September 30, 2010
A great piece in American Thinker, with a number of quotable sections. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/obama_not_moses_merely_elmer_g.html
From the article (emphases mine in all cases):
The country is energized for the coming election which is likely to be epic. After the election is when danger could occur.
In a recent piece, it was joked that if a Democrat running for election had to appear in public with either Michael Vick or President Obama, he would choose Mr. Vick. That is more probable, since Mr. Vick's considerable football skills appear to have returned.
An intervention is inevitable. An intervention might be from trusted friends, or it could be a Nixonian pre-resignation meeting. The Democratic Party will intervene. They will do so out of self-interest rather than concern for the tragedy we call Mr. President. This meeting is likely to be Nixonian.
The administration's initial reaction is predictable. The president and his Chicago thugs will resist. These are tough guys, but from a small pond. The amateurs from Chicago don't stand a chance against the Washington pros. This is street-crime versus organized crime. The big boys have too much at risk to allow some street punk to ruin it.
Some of this echoes what I've been saying, although my idea has been that it would be Soros who would pull the trigger. Actually, it matters not who will pull it, as long as it gets pulled.
The writer here does not mention a fear that is often raised, which is that if it appears that Obama has been dumped from the 2012 ticket, the black community will explode. I imagine that is already being taken into consideration and will be dealt with at the appropriate time. After all, the Democratic (sic) Party has managed for years to convince Black America that they are its only friend, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; surely they are confident that they can pull the rabbit from the hat once again.
My friend Barry, from Virginia, asks some good questions.
Opinion Editor, The Washington Times:
Let me get this straight. The Obama Administration is sued to halt
ongoing federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. It loses
before a judge but appeals. The funding is allowed to continue until the
Appeals Court decision.
The Obama Administration imposes a moratorium on offshore oil drilling,
and is sued. It loses before a federal judge, imposes a more restrictive
moratorium, and appeals. The drilling cannot resume until the Appeals
Both cases involve (a) potential or proven benefits to humans, (b)
potential or proven dangers to humans, (c) jobs and economic activity
and (d) loss of expertise if suspended. Why are the outcomes different?
It seems that the government preferentially gets its way pending appeal.
Barry J. Mitchel
I am being swamped with e-mails from the state GOP establishment, twisting my arm to apply for an absentee ballot. "Vote Now," they are beseeching me. They haven't said "Early and often," but if I were a registered Democrat, I'm sure that's what I'd be hearing.
Why? They can't count my ballot until Election Day. It's not as if this will give them a peek into what the electorate is planning. Ah -- maybe they're hoping I'm planning to vote for the Republican now but might change my mind by Nov. 2. Well, fat chance! I'm impersonating a closed-minded redneck now and I'm planning to stay one, so there! I'm also clinging to my religion and my gun, the latter of which I didn't have on the previous Election Day. If I see an elephant on my lawn, I'll invite it in for a beer. If I see a donkey, out comes the SigSauer. Well, I'd better keep the Sig squirreled away, but I'll get a broom out.
"You never feel better than when you start feeling good after you've been feeling bad." -- William Least Heat-Moon
"God didn't create Earth." -- Stephen Hawking
"Stephen Hawking wasn't there when I did it." -- God
7lb Dave forwards this. Yet more proof that the Catholic higher educational system is THE problem in Catholicism:
Jesuit Loyola Marymount University Launches LGBT Office
By Kathleen Gilbert
LOS ANGELES, September 28, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - California's Loyola Marymount University (LMU) has become the third Jesuit institution of higher education in the U.S. to establish an office dedicated to ministering to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students.
California Catholic Daily pointed out a Sept 20 article in the LMU student newspaper, The Loyolan, celebrating the launch of the Office for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Student Services (GLBTSS) under the Division ofStudent Affairs. The article welcomed the event as “a milestone in LMU’s history -- and the history of Jesuit universities.”
Unlike the school's student-run Gay Straight Alliance club, the GLBTSS will supply professional staff to minister to LGBT students, following in the footsteps of Georgetown University and Gonzaga University. Dr. Lane Bove, senior vice president for Student Affairs, described the office's role as promoting "equality, visibility and inclusion of LGBT students within the LMU community" as well as "advocacy and support for the LGBT student community" and engaging "regular dialogues about the intersection of sexual orientation and gender identity with issues of faith, religion and culture.”
Rev. Robert Scholla, S.J., the rector of the LMU Jesuit Community, told the student paper in the Sept 20 article that he considered the new office "a great thing that has happened.” Several professors agreed.
"Not only does the University community have something to learn from the LGBT office, staff and students, but there is also an opportunity here for education about the Church’s broader position on sexual morality, and on its pastoral support and outreach to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons in particular," philosophy department chair Sr. Mary Beth Ingham, C.S.J., told the paper.
At the Web site of LMU's Intercultural Affairs/Sexual and Gender Identity Office, the school states a commitment to "developing socially responsible men and women" who will "learn to value the unique qualities of diverse cultures." Notably, the graphic for the office's site includes a photograph of a young woman holding a sign protesting Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment in California establishing the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
The school's Gay Straight Alliance club flaunts a sexually promiscuous image, promoting trips to "some hot clubs" and displaying fleeting moments of homosexual intimacy among students in a 2008 compilation video. The school's financial aid office also points students toward scholarships for homosexual students.
Such openness to homosexual "culture" was not always the story at LMU.
Homosexualists were pushing the limits at LMU as far back as 1990, when the Alliance of Gays and Lesbians held an event on campus despite then-university President James Loughran rejecting their bid for official group status. According to a Los Angeles Times article, Loughran issued an unsigned statement urging the school to support homosexual individuals, but affirming that the university "cannot endorse or condone ... a sexually active homosexual lifestyle."
When LifeSiteNews.com sought clarification on LMU's change in policy, a form response was provided outlining the office's goals of inclusivity and stating that "being gay or lesbian is not a sin," that the Catholic Church recognizes only marriage between a man and a woman, and that LMU urges celibacy among non-married students. "The Church’s position beyond that is pastoral, one of outreach and counseling a life of celibacy to the LGBT community," stated the document. "We realize that this may be a difficult cross to bear, but the Church only approves of sexual relations between a man and a woman within the confines of marriage."
The Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles did not return a request for comment.
In an opinion column found in the September 23 issue of the Loyolan, student Kenneth Valahos echoed Loughran's sentiments two decades ago, saying that "the University should make one thing perfectly clear in writing, side-by-side with the mission statement of the LGBT office: We love and support the LGBT student, but we do not support the sin of a homosexual lifestyle.”
"The image of the LMU Lion, brave and courageous, seems hollow when the University cowers to biblically immoral special interest groups like the LGBT community," he wrote.
"When applying to LMU, students are lured in with the promise of a Catholic education, but once they get here, they realize their tuition is in part funding an organization which the Roman Catholic Church does not support. Is this just?"
David W. Burcham, Interim President, LMU
Rev. Dr. Bailey is a Bible scholar and author of the book Jerusalem in the Light of Prophecy. He weighs in on the Obama religion issue for readers of this website.
President Obama: Is He in the Way?
My last article, Is President Obama Muslim or Christian, posed 23 questions to the President, the last of which was asked: If you were tried in a court of law for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you? At the time I was not aware of the following interview with Barak Obama on April 5, 2004, wherein Cathleen Falsani, Sun Times reporter asked him about his faith. The following excerpts are taken from his response:
I am a Christian.... I have a deep faith.... I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.... That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived.... So.... It's perhaps an unlikely theological position for someone who places his faith squarely at the feet of Jesus to take, saying essentially that all people of faith -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone -- know the same God.... That depends... on how a particular verse from the Gospel of John, where Jesus says, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me,’ is heard.
The following analysis of his own testimony will prove that there would not be enough evidence to convict him for being a Christian, and it will remove all doubt whether he is in the Way or not.
Firstly, he states that he is a Christian. Well...OK...that looks good as a starter on the surface. At the outset, he appears to be that which he professes to be, a Christian. However, I am not willing to go so far as did Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), “We must take his word for it.” No. I will not take his word for it because I know for a fact that he is not a Christian based on his own statements. As they are held up to the light of God’s Word, further analysis of each strips away any evidence that he is a Christian.
Secondly, the President said, “I have a deep faith.” Wow! Now there’s a statement that jumps right off the pages of the Bible...a deep faith. I am a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; it would require me the rest of my life to expound on those great passages in the Bible), which speak of faith, especially those having to do with deep faith. (Hundreds of references to faith can be found through the use of an exhaustive Bible Concordance such as, Strong’s.) Deep faith is vital: for believing in the God of the Bible; that He is Creator, and that He exists; for believing in Jesus Christ as the only Savior; for living a righteous life; for enduring persecution; for patience; for dying; for going to be with Christ; for reunion with loved ones who have died in Christ; for victory over sin and Satan in this life; and for ultimately escaping sin, death, hades, and the lake of fire in the life to come. Surely, one cannot fault the President for having a deep faith, but the value of one’s faith depends upon the object toward which it is directed. That object is nowhere to be found in the “deep faith” of which he speaks. From this point onward, one can plainly see that the faith required by the God the Bible to be a real Christian, is sadly lacking in the words of the President.
Thirdly, says he, “I am rooted in Christian tradition.” Now, here is where the analysis begins to reveal the soil in which the root of his profession is grounded, tradition. Tradition. What is the meaning of the word, tradition? Webster’s has: 1 a: an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) b: a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable 2: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction 3: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions 4: characteristic manner, method, or style <in the best liberal tradition>.
The definition above is inclusive of any tradition, in this case, the Christian tradition, which is part and parcel of the teachings of the Old and New Testaments, but Christian tradition is not where one should sink his/her root of belief. However, within that tradition one can find God’s Way to Himself because of its teachings (I mean true doctrines not corrupted by different sects, cults, and the like.) Membership in Christian mainline denominational churches do not make one a Christian. That I was raised in the Christian tradition is a fact. I attended a Christian church regularly and was engaged in various practices having to do with Christianity. I was taught the Bible from childhood. My father and mother were true Christians who loved the Lord with all their hearts. My father was an evangelist and literally preached out his very soul, telling men and women about the measureless love of God through Christ Jesus, His Son. I was very fortunate to have been blessed by being brought up in the Christian tradition; and for that I am eternally thankful, but that did not make me a Christian. My father’s Christianity was no merit for me as an individual, other than constantly teaching me to do right. I did not need to be taught to do wrong; I was already wired to do that by virtue of the fact that I was a descendant of Adam, having been born a sinner through him (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12-14). The Gospel, the good news of how much God loved me through His Son, Jesus Christ, who died, was buried, and rose again from among the dead, which my father preached, took root in my heart; it was instrumental in my eventual being born again by God’s Spirit (John 3:1-21). I did not become a Christian until shortly following the Korean War.
On July 16, 1950, at the young age of 17, I found myself in the middle of a rice paddy, pinned down under a tank by heavy machinegun fire, while at the same time, a sniper was trying his best to pick me off with single shots. There, in the center of that rice paddy, I promised God that if He would bring me home safely, I would live for Him the rest of my life. After multiple wounds received and many months of hospitalization, and not until I reached the age of 22 did I receive Christ into my heart. I sank the deep root of faith in Him. He is the object of my faith. Having been rooted in Christ, by faith, makes me a Christian, not Christian tradition (Colossians 2: 6-10).
Now, as to what the President terms “the Christian tradition.” He prides himself in the fact that, beginning with his mother’s teaching and 20 years of his life in Jeremiah Wright’s church, his faith is rooted in the Christian tradition. In his book, Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, he states that his “... mother was a Christian...a lonely witness for secular humanism.... My mother’s confidence in needlepoint virtues depended on a faith I didn’t possess, a faith that she would refuse to describe as religious; that, in fact, her experience told her was sacrilegious: a faith that rational, thoughtful people could shape their own destiny.” His mother, even though he says was a Christian, could not have been, according to sound Biblical teaching. Jeremiah Wright is not, either.
Wright’s roots are in Liberation Theology, and so are the President’s. Liberation Theology is based on Marxism, not on Christ. Liberation Theology came to North America in the 1980s and was embraced by liberal blacks, thus becoming Black Liberation Theology. Jeremiah Wright preaches it with great fervor. The core of Black Liberation teaching is that man can be saved through the process of collective salvation. It is not based on main line Christian tradition. Those who embrace it, as does the President, see all religions as many paths to man’s salvation. Any form of salvation must be accomplished through collective society whereby everyone becomes equal. The sins of human society are overturned and all are saved. Apart from collectivism, there is no salvation for the individual. Individual salvation is out of the question. Salvation, as Obama sees it, is as different from the salvation God offers through His Son, as the blackest darkness is from the lightest light. The President sat under Wright’s teaching for 20 years and stated that Wright led him to Christ. Based on the teaching of Black Liberation Theology, he can hardly say that the Christ to whom Wright led him was the Christ of the Scriptures. Wright preaches another gospel, one other than the gospel of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:6-9). He has so corrupted the Gospel of Christ that one can hardly recognize the Christ of the Bible. The President knows about the Christ of the Bible, but he does not know Him as Savior, as will be seen through further analysis.
Fourthly, the most telling and indisputable proof that the President is not a genuine Christian is based on the fact that he holds Jehovah, the God of the Bible and Judge of the earth, and His Way of coming to Him in utter contempt. He expresses exactly what he thinks of Jehovah and the Way. An aside: The term, the “Way,” was adopted by true Christians during the infancy of the Church (Acts 9:2), which originated with Jesus’ words to the disciples, “I am the way...” (John 14: 6). They were called Christians later, (Acts 11: 26). The President himself removes all doubt as to whether or not he is a Christian according to the Bible. This last item of evidence will show that the President is his own worst witness. The whole of the following last part is divided into a number of components; each is italicized in his words:
1. I believe that there are many paths to the same place. The Bible teaches that the many paths (religions) away from Jehovah, the one and only true God, since Adam sinned, do not lead back to Him, but farther away. The adage “All roads lead to Rome,” in this case is not true. All roads do not lead back to Jehovah, but eventually to the lake of fire (Rev. 20:11-15); as the President says, “... there are many paths to the same place.” However, sadly to say, according to the Bible, they do not lead men back to the God who made them. None seek God, but all have turned aside and taken several paths of their own (Romans 3).
2. ... And that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. When someone uses a general term such as “a higher power,” and does not identify that higher power, it is an indication, according to Mr. Obama’s frame of reference that they neither have a relationship with the God of the Bible nor do they want to reveal the god they worship. The Bible speaks of many higher powers; those powers are opposed to God and the Christian (Romans 8:38,39; Eph 6:10-20; Colossians 2:15). There are lords many and gods many behind the scenes of all the religions of the world; they are demons and are not to be worshiped by humanity. Paul said it best when he addressed the men of Athens on Mars Hill:
22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. 24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’
29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man [Jesus Christ, brackets mine] he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead (Acts 17:22-31.
That all men are connected to God through creation is indeed, true. In that sense, and that sense only, is humanity connected to Him, but that is as far as it goes. When the plug was pulled through Adam’s sin, so to speak, man became disconnected from the Creator, the power was cut off and humanity died, spiritually. The light went out in the souls of men. “ For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles [animism, brackets mine].... They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator―who is forever praised. Amen. ” (Romans 1:21-23).
Human beings, for the most part, have chosen not to retain God in their knowledge. The farther humanity has descended down the slide of time, from Adam to the present, the more blatantly they dishonor the Creator. Case in point: On September 17, the President spoke to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute 33rd Annual Award Gala. Quoting from the Declaration of Independence, one of the great political documents of America’s history, here is what he read: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain unalienable rights, life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He deliberately left out the words “by their Creator.” Obviously it was intentional, given the fact that he was looking directly at a teleprompter. His intent was, no doubt, to discredit the Creator for having freely given those blessings. Mr. President “Thou conclud'st like the sanctimonious pirate, that went to sea with the Ten Commandments, but scrap'd one [Thou shalt not steal] out of the table” (Shakespeare).
3. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived.... By the word, “collectively,” I am sure he is alluding to the collective salvation concept, but I also understand this statement to mean that every religion has certain values in that they are good and should be lived according to the best of one’s ability; with that I fully agree, but whatever good that may be found in any religion devised by man, is a carryover of the inherent goodness of God, which He instilled in Adam from the very beginning; otherwise they remain as described in the following passage, Romans 3:9-18:
...Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” “ Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.” “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
4. So.... It's perhaps an unlikely theological position for someone who places his faith squarely at the feet of Jesus to take, saying essentially that all people of faith -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone -- know the same God.... The President says in his own words that he is defying all logic, having placed his faith “squarely at the feet of Jesus,” to state that all men, no matter what their religion, know the same God. What! What kind of reasoning is that? Based on Biblical theology, and their proven warped character, it is absolutely impossible that men of all religions “know the same God.” As stated above, they all left the same God and devised their own religion (path, road, way). Pray tell me what can be any plainer than that? All Gentiles, including Muslims and animists, are not Christian; some are, but many others refuse God’s prescribed Way. Neither are all Christians, Gentiles; many are Jews who have chosen to follow the same Way. Obviously, the President is not a Christian. I repeat: the President of the United States of America is not a Christian. The last component attests to that fact.
5. That depends... on how a particular verse from the Gospel John, where Jesus says, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me,’ is heard. How else did Thomas hear Him? Jesus had told the disciples, Thomas included, that He was going back to the Father and that they knew the way (the way being Himself). Thomas did not fully understand what Jesus meant when he said, “you know the way,” and asked this: “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?” I ask the President, did Thomas hear Jesus say: You can come to the Father through Christian tradition; sect, cult, and/or different denominations; through various religions; though it be the Muslim religion or any other man can devise, even animism? No, he did not; he heard nothing of the sort. But rather, Thomas’ ears heard, as clear as anyone who is not stone-deaf, these words: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me” (John 14: 6). Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said. Thomas heard what Jesus said and meant. The President reminds one of what Jesus said to the Twelve disciples concerning those outside the kingdom who were ever hearing but never understanding: “Some people,” says He, “are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them” (Mark 4:10-15).
Besides, “the higher power” of which he speaks, mentioned in component 2, cannot be Jesus’ Father. If Jesus is the only Way to the Father’s place, and He is, but Mr. Obama says, “there are many ways to the same place,” how can it be that the God and Father of Jesus is the one to whom the many paths lead? Who or what is the President’s “higher power,” Allah? Obviously, it is not the Father of Jesus to whom he would soon be returning. Again, if he believes, as he says, “there are many ways to the same place,” it is obvious that he holds the sacrifice of Christ on the cross in utter contempt; and how does he do that? When Jesus was born into this world through the virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1-2), He was born without sin in order to be the sacrificial Lamb (Hebrews 10:1-18), the one toward which all sacrifices pointed. The way of sacrifice was God’s way back to Himself. Isaiah spoke of Christ, “all we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned everyone to his own way and the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Every sacrifice throughout the Old Testament typified God’s precious Lamb who would come. The prophet, Isaiah, prophesied the Lamb as being, he, him, and his (Isaiah 53), but John the Baptist did identify Him to the disciples, as being Jesus, “Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:35).
The Presidents statement “there are many ways to the same place” contradicts and is at loggerheads with all that the God (Jehovah) of the Bible has to say about the sacrifice of His Son. He, in effect, treats the sacrifice of Christ in the same insolent way, as did Cain. Beginning with the first sacrifice, executed by God himself in Eden, when He made coats of skins to cover the nakedness of Adam and Eve, He taught them the ugliness of sin and the end thereof, death. God showed our first parents the way back to Himself, the sacrifice of a lamb. Adam taught Cain and Able the way back. Able did it God’s way and sacrificed a lamb (Genesis 4:1-15; Hebrews 11: 4). Cain did it his own way and offered to God the fruits of his own labor. All men have followed the way of Cain. “Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain” (Jude 11). Since the fall of all humankind who was in the loins of Adam when he fell, as the result his sin and rebellion against God, man, through many forms of religion, has devised his own means of finding his way back to Jehovah. “There is a way which seems right to a man, but the end thereof is the way of death (Proverbs 14:12). “ All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way and the LORD has laid on him, the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53).
God has shown man that the way back to Him is as simple as ABC. That way is the way of the cross, the way of the sacrifice of His Son. The way of the cross leads home, the place Jesus went to prepare. He is the only way of getting to the Father. “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me” (John 14: 6). God the Father reaches out His loving arms, day and night, and cries out, to the President, as he cried out to Israel of old, “Whether you turn to the right or to the left your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, ‘This is the way; walk in it’” (Isaiah 30:21, 22). “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it (Matthew 7:13,14). God’s last warning to President Obama and all Heads of State who persist in rejecting, and treating His Son (the Way) with contempt, is this: “Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son [passionately attach yourself to the Son, brackets mine], lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him” (Psalm 2:10-12, italics mine). Scripture quotations are from The New International Version.
September 29, 2010
A space ambassador could be appointed by the United Nations to act as the first point of contact for aliens trying to communicate with Earth.
Mazlan Othman, a Malaysian astrophysicist, is set to be tasked with co-ordinating humanity’s response if and when extraterrestrials make contact.
Aliens who landed on earth and asked: “Take me to your leader” would be directed to Mrs Othman.
As Bill Katz says, "So the capsule comes down just outside Dallas and some Texan who's got concealed/carry confronts the occupants, and immediately provides them with the address, in Mayalsia, of Mazlan Othman, an address we all have with us. (Don't you?) The Texan also has a list of convenient Mayalsian landing areas for space capsules.
"I wonder how many American dollars the UN will spend on this deal."
No, this isn't what you think. This guy is saying that it is bloggers from the left who are bringing down the Obama presidency. http://peterdaou.com/2010/09/liberal-bloggers-are-bringing-down-the-obama-presidency/
Virtually all the liberal bloggers who have taken a critical stance toward the administration have one thing in common: they place principle above party. Their complaints are exactly the same complaints they lodged against the Bush administration. Contrary to the straw man posed by Obama supporters, they aren’t complaining about pie in the sky wishes but about tangible acts and omissions, from Gitmo to Afghanistan to the environment to gay rights to secrecy and executive power.
The essence of their critique is that the White House lacks a moral compass. [Emphasis Dana's] The instances where Obama displays a flash of moral authority – the mosque speech comes to mind – these bloggers cheer him with the same fervor as his most ardent fans.
I’ve argued for some time that the story of Barack Obama’s presidency is the story of how the left turned on him. And it eats him up. You know it from Robert Gibbs, you know it from Rahm Emanuel, you know it from Joe Biden and you know it from Obama himself.
Well, whattya know!
One of this administration's big goals is so-called "sustainable energy." So why is one of their lapdog agencies establishing rules that make it illegal? Ignorance is the only thing I can come up with, and of course government is riddled with ignorance. http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/247876/epa-vs-oregons-sustainable-energy-industry-greg-pollowitz
I didn't know they even allowed peanuts on commercial flights these days, since so many kids seem allergic to them. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100928/ap_on_re_us/us_carter_hospitalized
(Sorry -- couldn't resist that!)
September 28, 2010
In a recent article at the American Thinker the normally lucid Richard Baehr decided to swallow the Krauthammer country club kool-aid in a piece bemoaning the triumph of the Tea Types over the establishment hand-pickery.
Ironically entitled "Time for the GOP to Unite" Mr. Baehr offered little in the way of consolidating rhetoric, turning his guns on those who did not want another Benedict Arlen Specter or Lindsay Graham Cracker. Mr. Baehr was particularly put out with the victory of Christine O'Donnell, whom he believes is a guaranteed loss of Joe Biden's old Senate seat.
Here is an example of some of the rhetoric from the piece:
"I dislike Stalinist mindsets (purge the moderates) whether on the left or the right. The GOP will remain a minority party if it expels all its moderates."
"The view of some conservatives is that once you cross the Party, you are toast."
Now, these hardly constitute flaming arrows, and I do not believe that Richard Baehr is in any way a sell-out (despite my earlier tongue-in-cheek alliterative about his consumption of kool-aid) but I do think that he is succumbing to a temptation that befalls many who spend too much time thinking about politics and looking at political numbers.
Mr. Baehr's upset because of the numbers. He quotes fivethirtyeight.com numbers http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/assessing-the-g-o-p-and-the-tea-party/?hp= giving Mike "White" Castle (he's a political belly bomber for conservatives) a 94% chance of taking the Biden stool, while giving O'Donnell just 6%. So, conservatives should accept a man who would be at home in with the Donkeys solely because he can win?
This is, of course, the exact same thinking that gave us decades of Arlen Specter; he was ELECTABLE. If everyone remembers, George W. Bush endorsed Specter over Patrick Toomey when he was up for election the last time - and Specter did nothing but cause trouble for his party and his president. If electability is the primary criteria, then perhaps the GOP should nominate Hillary Clinton to run against Obama in 2012?
The fact is, the Buckley rule (thou shalt vote for the most electable conservative) is misapplied here (and has been for a long time); the issue is the most electable CONSERVATIVE. If the man who is being pushed is indistinguishable from a Democrat, what value is there in him? Republicans are not Democrats; the argument that we need him in the Senate to take power has less weight than one may think, because there is no real party discipline in the GOP. There are many benefits to a turnover in Congress, but the returns are greatly diminished if the GOP has a plurality control and cannot keep people like Mike Castle on the reservation. Democrats can do it by virtue of a more centralized party structure. Republicans cannot. So,a plurality control means the Dems can block any efforts by the GOP (such as repealing Health Care) and gives Obama a scapegoat; everything that goes wrong will be the Republican's fault, while everything good that happens will be Obama's miracles (and you know the media will spin it that way). Now, I am not advocating that we should purposely lose Congress but I am saying there is little value in taking it with people like Mike Castle. There has to be a positive effect to make it worthwhile; power alone is insufficient, and in fact is detrimental. Just look at what power did to the Republican Revolution of 1994; the conservative triumph sunk in a quicksand of "strategic" political thinking and compromise. This is the very thing that cost the GOP in every single election after '94, and eventually gave a supermajority to the Democrats. People at the grassroots level are tired of strategic surrender.
The military strategist Sun Tzu once stated "Opportunities multiply as they are seized". The art of war and the art of politics bear a striking resemblence, and Sun Tzu was warning against the very timidity that has befallen the leading voices in the GOP; what may appear on the surface unlikely can become probable if the initiative is taken. The bean-counting philosophy is much like the Washingtonian way of calculating the effect of taxes; they look at x plus or minus Y and dismiss the logarithmic nature of the issue. Raising taxes does not add y to x. It adds a drag on economic activity that is difficult to determine but which greatly reduces revenue. Cutting taxes does not cost Y from X. It increases revenue to the government because it increases economic activity. Politics works in a similar way (as does war) in that Christine O'Donnell MAY be unelectable, but her primary victory fires up the populace in dramatic ways, increases revenue to all the candidates on our side, brings out the volunteers, the voters, ends apathy. Even if O'Donnell guarantees a loss, what of it? Often in chess one sacrifices a pawn to take a queen. If the Biden seat is lost, how much more will be gained?
But then, who says the Biden seat is lost? Charles Krauthammer http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/246849/buckley-rule-charles-krauthammer, for one. Why does he not think this is a self-fulfilling prophecy? IF one starts from the premise that defeat is certain, it rarely fails to translate to reality. The one characteristic all champions hold in common is a confidence in their capacity for victory. Victory and defeat start in the mind. Krauthammer - and Mr. Baehr, unfortunately - have already lost this for us - if we listen to them. The fact is, there is plenty of time for the public to change their minds on Christine O'Donnell, but that won't happen with our own side criticizing her. This is an opportunity to be seized, not rejected. Rejection sets us in a spiral of failure.
Also, the media attack frenzy should give us pause; if they weren't afraid of her they would see no reason not to ignore her. Any time the media hates a conservative we should take courage about that person.
The GOP has been the eternal home for apathy, because the RINO Republicans inspire lethargy and despair. They are perceived as the consumate insiders, seeking their own advantage and power - not the advancement of our agenda, not the welfare of the nation. The nation elected Barack Obama for this very reason; they sought to end "business as usual" and replace it with what they perceived to be an outsider (actually an inside-outsider). I suspect most of the public was naive and ignorant about what this man would do once in office. In point of fact, many conservatives were saying he would move to the middle once elected! We have become so used to our own side making that move we believed it was true of the Democrats. We should have learned; Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid doubled down on liberalism as their strategy for victory. THEY understood that bold colors would carry the day - if only with their base.
One of the arguments made by establishment Republicans is the necessity of a "big tent" and often they point to the Democrats as proof of the wisdom of tenting. I would respectfully disagree; Democrats are pushing a radical agenda, one most Americans do not agree with. Forty Two percent of Americans call themselves conservative or very conservative, while just twenty percent call themselves liberal or very liberal. http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-Conservatives-Outnumber-Moderates-Liberals.aspx The remaining 38% are not necessarily moderate; how many Americans don't know and don't care? Being a moderate is much like being a tumbleweed; any wind can blow them. The notion that you catch a moderate by baiting your hook with a moderate (something quite tempting to do literally) is much like a restaurant trying to lure in customers by offering free plain yogurt. The point is, this great middle isn't ideologically neutral, they just don't know what to believe and are happy to be given some direction. They will bandwagon. The enthusiasm, the superior logic, the genuine nature of the candidates (as opposed to the plastic political charicatures put up solely to win seats) goes a long way toward capturing these votes. The worst idea possible is to hand pick a Mike Castle just because poll numbers suggest he is a shoe-in. Sometimes it is better to go bare-foot than wear a shoe that chafes your foot.
The Democrats require a big tent; it is not possible for them to win without wearing one over their hideous socialist face. Theirs is a Potemkin village. (For those who do not know, Grigory Potemkin mythically constructed fake villages to fool the Empress Catherine into thinking he actually used the money he was given for development to build villages. He created false fronts and, when Catherine took a boadride down the Dneiper it appeared that he had robust development, complete with cheering villagers who moved from spot to spot, always keeping ahead of her.) Their move to the left was strategic, intended not to win votes but to fire up their base and get money. Clintonism, that concept of triangulation between left and right, had alienated the base of the party. But the general election that gave them the supermajority was built on the conservative blue dogs, and those same blue dogs were the ones who were required to walk the plank on Obamacare and the other unpleasantries of the anointed Left. We see how well that big tent strategy worked; the Democrats are poised to lose control of Congress!
But we do not require liberals voting for our candidates to win, and courting liberals makes liars of our party and it's purpose. It must be remembered that the GOP is a tool, a vehicle intended for a particular purpose. It serves our pleasure rather than we servicing it. While it is extremely important for our chosen vehicle to take power from the uberleft party, it is equally important for us to actually control the direction that vehicle is going; one does not let the automobile drive itself, lest it crash. The dissatisfaction that spawned the Tea Parties stems from the GOP attempting (and succeeding) to drive itself, making the conservative pilots into passengers. The elites in the GOP repeatedly claimed this was for our own good, and that should we give them free reign they would deliver us to our destination. But that destination was beginning to look more and more to be a final one, a resting place of conservative values, and the average conservative has now rebelled against the Elephantine nomenklatura. WE demand to be put into the driver's seat!
And every time we are we win. The oracles of doofi in the GOP told us Ronald Reagan was unelectable, and they fought his nomination bitterly. Surprisingly enough, he blew his opponents out not once but twice, and triggered a full-scale conservative revolution that completely thwarted the Left's agenda for over a decade. Of course, after Reagan came another era of squishy Republicanism which gave us Bill Clinton, and then the Contract with America gave us a Republican Congress. For some strange reason the moderates keep succeeding in arguing for political suicide.
According to New York writer Jack Kemp, in 1970, William F. Buckley's brother James ran for US Senator in NY on the Conservative Party ticket, certainly a longshot to win. He won the seat in a three way race and served one term, even with some Democrats speaking well of his service to the state. It is a good thing that James Buckley didn't listen to the "Rule" of his brother.
So, why do we continue to believe this grim fairy tale that we must build an enormous coalition of every stripe?
The reality is that we have been in an Hegelian cycle in which the Left, spearheaded by the Democrats and the mainstream media, have pushed ever leftward and the GOP has followed along in the interest of big tenting. Today's Democrats are completely unrecognizable by standards as late as the 1960's and the Republicans are more liberal than John F. Kennedy because they have been seduced by a lie, a lie which says that they must move to the middle. Ever terrified of being painted as "right-wing extremists" the GOP elites have faithfully followed along with almost every Democrat Party scheme, resisting not the premises of their plans but merely arguing over how much and how fast. We have watched as year after year our national lifeblood has been drained by the leeches of the political class. The rank and file are tired of our beliefs being sold on the altar of political expediency, and we simply aren't going to take any more.
It's time we took our party - and our nation - back. This is beyond a political issue; at it's heart is a moral obligation. Core moral principles cannot be abrogated without forever compromising. Once we say we will concede on certain points we are lost. We have been conceding for many years, and the People have had enough. It is time for someone to take a stand.
Joseph Stalin once mocked the power of the Catholic Church, asking "how many troops does the Pope have?" In the end, the power of Faith overcame the might of the entire Eastern Block. Cold steel melted like butter when confronted with courage and faith. Stalin only had guns and gulags; the Pope had the power of Truth and Righteousness.
Why don't our political leaders understand that power?
This from the Science and Environment Policy Project (SEPP):
SEPP SCIENCE EDITORIAL #28-2010 (Sep 25, 2010)
Guest Editorial by Dr. Harrison "Jack" Schmitt
Harrison H. Schmitt is a former United States Senator from New Mexico as well as a geologist and former Apollo Astronaut. He currently is an aerospace and private enterprise consultant and a member of the new Committee of Correspondence.
DOMINATING ROLE OF OCEANS IN CLIMATE CHANGE
The scientific rationale behind the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed massive intrusion into American life in the name of fighting climate change has no scientific or constitutional justification. This hard left excursion into socialism, fully supported by the Congressional Leadership and the President, has no basis in observational science, as has been discussed previously relative to climate history, temperature, and carbon dioxide.
In addition, oceans of the Earth play the dominant role in the perpetuation and mediation of naturally induced change of global climate. Density variations linking the Northern and Southern Hemisphere portions of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans through the Southern Ocean drive the primary circulation system that controls hemispheric and global climate. Differences in temperature and salt concentration produce these density variations that circulate heat around the planet. For the last several years in this circulating environment, the sea surface temperature of the oceans appears to be leveling off or decreasing with no net heat increase for the last 58 years and particularly since 2003 and possibly since 1990. The long-term climatic implications of this recent broad scale cooling are not known.
Density increase due to evaporation in the North Atlantic creates a salt-rich, cold, deepwater current that flows south to join the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Upwelling from that Circumpolar Current brings nutrient and carbon dioxide-rich deep seawater into the upper Southern Ocean. This Southern Ocean water then moves north toward the equator where it joins a warm water current flowing from the North Pacific, through the tropics and the Indian Ocean, and then northward through the Atlantic to become the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream flows into the North Atlantic where, as part of a continuous process, wind-driven evaporation increases salt concentration and density and feeds the deepwater flow back to the south. Natural interference in the normal functioning of the ocean conveyor can occur. For example, melting of Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, accumulation of melt-water behind ice dams, and abrupt fresh water inputs into the North Atlantic cause major disruptions in global ocean circulation. 
The oceans both moderate and intensify weather and decadal climate trends due to their great capacity to store solar heat as well as their global current structure, slow mixing, salinity variations, wind interactions, and oscillatory changes in heat distribution over large volumes.  The Northern Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO),  the El Nino-La Nina Southern Pacific Oscillation (ENSO),  the long period anchovy-sardine Southern Pacific Oscillation,  the Gulf Stream Northern Atlantic Oscillation (NAO),  the Indonesian Through-Flow (ITF), [12v the Agulhas Current, and other related ocean currents and cycles have demonstrably large, decadal scale effects on regional as well as global climate. 
Possibly the greatest oceanic influence on global climate results from the full hemispheric reach and scale of the Southern Ocean's Circumpolar Current as it circulates around Antarctica and between the continents of the Southern Hemisphere.  In particular, the northward migration of the cold to warm water front off South Africa during ice ages may restrict warm, salty water of the western Indian Ocean's Agulhas Current from entering the South Atlantic and eventually amplify ice age cooling in North America and Europe. 
In several major portions of the global ocean heat conveyor, natural variations in heating, evaporation, freshwater input,  atmospheric convection, surface winds, and cloud cover can influence the position and strengths of related, but local ocean currents near the continents. This variation in current positioning, therefore, modifies carbon dioxide uptake and release, storm patterns, tropical cyclone frequency,  phytoplankton abundance,  drought conditions, and sea level rise that drive the reality of, as well as our perceptions of climate change.
For example, since about 7000 years ago, sea level rise has averaged about eight inches (20cm) per century for a total of about 55 feet (16m).  This same approximate rate appears to have held from 1842 to the mid-1980s.  The trend in sea level rise between the early 1900s and 1940 showed no observable acceleration attributable to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.  Satellite data show an apparent 50% increase of this rate after 1992, but this presumably will slow again soon due to the effects of the current period of global cooling. If the current slow rate of long-term global warming should continue for 100 years, the total sea level rise attributable to worldwide glacier melting and ocean thermal expansion would be no more that about four inches (10cm). 
Greenland's ice sheet also plays a cyclic role in sea level changes. In the 1950s, Greenland's glaciers retreated significantly only to advance again between 1970 and 1995,  a pattern of retreat and then advance repeated again between 1995 and 2006. Predicting future sea level rise from short-term observation of Greenland's glaciers would seem to have little validity, particularly as there appears to be a half a decade lag in observable melting and accretion responses relative to global temperature variations. The same conclusion now can be made relative to Himalayan glaciers. 
There also seems to be little danger of a catastrophic melting of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet that would cause a major rise in sea level.  Great uncertainty also exists relative to the natural dynamics and history of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet with Ross Sea sedimentary cores suggesting that major cycles of ice cover changes have occurred over the last five million years.  Overall, short-term sea level changes relate more to local geological dynamics that to glacial variations. 
Compilations of temperature changes in the oceans and seas, as preserved by oxygen isotope variations in shells from cores of bottom sediments, provide a record of natural oceanic reactions to cycles of major climate change back for 1.8 million years.  For example, geological analysis of sea level changes over the last 500,000 years show a remarkable correlation with major natural climate change.  These data further indicate that the Earth probably is approaching the peak of the warming portion of a normal climate cycle that began with the end of the last Ice Age, about 10, 000 years ago. 
The oceans play the major role in removing carbon from the atmosphere. Seawater calcium and various inorganic and organic processes in the oceans fix carbon from dissolved carbon dioxide as calcium carbonate,  planktonic and benthic organisms, and inedible forms of suspended carbon. In so doing, these processes constitute major factors in global cycles of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Calcium availability in the oceans, in turn, relates to major geological dynamics, including mountain building, volcanism, river flows, and the growth, alteration, and destruction of crustal plates beneath the oceans.
Over the last 28 million years, marked variations in precipitated seawater calcium isotopes, particularly beginning about 13 million years ago, indicate major changes in sources of calcium rather than major variations in the quantity of atmospheric carbon dioxide.  This change in seawater calcium isotopic makeup may relate to events that included the partial deglaciation of Antarctica. As most plant activity requires carbon dioxide, low atmospheric carbon dioxide values would reduce the rate of biologically assisted rock weathering. A limit on such weathering may buffer minimum atmospheric carbon dioxide to between 150 and 250ppm by limiting levels of seawater calcium. 
Significant introductions of calcium into the oceans from any source would be expected to result in a drawdown of atmospheric carbon dioxide to maintain chemical balances in local as well as global seawater. Ultimately, the history of seawater calcium concentrations may explain many of the long-term variations in carbon dioxide levels shown in various studies; however, correlations between calcium dynamics and carbon dioxide levels are not at sufficient geological resolution to make firm, dated correlations.
Slightly increased acidification of the local environments of sea dwelling organisms in the oceans may occur related to the absorption of new emissions of carbon dioxide. On the other hand, in spite of extreme alarmist hand wringing to the contrary, loss of ocean carbon dioxide due to naturally rising temperature works to mitigate this trend as will the broad chemical buffering of ocean acidity by both organic and inorganic processes.
Iron ion and iron complex concentrations in seawater, mediated by oxidation potential (Eh) and hydrogen ion concentration (pH or acidity), play an additional role in organic carbon fixation. Relatively simple laboratory experiments suggest that increases in ocean acidity might reduce availability of chelated iron in the life cycle of phytoplankton.  The complexity of this process in nature, however, and the many other variables that potentially would play a role in iron metabolism, indicate a need for a much more comprehensive experimental analysis before conclusions can be drawn.
Exactly what may happen in specific ecosystems remains uncertain relative to small increases or decreases in the acidity of ocean habitats or the change in the ratios of dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide. Coral reefs, for example, have been very adaptable over geologic time and extensive research strongly suggests that they adapt well, on a global scale, to climatic changes and the small associated chemical changes in the oceans.  So far, research indicates that some organisms benefit and some do not, as might be expected.  Indeed, this interplay between losses and gains has occurred many times in the geologic past as nature has continuously adjusted to climatic changes much greater than the slow warming occurring at present. The Earth's vast layers of carbonate rocks derived from carbon fixing organisms, including ancient, now dead coral reefs, as well as deeply submerged coral reefs on existing sea mounts,  show that the production and evolution of such organisms remains a continuous, if possibly, locally or regionally punctuated process.
In the face of the overwhelming dominance of the oceans on climate variability, it would appear foolish in the extreme to give up liberties and incomes to politicians in Washington and at the United Nations in the name of "doing something" about slow climate change.
The President, regulators, and Congress have chosen to try to push Americans along an extraordinarily dangerous path. That path includes unconstitutional usurpation of the rights of the people and the constitutionally reserved powers of the States as well as the ruin of economic stagnation. The Congress that takes office in 2011 absolutely must get this right!
An interesting article, even though it's really not practical. It would likely be a two-year process, and the 2012 presidential campaign will start in November 2010, and in earnest in 2011. ~~ SR
Washington Times calls for Obama to be Impeached!
FIRST PAPER TO CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT
I don't need to comment. Roger L. Simon writes it better than I could. http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/09/25/cyber-war-on-iran-the-siemens-connection/?singlepage=true
I will go to bed tonight hoping he's right. It certainly couldn't happen to "nicer" people.
September 27, 2010
... when pundits talk about the importance of the Midwest. http://www.urgentagenda.com/PERMALINKS%20V/SEPTEMBER%202010/26.MIDWEST.HTML
Tim, we always knew we were hot stuff... Now if we could just live down Jesse and Frankenberry (not to mention Wellstone).
it appears that Israel has already cyber attacked Iran's nuclear capabilities.
From American Thinker.
Has Israel 'attacked' the Iranian nuclear program already?
Since at least 2001, speculation in the Western media has focused on the possibility of an Israeli or combined American/Israeli attack on the burgeoning Iranian nuclear program. A report in the Eurasia Review suggests that the attack has already taken place, albeit in cyberspace:
...one of the most sophisticated and powerful computer worms ever developed (is the) Stuxnet malware likely designed to infiltrate Iranian industrial computers which controlled numerous automated processes in factory production cycles. The most likely target according to most experts consulted would be Bushehr nuclear reactor complex, which last year was reported by Israeli media to have been sabotaged and faced extensive production delays. The speculation is that the centrifuges refining uranium for use in the facility may've been undermined by deliberately erroneous commands which may've either destroyed to equipment or corrupted the enrichment process.
The size and scope of the cyber attack suggests that only a sophisticated nation state capable of devoting considerable resources to the effort would be capable of mounting such an effort. Of course the most likely nation to mount such an attack would be Israel. FromPC World :
Researchers studying the worm all agree that the Stuxnet was built by a very sophisticated and capable attacker-possibly a nation state-and it was designed to destroy something big...some of the researchers who know Stuxnet best say that it may have been built to sabotage Iran's nukes.
Greg Keizer atComputerworld marvels at the sophistication of the Stuxnet malware:
Once within a network-initially delivered via an infected USB device-Stuxnet used the EoP vulnerabilities to gain administrative access to other PC's, sought out the system running the WinCC and PCS 7 SCADA management programs, hijacked them by exploiting either the print-spooler or MS08-067 bugs, then tried the default Siemens passwords to commandeer the SCADA software.
They could then program the so-called PLC (programmable logic control) software to give the machinery new instructions.
On top of all that, the attack code seemed legitimate because the people behind Stuxnet had stolen at least two signed digital certificates....
So scary, so thorough was the reconnaissance, so complex the job, so sneaky the attack, that (all the experts consulted) believe it couldn't be the work of even an advanced cybercrime gang.
A Virus Bulletin security conference is scheduled in Vancouver, B.C. on September 29, at which experts from the Kaspersky Lab (the security experts consulted for this article) and Microsoft will present papers regarding the Stuxnet worm. Surely the pressure is on the Microsoft team to find a solution to the violation of the operating system provided by them to Siemens and in turn to the Iranian mullahocracy.
In the meantime, the operating computers at Iranian nuclear facilities should continue to appear to have minds other than their own.
This from American Thinker
September 27, 2010
Sneak Preview: The Hijacking of the 2010 Election
By Jack Cashill
Through a combination of massive, Somali-driven voter fraud, stunning Election Board incompetence, and the willful blindness of the Kansas City Star, machine Democrat J.J. Rizzo managed to beat conservative Democrat Will Royster by one vote in a Missouri State House primary on August 3.
There is no Republican running in this heavily Democratic, multi-ethnic Kansas City district. The Democratic nominee will face only a seriously outgunned Libertarian in the November election, and truth be told, Royster may be to the right of the Libertarian.
What the Democratic machine and the Star, which endorsed Rizzo, did not count on was for the intrepid Royster to challenge the election in court. In so doing, he has provided a sneak preview on how a desperate Democratic Party will attempt to neutralize the will of the people this November, and not just in Kansas City.
Royster, a retired Navy fighter pilot and all-around good citizen, asks a fundamental question: "If we won't let Somalis hijack our ships, why do we let them hijack our elections?" As many as a hundred Somalis voted, nearly all of them illegally, likely all of them for Royster's opponent, in a House district in which only 1,300 people showed up to vote.
The trial on September 7 in Jackson County, Missouri Circuit Court revealed several disturbing trends, some of which can be corrected by election day, some of which cannot.
First to testify was Lindy Hobkins, a Republican supervisory election judge. As she related, a group of Somalis came into her Kansas City election site led by one Somali man.
"They were unable to communicate on the most basic levels," said Hobkins of the Somalis. To help his voters along, the leader "left the premises, went outside to where the electioneers are out at the appropriate space allotted for them, and he brought in a sign for Mr. Rizzo." Hobkins continued: he "held it up and pointed at it and said this one, this one, this one."
In a disturbing little twist, David Raymond, the attorney for the Kansas City Election Board, grilled Hobkins as though she were a hostile witness. After she acknowledged that the Somalis were all somehow registered to vote, Raymond asked snidely, "Do you believe these voters should be disenfranchised?"
Hobkins was more than a match for Raymond. She and her husband had been helping refugees resettle. "The biggest deterrent to them becoming citizens, because they all want to be American citizens when they come here," she noted, "is that they do not have a handle on the language to be able to pass the test."
I checked the rules for citizenship. According to the official site for French-speakers (sorry, I don't speak Somali), an individual has to "connaître l'anglais et être au courant de l'histoire et du gouvernement des États-Unis." This translates to "know the English language and be current in the history and government of the United States." I cannot imagine that the requirements for Somalis are any different.
Hobkins knew the law. "How could they be registered to vote," she asked Raymond, "if they did not know how to speak English on any level?" Other than Hobkins, Royster, and Royster's attorney, no one else involved -- the Democratic Party, the Star, the Election Board, the trial judge -- expressed the slightest interest in the answer to this question.
Wendy Jones, an election judge at a separate polling place, provided even more damning testimony. "Did you notice groups of Somali voters entering the premises?" Royster's attorney asked. "Oh my gosh, all day long," she answered. When asked how many voters she saw, Jones answered, "To be honest, more than 50. That's the truth, your honor, more than 50."
According to the law, as the Republican co-director of the Election Board would testify, a person "with a disability or who cannot read or write" must state his disability under oath, sign and date a voter assistance card, and then have two judges sign and date the card. This voter can be assisted only by a judge or by a person the voter has sworn to be a family member. This procedure is usually reserved for the blind or seriously disabled.
Of the fifty-plus Somalis at Jones' polling place, not a single one was asked to sign a voter assistance card despite the fact that they all needed assistance from their "interpreters." Said Jones, "I witnessed myself seeing [the interpreters] fill out the ballots, actually fill out the ballots and actually tell the people ... where to fill it out at, what to sign."
When the interpreters, four of them, were asked why the Somali voters needed help, according to Jones, "Someone said they were blind, some of them said they couldn't read, some of them said they couldn't write. These are the excuses all day long that we had for these four individuals to vote with them and for them."
When Jones appealed to the Democratic supervisory judge for help, he reportedly told her, "You know, we all just want to make a little money here and just get out, just make the best of it and just -- let's go home."
Several other election judges testified, and none of them disputed what Jones and Hobkins said. A little unnerving was that other than Hobkins and Jones, the election judges had a hard time getting their nouns and verbs to agree. The collective ignorance of election law from top to bottom in the Kansas City Election Board stuns the observer.
One Somali did testify. An employee of the Somali Foundation, Abdul Kadir Sheikh told the court, under oath, of course, that he had taken Election Day off work because his wife was expecting a baby that day. Sheikh, allegedly a citizen, said that he had gone to Jones' polling site to vote but could not find his name on the voter rolls and so did not vote.
It just so happened, though, that while at the polling place, another Somali man approached Sheikh and asked for help voting. Sheikh obliged. That was it. As it happened, his baby was not born that day after all. "We didn't have any experience," Shiekh told the court. It was his first child.
One doubts that Sheikh will ever be challenged on his word, but Royster had already collected affidavits from two other poll watchers at that same site. Said one, "I personally witnessed Abdul Kadir Sheikh escort approximately (30) Somali voters into the polling place." A second person saw Sheik "sign their names in the registration book." This person claimed to have seen "more than 30" such people.
At the end of the day, Judge Stephen Nixon, a product of the same machinery that produced the Election Board, ruled against Royster. No new election, no serious recount.
Nixon took the same position that Rizzo's attorney had taken in his question to the Republican co-director. "Should a qualified voter, an American citizen, if you will, should they be disenfranchised, that is, should their vote not count because a judge forgot to initial the ballot[?]" As Nixon saw it, these good Somali citizens should not be "disenfranchised" -- the Democrat word du jour--because of multiple judges' errors. Royster is appealing.
The Kansas City Star has given this challenge only the slightest coverage. And in no article in a print edition has the word "Somali" appeared in relationship to the controversy.
In November, rest assured, the Somali vote and that of others of dubious citizenship will be turned against Republicans. There is a way for readers to fight this. Call your local Election Board today. Sign up to be a judge or a poll watcher. Ask for an inner-city precinct. And make sure you know the law better than your Democratic counterpart does. It won't be hard.
Dana Mathewson forwards this idea making the rounds:
Congressional Reform Act of 2010
1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below..
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressperson collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when out of office.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security sytem and Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
A NOTE FROM TIM
The best way to reform Congress, in my view, is to break them apart; make then live in a communal dormitory when in D.C. but otherwise have them work from their home offices via secure teleconferencing link. The culture of D.C. is corrupting, and after a few years of living the high life there good people are seduced, turning into professional pols. To change that we need to take the enjoyment out of their "service". Perhaps they could physically meet for one day a year, and then, as I said, they should have to live in those dorms. There should be a curfew, and lights out should mean lights out. No parties, no liquor (that would have lost old Ted Kennedy) and no camp followers.
After all, they are supposed to be serving the public, not themselves.
September 26, 2010
Thinking about Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove's initial remarks about Christine O'Donnell, an image came to mind.
Most of you are familiar with the famous painting of George Washington crossing the Delaware (River) in the American Revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_crossing_the_delaware The painting is made more dramatic than the real event in part because the German artist Emanuel Leutze painted in huge ice floes as seen on the North Sea, things not seen on the average sized Delaware River. Leutze, an idealist and romantic, also painted in a woman rowing towards the back of the boat. Now there were a few women who fought in the American Revolution disguised as men, but it was unlikely one of them was rowing across the Delaware that night. But I digress.
I was thinking what if Washington thought like Karl Rove after the Delaware Republican primary? In the middle of the river, a Commander Rove might yell out, "You know, I've seen better oarsmen then you tired, bedraggled Valley Forge veterans. The well fed Massachusetts oarsmen who carried me across the East River from Brooklyn Heights in the Battle of New York were more fit. Let's turn around and go back.
It's hardly likely we would have had a successful Revolution if that had happened. This is why there are no books called "Great Moderates in American History." At least not on Amazon.com. I looked it up.
Vaclav Klaus is a mensch! Need any further proof? He's basically told the U.N. to f**k off. http://tammybruce.com/2010/09/czech-this-out-vaclav-klaus-tells-un-mind-your-own-business.html
Waiting for our president to do it too. 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... [crickets]
September 25, 2010
Voter fraud! http://www.urgentagenda.com/PERMALINKS%20V/SEPTEMBER%202010/25.FRAUD.HTML
I've frequently worked as an election judge in my district -- I expect to be called again this year -- and I can say I've never seen this kind of problem. But we are a small precinct and far from areas where fraud would be expected. I've seen many people -- first timers -- come in and expect to have to show ID in order to vote, in fact. Too bad showing ID isn't necessary!
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.