Senator Barack Obama took off his American flag lapel pin.
Stating that from now on he will speak about the meaning of the flag rather than wear it, the Democratic Presidential hopeful has obviously failed to grasp the importance of symbols, particularly on the part of one who would be President. Wearing the flag, it would seem, would present even MORE opportunities to explain what the flag means than taking it off.
In fact, the candidate symbolically declared today why he is unfit to be President in one simple symbolic act.
Men who would be President of our country do not shun symbols of our flag but embrace them.
What does this act say, for example, to Kim Jong Ill, or Fidel Castro and the oppressed who live under Cuban Communism, or to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? A would-be President of the United States expresses disdain for wearing the symbol of his country? No doubt the act gives rise to the notion on the part of the tyrants of the world that Obama is ashamed of America's symbol.
There is but one reasonable explanation for Obama's actions. He feels it is much more important to appease the extremists who have seized control of the Democratic Party than to express allegiance to his country. He would rather please anti-war activists who have spit on the flag and burned it, referred to our troops in Iraq as murderers, and who have denigrated our military in general by referring to one of its top commanders, General Petraeus, as a traitor, than to overtly and proudly display the world's number one symbol of freedom.
George Soros, Moveon.org, and Media Matters are very proud, I am sure.
Thus, here is yet one more example of the swiftness with which Democrats embrace symbolic, anti-American gestures. The Dems can't appear too patriotic lest they alienate their main donor base.
The actions of Barack Obama hearken back to another era in America, during and after the Viet Nam War when the Democratic Party increasingly came under the influence of anti-war activists. At the 1972, 1976, and 1980 Democratic National Conventions the American flag was basically nowhere to be seen.
In fact, one commentator commented that the Democrats had so alienated the American public by shunning the flag that in 1984 they basically wrapped themselves in the flag in a last-ditch effort to try to defeat Ronald Reagan.
Americans saw through the ruse and elected Ronald Reagan to a 2nd term in one of the biggest landslides in American history.
The Iraq War has once again pushed to Democrats to the far-Left, so far, in fact, that Americans are beginning to wake up. The Democratic controlled Congress certainly inspires no confidence among the public with its dismal and historic low public approval rating of 11%.
Perhaps Americans will connect the dots and see that the same disease that infests Congress also infests the Democratic Presidential candidates.
It is possible, of course, that Obama unconsciously recognizes that the positions he espouses are a desecration to the flag and the liberty it symbolizes. In that case, it is better to take the flag off in order to espouse anti-freedom than to wear it as a hypocrite.
Showing posts with label Senator Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senator Barack Obama. Show all posts
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Second Amendment News Roundup for 7/17/07
Scroll down for the news:
Washington, DC (TLS). Here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
Snow Flakes In Hell helps to alleviate at least some of our fears concerning the new gun legislation in Pennsylvania, which had the backing of both the NRA and gun-control advocates:
The Jet Pilot has a five-minute video that shows why it is good to be armed:
Blogonomicon shows us a media hit piece against Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is one of the strongest advocates in the country today for unrestricted Second Amendment rights:
A Keyboard and a .45 gives us a gun show report from this past weekend:
Front Sight, Press has the news about OSHA's retreat from at least some of its proposed new rules that take dead aim at the ammo industry:
Gun Law News reports that DC Mayor Adrian Fenty is going to proceed with his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the Parker gun case:
John Lott says that his new book, Freedomnomics, has received a good review from National Review Online. Concerning National Review, I cut my political teeth on this magazine back in the day when William F. Buckley was in charge. Click here to go to Lott's comments about the review:
Liestoppers is one of the best blogs in the nation with regard to legal issues, particularly with regard to prosecutorial misconduct. This was the blog that broke the story on the Duke lacrosse rape scandal being a hoax. Take a look at one of their latest articles on 'Obstruction of Justice':
The McCarville Report has the latest news on Senator Jim Inhofe's campaign fundraising so far, in his bid to retain his U.S. Senate Seat. Gun Owners of America rates Sen. Inhofe as one of the top supporters of gun rights in the nation:
The Volokh Conspiracy has an excellent and timely article on self-defense laws. In some states it is illegal to use NON-LETHAL self-defense in situations where the victim can safely retreat. This article has a complete analysis of the issue:
The Bitch Girls say that Virginia has elected an asshole. I am much prone to agree. This guy's volatile personality, on display this weekend in an exchange with a Senate colleague, only proves the point:
Traction Control has the latest of Barack Obama's overt proposals to ban guns:
Say Uncle reports on Jessie Jackson's latest gun-ban shenanigans:
Finally, the Buckeye Firearms Association posts an article on 'Our Gun Legacy - Good or Bad?':
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Campaign Fundraising: Who's Ahead So Far?
Washington, DC (TLS). With precious time ticking away as we draw ever closer to that important but early deadline of 1/1/08, Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates are reporting their fundraising totals for the second quarter.
Never before in a campaign has money been so vitally important this early. And it is way too early, indeed. Yet, in order to be competitive in the early 2008 primaries, each of the candidates will need at least 100 million bucks on hand.
We can thank the masterminds of both Parties for setting up this scenario, moving state primaries earlier and earlier supposedly giving their states more clout. What they may succeed in doing instead is making the electorate totally sick of politics a year ahead of the election.
Nonetheless, this is the situation we have, and we must deal with it.
So, who is ahead so far?
Republican campaign contributions are lackluster. This is due in part to a fairly unpopular President who continues to make gargantuan mistakes, all in the name of attempting to secure a positive 'legacy.' The other factor is Fred Thompson.
And this points to a much deeper problem. The present field of candidates are not catching on with the Party's base, and thus, most are holding on to their money until Fred Thompson makes his announcement.
Among the announced Republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain are still the top three, although McCain's 2nd quarter totals were totally disappointing, leading the candidate to cut campaign staff. Although Romney's totals look fairly good, his 2nd quarter was not up to par with his 1st quarter totals, and the candidate loaned personal cash to his campaign. Giuliani still leads the pack with a steady and consistent stream of contributions.
Giuliani's 2nd quarter totals were approximately equal to his 1st quarter totals, bringing his grand total to over 32 million.
While the Ron Paul campaign claims it has more cash on hand than McCain, in terms of totals raised so far Dr. Paul is not in the top tier. When his 1st and 2nd quarter totals are combined he comes up with roughly 2.5 million in campaign funds.
However, Paul runs a very frugal campaign. He rarely travels to campaign on the stump, and most of his funds are raised on the Internet. Thus, the candidate can make a couple of million go a very long way, and he doesn't have to worry about overhead that eats through money faster than Michael Moore can inhale four Big Macs from Mickey D's.
Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee appear to be in a dead-heat with regard to funds, and the rest of the 2nd tier lags far behind.
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the 2nd quarter, raising 32.5 million. This means that he is now ahead of Hillary for the year, raising 55.7 million as compared to her 53 million.
John Edwards comes in third with a lackluster 9 million, followed by Bill Richardson with 7.2 million.
Although the money has taken on more importance than normal given the unusually early primaries, it is nonetheless common in campaigns for candidates who have the most money to lose in the actual vote counts. This would give hope to candidates such as Bill Richardson, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Mike Huckabee.
Here is a quick wrap-up of the top fundraisers so far, in order of their year-to-date totals:
REPUBLICANS
**Rudy Giuliani
**Mitt Romney
**John McCain
**Ron Paul
**Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee
**Sam Brownback
**Jim Gilmore
**Tom Tancredo
**Tommy Thompson
DEMOCRATS
**Barack Obama
**Hillary Clinton
**John Edwards
**Bill Richardson
**Chris Dodd
**Joe Biden
**Dennis Kucinich
**Mike Gravel
Never before in a campaign has money been so vitally important this early. And it is way too early, indeed. Yet, in order to be competitive in the early 2008 primaries, each of the candidates will need at least 100 million bucks on hand.
We can thank the masterminds of both Parties for setting up this scenario, moving state primaries earlier and earlier supposedly giving their states more clout. What they may succeed in doing instead is making the electorate totally sick of politics a year ahead of the election.
Nonetheless, this is the situation we have, and we must deal with it.
So, who is ahead so far?
Republican campaign contributions are lackluster. This is due in part to a fairly unpopular President who continues to make gargantuan mistakes, all in the name of attempting to secure a positive 'legacy.' The other factor is Fred Thompson.
And this points to a much deeper problem. The present field of candidates are not catching on with the Party's base, and thus, most are holding on to their money until Fred Thompson makes his announcement.
Among the announced Republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain are still the top three, although McCain's 2nd quarter totals were totally disappointing, leading the candidate to cut campaign staff. Although Romney's totals look fairly good, his 2nd quarter was not up to par with his 1st quarter totals, and the candidate loaned personal cash to his campaign. Giuliani still leads the pack with a steady and consistent stream of contributions.
Giuliani's 2nd quarter totals were approximately equal to his 1st quarter totals, bringing his grand total to over 32 million.
While the Ron Paul campaign claims it has more cash on hand than McCain, in terms of totals raised so far Dr. Paul is not in the top tier. When his 1st and 2nd quarter totals are combined he comes up with roughly 2.5 million in campaign funds.
However, Paul runs a very frugal campaign. He rarely travels to campaign on the stump, and most of his funds are raised on the Internet. Thus, the candidate can make a couple of million go a very long way, and he doesn't have to worry about overhead that eats through money faster than Michael Moore can inhale four Big Macs from Mickey D's.
Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee appear to be in a dead-heat with regard to funds, and the rest of the 2nd tier lags far behind.
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the 2nd quarter, raising 32.5 million. This means that he is now ahead of Hillary for the year, raising 55.7 million as compared to her 53 million.
John Edwards comes in third with a lackluster 9 million, followed by Bill Richardson with 7.2 million.
Although the money has taken on more importance than normal given the unusually early primaries, it is nonetheless common in campaigns for candidates who have the most money to lose in the actual vote counts. This would give hope to candidates such as Bill Richardson, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Mike Huckabee.
Here is a quick wrap-up of the top fundraisers so far, in order of their year-to-date totals:
REPUBLICANS
**Rudy Giuliani
**Mitt Romney
**John McCain
**Ron Paul
**Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee
**Sam Brownback
**Jim Gilmore
**Tom Tancredo
**Tommy Thompson
DEMOCRATS
**Barack Obama
**Hillary Clinton
**John Edwards
**Bill Richardson
**Chris Dodd
**Joe Biden
**Dennis Kucinich
**Mike Gravel
Monday, June 25, 2007
Barack Obama Takes Swipe at Religious Right
At the annual national meeting of the United Church of Christ, one of the most liberal denominations in the world, Democratic Senator and Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama took a swipe at the religious right in a speech before the assembly.
Speaking before an enthusiastically supportive crowd, Obama stated that the religious right had used faith to divide Americans rather than bring us together.
He then used some of the religious right's key issues such as prayer in schools, abortion, and homosexual marriage to lash out at evangelicals, all of which supposedly further proves their 'divisiveness.'
Perhaps we should take a closer look at the beliefs of the United Church of Christ, which supposedly represents the Senator's belief system and faith.
The United Church of Christ (not to be confused with the conservative Churches of Christ) is a mainline Christian denomination that has strayed far from its core doctrines, as have most of the so-called 'mainline' Protestant denominations.
For example, the United Church of Christ (designated as the 'UCC') participates in 'the Jesus Project' and its predecessor 'The Jesus Seminar'--a consortium of ultra-liberal scholars who state not only that Jesus did not speak upwards of 85% of what is attributed to Him in the New Testament, but that Jesus in all likelihood did not even exist as a historical figure.
Thus, I would like to ask the good Senator, which has been more divisive--the fact that millions of evangelicals denounce the slaughter of unborn children, or the fact that his own denomination overtly attacks the faith of millions of Catholics, conservative Protestants, and independent Christians?
In addition, the United Church of Christ is long-known for its support of liberal political initiatives, including denouncing the U.S. military and its use in war, the support for women who choose to have abortions, the opposition to school prayer, in spite of the fact that across the globe and right here in America drastic accommodations are being made to MUSLIMS who wish to pray.
The UCC also openly supports gay marriage and allows openly gay clergy to serve as Pastors of its churches.
Do they have a right to these views? Of course they do. This is a free country, and any group, religious, private, or otherwise, has the right to make its own rules and endorse whatever lifestyle or set of beliefs it wishes.
But this is not the point. B. Hussein Obama said that evangelical Christianity is divisive because it supports a traditional view of marriage, denounces the removal of corporate prayer from schools as an anti-Christian motivated tactic, and supports those policies in society and in government that uphold and honor the sacredness of human life.
Perhaps the good Senator also thinks that evangelicals are divisive because they insist that Jesus Christ was a real person and that the Bible is to be taken seriously as the definitive authority on faith for Christians.
Thus, when you hear B. Hussein Obama, Presidential candidate for the Democrats, speak about those awful members of the religious right, remember that this is the man that voted AGAINST allowing medical care and life-support to be given to babies who survive botched abortion attempts.
The man has ZERO credibility when it comes to matters of faith.
And it is highly doubtful that the UCC can call itself 'Christian' with integrity.
Speaking before an enthusiastically supportive crowd, Obama stated that the religious right had used faith to divide Americans rather than bring us together.
He then used some of the religious right's key issues such as prayer in schools, abortion, and homosexual marriage to lash out at evangelicals, all of which supposedly further proves their 'divisiveness.'
Perhaps we should take a closer look at the beliefs of the United Church of Christ, which supposedly represents the Senator's belief system and faith.
The United Church of Christ (not to be confused with the conservative Churches of Christ) is a mainline Christian denomination that has strayed far from its core doctrines, as have most of the so-called 'mainline' Protestant denominations.
For example, the United Church of Christ (designated as the 'UCC') participates in 'the Jesus Project' and its predecessor 'The Jesus Seminar'--a consortium of ultra-liberal scholars who state not only that Jesus did not speak upwards of 85% of what is attributed to Him in the New Testament, but that Jesus in all likelihood did not even exist as a historical figure.
Thus, I would like to ask the good Senator, which has been more divisive--the fact that millions of evangelicals denounce the slaughter of unborn children, or the fact that his own denomination overtly attacks the faith of millions of Catholics, conservative Protestants, and independent Christians?
In addition, the United Church of Christ is long-known for its support of liberal political initiatives, including denouncing the U.S. military and its use in war, the support for women who choose to have abortions, the opposition to school prayer, in spite of the fact that across the globe and right here in America drastic accommodations are being made to MUSLIMS who wish to pray.
The UCC also openly supports gay marriage and allows openly gay clergy to serve as Pastors of its churches.
Do they have a right to these views? Of course they do. This is a free country, and any group, religious, private, or otherwise, has the right to make its own rules and endorse whatever lifestyle or set of beliefs it wishes.
But this is not the point. B. Hussein Obama said that evangelical Christianity is divisive because it supports a traditional view of marriage, denounces the removal of corporate prayer from schools as an anti-Christian motivated tactic, and supports those policies in society and in government that uphold and honor the sacredness of human life.
Perhaps the good Senator also thinks that evangelicals are divisive because they insist that Jesus Christ was a real person and that the Bible is to be taken seriously as the definitive authority on faith for Christians.
Thus, when you hear B. Hussein Obama, Presidential candidate for the Democrats, speak about those awful members of the religious right, remember that this is the man that voted AGAINST allowing medical care and life-support to be given to babies who survive botched abortion attempts.
The man has ZERO credibility when it comes to matters of faith.
And it is highly doubtful that the UCC can call itself 'Christian' with integrity.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Novak Says Fred Thompson Set to Run
Washington, DC (TLS). Political columnist and TV personality Robert Novak states in his latest column that former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson, who appears weekly as the D.A. on TV's 'Law and Order,' is set to make his bid for the Republican Presidential nomination.
Novak states that Thompson's talk about a White House bid is no act. Persons closest to the former Tennessee Senator told Novak that Thompson is seriously considering his options. His wife, who has worked as a political consultant, has stated she has encouraged her husband to run.
In recent weeks Thompson has met with Republican party officials, political operatives, campaign experts, and even members of Congress who have already endorsed other candidates, concerning the viability of a successful run.
And apparently the pundits and powers-that-be are impressed with the possibility of a Thompson candidacy. As soon as the former Senator announced to Fox News that he was seriously considering a bid, polls began to show Thompson moving into 3rd place in the field of Republican candidates, although he has made no campaign appearances or a formal announcement of his intentions.
The significance of this scenario cannot be brushed aside. John McCain has been basically running for President since 2000. Rudy Giuliani has been gearing up for a possible White House bid ever since his actions during and after the 9/11 terrorist attack made him an extremely popular figure throughout the country. Newt Gingrich has been touted as the conservatives' choice ever since he departed the U.S. House.
Yet Thompson immediately took 3rd place in the polls as soon as he merely suggested he was 'thinking about' seeking the Republican nomination.
Thompson would have absolutely no problem raising the mega-bucks needed to mount a successful campaign. He will need 100 million by Jan. 1. He has lots of friends in high places, who have lots of money. Even many in the Hollywood community would step up to the plate (yes, there are conservatives among the Stars although their voices are drowned out by the extreme Leftists).
Some have suggested that Mitt Romney may well be the 'dark horse' who will emerge as the favorite. After all, in the first quarter he raised almost as much money for his campaign as Hillary Clinton. Yet Romney is having great difficulty rising in the polls among Republican voters. If anything, he has lost ground since he first announced, despite his fund-raising ability.
Both McCain and Giuliani have posted lackluster results in raising campaign funds during the first quarter. Though both have individually raised 15 million or so each--a respectable number--it is still far short of Clinton, Romney, and Obama, all of whom have raised well over 20 million.
Although it is still early yet, the rest of the pack among the Republicans have not posted significant success in raising campaign cash. Duncan Hunter, The Liberty Sphere favorite, is coming along, but at this rate he will not have reached that all-important 100 million by Jan. 1 in order to run a competitive campaign.
He is not to be counted out yet, however. Things can change quickly.
The fact remains, however, that a Fred Thompson candidacy has excited many persons who were feeling glum about the prospects for a Republican victory in 2008.
The Liberty Sphere believes that he is the man to watch. Our view is that once Thompson announces his candidacy, he will immediately move to the Number One position in the polls of Republican voters. And at that point, the campaign cash will come rolling in.
Read Novak's interesting analysis here:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/322596,CST-EDT-novak02.article
Novak states that Thompson's talk about a White House bid is no act. Persons closest to the former Tennessee Senator told Novak that Thompson is seriously considering his options. His wife, who has worked as a political consultant, has stated she has encouraged her husband to run.
In recent weeks Thompson has met with Republican party officials, political operatives, campaign experts, and even members of Congress who have already endorsed other candidates, concerning the viability of a successful run.
And apparently the pundits and powers-that-be are impressed with the possibility of a Thompson candidacy. As soon as the former Senator announced to Fox News that he was seriously considering a bid, polls began to show Thompson moving into 3rd place in the field of Republican candidates, although he has made no campaign appearances or a formal announcement of his intentions.
The significance of this scenario cannot be brushed aside. John McCain has been basically running for President since 2000. Rudy Giuliani has been gearing up for a possible White House bid ever since his actions during and after the 9/11 terrorist attack made him an extremely popular figure throughout the country. Newt Gingrich has been touted as the conservatives' choice ever since he departed the U.S. House.
Yet Thompson immediately took 3rd place in the polls as soon as he merely suggested he was 'thinking about' seeking the Republican nomination.
Thompson would have absolutely no problem raising the mega-bucks needed to mount a successful campaign. He will need 100 million by Jan. 1. He has lots of friends in high places, who have lots of money. Even many in the Hollywood community would step up to the plate (yes, there are conservatives among the Stars although their voices are drowned out by the extreme Leftists).
Some have suggested that Mitt Romney may well be the 'dark horse' who will emerge as the favorite. After all, in the first quarter he raised almost as much money for his campaign as Hillary Clinton. Yet Romney is having great difficulty rising in the polls among Republican voters. If anything, he has lost ground since he first announced, despite his fund-raising ability.
Both McCain and Giuliani have posted lackluster results in raising campaign funds during the first quarter. Though both have individually raised 15 million or so each--a respectable number--it is still far short of Clinton, Romney, and Obama, all of whom have raised well over 20 million.
Although it is still early yet, the rest of the pack among the Republicans have not posted significant success in raising campaign cash. Duncan Hunter, The Liberty Sphere favorite, is coming along, but at this rate he will not have reached that all-important 100 million by Jan. 1 in order to run a competitive campaign.
He is not to be counted out yet, however. Things can change quickly.
The fact remains, however, that a Fred Thompson candidacy has excited many persons who were feeling glum about the prospects for a Republican victory in 2008.
The Liberty Sphere believes that he is the man to watch. Our view is that once Thompson announces his candidacy, he will immediately move to the Number One position in the polls of Republican voters. And at that point, the campaign cash will come rolling in.
Read Novak's interesting analysis here:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/322596,CST-EDT-novak02.article
Monday, February 26, 2007
Democrats Set to Expand 'Hate-Crimes' Legislation
Washington, DC (TLS). Democrats in Congress are set to expand the so-called 'hate crimes' legislation by broadening the definition of what constitutes a hate crime to include unlawful acts against gays. The proposed legislation will more than likely be tied to a bill that would target bias against gays in the workplace.
Certainly any decent American citizen wishes no harm to befall anyone of any stripe in this country. No decent, law-abiding citizen would want to see anyone become the victim of crime or discrimination on the basis of race, color, sexual orientation, or religion. But the question is, do we need yet another federal law that aims to categorize crime as if a so-called 'hate crime' is worse than any other crime? In addition, the legislation that is being proposed does not use the term 'discrimination,' which is against the law anyway. The term is 'bias.' And that, as they say, is a 'whole different ballgame.'
Bias is a subjective term with as many varied definitions as there are people. If, for example, the mainstream news media doesn't even recognize their abject bias in everyday news reporting, then obviously we are not all using the same definition. How do we know, for example, that an employee was passed over for a promotion because he/she was gay? Gay persons may well believe that this is the reason due to something as innocuous as overhearing an employer state his or her opinion on the subject of homosexuality. It never occurs to extremist activists that one can have personal opinions about the behavior of others without that opinion necessarily adversely impacting relationships in the workplace.
It is extremely difficult to prove 'bias.' Thus, the question arises as to why such legislation should even be considered in the first place.
But remember who presently controls Congress. There is the answer.
In addition, it has been nearly a decade since Congress first proposed so-called 'hate crimes legislation,' the result of proposals by the Clinton Administration and its apologists in Congress. When the term was first used to refer only to specific crimes against persons of color, many of us at the time cried foul. What, exactly, makes a hate crime any worse than any other crime?
A case can be made that a significant portion of most crimes committed in this country are the result of some form of hate. The Left exhibits a shockingly noticeable blind spot in this regard with all of today's emphasis on 'understanding the psychological motivation' of those who commit crime. One would think that the psycho-social profiling of criminals that is routinely conducted today would lead advocates of social policy to conclude that not only are violent criminals driven by a highly troubled and traumatic childhood, but that this troubled background also leads to a deep-seated hatred for society in general and individuals in particular who represent for the criminal the source of all that's wrong with the world.
Yet, one never hears the crimes of, say, Ted Bundy, or Jeffrey Dahmer, referred to as 'hate crimes.'
The fact of the matter is that the Left in this country is very selective in what behaviors it considers to be 'hate driven.' Usually the one criterion that is used is the group to which the victim belongs, as in the victim's racial group, or religious group, or, in this case, the homosexual community. Thus, the focus of those who push for the 'hate crime' designation is not at all upon the nature of the crime but the group to which the victim belongs.
This is tantamount to the government compiling a list of 'protected groups,' much as environmentalists within government designate certain animals as part of a 'protected species.' The entire notion would be laughable if it were not so true.
Government has no business deciding that certain groups are so sacred that anytime an individual within that group is the victim of a serious crime it is thus to be viewed as a 'hate crime.' When government engages in this practice it is doing the very thing that supposedly these discrimination and 'anti-bias' laws are supposedly designed to prevent. One group is singled out over another and given extra protection. This means that, at the end of the day, when a Black man or a Muslim male of Middle Eastern descent chases down and runs over white students with a vehicle, such an act is not considered a 'hate crime.'
Yet this act is every bit as driven by hatred as tying a gay man to the back of a pickup truck and dragging him through the rough.
The overall, arching question that occurs to me is, when will all of this end? How many more expanded definitions must Americans endure? What other behaviors will the Left decide to include in the definition of 'hate crime'?
Remember, the very same people who push the concept of 'hate crimes' also gave us the term 'hate speech.' The speech police thus scan the communication habits of Americans to make sure that no one utters one of the dreaded 'hate words' that have come to be demonized in our society, as if real hatred is a matter of speech to begin with.
In fact, a case can be made that individuals and societies who are prevented from venting their deepest truest feelings eventually burst forth in a fury that causes the speech they use to pale in comparison.
With Democrats in control of Congress, it is entirely plausible that someone will think of adding crimes committed with a gun to the definition of 'hate crime.' Thus, using Barack Hussein Obama's logic when he was in the state legislature, if you use a 'banned handgun' to prevent an intruder into your home from murdering you and your family, not only would you be charged with having an illegal weapon but you would be charged with committing a 'hate crime' against a criminal with your weapon.
None of this is logical, my friends, I realize. But, when have these people EVER been logical?
Americans need to simply drop the term 'hate crime' from our vocabulary entirely, and politicians who promote such balderdash should be ashamed of themselves. No violent crime is worse than any other. In fact, in the final analysis, it doesn't even matter as to the 'motivation.' When bodily harm comes to innocent citizens, the motivation is not an issue at all. The issue is catching the perpetrator and making sure he/she pays to the fullest extent of the law.
Certainly any decent American citizen wishes no harm to befall anyone of any stripe in this country. No decent, law-abiding citizen would want to see anyone become the victim of crime or discrimination on the basis of race, color, sexual orientation, or religion. But the question is, do we need yet another federal law that aims to categorize crime as if a so-called 'hate crime' is worse than any other crime? In addition, the legislation that is being proposed does not use the term 'discrimination,' which is against the law anyway. The term is 'bias.' And that, as they say, is a 'whole different ballgame.'
Bias is a subjective term with as many varied definitions as there are people. If, for example, the mainstream news media doesn't even recognize their abject bias in everyday news reporting, then obviously we are not all using the same definition. How do we know, for example, that an employee was passed over for a promotion because he/she was gay? Gay persons may well believe that this is the reason due to something as innocuous as overhearing an employer state his or her opinion on the subject of homosexuality. It never occurs to extremist activists that one can have personal opinions about the behavior of others without that opinion necessarily adversely impacting relationships in the workplace.
It is extremely difficult to prove 'bias.' Thus, the question arises as to why such legislation should even be considered in the first place.
But remember who presently controls Congress. There is the answer.
In addition, it has been nearly a decade since Congress first proposed so-called 'hate crimes legislation,' the result of proposals by the Clinton Administration and its apologists in Congress. When the term was first used to refer only to specific crimes against persons of color, many of us at the time cried foul. What, exactly, makes a hate crime any worse than any other crime?
A case can be made that a significant portion of most crimes committed in this country are the result of some form of hate. The Left exhibits a shockingly noticeable blind spot in this regard with all of today's emphasis on 'understanding the psychological motivation' of those who commit crime. One would think that the psycho-social profiling of criminals that is routinely conducted today would lead advocates of social policy to conclude that not only are violent criminals driven by a highly troubled and traumatic childhood, but that this troubled background also leads to a deep-seated hatred for society in general and individuals in particular who represent for the criminal the source of all that's wrong with the world.
Yet, one never hears the crimes of, say, Ted Bundy, or Jeffrey Dahmer, referred to as 'hate crimes.'
The fact of the matter is that the Left in this country is very selective in what behaviors it considers to be 'hate driven.' Usually the one criterion that is used is the group to which the victim belongs, as in the victim's racial group, or religious group, or, in this case, the homosexual community. Thus, the focus of those who push for the 'hate crime' designation is not at all upon the nature of the crime but the group to which the victim belongs.
This is tantamount to the government compiling a list of 'protected groups,' much as environmentalists within government designate certain animals as part of a 'protected species.' The entire notion would be laughable if it were not so true.
Government has no business deciding that certain groups are so sacred that anytime an individual within that group is the victim of a serious crime it is thus to be viewed as a 'hate crime.' When government engages in this practice it is doing the very thing that supposedly these discrimination and 'anti-bias' laws are supposedly designed to prevent. One group is singled out over another and given extra protection. This means that, at the end of the day, when a Black man or a Muslim male of Middle Eastern descent chases down and runs over white students with a vehicle, such an act is not considered a 'hate crime.'
Yet this act is every bit as driven by hatred as tying a gay man to the back of a pickup truck and dragging him through the rough.
The overall, arching question that occurs to me is, when will all of this end? How many more expanded definitions must Americans endure? What other behaviors will the Left decide to include in the definition of 'hate crime'?
Remember, the very same people who push the concept of 'hate crimes' also gave us the term 'hate speech.' The speech police thus scan the communication habits of Americans to make sure that no one utters one of the dreaded 'hate words' that have come to be demonized in our society, as if real hatred is a matter of speech to begin with.
In fact, a case can be made that individuals and societies who are prevented from venting their deepest truest feelings eventually burst forth in a fury that causes the speech they use to pale in comparison.
With Democrats in control of Congress, it is entirely plausible that someone will think of adding crimes committed with a gun to the definition of 'hate crime.' Thus, using Barack Hussein Obama's logic when he was in the state legislature, if you use a 'banned handgun' to prevent an intruder into your home from murdering you and your family, not only would you be charged with having an illegal weapon but you would be charged with committing a 'hate crime' against a criminal with your weapon.
None of this is logical, my friends, I realize. But, when have these people EVER been logical?
Americans need to simply drop the term 'hate crime' from our vocabulary entirely, and politicians who promote such balderdash should be ashamed of themselves. No violent crime is worse than any other. In fact, in the final analysis, it doesn't even matter as to the 'motivation.' When bodily harm comes to innocent citizens, the motivation is not an issue at all. The issue is catching the perpetrator and making sure he/she pays to the fullest extent of the law.
America's Ever-Lasting Threat
Washington, DC (TLS). In a striking assessment of the danger the U.S. faces in the War on Terror, Kyle Dabruzzi of 'Threats Watch' states that the West is doing less than a satisfactory job of understanding the nature of the enemy we face. While a precious few in government and in the public at large truly understand the gravity of the situation at hand, most politicians and citizens are dangerously and woefully ignorant of the life-and-death prospects of the conflict in which we are engaged.
The first two paragraphs of Dabruzzi's article are found below. Be sure to read the rest by clicking on the link. This is vital information.
America's Ever-Lasting Threat
If America Halts Its War Against Terrorism, Our Enemies Won't Return the Favor
By Kyle Dabruzzi
'In the battle against al-Qaeda and like-minded jihadists, the West is doing a less than satisfactory job of understanding its enemy. There is a line in Sun Tzu’s famous work The Art of War that states: “If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.” Although The Art of War was written in the 6th century BC, its message applies to the battle facing us all today. If the West truly knew its enemy, it might reconsider some of proposed actions relating to the war in Iraq.
'Congress, for example, has begun to make its intentions for the Iraq war, and by association the war on terror, abundantly clear. The war in Iraq is seen as futile and the Senate has introduced legislation indicating that it is not in the best interest of the United States to deepen its military presence in Iraq. Proposed legislation includes Senator Obama’s call for the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq to begin no later than May 1, 2007; with a similar bill introduced in the House. Senator Clinton has gone a step further, calling for troops to start withdrawing from Iraq in 90 days. And we now expect a bill to prevent US forces from engaging in activities other than fighting al-Qaeda, training Iraqi forces and securing the borders of Iraq.'
To get the rest of this MUST-read, click here:
http://commentary.threatswatch.org/2007/02/americas-everlasting-threat/
The first two paragraphs of Dabruzzi's article are found below. Be sure to read the rest by clicking on the link. This is vital information.
America's Ever-Lasting Threat
If America Halts Its War Against Terrorism, Our Enemies Won't Return the Favor
By Kyle Dabruzzi
'In the battle against al-Qaeda and like-minded jihadists, the West is doing a less than satisfactory job of understanding its enemy. There is a line in Sun Tzu’s famous work The Art of War that states: “If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.” Although The Art of War was written in the 6th century BC, its message applies to the battle facing us all today. If the West truly knew its enemy, it might reconsider some of proposed actions relating to the war in Iraq.
'Congress, for example, has begun to make its intentions for the Iraq war, and by association the war on terror, abundantly clear. The war in Iraq is seen as futile and the Senate has introduced legislation indicating that it is not in the best interest of the United States to deepen its military presence in Iraq. Proposed legislation includes Senator Obama’s call for the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq to begin no later than May 1, 2007; with a similar bill introduced in the House. Senator Clinton has gone a step further, calling for troops to start withdrawing from Iraq in 90 days. And we now expect a bill to prevent US forces from engaging in activities other than fighting al-Qaeda, training Iraqi forces and securing the borders of Iraq.'
To get the rest of this MUST-read, click here:
http://commentary.threatswatch.org/2007/02/americas-everlasting-threat/
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Senator Barack Obama Says Troops' Lives 'Wasted'
Washington, DC (TLS). No matter how hard Liberals try to run from their record, their true feelings, their real agenda, and their genuine thoughts about issues, they always seem to find a way to show us what they really are by their 'slips of the tongue.' With John Kerry it was the now infamous faux pas where he suggested that soldiers are dumb. And now, with Senator Barack Hussein Obama, D-Ill., it is stating that the lives of those soldiers who went to Iraq and died were 'wasted.'
Thus, the truth has a way of coming out sooner or later. Obama believes that men and women who enlist in the military and then engage in activity that their country deems to be essential for the survival of liberty are 'wasting their lives.'
And if you die in the midst of battle, yours was a 'wasted life.'
In one simple sentence Obama has desecrated the memory of every single soldier who died on the battlefield for their country. In the world of Barack Hussein Obama, anyone who would make the decision to enter military service and risk dying for liberty is wasting their lives. I would suppose that he would prefer that they go to Harvard or Yale, learn from Leftists how evil America is, and then get a law degree.
What a complete, utter embarrassment to the United States!
Yet this man is the darling of the U.S. news media, Hollywood, and a significant portion of the Democrat Party. This is the man that the Reverend Rick Warren of the Saddleback Community Church in California says is 'definitely Presidential material.'
Sorry, Reverend, but if you would just preach the Gospel rather than sticking your nose into Leftwing politics and getting soiled in the process, then perhaps more of us would pay attention to you. As it now stands, you have lost your credibility by lending your influence and implied endorsement to a man who is a Socialist, a gun-grabber, and a proponent of expanding the powers of government to intrude into our lives.
In the article that you will read below, you will see that Senator Obama is backtracking from his statement and has issued an apology. I believe he is sincere in apologizing for the fact that what he said offended most people. But I do NOT believe for one minute that he is apologizing for his true beliefs. The fact is, he said what he did because he honestly believes that dying on the battlefield amounts to a 'wasted life.'
Not only is this man not fit for the Presidency, but The Liberty Sphere feels he is not fit for the U.S. Senate either.
Read Obama's retraction here:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/254536,CST-NWS-sweet13.article
Thus, the truth has a way of coming out sooner or later. Obama believes that men and women who enlist in the military and then engage in activity that their country deems to be essential for the survival of liberty are 'wasting their lives.'
And if you die in the midst of battle, yours was a 'wasted life.'
In one simple sentence Obama has desecrated the memory of every single soldier who died on the battlefield for their country. In the world of Barack Hussein Obama, anyone who would make the decision to enter military service and risk dying for liberty is wasting their lives. I would suppose that he would prefer that they go to Harvard or Yale, learn from Leftists how evil America is, and then get a law degree.
What a complete, utter embarrassment to the United States!
Yet this man is the darling of the U.S. news media, Hollywood, and a significant portion of the Democrat Party. This is the man that the Reverend Rick Warren of the Saddleback Community Church in California says is 'definitely Presidential material.'
Sorry, Reverend, but if you would just preach the Gospel rather than sticking your nose into Leftwing politics and getting soiled in the process, then perhaps more of us would pay attention to you. As it now stands, you have lost your credibility by lending your influence and implied endorsement to a man who is a Socialist, a gun-grabber, and a proponent of expanding the powers of government to intrude into our lives.
In the article that you will read below, you will see that Senator Obama is backtracking from his statement and has issued an apology. I believe he is sincere in apologizing for the fact that what he said offended most people. But I do NOT believe for one minute that he is apologizing for his true beliefs. The fact is, he said what he did because he honestly believes that dying on the battlefield amounts to a 'wasted life.'
Not only is this man not fit for the Presidency, but The Liberty Sphere feels he is not fit for the U.S. Senate either.
Read Obama's retraction here:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/254536,CST-NWS-sweet13.article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)