victim's world where everything is personal and it is all about winning at all costs. When the Republicans go against him, it's personal - not that they don't agree with his ideas. Obama holds no principles - and by principles I mean holds a valid view of reality, a valid view of how the world works. He is truly a postmodern president and he thinks that what he says IS reality. Then he gets angry when people don't buy it. He thinks it is his fault that he has not said it enough times or that he hasn't said it in the right way to be clear enough. He cannot tap into people's listening. He doesn't get that concept. Instead, he shows everyone the fallacy of postmodern philosophy and his presidency will be the end of that philosophy as an influence.
Further, his presidency will end the Democratic Party as we know it. An entire generation of Democrats will be thrown under the bus as the rank and file search for a new formulation of what a Democrat is. His presidency will be very hard on the Ivy League schools who willingly turn out graduates like Obama, graduates schooled in arcane philosophy and moral theory cut off from the nature of people and how they operate. And if Obama is any indication, the graduates are without a capacity to produce results that make a real and positive difference. They apparently are so inflated with their elite status that they are unable to hear people and their concerns.
Obama's presidency may make it hard for other blacks to get heard until they prove themselves in some way. Affirmative Action will have lost any luster it once had because Obama holding the highest office in the land has ended the matter of Affirmative Action's value. Blacks will have to measure up because there is going to be a new assertion of wanting results, not easing of one's conscious or some other beside-the-point purpose. (The collapse of the global warming cause is also part of this.) I think the media are going to take a big hit out of this presidency because they have been exposed as giving us little protection against this catastrophic leadership. They have also been caught up in postmodern madness.
Finally and most important, the government itself is going to take a huge hit. This could be anywhere from the people elected to the structure of the bureaucracy and its functions. It wouldn't surprise me to see pressure to reduce government salaries back to below private pay. There are going to be many changes. And many have been due to happen. The Obama presidency is the catalyst.
Obama said Republicans have "done their best to gum up the works" and said they generated much of the country's fiscal deficit that they now complain about.
"Their basic attitude has been, if Democrats lose, we win. After they drove the car in the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want the keys back. No. They can't drive. We don't want to have to go back in the ditch," he said.
It seems unbelievable that he would say something like this. This is a petulant 2 year old's behavior. He's not going to look good when it doesn't go his way and, guess what, it isn't his say as to who drives the car.
Obama lives in a victim's world where everything is personal and it is all about winning at all costs. When the Republicans go against him, it's personal - not that they don't agree with his ideas. Obama holds no principles - and by principles I mean holds a valid view of reality, a valid view of how the world works. He is truly a postmodern president and he thinks that what he says IS reality. Then he gets angry when people don't buy it. He thinks it is his fault that he has not said it enough times or that he hasn't said it in the right way to be clear enough. He cannot tap into people's listening. He doesn't get that concept. Instead, he shows everyone the fallacy of postmodern philosophy and his presidency will be the end of that philosophy as an influence.
Further, his presidency will end the Democratic Party as we know it. An entire generation of Democrats will be thrown under the bus as the rank and file search for a new formulation of what a Democrat is. His presidency will be very hard on the Ivy League schools who willingly turn out graduates like Obama, graduates schooled in arcane philosophy and moral theory cut off from the nature of people and how they operate. And if Obama is any indication, the graduates are without a capacity to produce results that make a real and positive difference. They apparently are so inflated with their elite status that they are unable to hear people and their concerns.
Obama's presidency may make it hard for other blacks to get heard until they prove themselves in some way. Affirmative Action will have lost any luster it once had because Obama holding the highest office in the land has ended the matter of Affirmative Action's value. Blacks will have to measure up because there is going to be a new assertion of wanting results, not easing of one's conscious or some other beside-the-point purpose. (The collapse of the global warming cause is also part of this.) I think the media are going to take a big hit out of this presidency because they have been exposed as giving us little protection against this catastrophic leadership. They have also been caught up in postmodern madness.
Finally and most important, the government itself is going to take a huge hit. This could be anywhere from the people elected to the structure of the bureaucracy and its functions. It wouldn't surprise me to see pressure to reduce government salaries back to below private pay. There are going to be many changes. And many have been due to happen. The Obama presidency is the catalyst.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Crony Capitalism - The Mainstay of Our Fascist State
As Obama gobbles up entire sectors of business for his socialist/European-style state - which, incidentally, is getting a new hearing with Greece's collapse - he's engaging in crony capitalism full blast. The ordinary man will soon not have a chance, as it will be political pull at every level of society that will determine one's fate. Government meddling in the economy through regulation and controls/ownership of all and myriad kinds is THE PRESCRIPTION for a failed state as the state gets focused on the wrong kinds of activities. People have not seen it yet, but all of the European countries are failed states judged by the standard of the job that a state ought to do and is not doing. America was the first state put on a rational foundation such that it was possible for it to succeed. One thing wrong with it from a powerluster's point of view: There is no avenue via which to loot the citizenry.
At this point in America's history, it is a failure. Whether there is enough power left in the structure of the Constitution for us (the people) to assert ourselves to get back on the right track hangs in the balance.
At this point in America's history, it is a failure. Whether there is enough power left in the structure of the Constitution for us (the people) to assert ourselves to get back on the right track hangs in the balance.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The War on Freedom
Freedom is fundamental to every relationship. We have to be able to be ourselves as our nature as a human has us be in any relationship in order to survive. This is true on the interpersonal level and to a more removed degree in the political, the societal world. One cannot thrive except in a climate of freedom. This has been borne out by the extreme statist and totalitarian societies and by the organizations whose beliefs stifle people such that it brings many problems upon the individuals who belong to them. It's bad enough to manage one's own freedom let alone have unagreed to (and sometimes erroneously agreed to) constraints imposed from without.
At this point in history, freedom is under direct attack and so it behooves us to understand as much as we can about what is going on. Daniel Greenfield penned this on his blog today.
The War on Freedom
Posted: 03 May 2010 07:27 PM PDT
How do you take away the freedom of a free people without putting tanks on every street? You do it by transforming their culture. By turning the very idea of freedom into something ugly and shameful. A foul thing to be associated with extremists and other bad folk that good citizens are advised to avoid. The goal being to convince the people that their freedom is a thing they should be happy to give up, rather than having to forcibly take it away from them.
And so the political War on Freedom begins by rebranding freedom itself as selfish. In this new narrative freedom is a lie because there is no such thing as freedom in America. The very idea of freedom is an arrogant and privileged entitlement held by "rich white males" and used to oppress "people of color" and all the other officially designated minorities by the Commissars of Political Correctness. In place of the old fashioned idea of freedom, we have the far more "equitable" system of social justice with its myriad of organizations and departments all created to ensure that everyone does what they're supposed to, thinks what they're supposed to and has as many rights as they're supposed to.
As Orwell's 1984 accurately predicted, in Newspeak, Freedom becomes Slavery, and Slavery becomes Freedom.
As the new liberal narrative would have it, the only people who want the freedom to keep what they earn, write what they think, choose their own health care, elect their own leaders, read what they like and live lives apart from the great machinery of the state-- are the White Male Oppressors, (who are simultaneously ignorant clinging to their religion and their guns and yet at the same time are part of a privileged elite). Freedom is clearly a bad thing then. It's a symptom of selfishness. And selfish people are the oppressors, The greedy ones who don't want a welfare state, illegal aliens, impossibly priced products, inaccessible lifesaving medical procedures, recycling bins in every room of the house and all the other wonderful benefits of Socialism.
People who want to be free are no longer Americans. Certainly not Constitutionalists. Instead paradoxically they're the new parasites, the people who refuse to be cogs in the great machine of socialism. The selfish Kulaks who hoard their wheat. The businessmen who make too much money. The hardworking housewife who won't pay double for a "Green" labeled product. These are the worms in the apple of the socialist state. The people who refuse to contribute to what the government and the alliance of unions, left wing front groups and media pundits labels as the Public Good.
The USSR began by portraying independent small farmers as greedy monsters who were responsible for the people starving, because they refused to give up their land and join collective farms. Collective farms whose workers had nothing, could not even travel without a permit and had to steal the food they grew in order to survive. And so war was declared on the independent farmer. Millions were shot, deported or imprisoned in labor camps. However by eliminating the independent farmer, the Communists also eliminated Russian agriculture. The collective farms were an abysmal failure. Within a generation, Russia was stuck importing wheat from the independent farmers of its worst enemy, the United States of America.
By declaring war on American small business, liberals are about to repeat the Soviet experiment in the United States. The decline of the US economy is closely tied to the war on small business. To the replacement of the businessman with the speculator, the inflation of the dollar, the destruction of the manufacturing sector and the transformation of the US into a service and sales economy, not that fundamentally different from the rest of the Third World.
But the left's war on the small businessman is about more than just seizing wealth in order to finance their own operations. That of course is a large part of it. The left has always believed that it must live off the land. And from the French Revolution to their modern day grandchildren, the Communists and Nazis, they have always know that wealth distribution is needed to be able to live off the land. But what they never understood is that their idea of government as a robber baron practices a multi-generational form of economic destruction that there is no full recovery from. It is possible to replace lost gold and silver. But replacing an economic niche when you have wiped out the people who used to fill it, and culturally blotted it out, can be next to impossible.
Yet that is exactly what the left wants to accomplish. Its goal has always been the destruction of the bourgeoisie, the middle class, the people who are living proof that hard work and economic aspiration leads to social mobility and political freedoms. These the left considers banal, selfish and rotten. Their existence a subversion of the left's own revolutionary ideology. Because they have achieved freedom through work, rather than ideology. Because they believe that those who work should be the masters of government, rather than properly qualified university graduates who have spent five years penning screeds about the unfairness of having to work for a living. And so like the Kulaks, they must go.
The destruction of the economy is not part of the collateral damage from liberalism's uncontrollable spending or nanny stateism. It is the whole point.
The Founding Fathers understood that economic freedom was also political freedom. That is why the Boston Tea Party played such a key role in the race toward political independence and self-government. Liberal revisionist historians typically deride the American Revolution as a Middle Class revolution. Which of course was exactly the point. Distance and opportunity had made political aspirations possible in America. But economic opportunity had made them meaningful. Thus the difference between the revolt in Haiti and the one in the 13 colonies. Much as Israel's independence differed from the independence gained by so many other former British colonies in that part of the world.
One cannot have political independence without economic independence on the national level and on the individual level. Where economic independence is compromised, political independence soon follows. And the decline of individual liberties in America can be directly traced to its split between socialism and corporatism, two seeming opposites drawn together by inertia to form one great economic black hole. A situation that the last few years of bailouts and toobigtofails, useless regulatory bodies and political power grabs should have amply demonstrated for anyone.
The War on Freedom therefore is geared toward portraying freedom as selfish and greedy. As a dangerous anachronism out of place in the modern day socialist country. There is no such thing as freedom, they will say. Only privilege. The idea that you could believe what you wished, say what you wished, elect your own leaders and make your own economic decisions, was all part of the arrogance of the entitled. But now there will be people who will distribute that privilege equally to all, within the parameters of the public good. The public good in their eyes being indivisible from their own good, and that of the system of redistribution that they oversee. And that is how tyranny begins, and freedom dies.
Freedom, real freedom, isn't perfect. It is the freedom to make one's own mistakes, rather than having the state make everyone's mistakes for them. At the same time. Freedom is not a selfish thing that obstructs the public good, it is the public good. Because the public good is best served by individual freedom, not by a collective yoked together in the same of an impossible ideal. The tyranny of the collective has never created its heaven on earth, but it has instead produced no shortage of hells. It is left to the individual to pursue his happiness, and in the process helps others find theirs. The collective has never changed the world for the better. Only individuals have.
Liberalism insists that freedom is a shameful thing. A rebellion against their idea of the public good. Their War on Freedom is in truth a war on the individual. And it is one that we must win, if freedom is to prevail.
At this point in history, freedom is under direct attack and so it behooves us to understand as much as we can about what is going on. Daniel Greenfield penned this on his blog today.
The War on Freedom
Posted: 03 May 2010 07:27 PM PDT
How do you take away the freedom of a free people without putting tanks on every street? You do it by transforming their culture. By turning the very idea of freedom into something ugly and shameful. A foul thing to be associated with extremists and other bad folk that good citizens are advised to avoid. The goal being to convince the people that their freedom is a thing they should be happy to give up, rather than having to forcibly take it away from them.
And so the political War on Freedom begins by rebranding freedom itself as selfish. In this new narrative freedom is a lie because there is no such thing as freedom in America. The very idea of freedom is an arrogant and privileged entitlement held by "rich white males" and used to oppress "people of color" and all the other officially designated minorities by the Commissars of Political Correctness. In place of the old fashioned idea of freedom, we have the far more "equitable" system of social justice with its myriad of organizations and departments all created to ensure that everyone does what they're supposed to, thinks what they're supposed to and has as many rights as they're supposed to.
As Orwell's 1984 accurately predicted, in Newspeak, Freedom becomes Slavery, and Slavery becomes Freedom.
As the new liberal narrative would have it, the only people who want the freedom to keep what they earn, write what they think, choose their own health care, elect their own leaders, read what they like and live lives apart from the great machinery of the state-- are the White Male Oppressors, (who are simultaneously ignorant clinging to their religion and their guns and yet at the same time are part of a privileged elite). Freedom is clearly a bad thing then. It's a symptom of selfishness. And selfish people are the oppressors, The greedy ones who don't want a welfare state, illegal aliens, impossibly priced products, inaccessible lifesaving medical procedures, recycling bins in every room of the house and all the other wonderful benefits of Socialism.
People who want to be free are no longer Americans. Certainly not Constitutionalists. Instead paradoxically they're the new parasites, the people who refuse to be cogs in the great machine of socialism. The selfish Kulaks who hoard their wheat. The businessmen who make too much money. The hardworking housewife who won't pay double for a "Green" labeled product. These are the worms in the apple of the socialist state. The people who refuse to contribute to what the government and the alliance of unions, left wing front groups and media pundits labels as the Public Good.
The USSR began by portraying independent small farmers as greedy monsters who were responsible for the people starving, because they refused to give up their land and join collective farms. Collective farms whose workers had nothing, could not even travel without a permit and had to steal the food they grew in order to survive. And so war was declared on the independent farmer. Millions were shot, deported or imprisoned in labor camps. However by eliminating the independent farmer, the Communists also eliminated Russian agriculture. The collective farms were an abysmal failure. Within a generation, Russia was stuck importing wheat from the independent farmers of its worst enemy, the United States of America.
By declaring war on American small business, liberals are about to repeat the Soviet experiment in the United States. The decline of the US economy is closely tied to the war on small business. To the replacement of the businessman with the speculator, the inflation of the dollar, the destruction of the manufacturing sector and the transformation of the US into a service and sales economy, not that fundamentally different from the rest of the Third World.
But the left's war on the small businessman is about more than just seizing wealth in order to finance their own operations. That of course is a large part of it. The left has always believed that it must live off the land. And from the French Revolution to their modern day grandchildren, the Communists and Nazis, they have always know that wealth distribution is needed to be able to live off the land. But what they never understood is that their idea of government as a robber baron practices a multi-generational form of economic destruction that there is no full recovery from. It is possible to replace lost gold and silver. But replacing an economic niche when you have wiped out the people who used to fill it, and culturally blotted it out, can be next to impossible.
Yet that is exactly what the left wants to accomplish. Its goal has always been the destruction of the bourgeoisie, the middle class, the people who are living proof that hard work and economic aspiration leads to social mobility and political freedoms. These the left considers banal, selfish and rotten. Their existence a subversion of the left's own revolutionary ideology. Because they have achieved freedom through work, rather than ideology. Because they believe that those who work should be the masters of government, rather than properly qualified university graduates who have spent five years penning screeds about the unfairness of having to work for a living. And so like the Kulaks, they must go.
The destruction of the economy is not part of the collateral damage from liberalism's uncontrollable spending or nanny stateism. It is the whole point.
The Founding Fathers understood that economic freedom was also political freedom. That is why the Boston Tea Party played such a key role in the race toward political independence and self-government. Liberal revisionist historians typically deride the American Revolution as a Middle Class revolution. Which of course was exactly the point. Distance and opportunity had made political aspirations possible in America. But economic opportunity had made them meaningful. Thus the difference between the revolt in Haiti and the one in the 13 colonies. Much as Israel's independence differed from the independence gained by so many other former British colonies in that part of the world.
One cannot have political independence without economic independence on the national level and on the individual level. Where economic independence is compromised, political independence soon follows. And the decline of individual liberties in America can be directly traced to its split between socialism and corporatism, two seeming opposites drawn together by inertia to form one great economic black hole. A situation that the last few years of bailouts and toobigtofails, useless regulatory bodies and political power grabs should have amply demonstrated for anyone.
The War on Freedom therefore is geared toward portraying freedom as selfish and greedy. As a dangerous anachronism out of place in the modern day socialist country. There is no such thing as freedom, they will say. Only privilege. The idea that you could believe what you wished, say what you wished, elect your own leaders and make your own economic decisions, was all part of the arrogance of the entitled. But now there will be people who will distribute that privilege equally to all, within the parameters of the public good. The public good in their eyes being indivisible from their own good, and that of the system of redistribution that they oversee. And that is how tyranny begins, and freedom dies.Freedom, real freedom, isn't perfect. It is the freedom to make one's own mistakes, rather than having the state make everyone's mistakes for them. At the same time. Freedom is not a selfish thing that obstructs the public good, it is the public good. Because the public good is best served by individual freedom, not by a collective yoked together in the same of an impossible ideal. The tyranny of the collective has never created its heaven on earth, but it has instead produced no shortage of hells. It is left to the individual to pursue his happiness, and in the process helps others find theirs. The collective has never changed the world for the better. Only individuals have.
Liberalism insists that freedom is a shameful thing. A rebellion against their idea of the public good. Their War on Freedom is in truth a war on the individual. And it is one that we must win, if freedom is to prevail.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The Incredible Shrinking Man and his False Charges of Racism
As I've noted in these pages, John Lewis has become an incredible traitor to his heroism of the 60s. He advocates entitlements which is nothing more than slavery since someone has to provide those entitlements. But he's not content with just that. He now has said (March 20) that as he walked the gauntlet from his office to the Capital, he was called the N-word. Now we learn there is no evidence of such occurrence on the videos taken of that event. None. Nada. So now we have Congressman John Lewis standing with pants around his ankles branded as a liar determined to foster an environment of racial hatred. John Lewis IS the Incredible Shrinking Man.
Representative Carson is the main talker in this story, but John Lewis was a participator, corroborated it and commented on the event. (John Lewis was necessary so he could compare this to his 60's march to produce extra effect.) He should have kept his mouth shut and looked to see what was actually happening. This would have ended better for him. Will John Lewis, that FORMER tower of a man and FORMER hero of mine, end up "gonged" as an embarrassment.
Andrew Breibart means business. He sees the corrupt, partisan nature of the main stream media. Caught in the throes of post-modernism, it doesn't care about working to report the facts. It intends to shape the narrative. In other words, it is nothing more than a propaganda organ for the White House and the Democrats. He's calling the MSM to account.
NO MORE BEER SUMMITS: TEA PARTY 'N-WORD' INCIDENT DIDN'T HAPPEN, AND THE CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS OWES AMERICA AN APOLOGY
by Andrew Breitbart
Rep. Andre Carson wants to change the subject. I don’t blame him.
On April 13, 2010 he told AP reporter Jesse Washington, “I think we need to move toward a dialogue that explores why this kind of divisive and reprehensible language is still making it into our political debate.”
The “divisive and reprehensible language” that Rep. Carson is referring to is his claim that while he left the Cannon office building on March 20 with Rep. John Lewis, they were verbally assaulted by health care protesters hurling the “N-word” at them. He said the scene was so hostile he “expected rocks to come” when he was coming out of Cannon.
I wanted to see the evidence. I wanted the truth. In the course of our search we have actually uncovered further video evidence that casts serious doubt on Rep.Carson’s claims:
Now this story is much more important than the accusation of fifteen racists among the thousands of protesters that day. This is now about the accusers.
It’s not just that Congressmen Carson’s accusation of an extraordinary racist verbal assault by the tea party participants on March 20 doesn’t appear to have occurred, it’s that the accusers have now gone into the bunker and, having raised the incendiary subject, are doing everything they can to avoid the discussion. Why? What’s changed?
When the accusation was made, the mainstream media made it the number one topic on every news show. The Democratic Party was leading the discussion. But when confronted on the baseless accusation, without even a modicum of evidence that it actually happened, other than an assertion, the Democratic Party, and its symbiotic allies the mainstream media, want to have another “beer summit.”
No. The Democratic Party and the political left cannot use the race card to shut up its opponents based upon pure fabrication any longer. This failed tactic ultimately serves to mitigate accusations of real racism — which we are not saying doesn’t exist.
When I offered a reward of $100,000 to be donated to the United Negro College Fund if anyone produced video and audio evidence that this occurred, I was accused of a publicity stunt (because everyone knows that the best way to get publicity in America is to accuse a civil rights icon of lying about racism). Rep. Carson himself suggested that my challenge was “a veiled attempt to justify actions that are simply unjustifiable.” Get it? He calls protesters racist and if you ask him to prove it, you’re a racist, too.
Needless to say, no one has claimed the $100,000.
But, I have taken my search one step further. I’ve asked some of the contributors to Big Government to also actively search for video. We have spent the last three weeks searching for any evidence that might support the allegations, without any help from the accusers. The primary accuser, Congressman Carson, who audaciously claimed the crowd screamed the “N-word fifteen times,” would not return our call. So we have gone part way to try and piece together the events of March 20.
Not only is the audio devoid of any racial slur, but the scene at Cannon clearly shows the congressmen coming down the steps completely unobstructed, and with a clear path to the Capitol. And, when we juxtapose the audio accusation Rep.Carson made moments after the alleged event occurred with actual video footage of the moment Rep. Carson claims he first heard the racial slur, it is as plain as day that Congressman Carson was not isolated by a mob and facing a racist throng that could conceivably hurl rocks at him. As you can see for yourself.
How many more “Duke Lacrosse” faked events should America endure? The list from Madonna Constantine at Columbia University all the way back to Al Sharpton’s unforgivably grotesque Tawana Brawley case, the media plays its role to divide this country on its most sensitive schism: race.
brawley sharpton
The grassroots and the million-strong Tea Party have been forced to be held accountable against every discussion of vile racism even though they have been proven to do nothing wrong.
The false accusation of racism grants left-wing hooligans carte-blanche to act out on their dehumanized Tea Party counterparts. That’s what the intention was with the false accusation. That was the game plan. It ties together with the similar strategy as employed by Pres. Clinton and Richard Trumka to compare tea partiers and the environment they are creating to a petri dish of hate that will spawn the next Timothy McVeigh or Lee Harvey Oswald.
The left is playing with fire. They are playing fast and loose with the facts and making things up when there are no facts at all. Just because the media (the left’s main enabler), wants to forget about it and move on doesn’t mean we will. We will remain on this case until it reaches closure.
As long as this false narrative lives to fuel the hatred of the activist left, which has on many occasions been acted out against Tea Party activists and other law abiding protesters, we will keep this story at the editorial forefront.
It is a slander with real-world repercussions.
The absence of a real investigation by a press that played up the accusations is a more-than-tacit admission that they were hoping the allegations were true. When I mentioned the lack of response to the $100k offer to Politico’s Ben Smith, he messaged me on Twitter: ‘I think you’ve pretty much won this one, no?’
But how does that “win” manifest itself? On April 15, the day of the Tax Day Tea Party in front of the White House, and being interviewed by ABC’s Terry Moran for Nightline set to air Tuesday night, I passionately defended the movement against the powerful racism charge that has been greatly pushed by the Congressional Black Caucus’s accusation of a 1960 Selma-like incident near the Capitol.
At least twice during the spirited questioning by Moran, bystanders screamed “racist” at me.
The power of the propaganda. The power of the repeated accusations. The power of the relentless race-based line of questioning. They are all adding up to the liars and slanderers getting exactly what they wanted. The Tea Party is marred by racism charges while Congressman Carson, at the least, should be facing an ethics investigation, and a civil rights legend should be asking for forgiveness for allowing for the hateful lie to stand.
The “win” Ben Smith speaks of comes in the form of silence. Our nation is split down the middle and the press has chosen to play for one side and one side only.
Congressman Carson refuses to respond to our requests because he can’t answer questions that deserve answers. The press is drawing a line in the sand for those that are doing the job the press should be doing: “Are you calling a civil rights legend a liar?”
Unfortunately, I am. And the mainstream media are as complicit in this lie as Congressman Lewis.
Representative Carson is the main talker in this story, but John Lewis was a participator, corroborated it and commented on the event. (John Lewis was necessary so he could compare this to his 60's march to produce extra effect.) He should have kept his mouth shut and looked to see what was actually happening. This would have ended better for him. Will John Lewis, that FORMER tower of a man and FORMER hero of mine, end up "gonged" as an embarrassment.
Andrew Breibart means business. He sees the corrupt, partisan nature of the main stream media. Caught in the throes of post-modernism, it doesn't care about working to report the facts. It intends to shape the narrative. In other words, it is nothing more than a propaganda organ for the White House and the Democrats. He's calling the MSM to account.
NO MORE BEER SUMMITS: TEA PARTY 'N-WORD' INCIDENT DIDN'T HAPPEN, AND THE CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS OWES AMERICA AN APOLOGY
by Andrew Breitbart
Rep. Andre Carson wants to change the subject. I don’t blame him.
On April 13, 2010 he told AP reporter Jesse Washington, “I think we need to move toward a dialogue that explores why this kind of divisive and reprehensible language is still making it into our political debate.”
The “divisive and reprehensible language” that Rep. Carson is referring to is his claim that while he left the Cannon office building on March 20 with Rep. John Lewis, they were verbally assaulted by health care protesters hurling the “N-word” at them. He said the scene was so hostile he “expected rocks to come” when he was coming out of Cannon.
I wanted to see the evidence. I wanted the truth. In the course of our search we have actually uncovered further video evidence that casts serious doubt on Rep.Carson’s claims:
Now this story is much more important than the accusation of fifteen racists among the thousands of protesters that day. This is now about the accusers.
It’s not just that Congressmen Carson’s accusation of an extraordinary racist verbal assault by the tea party participants on March 20 doesn’t appear to have occurred, it’s that the accusers have now gone into the bunker and, having raised the incendiary subject, are doing everything they can to avoid the discussion. Why? What’s changed?
When the accusation was made, the mainstream media made it the number one topic on every news show. The Democratic Party was leading the discussion. But when confronted on the baseless accusation, without even a modicum of evidence that it actually happened, other than an assertion, the Democratic Party, and its symbiotic allies the mainstream media, want to have another “beer summit.”
No. The Democratic Party and the political left cannot use the race card to shut up its opponents based upon pure fabrication any longer. This failed tactic ultimately serves to mitigate accusations of real racism — which we are not saying doesn’t exist.
When I offered a reward of $100,000 to be donated to the United Negro College Fund if anyone produced video and audio evidence that this occurred, I was accused of a publicity stunt (because everyone knows that the best way to get publicity in America is to accuse a civil rights icon of lying about racism). Rep. Carson himself suggested that my challenge was “a veiled attempt to justify actions that are simply unjustifiable.” Get it? He calls protesters racist and if you ask him to prove it, you’re a racist, too.
Needless to say, no one has claimed the $100,000.
But, I have taken my search one step further. I’ve asked some of the contributors to Big Government to also actively search for video. We have spent the last three weeks searching for any evidence that might support the allegations, without any help from the accusers. The primary accuser, Congressman Carson, who audaciously claimed the crowd screamed the “N-word fifteen times,” would not return our call. So we have gone part way to try and piece together the events of March 20.
Not only is the audio devoid of any racial slur, but the scene at Cannon clearly shows the congressmen coming down the steps completely unobstructed, and with a clear path to the Capitol. And, when we juxtapose the audio accusation Rep.Carson made moments after the alleged event occurred with actual video footage of the moment Rep. Carson claims he first heard the racial slur, it is as plain as day that Congressman Carson was not isolated by a mob and facing a racist throng that could conceivably hurl rocks at him. As you can see for yourself.
How many more “Duke Lacrosse” faked events should America endure? The list from Madonna Constantine at Columbia University all the way back to Al Sharpton’s unforgivably grotesque Tawana Brawley case, the media plays its role to divide this country on its most sensitive schism: race.
brawley sharpton
The grassroots and the million-strong Tea Party have been forced to be held accountable against every discussion of vile racism even though they have been proven to do nothing wrong.
The false accusation of racism grants left-wing hooligans carte-blanche to act out on their dehumanized Tea Party counterparts. That’s what the intention was with the false accusation. That was the game plan. It ties together with the similar strategy as employed by Pres. Clinton and Richard Trumka to compare tea partiers and the environment they are creating to a petri dish of hate that will spawn the next Timothy McVeigh or Lee Harvey Oswald.
The left is playing with fire. They are playing fast and loose with the facts and making things up when there are no facts at all. Just because the media (the left’s main enabler), wants to forget about it and move on doesn’t mean we will. We will remain on this case until it reaches closure.
As long as this false narrative lives to fuel the hatred of the activist left, which has on many occasions been acted out against Tea Party activists and other law abiding protesters, we will keep this story at the editorial forefront.
It is a slander with real-world repercussions.
The absence of a real investigation by a press that played up the accusations is a more-than-tacit admission that they were hoping the allegations were true. When I mentioned the lack of response to the $100k offer to Politico’s Ben Smith, he messaged me on Twitter: ‘I think you’ve pretty much won this one, no?’
But how does that “win” manifest itself? On April 15, the day of the Tax Day Tea Party in front of the White House, and being interviewed by ABC’s Terry Moran for Nightline set to air Tuesday night, I passionately defended the movement against the powerful racism charge that has been greatly pushed by the Congressional Black Caucus’s accusation of a 1960 Selma-like incident near the Capitol.
At least twice during the spirited questioning by Moran, bystanders screamed “racist” at me.
The power of the propaganda. The power of the repeated accusations. The power of the relentless race-based line of questioning. They are all adding up to the liars and slanderers getting exactly what they wanted. The Tea Party is marred by racism charges while Congressman Carson, at the least, should be facing an ethics investigation, and a civil rights legend should be asking for forgiveness for allowing for the hateful lie to stand.
The “win” Ben Smith speaks of comes in the form of silence. Our nation is split down the middle and the press has chosen to play for one side and one side only.
Congressman Carson refuses to respond to our requests because he can’t answer questions that deserve answers. The press is drawing a line in the sand for those that are doing the job the press should be doing: “Are you calling a civil rights legend a liar?”
Unfortunately, I am. And the mainstream media are as complicit in this lie as Congressman Lewis.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Our First Overtly Racist President
When a man appeals to you as a member of some group - be it race, gender, ethnic group, sexual orientation - his object is to by-pass your mind. He recognizes, not for a minute, that people in those groups are in various conditions in life - some are poor, some are wealthy, and some are in-between; some are employees and some are employers. His every statement is intended to by-pass your mind, your basic means of survival. That is the essence, the hallmark, of a racist. So, here goes our President fully into that territory.
Our President is now dealing with us on the level of managing farm animals.
I now declare President Obama completely and irrefutably unfit to be our President. The man never wanted to be President of all of the people. He has been ginning up, under Rev Wright's influence as well many others, that the Civil War never happened and it means nothing. He came to be President for some people at the expense of other people, about as good a prescription for eternal war as you can find. The man is mad, as in insane.
Given that this man is anti-mind and that it is the size of one's sob story that gains his favor, no sane person can in any way be connected to him. He is as toxic as they come and if one gives him any quarter, you will become poison yourself, infecting yourself and your friends and associates. Beyond his danger politically, he's a profound danger personally at the level of one's spirit and motivation to seek the best within oneself.
We all must distance ourselves from him and declare him what he is and what we (you and me as individual persons), distinct from him, are. Those who fell in love with him or got attached to his hope, are going to have to go through "falling out of love," not a necessarily easy thing to do. I have compassion for that process, but the results are the crucial thing, not what it takes to cause the results. Further, when you get clear as to what is going and where it is leading, the love affair will be over.
America as the only home of a free people will survive - hopefully stronger. To be rid of this toxic influence is not going to take business as usual. It is going to take becoming a leader in one's conversations and speaking out regarding this. This is imperative if we are to have a future.
Our President is now dealing with us on the level of managing farm animals.
I now declare President Obama completely and irrefutably unfit to be our President. The man never wanted to be President of all of the people. He has been ginning up, under Rev Wright's influence as well many others, that the Civil War never happened and it means nothing. He came to be President for some people at the expense of other people, about as good a prescription for eternal war as you can find. The man is mad, as in insane.
Given that this man is anti-mind and that it is the size of one's sob story that gains his favor, no sane person can in any way be connected to him. He is as toxic as they come and if one gives him any quarter, you will become poison yourself, infecting yourself and your friends and associates. Beyond his danger politically, he's a profound danger personally at the level of one's spirit and motivation to seek the best within oneself.
We all must distance ourselves from him and declare him what he is and what we (you and me as individual persons), distinct from him, are. Those who fell in love with him or got attached to his hope, are going to have to go through "falling out of love," not a necessarily easy thing to do. I have compassion for that process, but the results are the crucial thing, not what it takes to cause the results. Further, when you get clear as to what is going and where it is leading, the love affair will be over.
America as the only home of a free people will survive - hopefully stronger. To be rid of this toxic influence is not going to take business as usual. It is going to take becoming a leader in one's conversations and speaking out regarding this. This is imperative if we are to have a future.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Our First FUCK-YOU President
Obama has taken to openly mocking people - people, if he were President of all the people - whose concerns ought to be heard. He, however, has no interest in that. In particular, in Miami at a Democratic fundraiser where he outdid himself (or is it undid himself?) he laughed, lied about his lowering taxes, and then outrageously made fun of millions of people across the nation who are rebelling at his takeover of the government for his narrow ideological purposes, and the high taxes and lowering standard of living this implies. Obama, being ignorant about producing positive, life-affirming results, prefers to be some small-time mind (or is non-mind?) that only talks to his people and gets his jollies by making fun of the people who aren't there. (Remember those stupid people who cling to their guns and religion he cited while speaking to a multi-thousand dollar plate fundraiser in California?) This cocky and perilous road will surely end where he doesn't want it to go.But then how would I know. A FUCK YOU president has got to be a FUCK IT type of guy.
(Top photo from Michelle Malkin. Thank you Michelle for locating this photo.)
Friday, April 9, 2010
You Know What's So Great About Butler?
So many people have been inspired by Butler University's Bulldogs playing their heart out in the NCAA Basketball Tournament's final game. They lost to Duke University's Blue Devils when their final shot did not score.
It's true that Duke won, but the conversation I'm hearing are about Butler and Butler's coach, Brad Stevens. They captured the national attention.
Do you know what it is about Butler?
They do not have a shred of that attitude known as "I'm entitled." They know they have to earn whatever they get. They have no illusions about it. Their conversations are always oriented around that rather than a fixed position - such as winning/losing, being a winner/loser, etc. Their mission is not about the transient accomplishments so much as the opportunity that striving for the accomplishments provides to learn about oneself and grow.
This is great. Honorable. Ennobling. Soooo what is needed at this time.
And that's what I love about Butler right now.
It's true that Duke won, but the conversation I'm hearing are about Butler and Butler's coach, Brad Stevens. They captured the national attention.
Do you know what it is about Butler?
They do not have a shred of that attitude known as "I'm entitled." They know they have to earn whatever they get. They have no illusions about it. Their conversations are always oriented around that rather than a fixed position - such as winning/losing, being a winner/loser, etc. Their mission is not about the transient accomplishments so much as the opportunity that striving for the accomplishments provides to learn about oneself and grow.
This is great. Honorable. Ennobling. Soooo what is needed at this time.
And that's what I love about Butler right now.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Here's The Conflict
This video reveals the heart of the matter. It does not reveal the ultimate authority in the matter however.
Mr. Hare is all good intentions. He says nothing about how he is going to provide the health care coverage. For him, the sob story is the end of the story. He wants to fix the hurt.
However, his actions belie his intentions because he cannot fix the hurt - not his way. Rather he is a cause to have the United States Government take out its force mechanism - taxation with gun toting individuals and prisons behind it - and take the money from you and me without our consent in order to fulfill HIS intentions. His actions tell me a deeper intention - to cause more hurt and give "hurt" a forum for its existence. (In other words, Hare is a spiritual parasite of those who can do something about the hurt - the doctors and the producers who support them - and is seeking to bring the world of parasitism into existence by government fiat.
All of this, to be accurate, is not about intentions. There are many people who would like to see a person who needs something have it and are, believe it or not, willing to do something about it. The issue here is about the MEANS of fulfilling one's intentions. Some are willing to use the means of the criminal and call it something else. Others are not.
And this is where the Constitution comes in. Our government via the Constitution is designed to protect the right of every human life to his life, as distinct from all life. The first obvious consequence of this agreed-to purpose is that the government cannot go out in the land and initiate force against, destroy and diminish, other human lives in order to do that. To do so negates the reason for its existence as a government of human beings, at least in these United States. (This principle is not unique to the United States. It's true for all human beings formed into political units.)
No one is here because they agreed to be a slave - a means to someone else's ends. That's not to say that a person couldn't agree to that - at least temporarily. I am saying that I have not and won't agree to that and, I doubt I could find anyone who would agree to that - even among the moochers who expect to benefit from the slavery. (I don't recall any black slaves telling their masters to give them everything they need to live and they would agree to being their slave. Somehow it doesn't work that way.) I challenge you to find such a person. Further, I wouldn't want to live in a country with such a philosophy because I would know that I am creating enemies which overhang any success I might achieve. In other words, there is no freedom in any gain one might make. (This, by the way, is a cost O and the Democrats will have to pay in the future.)
The Obama Administration and Democrat Party have taken up creating all US citizens as dependents - doormats - to be stepped on and used up in any way that it's whims dictate. (Here's an apt image, though unsavory. The government will "use you and throw you away like a used rubber." "Throwing you under the bus," the form of this behavior is the form associated with Obama. It's the same thing.) Once we accept being dependent, we have the government not only for material sustenance and benefits, but for keeping all those angry slaves away from us so they won't hurt us and steal our stuff. O is in the process of forming a giant protection racket.
Sorry! That ain't happening! Not with my consent.
So what we see is that Obama and the Democrats have become another scourge of history. All the people who consider themselves doormats already are happy to have Obama and the Democrats force some goodies out of other people for them. The leaders' biggest concern is the anger of the "slaves." They think that if the general population sees some irrational act on the "slaves'" part, they will rush over to the government's side for protection. Not me. I'm on the "slaves'" side. All of this shows how ignorant of the larger principles our leaders are, why the Tea Parties are growing, and how dependent they are on maintaining and fostering this ignorance.
Is there any doubt they are venal? For many of them, politics and political science has been a life long profession. Frankly, I don't see how Obama and the Democrats can be anything other than venal. This is so especially since the collapse of the great socialist experiment - Soviet Russia. Socialism, i.e., redistributionism or progressivism, doesn't work because it cuts the society off from the life force that is needed to keep it going.
America is the incarnation of the realization that access to that life force for the good of each and all of us means that you have to recognize it in every human being. It is an individual thing. It is not just a good idea nor a group thing. Individual Rights is nothing more than acknowledging the conditions in society that protect a person's life and let him live as a human being. Beyond that, insofar as the government is concerned, life is up to you. (Culturally the existence of America reveals that we have become ignorant of these larger principles in recent times. This is a modern phenomena - one of the last 100 years or so.)
It is the principle of life itself, not just a political notion of some kind, that is at stake in America right now. Obama and the Democrats are not going to be able to produce the "just" society they claim. Contrary to theorists, life is not fair and one cannot make it fair. Life is not fair because it follows the law of cause and effect, not some idealized end result. "Fair," in the Obama context of that term, is an utopia. It is a dream without a reality. (In our times, we use the word fair to call up some notions that undermine the real issue - justice. Justice on the other hand depends on ownership. Without ownership, the words "justice" or "what's fair" are means to separate you from what is rightfully yours - namely your property you were born with or earned. This is why property rights are so crucial to a working, prosperous, life-affirming society.)
What we are going to have to confront for the first time in history is this: A person's concern for his neighbor is an individual concern and if you don't have this concern, then you don't have it. There could be many reasons why you don't. It certainly doesn't, at least according to my code of ethics nor any objective code of ethics, mean you are evil if you don't have it. Likewise, it doesn't mean you are good if you do have it. Whether you consider it worthwhile to worry about your neighbor or have it as a value is up to you. One thing is certain, it cannot be a duty.
Perhaps if we could tell the truth about this, we would learn something about whether we really value a society of people or not and under what conditions that is so or not. When we are ready to confront this, we will be able to tell the truth and mature. And then maybe we will be in a position to let go of the politician as some arbiter of human life. No one is. It can be no one's job to do that. The moral authority for your life is you. It's yours - all yours.
The truth is, the real, magnificent possibility of human society has yet to be discovered.
Until then, Mr. Hare is just another waaaa, waaaa, waaaa - unwilling to grow up, be responsible and think, and live among adult human beings. If we follow his moral code, it would be time to throw him under the bus. If we follow mine, it is time to make an example of his views and attitude, and vote him out of office.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
The Ironic, Bedeviled O
President Obama pretends he is the most forward of Presidents, bringing people government health care. I assert the exact opposite is true. He is the most backward of Presidents.
The idea which has been on the march ever since the Greeks discovered it is FREEDOM. The United States so far is the high water mark in this most basic human striving. Political freedom is the idea that it is possible to determine the course of one's life and safely live in society.
Barack Obama is acting out his belief that political freedom is not deserved by any man and that a government has the right to determine a man's life in every detail. In the grand scheme of things, this has Barack Obama be the most backward President that America has ever had.
At this point in his Presidency, I see nothing he's done that is going to provide more freedom. If I am provided government health care, this is not going to provide more freedom. Rather, it is going to provide long lines and post-office-style bored employees waiting on us when they get to it. Further, given the history of government health care systems, we know that the service will become backward and likely largely worthless. (Cuba's health care is worse than worthless - contrary to the story of Michael Moore who was Potemkinized by Cuban authorities.) In the future, any time our health matters, we will be getting on a plane heading for a Caribbean Isle or India or somewhere else. What was available and not that expensive will now become unavailable to the ordinary man. We will be the two-tier society: The haves and the have-nots. The people Obama uses to justify his programs will definitely be in the have-nots. In fact that group will grow; I don't think there is any question about that.
But that is merely healthcare. The most backward area of President Obama's actions has been in his partisanship. He has never been the President of all the people. He's sought from the beginning to set one man against another and there is no doubt that his government is the most racist, most partisan government in modern times, although they constantly deflect this by accusing everyone else of racism. Now this is IRONIC, given that it is their minds that keep asserting this, thus planting where it wasn't.
Although this has been growing for years, I see the Census as nothing but a racist and redistributionist questionnaire. It's purpose is to allocate to races and various groups of people according to their need as determined by the government. All of this implies, of course, that the other race(s) and people who earn money end up providing. This is incredibly unjust, soooo wrong. It is not only a crime to the people perpetrated against, it undercuts the future of those it supposedly is designed to help. And yet, this President and the Democratic Party are embracing this whole hog. This is Dark Age stuff.
It is clear to me that we are headed for some kind of showdown. And, I blame Barack Obama for being so against his "goddammed America" that he appears hell bent on taking her to her knees. One thing is for sure, there is no future for America in his works. What, pray tell, is his winning at the expense of the country? To all else, he is vacant, and the whole of us doesn't matter one whit.
Hopefully Barack Obama will be the only anti-American President we will ever have.
PS: I could have named this post "The Incredible Shrinking President."
The idea which has been on the march ever since the Greeks discovered it is FREEDOM. The United States so far is the high water mark in this most basic human striving. Political freedom is the idea that it is possible to determine the course of one's life and safely live in society.
Barack Obama is acting out his belief that political freedom is not deserved by any man and that a government has the right to determine a man's life in every detail. In the grand scheme of things, this has Barack Obama be the most backward President that America has ever had.
At this point in his Presidency, I see nothing he's done that is going to provide more freedom. If I am provided government health care, this is not going to provide more freedom. Rather, it is going to provide long lines and post-office-style bored employees waiting on us when they get to it. Further, given the history of government health care systems, we know that the service will become backward and likely largely worthless. (Cuba's health care is worse than worthless - contrary to the story of Michael Moore who was Potemkinized by Cuban authorities.) In the future, any time our health matters, we will be getting on a plane heading for a Caribbean Isle or India or somewhere else. What was available and not that expensive will now become unavailable to the ordinary man. We will be the two-tier society: The haves and the have-nots. The people Obama uses to justify his programs will definitely be in the have-nots. In fact that group will grow; I don't think there is any question about that.
But that is merely healthcare. The most backward area of President Obama's actions has been in his partisanship. He has never been the President of all the people. He's sought from the beginning to set one man against another and there is no doubt that his government is the most racist, most partisan government in modern times, although they constantly deflect this by accusing everyone else of racism. Now this is IRONIC, given that it is their minds that keep asserting this, thus planting where it wasn't.
Although this has been growing for years, I see the Census as nothing but a racist and redistributionist questionnaire. It's purpose is to allocate to races and various groups of people according to their need as determined by the government. All of this implies, of course, that the other race(s) and people who earn money end up providing. This is incredibly unjust, soooo wrong. It is not only a crime to the people perpetrated against, it undercuts the future of those it supposedly is designed to help. And yet, this President and the Democratic Party are embracing this whole hog. This is Dark Age stuff.
It is clear to me that we are headed for some kind of showdown. And, I blame Barack Obama for being so against his "goddammed America" that he appears hell bent on taking her to her knees. One thing is for sure, there is no future for America in his works. What, pray tell, is his winning at the expense of the country? To all else, he is vacant, and the whole of us doesn't matter one whit.
Hopefully Barack Obama will be the only anti-American President we will ever have.
PS: I could have named this post "The Incredible Shrinking President."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
