A Prayer for Victory…and Peace

Sometimes, I feel as if I can’t quite explain the pride I’m feeling. It’s not a pride born of…well, like I said, I can’t explain it. Or I can, but it’s going to take more than just a few words. It’s complicated, and yet so simple: A stew of emotions, with basic ingredients. More than I can admit to feeling in a long, long time…and this might sound bad, but it’s earnest: I’m proud to be Jewish. I’m proud to be Israeli. And while I’m, as always, proud to be an American, it’s at moments like these when it really hits home just how lucky I am to call the United States of America my home and native land, and how honored I am to consider Israelis my fellow citizens.

I mean, just looking at recent events, it should be easy to see why (of course, I’m a bit biased when speaking about myself, but please…hear me out): Here we are, in a situation in which Jews in their sovereign land have the power to defend themselves, and they are once again using it to great effect. The way Israel conducts warfare is far more noble than the methods of warfare employed by Israel’s enemies; yet another reason for pride. Furthermore, the Government of the United States is displaying the moral clarity which is otherwise sorely lacking with regards to the conflict between Israel and an existential enemy, Hamas. Only victory could be sweeter.

I feel no shame for Israel’s actions, nor the traditional, blind sort of anger others feel toward our – America’s and Israel’s – enemies. I’m angry at what our enemies have forced us to do, sure, but more than that, I pity them. Oh, but do I pity them…

Yes, I pity them, and those among their own people whom they have condemned to constantly living in fear and with the threat of war. However, my pity is pity tempered with determination: Victory in this struggle is a necessity, not only for Israel, but for the Middle East. I feel compelled to question the honesty of those governments expressing knee-jerk dismay at Israel’s military campaign; one would think that if they truly wished to see peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, they would wish Israel the best of luck in its efforts to defang Hamas for the benefit of all concerned, Jews and Arabs, Israelis, Palestinians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese, etc.

Whose interest is it in, to see Hamas remain able to incessantly, randomly launch rockets with impunity, from territory under its control, at communities in the South of Israel? In whose interest is it, to see Hamas remain in power in Gaza, determining as it does the fate of Gazan Palestinians by way of its rejectionist policies regarding Israel? Have the Palestinian people benefitted from Hamas rule in the Strip? Are we any closer to an honest, comprehensive peace between ourselves and the Palestinians, since Hamas forced Fatah out of power in Gaza? “Operation Cast Lead”, Israel’s current military offensive against Hamas, wasn’t born in a vacuum.

If it weren’t just illegal immigrants the United States had to deal with, coming in from Mexico; if rockets were being launched daily from Juarez or Nogales at communities in the Southwest, you can be damn sure Washington would take some sort of military action to end the threat, and wouldn’t tolerate it for very long either. Look how fast it took Russia to respond to aggressive moves by neighboring Georgia earlier this year. And consider the issue of piracy off the coast of Somalia; attacks and provocations by pirates have led to United Nations Security Council Resolutions authorizing nations to pursue pirates in that region not only by sea, but by land, too.

Hamas bears the ultimate responsibility for provoking this latest war, which is undeniably causing immense suffering to the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip. At the same time, however, we must remember that the citizens of Gaza have done little to nothing to alleviate the conditions they are living under; rather than protesting Hamas’s rule, which has brought them only suffering and violence, they’ve supported it. The citizens of Gaza are hardly as defenseless as the mainstream media or sympathetic governments make them out to be…we’re talking about one of the most densely populated and heavily-armed places on the planet. And don’t forget the rockets!

We cannot and should not forget the rockets being launched from the Hamas-ruled territory that is the Gaza Strip, for if it weren’t for the rockets, “Operation Cast Lead” might never have left the planning stages. Israel might have been able to tolerate cold war-style a hostile neighbor in the form of a “Hamastan” Gaza Strip, much as Israel’s managed to make do for over sixty years with formerly hostile neighbors such as Egypt and Jordan, and contemporary hostile neighbors such as Syria, Lebanon…and the Palestinians. But what Israel could not countenance, what the democratically elected government in Jerusalem could no longer tolerate, were the rockets.

And as I’ve said, the United States wouldn’t long tolerate rocket strikes on its territory emanating from a neighbor. No nation, proud of its sovereignty and determined to what it could to ensure the safety of its citizenry, would tolerate as many rockets as Israel has – 3,000 since the beginning of 2008, many of them launched at Israel during a so-called “cease-fire” with Hamas, and prior to the opening of large-scale hostilities, approximately 200 since the end of the “cease-fire” a week ago – before striking back at those or the regime responsible for their being launched. Israel restrained itself as long as it could; the world urged Israel to continue doing so.

But then, the “world” generally uses one standard to judge Israel by, and another to judge itself by. Israel’s leaders, well aware of and dismayed by this fact, decided to once more risk international opprobrium and take easily-justifiable action to defend their country and their people; if you ask me, as one who voted the current Israeli prime minister into office, I find this a far wiser decision than if the government had decided to continue to wait for the outside world’s permission. After experiencing in Israel the mess that was the Second Lebanon War in 2006, this is no small realization on my part. I had long ago lost confidence in Olmert; he’s gained a little back.

Coming just a few weeks before the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States, Israel’s military campaign against the terror regime in Gaza contains, I think, a not-so-hidden message to the incoming Administration, and the world at large: “Israel waited years and years before taking action like this in the Gaza Strip. Finally, Israel’s patience wore thin. The same thing is bound to happen with regards to the threat to Israel posed by an Iran that seeks nuclear capabilities; unless decisive results are achieved by the international community, Israel is more than willing to step up to the plate and handle things itself. Be warned.”

In short, with “Operation Cast Lead”, Israel has said, and is continuing to say, “Enough is enough.”

The State of Israel is, once again, doing what it was meant to do, especially in the wake of the Holocaust: It is providing a platform, a tool – vehicle, if you will – for Jews to take responsibility for their own safety and stand up and fight for themselves, when no one else will stand up for them or fight on their behalf. The sight of Jewish soldiers, fighting on behalf of a Jewish state, in a Jewish army, guided by Jewish principles of morality (e.g., the “purity of arms” doctrine), seeking not to conquer but to pacify, so that peace might one day gain a further toehold in an embattled, embittered, blood-stained land…well, it causes one like me to swell with pride.

And so I say, God Bless the State of Israel. Guide its leaders with Your light and Your truth. Strengthen the hands of those who defend our Holy Land. Deliver them; crown their efforts with triumph. Furthermore, as I’ve said many times before with heartfelt love and pride, God Bless the United States of America. God Bless America, for not only knowing at this moment which side has the moral high ground – but for openly acknowledging and pointing it out as well. From sea to shining sea, and wherever its agents roam, may this land I speak of, under Your Providence, continue to be an influence for good throughout the world.

Amen.

The Freedom to Throw a Shoe

Following that hilarious incident in Baghdad, wherein a journalist threw his shoes at the American president, George W. Bush, the media have probably taken the line that this was a man righteously angry with our outgoing Chief Executive. But I, while finding the incident quite funny, have also been reflecting ever since I heard about it (and saw video) and I would like to point something out to anyone feeling satisfied that what happened says a lot about Bush. I am satisfied myself, in my own way.

You’d be right, in saying that what happened is a reflection upon the current (and until next January, only) President of the United States of America. Incidents such as this show just how different Iraq is today from what it once was, during the reign of the Butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein. Then, journalists were hand-picked to speak to Hussein. And if anyone had ever been able to throw a shoe at Saddam or his guests, guess what would’ve happened?

I shouldn’t need to elaborate, but let’s just say his fate would have involved his being thrown in a prison that makes Gitmo look like a petting zoo.

What am I getting at? I’m not saying mistakes haven’t been made, since we invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein. We should honor the sacrifices of those who have served and died in Iraq. We should honor the sacrifices of those who serve there now, putting their lives on the line in service of their country. And while we are honoring them, we have to remember that were it not for what they’ve done in Iraq, what happened with the shoe couldn’t be.

Consider, too, where this happened, and that it was merely a shoe that was thrown – not a bomb. What does that say?

You can believe whatever you want about how we got into Iraq. We’re past the point, though, where that really matters, except in relation to how it is we get ourselves involved militarily elsewhere in the future. How are we past that point? The shoe-throwing incident proves it. I am not saying that Iraq doesn’t have a long, long, long, long, long, long way to go before it becomes a truly responsible, stable member of the international community. It does.

But I am saying that such public displays of dissent in “the new Iraq” are symbolic of how far Iraq has already come, undoubtedly with our help, from what it once was. That an Iraqi journalist had the courage to openly show how he really feels about a political figure, foreign or domestic, in the way that he did is a sight that – once you’re done laughing at it – should give you pause before having the knee-jerk reaction which says, “Bush deserves it.”

Did President Bush deserve to have a shoe thrown at him? Most Iraqis have died at the hands of domestic or imported terrorists, not U.S. soldiers. But Bush did order American troops into Iraq. He has overseen the transformation of Iraq from a stable nation enslaved by a brutal dictator into a chaotic, but ever-more free, nation. He’s made mistakes, sure, but he’s no Lyndon Johnson. You know, the Democrat who ordered more U.S. troops into Vietnam?

So I guess in a way, it is at least appropriate that President Bush had a shoe thrown at him in Baghdad. Why? Like I said, it could have been a bomb, but it wasn’t. Also, it couldn’t have happened while Saddam Hussein was in power, and we mostly have George W. Bush – and Tony Blair – to thank for changing that. If anyone besides an Iraqi politician “deserves” to have a shoe thrown at him by an Iraqi journalist while in Iraq, it’s President Bush.

After all, he helped make it possible for that to happen.

Watch it happen again!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081214.wvbushshoe1214/VideoStory/VideoLineup/Pick

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!

To Obama, and the Future Glory of His Changed America!

I think it’s obvious, isn’t it? Barack Obama is the New Savior not only of America, but all Mankind. Even for those who don’t believe in God, he is the Messiah, resurrected. His record stands on its own: Not quite four years into his freshman Senate term, he already has a personality cult whose growth, tenacity and spirit rivals the cults which once surrounded Stalin and Hitler. Obama has, as we know, overcome great odds to defeat a favored Democrat rival and become his Party’s official nominee for the job of President of the United States of America. And his rise to power, coming as the George W. Bush era comes to a close, is as providential a sign as there can be that Obama’s meant to be President, or to even prepare the ground for a “President for Life”…a position to be occupied only by Democrats for the duration of the American Republic.

Change!

And who are Democrats, to deny that such is their goal – permanent power? Permanent power, devoid of dissent, or at least as devoid of dissent as is possible in the United States at this time? Such permanent power is – can it be disputed? – the best, most assured way of putting one’s political plans into action. The Nazis and Soviets, the late Saddam Hussein regime and the current Islamic Republic of Iran, the House of Sa’ud in Arabia and Putin in Russia all demonstrate this truth clearly. For his part, Senator Obama has already shrewdly given his tacit blessing to his supporters to silence the opinions of those who oppose his/their views, and since he changes those views so often, he makes it very difficult for people to oppose him in the first place. This is hardly worrying; be encouraged! One-Party Rule depends on such leaders!

Change!

Obama has already showed us what the New Seal of the President of the United States will look like. He has already rallied millions upon millions of naive, young college students, mostly freshmen just like him (but of a different sort), and a few older students, who know only what their parents have taught them, what their professors have taught them, or what the mainstream media has taught them. Get ‘em while they’re young, as the saying goes, while they still have yet to really learn how to think independently. This is something to celebrate, the easy indoctrination of the leftist, liberal mantra (Republicans are bad, conservatives bad, Americans are bad, Democrats good, liberals good, power good, the Party is more important than the individual, the Government is more important than the individual, etc.) of willing acolytes.

Change!

Just imagine everything which will be possible once Democrats have retaken the White House and further entrenched their majority in Congress, securing their indefinitely extended power: We’ll have a socialist-style universal medical system, just like in Cuba. And just like in Cuba, dissent against the Government will slowly but surely be quashed in the New Revolution (bye, conservative talk radio!), and only the elite in the Party or foreigners with money – who’ll become, as they are now in Cuba, a different kind of elite – will be able to take advantage of all the medical advances (shorter wait times, for example) in our Great Republic. Can’t you just see it? It will be a glorious time in America, a New Golden Age. I wonder who “our” Che Guevara will be. I really do. Will he murder as many people as the real one did? For the New Revolution?

Change!

The planet Earth, of course, will also be saved alongside America after Obama wins the Presidency and Democrats begin what will hopefully be a permanent period of residency in the White House. Because only Democrats, or rather, liberals, are capable of and willing to fight Global Warming to the bitter end. Yes, only left-wing liberals are willing to take on both humanity and Mother Nature herself. They’ll not be content with simply ending humanity’s contribution to Climate Change…they’ll also take measures to ensure that the natural processes of the Earth – which led to past Climate Change and ended the last Ice Age (and which enabled humanity, civilization, to grow to such numbers and advancement as it has) – adhere to left-wing, Democratic liberalism’s theoretical physical laws, not today’s proven laws of Physics.

Change!

Barack Obama’s inauguration will be a cause for further celebration abroad, beyond that which will follow Climate Change’s inevitable, permanent defeat once the Earth stops rotating on its axis. Europeans, especially, will have reason to feel comfortable in the event the Democrats win the presidential election of 2008 and every such election thereafter, since Europeans, we cannot forget, know a thing or two about the potential power of a Government which intends to rule over the People rather than serve them. We have so much to learn from Europeans, for they are receptive to such systems of Government, and Europeans are obviously so much wiser and more worldly than Americans are. How could they not be, when they’ve learned so much from their fratricidal conflicts, and they’ve taught us how to industrialize mass genocide?

Change!

Yes, the world will Change for the better when the Democrats have power once more. Especially in the Middle East. Israel will be forced to partition Jerusalem, a la Berlin, with the Arabs despite there having been a Jewish majority in the modern city for over 140 years, and despite repeated Palestinian demonstrations of hatred, disrespect and irresponsibility toward Jews and their beliefs (demonstrated especially well during the period of Jordanian rule in East Jerusalem, when Jews, Christians and Muslims from Israel were prevented from worshiping at their Holy Sites). Governments the world over will flock to Jerusalem to establish and open their embassies to Palestine, while most embassies to Israel will likely remain in Tel Aviv, despite the mantra of those who say that Jerusalem will be a capital of two states, not one. Ah, a just peace!

Change!

Back in the U.S. Homeland, there will no longer be such a thing as illegal immigration. Not because our sovereign borders will have been secured by the Federal Government, but because said sovereign borders will have been opened in accordance with the demands of sovereign Mexico. We musn’t forget, it is far easier for the Mexican Government to sanction illegal immigration, to print official fliers explaining how to sneak into America, than it is for them to work to grow their indigenous economy. But once full amnesty has been granted to all previous “illegal” immigrants, and the borders are forcibly opened – to the everlasting chagrin of the formerly semi-autonomous States – the Mexican Government will be able to spend its money on other things, like a campaign to make Spanish the official language of the U.S. Viva la reconquista!

Change!

As for African-Americans, an Obama victory would mean that finally, all their hopes and dreams have been (or can be) realized. It will signal the end of all the trials and tribulations afflicting “Blacks”. An Obama victory in November ’08 would be the ultimate vindication of the Civil Rights struggle, and all who fought for an America that lives up to its founding creed would have cause for immense pride. For how else might African-Americans have helped to realize Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, of an America whose citizens are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, than by voting en masse for a candidate based primarily on his…skin color? It makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Doesn’t it?

Change!

As Election Day nears, this much is certain:

Change, either domestically or internationally, is only possible with an Obama victory in the presidential race and a further Democratic victory in Congress and throughout the States of the American Union. Even though a change in the administration of Executive power is mandated by the Constitution and its amendments (meaning that no matter who wins in 2008, we’ll have a new president in 2009), True Change, the kind that will restore dignity and honor to America, can only be implemented once ultra-liberal Democrats control our Government. Change, after all, never even existed before the advent of Barack Hussein Obama. Before Obama, there was just change. Regular, old, lawful “change”. That will change, though, once Obama wins and Change comes to America. Can we so Change America…not just change it? Yes we can!

To facetious fascism!

God, Government and Us

“God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners.” - William Wilberforce

“Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.” - Ben Franklin

Reading an article in The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday, in which it was reported that Senator John McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, had before a church group called the Iraq war ‘a task that is from God‘, I immediately began to wonder how this would be used by Democrats to tarnish the Republican candidates’ reputation (just as similar thoughts expressed by President Bush have been used to ridicule him). The thought dismayed me, because I am a man who cares deeply about his country and its history, well aware of how alien such criticism would have sounded to those who established the United States of America. If anything, in late 18th century/early 19th century America, to be accused of being an atheist was as bad as being accused of overt political ambition.

Today, sadly, the opposite is true.

Most of those who today criticize the use of God or the inclusion of the Almighty in a political context – say, in describing a certain national task as God-given – don’t believe in God to begin with, or profess not to. They are of those who think it’s chic to be an atheist, who claim a disdain for “the God delusion”. They are not simply expressing doubt that God is on our side; they are expressing doubt over God’s existence, period. They don’t believe that God has granted us our liberty (effectively negating the value of the Declaration of Independence…you know, the whole “endowed by their Creator” bit) or helps us defend it. And yet, they’ll sympathize with the aims of those who claim God is on their side – in, for example, their expressing support for Hizballah or Hamas rather than Israel – when the goal is the destruction of liberty.

Odd.

It’s good to be a skeptic, at times. During the Roman siege of Jerusalem, nearly 2,000 years ago, the Holy City’s zealous defenders believed fanatically that God was on their side. Josephus, a Jewish soldier captured by the Romans who later changed sides and wrote an account of the Jewish War (Great Revolt), is said to have appealed to the spiritual sentiments of the Zealots of Jerusalem by attempting to convince the Jews that at that particular juncture of history, God was clearly siding with Rome. In vain did Josephus undertake this appeal, which he had only done at the request of the general (later Caesar) Titus in order that the City and its Temple might be spared the ravages of warfare and famine.

Jerusalem, and its Temple, were later destroyed as the Roman legions overwhelmed Zion’s defenders, force having been seen by Titus as his only choice.

But then again, it’s also important for Americans to remember that at the time of their country’s founding, those who were daily risking their lives in publicly standing up to the might of the British Crown believed that God Almighty was supportive of their task. Of course, I am not just speaking of the Declaration of Independence’s recognition of self-evident truths, such as “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I’m also calling attention to the Founding Generation’s belief that they were assuming “among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”

And I feel that I need to point out that the signers of the Declaration of Independence, in support of that Declaration, mutually pledged to each other their “Lives”, their “Fortunes” and their “sacred Honor”, and did so “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence“.

Do modern, self-proclaimed “liberals” or “progressives” really feel themselves so much wiser than the Founders of our Republic, when they express doubt over the existence of God or attempt to make ordinary Americans feel shameful about believing that God is on our side in any particular task or struggle? (There aren’t, to my knowledge, many atheist conservatives out there). Is it really so abhorrent to us, to read or see our politicians profess their faith in the Almighty? Are we supposed to be offended by a politician’s opinion that God exists and that He (or She – your opinion) cares about what we do? Pardon me, but I was under the impression that in America, one’s religious convictions do not qualify or disqualify him or her for/from political office.

There are actually laws that spell this out, aren’t there?

Why yes, there are!

Now, I do not support merely paying lip-service to God, as in someone saying “God told me to do this” when whatever “this” is, is whatever they’re doing this week. Nor can I take kooks, who murder innocent people and say “God told me to kill them!”, at face value. And I am not one who will publicly proclaim that I believe God means for us to undertake such and such a task, unless I absolutely, truly believe that God would entrust such a task to us instead of another people. I reserve the right to agree or disagree with another’s opinion on the matter, for, after all, I am entitled to my own opinion just as much as he (or she) is.

But as far as the concept goes, the notion that God might work His will through us at one time or another, well…I must admit, I believe it’s not only possible, but probable, that this happens from time to time. I have faith that this is so. I’m not ashamed of this faith. It gives me hope. This faith instills in me more hope, and confidence, in the future than any politician ever could. I trust God to get things right, far more than I trust any particular Government or Bureaucracy to get things right.

Some people, I guess, are just plain afraid to believe in God, though. They’re afraid to cede even partial responsibility for the events of their lives to Someone or Something else, even if the way they’re living their lives shows they’ve already ceded that responsibility in decidedly irresponsible, dangerous, and unhealthy ways. Such people don’t want to entrust their destiny to God’s care or direction; they are unable to reconcile themselves to a reality in which their destiny is always so entrusted, whether they like it or not.

“I enter on the trust to which I have been called by the suffrages of my fellow-citizens with my fervent prayers to the Almighty that He will be graciously pleased to continue to us that protection which He has already so conspicuously displayed in our favor.” – James Monroe

“Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.” – George Washington