Thursday, September 24, 2009

There's Somethin' Happenin' Here...
Feeling Insecure in the Homeland

Click on this link to see a website about an event that caught my attention today.

Turn your volume up and imagine this happening here at our U.S. Capitol. At the bottom of that web page the Muslim hosts proclaim:


Above that it says that the goal of these 50,000+ Muslim worshipers who will gather on the mall, bow toward Mecca, and use loud speakers to chant the Athan ... "echoing off of the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument and other great edifices that surround Capitol Hill" will be to "...manifest Islam's majestic spiritual principals [sic] as revealed by Allah to our beloved prophet Muhammad (PEACE BE UPON HIM) of Arabia....The peace, beauty and solidarity of Islam will shine through America's capitol."

Is this real? If it is, did you know it was happening Friday? I didn't. I'll confess that it makes me feel pretty insecure about the homeland. It makes me think of a post I wrote last November that hinted that a great nation was about to be changed forever as people mumble "nothing like us ever was." But it's the verb WAS that bothers me the most. It's past tense... I have that feeling again.

I am not saying all Muslims are a threat to our homeland. I'm not saying they're all like Najibullah Zazi, arrested just today as part of a sleeper cell plotting to bomb our homeland. I'm not saying they're all like Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad who calls the Holocaust a myth and only yesterday tried to evangelize his fleeting audience here in our homeland. I'm not saying all Muslims secretly chant "Death to America" or hope to take over our homeland (as shown in the film Obsession. (Click on that link.) I'm not saying homeland security has anything to do with the feelings of insecurity that swept over me as I listened at that Islam on the Capitol website.

But I am saying this is my homeland; I have feelings for my homeland. I have feelings about the buildings of our Capitol and the flag that waves above them. I welcome those who cherish the historic America of our founding fathers, but I am cautious of those new to my homeland who wish to change it to their liking (just as I am cautious of those who only upon ascending to power find reason to be proud of this country). I have feelings for those who would drastically change or harm or "take over" my homeland.

For what it's worth, if 50,000 Muslims descend on DC Friday there's somethin' happenin' here.... unlike anything that has ever happened since Jefferson first penned "We the people..." used so freely in the artwork above.

Update: Friday evening: Sounds like this thing was a flop. Notice the difference between the projections of 50,000+ Muslims in this article the day before the event and this article about the few thousand who actually showed up. The event recieved scant press and caused little stir. I'm okay with that. The less attention the better.

I suspect the following video represents what is more likely to happen as the "take over" continues:

John Stossel Moves to Fox

I just recently learned that John Stossel of ABC News has left that network to begin a new weekly show at Fox. I plan to watch him there, but do you realize just how blatant the so-called main stream media (MSM) bias will become if the few reasonable voiced like Stossel leave? That sort of bias is the topic of his article this week.

"When I announced last week that I was leaving ABC for Fox, some readers complained about my "bias." I replied: "Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine.

"Look at today's burning issue: President Obama's pledge to redesign 15 percent of the economy. Virtually every reporter calls his health care plan "reform." But dictionaries define reform as "improvement.

"So before they present any evidence, reporters pronounce Obama's plan an improvement. Isn't that bias?"

He explained his reasons for moving last week in last week's article.

"In my new job, I want to dig into the meaning of the words "liberty" and "limited government." For many years, through Republican and Democratic administrations, we have been losing something vital in America: the commitment to individual liberty and the understanding that as government grows, liberty shrinks."

Sounds like what I was saying in that last post. Good for you, John!

Monday, September 21, 2009

It's Not a Sermon. It's a Warning...


My cousin sent me this video clip. I know many people are inclined to dismiss "preachy" presentations. But rather than ignore this, take note of the following considerations:

First, Pastor Stephen Broden is not a Bible-thumping idiot; he does not fit the Hollywood stereotype so often embraced by those who misunderstand believers with a Biblical worldview. Second, he is not a racist simply because he strongly disagrees with the dramatic changes Obama and his handlers are foisting on America; Third, listen carefully to the implications of what Broder is saying. If you disagree with the premise of Broden remarks (i.e. that these recent events are a set-up for the ultimate clash of historic democratic values and socialism), ask yourself this: What part of bigger and bigger government sounds like the intentions of our founding fathers? In what ways does a nanny-state resemble the pursuit of happiness? The more the government supposedly "gives" the more it takes away--not only through taxes but also individual liberty.

Look at the generations who made this country great for 200 years. Did they take individual responsibility to maintain constitutional rights or did they just keep adding to the list of so-called "rights" and holding out their hand to the government to provide for them? (e.g. Healthcare is not a right. The fact that Obama's plan intends to "tax" (or fine) people for not buying into his program, confirms that it is not a right. Rights cannot be purchased. Sickness, accidents and death are a reality in this broken world. Because of that, healthcare is an important responsibility of each home, etc., but good health and living the longest-possible life are not constitutional rights nor can any government afford to create a world in which such things are promised by the State but funded by the tax payers. Such promises will only increase taxes and dilute the quality of existing health care services in the name of "fairness."

When the founding fathers said "all men are created equal," they did not mean it's the government's duty to put them all in the same mess. I explained this last October in "Thoughts on Home Ownership":

"Ironically, "freedom" and "equality" are conflicting ideals. The "freer" man is to pursue happiness the sooner he becomes less "equal" with those around him, because freedom allows each individual to rise above his current position; it allows for both self-improvement and self pity; it allows one man to build a tire factory, another man to sell rope, and yet another man to put up a tire swing. All three enterprises can be profitable in different ways, but the last one will likely put less in the bank. ... Governments should ensure that all starting lines are equal, but when they change starting lines to "equalize" outcomes, it underscores the conflict between the ideals of freedom and equality."

That was true of the "affordable housing" myth that treated home ownership as a "right" regardless of one's ability to pay for it, and it is equally true of healthcare. Broder does not say this directly in this speech, but what he does say is at the heart of why "gridlock" is more important than ever while America begins to see Obama's "change" for what it really is.

For further reading:

Saul Alinsky. Why some consider Alinsky controversial. More Alinsky commentary. Francis Schaeffer and his "Christian Manifesto."


Saturday, September 12, 2009

I Missed the Tea Party

I wasn't at this tea party, but some DC officials have reported that two million people showed up to protest run-away government spending. My guess is it was half that number.

If today's tea party gets any mainstream coverage, I suspect the liberal pundits will focus only on the most outlandish of the signs and quotes of the day, but I dare say, if they cared to be accurate, the vast majority of all those who cared enough to show up at the capitol were decent, fair-minded people.

If one considers the hatred and venom spewed on President Bush (and Sarah Palin for that matter), the worst of the signs were probably far less profain, but I do wish those who make "shocking" posters would ask themselves if they think they are helping or hurting the tea-party cause when they go too far.

Looking ahead to 2010, it is the vastness and volume of a million voices--not the venom of the thoughtless few--that will get the attention of elected big spenders. (I decided to write on this positive story and not the unbelievable exposed corruption of ACORN.)

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

What Obama Says vs. What He Does

By Thomas Sowell

In order to fully appreciate Thomas Sowell's latest op-ed, we must read these lines from his piece two weeks ago:

What [Obama is] trying to do is to create an America very unlike the America that has existed for centuries-- the America that people have been attracted to by the millions from every part of the world, the America that many generations of Americans have fought and died for.
This is the America for which Michelle Obama expressed her resentment before it became politically expedient to keep quiet.

It is the America that Reverend Jeremiah Wright denounced in his sermons during the 20 years when Barack Obama was a parishioner, before political expediency required Obama to withdraw and distance himself.

The thing most associated with America-- freedom-- is precisely what must be destroyed if this is to be turned into a fundamentally different country to suit Obama's vision of the country and of himself. But do not expect a savvy politician like Barack Obama to express what he is doing in terms of limiting our freedom....

Just as magicians know that the secret of some of their tricks is to distract the audience, so politicians know that the secret of many political tricks is to distract the public with scapegoats.... Barack Obama's escapes from his own past words, deeds and associations have been escapes worthy of Houdini.

Like other magicians, Obama has chosen his distractions well. The insurance industry is currently his favorite distraction as scapegoats, after he has tried to demonize doctors without much success....Obama even gets away with saying things like having a system to "keep insurance companies honest"-- and many people may not see the painful irony in politicians trying to keep other people honest. Certainly most of the media are unlikely to point out this irony.

And here excerpts from his current article:

What Obama Says vs. What He Does

The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.

The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything.No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of President Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical care plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.

One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess-- for a program that would not take effect until 2013!

Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years-- more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential election?

If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next Presidential election?

If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect immediately, then why don't we have time to go through the normal process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to "hurry up and wait" on something that is literally a matter of life and death?

If we do not believe that the President is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it. Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be....There are lots of people in the Obama administration who want to do things that have not been done before-- and to do them before the public realizes what is happening....

What Barack Obama says Wednesday night is not nearly as important as what he has been doing-- and how he has been doing it.

[End of Sowell's essays.]

And the White House wonders why so many people have already lost the trust they had in thier candidate last November; they wonder why some people bristled at the question originally given to teachers to ask after they made thier children listen to today's speech: "Now, What can we do to support the President?" The White House withdrew that question from the rubber-stamped lesson plans, but it tainted the intentions of the noon-day address. Don't get me wrong. I was not overly concerned about today's speech (though our school did not show it due to logistical issues).

Today's speech was innocent enough if one only considers it "words," and as President I think he is entitled to speak to kids about inspirational themes as he did today... but it is tomorrow's speech parents need to worry about. It will be just as charming, and millions of child-like followers will be asked to "support" him after he pulls the last rabbit from his hat.

Last November, Obama sold his goods as "Change You Can Believe In. Belief takes trust...and that's lacking. One thing is for sure: He does not promote change we can THINK about, because he doesn't want America to think about what's really changing. He just wants us to clap at the end of his act.

website tracking statistics
Flat-Panel Television