Federal Over-reach Part 2: Bundy Ranch Commentary

19 04 2014

Quite a few friends and acquaintances have been asking for my take on the Bundy Ranch controversy in Nevada.  I have reserved much response until I felt I could express an honest and educated opinion.   I’ve read a lot of reports, watched a few video reports, and since I don’t get Fox News I haven’t seen much reporting on television that I can depend on to give any kind of honest critique that isn’t skewed by a pro-Obama, pro-Progressive ideology.  Today an article came across my screen that helped clarify the situation for me.  Even though I am “Johnny Come Lately” to the discussion, here goes!

As you know, the BLM backed down from a 2 week long standoff with the Bundy Family and a crowd of protesting supporters, some armed, some unarmed.  I was

Standoff in Nevada: Bundy supporters vs. BLM Rangers via Human Events

personally relieved to hear this news.  I really did not expect the Feds to de-escalate the situation.  Here we are burgeoning on the anniversary dates of Waco, Columbine, and the Oklahoma City bombing.  The recent KKK lunatic who attacked the Jewish Center’s in Kansas City, attempting to kill Jews and killing 3 Christians instead, has now added to the “weirdness” of April, not to mention Adolph Hitler’s birthday and Earth Day.  It would have been true to form had a backfiring truck engine, or an accidental weapon discharge initiated a massacre, similar to Wounded Knee.  Of course, as Senator Harry Reid cautioned, This ain’t over.  He is right about that.  But thankfully, a potential powder keg was diffused.

Speaking of Harry Reid, there are all kinds of strange ties and accusations flying about concerning his interests in the Bundy case.  Most of those ties lead to Chinese interests.  The Communist China energy giants China Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and Sinopec have already bought large interests in almost 28 million acres of US petroleum development, all since Obama took office, reversing a Bush administration policy blocking China based on national security concerns.  (For reference that is half the size of the state of Iowa!) Chinese corporation ENN Energy Group, an alternative energy giant, is connected to a solar panel farm in Clark County Nevada, the same county as the Bundy Ranch, but not the same property.  Harry Reid’s son happens to work for ENN Energy.  (More on the Reid/China connection here at WND and this YouTube video)

Then there’s Reid’s connection to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).  Former staffer for Harry Reid is Neil Kornze, now the head of BLM.  At the ripe age of 35, he has spent his career in government since college, probably never getting any dirt on his shoes.  None of this really bodes well for Harry.

My real concern is that the BLM, supposedly an environmental impact and administrative management office, is hiring contractors to confiscate private property (cattle) when they are not trained or equipped to manage or provide for the health and welfare of those cattle causing many of them to die (reportedly young calves were separated from their mothers during the gathering, mostly by helicopters), and shooting others outright.  Add to that the deployment of paramilitary spec-ops type “Rangers” who are directly employed by BLM, for the purpose of enforcement against private citizens.  (The Rangers were deployed before the militia or the crowd of protesting supporters arrived).

In a recent letter, dated April 15, and addressed to the President of the United States, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Director of the BLM, Texas Congressman Steve Stockman challenged the Administration, citing US Code that the BLM has no authority “to assume peremptory police powers, that role being reserved to the States” and that the federal government must “seek assistance from local law enforcement whenever the use of force may become necessary.”  Rep. Stockman goes further pointing out that it appears the the Secretary of the Interior has violated federal law by by-passing the local law enforcement offices.  Read Stockman’s letter here.

Whether Bundy is guilty of trespass, failure to pay fees, or whatever, this obvious over-reach by a federal administrative office seeking to enforce law by use of deadly force, or “peremptory police powers”, is very, very, dangerous.   The BLM spent over $3 million on the Bundy standoff.  According to documentary film-maker Dennis M. Lynch, he has not seen this much firepower deployed on the Southern border where drugs and people are routinely smuggled across.   “I never see the M-16’s down on the border stopping the drugs, and the terrorists, and the day laborers coming through on BLM property,” he says in this video.  Please watch it.  The BLM spent over $3 million on air and ground resources to lock down a piece of ground the size of Delaware.  This to confiscate 400 cattle with a current estimated value of about $350K which they then released.

Commentator Dana Loesch had this to say (via Human Events story “Cowmaggeddon“):

Dana Loesch also says mainstream media reporting about the immediate cause of the government’s futile cattle roundup is incorrect, as Cliven Bundy has not categorically refused to pay grazing fees:

“Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his [herd]’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch.

Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?”

Then you can throw in a term called “prescriptive rights” and it is possible that Bundy may have a legal position that BLM is afraid of, according to this story on Benswaan.com.  According to Todd Devlin, a Montana rancher, and county commissioner with real working contacts in the Dept of Interior having taught workshops for the agency in the past, prescriptive right is similar to an easement across another property owner in order to access yours. I’ll let you read Ben Swaan’s story for yourself to understand it better.  Devlin also said the amount owed by Bundy is probably closer to $200K than the $1.1 million that BLM wants, which most likely is comprised of penalties and fines for trespass cattle.  Devlin went to BLM to find out why they weren’t using other channels to work with Bundy.  He said the logical and conventional means of collecting such debt is to place a lien on the cattle.  This will prohibit the sanctioned owner from selling the cattle. It’s kind of like the IRS garnishing your paycheck, or the bank imposing a lien on your car.  When asked why the BLM hadn’t placed a lien on the cattle in question, they responded, “We hadn’t thought of that…” But they are considering it now.

Wow…

I won’t even go into the “Free Speech Zones” that were cordoned off by BLM for the express purpose and intent of containing the citizens who were exercising their right of grievance against the government in a peaceful protest.  Silly me.  I thought America was a “free speech zone”…

 





Obama is not a Muslim; He is a Progressocom

21 02 2013

H/T wnd.com

I continue to see and have good, well-meaning folks come up to me and talk about President Barack Obama being a Muslim.  I have many close friends, and faithful readers, who also believe that he is Muslim.   It is invariably a topic that comes up during the discussion time when I speak on the subject of Islam.  I have studied this issue quite in depth and have come to the following conclusions.

Technically, by parentage, Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim because in Islam if your father is Muslim, you are Muslim. It’s just the opposite of Judaism where if your mother is Jewish then you are Jewish. That makes sense because Islam, contrived by Satan himself, inverts everything.

You see,  according to the fundamentals of Islam, Allah is not simply another name for God such as YHWH, Hashem, Elohim, Adonni for the Jew, or Jehovah, Creator, Almighty, or Yeshua or Jesus for the Christian, or follower of Christ.  The character traits are different for Allah, than for the Creator God of many Names.  The difference is really quite simple:  Creator God of the Bible/Tanakh is the God of Light, Love and Life.  His “type” in Scripture is the Sun, “the Bright and morning Star”, Giver of Life, God of grace and redemption.  Allah is the god of Darkness, Damnation, and Death.  His “type” is the Moon, the Ruler of Darkness, Dictator of Law (Sharia) and purveyor of Death.

Bush ICWDC AwadCAIR Sept17

Pres. Bush with Nihad Awad and others at Islamic Center of Washington, DC, 9/17/01. National Archives Photo

However, technicalities aside, Obama is not a practicing Muslim. He is not a Christian either, though he does profess to be so. Neither do I believe him to be a Muslim practicing Taqiyya, or deception, in order to advance Islam.  (Taqiyya is a tactic used where lying is permitted, even commanded, in order to advance the cause.)

Yes, I know that much of the Islamic world believes he is Muslim.  Many Americans believe he is a Muslim and this story about Obama’s “shahada” ring from World Net Daily gives a convincing argument.  Further, I do agree that he seems to favor Islam in both his foreign and domestic policies.  [However, in all fairness, his policies dealing with Islam, both at home and abroad, are not unlike his predecessor, George Bush's. I remember post 9-11 that President Bush was the one who said that Islam was a peaceful religion that had been hi-jacked by extremists.  (That statement was the impetus which prompted me to begin my study of Islam.)  In fact, it was President Clinton, (not Thomas Jefferson) who held the first White House Iftar Dinner to celebrate Ramadan. Bush continued that tradition, bringing more importance to it in the aftermath of 9-11.]

No, Barack Obama is neither Christian or Muslim. Those both require faith in a deity more powerful than one’s self. He is a Narcissist and believes that he, Barack Obama, is the smartest, most eloquent, and best looking guy in whatever room he occupies.

He is a Marxist, no doubt. As such, he is atheist, which is at odds with Islam or Christianity in any form, his ring notwithstanding.  As a Marxist, he believes that Socialism/Communism will work – it just hasn’t been tried by the right people yet. He, and his Progressive/Socialist/Communist (ProgresSoComs) cronies are the “right people”.

Saul Alinsky is the closest thing to deity that this man trusts in. Alinsky’s tactics of smash and burn down the status quo and all supporting structures, divide and conquer, and politics of personal destruction, is not much different from the Islamic tactic of Jihad.  The end justifies the means.

The basic principal of Socialism/Communism is redistribution of wealth, with the governing power in the hands of a very few elite. For this reason Muslims vote Democrat.  Fear of the governing structure, and intimidation, along with hyperbolic misinformation are used as tools to keep people divided and ensure they will not unite against the authority, whether that authority is Islam or any other authoritarian governmental structure.  The old Arab proverb, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, is brought into play.

This is why Barack Obama has allied himself with Islam. The principals are parallel. The tactics not dissimilar. The objective is the same.  The only practical difference is that Islam is “Theistic” wherein they believe they are on a mission from a god. Obama and his fellows believe the state is god. Both entities are fundamentally at odds with America as she has historically existed. This is what Obama meant by “fundamentally transforming America.” Both parties want America to fall. Both parties believe after it does, they will be able to overcome their expedient ally.

It would be interesting to know who will win in this scenario – Obama and the Progressocoms, or Islam.   Nevertheless, I hope I do not see it…





Death of a Nation

13 11 2012

Polarization

The United States  has, since it’s inception of a common government, hosted political views that weren’t always in unison.  The Founders were seldom in agreement about how and what type of government to establish, and the very fact that it took 6 years to ratify a Constitution following the 8 year War of Independence, is testimony to the process and debate between men who were independent thinkers.  While the Founders may have been polarized politically at times, they were mostly if not nearly unanimously in agreement that Mankind was beholden, and responsible, to a Creator God for his actions in this life.  They also understood the gravity of their moment in the history of Mankind and what it would mean to posterity.  They fully comprehended, as John Jay said, “The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government under which they should live.”  

Noah Webster wrote, “When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.”  [Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, �49.] (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=80)

This was the regulating factor alleviating the political polarization of early America.  This concept is readily availed within the opening and closing paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence and in the numerous documents and letters forged by those that we call “The Founders“.

How to kill a Giant…

The United States of America has, without question, been the single most powerful Nation the world has ever seen.  No military force ever fielded could have successfully invaded and taken this country by armed conquest.  No philosophy or ideology conceived or contrived has been able to break this Union of States or the American Spirit, which has bound her people with one resolve.  The ability of her people to assimilate into the great American “melting pot”, each culture of origin of her immigrants brought a flavor of their homeland which served to enhance, but not overpower, the uniqueness of what the entire world has aspired to, and what we have known simply as “America”.

America is not an empire; the concept is not temporal but spiritual; its very essence of greatness has been borne by an idea which has become but a whisper for fear of it vanishing.  No nation, kingdom, or empire ever ascended to such heights of glory and power as the United States of America, and yet afforded or preserved her citizens such individual rights and liberties.  This is the beauty and singular ideal that has separated America from all other countries and empires and kingdoms of the world; yes even for all of human history!

Until now.

…Divide and Conquer

What has become of America? How have we become such a balkanized, polarized, divided population?  We are not even an “American people” any longer.  The great melting pot of assimilation has become a TV dinner, cold and segregated lest any segment of our society actually merge with another.  The push for “Multi-Culturalism” and “Pluralism” have resulted in the exact opposite of the promised outcome.  We are more racially divided, our immigrants do not seek to assimilate into American language or culture and pretty much demand that we allow them to retain a separate community, culture and language, and if we ask them to come join us we are labeled as racist, xenophobic, hateful bigots.

There was a time, in fact up until recently, that immigrants to this country raised their children here to assimilate into American Society, insisting they learn the language and culture, and become American.  I personally know one such family who came here from Southeast Asia, narrowly escaping the Communist “cleansing” (genocide), which swept unbridled through the region post US/Vietnamese involvement, with the shirts on their backs and lost many family members on the way out.   These friends speak their language of origin in the home and as far as I know stick to a traditional diet in the home. (It is awesome Asian food!) I once asked the father why the elders of the family have Lao names and all the children have American names.  His answer was profound. “We were born in Laos. We have Lao names. Our children were born in America; they are Americans. They have American names.”  (Not once did he utter “Asian-American”.)  The children, all equally bilingual, are productive and vivacious young citizens who are happy to be Americans, cognizant of the American ideal, fully assimilated, yet retain a uniquely Laotian influence, while working hard to provide for themselves.  My friends do not demand that they be given special recognition, special rights, or that the rest of America make provision for them.

Modern America is the only nation in the world that acquiesces to, and encourages such nonsense, and our governmental policies ensure that these divisions are kept in place and those lines of separation remain clear. Why?

The answer is very simple: a divided people are much easier to control than a united one.  It’s classic Saul Alinskey- Create a state of chaos by overloading the system.  Use the politics of personal destruction to embarrass your enemy and exploit their own human faults.

If politicians can keep us labeled as “African-Americans, Native Americans, Mexican-Americans, Asian-American, and now even sexual preference merits the designation “Gay-Americans”.  (I remember when just about everyone I knew were “gay” because we were happy about most things in life.) Now I am hearing the term “Muslim-American” so now we can be further divided by our religion.  I have noticed, however, that when the media, or politicians, use these pandering terms it is never to integrate any people group with another, but to differentiate between people groups.  This type of labeling does nothing to unite or integrate society, but has a divisive connotation and serves to further fracture our society.  It is no accident.

I have no problem with people celebrating their heritage; I like to experience “cultural diversity” as well as the next person.  But while all people are created equal, and should be treated as equal, not all ideas are. This is why “Pluralism” is a failure.

Pluralism assumes that all religions are equal and that each is as valuable as the next.  The fact is, all religions, ideologies, cultures, and political systems are not equal.  Such equity would naturally require “Moral Relativism”. Moral Relativism which does not contrast by judgement of good and evil, also doesn’t differentiate between Adolph Hitler and Mother Theresa.   Definitively, (if that is “morally relatively” possible!) there is no absolute truth, no right or wrong, and we should all tolerate, if not embrace, any behavior of others no matter how destructive, even when we find it objectionable or wrong.  Oh, wait…hmm…sounds familiar doesn’t it?

The Last Great Virtue

“Tolerance” and apathy have been called “the last great virtues of a dying society”(Aristotle).  By tolerating evil whether it be in the form of “religion”, ideology, or culture, America has allowed it’s greatest legitimate virtue of a free and open society, to become the very avenue by which the enemy has gained access.  The cancers of tolerance and apathy have metastasized.

The very laws of nature demand and demonstrate truth.  An acorn always becomes an oak tree; it can’t decide it is going to be different than all the other acorns, and grow into a maple tree.  A stalk of wheat cannot bear a head of rice.  A kangaroo cannot eat a dingo, and a dingo cannot nest in a tree.  A bird cannot breathe water, and water always seeks its own level.  Failure of a wildebeest to exercise caution at the watering hole can result in being eaten by crocodile or lion.  Such are the laws of nature, set in place by nature’s God.

The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God have been a template for mankind since the beginning.  Unyielding and absolute truth tempered by the merciful character of God as set forth in the Bible, set the parameters for a civil and just human government, and when these boundaries are breached, chaos follows.  Thomas Jefferson referred to this template in The Declaration of Independence, and men like John Locke and William Blackstone, both scholars in law and Scripture, influenced the thinking of America’s founders, so much so, that the type of government created was so unique that it has been referred to as “The American Experiment” for nigh onto 250 years now.

This experiment commands the vigilance of an attentive people, so that “government of the People, by the People, and for the People, shall not perish from the Earth”.  That was the nature of the experiment, and a failure by the People to attend to those requirements has resulted in what seems to be impending doom.  When Benjamin Franklin was asked by a citizen just after the Constitution was ratified, “Well Doctor, what have we got; a Republic or a Monarchy?”  “A Republic,” answered Franklin, “If you can keep it.”

George Washington said, “Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.”  He also warned against government expansion, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Or in more contemporary language, “government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have.”

We seem to have lost our Republic, Mr. Franklin.





Ever Get Lectured by a Teenager!??!

7 10 2012

Yes, there is hope for the Future of America!





The Coming Revolution

8 02 2012

I have said for 15 years that the next American Revolution or Civil War will be started by the Left.  Today, more than ever, that belief has solidified and is fast becoming apparent.  I will go further and say this, February of 2012: In my opinion, the next elected President will either be George Washington or Joseph Stalin.  In surveying the field of candidates at this point, I see no George Washington.  However, “Joe” could already be in office and consolidating his power.

The Bolsheviks are inside the gates and the near objective is the death of “capitalism”.  Occupy Wall Streeter’s (OWS) are chanting for the death of capitalism.  (Heck, they’re chanting for the deaths of CEO’s, cops, and tea partiers, with some of them advocating the return of the guillotine.)  However, history proved the Bolsheviks to be mere pawns in the eventuality of Stalin’s rise to power against even Lenin’s wishes.  Although Lenin was a Marxist Bolshevik, he was not the authoritarian figure that Stalin sought to be and became after Lenin’s health declined.

Collectivism

There is an ideology that has been around in America for a long time now, but has never had the momentum and support from our institutions that it currently enjoys. That ideology is collectivism. It has existed in varying degrees around the world in political movements like socialism, communism, and fascism.  In its mild form it opposes capitalism, seeks to redistribute wealth, limit private property ownership, all through government regulation.    (“Social Justice” is another term that is frequently used by collectivists.) This is “social democracy”.  We are becoming very close to that now, if not already there.

Collectivism always puts the group needs before the needs/rights of the individual.  The ultimate in a secular collectivist society is Communism, where the government owns or controls everything from food production to education.  It manages information flow through news media, the arts, and academia.  The duty of each citizen is to the state. The natural result of this philosophy is the weak perish, and the middle class disappears. The ultimate goal of total equality is nearly met, and for all the rhetoric of “social justice”, well…everyone lives in poverty except the ruling elite.

Islam is another collectivist society in which the rights/needs of the individual are not important, but demands each citizen serve the collective in order to maintain it. The only practical difference between Islam and Communism is that Islam is a Theocracy, in which all aspects of life and society are controlled by the ideology, dispensed upon the collective, by the collective, if a theocratic government is not available. In Islam, once again, the ideal governmental system is a Theocracy in which the authoritarian government is Islam. Again, the middle class is virtually none existent, while the ruling elite prosper.

America, conversely, was never set up to be collectivist in its ideology.  The founding documents, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were designed to protect the rights of the individual from the state.  The stark difference from America and the rest of the world is that our Declaration points out that “all men are created equal” and are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers  in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” [Emphasis added]

See, America was never intended to be a “Top Down” authoritarian government. It is not a Democracy, where the mob rules, but a Representative Republic, governed by law instituted by the People, and Representatives of their own choosing.  In the words of Lincoln, “government of the People, by the People, and for the People.”

America has always been about the Liberty of Mankind to choose his own destiny, his responsibility to his God, and his duty to preserve these things for his descendants and his fellow citizens.  It has proven that the success of the collective depends upon the liberty of the individual. When the individual is allowed to prosper and flourish, the community prospers together.  That was the difference between the early Colonies of Jamestown and Plymouth. Jamestown had been a “collectivist” or communal endeavor in which all property was held in common and all needs came from the common purse, or storehouse.  This leads to the “freeloaders” who contribute little or nothing and consume as much as everyone else. Jamestown died.  Plymouth began as such but William Bradford recognized the flawed system and allotted a parcel of land to each family to provide for their own needs and any surplus could be sold or given to a neighbor.  Capitalism.

It is commonly misunderstood among the OWS crowd and many average Americans, that charity is squelched by capitalism.  Quite the contrary, capitalism begets charity, especially when the prosperous citizen believes in his Creator and therefore has a sense of duty to his fellow man which always results in a higher rate of contribution to community than an over reaching government taking from the prosperous and “redistributing the wealth” (as Mr. Obama would say) because the government requires its cut for inefficient administrative bureaucracy.

An authoritarian government can never create a benevolent citizenry.  It can only dispossess its citizens to meet its own needs.  A benevolent citizenry is created by allowing that society to prosper from within, to the point of plenty, when then by the dictates of conscience, not government, each person may choose charity, thereby raising the standard of living for all.  William Bradford proved it out.

The argument could easily be made that “Godless Capitalism” is evil.  I would not disagree; but would remind you that “Godless anything” is evil, including Godless Government, Godless Politicians, Godless Education, Godless Finance, and Godless Media.  But the striking thing here is this: Those who are decrying the evils of “Godless Capitalism” are of the very persuasion that ejected God from our institutions!!

Revolution Requires Chaos

If you haven’t picked up Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” by now, you simply must read it, although it will nearly be a review of the last 3 years.  Professor Barack Obama, our Chief Community Organizer taught Alinsky’s methods to his students.  Alinsky’s fundamental premise is found on page 116, “The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step towards community organization.”  He then advises the organizer, When you are labeled an “an agitator, they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict.”(p. 117)

Alinsky only left out one piece of the puzzle. What to do with what you break.  Breaking the targeted system is easy; rebuilding something that is productive isn’t.  But his acknowledgment at the beginning of the book should have given us a clue.  To: “…the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”

Speaking of Amahdinejad, the President of Iran has agreed with Alinsky that chaos is the way to get things done and he plans to instigate enough chaos to wake up the 12th Imam, so that Islam can enter its global glory.  Striking similarities here, if you ask me.

America stands at the most pivotal point in her history since the Kansas-Nebraska Act (which resulted in the Civil War).  We are polarized.  We are factionalized.  Our history has been rewritten to minimalize the importance of our Judeo-Christian foundation. Our institutions have been purged of morality that comes from that foundation. Our language is adulterated with vulgarities which are most commonplace in our youth.  Our youth have been hijacked by powers that redefine what family is and strip them of any faith in God that was instilled as a child, and replaced with a collectivist philosophy, “from each according to ability, to each according to need”. That’s Karl Marx, by the way.  It’s also most of the leadership in the current American Democrat Party, unions, our education system, and the media.

Chaos? I fear there will be more than anyone wants to see very soon.

Yes, Mr. Obama, I believe you have “fundamentally transformed America”. Made good on that campaign promise, “yes you did”, but you can’t take all the credit yourself. It’s been in the works for a long time.

The Historic lesson?  Collectivist revolutions always take you farther than you want to go.

The Spiritual lesson?  Godless revolutions always lead straight to Hell….

Where are you George?





Social Justice: A Key Philosophy of Islam

5 10 2011

What do Islamists, Socialists, Communists, Progressives and Greens all have in common?  The ideal of “Social Justice”.

This Utopian philosophical mainstay has been around for quite a while and had its modern roots in the “Social Gospel” espoused by the Episcopalian Church in the early 20th century.  Other similar variant philosophies such as “Liberation Theology” have come out of religious ideologies taught by Roman Catholic clergy in Latin America which merged Marxism with theological teachings of Utopian objectives.   The United Methodist Church has fully embraced “Social Justice” as one of its “Methods”, citing “It is a governmental responsibility to provide all citizens with health care.”    (Even the Green Party movement has as one of its “four pillars”, social justice as a basic tenet.)  I don’t recall Jesus Christ ever admonishing the government of Rome to provide social services to its subjects.  He did however, admonish His followers to provide for the poor…of their own initiative, not by compulsory government intervention.

Post Millennialism is an extra-Biblical doctrine in Christendom which says that in order for Jesus to return to Earth, Mankind must cleanse the world of all the social evils that plague the planet.   In other words, when we get it right, He will return.  Human nature is, of course, antithetical to that objective in light of the fact that all humans are sinful creatures; thus the need for redemption from the curse of death, visa vi the Savior.  Post-Millennialism is indeed an ingenious method to distract  “Christian” religious organizations who have “left their first love” and become diverted from proclaiming the Gospel of Christ to a lost and sinful world. It is a theological seed-bed for “Social Gospel” which is strictly a works based religious theology.  To quote Adrian Rogers, it is “religion working to make the world a better place to go to Hell from.”

The Social Gospel was the root of “Progressivism” in early 1900’s US politics, which became more Leftist each time it “reformed”.  Included in that early movement were names like Teddy Roosevelt,  Woodrow Wilson, FDR.

Socialists of the same era included Upton Sinclair, founder of the ACLU and California candidate for governor who wrote,

“The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to “End Poverty in California” I got 879,000.”

Another noteworthy name in American Progressive/Socialist politics is Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and advocate of eugenics who was cited by Nazi’s at the Nuremberg Trials as foundational in developing their own programs of genocide and sterilization.  Planned Parenthood annually awards recipients worthy of her memory. Recipients include names such as Jane Fonda, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Ted Turner.

Today, Progressives are a large part of both the Green and Democrat parties, while raw Socialists, Marxists, Anarchists, and Communists pretty much make up the remainder of the two.  Just my opinion…(Heck, progressives are entrenched in the Republican Party as well. We call them “Moderates”.)

Today’s proponents of Social Justice are a mix of religious zealots, atheistic Leftist elites, and a smattering of environmentalist activists (most of these would qualify as religious zealots).  It is an ideology which has infiltrated American institutions from the schoolhouse, to the mainstream churches, to the media.

“Social justice” is one of the core values of Fethullah Gulen’s “Turkish Movement”.  The not so “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood also espouses social justice as a core value.  Stands to reason as this is one of the key principles of Islam.

You see in Islam, just as in Socialism, Progressivism, and Communism, it is the government’s/ruler’s responsibility to redistribute resources from those who have, or produce them, to those who have not.  As Marx put it, “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.”

Yes, “social justice” translates as “income and/or property redistribution”.   Now you know why Muslim’s vote Democrat.

This serves to explain the “unholy” alliance that has been made between the Left and Islamic activists in the West, especially in Canada and the United States.  The shared ideologies of  “solidarity”, “social justice,” and a common desire to smother capitalism and a free and open society, have consolidated the opponents of traditional American values into a deadly and powerful force that has found refuge in the highest offices in the land.

Aside from the long list of administrative appointments that our current President has given in sensitive positions (such as Department of Homeland Security) to at least one self-styled Communist, at least 3 Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, at least one open proponent of Sharia Law, and at least one documented socialist, (Not an exhaustive list, mind you; just a cursory perusal of Administration Staff) a recent poll indicates an overwhelming approval of the Obama Presidency among America’s Islamic community.

Pew Research Center released its latest polling data showing vast differences between the average American citizen and Muslim’s (American) satisfaction with the President.  Whereas in 2007, President Bush’s approval among U. S. Muslims was 15% and 69% disapproved, the 2011 data showed that only 14% disapproved of President Obama while an overwhelming 76% approved.

As Pew said in its own report, “Muslim-Americans clearly see a friend in Obama.”  You can read the Wall Street online article titled, “A Muslim President, After All”.  This is quite revealing in light of the Gallup approval rating for Obama at 42%, the lowest among Americans since he took office, with a disapproval rating of 50%.  His approval rating among American blacks (I refuse to hyphenate Americans) has dropped in the last 5 months from 83% to 58%, 18 points lower than that of America’s Islamic community.

So how is that religions and political ideologies that are so antithetically opposed to one another, such as Islam and atheistic Communism (or Progressivism) can cooperate so fully in their  political endeavors?   These forces have been at bloody odds for generations.

The “End Game” for both is the same.  There is an old (supposed) Arab proverb, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend“.  This is a doctrine that has been implemented by military powers throughout history and has been used by most.  The Western Alliance and Russia both used each other to defeat the Nazi’s in WW2.  It is no strange tool to politics.  In fact, it is nearly a prescribed strategy in politics.

The interesting thing about this modern scenario in America, is each ideological group believes they will come out in control in the end.  The basic premise is use the others to my advantage until our common enemy is vanquished, then I can overpower the other interests. It is classic Saul Alinsky.   The Leftist Elite are so arrogant, they believe they can “be nice” to Islam and help/use Islam to subvert the American system and culture, and afterward; when the objective is reached and America is “Fundamentally transformed” (as Mr. Obama so eloquently put it) then Islam will politely co-exist with the Socialists.  Laughable…

Every good Islamist and those who know Islam understand that “co-existence” is not in the Quranic vocabulary.  But the arrogance of the godless Humanists brings a strong delusion which renders the mind incapable of basic reasoning skills and the natural instinct of survival.  The principle of Abrogation, taught by Muhammad and attested to in Quran, does not allow Islam to “co-exist” with any government, culture, or religion. It must, by its very nature, dominate.

Someone is going to be very disappointed in “the enemy of his enemy” after the objective is accomplished.  There is no dhimmitude status afforded atheists.  There is no tolerance for intellectual dissension.  Only conversion or death.

Social Justice? To the Leftist Elite it’s a Utopian pipe dream.  To Islam? It is prescribed by Sharia. One needs only examine those countries where Sharia is enforced to see what a Utopian lifestyle is available there.  Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia…

Social Justice indeed.

I guess it depends on who is “defining the narrative”…Keep in mind the Islamic narrative in the United States is currently being defined by CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood.





Euramerika: Part 1; Statesman, Stupid, or Suicidal?

5 03 2010

This article first published Dec. 8,2009 under title of:

Statesmen, Stupid, or “Suicidal”

Revised March 1, 2010 and included as first in a series of articles entitled “Euramerika”.

I heard a radio talk show host a few months ago talking about the Liberals “End Game”. The question was, “What is their end game”? I thought about that for a while and I will share a few of those thoughts in this article…

The first nature of a politician is to compromise. Sometimes it is necessary in order to get legislation passed; perhaps as a politician you don’t get everything you wanted in a bill, but after wrangling and lots of discussion you decide that you can support the amendments of the opposition in order to pass a bill that contains the basics that you were in favor of for the benefit of your constituents. Consensus always comes by compromise. This is inherently how politics works, like it or not.

The second nature of a politician is self preservation. One cannot compromise too much without risking the support of the constituency in the next election. Very few individuals in the political realm will act without considering these consequences.

Then, on occasion in history, we have seen in a politician real statesmanship. That is, a wisdom and understanding of when compromise is acceptable in achieving a goal for “the greater good”, and when compromise is detrimental to society. When the dust settles, (perhaps years later) the statesman is vindicated and even though his constituency as well as many colleagues may have opposed him at the onset, he’s hailed a hero.  This type of politician, a true statesman, only comes along once every other generation or so. These would be men such as the American Founders.  Winston Churchill also comes to mind along with Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge and Margaret Thatcher. (I suppose I should say ‘Statesperson’ to be PC, but that’s another article.) I would even go so far as to throw Ronald Reagan in that classification, just as a recent example, though some of my readers may not agree. (Too bad, it’s my article and I have no pretense of being an “objective journalist”!)

My conundrum is, across the current political landscape, identifying the goal of the players;  “The end game”? What is the ultimate objective? My opinion…

I believe we are at a point in history in America that has been long awaited by some for perhaps as long as 100 years. The “Progressive Movement” that was so much of who Woodrow Wilson was, has come to the point of balance that is very near tipping. Once that balance shifts, there will be no return to America as we have known it. Perhaps it already has.

What possesses a politician to oppose his constituents on a matter? Statesmanship?  Yes, at times that has been the case. But have we suddenly morphed scores of new statesmen from formerly career politicians? I shall withhold my full reaction to that question at this juncture. Suffice to say, Not!

So if not ‘statesmanship’, then what, ‘stupidity’? Perhaps…“Stupid is as stupid does” you know. But I find it hard to believe there are that many stupid people who could get elected.

So if not statesmanship or stupidity, then what? Suicide? Now there’s a real possibility. Just think of them as “suicide voters”. The empire of Japan brought us the “Kamikaze”, the suicide pilot. Islam has brought us the “suicide bomber”. Now the Progressive movement has brought to America the “suicide politician”!

Does anyone really believe that if this Congress continues to act against their constituents’ loud opposition to the “Bailouts”, “Stimulus”, “ObamaCare”, and “Cap and Trade” that they can stand for re-election this year? Seriously, it is as if the mission of the legislation has become the objective and the people nothing more than a means to fulfill the objective. Not by consent of course, but as the piggy bank. (I believe it was Mrs. Thatcher who said, “The trouble with socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples’ money.”)

But that doesn’t work either. It goes against the second nature of preservation for a politician to sacrifice everything for nothing. However, there may be a few who could be persuaded by their leadership that their “run is done” anyway, and others may be “persuaded” to get on the bandwagon or suffer the (scandalous) consequences. (Reminiscent of the Gestapo of the 3rd Reich)

Then there is the true believer, the martyr, the “Jihadi warrior” who truly supports the objective. They are the leadership and faithful believers who march lock step toward the objective, no matter the price, some even believing that the rewards will be “Paradise” or at least a political payback or immunity. (Sorry boys, no 72 black-eyed virgins; only Nancy Pelosi!)

The objective?

Consider “Dissolution”. In order to “fundamentally change” anything you must change the fundamentals. That is, completely dissolve what you want to replace and begin again. It is a tactic that has been used by Revolutionaries for centuries.

Columnist Mark Steyn began his November 23 column “Happy Warrior” in National Review magazine by quoting the famous German poet and playwright, Bertolt Brecht, who after the East German uprising in 1953 wrote this: “Would it not be easier for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?”

Dissolve the people…yeah, that could work…like through pluralism, secularism, revisionist history, open borders, affirmative action, Darwinism, reparations, and class warfare!  The rules as well as the objective, the “end game”, were established a hundred years ago! A brief study of Woodrow Wilson reveals a philosophy akin to Karl Marx. Wilson with no help from the US Congress, was key in forming the League of Nations, later to become the UN. We all know what a smashing success that utopian idea has become.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Candidate Barak Obama did say he wanted to “fundamentally change America”.  I concede that we do have some problems, but the fundamentals are not among them. In fact, the problems we have are due to leaving the fundamentals behind and pursuing something that doesn’t exist, making it up as we go.

Obama also referred to himself, as have others such as Senator Clinton, as “Progressive” after the model of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. He then declared, “Our time has come!” Who’s time has come? “Ours” as in America’s, or “Ours” as in Progressives. Or was he speaking to someone else?

Brecht was of course, a Marxist. We call them “Progressives” today in Euramerika.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,242 other followers

%d bloggers like this: