Democrats have a far higher degree of integrity than Republicans. Democrats are not afraid to make their agenda known. They openly disrespect the Constitution and feel it is a document which has seen better days. They make no effort to hide their attempts to bring wealth re-distribution to America. They openly build up the national debt with no remorse.
Republicans, on the other hand, are hypocritical and sinister. They pretend to uphold the rights of the individual, while passing the Patriot Act. They promise lower taxes--but spew "read my lips" lies while raising taxes. They pretend to uphold religious rights, while setting up government takeover of the churches through Faith-Based Initiatives. They talk about reducing the size of government, while voting to double the size of government. Instead of abolishing the Department of Education, they expand government by creating the Department of Homeland Security. They talk about upholding the free enterprise system, while destroying the system through bailouts and political favoritism. They buckle under political pressure to persecute companies and individuals if such trampling of rights wins the favor of American voters and gains them the image as being "tough"--as in the way Republicans supported Obama for extorting billions from B.P. without providing a fair trial. They talk about upholding the Constitution, while passing laws which undermine the ideals of the Constitution and the founding fathers of our nation.
For the past half century the Republican Party has duped American conservatives. Now it is time to call the bluff.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Boehner Makes an Ass of Himself in Three Minutes or Less
It's bad enough when you are a sleaze, but a moron as well?
John Boehner managed to show his true colors today in his moronic speech on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. With an imbecile like this leading the Republican Party, are you fellow conservatives and libertarians confident as I am in the leadership of this nation when the Re-pubis get control of Congress in the fall?
Within the first minutes of his speech, he managed to throw out the asinine cliche, "These colors don't run." I stand in awe...
Bravo, Johnny! Such originality and brave leadership qualities in the Minority Leader! How eloquent and profound!
Obama was right in his speech a couple of weeks ago. He warned that, with Republicans in office, we would simply have more of what we had the last eight years before he took office. Actually, this was highly understated. It would be worse than Obama says. Because now you will have the same bunch of deadheads in charge, impotent in their ability to reverse any of the failed policies of the current regime, still growing the size of government, still bailing out big business, and firmly holding the ground for the next round of Democratic-Party domination to push every business into a socialist monopoly under the control of the wealthiest 1% of the population.
Perhaps America is in the same spot as the addict that has not really hit bottom yet. We are still clinging to our bottle, or our fix, in our certain descent into economic depression. When we finally hit the pavement, we will hopefully be able to face the pain and then scrape ourselves up to make a new start.
I pray that when we do hit bottom, the government is not too powerful to be reformed or overthrown.
John Boehner managed to show his true colors today in his moronic speech on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. With an imbecile like this leading the Republican Party, are you fellow conservatives and libertarians confident as I am in the leadership of this nation when the Re-pubis get control of Congress in the fall?
Within the first minutes of his speech, he managed to throw out the asinine cliche, "These colors don't run." I stand in awe...
Bravo, Johnny! Such originality and brave leadership qualities in the Minority Leader! How eloquent and profound!
Obama was right in his speech a couple of weeks ago. He warned that, with Republicans in office, we would simply have more of what we had the last eight years before he took office. Actually, this was highly understated. It would be worse than Obama says. Because now you will have the same bunch of deadheads in charge, impotent in their ability to reverse any of the failed policies of the current regime, still growing the size of government, still bailing out big business, and firmly holding the ground for the next round of Democratic-Party domination to push every business into a socialist monopoly under the control of the wealthiest 1% of the population.
Perhaps America is in the same spot as the addict that has not really hit bottom yet. We are still clinging to our bottle, or our fix, in our certain descent into economic depression. When we finally hit the pavement, we will hopefully be able to face the pain and then scrape ourselves up to make a new start.
I pray that when we do hit bottom, the government is not too powerful to be reformed or overthrown.
Monday, August 30, 2010
The Republican Game: Let's Pull the Wool Over Conservative Voters
Let me state clearly here that the greatest enemy to American freedom is NOT the Democratic Party. It is the Republican Party.
Within the fifty years of my life, the Republican Party has consistently promoted big government. Republicans will lie through their teeth on this policy, but their actions outweigh their empty promises.
Every Republican bastard in the White House has grown the size of both government and the national debt. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and both generations of the Bush thugs have done this. Every Republican Congress has done the same, with an even greater subversion of the American system than the White House can achieve.
In the past half-century, the pattern has been to put Democrats in power to grow the size of government, increase the debt, and remove individual liberties. Intermissions to this overall trend come in the Republican years with lower taxation. The American people are duped into thinking that the lower taxation is a difference in policy, and we fall into the stupor of political action.
Under Republicans, our rights are, still, consistently whittled away, our debt continues to skyrocket, our entitlement programs remain intact, big business continues to get bailed out, our free enterprise system is manipulated under government dictatorship, the economy crumbles, and the leftist agenda gets pushed down our throats. HOW IS ANY OF THIS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC BASTARDS DO???
Fool yourself not: when the Republicans gain control of Congress in the fall, you will not see the size of government reduced. They will hold the ground until the next wave of Democrats again take over.
The political process has failed and we are left to other methods for change. It is time that the government and the wealthy who seek to profit from the socialist monopoly being created under the United States government begin to fear the people again.
Within the fifty years of my life, the Republican Party has consistently promoted big government. Republicans will lie through their teeth on this policy, but their actions outweigh their empty promises.
Every Republican bastard in the White House has grown the size of both government and the national debt. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and both generations of the Bush thugs have done this. Every Republican Congress has done the same, with an even greater subversion of the American system than the White House can achieve.
In the past half-century, the pattern has been to put Democrats in power to grow the size of government, increase the debt, and remove individual liberties. Intermissions to this overall trend come in the Republican years with lower taxation. The American people are duped into thinking that the lower taxation is a difference in policy, and we fall into the stupor of political action.
Under Republicans, our rights are, still, consistently whittled away, our debt continues to skyrocket, our entitlement programs remain intact, big business continues to get bailed out, our free enterprise system is manipulated under government dictatorship, the economy crumbles, and the leftist agenda gets pushed down our throats. HOW IS ANY OF THIS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC BASTARDS DO???
Fool yourself not: when the Republicans gain control of Congress in the fall, you will not see the size of government reduced. They will hold the ground until the next wave of Democrats again take over.
The political process has failed and we are left to other methods for change. It is time that the government and the wealthy who seek to profit from the socialist monopoly being created under the United States government begin to fear the people again.
An Examination of the Position of Imam Rauf
Muslims fall into basically four categories:
1. Those who separate Islamic law from Islamic spirituality. This is a similar approach of a modern-day Christian or Jew who has no intention of applying the Book of Leviticus in modern-day legal systems. Muslims, Christians, and Jews who separate religious law from modern law have no intention of stoning women to death.
2. Those who wish to apply Islamic law by violent means.
3. Those who wish to apply Islamic law by peaceful means. These people try to slip Sharia law into the legal system, first as an alternative law system, with separate Sharia courts, then to phase out any competing legal systems once the Islamic population of the nation reaches critical mass, as is occurring in Europe.
4. Those who fall into group 2 but fake belonging to group 3. This group is represented by the many Muslims along the east coast who formed the network through mosques which planned the September 11 attacks.
Those in group 1 are the only ones who can be supportive of the U.S. Constitution while remaining Muslim. All others make themselves enemies of the Constitution and are a potential threat to national security.
Judging him by his own words, Imam Rauf falls into category 3.
I feel Imam Rauf sees the positioning of the mosque as a means of promoting the law code of his god above the laws of humans as determined by the American system. His own words indicate this.
The bridge he wishes to build between Americans and Muslims is to make Islamic law palatable to American non-Muslims.
Islamic resentment of Americans is what caused the attack on the WTC, and it is insulting to first turn this the other way around to make the victims the perpetrators, then plant a mosque as close as possible to the place of destruction to say that the victims should submit.
I cannot verify this, but I feel a majority of Muslims, both in the U.S. and elsewhere, probably fall into category 3. I think it is difficult for most Muslims to separate Islamic law from Islamic spirituality.
1. Those who separate Islamic law from Islamic spirituality. This is a similar approach of a modern-day Christian or Jew who has no intention of applying the Book of Leviticus in modern-day legal systems. Muslims, Christians, and Jews who separate religious law from modern law have no intention of stoning women to death.
2. Those who wish to apply Islamic law by violent means.
3. Those who wish to apply Islamic law by peaceful means. These people try to slip Sharia law into the legal system, first as an alternative law system, with separate Sharia courts, then to phase out any competing legal systems once the Islamic population of the nation reaches critical mass, as is occurring in Europe.
4. Those who fall into group 2 but fake belonging to group 3. This group is represented by the many Muslims along the east coast who formed the network through mosques which planned the September 11 attacks.
Those in group 1 are the only ones who can be supportive of the U.S. Constitution while remaining Muslim. All others make themselves enemies of the Constitution and are a potential threat to national security.
Judging him by his own words, Imam Rauf falls into category 3.
I feel Imam Rauf sees the positioning of the mosque as a means of promoting the law code of his god above the laws of humans as determined by the American system. His own words indicate this.
The bridge he wishes to build between Americans and Muslims is to make Islamic law palatable to American non-Muslims.
Islamic resentment of Americans is what caused the attack on the WTC, and it is insulting to first turn this the other way around to make the victims the perpetrators, then plant a mosque as close as possible to the place of destruction to say that the victims should submit.
I cannot verify this, but I feel a majority of Muslims, both in the U.S. and elsewhere, probably fall into category 3. I think it is difficult for most Muslims to separate Islamic law from Islamic spirituality.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Limiting Diversity: A Liberal Dilemma in Embracing Islam
Most westerners are aware of the liberal agenda of diversity. We are finding with greater awareness that this agenda represents more the divide-and-conquer approach of British colonialism than a defense of the rights of individuals of diverse backgrounds. Liberals only defend the rights of individuals with an underlying motive, usually of building more government control. The liberals of the current regime whittle away the rights of individuals, and more so with each passing day, proving their appreciation of diversity to be a mere political tool.
Liberals are more interested in dividing the society than unifying it. A unified society carries a potential threat to the political power of the government.
In the meantime, the guise of encouraging diversity continues. First, consumers are encouraged to hate "big business"--well, at least until it's time for bailouts. Then abortion is used as an issue to divide the country down the middle. It is probably the only "right" defended by liberals. Then more division between women and men. Then division of blacks against whites. Then Hispanics against whites. Then fire the hatred between Muslims and everyone else. Then, of course, the option of gay marriage is tossed in, to try to divide homosexuals from the rest of society.
Don't get me wrong here. I am not a social conservative--I wholeheartedly support gay marriage, and not merely a watered-down "civil union" which carries the dangers of "separate-but-equal" thinking, akin to that applied to blacks prior to desegregation. Rather, I invoke the freedom to associate, as guaranteed in our Bill of Rights.
What I oppose is the pandering to the gay community by the Democrats. Likewise, I oppose the pandering to the Muslim community. The dilemma I describe is the result of hypocritically pandering to both of these groups at the same time.
We Americans are yet to learn what Europeans have learned--and learned too late--that pandering to certain fanatical members of the Muslim community will eventually suppress the rights of homosexuals and the rights of women in our own society.
Muslims have the same rights of religion as the rest of us in America, guaranteed to them by our Constitution. They do not need an unfair advantage over those of other religions. To give them this advantage is a matter of appeasement, not justice.
Many methods of mediation as alternatives to the court system exist and are encouraged in our society. Muslims are free to set up mediation between Muslims. In other nations, however, allowing mediation is not enough to satisfy the fanatics. Actual Muslim courts are demanded. In America, this would pose a direct threat to the legitimate courts established under our Constitution.
I have no anti-Muslim hatred or bigotry, and I count Muslims among my friends. I have no objection to anyone peacefully practicing Islam, in the U.S. or elsewhere. I recognize that most Muslims who immigrate to the U.S. are peaceful people. Most have come here for a different and hopefully better way of life.
However, I do not overlook that many Muslims see Islam as a political and not merely a religious system, and as a system to replace western governance. I do not overlook the fact that most terrorism against the U.S. comes from adherents to Islam. I do not overlook the fact that Muslims want their religion "in the face" of the American public by building a huge mosque near the site of the most successful Muslim attack on American soil. I do not overlook the members of the Nation of Islam or the New Black Panthers with Muslim names who spew hatred against white people like myself. I also do not overlook the fact that homosexuals are persecuted in most Muslim-majority nations.
To refuse to overlook facts does not make one a bigot. If I hate an individual for being a Muslim, it makes me a bigot. If I look at the tendencies in behavior of a given group of people, it merely makes me biased and aware. If I refuse to accept the values of a society different from my own because I recognize them to be oppressive, it makes me free.
It is easy for liberals to confuse bias and bigotry to silence dissent, particularly when liberals are in control of the government.
Though most Muslims are peace-loving people, the fanatical fringe increases with the increase in Muslim population within a region. The percentage of the fringe is also known to increase with population growth. Sooner or later, there will be imams ready to apply Islamic law against the rights of homosexuals and women. Demands for separate "sharia courts" will be the first step in an effort to exert Islamic law over the entire society. And liberals will say, "What is wrong with this? Does it not recognize the diversity within the society?" And the word "Islamophobe" will roll off their tongues against anyone who questions this.
Will the same liberals openly and vocally apply the word "homophobe" to imams opposed to homosexuality? Will liberals denounce a trampling on the rights of women within our society when "pluralism" in law means Islamic women will be forced to wear burkhas in America?
Soon, the leftist movement will betray its lack of support for the rights of individuals, in this case homosexuals and women. The leftists will instead favor appeasement of a rapidly-reproducing group whose fanatical elements do not recognize individual rights, who, when in majority, stone and decapitate individuals on moral rather than legal grounds, who hold our constitutional "God-given rights" to be the false fabrications of humans, and who reject our system in favor of a divine law allegedly given to an Arabian prophet. We, in America, will face the same tragedy faced by Europeans today, and watch our values of freedom deteriorate before our very eyes. Or is this already happening today?
Liberals are more interested in dividing the society than unifying it. A unified society carries a potential threat to the political power of the government.
In the meantime, the guise of encouraging diversity continues. First, consumers are encouraged to hate "big business"--well, at least until it's time for bailouts. Then abortion is used as an issue to divide the country down the middle. It is probably the only "right" defended by liberals. Then more division between women and men. Then division of blacks against whites. Then Hispanics against whites. Then fire the hatred between Muslims and everyone else. Then, of course, the option of gay marriage is tossed in, to try to divide homosexuals from the rest of society.
Don't get me wrong here. I am not a social conservative--I wholeheartedly support gay marriage, and not merely a watered-down "civil union" which carries the dangers of "separate-but-equal" thinking, akin to that applied to blacks prior to desegregation. Rather, I invoke the freedom to associate, as guaranteed in our Bill of Rights.
What I oppose is the pandering to the gay community by the Democrats. Likewise, I oppose the pandering to the Muslim community. The dilemma I describe is the result of hypocritically pandering to both of these groups at the same time.
We Americans are yet to learn what Europeans have learned--and learned too late--that pandering to certain fanatical members of the Muslim community will eventually suppress the rights of homosexuals and the rights of women in our own society.
Muslims have the same rights of religion as the rest of us in America, guaranteed to them by our Constitution. They do not need an unfair advantage over those of other religions. To give them this advantage is a matter of appeasement, not justice.
Many methods of mediation as alternatives to the court system exist and are encouraged in our society. Muslims are free to set up mediation between Muslims. In other nations, however, allowing mediation is not enough to satisfy the fanatics. Actual Muslim courts are demanded. In America, this would pose a direct threat to the legitimate courts established under our Constitution.
I have no anti-Muslim hatred or bigotry, and I count Muslims among my friends. I have no objection to anyone peacefully practicing Islam, in the U.S. or elsewhere. I recognize that most Muslims who immigrate to the U.S. are peaceful people. Most have come here for a different and hopefully better way of life.
However, I do not overlook that many Muslims see Islam as a political and not merely a religious system, and as a system to replace western governance. I do not overlook the fact that most terrorism against the U.S. comes from adherents to Islam. I do not overlook the fact that Muslims want their religion "in the face" of the American public by building a huge mosque near the site of the most successful Muslim attack on American soil. I do not overlook the members of the Nation of Islam or the New Black Panthers with Muslim names who spew hatred against white people like myself. I also do not overlook the fact that homosexuals are persecuted in most Muslim-majority nations.
To refuse to overlook facts does not make one a bigot. If I hate an individual for being a Muslim, it makes me a bigot. If I look at the tendencies in behavior of a given group of people, it merely makes me biased and aware. If I refuse to accept the values of a society different from my own because I recognize them to be oppressive, it makes me free.
It is easy for liberals to confuse bias and bigotry to silence dissent, particularly when liberals are in control of the government.
Though most Muslims are peace-loving people, the fanatical fringe increases with the increase in Muslim population within a region. The percentage of the fringe is also known to increase with population growth. Sooner or later, there will be imams ready to apply Islamic law against the rights of homosexuals and women. Demands for separate "sharia courts" will be the first step in an effort to exert Islamic law over the entire society. And liberals will say, "What is wrong with this? Does it not recognize the diversity within the society?" And the word "Islamophobe" will roll off their tongues against anyone who questions this.
Will the same liberals openly and vocally apply the word "homophobe" to imams opposed to homosexuality? Will liberals denounce a trampling on the rights of women within our society when "pluralism" in law means Islamic women will be forced to wear burkhas in America?
Soon, the leftist movement will betray its lack of support for the rights of individuals, in this case homosexuals and women. The leftists will instead favor appeasement of a rapidly-reproducing group whose fanatical elements do not recognize individual rights, who, when in majority, stone and decapitate individuals on moral rather than legal grounds, who hold our constitutional "God-given rights" to be the false fabrications of humans, and who reject our system in favor of a divine law allegedly given to an Arabian prophet. We, in America, will face the same tragedy faced by Europeans today, and watch our values of freedom deteriorate before our very eyes. Or is this already happening today?
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
NASA Policy Poses a Security Risk
After several days of discussion on the topic by intelligent reporters who are critical of the Obama administration, I find it disturbing that nobody noticed the security risk posed by the new NASA policy of cooperation with Muslim nations.
In February, NASA Administrator Bolden stated, in reference to Obama:
Specifically, he talked about connecting with countries that do not have an established space program and helping them conduct science missions. He mentioned new opportunities with Indonesia, including an educational program that examines global climate change.
Am I the only person to notice the words "countries that do not have an established space program"? We must demand to know what this really means. Does it mean establishing missile programs in Indonesia or Yemen? If so, are we safe to assume that missiles capable of launching spacecraft into orbit will not also be used to launch attacks on the U.S. or Israel?
Is it improper to ask if a president who spent a significant portion of his formative years in Indonesia does not have an agenda to do more that build a warm-fuzzy feeling between the nation he now controls and the nation of his upbringing? Is his anti-Israeli attitude not to be understood in the context of his growing up with a Muslim father, a Muslim stepfather, and years spent overseas in a predominantly Muslim nation?
If Muslims are imported to work at NASA, they will be given access to technology. If the technology is exported to Jakarta or elsewhere in the "Muslim world," then it poses an even greater security risk.
Emotion seems to have taken the upper hand over reason here in the press. Our pride in the accomplishments of our space program over the past fifty years eclipses the real issue. We see the regime mocked by conservative journalists for wanting to "redistribute a feel-good attitude to the Muslim world" when the real threat is the redistribution of missile systems to Muslim-majority nations.
In February, NASA Administrator Bolden stated, in reference to Obama:
Specifically, he talked about connecting with countries that do not have an established space program and helping them conduct science missions. He mentioned new opportunities with Indonesia, including an educational program that examines global climate change.
Am I the only person to notice the words "countries that do not have an established space program"? We must demand to know what this really means. Does it mean establishing missile programs in Indonesia or Yemen? If so, are we safe to assume that missiles capable of launching spacecraft into orbit will not also be used to launch attacks on the U.S. or Israel?
Is it improper to ask if a president who spent a significant portion of his formative years in Indonesia does not have an agenda to do more that build a warm-fuzzy feeling between the nation he now controls and the nation of his upbringing? Is his anti-Israeli attitude not to be understood in the context of his growing up with a Muslim father, a Muslim stepfather, and years spent overseas in a predominantly Muslim nation?
If Muslims are imported to work at NASA, they will be given access to technology. If the technology is exported to Jakarta or elsewhere in the "Muslim world," then it poses an even greater security risk.
Emotion seems to have taken the upper hand over reason here in the press. Our pride in the accomplishments of our space program over the past fifty years eclipses the real issue. We see the regime mocked by conservative journalists for wanting to "redistribute a feel-good attitude to the Muslim world" when the real threat is the redistribution of missile systems to Muslim-majority nations.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Constitutional Principles
Our society currently operates under the premise that "doing the right thing" outweighs the importance of abiding by the standards of the U.S. Constitution.
What is it that sets the principles of our Constitution at odds with the progressive agendas of social conservatism and leftist liberalism? What is it that makes the Constitution an obstacle to the goals of these groups? It is the belief that personal freedom guarantees the common good of the society.
It is the idea that society is hampered, not strengthened, by stifling the freedom, creativity, and innovation of individuals. It is the idea that a society is not to place the common good over the rights of individuals. It is the idea that individuals have the freedom to even make mistakes. It is the idea that personal freedom is an innate and divinely-given right which laws are not to hamper in the interest of the common good--with the only exception of when one person's actions hamper the rights of another. It means that an individual has the right to privacy and the ownership of private property. It means that one has the right to bear arms to defend one's property and one's rights against all enemies. It means that government confiscation of private property and private business is to be stifled, and that what a person owns is not to be distributed among those who have done nothing to earn it. It means, as it did to James Madison, the primary writer of the Constitution, that "equal division of property" is to be considered "a wicked project." It means that government is not to hamper the free market in the interest of an arbitrary sense of fairness, and that the government is to remain separate from private business. It means that ownership "by the people" means private business and not government takeover by corrupt politicians.
When a law is passed "for your own good," and not to protect the rights of another, it is recognizably unconstitutional, because it indicates government intrusion into one's personal decision making which does not affect others. The passage of such a law means that the activities of an individual, or of consenting adults in a group, are to be monitored by "big brother" rather than respected as the privacy of individuals, guaranteed to us by the Fourth Amendment.
We support the government envisioned by the founders, described in detail in the Federalist Papers, and put into practice through the adoption of the Constitution. We hold that American citizens have not merely the right but the duty to oppose any legislation which infringes upon our constitutional rights.
What is it that sets the principles of our Constitution at odds with the progressive agendas of social conservatism and leftist liberalism? What is it that makes the Constitution an obstacle to the goals of these groups? It is the belief that personal freedom guarantees the common good of the society.
It is the idea that society is hampered, not strengthened, by stifling the freedom, creativity, and innovation of individuals. It is the idea that a society is not to place the common good over the rights of individuals. It is the idea that individuals have the freedom to even make mistakes. It is the idea that personal freedom is an innate and divinely-given right which laws are not to hamper in the interest of the common good--with the only exception of when one person's actions hamper the rights of another. It means that an individual has the right to privacy and the ownership of private property. It means that one has the right to bear arms to defend one's property and one's rights against all enemies. It means that government confiscation of private property and private business is to be stifled, and that what a person owns is not to be distributed among those who have done nothing to earn it. It means, as it did to James Madison, the primary writer of the Constitution, that "equal division of property" is to be considered "a wicked project." It means that government is not to hamper the free market in the interest of an arbitrary sense of fairness, and that the government is to remain separate from private business. It means that ownership "by the people" means private business and not government takeover by corrupt politicians.
When a law is passed "for your own good," and not to protect the rights of another, it is recognizably unconstitutional, because it indicates government intrusion into one's personal decision making which does not affect others. The passage of such a law means that the activities of an individual, or of consenting adults in a group, are to be monitored by "big brother" rather than respected as the privacy of individuals, guaranteed to us by the Fourth Amendment.
We support the government envisioned by the founders, described in detail in the Federalist Papers, and put into practice through the adoption of the Constitution. We hold that American citizens have not merely the right but the duty to oppose any legislation which infringes upon our constitutional rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)