Monday, January 26, 2009

Abortion: Necessary for a better society

OK, so according to the media, and to many supposed “thinkers” today, abortion is “established policy”, with a long standing precedent since the Roe-v-Wade case.

Some feminists argue that “a fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is only in there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time.”

Abortion is not murder, because “a fetus is not a human being -- it is a potential human being, i.e. it is part of the woman.”

According to some of America’s brightest minds, “a fetus is merely a parasitical creature that uses the mother as its host.”

And, according to others, “let me say that from a pro-choice point of view, the status of the fetus is a peripheral issue. Regardless of whether a fetus is a human being or has rights, women will have abortions anyway, even if it means breaking the law or risking their lives. Even women who believe that abortion is murder have chosen to get abortions, and will continue to do so1.
That's why we should leave the decision up to women’s moral conscience, and make sure that they are provided with safe, legal, accessible abortions.”

So, there you have it, in a nutshell: A human fetus is not human; it’s just a collection of cells with the potential for becoming human, and resides in the mother’s womb by her choice, with its permission to be there revocable at any time. In fact, a fetus is a blood sucking little creature that is more akin to a parasite than a human being.

Conservatives, embrace reality. Abortion is here to stay. Breathe deeply. Exhale.
Isn’t science wonderful? With some scientists such as David Lovelock saying that billions of humans are going to die over the next century because global warming in “inevitable” and “irreversible”, I guess the value of human life has decreased significantly.

Oh, by the way, did you know that there are scientists claiming that there is a gay gene? Yeah, dig it, man. There is a gene that determines your sexuality. No choice involved. You either like people of the opposite sex or of the same sex because you were programmed that way. Interesting, right?

So I’m wondering: why not demand that the government make sure that all citizens have ready, cheap access to the test for gayness, so we will know right away if our sons and daughters are more likely to be queer?

And then, of course, we’ll just abort them.

Why would liberals be offended by this analysis? You know they will be, after all, they went ballistic when conservative Albert Mohler considered the moral dilemma of aborting gay fetuses.

What? What do you mean that’s offensive?

I’m not talking about killing actual gays! Because the fetus is not a person, it is not born yet, it has not had its first sexual experience, but it only has the potential for being a gay. So it’s not actually murder to kill it. And besides, it’s really just a parasite. Right?

I wonder what else has genetic implications.

You know, I might actually support the notion of a single-payer health system, if only all the personality types that would drive up cost excessively could be eliminated before they were insured. That’s a great idea!

Obesity. There appears to be an obesity gene. Well, that’s one way of fixing the obesity epidemic. Let’s abort the potentially fat fetuses.

Addiction. There is a genetic factor for addiction. We can get rid of gamblers, alcoholics, and drug addicts by killing them before they are even human. GREAT! We’re on a roll.

Clumsiness. Yep, scientists even say there may be a genetic connection to accident-prone people. Let’s call it the “Butter-finger gene”. And you know these no good slip-on-bananas, freeze-their-tongues-to-the-flagpole morons inevitably drive up the cost of good health care. That's why the Canadian system is so over-crowded.

Promiscuity. Well, I can’t find evidence that there is a “ho-gene”, but there is apparently a monogamy gene. People with this gene are far more likely to be faithful. So, logically, the ones without it will be slutty, and we all know that it was that personality trait that spread AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases around the world. So, here’s what you do: unless the worthless, parasitic fetus clearly shows that it is in possession of the monogamy gene, you abort it. Kill it now, before it spreads vaginal warts or breaks someone’s heart.

Slothfulness. Man, we’re working our way through the 7 deadly sins. Now there is a theory there is a lazy gene. And I have to agree with the liberals on this: lazy people really are like parasites. So let’s abort those no good sons of bitches right now, before they grow up to be habitual democrat voters demanding more entitlements!

Retardation. I mean, think of the money we'd save. No more short buses! No more retarded grocery sackers placing the eggs under the cans of beans. But then again, films like Radio and Forrest Gump would never be made.

Wymyn. Heck, why not? The Chinese do it. If the fetus is going to be a girl, just kill it. What the hell. What Dad wouldn’t rather have a son he can take out to shoot helpless animals? And since a lot of them grow up to be annoying Femi-Nazis and Code Pink activists, it would probably eliminate a lot of male irritation and make the world a more peaceful place.

Conclusion: SO, I wonder what would actually happen in this country if conservatives actually switched camps and began to promote the unlimited abortion of fetuses based upon tests showing that the fetus displays one of these traits?

How many potentially gay, fat, clumsy, slothful, promiscuous, druggy, wymyn fetuses have to get aborted before the Democrats change their tune?

Friday, January 23, 2009

ABC: Acceptable Broadcast Company

Fact: ABC made a multi-million dollar donation for Obama’s inauguration.
Fact: ABC was then the only news company allowed to give an inauguration-day interview with Obama.

This prompted veteran CBS newsman Bill Plante to accuse the Obama administration of “Pay to Play” politics with the press core.

Naw. That can’t be. Obama promised to be…what was the word? Different. Right? I even remember something about how he wanted to be “open” and ”transparent”.

Well, what’s becoming “transparent” is that Obama is a primadonna (surprise!) who can’t stand actually having to answer questions from an unruly news core. He’s just not used to it. After all, the Pope of Hope should not have to answer negative questions.

Don’t believe me?

So, mister nice guy—that’s "The Pope" to you—asked the press core to assemble for him suddenly Thursday, Jan 21. But doggon it, a Politico reporter actually tried to ask Obama a substantive question about how Obama could reconcile his order to keep lobbyists away from him, only to actually name a lobbyist to be Deputy Defense Secretary.

Good Question!

He responded by trying to stop the inquiry: "Ahh, see, I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here.”

But you know, some reporters just can’t take a hint. So the guy from Politico pressed him further. And we all know that good reporters aren’t supposed to actually make Obama answer a question. That’s what assholes like Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity do.

Pressed for an answer, Obama got snippy.

Alright, come on. We will be having a press conference at which time you can feel free to [ask] questions. Right now, I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself to you guys - that's all I was trying to do."

What a swell guy. He just wanted to give his adoring fans a chance to shake his hand, stroke his penis, kiss his ass, whatever they might want.

So, I’ve got a suggestion for ABC: change your name from the AMERICAN Broadcast Company, and let’s just be more honest. It should be the ACCEPTABLE Broadcast Company, because you AGREE to PAY Obama in order to provide him with warm, fuzzy and agreeable photo ops, thus making yourselves ACCEPTABLE.

So I guess ABC has decided to become the official PROPAGANDA OUTLET of the Obama regime.

Yet another example of how the liberals are happily converting the United States of America into yet another banana republic.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Obama borrows from the Chavez book of plays

As the founder and former President of Free Venezuela, Inc, a non-profit organization dedicated to researching and analyzing the policies and activities of the Venezuelan socialist regime led by Hugo Chavez, my duties required me to stay abreast of the news there, to form intelligence networks that provided information that was not making it into the mainstream news, assess its quality, and then reports to members of Congress.

Our work was used by Florida Senators and Congressmen sitting on International Relations committees, to call for hearings and to form policy. It also was of good enough quality that we were contacted by officers within SOCOM (Southern Command) and the FBI. I presented information on news programs, debated socialist professors from local universities, and was invited to speak at the University of Miami. I also was invited to serve as an independent elections observer for the Presidential Recall Referendum.

I provide this brief snippet of my bio in order to explain that I have a fairly deep and unique view of the Venezuelan government’s socialist policies. That understanding also provides me with a unique perspective into what we see coming from the Obama administration. That knowledge and experience led me, during the 2008 election, to warn that Obama’s stated intentions were alarmingly similar to the failed socialist policies of Hugo Chavez, and were indicative that Obama truly was the redistributionist socialist ideologue about which many pundits were warning.

New information has come to light that will send shivers down the spines of citizens enlightened enough to understand the implications.

In particular, I feel compelled to analyze comments made by Robert Reich, Economic Advisor President Obama, spoken in an Economic Recovery Plan meeting on 01/07/2009. These comments were recorded and broadcast on C-Span2, so no one can claim that this is false, or “taken out of context”.

Robert Reich: “It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very good and important way to stimulate the economy quickly. To find projects that can be done that have a high social return, that can also be done with the greatest speed possible. I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers…I have nothing against white, male construction workers, I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well, and therefore in my remarks, I have suggested to you… ways that criteria can be set so that the money goes to others: the long-term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.

To start with, please note that Reich qualified his statement as providing advice about infrastructure spending. This has been the mantra lately by the Obama administration: that the Bush administration neglected investment in the physical infrastructure and, following FDR’s model of revitalization of the economy by putting people to work building infrastructure, Obama has highlighted this as a priority.

Obama said, in his inaugural speech:

"The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. "

When under the intense view of the national spotlight, Obama described infrastructure spending that actually is infrastructure: highways, bridges, power networks.

But under less intense scrutiny, his advisors, and the Democrat congressmen present who agreed with him, applied the term to something entirely different. And they also clearly added an anti-white pre-requisite to the formula. To find projects with a “high social return” is a phrase almost directly out of the Chavez book of socialist agenda, referring to redirecting money along the lines of economic justice rather than economic stimulus.

To limit recipients to non-white, low-skilled “minorities” and “women” suggests an inherently discriminatory and even racist policy, which again is highly reminiscent of the policies that were intended to destroy the “Oligarchy” (what the Chavistas call the predominantly white middle and upper classes).

If this passage is indicative of the Democrat strategy, then we can infer that they will borrow trillions of dollars that will then be funneled to “minorities”, under the guise of “infrastructure investment”, even though by their own definition, they want to give money to the “long-term unemployed” (a key word for welfare recipients), which is not infrastructure. In short, this is a deception.

This looks suspiciously like reparations in disguise.

It is highway robbery of the middle class and industries who will have to repay the debt. And those long-term unemployed low-skilled workers are not the source of economic stimulus. This type of policy, providing free or cheap money to the poor so they can spend it, is precisely the kind of thinking that created the economic collapse to start with.

These redistributive theories are hauntingly similar to the populist strategies used by the Chavez regime to buy support in the short term, causing long-term and devastating economic results.

My hope now is that the Venezuelan community in the United States, with its first-hand knowledge of these kinds of policies and their deleterious effects on the society and economy, will speak and help to educate the American populace.

Otherwise, Americans may as well get used to the fact that we have just joined the ranks of the world’s banana republics.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

The Pope of Liberal Hope

I’ve come to the conclusion that—with regard to politics—there are three types of people in the world:

1. Those who really don’t care about politics, don’t follow it, don’t like it, and have no use for discussions of it;

2. Those who find it interesting, are willing to apply reasoning to it, debate it with analysis and logic, and are able to be contradicted without responding with anger;

3. And those who worship their politicians the way they worship their saints and celebrities.

The first kind should create a mild annoyance, or a sense of disappointment. In Venezuela, where the society has been deeply polarized into two main camps (the Chavistas that support el comandante, and the Opposition), this group of disinterested individuals are called “ni-nis”, which, translated to English, means “Neither-nors”. They support neither Chavez nor the Opposition, and so they sit on the sidelines, totally involved in their own personal interests and don’t care to take a side or try to make a difference. Their indifference, and their abstinence from voting, has enabled Chavez to establish a quasi-dictatorship.

The second kind is best identified by pundits such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, and others on the right, Bill O’Reilly and Lou Dobbs in the center, or Alan Combs, Rachel Madow, and Keith Olberman on the left. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, these personalities take politics seriously and for the most part apply logic and reasoning to their arguments, and generally remain civil during discussions, even while it may get rather passionate.

But it is the final kind that concerns me today. This group of people does not scratch past the surface of their candidates speeches, do not research, do not seek a variety of opinions, and place all of their “faith” in their candidates. These are the people who—if they are journalists—cannot seem to muster the courage to ask their candidates tough questions. They exploit every weakness in candidates they dislike (note that it’s dislike, more than “with whom they disagree” because it is a personal opposition, not a conflict of ideas). They will even lay traps to trip them up and make them look foolish, rather than explore their ideas.

These are the individuals who vociferously proclaim their political ideas in the workplace, but become absolute livid if someone disagrees with them. These people hang on every word of their beloved politician as if they were a benediction from their Priest. They do not think about the meaning behind the words, but instead repeat them as if they were a holy invocation of God.
For this reason, when they are confronted by anyone who questions the words uttered by their saintly leader, their reaction is visceral, and they feel compelled to hate their opponent as a fanatic would hate a heretic. The new religion of the left is personified by Barack Obama, who has been exalted and is now the Pope of Liberal Hope.

One inaugural attendee stated that Obama was like "any one of the Biblical leaders", such as Joshua. Denzel Washington said "he is like one of those apostles for our day."

Obama evokes tearful adoration. Women swoon, and metro-sexual journalists get thrills down their legs as they watch him.
This cannot end well. Although I may blaspheme by saying it, Obama is only human, is inexperienced, and is characterized by excessive naiveté and insufficient executive experience.

Obama is not divinely inspired, and the problems he faces are fractals of infinite complexity, completely beyond repairing by the simple evocation of heartwarming mantras such as Hope and Change. The philosophical ideals the liberals hope to promote look great on paper, and sound great when they flutter from the lips of their god’s earthly representative, but in practice they inevitably will have unexpected consequences.

Close down Guantanamo, and what becomes of those highly trained, dedicated kamikaze terrorists? Who will die because you placed your ideals above our security?
Force companies to buy “carbon credits”, and you increase the cost of the products, decreasing competitive edge, and what will happen to those companies? Will they move overseas? Will they lay off workers?

Force our coal industry to invest billions to “clean up emissions”, and what will result? Will energy prices sky rocket? What other prices will rise? Will the coal go out of business?

Promote alternative energy sources like wind and solar, and what is the environmental impact? Will hundreds of thousands of acres of viable farmland be converted instead into wind and solar farms? What impact will that have on food supplies and prices?

Promote bio fuels, and will corn that normally feeds us be diverted into fuel for our automobiles?

Will rising energy prices inspire a boom in hydroelectric projects? How many valleys will be flooded?

Promote a single-payer health care system, and what will happen to the high quality of the American medical system?

Will “investing in the future” by way of multiple trillion dollar deficits bankrupt the country?
Some of these projects may turn out well, but without a doubt, not all of them will. There will be unexpected and negative consequences. There will be failures, there will be scandals, and the Pope of Hope will not be able to deliver everything he promised.

But, not to worry: I’m sure the Pope will find some new devil to blame.


While reading the Venezuelan news at El Universal, I found this Rayma cartoon that just seems to demonstrate what I had thought. People are just going NUTS over this NUT. It shows Obama's photo tucked in between a number of Catholic Saints.
Is it just coincidence that he is located next to Judas?

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Obama’s absurdities and contradictions

I watched Obama’s inauguration, surrounded by liberal coworkers who, at the conclusion of his speech, remarked on his eloquence and applauded his brilliance. But to be honest, I left the speech wondering: what in the hell did he actually say? What was the core message in his long-winded diatribe? Could I detect a guiding principal or clearly see the course our government will take with Obama as captain?

I had to go back and re-read the speech and try to absorb it to get any meaning out of it. And as I studied its content, I was impressed—not with its brilliance—but with its sense of gloom, naiveté and inherent contradictions.

An estimated 2 million Americans had braved freezing temperatures in order to be witness to an historic event: the inauguration of America’s first black president. While the vast majority of Americans expected the event to be jubilant, and exaltation of the nation’s success, Obama’s tone instead was hesitant, and somewhat low spirited. Within seconds of starting the speech, he points out that inauguration speeches “have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.”

Clearly, Obama is referring to our current economic recession, and the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, we are aware that this is true, but wouldn’t you agree that this is a gloomy way to start a speech when your success heralds a new, triumphant time for African-Americans?

Imagine for a moment that Martin Luther King had actually managed to reach that mountaintop he mentioned in his “I have a dream” speech, but instead of celebrating the successful summiting of the mount, instead he chooses to point out; “It’s damn cold up here, ya’ll!” Isn’t that kind of what Obama has just done?

Apparently Obama sensed the negativity with which he began his speech and attempted to counter it with this little jewel: “America has carried on … because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.” Contrast this with a statement he makes later:

“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and
our ideals.”

Here, he is referring to the Patriot Act. So, which is it? Did we remain faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, or not? Apparently not, and Obama plans on setting it right. So we should clearly expect him to eliminate the Patriot Act and go back to pre-9/11 business as
usual attitudes.

Immediately after his “uplifting” introduction, he goes into details of the “crisis”: “Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.”

Is that to mean “terrorists”? Why can’t he say that? He later states:

“To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”

I guess, taking the two quotes together, that Obama—being the son of a Muslim and partly educated in a Muslim school in Indonesia—is finally revealing that he thinks we will be safe from the Islamists if we just stop calling them names. What “mutual interest” do we have with Persian Islamo-Nazis who believe that they can provoke the return of the missing Imam by liquidating Israel?

Obama’s speech is littered with fascinating abstractions: “Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.”

What is this mystical “new age”? Could it be a new era, marked by the arrival of “The Chosen One”? Will we need develop a new calendar? B.O. (Before Obama) and A.O. (After Obama)

Now, isn’t it widely understood that our economy is weakened primarily because of liberal social engineering attempts to provide “affordable housing” to anyone—even if they couldn’t afford it? The hard choices that need to be made involve personal responsibility, and admitting that the government can’t give away housing to everyone. To me, the crux of the idiocy in the speech centers on the next sentences:

“Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.”

Obama needs to learn that “confidence” is sapped because of the stupidity of members of his own party.

When the Democrats vote to give war authorization, but then immediately turn around and predict that we will lose, that we cannot win, and then slander our men and women in uniform, calling them storm troopers and baby killers, confidence is sapped. When socialist economic policies cause a collapse in the markets and the folks who want to be leaders run around screaming about Great Depressions, confidence is sapped. When the President-Elect continuously reminds Americans that our economy is struggling, but then says that he plans on running up multi-trillion dollar deficits for years, our confidence is sapped.

This reveals a very telling perspective of the liberals. They brutally criticized President Bush because he "failed to warn us" about the severity of the economic crisis. Bush repeatedly stated that there was a looming crisis in the economic sector, and as early as 2006 tried to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the Democrats--spearheaded by that queer genius, Barney Frank--thwarted any attempt to reform those organizations. And when the economy began to unravel, Bush repeatedly made statements that we were headed for tough times, but his tone was positive.

So maybe the libs need to consider that it's not that Bush was unaware of what was happening, but he didn't want to sap confidence. Revolutionary thought, eh?

Ironically, Obama has tapped as leader for the EPA a no-growth socialist who believes that the United States’ consumption of energy is an energy injustice, and that developed nations must shrink their economies in order to right this wrong. Now, I don’t know how you can shrink an economy and still provide jobs, so it seems inevitable that—were we to follow the Obama theories of economic justice—the next generation will have to lower its sights.

Obama’s recipe for meeting our “serious” and “many” challenges is to choose “hope over fear”. Really? Hope doesn’t solve recessions: good policy does. Hope doesn’t win wars: good military strategy and logistics (and unflagging support) does. Hope does not feed the hungry: hard work and ingenuity do.

“Hope over fear” sounds like some sort of algorithm for disaster: “hope/fear=desperation”.

We don’t need plans made out of desperation, we need reasonable and logical analysis. It was not “hope” that helped Captain Sullenberger successfully ditch US Airways flight 1549 in the Hudson river: it was courage, coupled with a brilliant and educated triage of the situation.

So, enough of your platitudes and insults to our intelligence: it's time to actually come up with policies, Barry.

The next theme that begs analysis started with this phrase:

“In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things…”

This sounds great. It appears that Obama is praising the hard working entrepreneurs who made the country powerful and wealthy. Taken with the statement that “greatness is never given…it must be earned”, it appears that Obama will promote personal responsibility, instead of a welfare state. But that hope doesn’t last long. Only a few paragraphs further, he states:

The question we ask today is … whether [our government] works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.” So, now he suggests that the government has a responsibility to provide jobs with decent wages, healthcare, and a “dignified” retirement.

Really? Where in the constitution does it state that government must be a great Nanny?

Minutes previously, Obama had said that “We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.” Those founding documents include a constitution that limit the powers of the federal government, and which clearly states that any power not specifically mentioned in the constitution belong with the states. Whatever happened to the “ideals of our forbearers”, who stated: “that government is best which governs least”?

For an alleged legal scholar, Obama seems appallingly ignorant of the limits of government clearly stated in the constitution.

Obama made direct reference to the Declaration of Independence by mentioning the ideal that we are all created equal. As a reminder, allow me quote the statement: “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

Later, says: “…We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers.” Why is this important? Because within the modern liberal philosophy is a dogmatic attempt to separate religion from government—except when it gets a liberal candidate votes. And it was the founding father’s firm belief in God that inspired them to clearly state that our unalienable Rights are “endowed” by our “Creator”. If we separate God from government in the way that liberals want, if we consider ours to be a nation of “non-believers”, then we must accept that our rights are not “endowed by [our] Creator”, but are instead granted by our government, and thus, can be rejected by the same government. It is absurd to have included “non-believers” in this statement, and completely unnecessary.

But there you go, it’s Obama being all inclusive. Except of course, he forgot to mention Buddhists, Wiccans, and doggon it, if you’re going to remain popular with the Hollywood nuts, you damn well better pay homage to the Scientologists.

Most frightening, to me, is the naïve comment he makes in this paragraph:

“…Our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”

This last phrase is one of the most laughably ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Security does not emanate from a just cause. If that were true, wouldn’t Black have been “secure” from slavery? Wouldn’t the Jews have been “secure” from Nazi ovens? Wouldn’t the American Indians have been “secure” from genocidal attack? How is security connected to “the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint” Neither humility nor restraint secured our future when we faced the Germans and the Japanese! Military Force secured our future. Period.

All in all, like I said, "not bad for a socialist".

But I have to say, this speech reminded me uncomfortably of the speeches made by Hugo Chavez. A lot of rhetoric, a lot of confusion, a lot of contractions, and a whole lot of starry eyed supporters drooling on themselves and saying, "wow, isn't he charasmatic?!"

They say the Devil knows how to dance...

Obama is now the President of the United States. Yippee.

Obama is now the President of the United States. Yippee.

While part of me is happy for America, and for the triumph of African-Americans who have finally achieved a long overdue objective, my joy is lessened by my experience during the inauguration.

I’m currently living in the outskirts of Denver, Colorado. And Denver, in case you didn’t know, is decidedly liberal. So liberal, in fact, that it is generally an assumption for the locals that everyone around them is also liberal.

So, as I watched the inaugural address today here in our office, surrounded by coworkers, it was made clear that every one of them was a joyful liberal. They were making the standard “go Obama” statements, and carrying boxes of tissues with them to wipe their teary eyes. And whenever former president Bush appeared on the television screen, they emitted scornful insults, sardonic good-byes, and the requisite “Get out of here!”

This was all taken as acceptable behavior, and none seemed in the least aware that they were behaving like boorish poor sports, or that their snide remarks contrasted sharply with their criticism of Bush’s “arrogance”.

Many of the liberals in the room laughed good-naturedly at the television coverage and made jokes about things that were projected, but I really never sensed anything excessively offensive. But when one of the ladies got up and stormed off with her box of tissues, I wondered what was going on.

I struggled to control myself; I had no desire to ruin the event for my happy liberal coworkers. It was only at the conclusion of Obama’s rather long-winded speech, when they all clapped and celebrated his eloquence—apparently without considering the idiocy of some of the content—and while they were declaring that Obama had “killed it!”, did I finally feel compelled to respond: “Not bad—for a socialist.”

This received boos and admonitions, although a few people did laugh.

But when I returned to my desk, I discovered that the lady who fled with her tissues was very angry at the irreverence of her coworkers who—despite their also being enamored of Obama—simply didn’t display quite the level of gushing love for her taste.

Her attitude was reminiscent of an ardent church-goer who has just witnessed blasphemous behavior!

So she had felt compelled to leave, swearing to watch a recording of the speech at home, without everyone else around.

It occurs to me that this is so incredibly typical of the liberals. While conservatives have struggled to be gracious and wish Obama well, in spite of their serious misgivings about his stated policies, liberals have continued to issue hateful scorn toward President Bush and the Republicans. They feel perfectly justified to loudly voice their opinions in the office, knowing that they are surrounded by others who agree with them, and yet they feel offended if a dissenting voice from the minority dares to disagree.

This is just a hint of what is to come.

Friday, January 2, 2009

In defense of the majority

Happy New year.

On January, 20 2009, Barack Hussein Obama will be sworn into office as President of the United States of America. While this will be a cause for great celebration among certain sectors of the American populace, one tiny group has chosen to protest. But it’s not conservatives, as one would expect. No, it’s Atheists.

Because Obama, who has repeatedly countered rumors that he is ultra-liberal and possibly a closet Muslim, has emphasized that he is a Christian and will take his oath using President Lincoln’s Bible. The inclusion of the Bible, and the oath taken to uphold the constitution “so help me God”, is apparently offensive to Atheists. These, in turn, have filed suit—that’s right, they are seeking legal recourse to block President-Elect Obama’s right to express his determination to uphold the constitution by invoking the symbol of his religious faith in order to affirm his sincerity. Why?

The atheists assert that "there can be no purpose for placing 'so help me God' in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God exists." They add that any reference to God violates the Constitution’s ban on the governmental establishment of religion. Tragically, they feel that “having to watch a ceremony with religious components will make them feel excluded and stigmatized.” They “are placed in the untenable position of having to choose between not watching the presidential inauguration, or being forced to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions that they expressly deny.”

At this juncture, it would be helpful to get some facts about atheists in America. A quick search brought me to an atheism blog that provided some basic information. In one article, they discuss their own prevalence within our society and give this interesting poll result:

85% of Americans self-identify as Christians. (2002)
7% of US adults classify as evangelicals (2004)
38% of US adults classify as born again, but not evangelical. (2004)
37% are self-described Christians but are neither evangelical nor born again
Atheists and agnostics comprise 12% of adults nationwide. (2004)
11% of the US population identify with a faith other than Christianity (2004)

Did you notice the odd result there? Focus only on these three numbers:
85% of Americans self-identify as Christians. (2002)
11% of the US population identify with a faith other than Christianity (2004)
Atheists and agnostics comprise 12% of adults nationwide. (2004)

These results seem nonsensical to me. If 85% of Americans are Christian, then only 15% remains for anything else. 11% of that remaining 15% clearly state that they “identify with a faith other than Christianity”. That must mean that they are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. 15% minus 11% leaves only 4%, not 12%. Since you cannot be both Atheist and Christian, Muslim , Hindu, etc. one can only come to the conclusion that there is something wrong with the polls. But at any rate, it is safe to say that the number of atheists in America is certainly less than 12%, and probably around 4%.

This is only important in so much as it puts into perspective the current situation. A tiny minority (less than 12% of the population) of Americans who profess to be absolutely sure that there is no God are demanding that all public expressions be devoid of religious content, because they feel “excluded” and “stigmatized”. Apparently realizing the hubris in such a demand, they fall back upon the famous “establishment” clause of the constitution, as an attempt to lend credibility to their argument. But once again, we must clarify that the intent of the religion clauses of the constitution was not to eliminate religious expression from the state, but simply to prevent the government from establishing a state-sanctioned faith and imposing that upon the rest of the society and compelling others to believe. The spirit of the amendment was born of historical concerns, as the framers had been direct witnesses to the religious conflicts between the official religions of certain governments, resulting in wars between Catholics and Protestants. But it was never their intent to sanitize government and society of all references to God. Quite the opposite is true. The inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and formalized in the Bill of Rights for the benefit of men “are endowed by their creator”. They are not granted by the government—if they were, they could be denied by the same government at any time. No, they are endowed by God and the Laws of Nature and are therefore inalienable.

It is therefore absurd for a tiny minority of the society to decide that their particular view—that God does not exist—must therefore limit the expression of faith of the rest of the society. Worse, this actually would represent a horrific blow to democracy. After all, the whole basis of a democracy is that the opinions of the majority decide the course taken by the society. Certain provisions in the constitution prevent the majority from violating the rights of the minority, but in no way was it the intent of the framers to allow a tiny minority to impose their views upon the majority.

The desire of the atheists to silence religious expression is just another expression of our cultural decadence, leading to widespread narcissism, and ending in ideological fascism.
I sometimes envision our society as a tiny dory, tossed around by the prevalent forces of culture. The current sometimes draws society to the right—as it did during the Prohibition days—and sometimes toward the left—as it currently appears to be doing. The sudden, often chaotic lurching direction of our culture can appear to be horrifying at times, but the common sense of the citizens has, for over two hundred years, allowed us to stay upright and keep off the rocks.

But be warned: our ability to navigate through the vagaries of cultural whim will be disastrously hindered if the current tendencies of political intolerance prevail. And, to the surprise of the many, the current threat comes not from religious conservatives on the right, but from “liberal” militants on the left. For while it has been a widely accepted notion that the forces of intolerance that have led to totalitarian or fascist policies usually come from the far right, a fair analysis of our society demonstrates that it is now organized and militant minorities on the left that believe they have the imperative to impose themselves upon the majority.

The tendency is showing up in a number of manifestations: The imposition of the “gay agenda” upon society and accusation of being “homo-phobic” against anyone who disagrees with the policies; the attempt to replace Christian expressions of faith from Christmas with “acceptable” secular expressions; the attempt to limit speech and prohibit the use of “ethnically offensive” terms such as “Islamic extremist” or “Islamist Terrorists”; the use of race-baiting to silence opposition to politicians by labeling any questioning of their policies or qualifications as “racist”; the silencing of scientists and academics who disagree with the “Global Warming” craze.

The commonality between all of these “currents” is that every one of them is promoted by a small minority of the society, which in turn is unwavering and uncompromising in their radical dedication to their agenda, and the proponents of each movement have resorted to distorting Human and Civil Rights advances in order to make itself “morally undeniable”, thus automatically tainting any opposition to it as a violation of human rights and human dignity. The scientist who questions the data behind Global Warming is suddenly a “flat earth” radical, the moral equivalent of the religious fanatics who punished Galileo and Copernicus. The pundit who demands to know more about Obama’s connections to extremist groups or convicted felons is “racist” for doubting his purity. And most absurd of all, Christians are told that it is “offensive” for them to say “Merry Christmas” during the Christmas Holiday, because that could be offensive to any non-Christian who hears it.

A democracy simply cannot survive if discussion is forcibly suppressed. When intolerance becomes fashionable and results in the wholesale elimination of open discussion and passionate argument, then the beliefs of a small group may be converted into oppressive policies whose “righteousness” becomes literally indisputable—not because they are right, but because disputation is made impermissible.

This is the precipitous slide toward totalitarianism that allows Nazis to slaughter Jews, Islamists to slaughter infidels, communists to slaughter intellectuals—on and on. The only solution is for the society to recognize that there is wisdom within the ranks of the majority, and to promote and defend the beliefs of the majority.