A Silver Lining

Though I personally was quite disappointed with the result of the late election, that the United States have elected a black president before England could bring itself to elect a black prime minister, or France a black president or PM, says a lot about us…in a good way! I’ll never forget all the times I personally had to fend off attacks on America’s character from Europeans, mostly French. (Hey, if I still harbor resentment from having been literally dumped, thrown out, onto the streets of Paris, forgive me. It is true, memories die hard).

While I’m not, politically, happy with Obama’s election, there’s a certain sweetness I taste, knowing for all the Europeans’ pretend open-mindedness, their feigned enlightenment, this couldn’t yet happen…over there. Why? Well, Europe doesn’t have the best record on tolerance, does it? Much worse than ours, when history is considered soberly.

Mind you, I feel that millions of blacks having voted for Obama because he’s black – well, strictly speaking, mulatto – does little to change the dynamics of “race politics” in the United States. Their doing that – and whites voting for him, just to show how racist they aren’t – goes against Martin Luther King, Jr.’s vision for America, which I happen to like. Our having a black President might change America’s image abroad, but it won’t – easily, or cleanly, at least – change America itself, not as profoundly as liberals think it might.

The deep economic divisions between whites and blacks, shattered black families, deadbeat dads and the like, all the stereotypes and crime rates won’t magically be fixed on Inauguration Day, 2009. Sorry, Black America; sorry, liberals…wishful thinking won’t make it so. We’re human. We ain’t perfect. We’re America. Those things weren’t just the product of one skin color victimizing another, or the rich getting richer and the poorer getting poorer. It’s more complicated than that. All sides are at fault.

Barack Hussein Obama’s election hasn’t changed my mind that if you’re male, if you call your women bitches and hoes, and you wear your jeans so low you expose your underwear, you deserve to be judged a certain, harsh way. It’s my right to have and share such an opinion. If it makes me sound racist, know that I’m not; it’s not my fault, though, that a majority of such people happen to be of a certain skin color. They choose, freely, to act that way; I choose, freely, to look down upon them because they do.

Still, let there be no doubt in your mind that Barack Hussein Obama being elected President of the United States of America gives every patriotic American ammo in the rhetorical defense of his or her country. No law, thank God, says we have to love our President. But we can use him. Yes we can. So I intend to make the most of it, make the next four years “worth it,” whatever happens to the American Republic, for better or worse, while President Barack H. Obama heads the Executive Branch of the U.S. Federal Government.

Remember, he’s a symbol, sure, but a President’s only a President. Obama’s not about to be crowned a King. He’s not a Savior. And, until January 20, 2009, he’s only President-elect Obama. So don’t get ahead of yourselves, liberal Democrats, and don’t lose hope, conservative Republicans. Why? Well, for all the jubilant media predictions that it would be, the Senate isn’t filibuster-proof.

Thank God for that.

This means that there’s a very good chance that a couple years from now, America will still be America. In more ways than you think. I don’t know about you, but for me…that’s a comforting thought. If that doesn’t work, then consider this: 2010′s midterm elections in the United States are only a couple of years away.

God Bless America.

Liberty, or a Tyranny of the Majority?

James Madison, arguing on behalf of the Constitution (that he himself authored) in the Federalist #10, warned that there were two methods of curing “faction” (partisanship) in a republic; either by removing its causes, or by controlling its effects. As to how to remove the “causes of faction,” Madison noted this can be achieved either by “destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence”, or “by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.”

But as Madison – certainly by his own words no fan of partisanship – noted, “Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”

And as to the feasibility of fostering universal opinions, “The second expedient is as impracticable, as the first would be unwise,” since “As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, differing opinions will be formed.”

What exactly does Barack Obama mean by being President of a “post-partisan” America? I mean, looking at the facts, Obama has one of the most partisan records in the United States’ Senate. As Senator McCain has noted, “It’s hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left.” Do voters think Obama will just stop being left-wing if and when he becomes President? Up until now, Sen. Obama hasn’t been able to rise above his runaway ambition, and he hasn’t been able to rise above partisanship. Suddenly, he’ll Change…himself?

Perhaps he intends to either “abolish liberty” with the help of a liberal supermajority in Congress, or with the help of his activists nationwide, he’ll “give to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” Whose opinions, whose passions, whose interests, you wonder? Those of modern “liberalism”, of course. It is already well-known that liberals would like to see the Fairness Doctrine reinstated; they’re in favor of “net neutrality” measures. This is code, mind you, for information regulation.

With newspapers in droves declaring themselves openly for Obama, and most major news networks and news anchors holding pretty steadily to a liberal line, it will be difficult for an ordinary, free-thinking citizen to get unbiased news about an Obama Administration, under it. And if the liberals have their way, the success of conservative talk radio will be challenged, and dissenting opinions – those opposed to the left-wing liberal agenda – will slowly but surely be repressed, even silenced. Debate will be stifled.

Is this the sort of “Change” that America is in for? I certainly hope not, because if it is, then we will no longer be the sort of Republic the Founding Fathers wished for the United States to be.

In his great and celebrated work, Democracy in America, written and published following a tour of the U.S. in the early 1800s, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville warned about the danger American democracy would face from a “tyranny of the majority”. We could very well see such a tyrannical majority’s ascendance in the near future; since when have Americans celebrated any sort of tyranny?

James Madison, Father of the Constitution, 4th President of the United States

Ain’t that Some Arrogance?

Do humans have more rights than our planet? The answer, of course, is “No”. We did not invent the Earth; it was here long before we were, and will endure long after we have gone. When we humans implore each other to “Save the Planet”, we’re not actually asking each other to…well, to save the planet. Not unless there is a meteor or comet hurtling toward the Earth that will smash it to smithereens. No, what we mean by “Save the Planet” is…save ourselves.

Climate change doesn’t affect the Earth’s rotation around the Sun. Global warming isn’t changing the way the Earth tilts on its axis. If anything, it is the Earth’s rotating on its axis around the Sun that is contributing to global warming, and helping the climate to change! Global warming certainly isn’t harming the planet’s core; it’s hotter down there than it will ever get up here, barring an increase in the intensity of heat reaching Earth from the Sun.

Incidentally, scientists have discovered in recent years that the temperatures of several different planets and moons of our Solar System have been rising. Since we can’t take the blame for that, it’s reasonable, totally logical, to assume that Nature, and/or Nature’s God, has something to do with it. Keep in mind, many of these other worlds have thousands of volcanoes, are often gaseous, and are a significant distance away from the Sun.

Where are the shades of gray, then, when it comes to Global Warming?

There are many people out there who denounce humans who believe in God and who believe He has some role in our Universe. These are usually the same people who argue that our concepts of “Right” and “Wrong”, or “Good” and “Evil”, shouldn’t be considered moral absolutes. Their hypocrisy, though, is alarming: What’s right and wrong they dispute, but they tolerate no dispute over Global Warming. The evidence is incontrovertible, they say.

But the truth is, the facts show, that this just isn’t so.

Scientific evidence exists which shows that the Earth has, overall, cooled since 1998, rather than warmed. Fun fact: A volcanic eruption can spew more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, in a single day, than the United States of America have produced since the start of the Industrial Revolution. And here’s  “An Inconvenient Truth” for you: When Al Gore purchases “carbon offsets” from a company he sits on the board of, he’s paying himself for his own pollution!

Why should we care about the Earth? Because we live upon it, of course. Trees deserve protection and planting, because we humans need the oxygen they produce. Take ‘em away, and erosion weakens the foundations of our cities! Clean air is in humanity’s interest. It’s healthy. We should take care not to pollute our waters, because we need water to nourish us…to survive. Humans and other animals are in this together; we’ve no other home.

And yet, I must wonder – is it morally correct to pretend that “fighting global warming” is in the Earth’s interest? If the Deist “Watchmaker” concept has any truth to it, then the Earth aids in the creation and sustenance for life, but otherwise plays a minimal, disinterested role. The Earth cares little whether humans live, die, or even evolve into something else. The Earth was similarly disinterested in the fate of the dinosaurs, the mastodons, or platypus.

Our planet interacts with us only as much as it minimally has to. However, certain humans, in their hubris, have in their minds dethroned God from His kingdom of Creation, and taken upon themselves the role of Earth’s caretaker, Earth’s provider. What these would-be usurpers get right is that humanity’s destiny is entwined with the Earth’s fate. Where they go wrong is in assuming that the Earth needs us as much as we need the Earth.

Ain’t that some arrogance?

*** ***
*** ***
*** ***

Oh, wait, I have one more question: If Obama wins, does this mean we get to look forward to more of this?

OBAMA WANTS N.R.A. ADS BANNED
http://www.newsmax.com/politics/Obama_Wants_NRA_Ads_Banne/2008/09/27/135118.html

So much for the First and Second Amendments under an Obama Administration…will the rest of the Constitution be next?

Big Government, Big Economy, Big Problem

Amazing, isn’t it? Truly astounding. With all its size and the power at its command, the Federal Government of these United States of America not only has failed to prevent serious economic troubles in America, but failed also to quickly alleviate said serious economic troubles once they’ve begun. While I’m no wiz when it comes to financial management, I do know that most of the time, as Ronald Reagan said, “Government isn’t the solution to the problem, Government is the problem.”

The bailout plan that failed in the House on Monday failed not simply because it was a bad idea. It failed because what oversight and controls the Government has now weren’t effectively employed; that the vote was even necessary is proof the Government failed at its job. Will further increasing its size, and its influence in financial affairs, prevent future economic catastrophes? No. In fact, such interference would probably only increase the likelihood of an even bigger financial meltdown in the future.

How so?

Shake up a can of Pepsi, hold your thumb over the opening, and pop it open. What happens? Foam and cola goes all over the place. Now, do the same thing with a 2-liter bottle of Pepsi. Shake it up, real good, and then twist off the cap. What happens? You increased the size of the container, but the result is more of the same. Once the conditions are created, and pressure is built and starts to be released, it’s difficult to keep in place. And the bigger the container, the bigger the mess!

Is that what you want for America?

A bigger mess?

Apparently, the American electorate stepped up to the plate on this one. Offices of Congress were inundated with calls and pleas from constituents against the bill. In the end, more Republicans than Democrats voted against the bill at voters’ request (just as more Republicans than Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act), and in so doing repudiated not only the irresponsible Wall Streeters who helped create this situation, but “their” President. Just watch who gets reelected, and who doesn’t, this November.

“Congress has left town for the Jewish holiday. There is no plan.” – NBC Nightly News, 09/29/08

So what’s next? Without a doubt, the Government has to be involved somehow in the economy; the question is, which way is the best? Another vote on the same or a similar measure will likely take place sooner rather than later upon the Capitoline Hill of Washington, our great Federal City. Politicos have their eyes on November, see, and they desperately want to appear busy actually earning the taxpayers’ money before the taxpayers decide whether or not to continue paying them.

Say, wait a minute – there’s an idea!

Why don’t our Representatives voluntarily give up their combined salaries of $73,900,500 for the fiscal year, pay back what they’ve already earned, and our Senators do the same with their combined $16,967,600? That’s $90,868,100. The defeated buyout bill would have allotted $700 million to the Government to buy out bad mortgages and “rescue” other troubled assets of financial institutions. Such altruism from our Congressmen and Senators would free up even more money for the economy.

Heck, I could go further, and inquire as to why the presidential candidates of both Parties haven’t voluntarily donated some of the hundreds of millions they’ve raised to help the economy. Look, Senator Obama raised $51 million in July, and $66 million in August. Th Democrats goal is to raise $300 million for the general election. Senator McCain raised $27 million in July, and the Republican National Committee raised another $22 million that same month. McCain raised $47 million in August.

McCain-Palin were to get an additional $87 million from the U.S. Treasury after the Republican national convention, thanks to public financing Obama initially said he’d accept, then changed his mind about. When you tally up just the numbers aforementioned, of money received by both Parties’ candidates, that’s…why, that’s $300 million, for both the GOP and the Jackasses! Surely the nominees could use a break from those expensive, annoying, often nasty TV ads for a while.

Come to think of it, the American people could use a break from those, too.

Why should we shoulder Wall Street’s burden when Wall Street did so much to shoot itself in the foot? Sure, fiscally irresponsible Americans should not be left out of the blame game. But it’s no coincidence that right as the “bipartisan” buyout measure failed 228-205 on Monday, the Dow Jones industrial index responded by falling 777 points, the biggest-ever single-day drop in history; keep in mind, my friends, that the Dow fell “only” 684 points on the first trading day following the 9/11 terror attacks.

Absolutely, those supposedly representing our will in DC need to feed their families just as much as we do ours. But one would hope they’d managed to save a bit of their incomes, earning such money as they do. And enjoying significant privileges at taxpayers’ expense, they should be willing to do more than just vote in service of their country. Shouldn’t American officials set an example for us in fiscal prudence, just as ordinary Americans set an example for the world in donating to charities?

Oh wait, we’re talking about our Government officials, right?

“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” – THOMAS JEFFERSON

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” – THOMAS JEFFERSON

שנה טובה ומתוקה לכולם

What the Past Demands of Our Future

Thank goodness America was founded by the likes of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, instead of personalities such as Barack Obama, Michael Moore, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. A national project begun by the former group has lasted more than 232 years; a national project begun by the latter group would take us down the path of the Soviet Union (i.e., to ruin). There is a difference between those who are stubborn in the defense of liberty, and those who are stubborn in defense of ideology. Again, with this in mind, thank goodness for the former group and beware the latter.

Shall we go the way of France, where for a good number of years – until the ascendance of Nicolas Sarkozy to the French presidency – being financially successful was an indictment of your character, rather than a testament to your work ethic or saving abilities? If this is your fervent wish, then by all means, vote Obama and his power-mad Democrat idealogues into power. If, however, you recognize the benefits of competition, and earning money rather than simply having it handed to you by your Government, you should vote differently.

Shall we go the way of Britain, which has trouble distinguishing right from wrong – and fighting for right against wrong – due to a cultural unwillingness to do so? If you wish to further confuse our already muddled grasp of moral clarity, then please – vote for Obama. But if you don’t wish to see our moral compass go the way of the dodo, I’ll urge you to vote for McCain.

Perhaps Russia should be our model for the future? Who needs a free press anyway? Let’s criminalize certain forms of opinion. Heck, let’s criminalize HAVING your own opinion, period (unless it parrots the government’s authoritarian line). Certain things should just not be said. And if they ARE said, they should land you in jail. Then again, perhaps giving illiberal liberal “fascists” the power to enact such policies in America would be a bad thing…

You know what? I think our success in the future depends on us remaining America…and American. Rather than adopt foreign nations’ policies as our own, without consideration for the consequences or whether or not said policies “fit” us and/or our system, why don’t we take inspiration from what is obviously good, and see if we can adapt it to our own unique circumstances? If not, oh well. There’s nothing wrong, or un-American, about doing that. After all, that’s what the Founders did.

No one should be so naive as to think that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America invented republicanism, democracy or the concepts of political freedom and personal liberty all on their own. They looked to the example of the Roman Republic, the writings of Enlightenment thinkers in Europe, and yes, to the Bible, to inspire and guide them. The Founders were more progressive in their own day – even, often, while owning slaves – than any so-called “liberal” who today would shackle our future (by default) and hinder our freedom via unchecked Government expansion.

Yes, thank goodness – thank God – for men like Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin. They would see the folly of Obama, Moore, Gore and Clinton for what it is. And given the choices, the Founders would urge us to remain American, against all other foreign notions and temptations. The foolish would spurn their advice, but the wise would embrace it; who, after all, can seriously argue with 232 years of imperfect yet undeniable success?

Culture War: Americanism vs. Obamunism

Left-wing policies were not at the heart of the American Revolution. They did not guide those who drafted the Constitution. Today’s self-proclaimed “progressives” pale in comparison to the progressiveness of the Founding Fathers of this, our Union. Undoubtedly, as we see them from today, they were backwards in many of their views, particularly regarding slavery (but then, not every American Founding Father  – or Mother – was pro-slavery!). What can be reasonably expected of a Barack Obama presidency, given his sparse but utterly left-wing, illiberal and partisan record in the Senate of these United States, will be a further abrogation of America’s founding morals, ideals, values and principles; in short, with the current species of Democrats ascending to the White House, we could expect a further de-Americanization of America.

Mark my words: Decades will be needed to repair the damage likely to be inflicted upon America by any Obama Administration.

Take note of Obama’s skin color, if you like, but it is of very little concern except where (and when) it provides insight into the man’s decisions. Foremost in our minds should be Sen. Obama’s politics. As was noted in a September 18 Jerusalem Post article, “according to the non-partisan National Journal, Barack Obama has the Senate’s single-most left-wing voting record. (Close behind, his running-mate, Joe Biden, comes in third. [Joe] Lieberman? A respectable 44th)“. Consider, fellow citizens, that Barack Obama hasn’t even yet served four years of a six-year freshman Senate term, and he already has earned an unnerving reputation for narrow, harmful partisanship in Washington, DC. The same, thankfully, cannot be said of Arizona Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for President who has after decades of Senate (and House) service earned himself a reputation for embracing a sometimes unpopular form of bipartisanship.

What does Barack Obama truly stand for?

We already know Democrats realize there is very little substance to their man, beyond charm and charisma. Disturbingly, this is made up for by the cultivation of a personality cult fancying Senator Barack Obama of Illinois as America’s Savior. But were he to win, he’d be only the savior of his Party. Barack Obama’s allegiance is, as shown by his Senate record, to the Democrats and Leftist Ideology, above all other considerations. His ambition, which under different circumstances and in several years’ time would possibly be commendable from an observational standpoint, demonstrates a lack of appreciation and understanding on his part about his duties to his electorate. Irresponsible vanity has shunted aside any semblance of a commitment to responsible democracy. Barack Obama is an opportunist, not a public servant…he lives to serve only his own career, and his Party’s fortunes.

Forgive me for preferring and demanding a certain level of humility from candidates seeking to become the Chief Executive of the United States’ Federal Government. What do I mean, by “a certain level of humility”? The President is our, the American people’s, employee. Unlike Obama, a humble man would build up his or her reputation by his deeds and his record instead of seeking, by rhetoric and empty promises alone, higher office before the first term of the position he was elected to concluded. Unlike Obama, a humble man would not be so…audacious…as to assume for himself symbols of the American presidency (such as when Obama sat behind a faux-seal of the President of the United States) before he has even secured his Party’s nomination. Unlike Obama, a humble man wouldn’t claim to be bipartisan when his record, if even casually examined, says quite the opposite about him; come to think of it, an honest man wouldn’t do such a thing, either.

By what standard am I to judge Senator Barack Obama? It is a safe assumption for any American citizen to make, that politicians aren’t, for the most part, to be easily or uncritically trusted. Usually, if a Senator or Governor is running for the Presidency, the American people are able to get a sense of the candidate’s honor and trustworthiness by examining his record. It is quite easy for a curious citizen to look up and see for himself a Senator’s voting record. From that record, it is quite acceptible for the curious citizen to listen to the Senator’s speeches and claims of bipartisanship, and cross-reference that with the Senator’s actual voting history and other addresses. And, it is commonsensical of the curious citizen to be wary of the promises of a candidate for high office who, if he won, would effectively be violating an oath he has taken only once, especially when we speak of one who hasn’t done much as a Senator since becoming a Senator.

I am perfectly and undeniably justified in asking my fellow citizens, publicly, this question: What has Barack Obama done for me lately? What has he done for America, lately? Prior to being elected to the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama served in the Illinois legislature. I don’t live in Illinois, so…can’t vote for him based on that. In the Senate of these States, united, he has unabashedly been a Party-line, ideological voter. I’m a Republican, who in 2000 voted Gore-Lieberman. I’m a bipartisan at heart. I’m flexible (or stubborn), when I feel “the greater good” demands it of me. Obama’s brazenly partisan. Point against him. Obama, too, was against a troop surge in Iraq that has succeeded (which even now, Obama admits). That’s another point against him, since I view success in Iraq as vitally important to our national interests. Obama is in favor of an East-West Berlin-style division of Jerusalem. I’m…well, I’m obviously not.

If you’re at all familiar with U.S. politics, you know Chicago is home to one of the most infamous and effective Democrat Party-run anti-democratic political machines in America. For decades, the city could easily have been considered a fiefdom of the Daley family. Whatever the Honorable Richard Daley wanted, he generally got – and who he wanted to be elected, he generally succeeded in getting elected. A more corrupt electoral and political process in America is difficult to imagine. His son ain’t much different, and he’s endorsed Obama. Obama currently hails from Chicago. Obama backed Daley for a re-election bid. In essence, such connections demonstrate that Senator Obama is representative of the sort of self-serving, ambitious and narrow-minded politics Americans should be fearful of, rather than hopeful about. Barack Obama is, thus, exactly the sort of politician the Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to protect us – and our system – from.

Barack Obama says its time to change America, but we changed long before he came on the scene. We’ve evolved so much, in fact, in the 232 years since the issuance of the Declaration of Independence that in 2008 it was possible for an American of African descent to seriously seek out and win a major political Party’s presidential nomination. No, it isn’t time to change America into an Obamunist state. Where change is needed most is not on the West Coast, or in the South, or in the Midwest, but in Washington, DC. It’s time to change the status quo in how the Nation’s business is conducted in the District of Columbia. Obama is not qualified to bring such change, nor does he have a track record in challenging the status quo or breaking with members of his ideological Party for the good of the country. Obama wants America to follow his vision, not that of the Founding Fathers, who were far more “progressive” than any modern progressives claim to be.

We need a President who accepts and loves America for what it is, but nevertheless sees room for improvement and reform in Washington. We need a President who understands that growing the size and power of the Federal Government will not solve America’s problems, but exacerbate them. We need a President who can be judged by his deeds, by his record of service to his country, not simply by nice-sounding rhetoric and empty promises. We need a President who is loyal to his country and to his people first, not his Party. We need a President who will work for the American people, not look down upon them. We need a President who is humble before God, and His children. And unfortunately, Senator Barack Obama can’t be, won’t be, doesn’t want to be, that sort of President. His ideology, his Party, won’t allow him to be.

And on that note…God Save Our American States! God Bless Our American Union!