Spin Cipher

McDonald's attack reflects societal decay - Washington Times

2011-04-30T20:25:00.000-07:00

McDonald's attack reflects societal decay - Washington Times

Votes Have Consequences

2011-04-02T13:21:00.000-07:00

Hey America! Ever heard of the Cloward-Piven strategy? You should know about it because you are living it! The combined inflation-adjusted cost of the:

Marshall Plan
LA Purchase
Race to the Moon
S&L crisis
Korean War
New Deal
Iraq
Vietnam War
NASA

... equals $3.9 TRILLION! Deficits for fiscal years 2009-2011 total $4.7 TRILLION! Read more here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/174102/yowza/mark-hemingway.

THAT, my friends, is Cloward-Piven. Think about this next time you go into a voting booth intending to vote for a liberal because you'll be voting for "national suicide."

Why the US military is in Libya

2011-03-28T21:11:00.000-07:00

Why did the White House take military action in Libya?
1. Depose Libya’s secular regime so it can be replaced with an Islamist-inclusive government.
2. For his 2012 reelection bid, Barack Obama needs a comback against those who claim he is a dove and a weak leader; Libya is an easy, low cost military target.
3. Libya is a test case for George Soros’ “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine which undermines US national sovereignty and puts US troops under UN command.
4. A unified Islamist Middle East will oppose and seek to destroy Israel.
5. All of the above represent a major leap toward a "New World Order."

Shariah4America Demonstration Postponed

2011-03-27T11:14:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama's Middle East Vision: Muslim Brotherhood Hegemony

2011-03-24T13:42:00.000-07:00

Western media pundits have wearied themselves getting their arms around White House policy and strategy in the Middle East and North Africa as popular uprisings in the region continue to destabilize established regimes. The Obama administration's disposition toward the upheaval that began in mid-December with the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia and spread to other countries in the region, most notably Egypt and Libya, has been inconsistent at best, ranging from total silence to repeated calls for national leaders to step down. Puzzlement has given way to handwringing as "talking heads" now try to make sense of US military intervention in Libya for reasons that seem contrived.

On the surface, the Obama administration's handling of the region's social and political chaos conjures scenes from the 1978 American film comedy "Animal House." I believe there is a method to White House madness on the Middle East that needs to be seriously considered. Let's begin with a topic that few in the media are talking about—Mr. Obama's Islamist advisors.

Even before Barack Obama took office, he and his campaign team sought to curry favor with the Muslim community in the US and abroad. Since taking office, he has aggressively reached out to the Muslim World in general, and Middle East Arab states in particular, this despite our enduring friendship with Israel. According to noted expert on radical Islam Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch,

It is no secret that Mr. Obama has maintained close relationships with Islamists over the years and appointed some of them to key advisory posts in his administration. They are the “man behind the curtain” advising US policy toward the Middle East generally and the various national uprisings in particular. Dalia Mogahed, Barack Obama’s advisor to the Muslim world, is a strong supporter of the Islamist Gülen Movement which seeks restoration of the Caliphate. Would she not advise Mr. Obama to act in support of that vision?

Starting in the earliest days of his administration, he [Barack Obama] showed an intense desire to establish friendly ties with Brotherhood-linked organizations— despite the Brotherhood's stated goal of "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within."

It is obvious that the Obama administration sees little benefit in continued strong relations with Israel. Many in the left despise Israel almost as much as Islamists do. As Muslim Brotherhood interests gain greater control of governments across the Middle East, Israel will become an afterthought in the West. Having procured the favor of the Arab-Islamic world by aiding and abetting the Brotherhood’s ascent to power, the administration will have traded our strong enduring friendship with Israel for friendship with Israel’s enemies.

Furthermore, Western “community organizing” (socialist) interests have been in the Middle East for months, helping grassroots movements organize for uprising and regime change. There are clear indications that Islamist and socialist world views have found common cause in the Middle East uprisings. In each country where a popular revolt has deposed a sitting regime, the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) have been involved, fomenting uprising and swooping in to fill the void created by the chaos. Interestingly, Mr. Obama has been most vocal against secular regimes and leaders that historically limit or prohibit the Muslim Brotherhood's participation in government. This would suggest that Mr. Obama is simply fulfilling a promise to radical interests in the region who have asked him to help them depose secular regimes which would likely be an impediment to a restored Caliphate.

The Obama administration knows that a radicalized Middle East will do the Western left’s “dirty work” as far as Israel goes. They’ll wash their hands of the guilt and claim that improved relations with the Muslim World mean energy security for the United States. Nothing could be further from the truth. A Brotherhood-dominated Middle East will have America over an oil barrell and they will use that advantage to manipulate our domestic and foreign policy, dragging us faster and further down the road to Amerabia.

(c) 2011 Unspun Publications

Eccumenicism: Islamists Trojan Horse

2011-02-20T22:17:00.000-08:00

According to a February 18, 2011 FOX News article, "Churches Open Doors to Muslim Worship," Aldersgate United Methodist Church in Alexandria, Virginia "allows the Islamic Circle of North America to hold regular Friday prayers in their building while their new mosque is being built" and Heartsong Church in Cordova, Tennessee allowed the Memphis Islamic Center to hold Ramadan prayers at their facility in September 2009. Sounds eccumenical, right? Or, could it be that Islamists' 'eccumenicism' is a 'trojan horse' for "civilizational jihad?"

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for Christians reaching out to Muslims. I share the good news of Jesus Christ with others, including Muslims, as often as the opportunity presents itself. Nevertheless, the Church in America needs to understand the overarching ideology and agenda that motivate and energize the plans and activities of Muslim organizations and communities across the United States because the Islamic community in the U.S. may not always be as 'neighborly' as they seem now.

Unbeknownst to most American churchgoers, the Islamic Circle of North America or ICNA is a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate dedicated to an American Islamic state and the imposition of Shari’ah law in place of the United States Constitution. Every ICNA initiative, including chummy relations with local churches and synagogues, is motivated by this vision. Furthermore, that Islamists seek to establish "sovreign Islamic communities ruled by shariah (Islamic) law" in major cities across the "fruited plain" is no secret. What gets lost in the "Islam is a religion of peace" spin, however, is the fact that Islamic centers are part of a larger strategy to 'Islamize' the West (See Islam Watch article, "Project to Create Sharia-Ruled Muslim-Only Enclaves across America Takes Root in Philadelphia").

Think of an Islamic center as a Wal-Mart Supercenter for all things Muslim. Islamic centers provide an alternative to social integration which, as a general rule, is strongly discouraged by prevailing Islamic teaching. A recent example would be the Cordoba Islamic Center planned for construction at Ground Zero in New York City. Historically, Islamists have always sought to erect mosques in cities they have conquered and Cordoba, a clear show of Islamist triumphalism, is no exception.

These 'firewalled' Muslim societies within society are purposed to grow over time, eventually supplanting the host community (see this Mideast Forum article: http://www.meforum.org/2686/muslim-enclaves-usa). What is more worrisome is that as they grow, these Muslim 'enclaves' acquire political clout and vote to elect their own to political office. Once in office, Islamists seek to advance the Brotherhood agenda through legislation, nudging society ever closer to 'shariahood' (my term). Two Islamists now hold seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana and Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota who was administered the oath of office on a Qur'an.

If you are dubious about Muslim Brotherhood plans for the United States, consider the following statement exerpted from "An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America" dated May 22, 1991, as approved by the organization's Shura Council in 1987:

4-Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America: The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.

The Brotherhood's subversive agenda predates the Explanatory Memorandum and a preponderance of Muslim organizations in the U.S. are in some way affiliated with the Brotherhood. At no time since the Explanatory Memorandum was distributed to at least twenty-nine major Muslim organizations in the United States have the Muslim Brotherhood renounced anything in it. By all indications since, the organization continues to actively pursue its stated objectives.

A Must Read ...

2011-01-27T23:31:00.000-08:00

Jihadi Massacre at Domodedovo International Demands an International Response to Jihad

Walid Phares, Ph.D.

Monday’s suicide bomb attack at Moscow Domodedovo International Airport (DME) that killed 35 and wounded scores more serves as a bloody reminder of the global Jihadist pandemic, with its various mutations and assorted agendas, that self-replicates in local, regional and international causes, turning them into unwitting hosts for its lethal advance in societies the world over. The blast that ripped through the baggage claim areas of Moscow's busiest airport will likely be attributed to Wahabi Jihadist networks out of the North Caucasus region who claim solidarity with Chechnyan and Dagestani secessionists.

For those of us who have observed and analyzed Jihadi terrorism for decades this horrible attack leaves us with two immediate thoughts:

Copycats

The jihadists behind the Moscow terror attack will boast of their “exploits” to incite other jihadists around the globe to follow their example and emulate their method. There is a crucial lesson to be learned from the Moscow airport massacre for security and law enforcement officials who are receptive to its teaching—Jihadi terrorists will innovate and adapt their methods to circumvent multiple layers of airport security and strike “targets of opportunity” as they did at Domodedovo International Airport in the international arrival terminal. Russian and other foreign travelers killed in the attack paid a terminal price for because airport security strategy and methods did not adapt in time to prevent this latest mutation of Jihadi terror. It is imperative that other nations of the world learn from the Domodedovo event, especially those nations targeted by Jihadi networks like al Qaeda. What happened at Domodedovo could happen at any airport in the free world.

Ideological Incitement

From the Nord-Ost siege (Moscow Theater Hostage Crisis) of 2002 to the Beslan School siege and massacre in 2004 to this latest terror attack at Russia’s busiest airport, a common theme emerges; the impetus behind all of these terror attacks is an overarching ideology known as Wahabi Jihadism or “combat Salafism.” In each of these cases, the perpetrators came from the northern Caucuses region. Connections between the Caucuses Jihadists and Central Asian and Afghani Jihadi networks are becoming increasingly active as a perusal of the Kafqaz and other Jihadi sites on the Web confirms. The rush to judgement by some Western observers that assigns blame for these attacks on Russian policies in Chechnya is ill advised. First, many Chechens do not support warfare against the Russians. Second, Chechens who happen to support a local guerilla do not necessarily favor strikes against civilian targets deep inside Russia. In point of fact, those who are inciting and carrying out these attacks subscribe to Jihadi ideology like that of al Qaeda, the Taliban or Shabab al Jihad in Somalia. All of these groups, that target civilians, cite Islamic dogma as the basis for their actions, not the ethnic and religious communities from which they come.

The Moscow airport terror attack should prompt the international community, with the United States and Russia in the lead, to escalate this issue as the top priority of world counter-terrorism strategy and launch a global campaign against Jihadi ideologies. Ideology aside, this campaign must also identify and punish the funding sources for radicalization, regardless the effects on political economies. The Jihadists have the world's economies and innocent civilians in their crosshairs. Regardless of national differences, the International community must unite against the Jihadists.

Dr Walid Phares is Fox News Terrorism Expert and a Professor of Global Strategies. he advises the anti-Terrorism Caucus in the US House of Representatives.

Community of the Impoverished

2010-11-12T18:54:00.000-08:00

There are an estimated thirty-five such communities in the United States, the closest one to our Nation’s Capital located in Falls Church, Virginia less than nine miles from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) in Arlington, Virginia, and less than twenty miles from Dulles International Airport (IAD) in Sterling, Virginia. They are Jamaat ul-Fuqra (JuF) (Arabic: Community of the Impoverished), an Islamist paramilitary organization based initially, in Pakistan and, since 1980, in the U.S. The Group’s founder and leader, Mubarik Ali Jilani Hasmi , is the Pakistani cleric WSJ reporter Danny Pearl was en route to interview at the Village Restaurant in downtown Karachi, Pakistan on January 23, 2002 when he was kidnapped, and nine days later beheaded, by his Islamist captors.

Jilani (alternately ‘Gilani’) founded the U.S. arm of Jamaat ul-Fuqra in Brooklyn, New York during his first visit to the U.S. in 1980. Since then, U.S. Fuqra jamaats (Arabic: assemblies or communities) have attracted many Muslim converts, including prison converts, swelling the Islamist militia’s size to an estimated 3,000, predominantly African-American, members. The group is currently headquartered in Hancock, New York.

A September 2004 National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C) research report listed tax evasion; money laundering; worker’s compensation fraud; insurance fraud; bank fraud; wire fraud; marriage fraud; identification fraud; weapons violations; providing material support to terrorists; hazardous materials license fraud; and, immigration law violations among crimes for which Jamaat ul-Fuqra members have been prosecuted. Some Fuqra militiamen have been charged with conspiracy to commit capital murder. The list of Fuqra member prosecutions constitutes fourteen of the NW3C report’s ninety-four pages.

Other than distinguishing Jamaat ul-Fuqra as a magnet for recidivous ex-cons, white collar crime is not the group’s most worrisome enterprise. Basic training for Fuqra recruits has included AK-47 assault rifle, machine gun, rocket launcher, mortar and explosives training. Jamaat plebes have also been mentored in terrorism’s more nefarious methods included kidnapping, murder of hostages, sabotage, subversion, and urban warfare.

A partial list of JuF compounds in the U.S. (hat tip to The Foxhole ) includes: Deposit, NY; Hancock, NY (national HQ); Springfield, MA; Philadelphia, PA; Hyattsville, MD; Bethany, WV; Dover, TN; York County, SC; Augusta, GA; Commerce, GA; Macon, GA; Marion, AL; Houston, TX; Talihina, OK; Coldwater, MI; Buena Vista, CO (raided and shut down by CO authorities in 1992); Baladullah, CA (leader convicted of embezzling $1.3-million in 2006; compound abandoned); Oak Hill, CA; and Onalaska, WA.

The existence of Jamaat ul-Fuqra and similar groups in the United States is a matter of serious concern for federal, state and local law enforcement organizations, many of which maintain dossiers on militant groups that they distribute to partners and individuals with “a need to know.” This information is often withheld from the general public for a variety of reasons, particularly when disclosure might compromise an active investigation or prosecution. Nevertheless, forewarned is forearmed and infidels living within rocket or mortar range of JuF compounds ought to know about them as soon as reasonably possible, if for no other reason than to enlist their support.

A February 19, 2009 Human Events article by the indispensable Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch points out that Jamaat ul-Fuqra wasn’t on the U.S. State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) , even though “Justice and DHS [were] obviously aware of what [was] going on.” CBS News acquitted itself with equal fecklessness in its reporting, according to Spencer, by ridiculing Christian Action Network’s (CAN) compelling, two-years-in-the-making video documentary on JuF that had premiered in Washington, D.C. the week before. The CAN documentary included damning video of Fuqra militia engaged in urban warfare exercises, footage the CAN investigative team captured at great risk to themselves by crossing the perimeter of many JuF compounds. True to form, CBS News ignored the compelling CAN video footage and emphasized the documentary’s “incendiary” content instead.

With the exception of FOX News and the Blogosphere, Jamaat ul-Fuqra has been largely ignored by Big Media. Despite numerous Internet postings exposing the group’s proclivity for terrorism, dedication to Islamic jihad, and Fuqra members’ aggregate criminal history, most Americans have never heard of the organization.

So what’s the big deal about 3,000 Islamist militiamen out of an 81% urban-dwelling U.S. population of 312 million? Well, it depends on which “house” you live in. In Islamic jurisprudence there are two. Anyone who isn’t Dar al-Islam (Arabic: “house of Islam”) is, by definition, Dar al-Harb (Arabic: “house of war”). All “infidels” (i.e. non-Muslims) are harbis which puts most Americans in the camp of “the enemy” Jilani and his cabal are “fighting to destroy.” “Live and let live” devotees should know that there are no “noncombatants” in Islamists’ twisted “rules of engagement” as the barbarous murders of Danny Pearl by self-identified members of The National Movement for the Restoration of Pakistani Sovereignty (NMRPS) in 2002 and Smadar Haran Kaiser’s family by Palestine Liberation Front terrorists in 1979 attest.

After abducting and beheading Pearl, his Islamist executioners divvied up his body and buried the Jewish journalist’s severed head and dissevered body, ten pieces in all, in a shallow grave in Gadap, about thirty miles north of Karachi. Kaiser’s account (The World Should Know What He Did to My Family) of the equally-gruesome murders of her husband and two daughters appeared in the Washington Post on May 18, 2003 under the title, “The World Should Know What He Did to My Husband” (section B, B02):

It had been a peaceful Sabbath day. My Husband, Danny, and I had picnicked with our little girls, Einat, 4, and Yael, 2, on the beach not far from our home in Nahariya, a city on the northern coast of Israel, about six miles south of the Lebanese border. Around midnight ... four terrorists [from Lebanon], sent by Abu six miles south of the Lebanese border. Around midnight ... four terrorists [from Lebanon], sent by Abu Abbas … landed in a rubber boat on the beach [and] burst into our building … Outside, we could hear the men storming about. Desperately, we sought to hide … I went [into the crawl space over our bedroom] with Yael in my arms … Danny grabbed Einat and [dashed] out the front door to take refuge in an underground shelter when the terrorists came crashing into our flat. They held Danny and Einat while they searched for me and Yael … [I, knowing] if Yael cried out, the terrorists would toss a grenade into the crawl space and we would be killed … kept my hand over her mouth, hoping she could breathe … the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach … one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl’s skull in against a rock with his rifle butt … By the time we were rescued from the crawl space … Yael, too, was dead. In trying to save all our lives, I had smothered her.

The murders of Danny Pearl and Smadar Haran Kaiser’s husband and two daughters are not anomalies on Islamists’ endless rap sheet. Putting a COEXIST bumper sticker on one's will accomplish nothing; only conversion to Islam will.

Fast forward to Wednesday, October 27, 2010, the day jihadist Farooque Ahmed of Ashburn, Virginia was arrested by the FBI. Before Ahmed’s arrest, FBI surveillance had determined that he was an al-Qa'ida spotter providing support to the international Islamist terror network’s plan to bomb multiple targets in the Washington area. Dr. Walid Phares, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, D.C. and Director of FDD’s Future of Terrorism Project says Ahmed’s multi-site bombing plan reflects an ominous emerging trend in jihadi strategy in the U.S. and abroad. Dr. Phares also noted that the Ahmed case is consistent with his research and analysis findings which suggest a strategic, coordinated targeting of U.S. urban centers by jihadist groups operating inside our borders.

Use “coordinated” in conjunction with “targeting of U.S. urban centers” suggests that JuF is not the only U.S.-based Islamist group intent on using terrorism as a means of claiming America for Allah. In fact, there are several as a perusal of the Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation (NEFA Foundation) website makes readily apparent. This suggests that other groups like Jamaat ul-Fuqra got the same urban jihad memo that Ahmed did. Islamist groups like JuF exist for one overarching purpose—Jihad, and they will not remain latent forever.
Jamaat ul-Fuqra and similar groups are emboldened by U.S. authorities’ reluctance to shut them down, even when their stated ambitions are ample justification for doing so. Furthermore, Dar al-Islam interprets equivocation as weakness and weakness in Dar al-Harb is provocation to Dar al-Islam. Jihadist groups are seizing on America’s lack of resolve to increase their foothold and expand their operations in the United States.

A dangerous ideology-driven movement aided and abetted by bromidic public policy and superficial journalism, has been steadily accruing power and leverage within our legislative, legal, educational, military, national security and industrial establishments for decades while America fights herself out on preventing terrorism. Now in our tenth year since 9/11, many are just discovering that Islamist ideology is the animating principle behind Islamist terror and Islamists’ efforts to supplant our way of life with Shari’ah. The fact that the post-9/11 decade was only the first of fifteen-rounds in an epic fight for Western Civilization's survival is enough to make anyone want to throw in the towel. We might even want to shut our eyes like CBS News did, tap our heels together, and chant “Islam is a religion of peace” until ul-Fuqra goes away. If only.

Chanting “hopey-changey” platitudes might have worked in the Land of Oz, but Jihad is no allegory and “Islam” as “a religion of peace” is wishful thinking, wastes precious time and provokes our enemies. It is only a matter of precious time before Jamaat ul-Fuqra militiamen or members of some other Islamist terror group apply the training they have received, in a U.S. city.

We dare not demean this holy trust

2010-10-31T10:04:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, October 30, 2010, was the 275th birthday of Founder and 2nd U.S. President, John Adams. Almost one year to the day before he added his signature to the Declaration of Independence, on July 7, 1775, John Adams penned these sobering words in a three-page letter to his beloved Abigail:

Your Description of the Distresses of the worthy Inhabitants of Boston, and the other Sea Port Towns, is enough to melt an Heart of stone. Our Consolation must be this, my dear, that Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.” [italics mine]

Our right to vote as American citizens is a gift bestowed by Almighty God; but it is more than a right or a privilege. Jesus said, “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.” (Luke 12:48) The right to vote is also a holy trust given each of us by a righteous God who holds us accountable for our stewardship of that right. As an ordained minister and former pastor of five years myself, I am confident that clergy who neglect their duty to teach their flocks proper stewardship of the right and duty to vote will suffer stricter judgment.

Most of us could not tell how many times we have uttered Jesus’ words in “the Lord’s Prayer,” “Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” And yet for some of us, our voting habits undermine the answer to that prayer. We demean our vote when we vote for candidates who favor unrighteous causes such as abortion or same sex unions. We must not treat voting as an optional, inconsequential, or unnecessary exercise or God will withdraw the privilege.

The Book of Proverbs tells us that “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” (Proverbs 14:34) With so much, indeed, our liberty at stake in Tuesday’s election, it is unthinkable that any able-bodied Christian would not vote, much less vote for unprincipled candidates or candidates who support expansion of government’s role in our personal lives. If we exalt ungodly men by our vote, it reproaches Christ and debases His Church.

Charles G. Finney, a prominent Second Great Awakening preacher, said the following about a Christian’s vote,

“[T]he time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them ... Christians have been exceedingly guilty in this matter. But the time has come when they must act differently ... Christians seem to act as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell you He does see it - and He will bless or curse this nation according to the course they [Christians] take [in politics].”

Renowned Civil War era abolitionist leader, orator, writer, and statesman, the Rev. Frederick Douglas, himself a freed slave, characterized his political views thus:

“I have one great political idea … The best expression of it, I have found in the Bible. It is … ‘Righteous exalteth a nation; sin is a reproach to any people.’ This constitutes my politics, and the whole of my politics. The negative and positive of my politics.”

Wall Builders' website (http://www.wallbuilders.com) succinctly spells out guiding principles for the Christian voter, indeed, for any patriotic American citizen who is committed to the Founders’ ideals as enumerated in America’s Founding Documents. Please watch the “Voter Responsibilities” video linked on the website’s homepage and if you are a pastor, please show the video in your church service(s) tomorrow.

Will our vote on Tuesday count for righteousness and preserve our right to choose our future leaders, or will it be the our last that really counts? America hangs in the balance and this vote will be a referendum on the Church and its leaders.

Eligibility's Onus

2010-06-20T08:45:00.000-07:00

In a criminal trial, a defendant carries the benefit of assumption meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is said to rest with the prosecution.

Instead of putting of the onus on Barack Obama where it ought to be, our elected leaders, legal system and a decrepit, barkless, biteless, wino (watchdog in name only) media belittle or ignore American citizens who have a constitutional right to see the evidence they demand. This ambivalence toward a key provision in our Constitution by those charged with guarding and protecting it is a moral outrage and equates to tyranny! Article II, Section I, Clause 4 (the presidential eligibility clause), of the Constitution reads:

No Person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Despite numerous legal challenges, accusations, and firsthand accounts that raise legitimate doubts about his place of birth, Barack Obama has not produced a state-certified copy of his alleged Hawaiian birth certificate. Instead, he has spent roughly two-million dollars in legal fees to prevent access to it when "pocket change" would settle the matter once and for all. To make matters worse, our Government, the courts, and the media have brushed-off many Americans' pleas for them to investigate the matter more thoroughly. It is fair to say that these institutions have ceded benefit of assumption to Barack Obama and placed burden of proof on birthers. To those who are willing to give Barack Obama a pass on his birth and education records I ask:

What is Mr. Obama hiding?
Has our compulsion to be a "color blind" society blinded us?
Did electing America's first black president prove we are a post-racial society or gullible one?
Which is more important, being a post-racial society or a free society?
Are we wiser than the Constitution’s signers?
Do we really want our troops, our sons and daughters, under the command of a foreign Commander in Chief?
Are we willing to have our nation transformed into something our forbears would not recognize, by an impostor who has no generational affiliation with it or affinity for it?
Are we willing to watch a man of dubious citizenship dismantle our way of life?
Are the personal “benefits” unconstitutional governance might heap on us individually more valuable to us than the time-tested constitutional principles that have prospered us so prodigiously, despite the fact that we have violated many of them for decades?
Do we want to be known as the generation who threw away the greatest, Providence-inspired form of government in history, in exchange for a promise by a Marxist usurper who rode in on a Trojan horse named “Hope and Change?”

Since Barack Obama took office, America has bled liberty faster than the Deepwater Horizon has been gushing crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. His administration’s policies are doing to America what crude oil is doing to our Gulf States. We cannot afford to wait until November 2010 to stanch the hemorrhaging; November may be too late. We must act now!

Experience has taught me not to flow with the current on issues others are ignoring because most people are wrong most of the time and what most people deem insignificant is often the locus of the crux of a matter. To date, everything conservatives have done to impede Mr. Obama's revolutionary agenda has been flatly ignored, but not the birth certificate issue; it is the one issue that concerns him enough to spend $1,000,000 to see that it doesn't see the light of day.

Granted, efforts to evict Barack Obama from the White House before November 2012 may fail, but if we shine the light of truth on his eligibility, we may put him on his heels and slow the advance of his progressive agenda. We might also reduce his chances of reelection in 2012. As an added benefit, we will educate the public on an important, though heretofore unneeded, Constitutional provision.

One of America's greatest Founders and second President, John Adams, once said, “Facts are stubborn things.” I would add that facts are sometimes frightening things because they make us face things we'd rather not. Has history not shown that sweeping truth under the rug is far riskier than facing it? Will we, like John Adams, defend what is true and just and virtuous about America, or will we allow truth and justice to be cast to the ground to prolong an illusory liberty?

Each state's Democratic Party is required to certify their Party's nominee as eligible to be President of the United States. Aspiring presidential candidates, on the other hand, are not presumed eligible to hold the office until someone proves otherwise; onus probandi rests with the presidential candidate who alleges his constitutional eligibility. Indeed, an aspiring presidential candidate must be presumed ineligible unless and until he produces evidence to support his claim. In other words, no birth certificate, no White House.

America’s Most Credible News Source

2009-07-23T15:26:00.000-07:00

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the backdrop of a passive, hapless … people.

From the mouth of Rush Limbaugh this statement gets lost in talk radio static. When a Russian journalistmakes it, however, every American ought to lean in and listen just as they might if E. F. Hutton was about to speak. It is the opening sentence in Stanislav Mishin’s article, American Capitalism Gone with a Whimper, which appeared in the April 27, 2009 edition of PRAVDA On-Line¹, a Web-based reincarnation of the former official organ of the Soviet Union’s Central Committee, Pravda, which Russian Federation President Boris Yeltzin ordered shut down in 1991.²

Mishin derides American capitalist arrogance given our inability to arrest Marxism’s influence. He evinces sarcastic admiration for the speed with which upstart Marxist rookie, Barak Obama, and his comrades, are showing up Russia’s Bolsheviks, who “wrote the book” on social revolution. In particular, Mishin cites profligate Government deficit spending and private industry takeovers by the Obama Administration as examples of their bold and aggressive style.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more than another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

Mishin continues, citing various social strategies statists have implemented to weaken American resolve against totalitarianism:

… the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years … Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters … First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture … Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more than Sunday circuses …

He concludes by exhorting fellow Russians who own businesses and industries in America to “look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.”

When the Russian media become a more reliable news source of information about goings-on in America than the American media, it is time to stop indulging America’s mainstream media.

© 2009 Unspun Publications.

¹PRAVDA On-Line is an Internet-based newspaper run by former Pravda newspaper employees and is unrelated to Pravda. (Source: http://www.wikipedia.org/)
²Pravda (Russian: Правда, "Truth") was a leading newspaper of the Soviet Union and an official organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party between 1912 and 1991. The Pravda newspaper was started in 1912 in St. Petersburg. It was converted from a weekly Zvezda. It did not arrive in Moscow until 1918. During the Cold War, Pravda was well known in the West for its pronouncements as the official voice of Soviet Communism. (Similarly Investia was the official voice of the Soviet government.) After the paper was closed down in 1991 by decree of President Yeltsin, many of the staff founded a new print newspaper with the same name, which is now a tabloid-style Russian news source. (Source: http://www.wikipedia.org/)

Anecdotal Castles

2009-07-06T15:30:00.000-07:00

All sandcastles eventually melt into the rising tide, or blow away in swirling coastal winds. No sandcastle has ever stood the test of time or an ocean’s ebb and flow. Sandcastles are anecdotal.

Liberal Apologists’ justifications remind me of sandcastles. When cornered by irrefutable facts and sound reason, Liberals always resort to anecdotal evidence. They dare not stray too close to the rhythmic battering of objective analysis or their constructs will crumble like sandcastles at high tide. Liberalism is anecdotal.

Every time I channel surf into a debate between a Liberal and a Conservative, I listen carefully to the Liberal response to any Conservative point. If the original question doesn't get lost in obfuscation, the Liberal’s retort almost always begins with some form of “Yes, but." I call this Apologetics by Exception or Liberal Water Torture.

Conservatism’s house rests on foundational principles that have endured more than two centuries of assault by tyranny. Liberalism’s house is a sandcastle built on shifting sands of anecdotal, "Wrigley’s Believe It or Not," exceptions to the rule. It is easier to make a snowball out of sand than it is to understand Liberal reason, if it can be called “reason.”

The Liberal’s utopian dream is not built upon a solid foundation of time-tested truths, but upon seeming exceptions to those truths. If Liberals succeed in instantiating their idea of social utopia, America will enter the anecdotal narrative of nations that have succumbed to governance by exception.

US Healthcare: An Open Letter to the Democratic Apparatchik

2009-06-24T09:19:00.000-07:00

Fortunately for law-abiding citizens, dumb criminals eventually end up in jail. But I am concerned about another more dangerous “super criminal” that is destroying our beloved nation right under our noses! I refer to them as "smart criminals." These high-IQ outlaws don't dabble in petty theft. They always go for the BIG heist. These banditos are some of the smartest desperados ever to brandish—well, a vote, a filibuster or a veto.
Once seated, smart criminals waste no time. With the drive of a crack addict in search of a fix, smart criminals will trample any liberty that gets between them and power. They rush to enact laws that ‘legitimize’ pick pocketing the American people and embezzle their constituents legislatively. No longer is organized crime at war with Government; they are bedfellows!

For the time being, a bunch of these power junkies have gained majorities in the highest political assemblies in this Land, and the White House. As Americans have observed since the '08 presidential election, smart criminals and political power make a combustible mixture. To those who pay more than lip service to the Founders Dream, these faux patriots use the US Constitution as kindling for their national version of "Bonfire of the Vanities" and our liberties go up in smoke. Next up for the pyre—the best health care system in the world.

The Democratic Party has mastered its mendacious craft of misleading the American people continually and some Republicans have dissembled with them. They have become a brood of vipers and the “light that is in them is darkness.” Progressives disguise their nefarious legislation with euphemistic names and then pimp it to the American people. They slipped the “National Economic Suicide Act” by an unwary electorate under the name, “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” Their next major legislative caper involved deleting the first two words from "End of Affordable Health Choices Act." I'd feel less violated by a thief pointing a gun in my face. At least the guy with the gun is honest!

Perhaps you think my line of reasoning is insulting or out of line. You should be grateful that a natural-born American citizen is willing to tell you the truth. There are a lot of naked emperors running around DC these days so consider my letter a friendly tap on the shoulder.

Now that the current brood of smart criminals has set its sights on the US healthcare system, and knowing they are always in a hurry to get back to uh—"the business of the American people," I have limited myself to one simple multiple-choice question.

Which of the following five major Federal social programs enacted since the dawn of the American Republic in 1776 has 1) been so successful that it justifies seizure of an additional 20% of American GDP by today’s Federal Government; 2) stayed within the bounds of its enacting legislation, and 3) not far exceeded its original intent beyond anything it’s originators could have imagined? Place a check mark next to each program that matches each of these criteria.

a Medicare
b Medicaid
c Social Security
d Welfare
e Federal Income Tax
f None of the above

To facilitate informed responses, historical background information for each program is provided below:

Medicare and Medicaid: In 1945, President Harry Truman asked Congress for legislation to establish a national health insurance plan. Contentious debate ensued with forward-thinking opponents warning of “socialized medicine.” By the end of his administration, Truman had abandoned his plan for universal health coverage. Fast-forward 20 years and its déjà vu all over again. In an act reminiscent of “Night of the Living Dead,” Truman is reincarnated as Lyndon B. Johnson and on July 30, 1965, signs Truman's exhumed dream into law as Medicare and Medicaid. Before you throw yourself on the back of the hearse headed to Johnson’s “Great Society,” however, you might want to consider the following facts.

In 1966, 19 million people enrolled in Medicare and 4 million in Medicaid with combined federal outlays in 1967 totaling $4.4 billion. Today, the Truman/Johnson dream has morphed into one BIG nightmare and the Federal Government has night terrors that a sleepwalking American public might awaken to the abysmal state of federal health insurance programs. Today there are 43 million people enrolled in Medicare, 51 million in Medicaid, and combined federal outlays totaling $514 billion or 21% of the Federal budget! Facing the prospect of already below-cost Medicare payments being further reduced, Doctors are reluctant to participate or are fleeing Federal health insurance programs altogether. Can you blame me for wanting the Federal Government to keep its cotton-pickin’ hands off my healthcare?

Social Security: In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law. The original Social Security tax rate was 1% for both employers and employees—on the first $3,000 earned. Seventy-four years later, the rate has nearly octupled to 7.65% for both employer and employee—on the first $102,000 earned. Social Security is expected to be unsustainable in a dozen years or so and rumor has it the current batch of criminals wants to do away with the cap altogether! I guess higher-paid Americans still aren't paying their ‘fair share.’ Do I have it about right?

Welfare: America’s poorest of the poor used to receive aid from private individuals and organizations such as churches, and small state-based programs. In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt signed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) into law. This initial “welfare” bill provided $18 per month for one child and $12 for each additional child. Since its birth in 1935, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) has come a long way—baby! Says Michael Tanner in The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society (August 2003),

Welfare may have started with the best of intentions, but it has clearly failed. It has failed to meet its stated goal of reducing poverty. But its real failure is even more disastrous. Welfare has torn apart the social fabric of our society. Everyone is worse off. The taxpayers must foot the bill for programs that don’t work. The poor are dehumanized, seduced into a system from which it is very hard to escape. Teenage girls give birth to children they will never be able to support. The work ethic has eroded. Crime rates soar. Such is the legacy of welfare. Tanner ought to know what he's talking about. As a Senior Fellow and Policy Scholar at the Cato Institute, Tanner also leads research into a variety of domestic policies with emphasis on health care reform, social welfare policy, and Social Security. I'll take my chances with Tanner. Why don’t you criminals have a chat with Turner before you destroy healthcare.

Federal Income Tax: President Abraham Lincoln signed the Revenue Act of 1862 into law to help fund the American Civil War. No problem there. The Act also established a Commissioner of the Revenue and instituted the Federal income tax as a "temporary measure" that would terminate in "the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six.” No problem there either—serious times demand serious action. The Revenue Act taxed incomes above $600 at a rate of 3% and those over $10,000 at 5% and required employers to withhold taxes from pay and send the money to the Commissioner. When the deadline to terminate the Federal income tax rolled around in "the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six,” total tax revenues had climbed to an all-time high of $310 million and a temporary Federal tax system that beneficent to the Federal Government wasn’t about to be terminated. By 2007, total tax revenues as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) had mushroomed to 28.3%. Compared to the amount of taxes Americans paid under the temporary Revenue Act of 1862, today’s taxpayers quantify their taxes in the number of months out of each year they must work before The Godfather is paid off. Would someone who knows the actual meaning of temporary please speak up?!

"Stupid is as stupid does," so says Forrest Gump's Mama. How many times does a country need to be misled by smart criminals before it learns its lesson? Apparently, at least five. This legislation will push America closer to tyranny and finish off the Founders’ dream. Is this the legacy Democrats want to leave to posterity? Please, I implore you; do not do this to America. Do not do this to future generations of Americans.

Now the Really Smart Criminals Want to Take Over Healthcare

2009-06-19T19:24:00.000-07:00

Fortunately for law-abiding citizens, dumb criminals eventually end up in jail. But these are no ordinary criminals. The banditos I'm talking about are the smartest desperados ever to brandish a filibuster. I refer to them as "really, really smart criminals (RRSCs)." RRSCs don't waste time on petty theft. They head straight for political power where they can pickpocket the American people—legally. RRSCs embezzle their constituents by legalizing their crimes before they commit them. No longer is “organized crime” at odds with Government; they are bedfellows!

With the same recklessness that a crack addict pursues a fix, RRSCs will destroy anything that gets between them and their lust for power. For the time being anyway, a bunch of these power junkies have managed to gain a majority in the highest political assemblies in the Land. As we have seen at an alarming pace since the 2008 presidential election, RRSCs and political power make a volatile mixture. Unfortunately for true patriots, America's RRSCs are using the US Constitution as kindling for their national version of "Bonfire of the Vanities" and our liberties are going up in smoke. Next up for the pyre? The finest healthcare system in the world—ever.

Using the same technique they employed to defuse suspicion over the "Porkulus Bill” by calling it the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” RRSCs are again flawlessly executing the "Give Your Bill A Name That Jukes Your Constituents" strategy spelled out in the "Really, Really Smart Criminals Handbook (RRSCH),” as they “grease the skids” for their next legislative caper by calling the "Now Your Representatives Are Going to Destroy US Healthcare” bill the "Affordable Health Choices Act.” These guys are good—really good. I'd feel less violated by a thief pointing a gun at my head than I do when my representatives steal my wealth and liberty under false pretenses. At least the guy with the gun is being honest.

To those who are clamouring for Government-sponsored health care reform, I would suggest an honest review of Federal Government performance with other major federal social programs such as, Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, and the federal income tax:

Social Security: In 1935, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, the original tax rate was 2%, 1% for employers, 1% for employees, on the first $3,000 of wages earned. Since its inception, the Social Security tax rate has climbed to 15.3%, 7.65% for employers, 7.65% for employees, on the first $102,000 of wages earned. Social Security is expected to be insolvent in about ten years.

Welfare: Before Welfare, the “poorest of the poor” in America received aid from private individuals and organizations such as churches, and small state-based programs. In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the “Aid for Dependant Children (AFDC)” bill into law. This initial “welfare” bill provided $18/month for one child and $12 for each additional child. According to Michael Tanner in, The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society (August 2003),

“… Welfare may have started with the best of intentions, but it has clearly failed. It has failed to meet its stated goal of reducing poverty. But its real failure is even more disastrous. Welfare has torn apart the social fabric of our society. Everyone is worse off. The taxpayers must foot the bill for programs that don’t work. The poor are dehumanized, seduced into a system from which it is very hard to escape. Teenage girls give birth to children they will never be able to support. The work ethic has eroded. Crime rates soar. Such is the legacy of welfare.”

Tanner is a Sr. Fellow and Policy Scholar at the Cato Institute and leads research into a variety of domestic policies with an emphasis on health care reform, social welfare policy, and Social Security.

Medicare and Medicaid: In 1945, President Harry Truman asked Congress for legislation establishing a national health insurance plan. Contentious debate ensued with opponents warning of “socialized medicine.” By the end of his administration, Truman had abandoned his plan for universal health coverage. On July 30, 1965, however, President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law pursuant to his vision for a “Great Society.” In 1966, 19 million people enrolled in Medicare and 4 million in Medicaid with combined federal outlays for both programs of $4.4 billion in 1967. Today, 43 million people are enrolled in Medicare and 51 million in Medicaid with combined federal outlays for both programs totaling $514 billion, 21% of the federal budget. Doctors facing the prospect of already below-cost Medicare payments being further reduced, are reluctant to participate or are abandoning federal health insurance programs altogether.

Federal Income Tax: President Abraham Lincoln signed the Revenue Act of 1862 into law to help fund the American Civil War. The act also established the Commissioner of the Revenue and specified that the Federal income tax was a temporary measure that would terminate in "the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six.” Annual incomes above $600 were taxed at a rate of 3%. Incomes over $10,000 were taxed at a rate of 5%. Employers were required to withhold taxes and send the withheld funds to the Commissioner of the Revenue. Tax revenues reached a new high in 1866, totaling $310 million. By 2007, total tax revenues as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) had mushroomed to 28.3%. The amounts working Americans pay in taxes each year have reached obscene levels. We’ve come a long way since “the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six” when the “temporary” Federal income tax was supposed to end.

It would take much less time to write or read about every successful Federal social program because the page would be blank. Given its track record, what would possess the American people to turn the best healthcare system in the world over to an organization that has mismanaged every social program it has ever supervised? If we, the American electorate, allow our Federal Government to seize control of our healthcare system, then we have become the proverbial abused woman who, believing her man’s assurances that “it will never happen again,” goes back for more.

In behavior that suggests self-loathing taken to a new low, Americans are about to turn the best healthcare system ever over to a bunch of really, really smart criminals who have proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they are not up to the task. Have we lost our collective mind?!! If we do this, we prove our own stupidity and deserve the abuse we will get.

Feline Hit Man Headed for the Pound

2009-06-18T06:45:00.000-07:00

Michael Vick killed dogs, but Tyler Weinman committed the unimaginable—cat abuse.[1] Investigators have been combing through Weinman’s Internet history and veterinary records of the deceased cats to find out if Weinman’s is just another case of a sadistic adolescent thrill seeker or honor killing by a dog lover over Vick’s crimes against canines. Police also want to know if Weinman acted alone, but the cat’s got Weinman’s tongue. The prosecutor may try to apply the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Statute if other cat killers are involved.

The teenage kitty killer was released from jail today on $250,000 bond. Weinman will wear an electronic monitoring bracelet and remain under house arrest while he awaits trial on 19 counts of catslaughter. The question that has cat lovers choking on hairballs is “Why, would he stoop to such barbarism when there are humane ways to terminate Tabby?” One bereaved cat owner meowed, “Poor defenseless Tigger,” and fainted. Neighborhood kitty litter boxes have been filling up fast because cat owners are afraid to let their cats out at night to use their neighbor’s gardens. "I've been going through cat litter like a mouse through a box of Grape Nuts," one cat owner quipped. Feline activists and police are worried that there could be copycats.

Cat Coroner Henry Harebawl darted around the crime scene earlier today to assess the carnage. “These cats are in full rigor. I’m finding paws and claws everywhere!” he said. “By the looks of these carcasses, these puddy tats were probably catnapped around midnight and drugged with catnip; toxicology reports will tell us for sure. The toms usually go on the prowl for kitties around midnight. They were probably slain shortly after that; the Cat Examiner’s autopsy reports will pinpoint the time of death.” Harebawl also mentioned that “Cat owners, desperate to save their furniture, are so afraid of furtive feline rescuers that they won't carry kitty into a vet clinic in broad daylight. They end up turning to back alley cat butchers to get rid of their pissing pussycats.”

Callie Calico of Cats Against Cat Abuse (CACA) was on the scene early to make sure investigators didn't overlook anything. "I lost my kitty to a cat abuser," she said." Calico added, "After that traumatic experience, I founded CACA and have given my life to stopping this kind of abuse from happening to other cat lovers. We're working for a cat abuse-free world."

Weinman will be arraigned on July 6 and could get up to 158 human years in prison. That’s about 843 in cat years for the purr sadist. If the prosecutor makes this a hate crime, Weinman's sentence could be longer. The defense is hoping that prosecution will accept the lesser charge of involuntary catslaughter by reason of insanity in exchange for a no contest plea. Lead investigator Bloodhound Bill Bowser (a.k.a. “Snoopy”) snapped at rumors that Weinman could end up in the same prison cell as Michael Vick. “Not on your leash!" Bowser growled. "They’d end up fighting like cats and dogs."

If my satiric take on this story strikes the reader as insensitive or offensive, I've hit my mark. I refuse to raise an eyebrow over the wanton slaughter a few cats in a society that approves the wanton slaughter of 4,000 helpless unborn human beings who are butchered, poisoned, chemically burned, and dismembered in the sanctuary of their mothers' wombs each and every day. Our priorities and indignation are perverse and our damnation is just.

I would only ask that readers be equally indignant over the wanton slaughter every year in America of 1.5 million unborn human beings who are of inestimable value to God who made them, certainly far more valuable than any number of cats. If your contempt for cat abuse exceeds your disdain for child killing, then there is something in you that is as twisted as the neurosis that motivated Tyler Weinman to torture cats.

© 2009 Spin Cipher Publishing.

[1] Actual story can be found on numerous online news websites doing a Google search on “South Florida Cat Killer.”

Islam Rising in the West: A Prophetic Perspective

2009-06-10T12:32:00.000-07:00

Early nineteenth-century Liberalism,[1] "… stresses the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Montesquieu, Voltaire and others … The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawney Hobhouse, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, which grants a more interventionist role for the state."[2]

Liberal and Liberalism as they are used today, retain very little of their original meanings. Today’s Liberalism equates to Statism[3] and today’s Liberal is, for all intents and purposes, a Statist. Before they can plunder a society, statists know they must first “bind the strong man” of truth because truth is the statist's greatest enemy. Statists achieve this objective by infecting a society’s time-honored traditional values with pathogenic philosophies such as Multiculturalism, Feminism, Homosexuality, Abortion, and other vile ‘isms.’ Statists act as parasites that carry the societal plague called Statism. The first stage of Statism involves co-opting the host culture’s language, particularly as it relates to traditional values—a free society's first line of defense against tyranny. To illustrate, American Statists have hijacked Classical Liberalism’s ‘individual liberty' by shackling to it an “anything goes” meaning that amounts to moral turpitude.[4] Thus, Statists have turned America's time-honored value of individual liberty against our society in much the same way that an autoimmune disease turns the body's own immune response against itself.

The Apostle Peter spoke of the days we now live in: “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.” (2 Peter 2:19) The Psalmist wrote, “But unto the wicked God saith, ‘What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee.’” (Psalm 50:16-17) Why is this important?

The West has tossed out God’s Law and a terrifying irony is unfolding as a result—an implacable ideology is rushing in to fill the spiritual and moral vacuum in Europe, Canada, and the United States. What is this terrifying irony and what is its prophetic significance?

Muslim populations and thus, Political Islam, are metastasizing indomitably across Europe, Canada and the United States. Muslim birth rates in the west are far outpacing native population birth rates which in many cases have fallen well below the replacement birth rate. If these demographic trends continue, the only thing that stands between Eurabia, Canadistan, and Amerabia is time, and not much of it. What does neo-Liberalism have to do with the spread of Islam?

The terrifying irony is this: As Political Islam (a redundancy) ascends to prominence in the West, what is left of the Law of the one and only God, who is love, will gradually be replaced by an intolerant, oppressive, imposed Islamic morality that is at war with everything modern Liberals hold dear.

The neo-Liberal values the West has stubbornly refused to let go of will be ripped from its hands to be replaced with Sharia.[5] Voluntary adherence will be replaced by forced subjugation to Islamic law which rejects Multiculturalism, Feminism, Homosexuality, and Abortion and imposes austere penalties for law-breakers, capital punishment among them. Then the West which opted for absolute “freedom” over the perfect “Law of Liberty” (James 2:12) will be given absolute tyranny.

As the scenario above plays out, the West will find itself in the horrible predicament described in the first chapter of Proverbs for those who reject God’s wisdom and counsel:

"Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices." (Proverbs 1:24-31)

© 2009 Seeds for Good Soil. For reprint permission, send email to: spincipher@comcast.net.
_______________________________________________

[1] Liberalism: Also known as Classical, Traditional, Laissez-Faire, and Market Liberalism. (Source: Wikipedia).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Statism: 1. “the political expression of altruism [which] is collectivism … [statism] holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.” 2. “A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the … government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same.” (The Ayn Rand Lexicon)
[4] Moral Turpitude: Vile, shameful, or base character; depravity. A vile or depraved act. (Source: Wikipedia)
[5] Sharia: The body of Islamic law. (Source: Wikipedia)

The Good Ship Lollipop (a.k.a. The Supreme Court)

2009-05-30T08:06:00.000-07:00

Good Ship Lollipop is a fitting metaphor for a Supreme Court that will be that much closer to weighing anchor for Candyland (for statists) if Sonia Sotomayer is confirmed by the US Senate. Captain Obama will only need one more oarsman and then he can sound the All aboooaaard! for liberals and their interests. The Court is already listing hard to port. The weight of Sotomayer's activism might sink the whole Country.

Once Lollipop shoves off, the US Constitution will be made to walk the plank, effectively leaving the Court blindfolded on a rudderless ship. Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas will be reduced to four dissenting voices whose opinions will be stowed down in the bilge directly below the poop deck. Intially, America, like the seemed-to-be invincible Titanic, will seem fine, but her fate will have already been sealed.

Be not deceived! Obama wants Sotomayer on the Court for one primary reason; to import her ridiculous views and rulings on immigration so he can fling US borders wide open and ensure amnesty for illegals who, as a voting bloc, favor liberalism. As a card-carrying member of Partido Nacional de La Raza Unida, someone like Sotomayer is his best bet. This is part of O's strategy to circumvent any legislative impediment, federal or state, to amnesty. If he can stack the numbers, he will ensure his reelection, regardless of how many Americans join Tea Partys.

Note: For another chilling reason why we need to be concerned about US immigration policies, see YouTube video on the Nation of Atzlan.

Why does the Supreme Court bother accepting cases at all? In reality, a judicial ruling by fiat doesn't require a legal case, does it? I propose that the Supremes cut to the chase, choose 6-12 social inequities they feel need fixing in America, and render opinions on them? Why wait for cases? We need 'Hope and change' now!

Forget the Constitution; I'd settle for a little common sense! How did we manage to put a bunch of community activists with absolutely no common sense, on the highest court in the land?! What a joke!

Multiple Outbursts, The Pontiff of Bombastism, and Other Profanities

2009-03-20T17:13:00.000-07:00

"Why Rush is Right: The party of Buckley and Reagan is alive and well because of the politics of Limbaugh. A true conservative's rebuttal of Frum’s lament"

The cover story of the March 7, 2009 edition of Newsweek Magazine features a contentious article by David Frum entitled, “Why Rush is Wrong: The party of Buckley and Reagan is now bereft and dominated by the politics of Limbaugh. A conservative's lament.” Frum opens his dirge with an outburst over an outburst (Frum’s term for any of Levin’s opening monologues) by Conservative talk show host Mark Levin in which he castigates pseudo-Conservatives using Frum as an illustration.

After his initial outburst over Levin’s outburst, Frum launches into another outburst, this time to bombast Rush Limbaugh for his bombastism. Realizing that bombasting a bombastic Conservative icon like Rush Limbaugh in Newsweek might not carry as much weight with Conservatives as it would say, in the American Spectator or Human Events, Frum precedes his bombastation of Rush with his CV of Conservative “bona fides.” He cites a meal with Mark Levin, volunteering for the Reagan campaign, attending Republican conventions, presiding over his law school’s Federalist Society, working on the WSJ editorial page, writing Bush II speeches, serving on the Giuliani campaign, voting for McCain, supporting the Iraq war and supporting Clinton’s impeachment, to prove he’s earned the right to bombast Rush.

In his bombastation, Frum insinuates that Rush’s bombastism typifies the views of a small but vocal Conservo-Fascist fringe and this, he argues, disqualifies Rush to be anointed “Conservative Pontiff.” He then explains why Rush as Conservatism’s ex cathedra bombastador would accelerate the current exodus from Conservatism and spell the end of the movement as we know it. I thought Frum was against Conservatism “as we know it?”

So let me get this straight; Frum’s participation in a bunch of Conservative field experiences makes him a bona fide Conservative? Considering the level of intelligence those activities demand, Frum must be smart enough to know that joining a Conservative scavenger hunt doesn’t automatically make someone is a true scavenger, any more than participating in Conservative activities makes someone a true Conservative.

The activities Frum lists would be expected of a model Conservative, to be sure. But they are only an indication that someone might be a Conservative, not dispositive proof. I don’t mean to be profane, but for Buckley’s sake! Judas participated in discipleship activities with Jesus for 3.5 years, heard his teachings, ate with him, and witnessed his miracles, but in retrospect, few would argue that those activities by themselves made Judas a bona fide disciple of Jesus. Neither does doing Conservative activities make one a bona fide Conservative.

I can’t recall ever hearing Rush Limbaugh say he wants to be anointed “leader of the Republican Party,” as Frum asserts, except perhaps as a tongue-in-cheek gadget to illustrate the absurdity of his detractors’ bombasts and outbursts. To be honest, we true Conservatives don’t “need” Levin to outburst or Rush to bombast for us, we can do it ourselves. We love Mark and Rush, not because they teach us what to believe, but because they espouse principles we already believe.

Conservatism is simple, really. “In a nutshell,” true Conservatism is a set of absolutes that derive from a Judeo-Christian understanding of right and wrong and a devotion to the United States Constitution as the Framers intended it. As such, Conservatism and bombastic Government are mutually exclusive; Conservatism and abortion cannot coexist, and so on.

Granted, it’s not always easy to tell who is and who isn’t a true Conservative. Some people who look a lot like Conservatives might actually be of the Heinz 57 variety, Liberoconservamoderate mutts if you will. But true Conservatives are, by definition, pedigreed purebreds. You can’t be a Conservative and have a little bit of Liberal in you. You can’t be a Conservative on every issue save one, such as abortion, and still be a Conservative. “Purebred mutt” is an oxymoron.

A Republican is a Conservative is a Republican does not hold up; true Conservatism is party agnostic anyway. Which brings me to another question: Is Frum a true Conservative or not? Is he a purebred or a mutt? Has he relaxed his Conservative values, or is he just now “coming out.” The difference is subtle, but the answer could explain why so many people who claim to be true Conservatives never were.

As for Levin’s outbursts and Rush’s bombastism, they comfort me. Why? Because they provide cathartic relief by mirroring the anger that has been building in me as I watch the irresponsible, dangerous, idiotic, America-destroying things that, as Frum decorates him, our “soft-spoken,” “conciliatory,” “never angry,” “always invoking the recession and its victims,” “devoted husband and father,” President and his appointees are doing to dismantle America. Again, not to be profane, but for Reagan’s sake! just because he’s smiling doesn’t mean he’s not destroying the country!

It is unfortunate that Mark Levin’s outbursts and Rush Limbaugh’s bombastism are offensive to David Frum and other pseudo-Conservatives, but it wasn’t Limbaugh or Levin who said, “Our society finds truth too strong a medicine to digest undiluted. In its purest form, truth is not a polite tap on the shoulder; it is a howling reproach.” It was ABC Nightline anchor, Ted Koppel, a noted master of artful confrontation. The only thing I see in Frum’s lament is an adolescent over-sensitivity to frank logic and tough love.

We Will Never Quit!

2009-03-04T17:53:00.000-08:00

Winston Churchill had ordered Operation Dynamo to begin. It was an ambitious plan to evacuate tens of thousands of Allied troops who were pinned between an advancing German army and the beaches and harbor of Dunkirk, France. The rescue was performed by an ‘armada’ of 860 boats that included British naval vessels and the legendary “little ships of Dunkirk,” whose civilian crews had been pressed into service for the urgent mission. In the end, 338,226 Allied troops — 198,229 British and 139,997 French — were ferried to England. On June 4, 1940, the final day of Operation Dynamo, Churchill delivered his famous “We shall fight on the beaches” speech to the British House of Commons. Following is one of the most notable excerpts from that speech.

Even though large parts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old.

In view of the ominous threat to our liberty Americans now face from radical Socialists who have taken control of our Government, I thought it fitting to adapt Winston Churchill’s words to inspire our own "Operation Dynamo" to rescue America from the oppressive hand of tyranny that has infiltrated our country’s leadership.

Even though we and our ageless Constitution have fallen under the oppressive hand of tyranny and all the odious apparatus of Marxism, we who are patriotic Americans shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in every state, we shall fight in every city and town across the Fruited Plain, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in prayer, we shall defend OUR country, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight in the halls of every state and local government, we shall fight in the halls of Congress, we shall fight in the courts, we shall fight on every sidewalk in America, we shall NEVER surrender to this tyranny, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, our beloved country or a large part of it were subjugated, we will draw on the strength of Almighty God who gives strength to the weary in their just cause, and we shall carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, this great nation, with all of its potential and promise, is liberated and returned to her rightful owners as “the Land of the free and the home of the brave!"

We will not, we must not allow fear or resignation to incapacitate us or defeat us. We must not give up for we shall not lose if we do not surrender. We must remain confident in this our mission because God is with us and our cause is just!

Dumb criminals are in jail ...

2009-02-17T09:39:00.000-08:00

... but the smart ones are running America. The "Stimulus" Bill is evidentiary proof that the smart criminals have learned to codify their thievery before they steal somebody else's stuff.

Frankly, I'd feel less violated with a gun pointed at my head than I do as my representatives pilfers my paycheck. At least the armed robber doesn't try to convince me that he's merely making sure I pay my "fair share."

A robber only demands the money I have in my wallet. By this legislation, our Government has intercepted our hard-earned dollars long before they will ever reach our wallets. And if you refuse to pay their definition of your "fair share," you can bet a legally-armed federal agent will show up at your front door to help you come to your senses.

Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States and principal author of the Declaration of Independence said, "I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans, and for increasing by every device the public debt on the principle of its being a public blessing."

In the eleventh chapter of his Second Treatise, influential English philosopher John Locke wrote, "For a man's property is not at all secure, though there be good and equitable laws to set the bounds of it, between him and his fellow subjects, if he who commands those subjects, have power to take from any private man, what part he pleases of his property, and use and dispose of it as he thinks good."

Where are the Thomas Jeffersons and John Lockes of our day? It is as if our elected representatives have lost their minds, substituting whim for constitutional principles!

The "Stimulus Package" is nothing less than Government-sponsored embezzlement. Strong words? The Founders had a far more visceral response to the comparatively minor British incursion on their property rights. Ultimately, this "taxation without [a corresponding] representation" will be used by our Government, not to benefit their confiscates, but to transfer wealth in a "money for votes" scheme.

As we try to recover from the federally-sponsored fiscal rape that has just been perpetrated on us, we must remember that more money in US Treasury coffers is not the zero-sum game they are playing. Increased power and control are. And they will use our hard-earned dollars to heap new benficiaries to themselves and thus solidify their power and control for years to come.

No longer is organized crime in competition with Government; they are bedfellows! Wake up America!

All Roads Lead to Caliphate Shangri-la

2009-01-28T08:23:00.000-08:00

It is encouraging to know the US Government is doing everything they know to protect us from acts of terrorism. But there’s a more insidious concern.

Perhaps not as obvious to the casual observer, is the need to understand, not only how Islamic ideology drives Islamists to commit acts of terror, but also how that same ideology energizes a subversive "stealth jihad" that seeks to gradually transform our culture by infiltrating our institutions of government, education, and law.

I am not at all convinced that radical and Islam are separable, exceptions notwithstanding. If, as author and syndicated columnist Mark Steyn discredits, radical Islam is "desperation born of poverty,” then equal opportunity and “random acts of kindness" toward the Islamic community should defuse their animus. If, however, Islamic fundamentalism and Islam's own sense of its “manifest destiny” are driven by core theological beliefs, then a 'social services' approach will cost valuable time and resources and accomplish little to interdict the real problem. I believe it is mostly the latter with poor economic and social status fueling proselytizing efforts.

I am amazed at the level of ignorance and "Willful Blindness" (to borrow the title of Andrew McCarthy's book) most Americans exhibit toward the Islamist threat to our way of life, style of government and culture. Few, including most policymakers, understand the 'pathology' of Islam that sometimes leads to terrorism. As a result, the West is capitulating fast, particularly Western Europe. If we are to create effective solutions, we must 'choose wisely' in assessing the underlying energizing theological principles that spawn terrorists. Otherwise, we will be firing at the wrong target and empowering the real threat as we strive to convince our sworn enemies that we aren't such bad people once they get to know us.

Few would disagree that Islam is an ideology; it is also a religion with a mono-deity, a holy book (the Koran), a one-of-a-kind 'prophet' who ostensibly received the revelation recorded in that book, which book enjoins strict and extreme requirements on its adherents, including an austere set of religious disciplines. Taken together, these ingredients provide a powerful inoculation against Western attempts to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, not to mention understand and combat the terrorist threat. In order to fully and accurately assess the threat, analysis must be informed by an unvarnished understanding of Islam in its various forms. Understanding the ideology may also shed light on the method or timing of terrorist attacks. Absent this understanding, analysis is apt to misread the 'tea leaves' in its assessment of 'cold, hard facts.'

All this to say, the West must not force its “politically correct” filter over Islamism. Otherwise, we risk walking into a seductive trap. Islamists don’t particularly care which road they take to Caliphate Shangri-la; they just want to arrive. Terrorism or subversion from within, either will do. Superimposing our own idiosyncratic wishful thinking on Islam that “Mohammedism” is a “religion of peace” may make us feel more secure, but it won't prevent Islamists from turning us into a nation governed by sharia.

Islamists neither play by nor recognize our world view or principles of governance; they will gladly allow us to believe that they want what we want, when they do not. Until we come to terms with this "elephant in the room," we will continue to problem-solve by exception with our pineapple doormat set out to welcome those who would replace our way of life. Our good intentions may pave the road to our demise.

Associating Islamic extremism with Islamic ideology creates discomfort because it flies in the face of prevailing 'politically correct' beliefs. Of course, if this connection is made, it will force us to rethink our position on multiculturalism and a religious freedom that keeps quarter with an ideology sworn to supplant it. Then we really will have something to worry about.

Freedom of Choice for Who?

2009-01-26T05:38:00.000-08:00

Certainly not for the "blob of tissue." If you believe freedom of "choice" is tied to accurate and complete information regarding opposing alternatives, then certainly not for the mother or her parents (in the case of minors).

If, for example, in the process of applying for a job you withhold germane information about yourself you present yourself as "someone else," you have impeded a prospective employer's ability to choose whether or not to hire you as opposed to the impostor you portray. "Choice" without true and complete information is no choice at all.

Someone recently asked me, “What legal impediments [to abortion] does this law ["Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)"] remove?”

According to Americans United for Life, fifteen "impediments" to abortion that will be overturned by FOCA are:

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
Hyde Amendment (restricting taxpayer funding of abortions).
Restrictions on abortions performed at military hospitals.
Restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion for federal workers.
Informed consent laws requiring parents to be notified if a minor is seeking abortion.
Waiting periods.
“Delayed enforcement” laws if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned or abortion is returned to the states.
Parental consent and notification laws.
Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics.
Right of licensed physicians to not perform abortions.
Bans on abortion after viability.
Limits on taxpayer funding for elective abortions.
Limits on the use of public facilities for abortion.
State and federal legal protections for healthcare providers who refuse to participate in abortions.

Baby boomers gave us abortion. Absent the Social Security revenues that would have been generated by 50-million aborted taxpayers, boomer generation progeny will give boomers geriatric euthanasia, particularly in economic hard times. The boomer generation taught their offspring that life is only important if it is convenient. When boomers are are old and inconvenient, their children do likewise.

Granted, I speak in simplistic, broad strokes, but mark my words - America's hospices, nursing homes and hospitals will become killing centers for the aged or disabled. We are already moving in that direction.

The Path to National Insanity

2008-04-25T07:58:00.000-07:00

When I was growing up, I got by believing simple truths like one plus one equals two and if you jump off a tall building without a parachute or a giant air bag you'll die. As I listen to the litany of absurdities being propounded by so-called "experts" and believed by their devotees today, I feel the need to take cognitive leaps that would make Eval Knieval faint. Unfortunately, in today's politically correct culture, accepting the premise is a prerequisite for entering the discussion.

Someone will insist that Elvis is alive, that Sasquatch is real, that the Loch Ness Monster has been sighted again, that evil is good or that good is evil. Is it me, or is the society around me off its rocker? Most of the time I shrug it off and move on, but lately I find myself straining to understand, not the absurdities, but why so many people are so utterly stupid in their devotion to them.

I may have discovered one possible explanation this loopiness when I googled "examples of logical absurdities" and stumbled upon the Uncyclopedia. According to the website,

"Uncyclopedia is driven by a global community of more than 100,000 volunteers - 98% of whom are dedicated to vandalizing and destroying things for the remaining 2%. Over almost four years, these volunteers have vandalized, slandered and vanitized more than 11 million articles in 265 languages. More than 275 million [emphasis added] people come to our website every month to make our lives difficult, free of charge and free of advertising."

Sounds like the mission statement of today's mainstream media. But I digress. Two Uncyclopedia examples should suffice:

"Cows are unable to swim for anything but very short periods of time. This is due to the fact that they don't have complete control over their sphincter, so they 'leak.' When left in the water for even as short as 15 minutes, cows will fill up with water and sink."

"Because of an increase in carbon, a gas naturally present in great quantities in the atmosphere, the Earth mother will try to evict us by raising water levels 80 feet within the next two months and putting out the sun ... and creating a black hole that will engulf us ... and destroying all Wal-Marts."

Don't laugh; people actually believe this stuff.

After a few minutes surfing the Uncyclopedia, a light went on; someone must have misspelled Uncyclopedia as Encyclopedia and distributed millions of print copies to every educational and media establishment in the country.

A cursory review of current mental health statistics in the United States indicates an alarming epidemic. According to the Anxiety Disorders Association of America, anxiety disorder, a common form of mental illness, affects 40 million adults in the US age 18 and older. If mental illness were a contagious disease, we would be facing an apocalyptic pestilence. The numbers continue to skyrocket.

If you think “people have gone crazy,” be encouraged; at least you aren’t oblivious. A society’s systemic mental state will deteriorate as its citizens become hostile toward truth and moral absolutes. As a society grows more hostile toward truth, it will become more hostile toward people and institutions traditionally associated with absolute values and standards of truth.

When a nation abandons love for the truth, it will spiral into cultural insanity and eventual cultural demise. Insanity indicates late-stage deception. Cultural death always follows metastatic deception. How is it that the people of Germany, a nation possessing enough scientific and technological intelligence to field some of the most sophisticated military technology in history, could be deluded into following Adolph Hitler, like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, into national ruin? Deception eventually left Germany in a heap of rubble. The moral of the Third Reich is that superior intelligence and vast amounts of knowledge will not save you from stupidity born of deception.

History is replete with similar examples of megalomaniacs who rose to power on a throne of lies, out of a citizenry left defenseless by ambivalence toward the truth. During many years in professional and volunteer Church work, I have had countless opportunities to spend time with people who would be considered mentally unstable. Not one of them possessed a healthy grasp of reality or the truth.

Only nations whose citizens fight for absolute moral standards and possess a love for truth will survive the tsunami of moral equivocation and situational ethics that is already undermining the nations.

Cultivate love for the truth! If you are unsure what is true, join the quest. Do not relax your grip. Do not yield. The way that leads to individual and societal stability and longevity is narrow; few find it.

Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah!

2008-04-14T12:29:00.000-07:00

At The Compassion Forum held at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania on Sunday night April 13, both Democratic presidential candidates were presented with a simple, but profound question, “Does life begin at conception?” Their answers are telling.

Senator Hilary Clinton: I believe that the potential for life begins at conception. I am a Methodist, as you know. My church has struggled with this issue. In fact, you can look at the Methodist Book of Discipline and see the contradiction and the challenge of trying to sort that very profound question out. But for me, it is also not only about a potential life; it is about the other lives involved.

Senator Barack Obama: This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.

There was so much side-stepping, some attendees might have thought their GPS guidance system had led them to a western line dance instead of a Democratic presidential debate. The obfuscatory answers remind me of the song, The Witch Doctor, by Alvin and the Chipmunks, “Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah, ting-tang, walla-walla-bing-bang, oo-ee-oo-ah-ah, ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang.”

Truthful answers to simple questions favor brevity. Complicated answers tend toward concealment. While evasive, both of these answers tell us a lot about each candidate. Senator Clinton's and Obama's answers were essentially the same; I will use Mrs. Clinton's statements here.

“I believe that the potential for life begins at conception.”

The potential for life begins well before conception, even before sexual intercourse, assuming a fertile man and a fertile woman. Indirectly, Mrs. Clinton answered the question in the negative. Since, by definition, potential life is not life, Mrs. Clinton does not believe life begins at conception. I infer that she believes it is okay to end a potential life.

Next, Mrs. Clinton spoke of her denomination’s position,

"My church has struggled with this issue. In fact, you can look at the Methodist Book of Discipline and see the contradiction and the challenge of trying to sort that very profound question out."

This statement implies it would be unreasonable to expect Senator Clinton to adopt an unambiguous position, especially since her own denomination can’t come to terms with the issue. It sounds like she is "passing the buck" by deferring to a higher authority than herself. I believe there were some Nazis in World War II who used a similar argument to justify their actions.

Incidentally, there is nothing profound about the question, “Does life begin at conception?” The fact that life might begin at conception is the profundity staring back at any soul choosing between life and abortion, whether to continue with an inconvenient or embarrassing pregnancy.

Since we can't be certain the fetus isn’t a life, including abortion on the list of possible "solutions" is automatically unethical and represents the worst kind of deviant presumption against God's design. Would it not be unethical to demolish an abandoned building if we thought there might be a homeless person inside, unwanted though they might be? It is equally unethical to abort an unwanted pregnancy if it might be a life.

Finally, Senator Clinton says, “But for me, it is also not only about a potential life; it is about the other lives involved.”

I understand about the life and well-being of the mother. But what other lives is she talking about? The father? When did he start getting a say? The parents? I didn’t think they were allowed to know. Let’s cut to the chase. The life and “well-being” of the mother argument has been used to trump all other considerations, including the unborn child's life, and make it okay to terminate a pregnancy, at any time, for any reason.

Senator Clinton's answer implies that the moment a potential life's head pops out of the womb, thus certifying it's status as a life, the mother's future is shipwrecked and her pursuit of the American dream abruptly ended. With only nine abortionist-shopping months in which to choose, the mother will just have to keep her fingers crossed that her fetus is only a potential life. Sadly, Mrs. Clinton's perspective no longer rouses a failing national conscience too weak to respond.

A good follow-on question might have been, “Is it okay to end potential life?” Or, “When does a ‘potential life’ become a life?” Or, “If we can’t be sure when a potential life becomes a life, when and on what basis does it become okay to end a pregnancy?” Or, “What is life?” Does “not knowing” grant absolution?

Here’s a simple set of principles for evaluating candidates:

Principle 1 - If you can’t be trusted to “get it right” on human life, you can’t be trusted to “get it right” on anything less important.

Principle 2 - Everything else is less important.

Principle 3 - If you are wrong on life, you are not fit to lead a nature hike, much less, a nation.

If these principles make me a “single-issue voter,” then I’ll wear that awareness ribbon proudly.

Editorial Pablum or "Hijabs at a Harvard Gym?"

2008-03-26T16:06:00.000-07:00

In her March 26, 2008 Washington Post opinion, "Hijabs at a Harvard Gym," editorial writer and columnist Ruth Marcus describes accommodations made to Muslim believers by Ivy League university administrators as “a measure of America’s multicultural journey over the past half-century.” Marcus compliments Harvard's decision to close “one of its gyms to men for six hours a week so that Muslim women can exercise comfortably” and permit “broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer from the steps of Harvard’s main library during Islamic Awareness Week.” If these are merely innocent expressions of America’s "multicultural journey" then the frog in the kettle is almost cooked. (NOTE: "Multicultural journey" is a euphemism for “cultural death march.”)

Multiculturalism is canonical in liberal ideology. No one is so lost that they can’t be helped to see the light or integrated into our society. We just need to “try a little kindness.” Certain their magnanimity will placate their mistaken aggressors, liberal elites, as crewmembers of the Starship Enterprise did whenever they met aliens for the first time, begin every encounter with, “We mean you no harm.” Then, quicker than you can say “Beam me up Scotty!” a well-meaning "multi-culti" blurts out, “Look! We’ll even let you on the bridge of the Enterprise!” Any Trekkie will tell you that aliens on the bridge always ends badly. This blog entry would be too long if I tried to describe the disastrous effect this line of thinking is having in the European Union. If reading The Wests Last Chance by Tony Blankley or America Alone by Mark Steyn doesn't alarm you, then you may be on the verge of converting to Islam.

Somehow, broadcasting Adhan (Muslim call to prayer), "Allahu Akbar [sic “God is great”]. There is no God but Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah,” outside Harvard’s main library doesn’t strike me as “the dawning of the Age of Aquarius” or the proper setting for a dogma that flies in the face of “academic freedom.” I’m stumped. Where is the inclusivity in “There is no God but Allah?” Maybe I recently awoke from a lengthy coma but what became of all the concern over separation of church and state-funded universities?

Islamic Awareness Week? If this isn't a practical joke, then I'd like to know who among earthlings (besides Rumpelstiltskin or Sleeping Beauty) is still not aware of Islam? Maybe a few of us are having difficulty embracing an “awareness” of Islam that asks us to believe that everything we’ve seen and heard, including the deafening silence from most of the Ummah Wahida (Islamic community) since 9/11 is not really Islam.

If they are paying attention, Harvard administrators may be aware that Islam in America will become a cultural and political force to be reckoned with if current trends continue. Start making concessions now. Feed the beast; maybe it will become sated and leave before eating you. This is where 'progressive' thinking is dangerously regressive and unaware about Islam. This beast will eat every appetizer you toss at him, but make no mistake; you are the main course, the pièce de résistance. There’s always room for dessert.

Marcus suggests that “the wisdom of the Framers” will guard us against going too far in making cultural accommodations to Islam. What a relief! You mean the way the wisdom of the Framers kept us from going too far as in Dred Scott v. Sandford (legitimizing slavery in America) or Roe v. Wade (50-million abortions since)? And I wonder how I got the notion that the "wisdom of the Framers" may not hold as much sway these days among liberal Ivy League university administrators. Silly me.

It is interesting to note that Harvard University Press, in a project that spans decades, is publishing The Adams Papers which chronicle the family histories and writings of Framer and second President of the United States, John Adams and those of his son, sixth President, John Quincy. John Quincy Adams, himself a Harvard Law graduate, wrote the following about Islam:

"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar (Mohammed), the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic Law, the doctrine of one omnipotent god; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE [emphasis added] ... Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant ...While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon the earth, and good will towards men." (From "Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War, and on Greece,” written while Adams was in retirement, before his election to Congress in 1830; originally published in The American Annual Register.)

Call me Pollyannaish (like those Age of Aquarius folks), but I doubt JQA ever imagined that Adhan would one day reverberate from the steps of the main library of his alma mater. Unfortunately, with so much animus today toward the Framers' original intent by those in higher education and in our own Government, the Adams family would get less recognition than The Addams Family (monsters, all of them) and after his remark about Islam, John Quincy wouldn't pass Congressional scrutiny for a job as Lurch the butler.

Granted, Marcus says “accommodation has its limits.” Ok, what are the limits? Shouldn’t we know what “the limits” are before we start accommodating? And, when do we infidels start getting some accommodation from our (we’re certain) multicultural Muslim friends? Marcus advocates a “regime of reasonable accommodation,” but she doesn’t define “reasonable.” Shouldn’t we know what is non-negotiable before we start making concessions?

Making cultural accomodations (a.k.a special favors) to Islamists is not progress, but capitulation and belies a lack of confidence in our own culture and way of life. Hopefully we will realize this before it is too late.

Deciphering AP/CNN Spin of Kenyan Church Massacre

2008-01-01T08:52:00.000-08:00

Reported AP this morning: "At least 50 bodies have been found in a burnt church, the Associated Press has reported the Red Cross as saying, as tribal (italics mine) tensions simmered following the contested election of incumbent President Mwai Kibaki." (Link to CNN article here.) The key point CNN failed to mention was that Kibaki's (Kibaki is Catholic) opponent in the election, Raila Odinga, had pledged to enforce strict sharia law in Kenya. (Link to reference article here.)

CNN's customary "head-in-the-sand" (to put it politely) mischaracterization of the violence as "tribal" disguises the true nature of the conflict which is Islamists murdering infidels. It also belies an unwillingness to do the hard journalistic work necessary to excavate the underlying, disturbing motivation behind such an act.

Some Kenyan election polls had suggested an Odinga win. Clearly, the Kenyan Islamists could "almost taste" a sharia government and are not responding well to the disappointment. What better target for their ire than a church full of one of the (their) worst kind of "infidels," Christians. Don't expect the situation to improve any time soon.