I have heard several comments of late about our current administration and how “stupid” some of their decisions have been. Complaints range from getting the nation deeper and deeper in debt to opening up our borders to illegal aliens who will drain our national resources. Do not fall into this trap. Our president and his administration are NOT stupid. They are, in fact, committed to following the Saul Alinsky rule book for revolution. Saul Alinsky (1909 – 1972) was an American community organizer and radical. He had close association with Communists and socialists. The Alinsky doctrine says the people "must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future." Think back to November 2008.
Racism, homosexual rights, poverty; these are not the issues. Alinsky said “The issue is never the issue. The issue is the revolution.” Just what does this mean? If so many of this administration’s policies seem patently stupid, why would they promote such things?
Consider the goals of Saul Alinsky and his followers (which include Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama). They seek to tear apart this “decadent” society and rebuild it into a Heaven on Earth without God. The goal is to take from the Haves and give to the Have Nots. To accomplish this they must destroy what is our American way of life. It must be obliterated -- leveled. For those following the Alinsky plan, the end justifies the means. Racism, homosexual rights and poverty are not really the issues. They are only a means to undermine the very fabric of who we are as Americans. These issues are used to create victims who can blame their situations on the greater society; thus they will feel frustrated, defeated, lost and futureless. Focusing on these will divide us by race, sexual orientation and socio-economics. They sew the seeds of destruction.
And all of this will be done without any interference from God. Socialists and fascists have no God. He only gets in the way. “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted”. Where there is God there is also universal truth. There are values of liberty and personal responsibility. This is why Obama promotes a “collective salvation.” This takes the responsibility for choosing out of the hands of individuals and places it in the hands of the governing elite.
Obama and his regime, Alinsky practitioners, believe that America is bad: we favor the rich; our policies have been harmful to other nations. That is why he felt it necessary to go on an apology tour shortly after his inauguration. This is the first American president in history who has stated publicly that the United States has had a harmful effect on the rest of the world. Never mind winning WWII or defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Never mind sending aid to countries around the world to help them lift themselves out of squalor. Never mind the freedoms of religion, speech and press that are the envy of the world.
We are in the midst of a revolution. No country on earth has ever spent itself into prosperity. Obama knows that. The goal is to bankrupt the United States and to bring us down to the level of third world countries. Then, socialism and eventually fascism will make everything better! Progressive elitists will decide who will work and who will not. Who will get healthcare and who will not. Who will survive and who will not.
No, this administration is not stupid. They have a strategy. They are fighting a revolution.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Moderate Muslims?
What is the problem with Islam? Better still, is there a problem with Islam? There are various opinions and ideas about Islam. Some say that mainstream Islam has been hijacked by the extremists. Others believe main stream Islam is tolerant and peaceful, but that the Wahhabi sect is composed of radicals who focus on only the most violent and intolerant parts of the religion. How do we sort this out? Is it even important that we sort this out?
Many moderate Muslims live in the west, abide by western laws and do not attempt to promote Shari’a law on those around them. In fact, they themselves could be said to violate Shari’a if they permit their families to conduct themselves as westerners. That is, wives and daughters do not cover themselves from head to toe, are permitted to have careers, and even marry outside of Islam. According to Shari’a law these are apostate Muslims and should be executed.
A friend recently noted to me that Islam is not monolithic just as Judaism and Christianity are not. There are Hasidic Jews, Reform Jews, Conservative Jews and Liberal Jews, just as there are Roman Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and Episcopals. These differences are primarily a matter of how they interpret the Bible. This is especially true of Christianity which has dozens of subgroups. However, one thing is undeniable. The God they worship is a God of love, mercy, and grace.
It is true that both Jews and Christians have gone to war. The reasons vary; however, wars are not encouraged to convert others to their beliefs. With Islam, this is not the case. War is used as an instrument to spread the faith. Within Islam theology it is a basic tenet to divide the world into two broad categories. Dar al Islam (The House of Islam) is that part of the world governed by Islam and Islamic law. Dar al Harb (The House of War) is that part of the world not under Islam. Here we can see a basic tendency to view the world that is not part of Islam as the enemy, or those with whom Islam is at war. Granted, this is a medieval term and not much in use anymore. But it does say something about the perspective of the religion historically. Those conquered were given the option of conversion or death. People of the Book (A distinction given to religions of the Bible including Jews and Christians) were permitted a slightly more lenient alternative; that of submission or tribute. For example Coptics (Egyptian Christians) must pay tribute (a tax) to the government of Egypt. Hence, non-Muslim People of the Book are historically seen as second class citizens. In several Muslim countries, however, Christianity is not even permitted. For example, Saudi Arabia allows Christians to enter the country as foreign workers for temporary work, but does not allow them to practice their faith openly. Christians, therefore, are generally forced to worship in secret. Consequently, they are second class citizens.
The United States, most of Europe and the rest of the world are considered Dal al Harb. I mention the use of war as an instrument to further Islam throughout the world in order to emphasize that it is, at its core, a violent religion. So called “moderate” Muslims who embrace a more tolerant and equal role of women, and reject strict enforcement of Shari’a law are not following the fundamental beliefs of Islam as put forth in the Qur’an and the Hadith.
Critics of Christianity are quick to point out the Crusades of the 11th and 12th centuries as examples of how Christians promoted war. Let’s clarify that misunderstanding. Throughout his life, Muhammad used war as an instrument to spread Islam. After his death it continued to be used to expand Islam across North Africa and almost to the gates of Paris. Jesus Christ never encouraged the use of force to gain converts. In fact, he did just the opposite. His credo was that of love. “Love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you.” The first crusade was not a war to spread Christianity but one to re-establish the right of Christians to make pilgrimages to the Holy Land.
So what is the point? As I attempt to sort this out I ask a question. Is there such a thing as a “moderate” Muslim. The life of Muhammad and the book he wrote make it clear that Islam is a violent religion. Although Muhammad made statements about peace and forgiveness early in his life, he took a much more intolerant and violent stance as he matured. He endorsed and even ordered beheadings and amputations. When conflict arises within the Qur’an, his latter statements, written in his less tolerant and violent stage of discovery, take precedence. This is a fundamental tenant of reading and interpreting the Qur’an. Those who claim to be Muslim but do not agree with its violent aspects are, in fact, apostate. In the United States that is their choice. In Saudi Arabia or Iran they would be in big trouble
Then, there is the concept of deception. The Qur’an clearly states that it is permissible to deceive or lie to an infidel. This “Holy Lying” is known as taqiyya. It may take many forms, including outright lies, feigned moderation, and condemnation of terrorist attacks to the Infidel while rejoicing with fellow Muslims. Since this concept is perfectly acceptable, it becomes quite difficult to tell a sincerely moderate Muslim from one who is committed to radical beliefs but engaged in deception for the purpose of fulfillment of his plan. Additionally, there are examples of Imams (Muslim leaders) who say one thing to the American press while saying something contradictory to an Arabic news source.
Up to this time, I have seen no nationally known Imam denounce radical Islam, Wahhabism, Hamas, Hezbollah or Al Qaida. Until that happens I will assume they are in the radical camp. Unfortunately, those Muslims who are legitimately moderate will have to deal with my disbelief. Fortunately, for them, this is the United States of America and we do not cut off one’s head for being a moderate. It could be that that is why they prefer to live in America?
Many moderate Muslims live in the west, abide by western laws and do not attempt to promote Shari’a law on those around them. In fact, they themselves could be said to violate Shari’a if they permit their families to conduct themselves as westerners. That is, wives and daughters do not cover themselves from head to toe, are permitted to have careers, and even marry outside of Islam. According to Shari’a law these are apostate Muslims and should be executed.
A friend recently noted to me that Islam is not monolithic just as Judaism and Christianity are not. There are Hasidic Jews, Reform Jews, Conservative Jews and Liberal Jews, just as there are Roman Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and Episcopals. These differences are primarily a matter of how they interpret the Bible. This is especially true of Christianity which has dozens of subgroups. However, one thing is undeniable. The God they worship is a God of love, mercy, and grace.
It is true that both Jews and Christians have gone to war. The reasons vary; however, wars are not encouraged to convert others to their beliefs. With Islam, this is not the case. War is used as an instrument to spread the faith. Within Islam theology it is a basic tenet to divide the world into two broad categories. Dar al Islam (The House of Islam) is that part of the world governed by Islam and Islamic law. Dar al Harb (The House of War) is that part of the world not under Islam. Here we can see a basic tendency to view the world that is not part of Islam as the enemy, or those with whom Islam is at war. Granted, this is a medieval term and not much in use anymore. But it does say something about the perspective of the religion historically. Those conquered were given the option of conversion or death. People of the Book (A distinction given to religions of the Bible including Jews and Christians) were permitted a slightly more lenient alternative; that of submission or tribute. For example Coptics (Egyptian Christians) must pay tribute (a tax) to the government of Egypt. Hence, non-Muslim People of the Book are historically seen as second class citizens. In several Muslim countries, however, Christianity is not even permitted. For example, Saudi Arabia allows Christians to enter the country as foreign workers for temporary work, but does not allow them to practice their faith openly. Christians, therefore, are generally forced to worship in secret. Consequently, they are second class citizens.
The United States, most of Europe and the rest of the world are considered Dal al Harb. I mention the use of war as an instrument to further Islam throughout the world in order to emphasize that it is, at its core, a violent religion. So called “moderate” Muslims who embrace a more tolerant and equal role of women, and reject strict enforcement of Shari’a law are not following the fundamental beliefs of Islam as put forth in the Qur’an and the Hadith.
Critics of Christianity are quick to point out the Crusades of the 11th and 12th centuries as examples of how Christians promoted war. Let’s clarify that misunderstanding. Throughout his life, Muhammad used war as an instrument to spread Islam. After his death it continued to be used to expand Islam across North Africa and almost to the gates of Paris. Jesus Christ never encouraged the use of force to gain converts. In fact, he did just the opposite. His credo was that of love. “Love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you.” The first crusade was not a war to spread Christianity but one to re-establish the right of Christians to make pilgrimages to the Holy Land.
So what is the point? As I attempt to sort this out I ask a question. Is there such a thing as a “moderate” Muslim. The life of Muhammad and the book he wrote make it clear that Islam is a violent religion. Although Muhammad made statements about peace and forgiveness early in his life, he took a much more intolerant and violent stance as he matured. He endorsed and even ordered beheadings and amputations. When conflict arises within the Qur’an, his latter statements, written in his less tolerant and violent stage of discovery, take precedence. This is a fundamental tenant of reading and interpreting the Qur’an. Those who claim to be Muslim but do not agree with its violent aspects are, in fact, apostate. In the United States that is their choice. In Saudi Arabia or Iran they would be in big trouble
Then, there is the concept of deception. The Qur’an clearly states that it is permissible to deceive or lie to an infidel. This “Holy Lying” is known as taqiyya. It may take many forms, including outright lies, feigned moderation, and condemnation of terrorist attacks to the Infidel while rejoicing with fellow Muslims. Since this concept is perfectly acceptable, it becomes quite difficult to tell a sincerely moderate Muslim from one who is committed to radical beliefs but engaged in deception for the purpose of fulfillment of his plan. Additionally, there are examples of Imams (Muslim leaders) who say one thing to the American press while saying something contradictory to an Arabic news source.
Up to this time, I have seen no nationally known Imam denounce radical Islam, Wahhabism, Hamas, Hezbollah or Al Qaida. Until that happens I will assume they are in the radical camp. Unfortunately, those Muslims who are legitimately moderate will have to deal with my disbelief. Fortunately, for them, this is the United States of America and we do not cut off one’s head for being a moderate. It could be that that is why they prefer to live in America?
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Big Government's Impact on Me
I recently read an article telling how the Tea Party is complaining about the wrong things. Examples were given of all the good things government has done for us. When I say government, I mean the Federal Government, the central government, those guys and gals in Washington DC that are sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Next, the question was posed about how our government does or does not impact our daily lives. The writer clearly stated that government has not significantly impacted his life.
I beg to differ. Every time I hear a commercial on the radio paid for by some federal agency telling me how to “protect” myself from something, I am impacted. How? Because my tax money is being used to tell me to check out this or that on a government web site. Or, that I should “make a plan, be informed” about what to do in an emergency. Or perhaps that wearing a seatbelt will save my life. That is simply not the job of the federal government! Those rights, powers, responsibilities are not mandated to the federal government in the Constitution. Look at the government’s record of problem solving over the last one hundred years. It has thrown trillions of dollars at problems and most of them are still not solved.
Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society poured billions out to eliminate poverty and preclude recurrence of the Watts Riots of 1965. That riot is viewed by some as a reaction to the record of police brutality by the LAPD and other racial injustices suffered by black Americans in Los Angeles, including job and housing discrimination. Twenty seven years later we had the LA Riots of 1992 which were said to have been caused for the same reasons. What happened to all the money spent by the federal government to solve the problem? We still have poverty and we still have race problems. Perhaps the solutions have more to do with morality and individual responsibility than with money. Of course, there is an entire segment of people and organizations that make their living by promoting poverty and racial prejudice as problems requiring more government regulation and intervention. That is more government money.
Then there is the issue of bailouts. Bailout means using our money to save people who make bad business mistakes. The federal government has been assuming the responsibility of bailing out private corporations since the 1970s. Early on there was Penn Central Railroad, Lockheed and Franklin National Bank. Then an irresponsible administration in New York City needed the federal safety net. More recently, the federal government has bailed out Bear Sterns ($30 Billion), Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac ($400 B), AIG ($180 B), Auto Industry ($25 B), TARP ( $700 B*), Citigroup ($280 B) and Bank of America ($142.2 B). Please keep in mind that these occurred during both Democrat and Republican administrations. Does this impact you and me? Let me count the ways.
After enactment of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 the federal government began collecting taxes on income. Initially, rates on income taxation were from 1% to 7%. Within a few years the rate went as high as 77%. Can you imagine that? And during the Great Depression when the federal government was supposed to be solving our problems the highest tax rate was between 63% and 79% until WWII when it hit over 90%. The minimum tax rate had been 2% but it shot up to 22%. One might think that after WWII the rate would have declined, but that is not the case. Our tax rate remained at those wartime rates until the early 1960s. One can only speculate that our chief executives and our legislators had found the key to power and a very nice living. Our money became THEIR money. The more money THEY had to dole out the more power they acquired.
The federal government has been expanding since 1913. Not just through the addition of agencies and employees but also through control, power and influence on every American family. The reasoning: Private industry and private citizens can not be trusted to “do the right thing.” Big Brother must monitor, guide and, if necessary, control how we manage our lives. And it is always necessary!
Do we really need a Department of Education “which funds part of the cost of local schools?” Education is not one of the enumerated responsibilities of the federal government under our Constitution. The federal government can encourage education, but should not be funding it. Why should taxpayers in Nevada be paying for schools in New Jersey. New Jersey happens to have one of the highest cost per capita education rates in the country, and education in that state is notoriously poor. Someone has duped voters into believing that more money equals improved education. It just is not so! The Department of Education is part of the problem -- not part of the solution.
Why do Tea Party groups rail against the IRS? Because it represents a federally mandated extortion from every American family. And it is our own fault. We have too long neglected our responsibility to elect right thinking members of congress to represent us. We, the middle class, hard working, tax paying citizens have been so busy being good citizens and paying our mortgages that we have given away our government to political opportunists. We never marched in protest because we were too busy being responsible. Who did the protesting? Those who profited from the big lie that they could not survive without Big Brother’s support. So, we gave our money and the government used it to promote its own agenda of redistribution of the wealth. Oh, it is not a new thing recently invented. It has only recently been called what it is.
Progressives have been at work for over one hundred years. The history of our tax rates is only part of the story. Their goal is to level the playing field by penalizing those who build the businesses, create the jobs and promote innovation. These people are seen as enemies of the state. The heroes are those who will help big government to make mediocrity the rule and look to it for the solutions rather than looking to God and to their own determination.
*Check this site for details on the TARP recipients. http://bailout.propublica.org/initiatives/2-emergency-economic-stabilization-act
I beg to differ. Every time I hear a commercial on the radio paid for by some federal agency telling me how to “protect” myself from something, I am impacted. How? Because my tax money is being used to tell me to check out this or that on a government web site. Or, that I should “make a plan, be informed” about what to do in an emergency. Or perhaps that wearing a seatbelt will save my life. That is simply not the job of the federal government! Those rights, powers, responsibilities are not mandated to the federal government in the Constitution. Look at the government’s record of problem solving over the last one hundred years. It has thrown trillions of dollars at problems and most of them are still not solved.
Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society poured billions out to eliminate poverty and preclude recurrence of the Watts Riots of 1965. That riot is viewed by some as a reaction to the record of police brutality by the LAPD and other racial injustices suffered by black Americans in Los Angeles, including job and housing discrimination. Twenty seven years later we had the LA Riots of 1992 which were said to have been caused for the same reasons. What happened to all the money spent by the federal government to solve the problem? We still have poverty and we still have race problems. Perhaps the solutions have more to do with morality and individual responsibility than with money. Of course, there is an entire segment of people and organizations that make their living by promoting poverty and racial prejudice as problems requiring more government regulation and intervention. That is more government money.
Then there is the issue of bailouts. Bailout means using our money to save people who make bad business mistakes. The federal government has been assuming the responsibility of bailing out private corporations since the 1970s. Early on there was Penn Central Railroad, Lockheed and Franklin National Bank. Then an irresponsible administration in New York City needed the federal safety net. More recently, the federal government has bailed out Bear Sterns ($30 Billion), Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac ($400 B), AIG ($180 B), Auto Industry ($25 B), TARP ( $700 B*), Citigroup ($280 B) and Bank of America ($142.2 B). Please keep in mind that these occurred during both Democrat and Republican administrations. Does this impact you and me? Let me count the ways.
After enactment of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 the federal government began collecting taxes on income. Initially, rates on income taxation were from 1% to 7%. Within a few years the rate went as high as 77%. Can you imagine that? And during the Great Depression when the federal government was supposed to be solving our problems the highest tax rate was between 63% and 79% until WWII when it hit over 90%. The minimum tax rate had been 2% but it shot up to 22%. One might think that after WWII the rate would have declined, but that is not the case. Our tax rate remained at those wartime rates until the early 1960s. One can only speculate that our chief executives and our legislators had found the key to power and a very nice living. Our money became THEIR money. The more money THEY had to dole out the more power they acquired.
The federal government has been expanding since 1913. Not just through the addition of agencies and employees but also through control, power and influence on every American family. The reasoning: Private industry and private citizens can not be trusted to “do the right thing.” Big Brother must monitor, guide and, if necessary, control how we manage our lives. And it is always necessary!
Do we really need a Department of Education “which funds part of the cost of local schools?” Education is not one of the enumerated responsibilities of the federal government under our Constitution. The federal government can encourage education, but should not be funding it. Why should taxpayers in Nevada be paying for schools in New Jersey. New Jersey happens to have one of the highest cost per capita education rates in the country, and education in that state is notoriously poor. Someone has duped voters into believing that more money equals improved education. It just is not so! The Department of Education is part of the problem -- not part of the solution.
Why do Tea Party groups rail against the IRS? Because it represents a federally mandated extortion from every American family. And it is our own fault. We have too long neglected our responsibility to elect right thinking members of congress to represent us. We, the middle class, hard working, tax paying citizens have been so busy being good citizens and paying our mortgages that we have given away our government to political opportunists. We never marched in protest because we were too busy being responsible. Who did the protesting? Those who profited from the big lie that they could not survive without Big Brother’s support. So, we gave our money and the government used it to promote its own agenda of redistribution of the wealth. Oh, it is not a new thing recently invented. It has only recently been called what it is.
Progressives have been at work for over one hundred years. The history of our tax rates is only part of the story. Their goal is to level the playing field by penalizing those who build the businesses, create the jobs and promote innovation. These people are seen as enemies of the state. The heroes are those who will help big government to make mediocrity the rule and look to it for the solutions rather than looking to God and to their own determination.
*Check this site for details on the TARP recipients. http://bailout.propublica.org/initiatives/2-emergency-economic-stabilization-act
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)