To Meddle or Not to Meddle

In his speech on June 23, 2009, Barack Obama indicated that "the Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future." Taking any decisive action or even speaking out against the massacre of the Iranian people by Ahmadinejad was not in the BHO playbook until days after the violence began. The President indicated that he had no interest in "meddling" with the Iranian debate. As for myself, I fail to see how a one sided massacre is a "debate."

The lack of action taken to prevent N. Korea from augmenting it's nuclear arsenal is also a refusal to "meddle" in the sovereignty of other nations.

But here we have the country of Honduras. Their president, Mel Zelaya, is like the fat kid at recess trying to emulate the cool athletic kids. This time, the cool athletic kids are the sickly Castro and the not-so-pleasantly plump Chavez. His attempt to copy these two dictators and remove his term limit was met with fierce opposition by the legislative bodies in Honduras. Both the Congress and the Supreme Court in Honduras quickly smacked down Zelaya's proposal- no unlimited presidency for Mr. Zelaya. He refused to leave. So what happened? Well, the most sensible of reactions: The military forcefully (albeit non-violently) removed him from the presidential compound.

This, apparently, bothered President Obama. That's right, the same man who made clear he wouldn't meddle in Iran or North Korea made very clear that he was more than willing to do so in Honduras. In fact, he said that he "[Zelaya] remains the president of Honduras"- giving a complete kick in the ass to the legislative and democratic bodies in Honduras who booted Zelaya out.

Why is my President refusing to step up to the plate when it comes to N. Korea and Iran while "meddling" with Honduran elections?

The answer?

He agrees, in large part, with Castro, Chavez, Ortega, and Zelaya.

Barack Obama is, in fact, one of the cool kids on the playground.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-President-Obama-and-President-Uribe-of-Colombia-in-Joint-Press-Availability/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Presidents-Opening-Remarks-on-Iran-with-Persian-Translation/

Abortion vs. Domestic Terrorism: Tiller vs. Muhammed

In case you are oblivous to the world around you: the shooting of Army Pvt Long occurred in Little Rock this weekend. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad ( i know i know...the name...BIG surprise) was trained in Yemen and had plans to kill many more people. This was covered by page 8 in the New York Times and, aside from the coverage from Fox News and by Anderson Cooper (briefly- i'm surprised CNN put it in at all) at 10pm, it wasn't covered on any other networks. Was the killing of the abortion doc just one day before not also based on crazy fundamentalism? Another muslim fanatic (shocker!!) kills another citizen ON U.S. SOIL and not even a whisper. The reaction from liberals and their networks was quite the opposite. They painted Dr. Tiller as this hero of women's rights. One can't be reminded enough that most abortions are the result of incest and who better than Tiller to save the day. The "media" was outraged at conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly. There were hour long specials galore on how conservatives are to blame for this man's death. Private Long, however...there's a different story. Not even a 30 minute special. Tiller the Baby Killer got hour long specials. Why not Long? Well, the answer is because the assailant was a Muslim trained professionally in Yemen. Before the murder he lived in Little Rock where he was suspected of planning several other murders. To me, this seems like a pretty big story. But that's not what libral networks are interested in (the war on Islamic fundamentalism). They are much more interested in issues surrounding abortion. Tiller pocketed over 1 mill a year and has killed over 60,000 kids through late term abortions. According to testimony, many were because the mom simply changed her mind. SOME were health related. Look...i'm not condoning the murder of this guy. Nobody has the right to be a vigilanty. However, I'm honestly not sad he's dead. Because late term abortions are so barbaric, the practice is mostly illegal and only practiced by 3 docs in the country. Now only 2 :-) All I'm saying is that the murder of this man, in my eyes, is hardly any more news worthy than the murder of Private Long. That said, where's the coverage of Private Long? Why did Tiller get the headlines?

Hated: The Women of the G.O.P.

"Let Republicans be Republicans." The majority of liberals take on a passive attitude when dealing with conservatives. Liberals, you see, are terrified at the thought of having to defend one of their arguments and consequently avoid confrontation. AT a recent social gathering I indulged my ego: I started a logical line of questioning with a liberal who supported universal healthcare. I asked him "Let's say I can afford my doctor bills and you can't. You say that the government should use my tax dollars to pay your bills. Here's my question: what did I do to you to incur a debt> What did I do and at what point did I begin to owe you healthcare?" At this point, in any argument with a liberal, they will do one of three things: a) bring up George Bush (no matter how irrelevant) b) consult the opinion of a celebrity, preferably Bono c) change the subject The most common response is the latter- Sheepishly shying away from a response. They smirk or roll their eyes as if to say "ohhhh you conservatives." A conversation with these irresponsible idiots usually ends there. That is, unless you look like Carrie Prejean or Sarah Palin- two beautiful women who happen to hold conservative opinions. You see, liberals are completely fine with crotchety men being conservatives. Mitt Romney? "Sure, have him." John McCain? "Take him." Sarah Palin? "Not so fast!" Does it not strike you a little odd that the vice presidential candidate from 2008 drummed up so much controversy? Her views were no different than most other conservatives. So why did she get the beating from liberals? I can hear you liberals now "we didn't attack Sarah any more than we did John McCain!" NOT true. Look at any of their hippy marches and protests...look at their facebook groups. SO many have some kind of anti-Palin paraphernalia. Back to my question: why the hatred towards women like Palin and Prejean? Why? Because they are beautiful. They are beautiful women who happen to be conservatives. Pretty pro-lifers who oppose gay marriage make liberals foam at the mouth and not in the good way. You see, most of Hollywood are gorgeous and hysterically liberal. For liberals, it's like Carrie and Sarah crossed the picket line- regular scabs! Being beautiful and not supporting universal healthcare and/or gay marriage??? BLASPHEMOUS!!! And why? Because she's hot! We like to think that we are different now than we were in high school- more grown up and mature. But the facts are, we really aren't. Turn on any reality TV show and you will stumble upon a universal truth that's been the same since the playground in kindergarden- the pretty girl is the hated girl. Hated, usually, by the ugly girls. Folks, its no different when it comes to politics. Why is it that a 65 year old congressman or even Barack Obama himself can say they don't support gay marriage and nobody bats an eyelash but when Miss California does people gnash their teeth? Again, because Prejean is a beautiful woman. Every ugly woman came out of the woodwork to attack this girl. She didn't say she was against any bill . She never expressed her views regarding state and federal recognition of gay marriage. These were simply HER views- how she was brought up. Here is her full answer: "Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised, and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman." So tell me again how much you ugly ones out there hate her. Tell me again how bigoted she is. As for my views on the subject...its rather irrelevant to this article but I will say that I am against government passing discriminatory legislation based on religion. That said, I believe government has absolutely no place in any nuptial agreement- straight or gay. The issue is religious, not governmental. Anyways, I digress. The point is this: society refuses to tolerate conservative views held by attractive women such as Palin and Prejean. And who screams the loudest for their heads on a platter? The ugly chicks.

Response to WSJ- Opinion: Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow

ARTICLE: http://online.wsj.com/wsjgate?subURI=%2Farticle%2FSB123629969453946717-email.html&nonsubURI=%2Farticle_email%2FSB123629969453946717-lMyQjAxMDI5MzA2OTIwOTk5Wj.html

I agree with a great deal of what the author says but the fact that he says that he thinks we need "more financial rescue" tells me he is no different than Obama. When did we become a population who's financial success is so intimately intertwined with government?? Well, Jan 20 would be somewhere on that timeline...

Here is the most important sentence: "Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society."

When the founding fathers authored out Constitution, government was theretofore designed to exist solely for the protection of our rights to life, liberty, and property. Obama has made a RADICAL change, that we know and is indisputable. But the change is much more than spending a lot more money than usual and perhaps even sinister. Obama has rewritten the role of our government from a protector to a provider.

It is essential that you realize Obama has no incentive to watch the market rise. That is not his goal. The ultimate goal of the democratic party is to create a permanent voter base. How do they do this? By making the American people further dependent on government. The equation is simple- The worse the economy gets, the more people are in need (perceived). The more people are in need, the more dependent people are on government. This is where the 3.6 trillion comes into play- you create handout programs and get people hooked.

So its time for election. The economy is still crap and you are dependent on government for existence. Here comes the republican party who wants to take away these programs (decrease the size of government- as it was intended...). Even if the economy is horrible it isn't going to matter. For the dems, the worse the better. An individual dependent on government for food, clothing, health ins, shelter, etc is not going to vote republican. Why? Because to do so would mean to cut themselves off from sustenance. A child doesn't voluntarily forfeit breast feeding.
So you see, the author says that Obama is bad for the market. He is right. But what many don't realize is that a bad market means the expansion of the democratic voter base. Why? Not unlike a pimp who keeps his girls close and loyal by getting them hooked on cocaine, Obama has instituted a program to make Americans and American businesses dependent on a Democrat-controlled house, senate, and executive branch and this dependence can only develop and augment when the economy is in the tank. When the economy is good, it inevitably leads to smaller government. Why? Because people have jobs and are keeping them. People and businesses are buying. Right now, the economy sucks. A population of democratic voters has been born and it is time for breast feeding.

So I Came Across Liberal Pandering to The Religious Right

Those of you going to Harding with me perhaps know J Cliff Ganus. I ran across this little gem on his blog I came by while browsing on Facebook. Get a load of this.... http://jcgraduate.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-christians-should-vote-for-obama.html

Yea, I realize the election is over...but the logic presented in his argument is worth revisiting. If you don't have the time or are easily sickened I will go ahead and sum up what he wrote: Christians should vote for Obama because it's what Jesus would have wanted. Why? Because Jesus was for the little guy.

Below, I copied and pasted his original post and my reply. Please note that on the issue of Jesus and politics I take great issue w/ both Republicans (and in this case...J Cliff?). It is unconstitutional to inject our personal religious convictions into our government and in the election of said government.

Why Christians should vote for Obama
I am a politically liberal person. I am a intellectually and socially liberal person. I am a aesthetically and entertainingly liberal person. With that said, it should not come as a surprise that I have chosen to vote for Barack Obama.

For the most part, the people I spend the majority of my time with have also chosen to vote for Senator Obama. However, there are still a few hold outs. (I state this to illustrate that I do actually associate with ignorant people, by choice even.)

I grow weary of political discourse, I find that it so often becomes a circular argument which ends by everyone leaving with their original views in tact and frequently refurbished. So I will leave "generic politics" out of this. I would like to state, for the record, why as a Christian I have chosen to lend my support...and why others should too.

1. Universal healthcare. Jesus calls us to take care of the poor, the weak, the downcast, the sinner. He requested that we minister to the prisoners and take care of the widows. As I recall, there was not a stipulation of "as long as it does not raise your taxes." In fact, the way I see it, He probably wants it to come out of our pocket. If this country truly was based on Christian principles (which I will contend at another time), then the church shouldn't be the only one doling out lettuce for those 'in need.'

2. End the war. These people are our enemies, they hurt us and hate us. When Jesus told us to love our enemies, he probably didn't mean for us to kill them. "Well, they don't listen to reason," "They are just hurting themselves," you might say. In response, I would like to quote this scripture:"And if after you go to your brother he does not change his ways, bomb him."

3. Hope, change, together we can. These phrases are often harped upon as being vague, meaningless jingles tossed about by the campaign. Even if that is true - what's the harm in talking about hope? What is the real shame in a man who is looking to bring a country together for good...even if the plan doesn't seem feasible? You want a man who is vague - try someone who promises a future in things we can't see, touch or taste. Try following a movement based solely on "faith," then tell me that you can't behind someone who offers hope for the future.

4. Experience. Jesus likes youth. He calls us to be like children, to approach the world with eyes full of potential and wonder. He encourages us to listen to our elders so that we can learn - but not to wait until we are elders ourselves to do things. From what I can tell, Obama has surrounded himself with people full of experience - and listens to their recommendations.

These are not the only reasons I am voting. I think Obama has solid policy, sound advice, a great wife, and an awesome brain in that head of his.

Now - someone tell me what about this is wrong.

MY RESONSE:

1. Universal healthcare. - Ok, yea...Jesus wants everybody to be healthy. Who doesn't? But the problem comes in paying for it. What I DON'T think Jesus would be down with is taking money out of someone else's pocket and giving it to someone else. Let me illustrate:There are 3 tenants living in a rent controlled apartment in NY (ex: John, Tom, Chris). John works hard and pays his bills ontime as best he can. Finances are tight and he is saving up for his son to go to college. Tom has also worked hard but has fallen under ill health. He is no longer able to afford rent and take care of his bills.We know that Chris doesn't work and survives by his parents' support.Chris, who it seems has always had a pension for trying to interfere in people's private lives, learns of Tom's misfortune. Just as anyone would, Chris feels bad for the guy. One day, Chris has had enough of seeing Tom suffer. He doesn't have any fiscal responsibility or earning capacity so he can't help Tom out. So what does he decide to do? He decides to hit John up for the moneyJohn says "I'm sorry, I just don't have it. I'd love to help Tom and I will if I am able but I am running a business in a HORRIBLE economy, barely getting by, barely able to afford rent and trying to put a kid through college. I just can't afford to lose any more money.Now Cliff, the CHRISTIAN thing to do would be to say "Hey, thanks for your willingness. Let me know if you are able to help him out in the future. God bless."What does Chris do (who, if you haven't figured it out, represents the government)? Chris knocks him down on the ground and at knifepoint and says "Sorry John. I'm not taking no for an answer. Tom needs your money and needs it now. Either fork it up or I slit your throat." Yes...I know that the government isn't looking to slit anyone's throat but a 20 year sentence for tax evasion isn't pretty either.That’s what you and the rest of the democrats want to do. Through confiscatory tax hikes, you feel that you have the right to MAKE someone else pay for someone else’s healthcare. Privately, sure…you should help the guy. I’m sorry but the fact that you equate tax hikes with being a ‘responsible Christian’ is blasphemous, incorrect, and obnoxious.

2. End the war-I am guessing you are attempting to quote the Koran. As you pointed out, the religion of Islam is dangerous. Your solution is to pull out and hope the situation fixes itself. What planet are you from!? This isn’t a ‘War on Terror’…terror is a tactic. This is a war on Islamic Fundamentalism. How do we ‘win’? Well, by establishing a beachhead for democracy in the middle east. The effects will be the free-flow of information and ideas. The ability for people to capitalize and succeed. The result? People won’t turn to a sham religion as a last resort in a time of 3rd world poverty. Let me know if you want to discuss this further. Especially regarding the Christian imperative.

3. Hope, change, together we can. - Yea, they are nice things to say. What’s my problem with it you ask? Well this: The guy won the election by promising hope and change. Never did he clearly say what he was going to change or how he was going to go about doing it. Just that he was. It just BLOWS MY MIND that people voted for the guy when most of them can’t name a thing he stands for. Are you really trying to tie Christianity to campaign slogans? Give me a break.

4. Experience- Jesus likes youth? Really? This is your contention? I mean….really? We are talking about the leader of the free world. You really think YOUTH is the selling point!?

You really shouldn’t advocate candidates on behalf of Jesus. That’s just not cool. And if you do, come up with something more substantial than “Jesus likes the lil’ ones.”