Sunday, October 31, 2010

Friday, October 29, 2010

Explosives sent from Yemen to the U.S.

Today the U.S. intercepted bombs sent to the America from Yemen, apparently intended for synagogues in Chicago. The United States is now screening packages coming from Yemen.

This raises numerous questions: Isn't that discrimination against the people of Yemen who send packages to America? Are we doing this just because they are Muslims? Isn't this racial profiling?

Rather than discriminating against the peaceful Muslims of Yemen, perhaps we should be randomly screening all packages--especially those coming from American Christians who, as everyone knows, are just as dangerous as radical Muslims.

Yemen is one of the poorest countries in the Middle East. This is probably due to American imperialist oppression so if our President would just go to Yemen and bow to their ruler and give them several billion dollars in aid, perhaps they would be nice to us and stop trying to bomb us.

Never mind. I was just trying to think like a liberal.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Obama: Punish your enemies

In an interview on Univision, Barack Obama told his Latino audience:
If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, "We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,"
This is our post-racial President--the one who swore to us that he would be uniter--calling for Latino's to punish those who disagree with them on the issue of illegal immigration! To punish them!

Those who might want to excuse the President on the basis that he was just talking about punishing his enemies in the election should just imagine the liberal hysteria (and rightly so) if President Bush had appeared on Christian TV and encouraged Christians to punish their enemies?

Can there be any doubt that if the racist David Duke had called on white people to punish their enemies, it would have been rightly viewed as racist hate speech?

What makes Obama tick?

The best theories make sense of the most data without twisting, distorting or leaving inconvenient data out.  In the September 27 issue of Forbes magazine, Dinesh D'Souza proposes a theory to explain Barack Obama's bizarre behavior.For example,

While Obama is not a big supporter of off-shore oil drilling in America, "With Obama's backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion" to Brazil to develop their own state-run off shore oil drilling--not to bring oil to America, but just for Brazil.

Even though Obama's near trillion dollar stimulus has done little to help the economy (unemployment was 7.7 when he took office. It is now 9.5%) yet he wants to spend even more!

Obama keeps insisting that the "rich" aren't paying their fair share event though the top 10% pay 70% of all federal taxes and the bottom 40% pay almost nothing!

He supports the building of a $100 million dollar mosque on the basis of "freedom of religion."  [why doesn't he support building churches in Saudia Arabia on the basis of Freedom of Religion?]

He told the head of NASA their primary mission would now be outreach to Muslims!

Some speculate the Obama just doesn't know business or that he is a socialist, if not an outright Marxist. D'Sousa says such theories are incomplete. He says that Obama himself tells us of his motivation. His motivation comes from the dreams from his father. D'Sousa notes that the title of Obama's book is not "Dreams of my Father" as if he were just discussing his father's dreams, but "Dreams from his Father."  His fathers dreams are President Obama's dreams.

So who was Obama Sr.? He was a Harvard educated, Luo tribesman from Kenya who had four wives and was accused by one of his sons of being a wife beater. He was also a regular drunk driver who killed a man in one accident and caused man's legs to be amputated in another.

He was also anti-colonialist. D'Sousa says he knows something about anti-colonialism because he grew up in India and was "part of the first Indian generation to be born after my country's independence from Britain." Anti-colonialism is the idea that Western countries "got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa, and South America." Neocolonialism argues that even after independence is gained, the West continues take advantage of former colonial countries.

As a sidelight, I find it interesting that while America was one of those former British colonies, other British colonies now view America as the great oppressor even though America did what no conquering nation on earth (to my knowledge) had done--we rebuilt the very countries we conquered (e.g Germany, Japan, Italy, Iraq) and turned the rule back over to them! But I digress

Anyway, the solution proposed by anti-colonialists is to resist and overthrow the oppressors. That was Barack Obama Sr.'s dream. According to D'Sousa, we don't have to guess about Obama's motivations. Obama tells us that his dreams are his father's dreams. So how does this work out in the President's policies?

Please read the D'Souza' entire article in Forbes.  (Hat tip: Professor Ed).

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Ad for Christian roommate brings civil rights complaint

According to Fox News,
A civil rights complaint has been filed against a woman in Grand Rapids, Mich., who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate.
The ad "expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths,” according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.
This is the brave new world of the Left where bigotry against Christianity and arbitrary views of discrimination trump freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association (Hat tip: Jen H.)

How any Christian could in good conscience vote for anyone on the Left is beyond me.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Teachers sue Arizona

According to CNN, there is a new law in Arizona that...
...authorizes the superintendent to stop any ethnic studies classes that "promote the overthrow of the United States government ... promote resentment toward a race or class of people ... (or) advocate ethnic solidarity instead of treatment of pupils as individuals."
Eleven Tuscon teachers are suing the State of Arizona over it.

Actually, it seems to me that the law is very poorly written. What does "promote the resentment toward a race or class of people" mean? Could a neo-Nazi student of German descent file suit to stop Arizona from teaching about the Holocaust because it could "promote resentment toward Germans?

Could someone of Japanese descent file suit to prevent the teaching about Pearl Harbor because it might promote resentment toward Japanese?

Could a white supremacist student file suit to stop Arizona from teaching about American slavery because it could promote resentment against White people?

Could a Muslim student file suit against Arizona to prevent the teaching of what happened on 9/11 because it could promote resentment against Muslims?

How can such vague wording get past an entire legislature? The law sounds like a gold mine for lawyers!  (Hat tip: Kevin).

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Pentagon dines with Al-Qaeda shortly after 9/11

Shortly after 9/11 the Bush administration was very eager to have outreach to "moderate Muslims" so the Pentagon invited a Muslim Imam to give a presentation at a "special lunch for Muslim outreach."

Turns out the Imam was Anwar Al-Awlaki, an Al-Qaeda leader on the CIA watch list! Unbelievable!

Read the story on Fox.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Thomas Sowell on multiculturalism

Thomas Sowell has a good article on multiculturalism in Townhall.

Here is part 2.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Muslim school in Minnesota responds with intimidation

It is a very rare day when I find myself on the same side as the ACLU but I believe in giving credit where credit is due and I applaud their efforts in this case.

Please take time to read this sobering article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune about how the ACLU is challenging an Islamic public school in Minneapolis...and how the [moderate] Muslims supporting this school are responding with intimidation. See also Jihad Watch.

Friday, October 15, 2010

Democrat Pat Caddell hammers Obama

Pat Caddell is a long time Democrat "who has worked for a number of presidential campaigns, including Joe Biden's in 19880." In a recent interview he has unloaded on the Obama administration saying that their hypocrisy on campaign finance is mind-blowing, and that their attacks on their enemies are "Nixonian" and reek of McCarthyism. 

Regarding Obama's inner circle Caddell says, "These are naive idiots who've come out of academia and have never done anything real in their lives...These are the people we never let in the room when we had serious business to do. Now their running the country."

This coming from a longtime committed Democrat leader!

Please take time to read the entire (short) article on The Daily Caller.

The Crusades and Christians

I have been reading an excellent book on the crusades recently in which the author made a very insightful observation. He said that medieval knights in Europe were very violent, very immoral, and very religious (God's Battalions by Rodney Stark).

I was reading in Ephesians this morning and came across the passage in which St. Paul writes:
No immoral, impure or greedy person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient (Eph. 5:5-6).
Paul apparently does not mean that if a Christian stumbles and falls into sin he is no longer a Christian since his first letter to the Corinthians is to "carnal" Christians who are sinning. In fact Paul warns that those who think they stand should take heed lest they fall (1 Corinthians. 10:12). In other words, no one should think they are so holy that they could not fall into sin. St. John goes so far as to say that if anyone says he is without sin, he is a liar (1 John 1:8).

On the other hand, in Ephesians 5 Paul is certainly saying that those who live lives characterized by immorality and greed demonstrate by their "fruit" or behavior that they are not really Christians at all regardless of what they may profess with their mouth. Paul says essentially the same thing in Galatians 5:19-21 and First Corinthians. 6:9-10. Paul is simply following the teachings of Jesus (cf. Matthew 7:15-23).

I find this interesting because Christians are regularly attacked for all the evil that took place during the crusades. I have no doubt that some crusaders were genuine Christians who were responding to 400 years of violent and relentless Muslim expansion and imperialism, but I'm also quite sure that the vast majority of Europeans who took part in the crusades were no more Christian than Muhammad who was just as violent, brutal and ruthless as any of the crusaders.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Discrimination and freedom of religion

In the Civil Rights era more and more people came to the realization that discrimination against people based on skin color is wrong, discrimination against people based on race is wrong, and discrimination against people based on national origin is wrong (I would say, "sinful").

Over time this was abbreviated out of convenience to "Discrimination is wrong." Unfortunately, many Americans have now interpreted this as if it meant, "discrimination against anything for any reason is wrong."

If they just thought about it for a few minutes, they should realize that this is absurd! We all discriminate every day. To use a ridiculous example just to make the point, when you get up in the morning and choose to put on a shirt, you have just discriminated against all the other shirts in your closet. Or, more seriously, when the police arrest someone for driving under the influence, they have just discriminated against those who drink and drive (including some alcoholics). When an employer fires someone for stealing or for violent outbursts, the employer has just discriminated based on behavior.

So while discrimination against people based on amoral characteristics like skin color, national origin or race is wrong, discrimination against people for certain behaviors is not always wrong.

Some religions have always considered certain behaviors to be sinful. Christianity, in particular, has considered murder, theft, adultery, and numerous sexual behaviors including sex with people of the same sex, to be sinful.

If many Leftists, Democrats and gay activists had their way, religious organizations would not have the freedom to discriminate against certain behaviors (Of course it is those on the Left who want to determine for us which behaviors we can and cannot discriminate against).

In a free society, religious organizations must have the freedom to say, "we will not allow an adulterer to be a member of our group," or "we will not employ someone who has sex with people of the same sex to lead our group."

When the day comes that religious organizations--not just churches--cannot discriminate against people who practice certain behaviors, we will no longer have freedom of religion in America.

Dennis Prager: God, Liberals and Liberty

In Townhall this morning, one of my favorite talk show hosts, Dennis Prager--who happens to be an orthodox Jew--writes about God, Liberals and Liberty. It is excellent! If you read only one article this week, please take time to read this one. Then ask yourself, how could any Christian vote Democrat?

Monday, October 11, 2010

How will not extending Bush tax cuts affect you?

The Democratic Congress has not yet extended the Bush tax cuts. If you'd like to see how that will affect you starting January, FoxNews has a tax calculator for you.

I seem to remember Obama and the Democrats absolutely swearing that they would not raise taxes one dime on the middle class. I'm middle class and it looks like my taxes could go up more than a thousand dollars!

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Hope and change: A baseball story

Thursday, October 07, 2010

Christians and politics

Well said!

Health care...yet another Obama lie?

Remember when Barack Obama promised, ""Here's a guarantee that I have made. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you've got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor." According to Hugh Hewitt,
3M announced this week it is getting out of the business of insuring its retirees...The Principal Financial Group that it is exiting the health insurance business, waiving goodbye to its 840,000 covered insureds...Harvard Pilgrim, an uinsurer doing business in New England, told 22,000 seniors last week that they cannot have their old Medicare Advantage plans back as the company is out of that business next year...And McDonald's is debating whether to continue its "mini-med" policies for its hourly workers.
These are just the first wave of changes --often drastic and expensive-- which will impact Americans' health insurance between now and the end of the year. The changes are coming even though all Americans were "guaranteed" by the president that Obamacare would leave them with exactly the same policy and doctor as they had before the massive law's massive changes kicked in. 
So, do you count that a presidential lie? If not a lie, how do you characterize it?
Good question. If you read only one article this week, please read Hugh Hewitt's excellent article on Townhall.

The media, death threats and a double-standard

The wife of the Ground Zero mosque imam has been in the news lately because she supposedly received a death threat. Take a look at the death threats against Robert Spencer and tell me there's no double standard in the media.

Tuesday, October 05, 2010

Food stamp use up from 26.5 to over 40 million

According to Newt Gingrich, it is "an unassailable fact that in January 2007, when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over Congress, unemployment was 4.6% and food stamp usage was around 26.5 million Americans. Today, the unemployment rate is 9.6% and over forty million Americans are on food stamps."

So, hows all that Democrat hope and change stuff working out for you?

Monday, October 04, 2010

Useful Christian idiots

Please take time to read Doug Giles excellent article, "Obamacare, Alinsky, and Useful Christian Idiots." Yet another demonstration of the hypocrisy of the Left in general and the ACLU in particular.

When the court breaks the law

What happens when a court becomes so corrupt that it breaks the law? Read "Ignoring the Evidence" about how a federal court ignored the evidence in order to support same-sex marriage. Not only that, but they ignored "precedent that the district court was legally obligated to follow."

Schwarzenegger vetoes religious freedom

According to a post by ADF, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently "vetoed SB 906, the Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act" which was "designed to protect clergy who refuse to solemnize a marriage that is contrary to their faith."

Friday, October 01, 2010

The Obama's and school choice

Isn't it interesting that liberals are all about "choice" when it comes to a womans "right" to kill her unborn baby, but they vehemently oppose choice when it comes to parent's right to choose a school for their kids? When it comes to school choice, Ken Blackwell hits the nail on the head when he writes, 
President and Mrs. Obama have exercised parental choice. No one should criticize them for that. But we can and should expose Mr. Obama’s hypocrisy in denying that choice to millions of other parents.
Excellent article on Townhall.