The global allure of a self-designated Caliphate, especially one that insists that its every barbaric action is Qur’an-based and Sharia-true, should not be underestimated.
In October 2014, ISIS released the fourth issue of Dabiq, its online English- and multi-language newsletter. ISIS described a “successful consolidation of the judiciary,” and the formation of “sharia courts” that render decisions in a speedy and non-corrupt manner. ISIS has implemented a “radical interpretation of sharia law, killing men accused of blasphemy or homosexuality. The group has also carried out amputations and lashings for reasons as trivial as smoking or improper dressing.”
ISIS has taken over the education system in horrendous ways: one must memorize the Qur’an, there is to be no teaching of science, history, civics, physical education, and geography. Basic mathematics is allowed. ISIS has also established military training on children, imposed early curfews and full-face and body niqab on women, including those who work at hospitals.
While Westerners may find this as horrifying as ISIS’s systematic and taped destruction of ancient, precious pre-Islamic sculptures and artifacts, according to Jonathan Spyer and Jawad al-Tamimi in Middle East Forum, ISIS has, nevertheless, been carefully justifying their every atrocity as based on the Qur’an and Sharia law. For example, in terms of crucifixions, ISIS invoked Qur’an 5:33 (Those “who wage war on God and His Messenger” may be crucified).
Apostates may also be crucified—and ISIS bases this on a hadith (similar to Qur’an 5:33). Christians are required to pay a special tax “jizya,” “may not publicly wear crosses, pray in the presence of Muslims, or repair or renovate places of worship.”
Spyer and al-Tamimi point out that ISIS “already considers itself a state (dawla), not a mere group or organization (jamaat, or tanzim).” Therefore, like Saudi Arabia or Iran, it can lawfully cross-amputate for theft, stone adulterers to death, drop homosexuals from rooftops (and stone them if they are still alive), crucify or behead Christians and apostates, etc.
In October of 2014, 126 Islamic scholars and Muslim leaders from 38 countries signed an Open Letter to Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi claiming that ISIS was violating Islamic Law. There was more than one signatory from the same country. For example, there were no fewer than 13 signatories from North America, mainly from the United States. Interestingly, many of the names belong to known Islamists, Muslim Brotherhood supporters and “fronts,” or anti-Zionists. For example, signatories include Nihad Awad (Council on American-Islamic Relations), Azhar Aziz (Islamic Society of North America), and Berkeley’s Hatem Baziem (American Muslims for Palestine).
While I am no Qur’anic scholar, much of what these signatories claim cannot be true. Or, rather, what they claim is the right interpretation of the Qur’an has not been followed by Muslim leaders historically—just as it is not being followed now by ISIS. For example, in their own Executive Summary, the signatories claim that “it is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent;” “forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers;” “forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture;’ “It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture;” “The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus;” “It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert;” “It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights;” “It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights;” “It is forbidden in Islam to torture people;” “It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.”
Undaunted, in December 2014, ISIS released a formal penal code in which they spelled out “a set of fixed punishments.” This document’s release was followed by a spate of violent executions in which “a woman accused of adultery [was] stoned to death, 17 men crucified, and two men accused of homosexual acts thrown off a building.”
According to the translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), here are some of the acts and their punishments:
- Blasphemy against Allah, Blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammed, Blasphemy against Islam—all merit Death as does Sodomy, Adultery, Murder, Apostasy, and Spying for Unbelievers.
- Theft merits cutting off the hand;
- Drinking alcohol merits 80 lashes;
- Slandering merits 80 lashes;
- Terrorizing People merits Exile.
Issue #7 of ISIS’s glossy online newsletter, Dabiq, was released in February. It is more than 80 pages long and is titled: “From Hypocrisy to Apostasy. The Extinction of the Grayzone.” ISIS means the “gray zone” in which Christian “Crusaders” and Jews, as well as Muslim hypocrites and apostates of all religions, are put on notice.
“Islam is the Religion of the Sword Not Pacificism” is the title of one chapter. This issue also displays many photos of ISIS’s atrocities and the Qur’anic justification for them. It blesses Bin Laden, boasts of the Islamic attacks against Europeans and Americans, prays that “Allah take revenge for the Muslims and the mujahidin, and rain fire and destruction upon the kuffar and murtaddin, wherever they are.”
Dabiq justifies ISIS’s ongoing persecution and murder of Coptic Christians as an act of revenge because Coptic Christians allegedly tortured and murdered Muslim women. This issue also deals with how ISIS is “clamping down on sexual deviance” and describes how the West has been “plunged into a downward spiral of sexual deviance and immorality.” It boasts of the murder of Theo Von Gogh and lauds the captured convert to Islam, John Cantlie who praises his captors and denounces “our deceitful governments.” He is quoted as saying: “Despite being a prisoner I’ve been shown respect and kindness, which I haven’t seen from my own [British] government.”
ISIS is a totalitarian cult led by barbarian psychopaths and extremist misogynists who seek to cover their criminality and self-perceived marginality with a cloak of religious respectability. They will continue on their path unless the “good people” of the world decide to stop them by any means possible and by any means necessary.
If the passage of time were a reliable guarantor of increasing human freedom, we would expect history to look a little different than it does. In school, we would have learned that the Englishmen of Charles I’s reign were better off than their Elizabethan grandparents; that the colonists implicated by the Declaratory Act had fairer prospects than those who had been governed with what Burke called “salutary neglect”; that the Germans of 1935 possessed an advantage over those of the Bismarcksche Reichsverfassung. That we did not learn any of this should tell us something. As Thomas Jefferson had it, “the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” There are no new fights in politics.
Do we know this? In the United States, as in the rest of the Anglo-sphere, we seem to believe that we are the children of legislatures, not of kings; the beneficiaries of careful reasoning, not of iron will; the heirs to a safe political settlement immune to disintegration. That we are proud of our institutions is understandable. But our unshakable confidence in their permanence is not. There is nothing written in the stars that secures in perpetuity our free system of laws. There are no stone tablets upon which legislative supremacy and judicial integrity are guaranteed against usurpation. Men’s hearts are no less ambitious this week than they were in the era of the pyramids.
As I write, the president of the United States is openly promising to finish off his second term with a flurry of extra-constitutional activity. By the power invested in his “pen and phone,” Barack Obama intends to wield his “executive authority” in order to institute a set of environmental rules that the people’s representatives have declined to grant him; to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay in direct defiance of Congress’s will; and to further circumvent a series of immigration laws that have been on the books for decades.
These are no idle threats. In his second term alone, this president has rewritten by fiat some of the central portions of his signature legislation, Obamacare; granted a series of unauthorized waivers from the 1996 Welfare Reform Act; and instructed agencies such as the IRS and the EPA to push forward with the enforcement of a series of administrative rules that simply cannot be justified by the texts of their enabling statutes. Most alarmingly of all, he has repeatedly made it clear that these actions are not the natural outworking of legal ambiguity, but a deliberate response to congressional inaction. Once upon a time, Obama insisted that he was “not a king” or an “emperor” or a “dictator,” and confirmed that his “job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law.” Now he justifies his behavior with talk of necessity and vows that if “Congress won’t act,” he will.
John Adams characterized the office that Obama holds as enjoying “the whole executive power, after divesting it of those badges of domination called prerogatives.” In this assessment he was reflecting what might be regarded as the Founders’ central conceit: that when the laws that govern men’s fortunes are subject to the whims of the powerful rather than to the consent of the governed, there can be no liberty. Are we at liberty?
In his recent book Is Administrative Law Unlawful? Columbia University professor Philip Hamburger suggests that we are not. The Constitution of the United States, Hamburger contends, represented a conscious attempt to banish from this country’s political structure a host of the insidious tools upon which monarchs and emperors had historically relied: among them prerogative lawmaking, legislative enabling acts, suspending and dispensing powers, and the investment of legislative, judicial, and executive functions into one body. Alarmingly, Hamburger concludes, these features have gradually found their way back into the system — not because the Constitution has been overthrown or because Washington, D.C., has been occupied by an invading force, but because over time we have constructed an unwarranted “fourth branch” in addition to the original three, and we have allowed the executive branch to take advantage of it.
By “fourth branch,” Hamburger is referring to the vast caste of unelected government employees who staff the array of administrative agencies that have sprung up around the country since the start of the 20th century and, slowly but surely, enjoyed ever-increasing power over our lives. Far from reflecting a benign, novel, and necessary change in the detail of our self-government, Hamburger submits, these entities are returning us to the bad old days of rule by fiat. Unlike the Prussians and the French, he argues, Anglo-American societies have historically insisted that the liberties of free men be restricted only by the legislature and the courts, not by executive decree. By permitting a vast and unaccountable bureaucracy to grow in their midst, Americans have reimported into their system a virus against which their Constitution was supposed to protect them. Worst of all: They have done so without a care in the world.
Hamburger’s provocative thesis should, at the least, force us to consider an important question: Why do we tolerate behavior from our bureaucracy that we would never allow in other circumstances? Imagine, if you will, that an American citizen were arrested on suspicion of stabbing somebody and subsequently charged. Ceteris paribus, we would require a number of conditions to be met in order for his conviction to be acceptable. First, we would expect the law that he was accused of having broken to be present in a specific statute that had made its way through the established legislative process. Second, we would expect the authorities tasked with his prosecution to be under the jurisdiction of the executive branch and bound by rules that had been contrived by the legislature and interpreted by the courts. And third, we would expect him to be given an independent trial overseen by a judge and decided by a jury of his peers. Anything less would be unacceptable.
If a state legislature attempted to “consolidate” this process on the grounds of its “complexity,” we would steadfastly object. But now suppose that instead of being subject to laws that had been passed by the legislature, enforced by prosecutors from the executive branch, and overseen by an independent judiciary, our hypothetical suspect were left at the mercy of an unelected “violence agency” that had been empowered to make binding determinations as to (a) what constituted “stabbing,” (b) who were guilty of it, and (c) what their punishments should be. Would we not riot? Not only would the opportunity for abuse be deemed flatly unacceptable, but we would wonder how exactly it was that a legislature saw fit to sub delegate to the executive both its own enumerated powers and a set of judicial functions to which it had no rightful claim.
Why, then, is this not the case elsewhere? Why do we shrug our shoulders when Congress bestows upon the executive branch extensive powers to promulgate, enforce, and adjudicate binding rules? Why do we not revolt when the IRS is given the task of writing its own laws in-house (we used to call this “prerogative”) and enforcing them outside the courts (we used to call this “consolidation of power”)? Why is there no great uproar when HHS and USCIS willfully delay enforcement of unpopular provisions of the law to aid the president’s reelection bid (we used to call this “suspending”) or hand out waivers of onerous requirements to favored groups (we used to call this “dispensing”)?
Most important of all, why are we not up in arms when the president openly abuses his position as thhead of the bureaucracy in order to circumvent Congress’s explicit will? When even left-wingers such as Georgetown Law School’s Jonathan Turley are warning that Barack Obama has now become “the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid,” should our ears not perk up? Our Founders’ ancestors in Britain spent centuries trying to rid their constitutional structures of opportunities for abuse. Why are we so indifferent to their return?
If you have not been following the political arena very closely, you may not be aware of the very banal, vapid, moronic, politically correct, leftist ideologues with whom Obama has surrounded himself. It would be sadly laughable if they were not in charge of such deadly serious matters as our nation’s military and our national security. This article provides many links so that you can “do your own homework”. Then please ask yourselves, “Have we not placed our children’s future, as well as the world’s children, in serious jeopardy by electing this charlatan as leader of the free world?????????
Obama and His Jayvee Team of Tweeting Twits
Listening to Obama and his sycophants spout nonsense and lies day after day reminds us of the E.F. Hutton commercial from the 1970s, “When E.F. Hutton talks, people listen.” The brokerage firm was successful because E.F. Hutton and his staff of investment advisors were experienced, competent financial experts. Obama and his corral of toadies, not so much. So why does anyone listen when they open their mouths?
Tomes will be written in the years after Obama leaves office detailing his faux promises, lies, and gaffes. They are too voluminous to list here but include dishonest pronouncements regarding
Today, the news that two police officer’s were seriously wounded while being assigned to a protest taking place at the police headquarters in Ferguson inspired these “musings”.
We have a serious need to examine who is continually stoking the fires of racial grievances and discord and why are they doing this. I believe that there is an intentional agenda to promote within the African-American community both a feeling of entitlement and victimhood to create a class of people who are totally dependent on one political class for their life’s sustenance. This is not only morally irresponsible and unjust, it is highly toxic and dangerous. The black communities have been listening and trusting for decades all of the wrong people. They have bought into the lie of Planned Parenthood and killing their own children. In 2009 35% of all abortions were African-American babies. Not only are they killing their children in the womb, but their cultural decay is killing their young men in the streets of major cities. In 2012, blacks in New York constituted 78% of shooting suspects and 74% of all shooting victims even though they are less than 23% of the city’s population. Young black men in New York are 36 times more likely to be murdered than young white men. Today, black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at ten times the rate of white and Hispanic males of the same age combined.
Let us look back at some historical statistics:
In 1950, 72 percent of all black men and 81 percent of black women had been married.
• Every census from 1890 to 1950 showed that black labor force participation rates were higher than those of whites.
• Prior to the 1960’s the unemployment rate for black 16 and 17-year olds was under 10 percent.
• Before 1960, the number of teenage pregnancies had been decreasing; both poverty and dependency were declining, and black income was rising in both absolute and relative terms to white income.
• In 1965, 76.4 percent of black children were born to married women.
Beginning with the entitlement programs initiated under President Johnson’s War on Poverty which turned cultural incentives upside down, and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which had the unintended consequence of giving legal credence to making any type of behavioral judgment toxic; the cultural glue that kept the African-American family together was fundamentally changed.
Statistics since 1960 support this analysis.
• Between 1960 and 1964, blacks were rising into professional and other high-level positions at a rate greater than the five years following passage of the Civil Rights Act.
• The 1960 census showed the first signs of a decline in black marriages, with acceleration in later years.
• Since the 1960s unemployment rates for black 16 and 17 year olds has never dropped below 20 percent.
• In 1980, 31 percent of all black first-born children were born to teenage mothers.
• By 1992, 54 percent-of all black children were living only with their mothers.
• From 1990 to 1994, 77 percent of first births to black women were premarital.
• In the 1980s and 90s, an absolute majority of those black families with no husband present lived in poverty.
• By the 2000s, 75% of blacks with a high-school degree or some college were not married.
• In 2005, Black people accounted for 13% of the total U.S. population yet they were the victims of 49% of all the nation’s murders; and 93% of black murder victims were killed by other black people.
• Less than half of black students graduated from high school in 2005.
• In 2009, 73% of black children were born to unmarried mothers.
• In many urban areas, the black illegitimacy rate is well over 80 percent.
Second, we must stop ignoring bad behavior and choices in the African-American community. Discriminating between proper and bad behavior as a legitimate judgment, it is not discrimination or bigotry. Basic psychology tells us when you are allowed to get away with and are rewarded for bad behavior; you reinforce and get more progressively worse behavior that harms children.
Third, there must be an admission that clinging to a counterproductive culture that is supposedly “authentic” in the name of group pride or to avoid self-reliance and personal responsibility is not only historically incorrect, it harms children.
Lastly, the African-American community, with or without the civil rights “establishment,” must acknowledge and demand that the family is, and will forever be, the originator and primary transmitter of social capital — values and character traits — that enable children, on becoming adults, to seize opportunities and become productive citizens. Toxic role models that guide children into a culture of destructive behaviors must be challenged.
In short, if the family structure is a primary predictor of an individual’s life chances, and if family disintegration is the principal cause of the transmission of poverty and despair in the black community over the last 50 years, then family integration will stabilize the institution and offer children hope.
If only our Congress would stand up to President Obama more often, they could regain the respect and trust of the American people. It is clear from the President’s past actions that he is not interested in being a friend to Israel. Netanyahu is not a fool, he knows this and that is exactly why he had to come to the U.S. and stand before Congress to personally lay out the very real and present danger posed by a nuclear Iran. MM
March 4, 2015
Netanyahu Addresses the Free World
By Alexander Grass
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu walked into the House of Representatives the applause was deafening. Watching the broadcast on CSPAN, one could hear the audio feed constantly clipping in and out because the microphones were overloaded. The decibel level was bursting from an enthusiastic Congress cheering a man who had come to speak for the West, to speak for democracy, and to speak against the terrorism and barbarity of Iran.
Some members of Congress weren’t as embracing of Netanyahu’s speech as most Nancy Pelosi in particular exhibited a sort of physical discomfort and immediately bolted for the exit after the speech. Even though Mrs. Pelosi said after Netanyahu’s oration that she “was near tears throughout the prime minister’s speech saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States”, any impartial observer could see that the speech given on March 3rd in the House of Representatives will echo through history as an important moment in the defense of democratic nations, as a declaration against genocidal mania, and as a principled defense of societies birthed by the values of the enlightenment.
There are several important things that the prime minister said that needed to be heard. Several precisely worded, focused passages made quite clear to the American Congress as well as to the American people why Iran achieving the status of a nuclear state is unacceptable. Prime Minister Netanyahu hit on the very important point of the nature of Iran’s regime, how it has been an unapologetic sponsor of state terror, and its past misdeeds that have set it squarely against not only Israel, but also against the United States and Western society.
The Israeli leader rightly pointed out in his address that “Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That’s just last week, while they’re having nuclear talks with the United States.” That this news item should require highlighting, with the world already having had ages of Iranian sponsored terror attacks in numerous countries and invasions throughout the Middle East, is more a commentary on the president’s ignorance than Netanyahu’s wisdom. Nevertheless, Netanyahu hammered this and several other points home, naming every significant Iranian transgression against the West, starting with the bombing of innocents in Buenos Aires. Netanyahu also spoke about Iran’s funding of heinous murderers like Imad Mugniyeh, a man responsible for more American deaths than anyone other than Osama BinLaden.
This constant duplicity, this boldfaced lying, speaking one way at the negotiating table all while still rallying the Iranian people in lively chants of “Death to America”, is the Iranian modus operandi. To assume that there will be some benevolent show of gratefulness on the part of the world’s largest state sponsor of terror this side of Syria is nothing other than stupidity.
Members of Congress who listened to Netanyahu’s speech would do well to peruse Ayatollah Khameini’s Twitter page (for the moment I will refrain from commenting on the obvious incongruity of the mullah’s benefiting from the West’s technological superiority all while denouncing the openness of its systems). With the frustrated syntax of an angry illiterate, the Supreme Leader indulges himself in the most putrid, dumb denunciation against not only Israel but also the United States. Since the English language is as beautiful as it is intricate, I’ll spare the reader from the cluttered twitterisms of Ali Khameini. However, the Ayatollah’s Twitter account is worth reading at some point, at least so that one can see the potency of combining idiocy with unmitigated hatred.
It is foolish to assume that Iran’s leaders will suddenly devote themselves to peace. If the barbarians are at the gate, does it serve the West to offer them the key? That is precisely the peril that Netanyahu outlined in his speech warning the most powerful deliberative body in the world not to operate in complicity in this bad, bad Iranian deal.
Two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson combated the medievalism active in his own era by sending the American Navy across the ocean to wage war against the Barbary pirates. Rufus King, a morally forthright delegate to the Continental Congress and fervent abolitionist, said to Thomas Jefferson of the Barbary pirates: “Our security against the Barbary Powers must depend on force and not upon treaties, upon ships of war instead of presents and subsidies”. It speaks volumes about our president that instead of aligning himself with our proper allies in a common fight for human dignity and liberty, Obama should seek to pacify Iran by rewarding them. The president should review his history, as well as the actions of our better leaders in combating evil.
It isn’t necessary to wage war against Iran, but offering them a clear path to nuclear weaponry aided by American appeasement isn’t the answer either. If Obama is serious about negotiations, he should negotiate from a point of superior leverage, a position that is more achievable with the manacles of sanctions on the maniacs of Iran. Then, if talks don’t pan out, contemplate an attack. We should assume that as unhinged as the Iranian regime is, they still have the presence of mind to recognize plainly America’s military superiority and vast reach. Like Netanyahu said: “If Iran threatens to walk away from the table and this often happens in a Persian bazaar call their bluff. They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do”.
Newsworthy events happen at such an alarming rate these days that it is difficult to wrap one’s mind around all of the ways in which our nation, and the global world, are changing. It is just as difficult to try to discern on which issue one should try to focus one’s energy. One thing I do know……we will be greatly endangering our children’s and grandchildren’s future by digging our heads in the sand and/or trying to tiptoe around moral decisions. It is our responsibility as caretakers of our constitutional republic, to support those voices who are speaking truth to power in this age of political correctness run amok.
February 22, 2014
Going Somewhere DangerousIn a little over 200 days we’ll be knee-deep in what is quite likely the most important midterm election in American history. If the makeup of the Senate doesn’t move decisively and dramatically to the right we may have lost everything this country has ever been. It will be a do-or-die election.
What are those issues? The economy. National defense. Tax reform. Education. Health care. Family stability. Religious freedom. Immigration. A long list, but not really a daunting one. It’s not like mankind has never faced these issues before. It’s not as if we don’t know what to do to fix them. We know what works. Just as there are scientific laws that govern the natural world, there are economic and social laws that govern human society. We just need to follow those laws.
But we can’t do that by imitating those who want to repeat failed, illogical social experiments. Establishment Republicans want to embrace illegal immigrants, expand the government’s regulatory power, accept the nonsense of global warming, and increase the federal budget ad infinitum. They seem ready to just take it when the president issues his papal bulls, brazenly flipping off the Constitution. “Now-now,” they fuss. “We can’t seem too extreme, too right-wing, too Christian. We have to appeal to the middle-of-the-road voters.”
Nonsense. We’ve tried that and it’s been a resounding failure — Dole, McCain, Romney. We’ve tried the Brooks Brothers, Karl Rove, country-club approach. We tried acting like King George’s redcoats — marching in rigid lines wearing big white X’s on our chests and refusing to break ranks and fight the guerilla war raging all around us. We’re being attacked on all sides and all we appear to be doing about it is inviting the other side over for tea.
Our mistake has been to pretend that a middle ground exists on which both the left and right could meet and agree. I would say that is pure fairytale thinking, but even fairy tales have good guys and bad guys and no one in between. Even in fairy tales we don’t expect that the evil queen is going to meet Prince Charming halfway, or that Saint George will be able to negotiate with the dragon.
This pretense has, in the first place, lost us our schools — somehow we thought there could be a neutral position from which to teach history, culture, science. We forgot that either the United States is a force for good or for evil, that either we use art and music and drama to celebrate the good or the bad, that you either believe God created the world or you don’t; that we either teach kids the truth or we lie to them. I was once told that I had to teach Paradise Lost without reference to Genesis. Really? As Aldous Huxley said in his introduction to Brave New World, “Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects… totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have by the most eloquent denunciations.” I hate it that he was right.
Because we’ve lost the schools, we’ve lost the media — journalists aren’t so much biased as they are completely ignorant of the truth, completely uninterested in truth, convinced it doesn’t exist, convinced that their function is one of advocacy not of truth-telling.
And, as a result, we, everyday Americans, have lost control over our government. We are going to have to fight — head on, duty-is-mine-consequences-belong-to-God, unflinching. We can no longer play parlor games. Either we’re right or we’re wrong. If we’re right, eventually we’ll win. If we’re wrong and the world is now going to be a one-world collectivist, poverty-ridden dictatorship, then we don’t want to be part of it anyway.
Millions of us all across this country are praying for God’s help with this, because we’re going to need it. We’ve been driving on a flat tire now for so long that the car has listed clear to the left and we’re now traveling down a very dark, ugly road — one that will end, as this road always has, in a frightening kingdom where everyone but the king, and his over-dressed wife, is poor and vulnerable.
We must risk overcorrecting; talking nicely to this drunk driver isn’t going to get us back on the all-American highway. So what if we veer off to the right and have to do a little off-roading to fix this? Our Constitution allows for that. It may cause some upheaval to audit the Federal Reserve, dismantle the IRS, balance the budget, close down intrusive government agencies, build a fence at the border, and stop the intrusion of Sharia law; it’s not going to be easy to undo ObamaCare. Those are drastic measures, but we have to take them and we need gutsy leadership to do that.
I can’t say that our state representative — Greg Walden — has done badly in Congress — he voted against raising the debt ceiling, but he hasn’t taken any of this mess by the throat, he hasn’t stepped forward and taken a strong stand. I’m going to be voting for someone who will. I don’t want people who think we have to “reach across the aisle.” For over two hundred years we’ve maintained this carefully balanced marriage between the right and the left, but we have come to a breaking point; there have been too many infidelities for compromise, for forgiveness. It’s no longer a matter of who’s going to do the dishes and who’s going to take out the trash. Evil has entered the equation and even if it doesn’t win, it will leave a stain.
I think we can hope. Such leadership is stepping up and we can measure the strength of the Cruz-Lee-Paul-Gowdy guys by the stridency of the opposition to them, from both Republican and Democratic lairs. These guys will need our support for they are indeed “some men with guns going somewhere to do something dangerous.” (Glendon Swarthout, Bless the Beasts and Children) We must ride with them.
A few family members sometimes question my daily reading of the blog, American Thinker, but I have found it to be a refreshingly divergent source for discerning the political, religious and cultural opinions of a wide array of writers who are not aligned with any one group or organization. It’s contributors are accomplished in fields beyond journalism and animated to write for the general public out of concern for the complex and morally significant questions on the national agenda. I discovered the blog while researching our President and his “friends” back in 2008. While the views expressed are definitely conservative in nature, the articles always present a diversity of thought that is based, not only on the authors’ ethnicity, religious affiliations and personal experience, but also on their varied backgrounds in business, science, technology, medicine, management, and economics. That being said I would like to now share a particularly disturbing article regarding our nation’s military.
February 13, 2014
The Pentagon’s Bow to Islamic Extremism“Caving to pressure from Muslim groups, the Pentagon has relaxed uniform rules to allow Islamic beards, turbans and hijabs. It’s a major win for political correctness and a big loss for military unit cohesion,” said a recent report.
This new relaxation of rules for Muslims comes at a time when the FBI is tracking more than 100 suspected jihadi infiltrators of the U.S. military. Just last month, Craig Benedict Baxam, a former Army soldier and convert to Islam, was sentenced to seven years in prison due to his al-Qaeda/jihadi activities. Also last month, Mozaffar Khazaee, an Iranian-American working for the Defense Department, was arrested for sending secret documents to America’s enemy, Iran.
According to a Pentagon spokesperson, the new religious accommodations — to allow Islamic beards, turbans, and hijabs — which took effect very recently, would “reduce both the instances and perception of discrimination among those whose religious expressions are less familiar to the command.”
The report concludes that “[m]aking special accommodations for Islam will only attract more Muslims into the military at a time when two recent terror cases highlight the ongoing danger of Muslims in uniform.”
But it’s worse than that. Not only will it attract “more Muslims,” but it will attract precisely the wrong kinds of Muslims — aka “Islamists,” “radicals,” etc.
This is easily demonstrated by connecting the dots and understanding that Muslims who adhere to visible, non-problematic aspects of Islam — growing beards and donning hijabs — often indicate their adherence to non-visible, problematic aspects of Islam.
Consider it this way: why do some Muslim men wear the prescribed beard, and why do some Muslim women wear the prescribed hijab? Most Muslims would say they do so because Islam’s prophet Muhammad commanded them to (whether via the Koran or Hadith).
Regarding the Muslim beard, Muhammad wanted his followers to look different from “infidels” — namely, Christians and Jews, so he ordered his followers to “trim closely the moustache and grow the beard.” Accordingly, all Sunni schools of law maintain that it is forbidden — a “major sin” — for men to shave their beards (unless, of course, it is part of a stratagem against the infidel, in which case it is permissible).
The question arises: if such Muslims meticulously follow the minor “outer” things of Islam simply because their prophet made some utterances concerning them in the Hadith, logically speaking, does that not indicate that they also follow, or at the very least accept as legitimate, the major “inner” themes Muhammad constantly emphasized in both the Koran and Hadith — such as enmity for and deceit of the infidel, and, when possible, perpetual jihad?
In the Islamic world, this connection between visible indicators of Islamic piety and jihadi tendencies is well-known. Back in 2011, when Islamists were dominating Egypt’s politics, secularist talk show host Amr Adib of Cairo Today mocked the calls for a “million man beard” march with his trademark sarcasm: “This is a great endeavor! After all, a man with a beard can never be a thug, can never rape a woman in the street, can never set a church on fire, can never fight and quarrel, can never steal, and can never be dishonest!”
His sarcasm was not missed by his Egyptian viewership, who knew quite well that it is precisely those Muslims who most closely follow the minutia of Muhammad — for example, growing a beard — who are most prone to violence, deceit, and anti-infidel sentiments, all of which were also advocated by Islam’s prophet.
Speaking more seriously, Adib added that this issue is not about growing a beard, but rather that “once you grow your beard, you give proof of your commitment and fealty to everything in Islam.”
Similarly, after Egypt’s June 30 Revolution ousted the Muslim Brotherhood, “overt signs of piety [beards and hijabs] have become all it takes to attract suspicion from security forces at Cairo checkpoints and vigilantes looking to attack Islamists.” Clubs and restaurants banned entrance to those wearing precisely these two “overt signs of piety.”
While Egyptians instinctively understand how fealty to the Muslim beard evinces fealty to, or at least acceptance of, all those other problematic things Muhammad commanded, even in fuzzy Western op-eds, the connection sometimes peeks out. Consider the following excerpt from a New York Times piece titled “Behold the Mighty Beard, a Badge of Piety and Religious Belonging”:
[A]ll over the Muslim world, the full beard has come to connote piety and spiritual fervor…. Of course, the beard is only a sign of righteousness. It is no guarantor, as Mr. Zulfiqar [a Muslim interviewee] reminds us: “I recall one gentleman who came back from a trip to Pakistan and remarked to me, ‘I learned one thing: the longer the beard, the bigger the crook.’ His anticipation was people with big beards would be really honest, but he kept meeting people lying to him.”
The italicized portion speaks for itself. Whereas the Muslim beard ostensibly represents religious piety, some people — mostly Westerners — are shocked to find that those who wear it are often “crooks” and “liars.”
In Islam, however, outer signs of religiosity on the one hand and corruption and deceit on the other are quite compatible. After all, the same source — Islam’s prophet Muhammad, as recorded in the Hadith — that tells Muslims to grow a beard also advocates deception, the plundering of infidels, the keeping of sex slaves, adult “breast feeding,” and all sorts of other practices antithetical to Western notions of piety, if not decency.
Incidentally, it’s the same with the hijab, or the cloak that some Muslim women wear, also on Muhammad’s command. One reformed Islamic jihadi from Egypt accurately observes that “the proliferation of the hijab is strongly correlated with increased terrorism. … Terrorism became much more frequent in such societies as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, and the U.K. after the hijab became prevalent among Muslim women living in those communities.”
And so, at a time when the U.S. should at the very least be wary of those who openly wear their Islamic radicalism around their face and head — beards for males, hijabs for females — the U.S. Pentagon (of all places) is embracing them in “celebration of multiculturalism.” Where loyalty to the U.S. is most needed, the Pentagon embraces those who show that their loyalty is elsewhere (among other things, the beard and hijab are meant to separate “pure believers” from “impure infidels”).
Of course, none of this is surprising considering that the Pentagon also considers Evangelical Christians and Catholics “extremists” on par with al-Qaeda.
Please, Please, Please click on the blue links………..it is imperative to be fully informed and to remember the history of this President in order to understand what is happening to us and to our country. Our children and grandchildren will be the future victims of the policies of the progressive elitists on both sides of the aisle. Let us not pretend that everything is going to be all right while we silently ignore the push toward a secularist, collectivist “cradle to grave” nation.
February 10, 2014
Obama’s Loafer Nation
By Ed Lasky
President Obama has broken many promises. One that he has not broken is his boast that he would “fundamentally transform America.” He and his fellow Democrats are on the verge of doing just that by turning us into a nation of loafers.
A loafer is an idle person who lives off others. Barack Obama seemingly has no problem with such people. He might even relate to them. He does have a serious problem with his own work ethic, and finds work boring. He also denigrates the work of others who build businesses through dint of hard work and risk-taking (“You didn’t build that“); talks incessantly of “fat cats” on Wall Street; embraced the Occupy Wall Street Movement of squatters and pumped up their own inflated self-importance by telling them “You are the reason I ran for office“; and accuses doctors of running up the tab by, among other evils, taking tonsils out for money instead of diagnosing problems as allergies). He has yet to speak critically of union leaders, class action lawyers and others who run up the tab for all Americans because they are, after all, the Democratic Base.
But Obama and his Democratic Party allies seem to be gleeful about the rise of the loafer class. Recent revelations from the Congressional Budget Office bear witness to this phenomenon. When the CBO’s prognosis on the future of Obamacare revealed that the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs would be lost because the provisions of the law would create disincentives to working (as well as hiring) what was the response from the left side of the political spectrum?
“ObamaCare will give more of us more time away from work. This is a good thing.”
- It “will enable more than 2 million workers to escape ‘job lock.'”
- It “gives workers more choices, including the option to work less.”
- Because ObamaCare will make people less willing to work, companies will “have to pay more per hour to get those workers in the door.”
- One lawmaker even boasted ObamaCare will give parents more time to “tuck their children in at night.”
Jason Furman, Obama’s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, also tried to spin these projected job losses into good news by saying ObamaCare would allow workers greater “choice.” Furman said, “This is not businesses cutting back on jobs. This is people having new choices.” If taxpayer-funded health insurance encourages some people to work less, “that, in their case, might be a better choice and a better option that what they had before.”
Then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi unwittingly revealed this goal years ago in a comment that unsurprisingly got little airplay in the mainstream media when she toasted the fact that the health care reform that she and her fellow Democrats forced down America’s throat would be a godsend for the “creative class”:
Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.
Yes…think about it! The lady from San Francisco does not think about the plumbers, contractors, accountants, sanitation workers and legions of other Morlocks toiling away for the benefit of artistic Elois and their patrons. Maybe performers can be hired to entertain government bureaucrats during over-the-top government junkets, or for IRS training films, or sculpt artwork that can be sold at outrageous prices to grace American embassies across the world for the delectation of Obama donors-ambassadors.
Well, these people’s choice to work less in order to qualify for subsidies to pay their health insurance premiums means that other people are paying for their liberation from work and from the responsibilities of being an adult and an American (at least what used to be considered an American). But such a goal is very attractive for loafers.
ObamaCare also makes it very appealing for children to be coddled by their parents. Instead of becoming fully-functioning adults, paying their own way in the world, they can stay under their parents’ insurance policies until the age of 26-further reducing the incentive to mature out of loafer-dom. Paul Ryan noted this sad state of affairs at the Republican National Convention:
College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life.
More 27-year olds are living in their parents’ basements than with roommates-and this is true for college graduates, as well.
But what if the Democratic Party does not want them to be anything other than loafers? That can be a very appealing prospect for many people.
After all, Obama telegraphed his goal in 2008, making a Kinsley gaffe (a politician accidentally telling the truth) when he went off the teleprompter and told Joe the Plumber that his goal was to “spread the wealth.”
How have Obama and his fellow Democrats achieved that goal? Count the ways:
Endless extensions of unemployment insurance to anesthetize jobless Americans from the pain of reckless Democratic anti-growth policies;
Record high food stamp usage;
A record number on disability were getting the highest-ever monthly benefits;
Labor Force participation rates have declined; people not in the labor force are at a record 91.8 million;
Democrats are encouraging people to get on the government dole at an early age. High-school students are constantly exhorted to go to college.
John Kerry typified the view of liberals when he told a crowd of Ohio voters:
You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.
Barack Obama has repeatedly said that he thinks everyone should go to college — seemingly oblivious to the reality that college may not be appropriate for everyone. Millions of people have come out of college with degrees that do not lead to jobs but have led to unsupportable debt loads. Collectively there may be more than a trillion dollars in student loan debt — and it is a growing menace to the health of America. But the federal government has continued to feed the beast because colleges may not to lead to jobs but do lead to many more Democratic voters. Democrats have hinted of future plans to wipe away the debt of college students –effectively transferring the debt to taxpayers.
Michelle Obama recently urged high school students to grab as much taxpayer money as they can by applying for federal aid when they go to college. At T.C.Williams High School in Alexandria, Virginia she told students that applying for federal student aid is easier than they think:
“Don’t leave money on the table,” Mrs. Obama said. “Almost everyone is eligible for some form of financial aid, and all you have to do to access that aid is fill out this one little form. It’s so simple.”
“Through FAFSA [Free Application for Federal Student Aid], the Department of Education provides more than $150 billion every year in low-interest loans, in grants that you don’t have to pay back, and work study programs that can help cover your educational expenses,”
As Dr. Susan Berry wrote at Big Government:
Mrs. Obama, however, emphasized that there are “thousands of dollars to help you and your family pay for college,” and that students could receive federal aid regardless of how well they perform in school or even if their families are not at poverty level.
“You don’t have to be the valedictorian. You don’t have to major in a certain subject,” the First Lady said. “You don’t even have to be at the very bottom of the income ladder to receive the money…”
Yet student loan defaults continue to skyrocket. One day the bubble will burst and Republicans will be handed the blame.
If the cliché that insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result is true, then the Obama administration is certifiable (that’s okay since mental health care is covered by Obamacare and by the time he finishes his second term many Americans will be seeking mental health professionals). Obama’s pick to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency, former Congressman Mel Watt, has made clear his intention to spend taxpayer dollars to help otherwise unqualified home buyers to purchase homes. Formerly, one had to work and get a good credit rating to be able to take out a mortgage and purchase a home. Not anymore. There is a new sheriff in town and he is not interested in enforcing reasonable and sound credit standards and rules .
The administration is also pressuring banks, and cities to make it far easier for people to buy cars and homes –– regardless of how sensible and sustainable such purchases and loans may be or how solid the job prospects are for purchasers.
Obama has used his executive authority to gut workfare — one of the great bipartisan reform efforts over the years to transform welfare and get people off the government dole and into the workforce. Barack Obama also subtly changed the federal definition of “poverty” so that many people on welfare don’t have to “worry” about being dropped from the welfare rolls, secure in the knowledge that the checks from taxpayers will continue to flow.
So when Republicans declare their goal is to grow the economy and create more jobs and thus more taxpayers, they lose the loafer vote.
And when Democrats are in the forefront of legalizing marijuana even for non-medical purposes they gain the loafer vote. As the liberal Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus wrote:
“…persistent cannabis use was associated with neuropsychological decline broadly across domains of functioning, even after controlling for years of education.” Long-term users saw an average decline of eight IQ points.
Once again, teenage toking was the problem. The decrease in IQ was linked only to those with adolescent marijuana use, not those who started in adulthood
Lassitude, lethargy and lack of motivation follow — sounds like a drug tailor-made for loafers.
Barack Obama was a member of the Choom Gang in his fancy Hawaii high-school. One wonders if those effects can persist?
Didn’t Obama make clear he was all out for the loafer vote — and that his goal was to create another class in America, the loafer class?
After all, wasn’t his animated campaign pitch “The Life of Julia” celebrating cradle to grave dependency on big government (the role of taxpayers was left on the cutting room floor)?
As Ethel Fenig wrote on American Thinker:
Julia would attend a government school complete with Head Start, go on to a government college thanks to government funds, start a business with government help, birth and raise a child supplemented with government funds and finally retire to a happy, healthy old age with her living and health care expenses all paid for with government funds.
Isn’t Julia’s perfect match, Pajama Boy, a poster child for the loafer life: lolling about in PJs, sipping hot chocolate, advocating Obamacare at Thanksgiving instead of, say, talking about his job?
Rich Lowry wrote in “Pajama Boy, An Insufferable Man-Child” about Julia and PJ Boy:
But it’s hard not to see Pajama Boy as an expression of the Obama vision, just like his forbear Julia, the Internet cartoon from the 2012 campaign. Pajama Boy is Julia’s little brother. She progressed through life without any significant family or community connections. He is the picture of perpetual adolescence. Neither is a symbol of self-reliant, responsible adulthood.
And so both are ideal consumers of government. Julia needed the help of Obama-supported programs at every juncture of her life, and Pajama Boy is going to get his health insurance through Obamacare (another image shows him looking very pleased in a Christmas sweater, together with the words “And a happy New Year with health insurance”).
The breakdown of marriage and its drift into the 30s mean there are more Julias and Pajama Boys than ever. The growth of government feeds off this trend, and at the margins, augments it.
In other words, they are loafers.
But wouldn’t Pajama Boy, though androgynous in a metrosexual way, be more suited as Julia’s mate? Barbie had Ken; Eve had Adam. Addicted to Other People’s Money, mainlined by Democrats, hooked at an early age they could have the politically correct two children and raise them as True Believers in Big Brother.
Brave New World!
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2014/02/obamas_loafer_nation.html at February 10, 2014 – 03:20:36 PM CST
It seems as though a good number of the President’s donors and supporters are at a loss as to why the President had such a poor debate on Wednesday night. While I typically do not like to watch debates (I get super anxious for the person who shares my viewpoint……………I am a lot like my nephew who has a difficult time sitting through a sporting event if his team is performing badly, so much does he want his team to win), I promised my sister that I would watch it to the end. However, it was evident to me after the first ten minutes of the debate, that Mitt Romney was in total command of the information that he wanted to present to the American people. His was a passionate, reasonable, analytical and rational argument for the principles and values which he feels are necessary to keep our country from being thrown over the fiscal cliff. President Obama, on the other hand, appeared unprepared at best.
Since then there has been a lot of discussion as to why Obama’s debate performance was so lackadaisical ……..the most absurd reasoning came from none other than Al Gore who blamed it on the fact that Romney had more time to adjust to the change in altitude . I have read and heard a great many other reasons to absolve the President of any personal responsibility for his very lackluster response to the questions raised and his inability to clearly articulate his policy other than restating his over used rhetoric of , “fair share, fair shot, make sure everybody plays by the same rules”. This article takes the excuses from their various sources and lays them all out on the table. Personally, I like Bill Mahrer’s observation the best (he may now be wishing he had chosen some other “charity” to donate his one million dollars) he tweeted this during the debate: “i can’t believe i’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter”. And please remember………………………………...I didn’t make that statement.………………..Obama’s one million dollar donor did!!!!!!!!!!
Hilarious: Obama’s Friends Explain Why He Lost The Debate
(Hint: It Might Involve Him Being Too Smart, Too Kind, Too High-Minded, and Too Cool)
Here’s the original article.
Here are the Top Ten reasons Obama lost the debate, per Obama’s friends, as sympathetically reported by The New Yorker:
1. He’s Just Too Interested In Finding Common Ground and Rising Above Petty Disputes To Lower Himself To Being An Effective Debater.
He did not go out of his way to defeat someone in argument; instead he tried, always with a certain decorous courtesy, to try to persuade, to reframe his interlocutor’s view, to signal his understanding while disagreeing. Obama became president of the law review—the first African-American to do so—but he won as a voice of conciliation. He avoided the Ames Moot Court Competition, where near contemporaries like Cass Sunstein, Deval Patrick, and Kathleen Sullivan made their names.
When Obama avoids competition, it’s always because he could win — if he wanted to. But he’s too good for that.
It’s never because he’s just not good at it.
2. Obama’s Empathetic Nature and Fellow-Feeling For All Humanity Restrains Him From Humiliating a Lesser Life-Form, Such As Mitt Romney.
In class, if he thought that a fellow student had said something foolish, he showed no forensic bloodlust….
Laurence H. Tribe, a leading constitutional-law scholar and Obama’s mentor at Harvard, told me after Wednesday night’s debate with Mitt Romney, “Although I would have been happier with a more aggressive debate performance by the President, I’ve had to remind myself that Barack Obama’s instincts and talents have never included going for an opponent’s jugular. That’s just not who he is or ever has been.”
Apparently, Obama — The Greatest Orator Since Cicero — can persuade the world of anything. So long as no one gets to rebut him or offer an alternative argument.
3. Obama Was “Too Professorial” To Explain Complex Thoughts To A Lay Audience.
That’s strange — I thought a professor’s entire job consisted of explaining complex thoughts to a group of people who do not yet understand them (typically called “students”).
But Obama is “too professorial” to do the fundamental job of a professor.
“I’m a professor and he was a professor: What’s the problem?!” [a professor-friend] said. “I usually don’t treat being professorial as a problem. It’s usually great in my book, but he played in that particular comfort zone of his and it was a mismatch for the occasion.
While Obama was “too professorial” to give a lecture explaining his worldview, the non-professor Mitt Romney managed to do so.
I guess that shows how dumb and uneducated Mitt Romney is.
4. Obama Cares Too Much About “Substance” To Debate It.
This is advanced by the same guy — see, Romney was about “performance” whereas Obama was about “substance.” Now, that might be surprising, given that Romney had a much larger knowledge base and explained it effectively to a lay audience, but Obama apparently has “substance” beyond things like policy, statistics, and overall philosophy, which he couldn’t express, for one reason or another.
“The reason I hate campaigns,” Edley continued, “is that being right on the substance isn’t good enough. That’s why I’m an academic. Of course, Obama knows that, but it’s also a question of what he cares about. I admire him for caring more about the substance than the tactics even if it makes me grimace when I watch him.”
Romney’s “tactics” included doing a lot of homework and mastering the field of the job to which he aspired. Apparently that’s dirty pool.
5. Obama’s “Too Authentic” To Do His Homework For A Debate. I guess homework would be “cheating” (per that last one).
So he came to you in his authentic form — completely unprepared. And that’s good, for some reason.
“Look, we all do things in the short term that are not consistent with a long-term goal, whether it’s failing to save for retirement or watching TV instead of doing your homework. It’s called being human rather than being the ideal client of your handlers. It makes it harder to achieve his goal, which is to get reëlected. But if you wanted authenticity you got it [on Wednesday] night. “
I cannot believe this. Yes, the More Authentic Me would rather watch TV than do homework to achieve a goal.
That’s why I’m a failure.
In this guy’s telling, however, I’m just a President In Waiting.
6. Obama’s Too “Cerebral” To “Engage the Issues” in Debate.
“We know that Obama skews cerebral and that he has never liked debates as a way to engage issues. He has said that many times.”
He prefers “engaging the issues” by giving one sided speeches written for him by other people, filled with political catchphrases and empty rhetoric.
See, he’s so “cerebral” he doesn’t like debate as a vehicle for “engaging the issues,” preferring deep thoughts like “We are the change we’ve been waiting for.”
He’s too smart to master the arguments and counter-arguments, you see.
Along the same lines–
7. Obama Is “Too Contemplative” To Debate, Which Might Make Him Too Cool For School.
We’re getting into some Repeatsies here, but as the left is really pushing down on the “Obama’s too intelligent to be successful” idea, I’ll break it down into all of its component parts.
“His personality has always been kind of contemplative. In that kind of format, when you are contemplative, it makes you seem not as quick on the draw.”
Apparently slow wits are the mark of highest intelligence and learning. I did not know that.
This seems to result in him just being too cool for his own good, which dumb people might mistake for being “cold.”
“I thought the President was a little laid back. Romney was really aggressive, even overly aggressive and got away with some stuff. The President stuck to the issues and took great pains to explain his positions and sometimes that can come off, in that setting, as a little cold.”
8. Obama Finds Debates “Absurd” and Beneath His Dignity And So Must Strain to Simply Keep His Wits About Him.
I find this one pretty alarming. But for some, this counts an excuse — some sort of emotional hair-trigger and sense of superiority that combine to turn him into a ticking time bomb of anger.
he would often find the debates frustrating, even absurd. “Obama always tried to keep his cool,” Burns said. “I sensed that last night. He was trying to keep his cool.”
9. Obama is Too High-Minded To Handle Romney’s Lies.
Now we just get into the liberal article of faith, which is that Romney must have cheated in some way– there is no other way the God-King could lose — so he must have channeled Satan and become Prince of Lies.
But Obama, for whatever reason, couldn’t manage to point out these lies.
“The President has always been someone who takes the truth seriously and has a great faith in the American people and their ability to handle big ideas,” Burns said. “He doesn’t patronize them. He uses the campaign as an educative process. He wants to win but also wants to be clear about his ideas…. He took complex ideas like Medicare and the debt and tried to explain it to people so they can understand them while at the same time not being patronizing. And he is doing this with an opponent who is completely dissembling on every issue! There is a certain brazenness about Romney. It’s like [Stephen] Colbert talking about ‘truthiness.’ Romney stood there, with his hair and his jaw and his terrific angles—and he lied! About taxes, about Medicare. Obama pushed back on the five-trillion-dollar tax cut or the way Romney’s version of Medicare would destroy Medicare as we know it. And Romney just tilted his head and said, Oh, no, it won’t. At some point, you have to believe that the facts speak for themselves.”
Usually “the facts” require a human being to speak for them. They do not “speak for themselves.”
Has it occurred to any of these people that Obama’s ads — which speak in a one-sided manner, without any chance of rebutting — are the things which might be lies? And the reason that Obama couldn’t rebut “Romney’s lies” is that Romney wasn’t lying — Obama’s campaign is in fact lying?
All of Obama’s Greatest Hits — including his frantic attempts to rehabilitate himself on the campaign trail — come when there is no one around to challenge him.
If Obama’s claims cannot withstand challenge, what do we make of them?
Oh, right: That Romney’s claims must be false. The ones that don’t whither under scrutiny.
Which leads, ultimately, to the heart of the matter:
10. Obama Is At His Best When He Is Entirely Unchallenged And Simply Making Unrebutted Assertions To An Adoring Crowd.
Well, I don’t think anyone could argue with this one.
Reverend Love grew close to Obama when Obama was a community organizer. He could tell that Obama was never particularly comfortable in the debate format. “He’s better out there by himself[.]”
Yup. So long as no one asks any questions about it, the Naked Emperor’s wardrobe is just fine.
And so it begins…………….a new period in the life of a “right-wing nut”!!!! Following a lengthy discussion with someone whose opinion I greatly respect, it was suggested to me that I try to be a bit more positive in presenting my case for change this election.
Understanding that any one individual candidate or public official can not possibly fulfill every voter’s dream, and admitting that I am not as educated on every political issue or candidate as I would like to be, or should be, I offer only this…………………………… that in my somewhat exhaustive search to understand the character, the beliefs and the values of the various individuals who are either in office or running for office, I have very methodically come to the conclusion that the current leadership is the direct antithesis to that which I believe in morally and ethically.
To those very points, I begin by presenting the following article which provides so much more than a simple narrative…………………they are words from real people who were real recipients of the real character of the “real” Romney………………..
The highlights of the last day of the convention, for me, were the ordinary people who spoke of the impact of Mitt Romney in their lives. I wish these speeches had been prime-time, and that every wavering voter could see them. This is what kindness looks like. This is the supposedly uncaring, greedy, rich bastard in action.
Grant Bennett, a fellow volunteer pastor at the Romney’s Massachusetts church, explained that while building his business and earning his millions and raising five boys, Romney volunteered two evenings a week and every weekend — ten, fifteen, twenty hours a week — in acts of personal service and pastoral counseling.
He met with those seeking help with the burdens of real life…unemployment, sickness, financial distress, loneliness…single mothers raising children, couples with marital problems, youths with addictions, immigrants…individuals whose heat had been shut off.
Typical of Mitt Romney, he let others give the sermons. He did the work. He did not delegate kindness: Mitt shoveled snow for the elderly, brought meals to the sick. He led by example. “Mitt’s response to all who came was compassion in all its beautiful varieties. He had a listening ear and a helping hand.”
“I treasure every minute we served together,” sums up Bennett.
I can hear Democrats scoffing. Bennett obviously loves Romney as his mentor and friend. That is just the point. Bennett worked with Romney for “thousands of hours over many years” and took over the job when Romney left. Romney earned Bennett’s love and respect and loyalty by his empathic, compassionate love of and service for his fellows.
Then we heard from Pat and Ted Oparowski. “Evening ,folks. My wife and I are people of modest means. I made my living as a professional firefighter for 27 years.” There followed rip-your-heart-out testimony about the many tender kindnesses of Mitt Romney to their 14-year-old son, David, dying of cancer, thirty years ago. The cameras panned over an entire convention hall in tears.
I felt keenly that these bereaved parents were on stage because they want the country to benefit from the blessings a deeply good and kind President Romney will bring to us all. Love of family, gratitude to Mitt, and love of country brought them to that stage.
“The memories are still painful, but we wanted to share them with you, because David’s story is part of Mitt’s story, and America deserves to hear it. …the true measure of a man is revealed in the …quiet hospital room of a dying boy, with no cameras and no reporters. This is the time to make that assessment.”
Romney arranged a fireworks party on the beach to bring David a time of joy; he gave him solace and respect by helping David write a will, to leave his prized possessions to his best friend and brother. “How many men do you know who take time out of their busy life to visit a terminally ill fourteen-year-old?” asked Pat, the boy’s mother. “We will ever be grateful to Mitt for his love and concern.”
Next, we hear from another congregant who became a personal friend of the Romneys, Pam Finlayson. She started with a simple but telling anecdote. Mitt Romney, captain of industry, folding laundry in a spontaneous act of helpfulness. If only people would hear Pam talk, Democrat caricatures of Romney as a cold-hearted man, out of touch with ordinary people, would be seen as the shameful lies they are.
I knew Mitt was special from the start. We didn’t own a dryer, and the day he stopped by to welcome us, I was embarrassed to have laundry hanging all over the house. Mitt wasn’t fazed. In fact, as we spoke, without a word, he joined me and started helpfully plucking clothes from round the room and folding them. By the time Mitt left, not only did I feel welcome, my laundry was done!
Pam and her husband had a very ill premature baby.
As I sat with her in intensive care, consumed with a mother’s worry and fear, dear Mitt came to visit and pray with me….I will never forget that when he looked down tenderly at my daughter, his eyes filled with tears, and he reached out gently and stroked her tiny back. I could tell immediately that he didn’t just see a tangle of plastic and tubes; he saw our beautiful little girl…
When Thanksgiving rolled around, Kate was still struggling for life. Brain surgery was scheduled, and the holiday was the furthest thing from our minds. I opened my door to find Mitt and his boys, arms loaded with a Thanksgiving feast. Of course we were overcome. When I called to thank Ann, she sweetly confessed it had been Mitt’s idea, that most of the cooking and chopping had been done by him. She and the boys had just happily pitched in.
It seems to me when it comes to loving our neighbor, we can talk about it, or we can live it. The Romney’s live it every single day.
… It is with great excitement and a renewed hope, to know that our country will be blessed as it is led by a man who is not only so accomplished and capable, but who has devoted his entire life quietly serving others. That man is Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney is known in his personal circles for his lifelong acts of reaching out a helping hand — ordinary, human to human, personal acts of kindness that are all about empathy and fellow-feeling.
Everyone who knows Romney in the church community seems to have a story about him and his family pitching in to help in ways big and small. They took chicken and asparagus soup to sick parishioners. They invited unsettled Mormon transplants in their home for lasagna.
One Saturday, Grant Bennett got up on a ladder outside his two-story [house] intent on dislodging a hornets’ nest. . . .The hornets went right at him, and he fell off the ladder, breaking his foot. . . .About nine thirty that Sunday night, Romney reappeared. Only this time, it was dark out. Romney was in jeans and a polo shirt instead of his suit, and he was carrying a bucket, a piece of hose, and a couple of screwdrivers. “He said, ‘I noticed you hadn’t gotten rid of the hornets,” Bennett recalled. “I said, ‘Mitt you don’t need to do that.’ He said, I’m here, and I’m going to do it. . .You demonstrated that doing it on a ladder is not a good idea.'” Romney went at it from inside the house, opening a window enough to dislodge it. Soon the hornets were gone.
When a neighbor’s 12-year-old son died, Romney organized the effort to build a playground in his name and then led the cleanup crew to maintain it. When a neighbor’s house caught on fire, he organized neighbors to run in and save his belongings.
Two sons of Mark and Sheryl Nixon broke their necks in a car accident on their way home from a Mormon youth activity …. Both Rob and Reed Nixon were quadriplegics. After hospitalization and rehabilitation, the boys were home with their parents on the morning before Christmas when Mitt and Ann Romney showed up with their sons. The Romneys did not know them personally but had heard about the accident and the need to remodel their home to make it more accessible for the two sons. The Romneys brought a stereo for Rob and a check for Reed. Mitt told Mark Nixon he would pay for his sons’ college educations if necessary, and he continued to give the family support financially. … “What is more important to me than the dollar amount is that Mitt could have sent the checks in the mail instead of taking time out and coming over to see us,” Mark Nixon says. “I’m much more impressed with the family values he demonstrated and what it says about who Mitt is.”
And then there is this extraordinary story. When a partner at work told Romney his 14-year-old daughter had snuck off to a rave party in New York, taken ecstasy, and disappeared, Romney shut down Bain and organized 200 employees to fly down to New York to find her. Thanks to Romney’s signature leadership and competence, they did. But it all began with Romney’s core character: his loving concern, self-confidence, and taking responsibility himself to get things done right.
Romney set up a command center at the LaGuardia Marriott. He hired a private detective firm to assist with the search. He established a toll-free number for tips, coordinating the effort with New York City police. …Romney and others from Bain Capital trudged through Manhattan, even scouring Central Park, and talked with everyone they could – prostitutes, drug addicts – to try to develop leads.
The man who helped save my daughter was Mitt Romney. Mitt’s done a lot of things that people say are nearly impossible. But, for me, the most important thing he’s ever done is to help save my daughter.
These are the sorts of good deeds Ann Romney was referring to in her convention speech, when she said her husband does not believe in boasting about how he helps people.
This is important. I want you to hear what I am going to say. Mitt does not like to talk about how he has helped others because he sees it as a privilege, not a political talking point. We are no different than the millions of Americans who quietly help their neighbors, their churches and their communities. They don’t do it so that others will think more of them. They do it because there is no greater joy.
Democrats want us all to know that Mitt was born rich, as if that disqualifies him from being an excellent president. Romney inherited a fortune from his father, who was an all-American rags-to-riches story, a working man who never graduated college and went on to head American Motors. But listen to this: Mitt Romney turned around and gave away every dime he inherited to charity, honoring his father’s memory by funding a school of management in his honor. I’ve never heard of anyone who has done that — give away his entire inheritance.
Mitt earned his own wealth, and he has always been generous with his money. Both Mitt and Ann have volunteered and given prodigiously their whole lives. Mitt and Ann gave away 13%-19% of their income the last two years. That is two to three times the norm for philanthropy.
Giving to their church heads the Romney list. The Democrats want to make tithing sound like a bad thing, something required and therefore meaningless. The Mormon church should be honored and famous for its charitable efforts. From 1985 to 2009, for example, Mormons donated over a billion dollars to humanitarian aid in 178 countries.
In addition to giving to and through the Mormon Church, the Romneys’ main donations are to cure cancer, multiple sclerosis, and cystic fibrosis; to help the blind; and to help disadvantaged inner-city youths and disabled youths. They have given to libraries, to AIDS victims, to Harvard. In addition, Romney in 1997 created and led the Bain Capital Children’s Charity Ltd., which spends more than $1 million annually on youths. Romney served for years on Boston’s City Year, a group that works to help at-risk kids stay in school and graduate.
The Romney family commitment to help underprivileged children dates back to when Ann and her five boys saw a vehicle carrying a group of boys to a Massachusetts Department of Youth Services detention center. Ann became a remarkable volunteer.
She was a director of the inner-city group Best Friends, for teenage girls. She was a volunteer for the Ten Point Coalition for urban youths and for Families First, a parent education program. She was a volunteer instructor of middle-school girls at the multicultural Mother Caroline Academy in Boston.
She served on the board of the United Way of Massachusetts Bay, again focusing her work on at-risk youth. By 1996, she was a member of the Massachusetts Advisory Board of Stand for Children.
During the 2002 Winter Olympics effort, she co-chaired the Olympic Aid charity, which provides athletic activities and programs for children in war-torn regions.
Charitable giving does reveal who a person is. Romney went to the NAACP to deliver this message, in a speech that received several standing ovations, but I doubt anyone there knew that the Romneys have been helping the black community for many years.
Some of you may wonder why a Republican would bother to campaign in the African-American community, and to address the NAACP. Of course, one reason is that I hope to represent all Americans, of every race, creed or sexual orientation, from the poorest to the richest and everyone in between.
But there is another reason: I believe that if you understood who I truly am in my heart, and if it were possible to fully communicate what I believe is in the real, enduring best interest of African-American families, you would vote for me for president. I want you to know that if I did not believe that my policies and my leadership would help families of color – and families of any color – more than the policies and leadership of President Obama, I would not be running for president.
The opposition charges that I and people in my party are running for office to help the rich. Nonsense. The rich will do just fine whether I am elected or not. The President wants to make this a campaign about blaming the rich. I want to make this a campaign about helping the middle class.
I am running for president because I know that my policies and vision will help hundreds of millions of middle class Americans of all races, will lift people from poverty, and will help prevent people from becoming poor. My campaign is about helping the people who need help.
The Democrats are right in one thing. Mitt Romney is not an ordinary person.
Romney is an unusual man in every way — unusually ambitious, unusually capable, unusually wealthy, unusually kind, unusually compassionate, unusually generous, unusually dedicated to serving his community and country. He is an unusually wonderful friend and neighbor.
He has earned a level of love, loyalty, respect, and admiration most of us only imagine — has earned them by his good deeds. Not just in his church, but everywhere he has participated. He worked in business and created jobs — not for a hundred, not for a thousand — for over a hundred thousand other families. Then Romney moved on to public service, where he worked without pay, to save the Olympics after 9/11, and to be governor of Massachusetts.
As governor of Massachusetts, he won intense respect and loyalty from Secretary Jane Edmonds, a liberal Democrat and a black woman, whom he chose as cabinet secretary for education and workforce training. Jane Edmond’s speech was another highlight at the convention:
He is the real thing. Authentic. Honest, transparent, and inclusive. …I wanted to be around him… where my energy, skills and talents would be channeled, along with others, towards the public good. ….The governor was in office, not for himself, or to promote himself, but for the people….During the four years I served in the cabinet, I saw him up close and personal. …He is an amazing steward and leader. … Unselfish leadership….Motivated by doing good for others. That is how I see Governor Romney. He is authentic….He brought out the best in me, and as President, he will bring out the best in our country.
Now Mitt Romney wants to be president of the United States. We are very lucky people to get the chance to elect a man of this moral caliber.
Karin McQuillan served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Senegal, wrote mystery novels set in Kenya, was a clinical social worker and psychotherapist, and contributes regularly to American Thinker.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/09/in_a_kindness_competition_romney_wins_over_obama_by_a_landslide.html at September 29, 2012 – 02:44:04 PM CDT