The American Exceptionalist

Obama's speech to air force academy graduates...

2012-06-01T16:30:00.001-07:00

While reading an article over at the washington post regarding obama's speech to the graduating air force academy class graduates (link below) I was struck by many of the anti- American comments posted. One poster in response to a claim that America's military was still the best trained and most competent in the world SAID, " why then have you not won a war since World War II although being at war almost every year since ?"

Ignorance is hard for me to tolerate despite my usual gentle nature . Sigh..

There will likely not to be any more wars with the kind of complete and total surrender akin to World War II.
Geopolitics is far more complex and even borders themselves become irrelevant in many instances as military actions target not just nation state actors but ideological threats such as Al Qaeda .

It would be a fool that would stand and argue the United States military is anything less than the most competent in the world . Even in Vietnam (which is arguably our darkest hour in recent history at least militarily) I would ask the apparently legion of uneducated students unaware of modern history to avail yourself of the facts....

How many Vietcong were killed for every American soldier killed?

How many Soviet migs were shot down for every American aircraft ?

Clearly the United States is competent militarily. To argue otherwise is simply ludicrous to the point of absurdity . What Vietnam ushered in was the notion that more than simple military might would be required to win future conflicts. Even today we are witnessing the evolution and refinement of policies that will allow the United States to remain the dominant force in the world as we have made our mistakes and learn from them in nationbuilding both in Iraq and Afghanistan .

Afghanistan is admittedly quite chaotic and even still when compared to the Soviets lack of success even our modest gains there can only be considered tremendous accomplishments .

Sadly I do not believe there is a postwar age for United States as anyone of intelligence understands that Islam itself represents an existential threat to Western civilization so long as it purports to engage in Jihad until sharia law rules all of the earth . Well-meaning people who under the guise of religious tolerance do not wish to say the obvious are bewildered and perplexed when confronted with the obvious question - are you willing to support sharia law which would stone a person to death publicly for adultery and behead them for other crimes ? The stark reality is that this is sharia law that every Muslim without exception is required to support and adhere to . If a Muslim does not then they are not "in communion" with the Koran and Islam itself and cannot claim to be a Muslim . Simply put if one does not believe what the Koran clearly and plainly teaches in a most explicit manner than one simply cannot claim to be a Muslim . Therefore all Muslims if they are true Muslims must support Jihad upon the world until sharia rules the earth. So-called " moderate Muslims " simply do not exist in reality to the extent that " moderate " means they disembark from the beliefs of Islam and the Koran . It is on that basis I make the perhaps audacious claim that there is no such thing as Islamic extremism there is only Islam.

Are these punishments and this system of justice in anyway congruent with the hallmarks of a civilized western society ?

Mr. Obama 's speech to the Air Force Academy graduates well perhaps inspiring like so many of his speeches have been remind me in an unsettling way of sitting through Steven Spielberg movie and it's emotional manipulation . At this point into the Obama administration 's tenure it's clear that Mr. Obama has no integrity . His words his promises are empty and hollow without meaning and can only be regarded as trivial entertainment and self-aggrandizement which is sadly in most cases further polarizes this country despite his promises of bringing us together.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-touts-american-exceptionalism-end-of-wars-in-air-force-graduation-speech/2012/05/23/gJQANN2zkU_story.html?wp_login_redirect=0

Louis Farrakhan at it again

2012-05-31T06:33:00.001-07:00

http://goo.gl/Nlria

Shovel ready stimulus projects and Mexico's President Calderone...

2010-05-23T11:58:00.000-07:00

Did you hear about what congress is trying to do now? 200-250 BILLION for "job creation" - I thought the stimulus was supposed to do that?

You remember the 1 TRILLION dollar package (over HALF which remains UNSPENT despite promises of "shovel ready" projects) that was supposed to save us and prevent unemployment from exceeding 8%?

Mind you in California unemployment is hovering around 12% and if the long term unemployed are accounted for the real number nationwide at 17%+ is one Obama does not want to talk about. We cant even consider the numbers for black men between 18 and 35 which is so shocking at 40-50% Obama ignores the issue completely as he is more interested in political payback to organized labor foresaking his many campaign promises.

Why the black community seems to allow him this transgression of such monumental proportion is inexplicable. This then provides us with the rationale for Obama;s current aversion to a real press conference these days.

After all he really is quite busy giving President Calderone of Mexico a forum for lecturing America on immigration law. I just wish Obama who obviously has not even read the law would take a look the 10 pages (plus 5 pages of amendments) that comprise AZ SB 1070. Its a light casual read compared to the almost 3,000 page health care "reform" that was fashioned in secret out of view of even the oft promised C-SPAN cameras. "Most transparent administration in recent history" indeed... But I digress...

It is perhaps just too much to ask that our chief law enforcement official - Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano ( and ironically frmr Gov of AZ) AFTER appearing on virtually every major network criticizing AZ's law and issuing opinions as to its constitutionality admitted that neither of the officials above had even bothered to read it. That Mr Holder is Attorney General and threatened A federal legal challenge of the law and THEN in a house judiciary hearing admitted not only he had not read the law but adding insult to ignorance and bringing his competence solidly into question told legislators he relied on the news media and what he had read about the law - yet not the law itself.

This is no joke... But our Attorney General! One can only wonder what a heyday the media would have had if a Bush administration official had perpetrated the same fraud upon the citizenry as the above Obama officials. But then similarly abhorrent examples of hypocrisy and overt incompetence abound within Mr Obama's fifedom.

Most have no doubt seen Calderone's comments, "... I stonrgly disagree with Arizon's new law..."

I'd suggest a correction or several alternatives:

1) I strongly disagree with America having laws like we do in Mexico
2) I strongly disagree with America enforcing its own Southern border with the tenacity we do in Mexico

I'm sure you can come up with several of your own...

I think at some point Mexican's themselves might begin to have some shame about this whole affair. Rather than govern Mexico and tackle the ubiquitous corruption Mr Calderone and so many before him aquiesce to a country in such economic and social dissarray that the only solution they can conceive is to encourage the wholesale exodus of their citizens. I just wonder what the might think if Obama or Bush had shown up in their capitol and lectured them on corruption, drug enforcement and how education beyond 8th grade should be mandatory if they expect to compete in a global economy.

Somehow I think the proud people of Mexico might react with far greater outrage then we have. That has been a problem for those "bitter clingers" such as you and I... we hold a live and let live attitude and tend to remain silent. I heard a new phrase that we would do well to take to heart amid the clamors that all who oppose Mr Obama's radical agenda are racist (BTW how insulting and childish can you get? I odnt care what race/color the man is its his POLICIES I abhor) - anyway here it is:

Not Racist
Not Violent
NOT SILENT ANYMORE

"Of course we ask immigrants to show their papers!"

2010-05-20T23:27:00.000-07:00

Mexican president:
Of course we ask immigrants to show their papers
posted at 9:00 pm on May 20, 2010 by Allahpundit

Here’s the transcript:

BLITZER: So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, they can just walk in?

CALDERON: No. They need to fulfill a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedent. And they coming into Mexico. Actually…

BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?

CALDERON: Of course. Of course, in the border, we are asking the people, who are you?

And if they explain…

BLITZER: At the border, I understand, when they come in.

CALDERON: Yes.

BLITZER: But once they’re in…

CALDERON: But not — but not in — if — once they are inside the — inside the country, what the Mexican police do is, of course, enforce the law. But by any means, immigration is [not] a crime anymore in Mexico.

Sounds like he’s saying (or trying to say) that you have to show papers at the border to get in but maybe not once you’re inside — unless, of course, Mexican police need to see them to “enforce the law.” Rush’s cuts leave out the border part. What exactly is “the law” in Mexico, though? Well, the boss emeritus has this:

– Law enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

– Ready to show your papers? Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens’ identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

That’s from a 2006 study on Mexican immigration law, some of which is now out of date. For instance, Calderon was right when he told CNN yesterday that it’s no longer a criminal offense, as it was until last year, to be caught illegally inside the country. But then there’s this:

Mexican lawmakers changed that in 2008 to make illegal immigration a civil violation like it is in the United States, but their law still reads an awful lot like Arizona’s.

Arizona’s policy, which Calderon derided on Wednesday as “discriminatory” and assailed again on Thursday, requires law enforcement to try to determine the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant — provided they are already in contact with that person. They can’t randomly stop people and demand papers and the law prohibits racial profiling.

The Mexican law also states that law enforcement officials are “required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues.”

Not sure if that means at the border only or while you’re inside the country. Regardless, Mexico’s best deterrent against illegals isn’t its statutes but the fact that abuse of immigrants is so vicious and endemic that Amnesty International called it a “human rights crisis” just last month. Bear this in mind the next time you see some leftist idiot applauding Calderon’s fine principled stand on the dignity of all individuals:

Invisible Victims: Migrants on the Move in Mexico, documents the alarming levels of abuse faced by the tens of thousands of Central American irregular migrants that every year attempt to reach the US by crossing Mexico.

“Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses,” said Rupert Knox, Mexico Researcher at Amnesty International.

“Persistent failure by the authorities to tackle abuses carried out against irregular migrants has made their journey through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world.”

Estimated number of migrant women and girls who experience “sexual violence”: 60 percent. Exit question: Why don’t we take Mark Levin’s advice and just enact Mexico’s immigration laws here? Minus the “human rights crisis” elements, of course.

Just a pause and THANKS to ALL who serve and keep us safe...

2010-05-20T18:33:00.001-07:00

Cap and Scam & 1867...

2010-05-19T13:18:00.000-07:00

Cap and Scam

"will allow the average American the carbon dioxide emissions of the average citizen back in 1867"

By David Harsanyi

Were you aware that Americans have a collective obligation to stop kicking challenges to the next generation and join the White House in supporting "sweeping" and "transformative" legislation? I thought so.

These days, there are few higher callings in Washington than pretending to save the environment. Authoritative "leadership" is sorely needed in this area -- and quickly, before the three-cornered-hat-wearing Visigoths storm Washington's barricades this midterm election.

Reporting for duty are John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, armed with a new cap-and-trade "energy" bill -- christened the Newspeak-esque "American Power Act" -- that is so inclusive it nearly secured the support of a single radical right-winger (as if there were any other kind) in Republican Lindsey Graham, before he had a temper tantrum.

Praising the legislation, President Barack Obama made his customary case, twinning the fictitious economic benefits of statism with freshman-class utopianism, claiming that "we will put Americans to work in new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced -- jobs building solar panels and wind turbines; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain."

Like most parents, I, too, hope my children one day toil in a nonproductive factory assembling taxpayer-subsidized wind turbines rather than turn to imported Canadian fossil fuels and constructive high-income professions. Unlike profits, you see, dreams never can be outsourced.

We are only in the "discussion draft" phase of the bill -- entailing tons of discussions on how to entice Western Democrats and circumvent Republicans -- which would make efficient energy more expensive, put non-energies on the dole and slap a layer of crony capitalism on the entire energy industry.

And seeing as we never waste a crisis, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has given cap-and-trade supporters another hammer to add to the debate. Though, as Newsweek summed it up, "considering that the Kerry-Lieberman bill contains a little something for everyone, it's likely to pass."

A little something for everyone except you, that is. The fabricated cap-and-trade "market" is a well-documented concoction of rent-seeking corporations that will work diligently with Washington to ensure taxpayers always foot the bill. As the legislation stands now, oil companies would also have to pay emissions allowances -- outside the cap-and-trade market -- which are nothing more than another gas tax.

This bill not only is loaded with obvious costs but also features underlying protectionist expenses that would benefit the usual industries (agriculture and steel) and, of course, unions. For example, the legislation would force nations "that have not taken action to limit emissions to pay a comparable amount" -- in other words, to pay for having the good sense not to engage in slow-motion economic suicide. (Hey, I thought we weren't supposed to impose our values on other nations.)

What do we expect from these countries and ourselves? The bill would mandate we reduce emissions by 83 percent by 2050. Roll up your sleeves, because we all will be doing organic farming. Or, as Pat Michaels of the Cato Institute points out, we "will allow the average American the carbon dioxide emissions of the average citizen back in 1867, a mere 39 years from today."

Though an energy breakthrough could make all this possible -- and that would be wonderful -- solar panels, carbon sequestration and the fertile imaginations of political opportunists who make demands before they have solutions will not.

And remember, these legislators were supposed to be the grown-ups.

Reach columnist David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
.from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/14/cap_and_scam_105583.html

Show Me Your Papers!

2010-04-29T17:01:00.000-07:00

Obamacare Requires You To "Show Your Papers"

William A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY blogging at Legal Insurrection

Remember when Democrats fell all over themselves trying to prove that Obamacare would NOT cover illegal aliens? When Joe Wilson shouted "you lie" about coverage for illegal aliens, Obama and Democratic leaders assured the nation that illegal aliens would be excluded.

Under the final Senate health care bill signed into law (unlike the earlier House version), illegal aliens are screened out. Only persons who can prove they are "a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States" get to participate.

In other words, when you try to buy a policy through an exchange, or seek a subsidy, or receive any of the other supposed benefits, you will be told "show me your papers."

Just like in Arizona now. If you are contacted lawfully by the police. And if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that you are here illegally. And if you cannot produce any of the specified common forms of identification. And in that case, the officer has to try to confirm your status with the federal immigration authorities.

The burden of producing identification under the Arizona law is no more intrusive than the documentation you need to fly; or ride an Amtrak train; or check into a hotel; or rent a car; or cash a check.

It certainly is less intrusive than the health care mandate, which forces people to spend money or be penalized, and requires that employers and taxpayers report to the government about insurance status. I find it quite interesting that the same people who insist that the federal government can control virtually all aspects of our health care find it so horrid when a state government seeks to protect its citizens by verifying immigration status.

In a perfect world, perhaps we could go through our lives without ever being told "show me your papers." And there would be no problems with foreign drug gangs and terrorist groups. And immigration would be controlled at the border.

But this is not a perfect world, as the people of Arizona can attest.

But it also is not the equivalent of being in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or apartheid South Africa, as is being claimed by opponents of the Arizona law. Anymore so than a molehill is a mountain.

If being told "show me your papers" under the Arizona law constitutes the equivalent of any of those evil forms of government, what does that make Obamacare? And the Democrats who voted for it? And the President who signed it? And the bureaucrats who will implement it? And the doctors who will provide services under it? And the patients who will participate in it?

Are they all now Nazis, and Communists, and Apartheidists? Just like the people of Arizona.

Byron York has an even longer list of things for which we already have to show our papers:

No, we are not confronted by actors with heavy German accents demanding our papers.

We are instead confronted routinely by people of all stripes asking to see our driver's license. When we board an airplane, we are asked to produce a government-issued photo ID, usually a driver's license. When we make some credit- or debit-card purchases in department stores, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we enter many office buildings, both private and government, security guards often ask us to produce a driver's license. When we go to doctors' offices and hospitals, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we check into hotels, we are asked to produce a driver's license.

When we purchase some over-the-counter drugs, we are asked to produce a driver's license. If we go to a bar or nightclub, anyone who William A. Jacobson looks at all young is asked to produce a driver's license. And needless to say, if we have any encounter with police or other authorities, we are asked to produce a driver's license.

Some situations involve an even higher level of scrutiny. When we get a new job, we are asked to provide not a driver's license but a passport or birth certificate to prove citizenship. In other situations, too: When I renewed my District of Columbia driver's license last year, I had to produce a passport to prove citizenship, even though it was a valid, unexpired license I was renewing. And in many places, buying a gun -- a constitutionally-protected right -- involves enormous scrutiny.

The Great U.S. Retreat: Unnerving Our Friends, Encouraging Our Enemies

2010-04-28T13:09:00.000-07:00

The Great U.S. Retreat: Unnerving Our Friends, Encouraging Our Enemies by Peter Huessy The Hudson Institute

The United States seems to be under the impression that being the ‘strong horse’ in international affairs harms our standing in the world. We are retreating from the international stage, seemingly happy in the idea of turning both national and international security policy over to a combination of global UN agencies and regional authorities we hope will cooperate with us, and motivated more by good will than hard interests.

As members of Congress review the administration’s proposals on counterterrorism, nuclear deterrence, missile defense, and proliferation, this retreat seem to be the ‘elephant in the room’ about which few appear willing to talk. For now.

Beneath the surface, however, Congress is becoming increasingly worried, even alarmed. Representative Howard Berman, the chair of the House International Relations Committee, has said publicly that it is long past the time when the US should have acted on Iran, with or without the cooperation of China and Russia. He sounded even more frustrated in comments he made privately at the recent AIPAC conference. And Senator Jon Kyl, from the opposite side of the political spectrum, addressing a Congressional seminar on April 20, explained he was worried that this administration was not committed to a sufficiently strong and secure nuclear deterrent.

Some important Bush-era counterterrorism policies are being retained, for example much of the Patriot Act. Also, apparently, our nuclear Triad of submarines, bombers and land-based missiles will also remain, although diminished, at least for now. And theater missile defenses will improve, which are useful, but further protection of the US mainland remains elusive. But the broader reality reflects a gradual retreat:

Senior members of the defense committees in Congress see no long-term plan for the sustaining or modernizing the US strategic nuclear deterrent -- even though the law requires such a plan.

Although plans for a new strategic submarine are on the table, in part to coincide with Britain"s need to replace its own version of the Trident, no associated missile program is in the works.

On the land-based missile leg of the US nuclear deterrent, after a two-decade long effort to extend the life of the Minuteman, there is yet to emerge any long-term plan to sustain the missile to 2030 or beyond, as required by Congress -- and which would be essential if the US were to maintain a balanced and stable strategic environment.

Many Senators from both parties have written the administration asking for a commitment to modernize the nuclear force, but have yet to receive an answer.

There is also a delay in plans for a new strategic bomber. Internal discussions within the Department of Defense on a long-term solution continue, with many options under consideration, including an unmanned nuclear-capable bomber.

At a recent private disarmament conference in Geneva, a representative from New Zealand complained to the US participants that our ICBMs could be launched accidentally (they cannot) if there were a computer malfunction in our launch-control facilities. As a result, pressures remain to stand-down our deterrent, which, if implemented would unnerve our allies and encourage our adversaries.

Although the current US administration is increasing funding for the nuclear weapons infrastructure by over $600 million, and although increased funding for counter-proliferation efforts within both the Departments of Energy and Defense have been proposed, members of Congress, while pleased with such efforts, are puzzled about why a nuclear summit, dedicated to the proposition that nuclear terrorism is our most serious security problem, did not focus on the most serious threat of all — Iran.

A senior member of the House Committee on Foreign Relations complained last week that the Iran Sanctions Bill - approved by both the House and Senate -- which prohibits companies who do business in the refined-petroleum and energy sector with Iran from doing business with the US, may be eviscerated even before it becomes law.

To move the bill, the administration has insisted that China be exempt from the legislation—making the bill a dead letter. Here the dots remain unconnected. Even as Chinese firms are aiding Iran’s nuclear weapons program, we give them a free ride on doing energy business with Tehran.

Congress therefore wonders how serious the administration really is about sanctioning Iran.

Meanwhile, the Director of the FBI says that right-wing militias are now the most serious terrorism threat facing the country, even greater than the threat from Al Qaeda, which had been identified only a week earlier as an even greater terrorist threat than a nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea. Is this now going to be the basis for US counter-terrorism policy?

The same holds true for missile defense. Defense Department debates have centered around a point largely ignored up to now: We are placing almost our entire future for missile defense on one technology, the Navy standard missile, to be deployed in ever-increasing capabilities in 2011, 2015, 2018 and 2020 --and eventually protecting not only all of Europe, but also the United States, from Iranian missiles.
The back-up system on which we were to have relied in case this did not work was the two-stage rocket we planned to deploy in Poland, with its associated radar in the Czech Republic, but both were cancelled.

The irony is that the Russians are even more opposed to the new plan than they were to the previous plans. The now-cancelled Polish deployment was supposed to consist of 10 interceptors, insignificant in strategic terms in relation to more than a thousand deployed strategic Russian nuclear warheads; and the new Navy-based standard missile could have been placed on the Aegis Navy ships and thus can be made mobile. With interceptor-speeds of 5-6 kilometers per second, should we obtain such a future capability, the Russians might be faced with hundreds of such missile defenses, capable of easily shooting down Russia strategic rockets.

But these future US plans are not funded -- yet.

They depend upon future assessments of Iranian missile capabilities, which might not reach a consensus for many years, although just last week a report was sent to Congress warning that Iran could build an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States by 2015. However, supplemental missile defenses against such a rocket threat will not be built until 2020, at the earliest.
So here we get promises of future deployments that may never even materialize.

We have agreed to too few nuclear platforms under the new START Treaty, where we have to cut our stockpile by 188 missiles or bombers, while Russia"s force of just under 500 has room to expand. If the Russians insist on limiting future US missile-defense deployments, why are we assuming that our future missile defense plans will get a free ride? They might not.

The unsettled nature of Congressional opinion may not yet be reflected in the considerations of the defense budget now before the House and Senate. But Congressional unsettledness may be part of why consideration of the START arms control treaty might be delayed until next January at the earliest.

Congress seems to be in a ‘waiting’ mode — to see what other shoe will drop. This might be the reason for much of the calm one sees. Beneath the surface, though, is real concern that the administration is putting off many tough but critical decisions about the security threats we face.

Unfortunately, the US nuclear deterrent does not move forward automatically.. It atrophies if not sustained and modernized, just like any other element of our national security.

At present, we have no commitment to a new air-launched cruise missile for our bombers, or new land- or sea-based missiles. Drafters of the Iran sanctions bill said they had to exempt China to secure Administration support, so not only have we let China off the hook, but, as noted, some planned missile-defense protections rely on future promises that may never materialize.

This global retreat also involves issues such as immigration, supposedly the next ‘big ticket’ item on the Congressional agenda. Enforcement of immigration laws has been scaled back: border arrests have fallen sharply. Columbia and Honduras, key US allies in the fight against drugs, have been ignored as the US either disregards -- or facilitates by inaction -- the increasing dangers of the alliance between our neighbor, Venezuela, and Iran -- including their ties with terrorist groups and drug cartels and their meddling in elections throughout the continent. If granting amnesty in the US is not combined with serious efforts to control our borders, we may very well make these dangers worse. Drug cartels and terrorist groups may find in no more difficult to cross our borders after immigration-reform than before it.

Some argue that the administration’s rhetoric about a nuclear-free world can be understood simply as a necessary bow in the direction of the disarmament goals of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Venezuela and Iran are working together on both missiles and nuclear matters. China sustains the regime in Caracas with $20 billion in new loans. The dots of immigration, nuclear proliferation and rogue states should be connected.

Tehran, Peking and Caracas are cooperating to enhance their power, not only in the Persian Gulf but in our hemisphere as well. This can not only limit US freedom, it can intimidate our allies. Iranian missiles tipped with nuclear warheads and deployed in Venezuela can easily reach Miami. The message to Washington is clear: Back off!

There may be a method to all this. The administration’s rhetorical promises of a nuclear free world get good photo ops and nice editorials, and it is argued that any administration would tout an arms control agreement. But none before has ever so firmly embraced a world without nuclear weapons. And while we get pledges to secure nuclear material from Canada and Chile, bomb-making material and bombs themselves may soon be available in Tehran for terrorists to pick up.

Tough but necessary decisions are still being avoided. The easy decisions get done.

When faced with delivering tough sanctions on Iran and allow China an exemption, will we now go to the UN and get China’s support for equally weak measures -- then call it a success because we ‘had the support of the international community’?

It is true that the charade with Iran has been going on for some time, through various administrations. But eventually the ‘tough talk’ image, combined with no corresponding action, has consequences.

One senior Senator, a leading voice in security affairs, mentioned recently that since we are perceived to be getting out of the nuclear business -- reducing our commitment to protecting America from ballistic missiles, and leaving ourselves vulnerable to terrorism -- others around the world will make their own accommodations. He said that here at home, ‘these are the dots few are connecting.’ But, he warned, ‘others, especially our friends overseas, are connecting the dots. They too will change their calculations. And they will look elsewhere for the strong horse. And that strong horse? It will not be our friend.’

Copyright © 2010 Hudson New York. All rights reserved

My Truth, Your Truth & Objective Truth

2010-04-20T20:15:00.001-07:00

Is there any such thing as objective truth?

Or is my truth as valid as your truth?

I stumbled upon a blog written by an old high school friend and his wife admonishing a news commentator's suggestion that Tiger Woods convert to Christianity. She blathered on about how dare he this and how dare he that and on and on.

Now, in her defense as a psychologist a large part of her "job" is to "validate" others feelings. In the parlance of the common man this means whatever you are and whatever you do is ok . Over the last 15 years in family practice I have seen a variety of psychiatric ills and "validating" someone has its place within the context of counseling.

My problem comes when telescopic logic is used to apply this utopian dream to everything which has at its heart the lie of equality in all things.

In my experience "my truth" is equally valid as your truth ONLY until MY TRUTH conflicts with YOUR TRUTH.

Then YOUR truth suddenly and most amazingly assumes a position of "greater truth" and validity than "my truth."
For example ; how can you be so "judgmental" as to say that my truth which may include my preference for sexual relationships with small underage children - toddlers in fact - is any better or worse than your "truth" which includes a preference for monogamous relationship with adults and your ostensibly equal truth/reality including a desire to protect your children from people like me ?

Left wing lunatics like this are fine with other peoples reality until it intersects with their reality. I mean how could you be so "intolerant" and "cruel" as to impose your morality about the kind of a relationship I should have?

Of course one tried and true method is to change the language and try to control the argument altogether via linguistics. They seem to indict Christianity in general as being responsible for "judgementalness". I am sure this would be a lively discussion but not at all sure there is any factual or supportable credible evidence of any kind to support the opinion. It is in situations like this that I am always puzzled by two things:

1)The hesitance to assert the superiority of Western values which the very ability to publicly ponder points to the obvious answer in the affirmative.

2)The "critical gaze" extended to Christianity or traditional American culture is not being applied equally to other religions and cultures.

While my old high school friend rages about Christianity and its "harm" to society His opinion of perhaps a female's life under sharia law in an unnamed generic Islamic Republic is conspicuously absent.
I don't believe that people like my old friend have bad intentions. Quite the contrary -I believe they are good hearted people just severely misguided. They, like so many of us are the victims of good hearted well intentioned parents particularly of the baby boom generation that wanted to give us everything and not have to "suffer" the things that they did growing up. Yet unwittingly in many cases have to doomed us to a path that in modern political parlance is unsustainable for "civil society" free of tyranny.

We have sevral generations that honestly believe that they are entitled to all the trappings of success previous generations worked a lifetime for. They scream at their children's teachers for honestly grading their child and so we are left with teachers who hand out meaningless A's to all and everyone is a star.

Is it any wonder that mental illness in College students has increased dramatically? Can you imagine finding out that you are NOT the smartest most beautiful person in the world !?!?! They largely believe that objective truth is unknowable if it exists at all and frequently I see them use this as a rationalization for apathy in trying to make any choices. Their morality is purely relative and has been shaped by modern textbooks that undergo sensitivity and review - again resulting in a sanitized meaningless distortion of history that is fantasy. They have been taught more about the internment of Japanese in WWII as opposed to the nature of Hitler's evil.

Sadly, critical thinking and the traditional triumvirate of education is no longer taught in most schools and our test scores and recent history is evidence of the impact this has had. But then that's just "my truth"

The bad-nukes myth - NYPOST.com

2010-04-09T12:57:00.000-07:00

The bad-nukes myth - NYPOST.com

The bad-nukes myth

By RALPH PETERS

Last Updated: 5:01 AM, April 7, 2010

Posted: 1:39 AM, April 7, 2010

Nuclear weapons are not evil. Terrifying, yes. But their horrific capabilities prevented a Third World War. It all depends on whose finger is on the button.

Until yesterday's formal announcement of the administration's new Nuclear Posture Review, nukes also kept us safe from a range of threats short of a doomsday scenario: Our enemies risked going only so far. Nukes didn't prevent all wars -- but wars remained local.

Yesterday, we threw away a significant part of history's most successful deterrent.

This looks like an act of reckless vanity on the part of the administration, but let's allow that this weakening of our national defense is the result of misguided idealism. The important thing isn't the politics, but the practical consequences.

Summarizing the changes in a Pentagon briefing yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates looked weary and chastened. The new posture emerged only after months of bitter argument between realists and activists. Without Gates, it would have been even worse.

Still, it must be painful to Gates -- a great American -- to accept that this policy went into effect on his watch.

Of all its malignant provisions, from accomodating Russian demands to preventing overdue updates for our arsenal, the most worrisome is the public declaration that, if the US suffers a biological, chemical or massive cyber attack, we will not respond with nukes.

This is a very real -- and unilateral -- weakening of our national security. In the past, our ambiguity made our enemies hesitate. The new policy guarantees that they'll intensify their pursuit of bugs, gas and weaponized computers.

Intending to halt a nuclear arms race, we've fired the starter pistol for a rush to develop alternative weapons of mass destruction.

Will this policy be the inspiration for an engineered plague that someday scythes through humankind? Chemical attacks are horrible, but local; cyber attacks are potentially devastating. But an innovative virus unleashed on the world could do what Cold War nuclear arsenals never did: Kill hundreds of millions.

This change leaves us far less safe. If a thug has a knife, but knows you're packing a gun, he's considerably less likely to attack you. Why promise him that you won't use the gun -- and might not use your knife?

Idealism has devolved into madness.

The left has never been willing to accept that deterrence works. In the left's world-view, hostile foreign actors aren't the problem.We are. If we disarm, surely they will . . .

This no-nukes obsession dates back to the early Cold War, when the Soviets used every available means, from dollars to earnest dupes, to persuade Western leftists that America's nuclear weapons were about to wipe out humanity. The USSR couldn't expand its European empire in the face of US nukes -- so the Soviets brilliantly portrayed us as the aggressors. (And the left praised Stalin as a man of peace.)

Massive ban-the-bomb demonstrations filled Western streets for decades (but not the streets behind the Iron Curtain). The left rejected deterrence as a security model.

The seeds sown by the deceased USSR put down durable roots. Pursuing a nuke-free world became a litmus test for the left.

Now we have a president who's taken on that goal as his personal grail. He's absolutely right that nukes have horrifying power -- but the paradox of deterrence is that, the more monstrous the weapons you possess, the less likely you are to ever need to employ them.

The new policy won't stop Iran and other rogue states from pursuing nukes (even though Iran and North Korea were singled out as policy exceptions). But it will accelerate the proliferation of other weapons of mass destruction. And it certainly won't reduce the probability of war.

It will also ensure that our aging arsenal will have to be content with a few Band-Aids; that we won't develop new, safer nuclear weapons -- and that we'll increasingly have to rely on the kindness of strangers.

Idealists just invited the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to ride a little closer.

Ralph Peters' new book is "Endless War."

NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc.

Climate Catastrophists' Mi$$ion Creep

2010-03-18T12:40:00.000-07:00

The Hudson Institute

Climate Catastrophists' Mi$$ion Creep

by Anna Mahjar-Barducci

At a moment when private industry and governments around the world are spending trillions of dollars in the name of saving our planet from man-made global warming, there is mounting evidence that academic institutions, think tanks and public institutions around the world have started to alter their findings again to reach a “global warming consensus” -- regardless that there have also been in history a Flat-Earth Consensus, a Sun-Goes-Around-The-Earth Consensus, and an Anti-Evolution Consensus - none of which made them less false.

Proponents of man-made global warming recently suffered yet another blow when the leading climate change scientist, Phil Jones, granted an interview to the BBC.

Jones had to acknowledge that the Earth may have been warmer in Medieval times than now, and that, during the past fifteen years, there has been no “statistically significant” warming; on the contrary, there are signs, also not statistically significant, that after 2002, the climate may have cooled. Jones, at the heart of the so-called "Climate-gate" controversy last year, just before the Copenhagen climate summit, was forced to step down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in Britain after leaked e-mails indicated that scientists there were manipulating data to strengthen the argument for man-made global warming. The data had been used to support efforts by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to urge governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions and to produce a “hockey stick graph” showing temperatures relatively stable for centuries before rising sharply in recent decades.

Despite this interview, that suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the IPCC -- to manipulate temperature data, major TV networks in the US, with the exception of Fox, totally ignored the subject -- indicating the degree of politicization that affects the climate change issue.

So now the new evidence is showing that there is no “hockey stick graph,” and that other warmer periods have taken place in the past, when carbon dioxide emissions from manufacturing did exist. The warmer periods are said to have occurred between 1860 and 1880, and then again from 1910 to 1940. Professor Jones admitted that the Medieval Warm Period (800 A.D. to 1300 A.D.) might well have been as warm as the Current Warm Period (1975-present), or warmer, and that if it was, “then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.”

Alarmists’ predictions are also being retracted. The 2007 IPCC report, which won the Man-Maders a Nobel Peace Prize, said the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high” as a result of man-made global warming. But the IPCC was recently forced to retract its disappearing-glacier claim, which had been made on the basis of a non-scientific magazine article. The IPCC additionally had to retract its claim that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests were at risk from global warming and would likely be replaced by “tropical savannahs” if temperatures continued to rise.
Climate change alarmists, however, are continuing to pose as saviours of the planet. Says U.S. President Barack Obama: “Generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell the children this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs for the jobless. This is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” The Messiah himself could not make better promises.

And what about Al Gore? A few years ago, while striving to become the leader of climate catastrophists, he made a presentation showing how the rise of the oceans would affect the coastal areas of the U.S. such as Florida, Manhattan and the San Francisco Bay. Then, with computer animation, he showed how the rising waters would flood all these places.

But according to Lord Moncton, a climate change debunker, the same year Al Gore was making these dire predictions, he bought a $4 million dollar condominium in San Francisco just a few feet away from the shoreline, apparently unshaken by his own predictions.

Over the last 20 years we have been told that we are destroying the climate through the use of fossil fuels; that our “carbon footprints” will cause the melting of polar ice caps, the extinction of polar bears, extensive flooding, diseases -- that, if we do not mend our habits, the Apocalypse is just around the corner.

A closer look at the past history of our planet, though, shows that the Earth has undergone cyclical periods of warming and cooling and this is linked to astronomical factors such as modifications in the eccentricity of the orbit, solar flares and even the rotation of our galaxy.

We have records that date back more than 300 million years: there have been inter-glacial periods, that is the warm spell, when life on the planet flourishes, and ice-ages, when many forms of life perish. We have consistent records of ice- ages followed by inter-glacial periods; we can see that temperatures and CO2 content in the atmosphere have both increased and fallen over thousands of millions of years - all without burning any fossil fuel.

John Coleman, the senior meteorologist who had the courage to expose the repeated manipulations of data by some relevant climate institutions, wrote: “Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental extremism type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus. Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist-journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.”

And - you guessed it! -- their radical agenda calls for more government power and less room for individuals. It looks as if Marxist economics, in which even middle-class wealth is redistributed to people in lower income brackets and which we thought had been thrown out of the window for good by the end of the 1980s, is trying to climb back in through the front door.

Apologies, war and growing up...

2010-02-25T19:18:00.000-08:00

In the largest and most aggressive offensive to date in Afghanistan (in the Marjah province) US and NATO forces are apologizing for civilian deaths.

Last week in the first days of the offensive it was initially reported that there were 12 civilian deaths. Ultimately of the 12 initially reported nine of them were civilians and three were Taliban combatants. In another offensive this past weekend NATO Commanders are again apologizing for civilian deaths. Military commanders in the region report that in Afghanistan (as in Iraq) it has become a common to use civilians as a "human shields". More on this later...

No sane person rejoices at the deaths of 12 people. Combatant or not. In previous times the term "collateral damage" was used. Yet I hesitate even now to use it as it is dehumanizing on some level. But isn't that really the point? How can any sane person speak of the horror of war without attempting to insulate the psyche from war's heinous nature. War really is hell. This is not a cliché but a truth every soldier, every warrior, can attest to.

In previous posts I've written about the subject of “political correctness”. I bring this up because it seems to me that we are dealing with an enemy that is completely and totally committed to victory. An enemy that views this conflict as a "zero sum" game. There will be no negotiated peace nor co existence. An enemy whose time frame is radically different than ours.

I understand and even wholeheartedly agree with the current strategy of "winning hearts and minds".

This requires United States and NATO troops to exhibit a level of restraint never seen before on the battlefield. It is a testament to the character of America that we are putting our soldiers in harms way going far above and beyond not only what is required to protect civilians but demonstrating an unprecedented level of care in this regard. There is NO other nation that behaves in this fashion. Quite the contrary... even NATO allies like Germany put their soldiers first. Not allowing their soldiers to operate after dark. The dirty business falls mainly upon the United States. As even Mr Obama observed in Oslo when accepting his Nobel Prize:

"...the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms"

Under the most recent rules of engagement soldiers cannot fire upon a person unless they can see that person in possession of a weapon. Previously, if fire came from a building and eventually people walked out of that building a logical assumption could be made (of course relying on training, experience, and common sense) about returning fire directed at that person that might now be leaving the building where previously a fierce firefight took place. Our enemy is not stupid. Soon enough reports began to come on that Taliban fighters simply put down their weapons and walked out and even taunt soldiers under these new rules. They know their safe passage is guaranteed now.

Much like terrorists know that they will not ever face water boarding. Or that if they are given “tough” interrogations they will be not all that tough and a physician will be standing by and slaps to the face will be open handed and away from the airway. Such are the details divulged by Mr. Obama in a hasty attempt to placate his far left supporters at the expense of keeping America safe.

Mr. Obama takes us back to what has been called a “pre-9/11 mentality” and intimidates our intelligence officers with the threat of prosecution. All the while running about the globe apologizing for what are the greatest accomplishments of any modern nation as if this will bring anyone closer to his dreamlike utopian fantasy and vision of America as a green and clean “global citizen” Our adversaries do not fetter themselves with such ideas.

During his campaign the Obama PR machine was tenacious in trying to enrobe Obama with the attire of President Lincoln. Anyone with even a passing familiarity of Lincoln's writings, presidency and in particular his actions during the civil war (including the suspension of Habeas Corpus) rightly blushed at the mere mention of the two names in the same sentence. Lincoln understood the primacy of keeping the union exactly that : united.

IF one accepts the Declaration of Independence and its inherent “theology” that is so unpolitically correct to speak of... appealing to “Nature and Nature's God”, speaking of rights from man's “Creator” and appealing to the “Supreme Judge of the world” with a “firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence” then these “unalienable rights” accorded all humans not from any piece of paper or governmental body And that the United States best embodies these unlaienable rights then the hopes of humanity itself are the hopes of the United Sates. That is if it is properly governed in line with these “self evident truths”.

Our strategy of being buddies to the people of Afghanistan is acceptable only within the larger framework and understanding of the exceptional nature of America. At the end of the day... America must prevail for the sake of the millions who still yearn to breathe the air of Liberty in North Korea, China, Cuba, Iran and others countries still in the grip of maniacal tyrants. There may be a time in our near future when we must think primarily as a fierce warrior and less so of a “global citizen”

I'll close with Lincolns own words that I have often wondered if Mr Obama ever read. It shows Mr Lincoln as a person who I doubt could even conceive of Mr Obama's view of the world where the admitted mastermind of 9/11 who has tried to plead guilty in a military tribunal is thought to be best handled on US soil for reasons (other than political theater choreographed by Eric Holder who refuses to reveal how many of his attorneys have previously defended high profile terrorists) that are still unknown.

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs who should be arrested, exiled or hanged."
Abraham Lincoln

Checks, balances and Chicago politics ...

2010-02-12T18:54:00.000-08:00

Hope.
Change.
You bring a knife and I will bring a gun.

That's the way things are done in Chicago. For all his vaunted intelligence and promises of a new era in bipartisanship in Washington Barack Obama has shown his preferred style of working. The rough and tumble style of politics that is the norm in the windy city. His calls anew for bipartisanship on health care after breaking his now infamous promises of CSPAN coverage of what in reality were secret meetings behind closed doors where only Dems were given a seat at the table. Where CSPAN dared not tread to televise his secret deals with drug companies, AARP, and of course the bribery of Senators from Nebraska, Louisiana and Arkansas.

After a year of this and an onerous bill weighing in at close to 3,000 pages which he reaffirmed his commitment to he NOW wants to play nice? Almost 3,000 pages and accounting trickery to claim (with a straight face no less) that it would reduce the deficit? Accounting tom foolery that would land any non federal accountant in prison?

Shame on all of us for even considering that this administration has any integrity left after its legion of broken promises.

It disturbs me that we all seem to forget that this mammoth piece of legislation was something Mr Obama tried to force through in a matter of days or weeks without ANY discussion at all... Never mind the promise of posting it on the internet and the subsequent votes to keep it from being made available by Senate Healthcare finance members. That anyone can even take the matter seriously anymore is an act of self deception. Am I the only one outraged that US Congress and Senate members voted to keep ANY non national security related information from the public? The Constitution is the greatest political document in history. No qualifications nor prefaces needed..

Depending on the version that you are reading the total number of pages is approximately 15. Yet these few pages have governed the most incredible nation this earth has seen in modern times. In less than 200 years a meteoric rise to prosperity, military might and standard of living that is unprecedented and the envy of the world. A Nation where people risk life and limb and routinely die to get IN not out...

The founders knew of the wisdom of our system of governance. So it is only with some difficulty that it is changed. It was not meant to be easily changed in any wholesale fashion nor tinkered with in response to any fad or modern novelty of thought. The filibuster is an integral part of our legislative bodies' byzantine procedural maze of parliamentary procedure. It allows a minority party to hold up legislation from being rammed through and is functionally a primary facilitator of bi partisanship. To stop the filibuster requires a super majority. A super majority the Democrats have held for the past 13 months. although the party in power does not like this procedural weapon they know that their very existence and ability to shape legislation may also depend upon it in a different time when they are the minority.

It's with disgust that once again we are witness to the antithesis of bipartisanship called for by the president just 24 hours ago. Leading Democrats are now furiously working to eliminate the filibuster after their humiliating loss in Massachusetts with Scott Brown and with him so too their filibuster proof super majority in the Senate. That is not to say that they were able to accomplish much even though they had a super majority. If there is going to be blame for the failure to pass major legislation during the honeymoon first year of the Obama presidency it certainly cannot be blamed on Republicans. The gargantuan failure rests firmly on the shoulders of a divided democratic party torn between the "progressive" contingency and more moderate blue dog Democrats.

In all fairness Tom Harkin has been calling for elimination of the filibuster for many years now. However this is a new chant for most everyone else in the recently formed chorus of whining on Capitol Hill. To hear congresswoman Wasserman Schultz (D FL) opine that Republicans have,"... used the filibuster beyond the founders intentions" when she herself has been supportive of legislation that would make most of the founders shake their heads in bewilderment at how their simple clear instructions could be so hideously twisted. Once again this administration has demonstrated that it says one thing - usually what it believes the public wants to hear - and then proceeds to pursue it's extreme ideological agenda without regard to anyone or anything else.

At least conservatives CAN take solace in the consistency of what these tenacious proponents of state-ism actually DO as opposed to the perpetual verbal pandering to special interests and constituencies. For the progressive who governs from a fantastical Utopian dream state that is unachievable The answer always lies in additional regulations and legislation More dictates as to how you as an individual must live your life because you are obviously incapable and the "progressive" obviously of superior intellect DOES know what you need.

The cause of ALL problems is NOT human nature or our shear flawed state of humanity - the reality of which a conservative faces head on and must deal with in practical ways - but to the "progressive" ALL problems have a root cause in an imagined universal deficiency of governmental authority which must be constantly expanded in pursuit of achieving the unrealistic utopian dream of collectivism. I'd be happy to entertain the notion if anyone can tell me where it has ever worked in all of history.

I'm still waiting.

Audacity Indeed...

2010-02-11T20:26:00.000-08:00

Today, like most days presents ample opportunity to be outraged. Joe Biden's has begun to take credit for the success in Iraq! Indeed the audacity of this administration knows no bounds! Joe Biden claims that Iraq can be one of the "proudest achievements of this administration"!

Yet 5 minutes on You Tube or Google easily locates video of Joe Biden and his boss Barack Obama declaring that not only will Iraq be a complete failure but also that the "surge" will "never work." Barack Obama stated that he felt the surge would have the opposite effect. Since taking office and particularly of late as his image as commander in chief has suffered he has taken to claiming credit for Iraq.

It's interesting to recall the negative PR strategy over Iraq and the surge's fantastic results. First with absolute opposition to the very idea then as the surge began working (then Sen) Obama claimed this was simply "spin" and as the success continued it became an egregious act of willful denial . At this point Obama and his cadre of "progressives" simply started to ignore the questions and stop talking about it while simultaneously the news media simply stopped reporting about Iraq all together.

For a while Iraq (at least in its early phases) should not be used as a model for future actions the latter phases (post surge) are in terms of the military effort and nation building an unmitigated success.

Afghanistan of course remains a book whose conclusion is as yet unwritten. For while Iraq was a functioning society albeit a dysfunctional one replete with sons of the tyrannical dictator who routinely chose women from the street and had them kidnapped for a night of rape it still was a society with organizational structure, industry and institutions. Afghanistan remains an essentially 12 or 13 Century land of warring tribes and villagers whose primary export is opium. America can export Democracy... and it can be argued that this is in the interest of our national security. It can also be argued from the sound position of the founders that it is not our responsibility to ensure the enforcement of the unalienable rights that are the cornerstone of our own society. For this would lead us down many dangerous paths. George Washington warned of this in his farewell address to the Nation.

The proper goal of Government is the preservation and improvement of our United States - first and foremost. All else is necessarily second. America remains the last best hope for all those yearning to breathe the air of liberty. Excessive foreign entanglements will only serve to weaken our ability to remain that shining city on a hill.

The emperor has no clothes... and no coattails!

2010-01-27T18:15:00.000-08:00

It is with some amusement that I have watched the egregious arrogance of Mr Obama. In a previous post I mentioned the interview Mr. Obama, gave ABC news. When asked why he thought that the unemployment rate and economic situation had gotten so bad he replied that he had been so busy looking out for us that he had apparently lost focus.

As the graphic above so pointedly illustrates Mr. Obama is THE most seen and heard from president in history. One has to wonder how he had any time for anything BUT speeches, meetings, press conferences and and the like. 158 interviews equates to three per week and that does not include all the other categories listed.

Tonight we will see more of the same arrogance. Obama will reportedly “double down” on his commitment to “progressive” ideology in his state of the union address. As in Mass. Where his advisors continue to believe that Scott Brown's win was simply a matter of a bad campaign by Martha Coakley (indeed it was) rather than a sound repudiation of his policies.

How “tone deaf” can any one person be? Month after month of repeated opinion polls showing declining support and they act surprised? Embarrassing losses in the gubernatorial races in both New Jersey and Virginia which the President's operatives termed simply “about local issues” !

One thing is for certain I look forward to the President's address this evening so I can learn what George Bush is doing wrong now!

What Direction now??

2010-01-22T01:14:00.000-08:00

So much to talk about!!!

I have so much frustration at the actions of both this administration and its most egregious hypocrisy

Perhaps I should start with the interview Obama gave ABC yesterday with George Stephanopoulos. It's most distressing that ABC has the audacity to portray Stephanopoulos as capable of objective news reporting since as he was Bill Clinton's press secretary. Yet this is a sad state of the news media today. Mr Obama began his commentary on the Massachusetts upset by blaming George Bush AGAIN in a display of his unique incredible ego-maniacal immaturity. So Obama says that the same anger that propelled him to office was behind Scott Brown's win in arguably the most liberal state (sorry “commonwealth”) in the nation. Yet it simply does not follow that that anger he claims propelled him in to office has now also swept Scott brown into office and it is the same anger. Brown ran a campaign aimed squarely at repudiating the Obama agenda and made health care a primary core issue. Public and internal polls all show this to be a fact and to deny this was a referendum of not only Obamacare but the “Progressive” agenda is simply an exercise in denial.

Adding insult to injury we learn more of the idiocy of Eric Holder's Justice Dept and Obama's lack of a coherent strategy for combating terrorism. In a stunning display of incompetence and disregard for the safety of the American public the respective heads of the Dept of Homeland Security, TSA, and the National Director of Intelligence all were asked if they had been consulted regarding the venue or how to handle the Christmas day “underwear bomber.”

The answer repeated over and over and over was an emphatic, “no.”

Again one must wonder at the motivations for a hurried push to civilian court where this enemy combatant will receive rights and privileges reserved US Citizens. The underwear bomber chose a Christian Holy Day – Christmas – and waited until the aircraft was just above the airport so as to create maximal terror by the scattering of bodies from such a low altitude. He selected his seat for its proximity to the fuel tanks.

Why is it again that we cease offensive operations during muslin holy days?

It seems to me that when an enemy is determined to win at all costs and respects nothing and regards his killing of an infidel or non believer to be acceptable and he is sent from God that political correctness is simply a recipe for defeat.

Obama and holder continue there onslaught against the safety of America and our dedicated intelligence professionals who have been demoralized by this pair's deliberate thwarting of these agencies ability to carry out the formidable task they are charged with fulfilling

This week we commemorate the abomination of thinking and logic that resulted in Roe versus Wade that legalized the murder of unborn children in 1973. Since that time between 1,200,000 and 2,000,000 million children have had their lives extinguished EACH year since 1973. The vast majority black.

Without resorting to euphemisms and requisite profound self deception required to entertain the notion that abortion on demand is nothing more than a simple procedure I will simply say that it is worth reflecting upon the 50 + million lives taken. How many Einsteins... how many Nobel prize winners... how many scientists that may have discovered the cure for cancer HIV and any number of evils that plague civilization have we murdered? How many MLKs, Mother Teresa's and Ghandi's? Certainly from a pure statistical and mathematical point of view we must have deprived humanity of a multitude of these special ones.

It is with a sad irony that I note Mr Obama is the most pro abortion president in history. The African American community has yet to awaken to the reality of the genocide perpetrated on it by abortion mainly at the hands of planned parenthood and racist and eugenics roots of Margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood.

No recap of recent events could not be complete without mentioning Haiti of course. Anti American figures like Hugo Chavez laughably make criticisms regarding the US lead efforts while their own efforts are conspicuously impotent. Chavez thinks the earthquake was caused by the United States Navy testing a new weapon

I watched him with the usual incredible pride for my country which despite the polarization that has gripped us politically and has been so divisive - we -= The USA - did the right thing and stepped up and provided the most aid of any nation on earth. We remain the most generous nation ever providing humanitarian and other aid where ever it is needed

It was with great sadness that my own commitments prevented me from assisting doctors without borders myself in Haiti. I am very proud of my profession whose heart and humanity extends to all regardless of location, politics or any other superfluous characteristic that would obscure our basic shared humanity. Seeing the United States take the lead in providing this aid should reaffirm to the world we are the last best hope for liberty freedom and dignity.

Reality of Tax and spend idiocy...

2009-12-22T15:46:00.000-08:00

Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience

2009-11-20T16:38:00.000-08:00

Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience

One hundred forty-eight Signatories

November 11, 2009

Preamble

Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.

While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages, we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire’s sanctioning of infanticide. We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues, and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.

After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture. It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country. Christians under Wilberforce’s leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.

In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible. And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement. The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class.

This same devotion to human dignity has led Christians in the last decade to work to end the dehumanizing scourge of human trafficking and sexual slavery, bring compassionate care to AIDS sufferers in Africa, and assist in a myriad of other human rights causes—from providing clean water in developing nations to providing homes for tens of thousands of children orphaned by war, disease and gender discrimination.

Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good. In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.

Declaration

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.

Life

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27

I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10:10

Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government. The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense. Majorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion views. The Supreme Court, whose infamous 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade stripped the unborn of legal protection, continues to treat elective abortion as a fundamental constitutional right, though it has upheld as constitutionally permissible some limited restrictions on abortion. The President says that he wants to reduce the “need” for abortion—a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth. Our commitment to the sanctity of life is not a matter of partisan loyalty, for we recognize that in the thirty-six years since Roe v. Wade, elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to what Pope John Paul II described as “the culture of death.” We call on all officials in our country, elected and appointed, to protect and serve every member of our society, including the most marginalized, voiceless, and vulnerable among us.

A culture of death inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable. As predicted by many prescient persons, the cheapening of life that began with abortion has now metastasized. For example, human embryo-destructive research and its public funding are promoted in the name of science and in the cause of developing treatments and cures for diseases and injuries. The President and many in Congress favor the expansion of embryo- research to include the taxpayer funding of so-called “therapeutic cloning.” This would result in the industrial mass production of human embryos to be killed for the purpose of producing genetically customized stem cell lines and tissues. At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and “voluntary” euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons. Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”) were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-twentieth century, they have returned from the grave. The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of “liberty,” “autonomy,” and “choice.”

We will be united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion. We will work, as we have always worked, to bring assistance, comfort, and care to pregnant women in need and to those who have been victimized by abortion, even as we stand resolutely against the corrupt and degrading notion that it can somehow be in the best interests of women to submit to the deliberate killing of their unborn children. Our message is, and ever shall be, that the just, humane, and truly Christian answer to problem pregnancies is for all of us to love and care for mother and child alike.

A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent. What the Bible and the light of reason make clear, we must make clear. We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.

Our concern is not confined to our own nation. Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS. We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research. And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances.

Marriage

The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.” For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:32-33 In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the crowning achievement of God’s creation. In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself. Marriage then, is the first institution of human society—indeed it is the institution on which all other human institutions have their foundation. In the Christian tradition we refer to marriage as “holy matrimony” to signal the fact that it is an institution ordained by God, and blessed by Christ in his participation at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem.

Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society. Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits—the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. Unfortunately, we have witnessed over the course of the past several decades a serious erosion of the marriage culture in our own country. Perhaps the most telling—and alarming—indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. Our society—and particularly its poorest and most vulnerable sectors, where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is much higher even than the national average—is paying a huge price in delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair. Other indicators are widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation and a devastatingly high rate of divorce.

We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same.

To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce. We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents’ marital love), we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant.

We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to “a more excellent way.” As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.

We further acknowledge that there are sincere people who disagree with us, and with the teaching of the Bible and Christian tradition, on questions of sexual morality and the nature of marriage. Some who enter into same- sex and polyamorous relationships no doubt regard their unions as truly marital. They fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit. This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being—the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual—on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.

We understand that many of our fellow citizens, including some Christians, believe that the historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a denial of equality or civil rights. They wonder what to say in reply to the argument that asserts that no harm would be done to them or to anyone if the law of the community were to confer upon two men or two women who are living together in a sexual partnership the status of being “married.” It would not, after all, affect their own marriages, would it? On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential.

No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage. Marriage is an objective reality—a covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good. If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow. First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as “marriages” sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non- marital and immoral. Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends. Sadly, we are today far from having a thriving marriage culture. But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good(not “prejudice”), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God’s creation covenant. Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church. And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.

Religious Liberty

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners. Isaiah 61:1

Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. Matthew 22:21

The struggle for religious liberty across the centuries has been long and arduous, but it is not a novel idea or recent development. The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ. Determined to follow Jesus faithfully in life and death, the early Christians appealed to the manner in which the Incarnation had taken place: “Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror? Not so, but in gentleness and meekness..., for compulsion is no attribute of God” (Epistle to Diognetus 7.3-4). Thus the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the example of Christ Himself and in the very dignity of the human person created in the image of God—a dignity, as our founders proclaimed, inherent in every human, and knowable by all in the exercise of right reason.

Christians confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience. No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.

It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law—such persons claiming these “rights” are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses, and therefore to compel pro- life institutions (including religiously affiliated hospitals and clinics), and pro-life physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other health care professionals, to refer for abortions and, in certain cases, even to perform or participate in abortions. We see it in the use of anti-discrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business. After the judicial imposition of “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions. In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality. New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here.

In recent decades a growing body of case law has paralleled the decline in respect for religious values in the media, the academy and political leadership, resulting in restrictions on the free exercise of religion. We view this as an ominous development, not only because of its threat to the individual liberty guaranteed to every person, regardless of his or her faith, but because the trend also threatens the common welfare and the culture of freedom on which our system of republican government is founded. Restrictions on the freedom of conscience or the ability to hire people of one’s own faith or conscientious moral convictions for religious institutions, for example, undermines the viability of the intermediate structures of society, the essential buffer against the overweening authority of the state, resulting in the soft despotism Tocqueville so prophetically warned of.1 Disintegration of civil society is a prelude to tyranny.

As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral. The biblical purpose of law is to preserve order and serve justice and the common good; yet laws that are unjust—and especially laws that purport to compel citizens to do what is unjust—undermine the common good, rather than serve it.

Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel. In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required. There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself. Unjust laws degrade human beings. Inasmuch as they can claim no authority beyond sheer human will, they lack any power to bind in conscience. King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

The insidious PC infection... and so many tears

2009-11-10T18:31:00.000-08:00

Political correctness...

that nasty group think that has infected all sectors of society has now sadly infiltrated our armed services.

I am filled with so many emotions as I watch the memorial service at ft Hood. I am not a tough guy. I cry often. I sit writing this with tears streaming down my face and taps playing after a rifle volley in tribute to the men and women murdered by Nidal Hasan.

I am ashamed of my President and his cowardice to plainly call Major Hasan what he is – an Islamic terrorist.

Within hours of the massacre Mr Obama pleaded for us to wait for the facts and not jump to conclusions while simultaneously the FBI stated without equivocation that terror and any greater plot or links to terror groups would not be considered. I wonder if the FBI heard Mr Obama's words... “wait for the facts and not jump to conclusions.”

I'm not sure we needed much more in the way of facts though. Maj Hasan gave out copies of the Koran the morning of his murder plot. Told neighbors he was going away. And then out of his fanatical religious views proceeded to murder 13 innocent victims in the name of his god while while screaming Allah is great in Arabic and shooting over 100 rounds indiscriminately into a crowd gathered for a graduation ceremony and hitting over 40 people with the gun he bought slightly over one month ago.

The murderer got a free ride because he was Muslim. He had been investigated for his Anti American views. He as a psychiatrist trained in PTSD was to help our most vulnerable heroes coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan... those with shattered psyches who his job it was to communicate that he could be trusted and could help them. Instead he proselytized and argued with them. HE abused his power as a healer and flaunted to colleagues that he was a Muslim first and an American second. His colleagues reported these things and eventually became afraid to because they were accused of anti-muslim attitudes.

On ABC's “This Week” Gen Casey the Army Chief of Staff unbelievably spoke about worrying over the possible backlash against Muslim soldiers. I think I prefer Casey to think more about why Nidal Hasan remained in our armed forces and how he can prevent another massacre like Ft Hood and stopping the insidious spread of “politically correct” thought in the armed forces the very last place it should find a comfortable and welcoming home.

In telling emails from Army officials less than 24 hours after the tragedy they ask for reevaluation of terrorism plans at respective military installations. '

It turns out that Hasan had ongoing communications with a radical imam from that African bastian of respect for freedoms, Yemen. A man named Anwar al Awlaki who is a US citizen. Awlaki has heaped praise upon Hasan. These emails etc came to the attention of the FBI and intelligence community and were dismissed!

To paraphrase convicted 9-11 Islamic terrorist Mousawi's defense lawyer who has defended several terror suspects – “Exactly what communication between a Unites States Military Officer and the Imam that coached several of the 9-11 terrorists can be considered 'benign' – give me a break.”

Anwar al Awlaki has said the following on his web site:

“Nidal Hassan is a hero...”
“How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done?”
“The heroic act of brother Nidal...”
“...we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act.”

I have watched with alarm as some media outlets have tried to medicalize this mans act of terror or use it to further their own agenda in regards to Afghanistan or Iraq. The heretofore unknown diagnosis of “vicarious PTSD” which has beeen advanced is laughable and supposedly comes from Hasan hearing the horror stories of returning vets. Funny how the sordid misery of urban living with its depression, suicide, addiction and broken lives that EVERY psychiatrist hears as well as those of us in Family Practice hear daily have not caused an epidemic of “vicarious PTSD”.

You see the problem is one of perception. If Obama admits that this is indeed an act of terror – which it clearly was – then he faces the full assault of Dick Cheney's criticisms being true. Therefore we have witnessed the spin machine in full force to make this not a terrorist act but an ostensibly simple act of criminal justice with no greater implication or meaning than that of one more madman run amok with a gun.

It would clearly show the American public Mr. Obama's inherent distaste for all things military as he clings to his policy of accommodation and capitulation

2009-11-06T18:47:00.000-08:00

The Critical Gaze...

2009-11-06T17:01:00.000-08:00

It bothers me that so many cast an ultra-critical eye on America and are unwilling to cast that same eye upon other Nations and state actors or even administrations they do not like. Ten months into Mr. Obama's administration he is still making excuses and blaming Mr Bush. The Media is still engaged in its “slobbering love affair” replete with unceasing adulation from all but one news outlet. Apparently the ego-maniacal Marxist at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is not content with ONLY the constant praise of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, CBC, Unavision and MSNBC. But again I digress...

Where are the critics that just two short years ago were railing that it was the President's fault for not having enough flu vaccine? How is it that then it was so obviously the Oval Office at fault and yet today with what the media describes as the “smartest man in the white House in decades” and all his smart advisers and “czars” and the shortage of vaccine is worse than ever and yet now is only the manufacturers “outdated technology” with the White House being passed over as if it had nothing to do with it?

Then Sen Hillary Clinton blamed the shortage of flu vaccine on the Bush administration.

They're more interested in tax cuts for the rich than for flu shots for everyone who needs them. This administration has their priorities wrong," she added. "And we've really paid a big price for their negligence.

Never mind her own hand in changing laws regarding vaccine manufacture that likely have contributed to the shortage directly.

Where is the outraged citizenry that decried Dick Cheney and Haliburton making money off of Iraq as the revolving door between Goldman Sachs and the current adminstration spins ever more rapidly... (maybe it's a wind mill generating green power?)???

Where are they as Al Gore, chief figurehead of the climate change theory (so handily debunked by Lord Monkton) as he profits from the setting up of the carbon exchange to trade carbon credits which will do nothing for the environment except make our own far less habitable here in the US as jobs fly overseas at the speed of light and utility bills – and I quote Mr Obama - “”...necessarily skyrocket.” while China and India the worst offenders of all continue to refuse to adhere to any limitations of the pollution they spew which will only grow more voluminous as American manufacturing jobs and capacity – at least whats left – migrate with even greater rapidity to these “frenemies”.

More later... I have to say I'm still slack jawed at the media's attempt to rationalize Maj. Hasan's murder of a dozen people as he shouted in Arabic, “God is great” or Alla akbhar. The rallying cry of Muslim terrorists world wide. Yet we cant cross that PC border and call this guy what he was... why do we bend over backwards to placate the 1.6% of Americans who identify as Muslim? I wonder what would have happened if a white male committed mass murder at a military installation while screaming, "Jesus Saves!"

Can you imagine the field day they would have ???

2009-11-05T17:47:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I am struck by the sheer beauty of God's creation. I took this photo on a walk near my home along Lake Washington early one morning several weeks ago. Its at those moments I smile and take some stock of my good fortune to live in the United States. Inevitably I am lead to thoughts of what has happened to this country and why has all common sense left us...

Today Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 11 people before he was shot by Americans far braver than he. They knew duty and honor. Officer Munley the 34 year old police veteran arrived within minutes and immediately engaged and stopped Hasan via a fierce gun battle receiving several gunshot wounds herself. She is in stable condition. Ms. Munley is a hero.

Much will come from today. Obvious questions arise when I hear the colleagues of this man tell of his repeated and sustained anti-American vitriol. Major Hasan apparently joined the armed services prior to 9/11 but always professed an aversion to war and armed conflict.

How ironic.

I'll tell you what I know: people like Hasan don't belong in the military.
Why did his superiors tolerate constant anti-American comments?
Why did Hasan continue to suck up my tax dollars in his salary if he hated the US so much?

I don't get it.

You know hypocrisy angers me more than anything.

Hasan should have had the integrity to quit.
No great qualification needed here.
No in depth discussion necessary.

It really is that simple.
It is an honor to serve this great Nation and Hasan did not deserve it.
He OWED the military for paying every cent of his medical education.
That he couldn't even honor that commitment makes me all the sicker.

A few more nonsensical things on my mind:

T'is the season and the nonsense has begun!

Kentucky's Governor has decided to call the State Christmas tree a "Holiday Tree"
My own state did the same last year and will again this year.

Home Dept fired a young man for wearing a button that proclaimed "One Nation Under God, Indivisible..."

And up North one business owner did teh right thing when his patrons COMPLAINED about the American Flag being "offensive" ! In the video a man about to become a US Citizen stands up for our Flag. How sad we have a generation of self hating Americans embarassed to be citizens of the world's last best hope. Sigh...

2009-11-04T11:14:00.000-08:00

Just one more common man trying to make sense of how we got where we are. More importantly on these pages I hope to elucidate and articulate the foundational truths that will get us back to the America that has always rightfully been the hope of the world and humanity itself.

There have been many things that finally motivated me to this outlet... the least of which is a generation that seems to have a profound amnesia of even recent history. Trying to intelligently discuss politics with a group of people that placed this great Nation in the hands of someone not based on reason but on "feelings" as they chanted slogans more reminiscent of Mao's revolution than a free democratic republic.

They lack the context to evaluate much of the political wrangling in the news daily and suffer from the most egregious and obvious example of what happens when education is subject to "sensitivity and diversity review" which leads not to an education rooted in the classic subjects that have served as civilizations foundation for millennium but instead results in indoctrinating young minds in "proper" ways to feel and think but robs them of most if not all critical thinking skills. Not to mention a constant annoyance of mine which is that when i perhaps fish out the correct change after handing a cashier at (insert ANY store here but particularly Target, WalMart etc) results in a slack jawed look of bewilderment by the clerk who has not the skill to make change without the computer. But I digress.

Let me also say right now that I believe in civil and logical debate and discourse. I see a lack of it from far too many and on both sides of the political aisle. I must confess I am dismayed at the "Progressive's" use of personal attacks and playing the race card. Shame on the American public for accepting such a ludicrous assertion that anyone who departs from the lock step of a black President is therefore "racist"! I care not for the color of a persons skin... I care for the policies he or she purports to believe and will use to lead the great Nation.