The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a so-called Muslim civil rights organization linked to the Islamist terrorist group Hamas, is once again claiming that Islam had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks against America on 9/11, and recently suggested that the Tea Party was behind “hate vandalism” and Islamophobic attacks against Muslims across the country.

As reported by Matt Cover at CNSNews.com, CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad told reporters at a press conference on Wednesday that “the Tea Party and the Republican Party have given the green light” for the harassment and hatred of Muslims in America.

“[W]e used to deal with individual cases of Islamophobia, harassments, and discrimination against Muslims,” Awad said.  “Today, and in the past few months – almost maybe one year, we can say one year — we have seen an organized effort, we have seen organizations built to fight the presence of Muslims in the United States and to deny Muslims’ right to freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and even to be an elected official.”

“[Y]es it is a mid-term election year, and unfortunately the Tea Party and the Republican Party have given the green light for these people to defame and stereotype Muslims, and unfortunately as we’ve said, these have led to violence against Muslims,” Awad went on to say.

CAIR’s communications director Ibrahim Hooper also linked the Tea Party to anti-Muslim attacks.

“We’ve seen a really strong uptick in Islamophobia recently – primarily sparked by the controversy over the Manhattan Islamic center,” Hooper said at the press conference.  “We’ve seen hate vandalism at mosques in California; in Tennessee, we had an arson attack; at a mosque in Arlington, Texas, we had an arson attack; and something that wasn’t even reported nationwide, in May we had a bomb attack at a mosque in Jacksonville, Florida”.

“The question is, why?” Hooper asked.  “Is it tied to the November elections?  Is it tied to the rise of the Tea Party movement?  Is it tied to the economy?”

“I think it’s pretty clear that it’s been sparked…by these hate groups and their opposition to the Islamic community center in Manhattan,” Hooper said.

According to Cover, Hooper dodged questions about whether CAIR agreed with the Ground Zero Mosque planner, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who said that America was an “accessory to the crime” of 9/11, and that Osama bin Laden was “made in the USA” in a CBS “60 Minutes” interview.

Awad also told reporters that the 9/11 terrorist attacks, conducted by radical Muslims, were in no way connected to the religion of Islam.

“[W]e totally reject the false assumption that our faith, Islam, has to do anything with 9/11,” Awad said.  “So submitting to this false assumption is really condemning our own faith in the 9/11 attacks and this is really a collective guilt that we do not submit to.”

Awad made similar comments last month in an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly.

In that interview, Awad repeated the false notion that no link exists between Islam and 9/11, and said that he is “sick and tired of condemning” Muslim terrorists.

CAIR’s assertion that Islam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks is completely false and targets the insanity level in terms of denial.

The 9/11 terrorists, like most terrorists, all believed themselves to be good followers of Islam.  As I and others have argued, they are in fact followers of a totalitarian ideology known as Islamism.

Even if you separate the religion of Islam from the ideology of Islamism, there is still a link to Islam that goes back hundreds of years.

There are a brave few in the Muslim community who embrace this reality and are working to expel the Islamist ideology from their religion, but CAIR accepts Islamism and promotes it through their organization.

While Awad may be “sick and tired” of condemning the Islamists who murder Americans at home and overseas, American citizens are sick and tired of not hearing Muslims condemn such radicalism enough.

As for the Tea Party linkage, it has been my personal experience with Hooper that he simply hates conservatives and the Tea Party in general, even before the false claims made Wednesday.

On the rare occasions that I turn on MSNBC, I do so to see them interview conservatives that I know will be on the program.  Usually these interviews involve shouting, lies, or smears.  MSNBC’s David Shuster even attacked myself and my friend Brendan Steinhauser personally after I pointed out that Shuster lied during an interview with Brendan.  This morning’s interview with Lt. Col. Allen West showed just how desperate the left-wing station is to smear conservatives and anyone associated with the Tea Party movement.

Leading into the first question, MSNBC’s Monica Novotny shows a select clip from a now famous speech by West where he talks about America’s Founding Fathers as insurgents who fought against a tyrant.  Novotny then asks West, “Do you feel that we’re living under a tyranny?”  West spoke about liberty, personal responsibility, and love of country during the speech MSNBC referenced, but Novotny instead tried to paint Lt. Col. West as an angry right-wing nut trying to incite violence.

Novotny then labels West a “Tea Party candidate.”  After West says that he is not a Tea Party candidate, and explains that he is a conservative Republican, footage begins to roll of a protest with a sign depicting President Obama as Hitler, and the words “ALLEN WEST IS SUPPORTED BY THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT” appear under the Hitler image.  Despite the revelation that the image of Obama with the Hitler mustache came from a leftist organization called LaRouche PAC, MSNBC and other left-wing media sources continue to associate this image with the conservative Tea Party movement.

I immediately sent a Tweet over to the good folks at NewsBusters right after I watched this hit piece, but it helps ease some of the frustration to write a bit about the lies and hatred coming from the Left myself.  The leftist agenda to paint conservatives as violent bigots will surely be their downfall.  Democrat politicians and leftist pundits are the ones actually inciting hatred and violence, and the American people are beginning to see the truth of the matter.

The conduct of MSNBC was absolutely deplorable today, but that’s par for the course with them.  The left-wing media will go to any lengths to destroy the Tea Party movement and silence the American people, even if it involves smearing a true American hero like Lt. Col. Allen West in the process.

Most conservatives feel the same way Ann Coulter does about former presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul. “If Ron Paul is behind it and has nothing to do with foreign policy, I agree,” Coulter said when fielding a question after her speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday.  Conservatives see the Texas Congressman’s foreign policy as one that blames America for terrorist attacks on our homeland and calls for isolationism. When questioned about the motives behind this policy, neither Dr. Paul nor his supporters could explain themselves adequately to me at this weekend’s conference.

Campaign for Liberty, the political organization started by Ron Paul to support him and like-minded political candidates, hosted several events at CPAC this year. Every Campaign for Liberty event I attended included name calling by their speakers directed at conservatives and other speakers attending the conference. Former Vice President Cheney, George W. Bush, and Abraham Lincoln appeared to be the most popular targets of evil, among others. One of their events specifically targeted President Lincoln as a vile dictator. Sadly, I was unable to attend.   

Many times at the conference, I heard outbursts from Ron Paul supporters during speeches, but most were simply chants of, “Ron Paul,” or, “End the Fed,” the title of Dr. Paul’s latest book. At the screening of a documentary about the D.C. school voucher program hosted by Citizens United, a Campaign for Liberty supporter stood up and started shouting. She denounced the film as overemotional propaganda, and said the voucher program was unconstitutional. The libertarians wanted their voices heard as the “true conservatives” at this year’s CPAC. Apparently “true conservatives” defeat Islamist terrorists by not fighting them.

At an event on Thursday night, I reminded Congressman Paul of previous statements in which he quoted Osama bin Laden as saying that Muslim terrorists attacked the United States because we have troops in the Middle East. I then asked Dr. Paul, “Do you recognize that totalitarian Islamism is an ideology that exists and that has existed before the founding of this country, and that it’s something we should be fighting in the battlespace of ideas?” Instead of just saying, “No I do not recognize the ideology of totalitarian Islamism as a threat,” Paul further justified his current position.

The congressman reaffirmed the words of Osama bin Laden, and explained that Muslims had to deal with Westerners coming into their lands for religious reasons since the Crusades. Paul said that religious fanaticism exists on both sides, and what we really need in a free society is tolerance. “You tolerate other religions and as long as they’re not confrontational and violent there’s no problem. The violence comes when we are over there ten thousand miles from home dropping bombs on these people and occupying their territory.”

At another Campaign for Liberty event at CPAC titled, “You’ve Been Lied To: Why Real Conservatives are Against the War on Terror,” I asked a panel of Ron Paul supporters, “If this is a movement about ideas and education, why isn’t there anybody on this panel talking about the idea of the ideology of totalitarian Islamism?” I also asked a second question to former CIA officer Phillip Giraldi about his previous comments during the discussion in which he quoted Osama bin Laden as saying, “If this war was about the freedoms the United States has, then we would also be attacking Norway.” I asked Mr. Giraldi, “If you want to believe what Osama bin Laden said about Norway then are you willing to look American Muslims in the eye and say that Osama bin Laden is right when he says that he is practicing true Islam?” 

The responses of these “experts” were not enlightening in the least. The answers they gave were off topic and avoided the issues of my questions. When I tried to correct them and bring the discussion back to topic, a Campaign for Liberty staffer snatched the microphone from face. I turned and said to the man, “I thought we were for freedom of speech here?” Some in the crowd booed.

Mr. Giraldi’s specific response was hypocritical in nature claiming we shouldn’t go looking for a boogeyman as our problem, after he himself just quoted from the scariest boogeyman on the planet to justify his position.

University of Chicago professor Robert Pape, who advised Ron Paul on foreign policy during the 2008 presidential campaign, said after joining Paul’s policy team, “A core reason [for suicide attacks] is that the Bush administration has been waging the war on terrorism on a faulty premise—that suicide terrorism is mainly the result of Islamic fundamentalism.”  Having studied Islamic law, Islamic history, and the history of totalitarian Islamism as a political ideology, I expected answers to my questions to revolve in some way around Islam or radical ideology. Instead, Paul and his supporters rejected the whole idea of a violent ideology motivating people to commit murder even existing.

Ronald Reagan was a real conservative. Reagan recognized communism as an evil ideology that threatened the United States and our way of life. President Reagan defeated communism, not through force of arms, but by discrediting the ideology and all those who stood for it with an integrated policy strategy. Whether Mr. Giraldi wants to face reality or not, all of Europe is under attack by totalitarian Islamists from within. The Europeans have already compromised their own laws and culture to appease their attackers, but the situation continues to deteriorate. True conservatives who respect the Constitution and the Rule of Law will do everything in their power to defend and protect the United States, its people, and all that we stand for. Step one is recognizing the enemy, and we are not the enemy.

The popular narrative of the biased mainstream media is that conservatives and Republicans are all racists. We’ve heard this over and over again from liberals outraged about the newfound conservative activism across the country. Conservatives are only mad because we have a black president, they say, and anyone who opposes the vision of our black president is a racist. The anger isn’t about issues, or belief in the Constitution or liberty, it’s all racism.

The narrative also tells us that Democrats are defenders of minorities, and that Republicans don’t care about poor blacks or any other poor minority community. Even the black community, for the most part, was duped into believing that liberal Democrats actually care about them more than conservatives do. In reality, liberals, as part of their ruling philosophy, believe that blacks and other minorities are inferior and need to be controlled.

Consider one of the hallmarks of the liberal agenda, social justice. The social justice agenda states that minorities, especially American blacks, need the government to intervene in their lives to raise their standard of living to that of whites. To put it another way, minorities are too helpless to make something of themselves. That’s what the righteous and elegant theory of social justice boils down to. Liberals believe that without government interference and control over their lives, minorities don’t have what it takes to survive in the world. This is not a civil rights agenda or an equality agenda. This is a slavery agenda. 

Liberals want minorities to believe that they are inferior victims who must be dependant on handouts from the government. The Democrats of today support slavery and segregation just as the Democrats of old did. The only difference is that decades of brainwashing have made present day slavery acceptable to the majority of the black community. And the black liberals who have political power push the agenda just as hard as white politicians do.  Immigrants from Africa, who don’t have the victimization and social justice garbage beat into them, are running economic circles around American blacks, while Democrats assure the black community that they are fighting for justice. The ideology is the problem here, not their race.

Compare this social justice agenda, which only leads to slavery and a lack of prosperity, to the “liberty agenda” of conservatives: that every individual is free and capable of using their God given talents to achieve prosperity. In conservatism, we actually believe in the words, “all men are created equal,” and that all should have the freedom to rise, or fall, based on their merits. No person is too big to fail should he or she not work hard and do what is right. And yes, we should help each other out when we fail. We the people should help each other, not allow a government to steal money from citizens to give away when it doesn’t have the constitutional authority to do so.  

I think we all find the hypocrisy of the Left over Harry Reid’s comments both comical and sickening. What all these apologists seem to miss however, is that Reid’s problem was not his wording, but his thinking. If his compliment to Obama was that Obama is not very black and doesn’t talk like a regular black person, then he is implying that there is something wrong with being black! 

As Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., put it, “What he’s really saying is, ‘Now we have a White House Negr0’…if you have light skin and a particular education, we’ll let you in the House. If not, you need to stay in the field.”

Anyone, despite his or her ideological background, can have a heart filled with hate, or make foolish or insensitive comments. Nevertheless, if believing in an ideology that perpetuates racial inferiority isn’t racist, I don’t know what is.

If you have uncontrollable shivers going up your leg right now, please call your doctor and get a dose of reality.

By now anyone who has had contact with the outside world knows that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning.  Why?  Maybe the liberal bloggers at the Huffington Post can enlighten us:

It would be hard to think of a more electrifying and deserved recipient of this year's Nobel Peace prize than President Obama.

Obviously, the award is based on the hope that Obama will achieve real progress in advancing diplomacy rather than confrontation around the globe. To some degree, he already has.

His acceptance speech in Oslo will offer him a golden chance to set forward a more sweeping and comprehensive vision of what his administration and America can do to advance peace.

Obama got the prize not for doing, but for being. Not for making peace, but for exemplifying something new on the world stage — the politics of dignity. The Nobel Committee has simply made explicit what many have sensed. President Obama is the herald of a dignitarian politics.

But anyone who thinks this award is unprecedented hasn't been paying attention.

Wow.  I guess giving great speeches over and over again beats actually following through with any action.  Just talking about his lofty, and unrealistic, idealism won Obama a Nobel Prize.  I need to take some speech classes.

Former leader of Solidarity and former Polish President Lech Welesa, who also won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1983, said upon hearing today's news, "So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage. He is only beginning to act."  Welesa, who fought against Soviet oppression his entire life, knows what it means to struggle for peace.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele released a statement saying, “The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has out shined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights."  He continued, "One thing is certain –President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.”

While conservatives attacked Obama's record, the leftists at the Huffington Post also went on the attack.

It's giving an award to encourage the change in world relations that Obama has promised, and to try to help shield Obama against his domestic adversaries. The committee is well aware that history is contingent and that Obama might fail. It knows very well that the same country that elected Obama also gave the world George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

In giving this award, the Nobel Committee is telling these right-wing forces to back off. And it's sending a message of encouragement to those Americans who put Obama in office.

Yes, America did give the world Ronald Reagan, and most of the world thanks God that we did, including, I'm sure, Lech Welesa.  Reagan, who Joe Scarborough pointed out on his radio show this morning is conspicuously absent from the list of Nobel Peace Prize winners, did more than anyone in the last few decades to fight for peace.  Regan recognized the evil inherent in the Soviet system, and brought that system down freeing millions from oppression.  But of course in leftist mythology, the Soviet Union was a model for the socialist utopia, and the Reagan administration had nothing to do with its downfall.

But the attacks didn't stop with Kool-Aid drinking bloggers.  The Democratic National Committee issued the following statement:

The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists — the Taliban and Hamas this morning — in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize — an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride — unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries,has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim.

Of course this ridiculous statement only follows up on the liberal attack line that anyone who doesn't agree with and praise Obama is anti-American, a racist, and a right-wing terrorist.  Obama can do no wrong, and all the world should love him. 

The Republican Party puts politics above patriotism?  Does the DNC really want to press that charge?  These people must have been in a cave during the Bush years (probably helping out Osama bin Laden just to stick it to President Bush). 

The Republicans have no boundaries and no shame?  Do the Democrats not find shame in continuing to support their last president, Bill Clinton, who was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, and is a despicable womanizer to boot?  Do they feel no shame in supporting a president who has John Holdren, Kevin Jennings, Cass Sunstein, and (formerly) Van Jones in his administration?

I congratulate the president for all of his nice speeches.  I just hope that someday he will start actually defeating our enemies, and rebuilding our economy to bring us peace like President Reagan did.

Meet Ardi, the oldest "human" skeleton.  Admittedly I'm no scientific expert, but many parts of evolutionary theory just don't make sense to me.  Are there any other species that lived 4 million years ago that have managed to survive all the natural disasters and ice ages to evolve into vastly superior beings, or are humans supposed to be the only species out of thousands and thousands of others to achieve this?  I mean if the natural trend of life is to evolve, where are all the talking reptiles? 

I'm not decrying species adaptation, but is it possible there were species similar to humans that went extinct, like many others that existed millions of years ago have, and then humans were created as a new species?  I guess I'm attempting to bridge the "gap" between science and religion. 

I do believe that God created all life, and made humans special compared to other life on Earth by infusing us with the power to reason, and writing His law upon our hearts.  So often people try to separate reason, or science, and religion into combating spheres, but they do not exist apart.  God gave us reason to figure out the mysteries of the universe.  Without God there is no science.

If the "laws of science" were just a wee bit different, there would be no life in the universe.  There would be no universe.  The universe is designed in such a way, as is DNA is designed in such a way, that life is allowed to exist.  Such design lends proof to a designer.

Atheists, who rely heavily on science in the absence of God, have never been able to prove how the vast expanse of the universe suddenly appeared from nowhere.  I guarantee you that if you take an empty box, and somehow manage to suck out every atom and molecule of air, then wait around for millions of years, the box will still be empty when you come back.  Even the smallest of molecules known to man do not just appear out of nowhere.  It's a scientific impossibility.  So if it's scientifically impossible for something to appear from nothing, then even the molecules that supposedly collided to form the universe in the "Big Bang" had to be created right?

Somebody get Richard Dawkins to perform this science project and see how it turns out.  And tell him to keep his mouth shut until the end of the experiment.

Remember those Danish cartoons of Muhammad?  The ones that caused riots in Europe four years ago by offended Muslims?  (In case you don't, look below)

One of the cartoonists, Kurt Westergaard, spoke to a private group in New York last night, and is scheduled to give a lecture at Yale University tonight.  Westergaard, who has received death threats from irate Muslims since publishing his cartoon, believes that he is fighting a "just cause."

In an interview, Westergaard said, "I am fighting for a just cause. And so you have a moral alibi, which is good, and then I have only worked according to our traditions in Denmark."  According to Westergaard, those Denmark traditions include satire. "And, of course, there's been a lot of support from the man which I meet in the street, the ethnic Dane who pats my shoulder and says, 'Well done.' Then there's also been the Muslims who have threatened me and cursed me … but I think the most reactions I have received, they are very positive."

Westergaard said that Muslims need to understand that they are "not free of being mocked or being offended."


Members of Yale's Muslim Student Association find themselves "deeply hurt and offended" by Westergaard's presence on campus.

"As an institution purportedly committed to making our campus an educational environment where all students feel equally comfortable, we feel that by hosting Kurt Westergaard Yale is undermining its commitment to creating a nurturing learning environment by failing to recognize the religious and racial sensitivity of the issue," a group statement reads.


It has been my experience that liberal universities love freedom of speech when people are saying things they want to hear, but once a speaker they disagree with tries to talk, their hateful rhetoric is not welcome.  Instead of letting speakers freely express their ideas, and then attempting to combat those ideas with ones of their own, liberal students usually engage in loud emotional displays of protest to keep alternative views off the campus entirely.

It seems that many members of society believe they have some sort of "right" not to be offended.  The term "hate speech," and laws meant to criminalize such speech, convey the widely held belief found around the world that anything offensive should be illegal.  Only the weakest of minds can truly accept this premise.

If an idea, ideology, religion, belief system, etc., is found by an individual or group to be offensive, instead of holding their ears and screaming (or starting riots), the proper course of action to be taken is as follows:

1. Respect the speakers right to speak, and actually listen to what the speaker has to say.
2. Analyze the arguments in a thoughtful and serious manner.
3. Compare these arguments to your own belief system, with an open mind that you may be wrong.
4. Make an informed and rational decision on whether you agree with the speaker's argument.
5. If you disagree, combat the speaker's ideas with logical and truthful information.  Fight ideas with ideas, not physical force.

Rationally analyzing an opponent's arguments often leads to a deeper understanding of one's own belief system, either strengthening those beliefs, or leading to an abandonment of them.  Remember that old lesson that Mommy taught you, "Use your words, not your fists."

In a verbal spar on Sunday with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, President Obama said, “I absolutely rejected that notion,” when pressed by Stephanopoulos to admit that mandating health insurance for all citizens, and fining them if they fail to buy insurance, constitutes a tax increase. President Obama promised throughout his campaign, and since becoming president, that he would not raise taxes on any Americans making less than $250,000 per year. 

When asked to explain how the health insurance mandate and fining system did not create a new tax, Obama provided the American people with a “teachable moment.” 

After questioning Obama over and over again about the tax increase, Stephanopoulos finally pulls out the definition of “tax” from the dictionary: “A charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.” The President simply finds it laughable that Stephanopoulos has proven him wrong, and continues to say that there will be no tax increase. This teaches us that the President either fails to understand a simple definition, is too egomaniacal to admit when he is wrong, or has the power to change the meaning of words by decree, and expects us to accept his new meaning.

During the interview, Obama also equates the needed mandate for health insurance with the mandatory car insurance laws already in place, as he has in other speeches and interviews. This statement teaches us several more lessons about President Obama.

First, President Obama does not seem to understand the laws in the country he was elected to govern. Car insurance is not necessary, or mandatory, to drive a car everywhere in the United States. New Hampshire and Wisconsin are two states that have no laws mandating car insurance.

Second, in the places where car insurance is mandatory, only those people who choose to drive need to purchase insurance. And those persons who do not choose to drive do not pay fines for not purchasing insurance which they do not need.

And finally, President Obama shows that he misunderstands another important word: liberty. Obama begins an important thought by saying, “If…we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the cost, we’ve done everything we can, and you actually can afford health insurance, but you just decided, ‘You know what? I want to take my chances,’ and then you get hit by a bus…,” but Stephanopoulos cuts him off before he can finish. Obama says a few seconds later, “You’ve gotta take a responsibility to get health insurance.”

If the government has done everything possible to drive down the cost of health insurance to help me out so that I can afford it, and still choose not to buy, that is my choice! I thought the Democrats were the pro-choice party? I guess that’s only true when they want to choose murder for babies and old people.

The freedom to choose my own fate is the essence of liberty itself. To mandate that every citizen purchase health insurance in a health care system controlled by the government makes us servants of the government, not free and independent citizens. 

Maybe the government should choose to enforce the immigration laws so millions of illegals are not plugging up our emergency rooms, or choose to take on tort reform, or let people take their health insurance with them when they lose their jobs, or allow people to buy insurance across state lines. These choices would bring down the cost of insurance, and might entice me to choose to buy a policy, rather than threatening me with a fine. 

And Mr. President, imposing a fine on those of us who choose not to purchase insurance is definitely a tax. Maybe you should look up that word again.

 

The President’s address to school children planned for September eighth should raise some concerns for all parents, not just those who happen to disagree with Mr. Obama. In addition to the speech, the Obama administration will distribute work sheets to teachers across the nation to help students understand Obama’s message. But instead of asking questions about being a good American citizen, teachers raise questions on how the students can best listen to Obama, and help his radical agenda come to fruition.

Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?

What do you think the President wants us to do?

Does the speech make you want to do anything?

Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?

These are a few of the questions that teachers are to encourage their students to think about and answer. When I first read over the work sheets, I could hardly believe my eyes. The whole event seems like an innocent attempt to teach young kids some valuable lessons, but the lessons here are dangerous to a child’s understanding of how free citizens interact with the government.

The proper answer to the first question, which I am sure will not be explored in the classroom, is that elected officials work for the people, and are supposed to represent the interests of the people in accordance with the Constitution. And what they say is important because when they speak out against the Constitution and the principles that made America great, they need to be voted out of office. I fear that what will actually be discussed is that politicians are our leaders, and do things to help us, like providing cars, houses, heath care, etc.

This is the last question asked on the work sheet before the speech starts. The intent is obviously to set the tone that the kids should pay attention to what the President is about to say, and do what he says. And if that is not obvious enough, just look at the other questions.

The following questions somehow did not make it onto the work sheet, but are the questions young students should be thinking about:

Do the people control the President or does the President control the people?

Shouldn’t the President be doing what we want, and not have us following his orders?

Is the President’s vision of America in line with American founding principles?

Do the President’s policies follow the restrictions on the federal government established in the Constitution?

How much pressure are these teachers going to put on young students to follow the mandates of this administration? According to the work sheets, teachers should also encourage students to read books about Barack Obama. Which books has yet to be disclosed. I imagine the parts about using cocaine, being angry at white people, and joining Marxist and radical groups in college will be left out…maybe not. 

The whole event is pure propaganda intended to gain support for Obama. Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us? Just wait until your kids come home asking you this same question. What happens if you tell your children that you do not want to do what Obama is asking? “But teacher says we should listen to the President. Bad Mommy and Daddy!”

Parents have three options here. Option 1: Take your kids out of school that day and attempt to explain to them the situation in order to deal with their teacher and classmates when they return to school. Option 2: Let your kids watch the speech, but prepare a lesson for them when they return home to combat the Obama indoctrination. This will be hard if the teacher and other students are fully in support of the Obama cause, especially because kids are more likely to listen to their teachers than their parents.  Option 3: Just let the government controlled schools take hold of your kids now. With the way things are going, odds are the government will control every part of their lives by the time they are adults anyway right?

Personally, I would avoid Option 3 at all costs. 

Now is the time to be involved in government, which means being involved in public education. The frustration over government meddling seen by Americans at Tea Parties and town hall meetings cannot end there. As Joseph Stalin said, “Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”  Right now, the Obama administration holds the education of our nation’s youth in their hands. And it appears to be aimed against the freedom loving opponents of his agenda.

I find it very upsetting, and unhelpful in the health care debate, to hear Republicans and so-called conservatives arguing against Obamacare, while saying they support Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These programs are just as socialist in nature as the proposed national health care plan. The creation of a “safety net” by the federal government may be well intended, but these programs are unconstitutional and infringe upon the liberty of a free people.

 

No provision exists anywhere in the Constitution which would allow the federal government to create these “safety net” programs. Maybe liberal constitutional scholars, such as Mr. Obama, can try to interpret the words and invent some hidden meaning within the text to justify creating these programs, but to do so is an affront to the Founding Fathers, the rule of law, and would be a bold faced lie. Not to get off on a tangent, but the Constitution is not a “living document” to be interpreted as one sees fit. This would negate its very purpose as a source of absolute law since the ability to redefine and reinterpret the text creates a situation whereby those in power can rule according to their individual thoughts and feelings, i.e., a tyranny.

According to the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So should there arise a necessary and proper function of government not provided for within the Constitution, the responsibility rests upon the individual State governments to take action. 

Then the question still remains, “Is it a proper function of government to provide health care or retirement benefits for people?” First, examine exactly what this function of government implies. A free people enjoy the opportunity to make their own choices in life, and use their talents and abilities as they see fit. An individual can make millions of dollars in a free market and blow it all on material possessions, or use it to help the needy. A free people also create a government bound by the rule of law to protect them from harm and serve their interests. But when representatives in government enact plans like Social Security or socialized medicine, what the representatives are really saying is, “Even though you people used your good judgment to vote us into office to serve you, we don’t think your judgment is good enough to take care of your own lives, or to help those in your community.” So instead of allowing citizens to donate their time and their own hard earned money to any number or private sector or non-profit organizations and programs, the representatives in government decide to steal money from your wages and force you to take care of others.

This is not an argument against taxation. The Constitution enacts specific functions of government which require funding from the people. But when the government creates unconstitutional programs and taxes people to fund them, this is outright theft.

Taking care of the poor and sick are indeed humane and Godly deeds, but breaking God’s commandment of “Thou shall not steal” to do so is unjust. If some billionaire would rather spend his money on expensive playthings instead of donating to the sick, his choice may be deplorable, but he should be free to make that decision. No American should be forced to fund an illegitimate function of government, no matter how good the cause might seem.

Are we truly incapable of taking care of our own lives? Are Americans unable to save money for when we get sick, or for retirement? Do we really lack the capacity to take care of the sick, the needy, and the elderly in our communities without being forced to do so?

For our society to return to an era of personal responsibility will take some time after decades of relying on the government and its “safety net.” The health care system in this country undoubtedly needs reform, but those reforms should be constitutional and based on free market principles.

If you walk up to any person on the street and ask, “Would you like to be a slave?” odds are that 99.99% of the time, the answer will be “No.” Slavery in any form is a degrading and brutal way to live one’s life. The history of slavery in America is no exception. The mention of slavery in America tends to conjure images of black men and women wearing rags and picking cotton in the heat while being whipped by a man on a horse. The impact of black slavery still influences the thoughts and actions of many Americans today, especially in terms of race relations, equality, and achievement.

 

So if being a slave is such a horrible station in life, why are so many Americans, especially in the black community, voluntarily embracing slavery? The slavery I am referring to is slavery to a tyrannical governmental system. This embrace has happened slowly over many decades as the people accept more and more leftist policies which erode personal freedom. But make no mistake; the acceptance has been voluntary as people willingly make themselves servants of the government. 

I emphasize acceptance of this form of slavery within the black community due to the great irony of the situation. An overwhelming majority of black Americans support the same leftist politicians imposing this slavery upon them and the rest of the country, including our first black president, Barack Hussein Obama.

So many in America believe that giving the government more power and influence over their lives is the key to solving all the country’s problems and creating a better tomorrow. Sean Hannity calls this line of thinking, “government derangement syndrome.” He says liberals, “worship at the altar of big government,” despite all the evidence which shows that government just makes life worse. Like Hannity, I just cannot understand their mindset.

Liberals want government run health care, government run schools, government run auto manufacturers, government run banks, government mortgages, government controlled CEOs, etc. They want the federal government to tell people what they can and cannot eat, to read their credit card contracts for them, to control their state and local governments, to control who lives and who dies in this country, and on and on. If only somehow the government could make every single decision for them for the rest of their lives, liberals would be in a utopia (provided that funding for the decision making and implementation process comes from taxing the rich at 99%).

How can any reasonable person look at life like this and not see slavery? The overarching principle which caused the American colonies to fight against the British and bring our country into existence, and which made America the greatest country in the history of the world, is liberty. The belief in a God given right to liberty for all men is what made America great. 

Those who believe in liberty are the ones speaking out at town hall debates on health care, and engaging in protests all across the country. Those who believe in liberty are the ones who support family choice for, and local control of, their children’s schools. The believers in liberty support the right to life of the unborn, elderly, and infirmed. Supporters of liberty believe in the principles of capitalism and the free market; that any person no matter what their station in life can use their God given talents to create a better life for themselves through hard work. They believe in following the Constitution, and the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, corporate bailouts, the “stimulus,” Cash for Clunkers, government housing, government schools—all failures of questionable constitutionality created by the federal government. And the list goes on for decades. 

Americans are not supposed to be servants of the government. We pay these people to serve us! But if people continue to choose and quietly accept the policies of slavery, we can kiss liberty goodbye. 

JUST KIDDING!!!  How could I not support this woman?  She's intelligent, courageous, inspirational, and let's face it, stunning.  It was refreshing to see someone keeping to their beliefs and faith, instead of compromising them for short term gain. 

What I hope really comes out of this whole situation is that America sees what the gay agenda is really all about.  The goal is not a land of tolerance where people can agree to disagree and get on with their lives, but domination of the majority by a violent minority.  Across America, including in California, the majority of people do not agree with gay marriage.  When they disagree, they are attacked.  In every case, except recently in Vermont, gay marriage has been imposed on people by the judiciary despite the people voting to uphold traditional marriage.  Vermont is a dangerous state that should be voted out of the Union anyway.  The place is a haven for child molesters, with judges who refuse to fully prosecute them and protect children.

Gay activist label anyone who disagrees with them a hateful bigot, worthy of chastisement and punishment.  The result?  So called "hate crimes" legislation.

A vote is looming tomorrow on HR 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2009.  The aim of this bill is to "protect" homosexuals and people with gender identity issues.  The "protection" is from opposing view points.

Even though the 14th Amendment already provides for equal protection for all citizens, this special legislation is required for some reason.

All this bill will do is open the door to trample our constitutional rights to free speech and free religion.  If you quote that the Bible is against homosexuality--lawsuit.  If you quote that the Qur'an is against homosexuality--lawsuit.  If you protest against a gay pride parade--lawsuit.  If you are an "ex-gay," and say that homosexuality is a choice that can be overcome--lawsuit.  The government will tell you what beliefs, opinions, and thoughts will be acceptable in America.

If this bill gets passed, you can basically kiss the Constitution goodbye.

When I first heard that the Obama administration would not attend the UN's racism summit, I was kind of surprised.  Could Obama actually be standing up for American principles of free speech? 

Reportedly the two main reasons that the US will not attend are an intended criticism of Israel in the conference declarations, and a move by Muslim countries to silence all criticism of Islam, Sharia law, the prophet Muhammad and other tenets of their faith.

The White House said it could not support a singling out of Israel, one of America's close allies, or a limitation on speech, because as State Department spokesman Robert Wood pointed out, such limitations, "run counter to the U.S. commitment to unfettered free speech."

After thinking about Obama's decision, I'm pretty sure it has to do more with the criticism of Israel being a problem, than limiting speech.  Jewish groups have aggressively lobbied the US and other countries to not attend the conference after a previous UN draft statement likened Zionism to racism.  The Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Canada, Israel and Italy will also not be in attendance.

I think the fight over Israel had more to do with Obama's decision because he has already expressed here in America that he does not support free speech.  Obama and his administration aggressively attacked Rush Limbaugh, a private citizen, after Rush criticized Obama's policies.  Obama and other top Democrats have also openly stated that they support restricting the free opinions expressed on all conservative talk radio programs.

After people realized that the "Fairness Doctrine" was anything but fair, Democrats dropped the name, but began planning to implement its regulations in other pieces of legislation.  One of the provisions amounts to affirmative action where station owners will be forced to hire minorities and people of diverse view points to put on air or face having their operating licenses revoked.

And we shouldn't forget about how Obama hired a team of lawyers during the campaign to go after any citizen who criticized him, his past, his nepharious relationships, or his policies.   

I hope the political pundits are not fooled by this move.

On Thursday, Joe Scarborough reacted to the vile coverage of the TEA Party protests seen on his own MSNBC network, and on CNN.  I'm somebody at this network has some sense.

"You look at these huge rallies, and I'm not going to mention names of people on networks that made sexual jokes, childish sexual jokes, about tens of thousands of Americans who went out and wanted to get involved in their government."  The names Joe didn't mention would be ones like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and David Shuster.

Scarborough continued, "I mean, it was really middle school jokes being made. I didn't hear those jokes being made when people on the left protested over the past eight years."

"But, if a media outlet wants to expose its bias, they can mock tea parties, if they like."

Scarborough asserted that he would expect such juvenile actions from liberal bloggers, however, "I would expect more...from news outlets. And it happened on several networks yesterday."


Media Research Center President Brent Bozell also chastised the liberal press for their coverage. 

"Now the news isn't just biased, it's R-rated," said Bozell. "MSNBC and CNN both allow this vulgar attack-journalism to go out on their airwaves without blinking an eye and without any sign of guilt. It appears neither woeful bias nor lowly crassness on their airwaves bothers them a bit."

"MSNBC and CNN owe these decent Americans an apology for the slimy, smarmy attacks they perpetrated in 'covering' the TEA Parties. Ordinary citizens exercising their First Amendment rights in over 750 cities and towns deserve the media's coverage, not their sleaze-riddled condemnation."

Eric Odom, administrator of TaxDayTeaParty.com, told WorldNetDaily, "It couldn't become more apparent that CNN is taking their content off left-wing blogs and pushing it out through what they consider ethical and coherent journalism.  And I think it further proves the downfall of the mainstream media."

"What's been happening in the last few days has been an example of the [media's] clear and present and complete disconnect with American society.  I don't even know if CNN knows they're doing this. I think they believe what they're saying is sincerely accurate," Odom said, adding, "I don't know that we'd like to see an apology more than we'd like to see some sort of grasp of reality because this is a completely unrealistic realm that they're thriving in, and it's hard to believe they're considered mainstream journalism."