As Victor Davis Hanson puts it at the end...

>> Friday, October 30, 2009

"Believe all this and you can lie back and enjoy the age of Obama"


All Falling Down ...

Hoping that something good comes true —like being self-reliant through solar and wind—does not make it true; neglecting the riches at hand to dream about greater riches that do not exist is adolescent. Radical Islam hates the West, not because of what we do or say, but because of who we are: a dynamic, mercurial culture that challenges all the protocols of a traditional, tribal and religiously fundamentalist society.

Read more...

An Observation on "Going Galt"

>> Friday, October 23, 2009

The answer to the failed Keynesian Economic policies applied by the Obama Administration lies in the following observation made several years ago by the late Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931-2005), and bears poignant significance today:


"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it."


And there it is in a nutshell. But who on the Left can see the truth in a grain of mustard seed? Certainly not the president of the United States.


Read more...

A Second American Civil War?

>> Wednesday, October 21, 2009

At the outset, I do not desire nor will I ever call for citizens of this nation to rise up and fight one another. How would that work anyway? It's not like America's polarized philosophical bents are separated by regions or states like American Civil War v1. We're far too integrated for that. A new civil war would be fought street to street, block to block, city to city. Another civil war in this country would be far bloodier and take a much greater toll on human life than the first. And many of our enemies abroad would take advantage of our bloody distraction. So, don't dare to suggest I desire or seek to see another civil war erupt in this country. I will simply call you the "Fool" you are for even suggesting it.

It could be said, and fairly, that there is a spirit of animus that has covered this land. We literally hate each other-- deny it if you will, but it will only makes you a liar --and the hatred is only getting more intense each day.

As in every war there are Generals, Commanders, Leaders, and grunts who do most of the dying. Then of course there are the innocent bystanders, but then there wouldn't really be any innocent bystanders in a war of ideology... of conscience. EVERYONE has an ideology.

And let's not forget the instigators. There are always a few of those who feed off conflict and through conflict work to effect their own plans for a brave new world. It is this group of individuals-- or cabals --that do the most damage, not for sheer numbers or individual ability, but rather for the influence they can exert upon much larger groups of individuals; getting them to wreak the havoc the cabal desires. And that, I believe, is where we are today.

It's not that the American people are truly divided, as Americans. We are instead divided upon principles, values, and ideological mores-- or morals. We are led like members of an orchestra to perform each note at each fall of the conductor's baton of a symphony whose last great crescendo is still pages away.

Who is the conductor? Our Marshall or General? Who is leading this country toward another civil war? It is the political class, in concert with the American media intelligentsia-- those educated elites who have no faith in the American people to see the right or wrong of any situation they are not allowed to frame, or otherwise pre-color for the average news consumer.

We have today something unprecedented in modern American politics. We have a president who is actively seeking to change the face of hometown America; seeking to destroy American strength in the world; seeking to destroy a news agency as well as individual thinkers who refuse to kowtow to his brand of American Exceptionalism; managing to-- seemingly --complete construction on the bulwark of liberal dominance, of a specific ideological and political brand. In short, a president that is on the cusp of ensuring his own party never loses power again.

On the surface of this argument it's understandable that one faction having held the reins for so long, and losing them, would seek to never see it happen again. But below the surface it is a viscous stagnating pool of corruption and out-right evil. Even were the Republicans trying this, it would not change my opinion.

Can it ever be called righteous to hire thugs to keep people away from the polls? The Obama administration did that. They hired ACORN to pad the voter rolls, and in one major city hired Black Panthers to intimidate voters entering a polling place. Did I say "hire"? Well, ACORN was already on the American payroll, but the Black Panthers? When Obama Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed the case against the Black Panthers the administration in affect gave tacit approval of what they did. Obama, in effect, "paid" the Black Panthers by condoning, and by extension, approving of what they did.

Can it ever be called righteous to call to one's employ men and women whose great informers and idols were men like Marx and Mao? Men whose philosophies enslaved and butchered hundreds of millions of people? Obama is free, of sorts, to call anyone an advisor, but is this the best policy? Does America want a leader who calls upon thinkers whose ideologies are counter to that of this nation's basic premise? Freedom and Liberty? Is it even possible for a Communications Director to direct the flow and dissemination of information from the White House who personally views Mau Tse Tung as a great philosopher? How can Mao's philosophy be considered great when he murdered 70 million of his own countrymen? Stalin murdered 51 million. Hitler murdered, roughly, 12 million.

And yet we hold Hitler in greater disdain than Stalin, or Mao. Our sense of conscience has been directed to view Hitler as the ultimate evil in terms of political leadership, yet Mao, revered still today in some American circles, is deemed less evil.

There is something wrong in America and at the heart of it is this nation's sense of right and wrong, though to be more specific, this nation's ruling class' sense of right and wrong.

And who are America's ruling class?

Well, not by any presidential decree or constitutionally granted privilege, America's de facto ruling class, are the political establishment as embodied in our three branches of government, their supporting agencies and personnel, and much of media which plays a more 'Tokyo Rose' collaborative supporting role.

American's have, for a very long time, abdicated their responsibilities as American citizens in favor of a government that desires only to take care of each and every citizen. In a perfect world this would be the ideal, everyone caring for everyone... in fact, in such a world government would not be necessary, so don't think this is what government is trying to bring about. They are not. Since we do not live in a perfect world, we are left with each and every individual citizen clamoring for attention, a voice, a handout, their human rights, big homes, lavish lifestyles, I, Me, Mine... including every politician, every White House big wig, every staffer anywhere in politics-- we are all human, after all. And every one of these people have ideas about how best the people should be governed, the fading ink on a 230+ year old document not withstanding.

Those who govern us, as well as those who would rule us, do not desire to see their own role in governing diminished. They wish, if anything, to expand their role, and ensure their continued success in promulgating their own ideological visions of a better nation, and increasing the size of their portfolios. This is not a perfect world. They have our best interests in mind, and their best intentions in hand, but remember the old proverb, the road to Hell is paved with good intention.

Our Constitution, constructed in the manner it was, places limits on what government can do, but over the last 230 years the halls of government have managed a vast number of work-arounds. There are "procedures" enough to do just about anything Congress desires, assuming they can find a president to sign it into law.

Enter President Barack Hussein Obama.


Rush Limbaugh has be castigated for stating the obvious, that the Media was desirous that a black quarterback do well in the NFL and so did all they could to ensure the success, in the minds of viewers, of Donovan McNabb. Nothing wrong with that. In 2003, POST 9/11 why shouldn't anyone want to see a black quarterback do well? We are all Americans after all, and all equal in the sight of God. Media just didn't like hearing the truth. They didn't like the way it sounded. They didn't like their laundry being aired in the front yard for all to see.

Leap forward 5 years to 2008, and here we have the same thing again. We have a fawning media desirous that a black president do well. And they are bending over backward to brand anyone who disagrees with Obama's policies (not his skin color) as racist. The only difference between then and now, is now they don't give a rat's ass WHO sees their dirty laundry drying in the front yard.

But all this is a distraction. Media gins up controversy where none truly is in order to give time and cover to the Obama Administration and Congress to affect as many of the changes a Marxist president and ├╝ber Liberal/Marxist house and senate desires before the ghost of Jefferson, residing still in many Americans today, rises up to quash the apparent destruction of the very liberties granted us by that charter of negative rights our president calls the Constitution. The very one he swore to uphold, protect and defend.

While we are bickering Congress and the White House are moving forward with their plans to reshape America. This December Obama plans to sign a treaty at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, that will strip America of a measure of her sovereignty. Link, Link, Link. Upon the signing of this treaty a world government will be established that will have the power to enforce its climatological whims upon the United States of America. Once signed we will never be able to get out of it. This nation will become subservient to a world government.

In the meantime, we bicker. Obama pushes a socialist Utopian vision, Congress seeks to permanently solidify its hold on power, and the media? They like what they see. They want the "Change" and "Hope" they're getting, which is why they desire to see this particular black president do well.

We are losing the game because we're not allowed on the field except on election day. And in the meantime all those people manning the puppet strings are pushing this country into a deepening crisis of vitriol and anger aimed not at the government per se but at each other and the personalities of government. It's okay to hate Barack Obama so long as it doesn't get in the way of Barack Obama doing what must be done for the betterment of American society. It's okay to hate the president so long as media can keep the focus of your hatred and anger on the figure and not the sleight of his hand.

But what none of these so-called 'intellectual elites' realize is there always comes a point when raising the ire of any mob that the ire takes on a life of its own, and the mob takes over.

What would it take for Americans to start killing Americans? SEIU members were called in by the Obama Administration to counter this summer's town hall protesters. The result? Intimidation. Violence. One BLACK conservative was beaten by SEIU members outside of one such town hall meeting. White men... beating a black man? Did it make much noise on any network other than FOX? Of course not. The black man was a conservative... a sell-out to his own race... the black conservative was the racist.

What does it take for violence to erupt in America? Apparently not much at all. How much would it take for outright killing to erupt? Does anyone remember the violence that followed Rodney King's trial? And he won!

Barack Obama and a complicit media have stirred up racial tensions in America, not alleviated or abrogated them. And as long as they can keep us distracted they seem to desire its continuance. It allows them cover for the things they really want.

We are losing America folks. It may already be lost. How long before Winston Smith becomes the archetypal American citizen? Living in fear of his government, his coworkers, his neighbors... perhaps even his family?



I'm only scratching the surface here, folks.

Read more...

What I Don't Understand

>> Tuesday, October 20, 2009

"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." ~ Matthew 19:14

Do you know what I don't understand? I don't understand Christians who support political candidates who support abortion. More than that, really. I don't understand Christians who are Liberals.

Perhaps the most important issue that has come to distinguish a Liberal from a Conservative is abortion.

In my view, Christianity and a pro-choice ideology are incompatible with each other.

Christians are supposed to believe in the sanctity of life. How do Christian Liberal/Democrats justify their party's stance on abortion? Considering the Democrat's stance on this issue, I don't understand how Christians can justify being Democrats.

Is it possible to support a candidate without supporting a major plank in his platform?

Especially a candidate who may have a considerable impact on legislation that would directly strengthen or weaken Roe v Wade in the future?

I don't think it matters much what a candidate for state Treasurer, for instance, believes about abortion.

But a President, Governor, or United States legislator?

How can a Christian reconcile his belief in the sanctity of life with the taking of innocent human life within the womb? It just makes no sense to me.

Why would a Christian vote for a candidate who openly advocates a position which favors abortion?

Barack Hussein Obama not only favors abortion on demand, in any trimester, without reservations or conditions, but when he was a State Senator in Illinois, he voted against legislation that would save live babies born in spite of failed abortion attempts.

Get that?

Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

He thinks babies who survive abortion attempts should be neglected, and deprived of care, until they die.

How can Barack Obama call himself a Christian?

And, seriously, how could a Christian have voted for that man?

Christians who vote for such an obvious enemy to Christian values must be ignoring the abortion issue in favor of some other issue they consider more important. I believe they have a much too cavalier attitude regarding abortion.

Millions of innocent babies have been slaughtered since the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade.

That is a fact that, in my opinion, cannot be ignored. How can any Christian consider that a trivial matter, not important enough to consider when choosing to vote for one candidate or another? If that is indeed their reasoning?

Here in Virginia, the race for Governor depends a great deal on the how the two candidates differ in their opinion of abortion. The Democratic candidate, Creigh Deeds, is actually using abortion as a wedge issue, advertising that his opponent, Bob McDonnell, has both introduced and supported legislation that would limit a "woman's right to choose". It is a major plank in his campaign platform. He would like you to vote against his opponent, based a great deal on this issue. That, and a thesis McDonnell wrote 20 years ago in graduate school, which really didn't contain anything objectionable to anyone who sincerely advocates Christian values.

In my opinion, Creigh Deeds is only hurting himself. Virginia has traditionally been a Conservative state. Yes, we have a Democrat Governor now, and Obama won Virginia in the last election, but I believe most Virginians are still vehemently opposed to abortion.

Deeds is at least 10 percentage points behind McDonnell in every poll. One would think he'd realize he's playing with fire.

And, make no mistake.

Abortion is a seminal issue with both Liberals and Conservatives.

One of the first questions Liberal media types ask Republican candidates for any office is, "Where do you stand in regard to abortion rights?" If a Republican says he is against abortion, the Liberal media uses this for ammunition to begin their onslaught of attacks against the Republican.

Democrats who are against abortion often keep a low profile on their view. If they campaigned on the right to life, they would lose their own party's support, but they often get Republicans votes.

Don't tell me that isn't significant.

Here's the wrap: If it's such an important issue (and I agree that it is), how can a Christian, in good conscience, support any candidate who favors abortion?

And frankly, although I am loathe to ask, how can one call himself a Christian who supports the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent pre-born babies?

And yet, I know without a doubt, there are Christians who do.

I just don't understand.

Read more...

Saving the World While Losing it All... Except the Priests of Ba'al

>> Friday, October 16, 2009

What does Obama really believe? Is he or isn't he a Christian? Is he or isn't he a Muslim? Why does it matter, either way? And should we care, either way? Is he or isn't he an effective leader? How does he define 'leadership'?

A lot of questions. Questions none of us truly know, but can certainly guess. And if we are fair, can make fair and honest assumptions about who and what he is. After all, if it's true that we are what we eat... and it is true... then it is also true that we are what we do... a man who commits murder is a murderer. A man who drives a cab is a cab driver. Simple enough right?

So what about this? As to President Obama:

Will or will his political philosophy NOT allow America to deter Iran from gaining nukes? Does he or does he not support Israel's right to defend herself? Does he or does he not put more stock in the U.N. and its resolutions than the articles of the U.S. Constitution? Is he or is he not a Christian-- the answer to which informs the answers to all my previous questions.

The following three articles, though written by three different thinkers, are all tied together in common theme-- though it may escape the average reader, -but I'm not going to tell you right out what I see, or how I would characterize the impact these articles have on the credibility of our present Command in Chief as a moral man. Instead, I'll draw from each article in turn and tell you why I see the Obama presidency as, perhaps, the greatest threat to American liberty, and that of the entire world. In the end, you have to decide whether or not you agree. Without showing my hand, I'll simply say that either way, whichever side of the fence you're on, if you can't give honest consideration to thoughts and opinions that rubs against your grain, then you can't expect anyone to take you seriously. Certainly not me, and that should and does cut both ways.

Now, we have discussed abortion on this blog, and others, ad nauseum. And I dare say no one's opinion has really changed. On the one hand, some see it as a heinous crime against humanity, others in the middle see it as an odious procedure, albeit a reluctant necessity, while yet others see nothing wrong with the procedure at all, giving the woman the final say as to what is or is not a moral decision. Some view abortion in terms of clinical definition, rather than a moral dilemma-- for such, there is no dilemma... it's just amorphous tissue. For others it is a holy and high-calling.

There is no doubt that the argument, both in 1973 and today, is one of morality: those who see it as such, and those who don't. And of course there are those who are completely ambivalent about the whole issue, but whether they realize it or not they too are caught up in the question of morality.

So. Is it, or is it not a sin to kill... Anyone? If the answer to this is yes, then we must ask, 'why then do we condone abortion?' What do we lose or gain by allowing or prohibiting abortion?

If it's a moral issue, what we lose is our status as moral creatures. If it's not a moral issue we have then an excuse to abandon thousands of years of moral teaching... we can say, 'there is no God, so we needn't worry about angering him, let alone worry about any spiritual laws being broken that could doom our souls to eternal punishment.'

Truthfully, the source of our moral objections to any number of social mores comes from God Himself-- assuming we believe Jewish and Christian tradition... His commandments.

Now, we can look at the question of morality in spiritual terms or fleshly terms. If fleshly, then all things are convenient as morality then is a matter or individual interpretation. But if it's spiritual then morality, or the lack thereof, is a process of warfare... righteousness versus evil... and the gray earthly wilderness physical man must navigate.

If it's a spiritual question-- especially if by 'spiritual' one includes God and the spiritual realm, one must accept that there is a constant battle being waged between the forces of good and those of evil.

Asking what the forces of good have to gain by defeating evil is obvious. But if for you the answer is not obvious, then I suggest you discover the rationale of my acceptance of the obvious-- as truth --elsewhere. I'm not going there today. Asking what the forces of evil have to gain is perhaps not as obvious. Certainly not by their tactics. So... having set the stage, let's begin.

Three articles, different authors, one obvious connection.

First up, The Clergy Who Want an Abortion Ba'al Out, by Robert Knight. The gist?

"An Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision" was released on Sept. 30 and signed by more than 1,100 "religious leaders." It's the usual suspects like trendy Episcopalian priestesses and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State's Rev. Barry Lynn. Other signers include Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice and assorted reverends affiliated with Planned Parenthood or the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

The Priests of Ba'al letter, which is aimed at U.S. senators marking up the Democrat health care takeover bill, asks other clergy to get behind abortion on demand and claims a divine imperative for taxpayer funding of abortion.

The group claims that "Scripture neither condemns nor prohibits abortion," leaving out ["spiritually," as previously defined as biblical] inconvenient truths...

Why does anyone believe abortion is morally and ethically wrong? The Bible. Who gave us the Bible [the argument of divine inspiration notwithstanding]? Jews. Judaism. More recently, Christianity. Who does Satan [assuming we accept his existence] hate more upon the face of the earth than the Jew? Arguably? No one. If he destroys the Jew he wins. But what does that have to do with abortion?

Satan has been in the business of setting up false gods for quite a long time now-- arguably, anything you place on a higher pedestal than God himself IS a god. So let's look at Ba'al, whose worshipers we're as mixed up in their worship of a false god as are today's "modern" worshipers of Ba'al.

It was common practice to sacrifice children... burn them alive... during fertility rites. Did you get that? Sacrifice a life to make one more fruitful in producing life? Is that not messed up? Some modern worshipers of Ba'al would say it's nothing different than what Abraham did with his son Isaac... offer him up to God as a sacrifice. But the difference here is, Isaac wasn't killed. In fact, God spared his life... spared Abraham the agony of killing his own son. Ba'al has remained silent, throughout history, throughout every rite, every sacrifice, every single one. Ba'al has been so silent, in fact, that he allowed Elijah to kill four-hundred of his prophets in a single day. And yet this is who... or rather what... supporters of abortion worship today...

A blind, deaf, dumb, and powerless god.

They worship convenience. And for convenience, they worship themselves; their own desires. Millions of children since ROE have been sacrificed for convenience sake. It has not been the spirit of God which has moved upon their hearts to do this. It has been pure, unadulterated evil. Evil that hates God, and everything that reminds them of His righteousness. They hate His law, and they hate His people the Jew. And by extension, they hate the people who are called by His son's name.

But liberals are not the only people who hate God, Jews, or Christians...

[A brief aside: If you support a thing no righteous God can condone, you must therefore despise that part of God which calls what you support an abomination... you must hate what God declares is righteous-- namely, His word.]

So too does much of Islam. In point of fact, every Muslim who adheres to the word and message of Muhammad hates God. And this hatred has never [to my estimation] been better personified as in the person and rhetoric of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, the Iranian regime, all those who support the destruction of Israel, and all those who support the rights of cold-blooded killers over a nation that only wants to live in peace among its neighbors. And I include among those who support Iran in their hatred of Israel, president Barack Hussein Obama.

It is not contested that Obama spent his formative years in foreign schools enrolled as a Muslim, however back-slidden he may be today. It is also quite obvious to anyone with ears to hear that Obama has, at every turn abroad, and especially during his speeches in both Egypt and Turkey, supported the right of Palestinians to kill Israelis over the rights of Israelis to live peacefully. Palestinians have been given equal status, in terms of persecution, with six-million murdered Jews under Hitler's regime.

Which brings me to this article by Stuart Schwartz, Kill the Jews, Save the World.

Salient point?

Barack Obama accepts Iran's nuclear program, knowing full well, as James Lewis of American Thinker points out, the Jewish state "is bound and determined to defend herself." At which point, faster than you can say "Auschwitz-Birkenau," an Iran problem morphs into a Jewish problem.

But Obama certainly knows what to do about that. As his spiritual mentors, from Rev. Wright to the Catholic sociopath Father Michael Pfleger, have advised, as his political associates -- from Carter acolyte Zbigniew Brzezinski to UN ambassador Susan Rice -- have counseled, the best chance for world peace rests in an old remedy... let the Jews be killed.

President Obama has chosen a strategy that will assure Iran achieves nuclear capability, knowing full well what Iran has consistently said about what it intends to do with their new toys. And still he naively accepts Iran's "right" to cheap energy [while hypocritically denying that same source of energy as a means to solving the growing AMERICAN energy crisis].

On top of this the U.N. has just charged Israel with war crimes for their "disproportionate response" in Gaza earlier this year. Let's talk about the U.N.'s disproportionate response to the genocide in Rwanda? How about the genocide in Sudan? How about the rapes conducted by U.N. peace keepers in West Africa? What about the U.N.'s lackluster response to genocide in the Balkans? How would the U.N. respond if, say, Germany began lobbing homemade rockets [CLARIFICATION: technically speaking, a rocket is a rocket, and by definition "homemade" in every country that designs and builds them for military use] in Belgium? Would the U.N. accuse Belgium of being the problem? Why does the U.N. treat Israel with a different standard than it does the West Bank? or Gaza? Lebanon? Iran? Why are Jews the problem? Could it be because of what they represent? What Israel represents?

Don't be a fool. If you accept there is a God, and that He can be best known and understood through the book we all know as "the Bible," then you must accept that there is a war going on that none of us can see, but should be able to recognize. And that is a spiritual battle. And what object does the enemy most wish to destroy? Israel. Kill Israel, save the world... from the grubby self-righteous hands of God.

Obama isn't interested in stopping Iran from achieving nukes. He's interested in national healthcare, Cap and Trade [a misnomer if ever there was one], and paying for abortions not only in America but in other countries as well. He supports the rights of terrorists over those of nations and people who wish to live free of oppression, murder, and outright genocide. Obama supports Iran's "peaceful" acquisition of nuclear power knowing full well Iran has no intention of stopping there. Which makes Obama a fool. The very thing I just asked you NOT to be.

Not only is he a fool, but a dangerous one at that. He has surrounded himself with ideologues for advisers, whose philosophy in all things 'war' last saw a good airing during the Vietnam era. "They" lost that war, and are on track to do the same again in Afghanistan.

James Lewis writes in his article Lose Afghanistan, Lose Pakistan, Lose Iran, Lose It All...

The gangster regimes of the world are on the march, and they've got our number. They know how to squeeze more civilized nations. Our weakness is cowardice, and that goes double or triple in the face of nuclear weapons. That's why all the rogues are trying to get nukes as fast as they can. They know it's the perfect blackmail weapon, and it makes them invulnerable to attack.

That is also why President Obama's public rejection of General McChrystal's advice on Afghanistan affects your personal safety and mine. Gen. McChrystal wants more troops. Obama doesn't want to send them because he needs the money to promote his socialist take-over of America. You can't have both. Look at Europe, where the military have become pathetic social welfare programs. All the air is sucked out by bigger and bigger victim programs.

Obama must be realizing by now that the chance of a major war in the Gulf next year is rising to 100 percent. Ahmadinejad will have nuclear weapons too, and he already has enough radioactive materials for a dirty nuke, a low-tech weapon that can spread terror everywhere in the world. The Left always puts the burden of proof for WMDs on America, which can never prove their existence because the CIA rarely can penetrate totalitarian regimes. You can't prove a negative. Ever. So the Left is always asking the impossible. It makes them sound reasonable when they are just sabotaging common sense.

But Saddam had a warehouse full of yellowcake uranium, as we now know, and to make a terror weapon all he had to do is load a plane full of that stuff and crash it into the LA Library Tower. You don't need a nuclear explosion to spread terror. All you need is a lot of radioactive stuff thrown together with explosive; agricultural fertilizer will do. For radioactive material you could use the Cesium in your local X-ray unit. Saddam did not do that because he feared our inevitable retaliation.

If Israel attacks Tehran, the Iranians will try to retaliate, either by a missile strike or by local attacks using Hezbollah and Hamas. If Israel does not attack Tehran, the Iranians will try to attack Tel Aviv anyway, because it is the key plank in their ideological doctrine, the one they have been chanting about for thirty years. For Israel it's just in the difference in the timing of an inevitable war. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. So it makes more sense for Israel to attack first, and expect to defend immediately against Iranian retaliation. It is far, far better to do that before the Iranians get actual nukes.

If Obama expects to stay out of that battle, good luck. The Iranians are just as likely to strike the Saudi oil fields (fifty miles away), the Gulf sheikhdoms, the US military in Iraq, the US Navy in the Gulf, or Israel. Israel is the best-defended state in the region. Unlike the Arab states Israel has proven retaliatory capacity. The Arabs have to rely on us, but if we don't come through and defend them successfully, the Saudis are all ready to import nuclear weapons from Pakistan. They've already paid for them by financing Paki nuke development.

So the United States will be drawn into an East Asian or Gulf war. There's no way it can stay out. Unless of course we want a war to spread wider.


Obama is playing a dangerous game. He's experimenting with our economy; betting on discredited Keynesian economic theories. He has managed in just 10 months to triple the deficit which now sits at 1.4 trillion dollars... this year alone. All this on HIS watch. At some point any rational thinking person should see that Obama must take ownership of his mistakes and stop blaming Bush, despite Bush's obvious modicum of culpability. And all this is just on the homefront.

And let's not forget about his disastrous foreign policy. He apologizes everywhere he goes for America... the nation he wants to be president of [I say "wants" because he still seems to be campaigning for the job]. He supports the U.N. and its policy of reckless inaction, on top of supporting terrorists who fire hundreds of rockets a month into ONE nation, while deploring as 'war crimes' said nation's efforts to defend itself by eliminating its attackers.

But again, all this boils down to hatred of the Jews. Don't forget who Barack has surrounded himself with over the last twenty-five years of his life. Don't forget the many people he has hired as advisers who in turn are anti-Semites? What happened to Barack the great unifier, the healer of racial divides? If anything, he has deepened as well as widened the rift. Racial tension in this country is swelling, and Barack Obama has done nothing to alleviate it. If anything, he has fanned the flames.

In fairness to the President of the United States of America, he has the toughest job in the world, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that he is not up to the challenge of keeping America either prosperous, or safe. He is chronically indecisive, though on occasion he does manage to get it right. Remember his standing order to shoot, if necessary, those hapless Somalian pirates? Great Job, mister President. Did you know, sir, that they were Muslim?

So who is this man we've elected king?

He calls himself a Christian, but has yet to find a church, let alone attend services anywhere with any semblance of regularity... and I'm being generous. In point of fact, he seems to have stopped going altogether. Perhaps this is because there isn't any Black Liberation preachers he can safely attend, politically speaking. Having sat for twenty years under the tutelage of the right reverend Jeremiah Wright, who publicly damned America in God's name-- it's called blasphemy, by the way --whose congregation awarded hate-monger and anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan a "lifetime achievement" award. What did Farrakhan ever achieve beyond the ridiculous and ignoble?

Obama calls himself a Christian, but he supports the rights of terrorists over a freedom-loving people desirous of peace. He calls himself a Christian but he cannot vote to enact a bill that would allow doctors to give comfort and lifesaving treatment to innocent newborns who were unfortunate enough not to be wanted, and doubly unfortunate to have not been killed by the abortion procedure itself. What kind of monster can sit in church... possibly crack his Bible in private... and claim to appreciate what Jesus taught? What about the verse that speaks warns of those who would hurt a child? Better that he be cast into the sea with a millstone tied about his neck.

Would it be fair then to say his religion is false? Not a Christian at all? What spirit lives in his heart, if any at all? Who is his Father? God or the devil? He appears to hate children. He appears to hate Jews. He appears to hate self-reliance. He appears to hate America. He appears to hate the Constitution.

And what does he appear to love? His family [chalk one up for the man, he deserves it for this whatever you say]. He appears to love his ideology [which I might add is near wholly inconsistent with biblical Christianity]. He appears to appreciate Islam more than he does Judaism or Christianity. He appears to appreciate his own social agenda over the needs and sacrifice of our troops in Afghanistan.

He wants to build a tower to heaven, not unlike the one moldering in the desert just 50 miles south of Baghdad. He seems to want to sit at the top, on the throne he's placed above that of God's, and STILL call himself a Christian. In short, if he held his chin any higher when he spoke to his crowds of ardent devotees, he would drown come the first strong rain. And his widow-- who only recently decided to be proud of her country --would sue God for employing a little known torture technique known as water-boarding, upon her god-loving husband.

But what god does Barack Obama love? The one who holds Israel near and dear to his heart? or the one that desires her destruction? Which god? The one that abhors violence for the sake of violence? or the one that loves violence for the sake of violence? Which god? The one Who loves the little children? Who knew them from the womb, Who formed them, and consecrated them to specific, individual purpose before ever they were born? or the one who whispers in his ear that those babies are little more than amorphous lumps of flesh... nothing special... not human... without a soul... the one that whispers "there is no god but you, so go ahead and kill it"?

In truth all this points to a mindset that hates God and anything that brings to mind the name of God. Christianity is hated, Jews are hated, abortion is revered, terrorism is condoned, all in the name of blotting out a name from the hearts and minds of men.

And that name is God.

Be it ever so humble, there is no place like the proud black heart of over-proud men.


Read more...

Let's Talk Accomplisments

>> Friday, October 9, 2009

Exhibit 1

Jewish Leader: Jewish Support for Obama Sinking Fast
--Ronald Kessler, Oct 8, 2009

Previously overwhelming support for President Obama among Jews is sinking fast, Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, tells Newsmax.

Klein cites a recent Gallup Poll that found Obama's approval rating among Jews in America has slipped from 83 percent in January to 64 percent.

"I give a lecture almost every week around the country to Jewish groups," says Klein, whose organization of 30,000 members is the oldest pro-Israel group in the country. "I began to see serious concern after Obama's speech in Cairo, in which he equated Palestinian suffering to Jewish suffering during the Holocaust, a ridiculous analogy. He said the Palestinian situation is equivalent to U.S. blacks in America before the civil rights movement, implying that Jews are oppressors."

Jews became even more anxious when Obama gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to "two of the most virulent anti-Israel people in the world, Mary Robinson of Ireland and Desmond Tutu of South Africa," Klein says.

"More recently in the United Nations speech, Obama coupled supporting Israeli security with Israel fulfilling Palestinian claims and rights," Klein says. "He could have said, I support Israel security, and I want Israel to fulfill Palestinian claims and rights. But he didn't say that. He used the word couple, linking it."

That linkage "has never been made by any president, ever," Klein notes. "So that was an astonishingly new statement. This really frightens both Christian and American Jewish supporters of Israel."

In that speech, Obama "condemned the occupation that started in 1967, giving it no context, not mentioning that Egypt started that war by closing the Straits of Tiran and the Suez Canal, an act of war; by bringing 100,000 Egyptian troops on the border of Israel; by throwing out the U.N. peacekeepers from the Sinai," Klein says.

Moreover, "Jews are worried that in the Cairo speech he never mentioned Iran, and more recently he seems to be doing everything he can to delay any real, true sanctions, and he seems to have taken the military option off the table," Klein says. "So American Jews and others are now worried that he's not even serious about doing something about this ideologically fanatical terrorist-supporting regime. He's not doing anything about allowing them to get nuclear weapons, which they could use to harm Israel, the West, and even America."

As a child of survivors of the Holocaust, Klein says he was particularly offended by Obama's comparison of the suffering of Palestinians with the Nazis' murder of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust. "I found this to be an abominable, odious, and ridiculously false analogy," he says.

While Klein's parents survived, his father lost his eight brothers and sisters and all his aunts and uncles in Nazi concentration camps. Klein's mother lost half of her family.

When it comes to Israel, "It's tragic to realize that Obama's sympathies and feelings are not that far from his mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright," Klein says.

Based on the president's speeches and many of his foreign policy appointments, Klein thinks Obama "may become the most hostile president to Israel ever."



Exhibit 2



What has he done... Seriously... Besides weakening America both economically and militarily? On top of this all his associations with crooks, liars, thieves, and bigots? Come on! Did awake this morning upon the other side of the looking glass?


Read more...

Giant Condoms for the Underserved, the Idiots, the Murderers

in a stunning move... STUNNING move... Oslo has awarded Obama the Nobel Peace prize. Never mind the fact that he has done nothing to deserve it. Peace? He's waging war on three fronts... committing war crimes in Afghanistan... Iraq... dealing treacherously with Israel, and the American people.

Here's the Huffing and Puffington Post:


President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.

The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama's name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.


Too early to award Obama? I'll say! He's done nothing do deserve it, let alone the presidency of the United States.

Well, it's been said before but this makes it official. The Nobel Peace prize is meaningless. It has ceased to have any worth. Because they now give there giant condom to idiots and murderers... Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, YASSER ARAFAT for crying out loud!

I'm waiting for someone to jump out and tell me I just got Punk'd! Hell, the NATION just got Punk'd!

Way to go Oslo, demonstrating once again just how irrelevant... how TIN are your prizes.


Read more...

One Nation Under God

>> Thursday, October 8, 2009

[Interactive Site]

















Click the link above the image to go to the interactive site. Once there you can mouse over the various persons in the painting and read the descriptions as to who they are and what they represent. America has lost sight of who she is. This painting represents, to my mind at least, who she was and where she now is.

Anyone who knows me knows I'm a Christian. Christ Jesus is my Lord, Savior, and God. And whether you believe it or not this nation was founded upon Godly principles; a house built upon a rock. But no more.

Could get back to that time? It is possible, but is it likely?


Read more...

As Goes California....

>> Monday, October 5, 2009

...So Goes the Rest of the Nation?



Will California become America's first failed state?
Los Angeles, 2009: California may be the eighth largest economy in the world, but its state staff are being paid in IOUs, unemployment is at its highest in 70 years, and teachers are on hunger strike. So what has gone so catastrophically wrong?

Paul Harris
Guardian.co.uk | The Observer, Sunday 4 October 2009



California has a special place in the American psyche. It is the Golden State: a playground of the rich and famous with perfect weather. It symbolises a lifestyle of sunshine, swimming pools and the Hollywood dream factory.

But the state that was once held up as the epitome of the boundless opportunities of America has collapsed. From its politics to its economy to its environment and way of life, California is like a patient on life support. At the start of summer the state government was so deeply in debt that it began to issue IOUs instead of wages. Its unemployment rate has soared to more than 12%, the highest figure in 70 years. Desperate to pay off a crippling budget deficit, California is slashing spending in education and healthcare, laying off vast numbers of workers and forcing others to take unpaid leave. In a state made up of sprawling suburbs the collapse of the housing bubble has impoverished millions and kicked tens of thousands of families out of their homes. Its political system is locked in paralysis and the two-term rule of former movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger is seen as a disaster – his approval ratings having sunk to levels that would make George W Bush blush. The crisis is so deep that Professor Kevin Starr, who has written an acclaimed history of the state, recently declared: "California is on the verge of becoming the first failed state in America."


Read the entire article here


Read more...

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP