Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Monday, May 30, 2011

The Creeping Advance of Soft Fascism

"A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to "take back" their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn't dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a "subterranean agenda" in the anti-Obama movement—a racially biased one—that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it" Link

Trying to paint one's opponents as racist/bigoted/intolerant because you disgree with them is nothing new. In fact, it's something that Saul Alinsky (above) would have fully appreciated given that in his Rules For Radicals he states "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other". Thusly, Tea Party members are not in fact, over-taxed and unrepresented people who are appalled at the invasion that is occuring at our borders and government spending and bureaucracy run amok. No, they are merely ridiculed as racists. And the fact that since the election of Obama, more black Republicans have run for congress than at any time since the Reconstruction gets conveniently swept under the rug and quietly forgotten and never discussed in the MSM.

Maggie Gallagher warns us with a dire prediction of what she feels will be the next wave of leftist bigotry to stifle rational discussion in America's cultural discourse...

"There's going to be an incredible effort to paint good, decent and honorable Americans who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife, as if Minnesotans who believe that are hateful bigots," claims National Organization for Marriage Board Chairman Maggie Gallagher. "No matter how sincerely and thoughtfully and reasonably we talk about our concerns, we get treated as though we are the biggest haters."

Today's article from Vox Day mentions the historical importance of traditional marraige as being one of the cornerstones of Western Civilization..

"The problem is that marriage is more than an institution; it is a structural foundation of society. Moreover, marriage is historically proven to be the best means of producing and raising healthy children, which means that it is integral to the continuation of both American society as well as the human race. Without a strong base of healthy marriages between men and women, no society is likely to survive, let alone prosper."

Let us hope that Ms. Gallagher is proven wrong and that there is actual, serious discussion on upcoming gay marraige amendments. Let us hope that the Left does not lapse into Chuck Schumer Mode and paint those on the side of traditional marraige with an unfounded moniker like "extreme".

"I always use extreme, Schumer said. "That is what the caucus instructed me to use." Senator Chuck (you) Schumer, (D-NY) March 2011

Thursday, May 26, 2011

A Sight You Don't See Everyday

From the Belfast Telegraph we read....

"The gleam of brushed stainless steel and the rumble of DeLorean engines was seen and heard in Belfast once again yesterday as dozens of DMC-12s were seen touring the city.

The gathering signalled the 30th anniversary of the first DeLorean rolling off the production line here.

Eighty of the iconic cars have roared into Northern Ireland from across the globe to celebrate the landmark in style this week.

Some 228 delegates from 21 countries including Australia, Japan, America and across Europe have made their way to Belfast for the four-day Eurofest 2011 event."

I could have had one for a mere pittance in the late 80's, but I had just graduated high school and I had other priorities. I do see one down the street though at the garage of the best local mechanic around. The interior is completely shot and I could only imagine the exhorbitante amount of money they could ask for it.

All this demand due to one goofy movie trilogy. Thanks Michael J. Fox!

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Creation Science to the Rescue in Japan

It seems that in the wake of the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan, that one company is taking quite literally what God is said to have instructed Noah...

" ISE Industry of Japan has designed something not seen in 4400 years: a lifeboat for the land. The designer took his inspiration from Noah’s Ark, and gave specific credit to God as the Best Naval Architect that ever was...

ISE Industry used Noah’s Ark as the model for their largest rescue vessel. That vessel is not nearly as large as the original Noah’s Ark. But its proportions are very close to Noah’s proportions..

This is the most spectacular instance on record of an industrialist using insight from the Bible record to develop a product. (ISE has taken 20 orders thus far for its various models.) One of the most common criticisms of creation theory is that it has yielded no practical scientific insight or invention. That criticism is no longer valid."

Should anyone like to check out a great article on the Noahic Flood, just click here.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Yet another reason to dislike Eliot Spitzer

While doing some online studying recently, I came across something that caused me reexamine my dislike of Eliot Spitzer and view him in a whole new way. This goes back to his days as Attorney General of the state of New York and the personal war he waged against crisis pregnancy intervention centers...

"Anne Downey, who represents the Crisis Pregnancy Center of Western New York, says, "There certainly seems to be a political motivation" behind the attorney general's investigation: "We have never been given any specifics about this alleged violation at our center. We don't know if there's even a factual basis for this significant intrusion into our activities." Downey also complains that the investigators "keep coming back and narrowing what we are allowed to say"; for example, the attorney general wants CPCs to put up signs on their doors explicitly saying the centers are not abortion clinics.

In terms of political power, the struggle between abortion providers and CPCs is a mismatch. "In the city, there are about ten abortion providers for every crisis pregnancy center," says Peggy Hartshorne of Heartbeat International, a national pro-life organization. "There really is a gigantic need in New York City for more pregnancy centers. This whole campaign by the attorney general is designed to stop that.

What do CPCs do that so offends abortion-rights proponents? "The charade is that they provide alternatives, when they don't provide alternatives, they frighten women with horror films about abortion, they lie about the psychological impact of abortion; they have even been known to lie about whether a woman is pregnant," Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt told the Washington Post. Even worse, from the abortion-rights point of view, CPCs are getting savvier about employing ultrasound technology to "trick" pregnant women into having their babies instead of aborting them. An increasing number of CPCs offer sonograms for pregnant women who visit them-and they report that women, once they see their babies moving in their wombs, overwhelmingly choose to carry the pregnancy to term. Fumed one Long Island abortion provider in the New York Times: "The bottom line is no woman is going to want an abortion after she sees a sonogram."

I struggle to understand why someone on the Left, with their characteristic catch-phrase that they would like abortions to be "Safe, Legal and Rare" would try to regulate crisis pregnancy centers out of business.

Am I alone in thinking that actually extending a helping hand to unexpectantly pregnant mothers-to be is actually a good thing and something that should be encouraged by society?

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Why is the Left so Obsessed with Race? (Part II)

In a follow up to an earlier blog post, Andrew Klavan raises several more interesting points concerning the Left's obsession with the subject of race...

"So obsessed with race are leftists – so convinced are they that black people especially are unable to care for themselves as men and women must – that they seek to exempt blacks and other minorities from the normal rigors of competence and good behavior. Having then disgracefully and destructively lowered the standards for people with dark skin, they accuse the rest of us of racism simply for treating dark-skinned people the same as we would treat anyone! A world turned upside down.

Questions about Barack Obama’s birthplace have been long resolved and were resolved yet again when funny-haired blowhard Donald Trump bullied the White House into releasing the president’s long form birth certificate. Many on the left then railed against so-called birthers as being racist, of all things. The “racers’” convoluted logic is that demanding Obama’s birth certificate is suggesting that he’s somehow “other” because he’s black...

Twenty years in the pews of hate-monger Jeremiah Wright? Never mind. Old interviews suggesting Obama is an anti-constitutional socialist? Nothing to see here. Cowardly votes of “present,” lies about his associations with Bill Ayres, black holes in his biography? Rather than investigate, the MSM ran interference for the candidate, turning their ire instead on citizens who asked the sorts of questions they should have been asking all along.

They did this because, one, they supported Obama’s leftist policies and, two, he was black and as the press is left wing – that is to say, racist – they felt he couldn’t be treated as roughly as a white candidate would be."

I heartily agree. The performance of the lapdog media in this country is pathetic and Klavan spells out the major reason why.

Although I do differ with Klavan on at least on one aspect. It would appear that the so-called Serengeti Saviour has multiple problems with the alleged birth certificate he has proffered up. Link 1 and Link 2 and Link 3 (with video

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

The Myth of the 'Palestinian People'

Sharon Owens raises the preferred, oft repeated charge of the Left cconcerning the main, perceived problem in the affairs of the Middle East ...

"Osama bin Laden may be no more, but already the experts are saying the trouble is not over. The central issue in the Middle East remains: the dream of an independent Palestinian state.

And until that happens, so they say, global terrorism will continue unabated. Many of us ordinary non-experts now doubt even this latest wisdom. Perhaps nothing less than a new Islamic World Order is the goal of the terrorists?"

Yes, starting years ago we read that the idea of a 'Palestinian' people is nothing but a pipe dream, eagerly repeated by the lapdog media on this side of the Atlantic. If you doubt for a moment that this is simply a modern concoction aimed at dividing Americans and open-minded Westerners about the concept, simply read what Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member, Zahir Muhsein said about the situation to a Dutch newspaper back in the day...

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism."

One VERY pragmatic assessment of the situation on the ground in that part of the world was was written by MENSA member and blogger Vox Day...

"In considering this, I note that it is irrelevant to debate the question of whether the descendants of Ashkenazi European Zionists hold the same historical claim to the land of Israel as Sephardic Jews, given that the way in which that historical claim is based on an identical right of conquest. From the historical perspective, the primary issue is the realization that the situation will remain violent until one of three things happens:

1) The Palestinians accept their conquest and are peacefully digested into a trans-tribal Israeli identity.
2) The Israelis are forced to withdraw to the United States and Europe.
3) The Palestinians are forced to withdraw to the neighboring Arab countries.

Given the decades-long failure of various parties to force option (1) through a wide variety of measures, to say nothing of the obvious futility of attempting to construct a modern representative democracy with an electorate that would include a large and understandably bitter tribal near-majority, it's not a reasonable strategy. Option (2) is even less tenable given the military balance of power, leaving option (3) is the only possible solution regardless of one's sympathies or distaste for forced population movements.

Understand that I'm not advocating this option, I'm merely pointing out the strategic realities of the situation. My actual position is total indifference to the Gaza invasion, which those who read this blog have probably gleaned already based on my failure to so much as mention it prior to this post. If the Palestinians don't want to have their territory, which is held only by the permission of the Israeli authorities, strafed by IDF rockets and overrun by IDF tanks, then they should refrain from annoying their conquerers by firing mortars at them."

I tend to concur, especially given that these people living in that part of the world are constantly being subjected to outside influences from agitators such as Syria and Iran. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Monday, May 16, 2011

How does one define religion?

The above image of Nikolai Lenin "preaching" to the masses the benefits of communism and the excesses of capitalism raises an interesting question as to how we as people delineate beliefs from religion. Randal Rauser has blogged that sometimes the lines become blurred when analyzing the beliefs of the religious with those of the secular materialist...

"[It] is especially visible in recent years with the vocal new atheists. They constantly speak against "religion" over-against what they are (i.e. "non-religious"). But what is religion? This is one of the many Achilles' heels of this picture of the world, for there is no adequate definition of religion. It is said that religion has "gods", a stipulation that is difficult to reconcile with most forms of Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism. But then if that arbitrary stipulation is dropped to accommodate these other "religions" then suddenly a number of other things can be classified as religions as well such as nationalism, communism, naturalism, and consumerism. The modern purveyor of this indoctrinational binary opposition (religious vs. non-religious) is thus left lurching between various stipulations of what is religious always choosing whatever will best suit his or her purposes of socially marginalizing those he/she has deemed "religious".

This is where things get especially disturbing because these progressive denizens of the enlightened West with their secular "non-religious" values then offer defenses of the repression of those deemed religious because they are dangerous due to their fundamental irrationality and intolerance. (Author William T.) Cavanaugh noted some examples of repressive rhetoric in Hitchens and Harris, including the latter's defense of a possible nuclear first strike against the Muslim world."

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines religion (4th definition) as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". Under this definition, then atheism qualifies as a religion. Additionally, the US courts have upheld the idea that atheism qualifies as a religion as well as secular humanism.

Friday, May 13, 2011

On Leftist Cultural Suicide, the Maltese Falcon and Radical Islam

Judd Magilnick provides us with some valuable insight into the history of Western civilization with his latest offering over at The American Spectator . Sure, many of us have heard of or perhaps even seen the 1941 movie The Maltese Falcon starring Humphrey Bogart, but how many of us (like me) were previously unaware of the history behind the world's most desired bird?

"In the Hammett story, the Sydney Greenstreet character explains that the crusaders of the "French Hospitaller" were given the Island of Malta in perpetual fiefdom by King Charles of Spain, then head of the Holy Roman Empire. In return, these "Knights of Malta" were to annually provide the king with one of the prized falcons from Malta. This capsule summary is correct, but deficient in explaining why this group of idealists received the island. While not germane to the story's plot, there is much more to understand about the real falcon and the real knights. The mysterious fat man does not explain why this particular group of idealists had earned the Island.

Malta is a tiny island -- but in its strategic position south of Sicily it is big enough to constitute a barrier to any Mediterranean invasion of Western Europe from the east. The Knights were given Malta after their heroic though unsuccessful defense of the Island of Rhodes from the Ottoman invaders in 1522. Then, in a famous battle on Malta in 1565, 600 knights successfully stopped the progress of Suleiman the Magnificent and 40,000 of his Ottoman fighters. Right there on that island, Western Europe was, at least for a time, saved from Moslem conquest.

Given this history, we are losing a spectacular opportunity by not treating the Maltese Falcon as a trophy of the successful resistance to Islamism. The bird is no less an icon of successful defense than is (ignoring motives) the Old North Church is to the invading British. In a rational world, schoolchildren in Europe and North America would be making falcons stuffed with candy.

Note also that the "Maltese cross" is associated with firefighting, such as the badge of the NYFD. This tradition has come down from the heroism of the Knights of Malta -- 1900 years before the World Trade Center burned -- when attempting to scale the walls of Jerusalem, the Saracens threw down naphtha and fire."

The entire article is well worth the read and if anyone doubts that there is an active, long-term plan to destablize the west and institue Shariah, simply click on this recent interview with Kamal Saleem in which this convert to Christianity is now in fear for his life. Saleems states in the interview...

"I was taught jihad; there are four kinds – war over self, political, war like 9/11, and silent war, the destruction of a civilization from within, the "Trojan horse" cancer. I was sent to America for this kind of war.

My mission in America was to take the kids, change the culture. The Muslim Brotherhood sent me; the Saudis financed us. We opened mosques and targeted universities, politicians, the jail system and poor neighborhoods."

Perhaps we here in the west need to take note of what is going on in the world and our own countries and adopt a much longer view of history. This in light of the worldview of those opposed to our way of life that would seek to take over using our own hard-fought liberties to do so.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Say it can't happen here

Following government raiding party initiatives on private pension plans in Poland, Hungary, France and Bulgaria, it appears now that Ireland is going to start subtracting from future pension earners now...

"The Irish government plans to institute a tax on private pensions to drive jobs growth, according to its jobs program strategy, delivered today.

Without the ability sell debt due to soaring interest rates, and with severe spending rules in place due to its EU-IMF bailout, Ireland has few ways of spending to stimulate the economy. Today's jobs program includes specific tax increases, including the tax on pensions, aimed at keeping government jobs spending from adding to the national debt."

Is anyone so naive as to think that it can't happen over here? While under GWB we saw $3.2 trillion added to the national debt, Obama has addded over $4.4 trillion over the course of only three years. Someone is going to have to pay the piper and unfortunately, it looks like it's going to have to be the average working person. This in spite of attempts to foment class envy to momentarily divert the attention of the American public whose average attention span is that of a week old puppy.

Monday, May 9, 2011

An 'Agnostic Spring'?

While reading an article about Jonathan Wells' new book The Myth of Junk DNA (the preface of which can be read by clicking here), I came across this gem from self-identified agnostic James Kirk Wall entitled Creationism is biblical, Intelligent Design is agnostic. Are so-called 'free thinkers' actually starting to think for themselves?

"Creationism is a Christian expression to argue against certain elements of evolutionary theory that do not coincide with biblical scripture. Intelligent Design (ID) is not tied to biblical scripture; it is an agnostic term in regards to supernatural intelligence outside of any religion.

Many atheists claim ID and Creationism are the same thing. They are not, even though some Christian groups are trying to use ID to bring religious scripture into the classroom. Intelligent design outside of any specific religious text is the only agnostic argument to be had on all of life not simply happening by blind chance.

If ID were somehow proven to be true, it would no more prove Christianity than it would Hinduism. It would not prove life after death, or an interactive God. Many questions may be answered, but many would be unanswered.

The people currently living without God, as in no worship or prayer, would likely continue to live as they are now. Any proof of a supernatural intelligence would still leave the question of what exactly that intelligence is and the implications, if any, toward our daily lives."

Kudos to Wall for exposing what so many of us already know. David Klinghoffer mentions that over at pandasthumb.org there seems to be some serious discussion "that ID seems to imply not theism but dualism, the notion that there's a separate realm of the mind and of ideas that may interact with the physical world and influence or direct it but is not reducible to material terms."

All of this gives one hope that there will be serious discussion on the subject. I'll truly be impressed when those at Pharyngula and Talk.origins start correctly defining Intelligent Design and addressing arguments on the subject like adults instead of actingly like highly dismissive screechy monkeys

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Osama Bin Laden; Man of the Left

While ethicists seem to be in agreement that the killing of Osama Bin Laden by American Forces earlier in the week is justice served, columnist Mona Charen points out the many similarities in ideology between OBL and those on the American left...

"The rest of us wondered [post 9/11] how Muslims could be so fired with hatred of Americans considering that the last three wars we had fought had been on behalf of suffering Muslims: in Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo.

The usual suspects blamed Muslim hatred of the U.S. on our support for Israel (though that issue ranked below "infidel" troops on Saudi soil on bin Laden's list of grievances)...

By allowing ourselves to be too distracted by the turbans and the pietistic language, we may have missed that -- and in the process overestimated the role of Islam in Islamism.

In 2007, in his longest videotaped message to the world, bin Laden mouthed some of the familiar invocations of "Allah, the most high," but much of his message to the American people could have come straight from the pages of the Nation.

He decried global warming, the "greed of major corporations and their representatives," "globalization," and "capitalism." Here's his explanation of the war in Vietnam:

"In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was a necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers.

“And when Kennedy took over the presidency and deviated from the general line of policy drawn up for the White House and wanted to stop this unjust war, that angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation. And so Kennedy was killed ... those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing."

Oliver Stone couldn't have said it better.

Yes, the late Osama bin Laden was a religious fanatic. But if religious zeal were his only motivation, he might have turned his hatred toward China -- a consistent persecutor of Muslims (and others) or India (which some Islamists have attacked -- though without justification).

But bin Laden's garrulous videos reveal someone who had drunk deeply from the well of hatred for America that nourishes everyone from Hugo Chavez to Vladimir Putin. It's a well with springs that originate right here."

I fully agree that the list of Bin Laden's greivances against the US are basically leftist talking points except for his complaint against globalism, which, in my experience, seems to be basically a conservative gripe. One point that Charen left out that would more firmly place Bin Laden in the camp of the left would be his wholehearted support of John Kerry in the 2004 elections. I guess thats one endorsement Obama won't be sweating this upcoming election cycle.

Monday, May 2, 2011

Reexamining Constantine

Just prior to fighting forces loyal to Maxentius Daia in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge on Oct 28th, 312 AD, it is reported that Constantine saw in the sky the image of the labarum, (above picture). The labarum was among several images placed used by the early, persecuted Christian church to designate Christian house churches and meeting places in an esoteric manner. The labarum consists of superimposing the Greek letters Chi, which resembles an "X" and the Greek letter Rho, which resembles a "P". These letters form the first the first two letters of the word "Christ".

Along with the claimed vision, reportedly Constantine heard the words (In Latin) "In hoc signo vinces" (in this sign, victory). Constantine ordered the symbol to be painted on shields, helmets and all manner of military hardware and banners and by the end of the subsequent battle, the weight of the retreating, thoroughly routed forces of Maxentius caused the pontoon bridge he had constructed over the river Tiber to collapse, killing many retreating Maxentian soldiers. Victory was decisively in favor of Constantine who, in 313 AD, would then issue the now famous Edict of Milan, effectively ending the persecution of the Christian church by Roman authorities. Although if one wished to be technical, it was actually under the emporer Theodocius that Rome officially became Christian in 380 AD.

Historians debate whether or not Constantine himself was truly a Christian, even when his acceptance of baptism on his deathbed is considered. However an article out today by Mark Tooley provides some interesting insights and hypotheses into the life of the roman emperor....

"Constantine is often derided as a brute who usurped the church to enhance his own rule over the empire. His critics note that that he governed and waged war bloodily like all such emperors, and that he purportedly executed his wife and son. The more extreme conspiracists, echoing the Da Vinci Code's fiction, accuse Constantine of imposing theological orthodoxy, even Christ's divinity, upon an obedient Council of Nicaea. Anabaptists typically fault him for turning previously pacifist Christians into willing soldiers for Rome and all subsequent empires. The neo-Anabaptists are most distressed by Christians who support today's American "empire."

In response, Presbyterian theologian Peter Leithart has penned a very important book, Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom. He not only competently restores Constantine's reputation but also thoughtfully and polemically rebuts the Anabaptists, specifically including John Howard Yoder. A senior fellow at new Saint Andrew College in wonderfully named Moscow, Idaho, Leithart argues that Constantine's conversion was sincere, that his legalization of Christianity was a tremendous relief to the persecuted church, that his Christian inspired legal reforms ameliorated some of Rome's pagan savagery, that he respected the church's autonomy, and that he desacralized the empire and began the end of all civic pagan burnt offerings once so universal. Leithart also persuasively disputes that the early church was decisively pacifist. Despite Anabaptist claims, especially by Yoder, there simply is not sufficient evidence to show the early church had ratified a teaching on military force. Leithart points to the usual New Testament examples of Jesus and His apostles not objecting to force by civil authorities. He also describes the pagan sacrifices once required within the Roman military, probably enhanced in reaction to Christianity's growth, and which prohibited service by Christians who otherwise did not object to legitimate force. Constantine's abolition of state-imposed pagan sacrifices removed this barrier for Christian military service."

I invite anyone who is an amatuer history buff like myself to examine the article in it's entirety and offer up their thoughts in the comment box.