Obama's Cowardly New World

A note from Radarsite: According to recent polls we learn that most of the world and almost all of Western Europe would, if they could, enthusiastically cast their vote for Barack Obama for President on the United States. The Europeans love Barack Obama and everything he stands for. But do we Americans really understand what Barack Hussein Obama stands for? Do we Americans really understand the enormity of Obama's grand vision of America's future? Do we truly understand the momentous issues involved in this fateful election?

Do you really want a more European America? A more leftist Socialist America? A more 'cosmopolitan' morally-neutral America that more closely resembles Western Europe, which has moved beyond those simplistic categories of good and evil? Do you really want an American President who embraces the idea of America's guilt and accepts the Western European critique of America's aggressiveness and seeks to restore American "moral standing" in the eyes of the world? An America intent on transferring political legitimacy from nation-states to supranational organizations like the European Union, the UN and the International Criminal Court? Do you really want to embrace the concept that the most dangerous nations in the world today are the Unitied States and Israel? Is it to be European appeasement or American exceptionalism? And finally, to appease the appeasers will you be willing to abandon our stalwart ally Israel to the mercies of the Arab 'anti-Israel resistance fighters'?

Could you really be this misguided or disinterested in our future? In less than two days you will have to answer these grave questions. Please read this fine article below from the Jerusalem Post to better understand the importance of your answers. - rg

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Think Again: The end of the special relationship?
From the Jerusalem Post
By JONATHAN ROSENBLUM


For those inclined to see the workings of divine providence in human history, the special affinity of the American people for Israel provides a happy example. If Israel could have only one consistent ally in the world, it would surely have picked the world's (still) most powerful nation. Without the United States, Israel would be hard pressed to obtain the weapons needed to defend itself.

American popular support for Israel has many sources. The first is historical. The Puritan founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony self-consciously modeled themselves on the ancient Hebrews and styled themselves as the New Israel. The Hebrew Bible provided their guidance. All the early presidents of Yale were Hebraists, and the college's insignia was patterned on the urim vetumim worn by the high priest.

To this day, Americans remain by far the most religious people in the Western world. Seventy million American Evangelicals constitute Israel's most ardent supporters. Americans have always tended to be jealous of their sovereignty and willing to defend themselves against any threat to their liberty. The state motto of New Hampshire, "Live free or die," captures that spirit. As such, they admire Israel's doughty self-defense against far more numerous enemies.

In Western terms, America is a center-right country. A major aspect of the American exceptionalism discussed by historians is its failure to develop a class-based political movement. That too has strengthened the bonds to Israel. Among American liberals, who tend to see the world in terms of victims and oppressors, 59 percent view the Palestinians more or equally sympathetically (according to a 2002 Gallup poll). Among conservatives, whose focus is on particular values and the determination to defend them, 59% view Israel more favorably.

The presence in America of the world's largest Jewish community - a community that is both wealthy and politically active - has also shored up American support for Israel. (That community, however, is diminishing both in numbers and concern with Israel; many of the most active supporters of Israel in Congress come from states with few Jews.)

Belief in American exceptionalism, its chosenness, has always played a major role in American civic religion. The two dominant conceptions of American foreign policy - isolationism and liberal internationalism - are both predicated upon an assumption of American moral superiority. Isolationists fear contamination from the "foreign entanglements," of which president George Washington warned in his farewell address. Liberal internationalists seek to remake the world in America's image.

Sen. Barack Obama represents a third foreign policy approach - what Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington calls the "cosmopolitan." Far from taking American virtue as its starting point, the cosmopolitan seeks to remake America in Europe's image.

Thus Obama presented himself to Europeans last summer as a citizen of the world, one of them. "Mr. Obama," in the words of Fouad Ajami, "proceeds from the notion of American guilt. 'We called up the furies...'" He accepts the Western European critique of America's aggressiveness and seeks to restore American "moral standing" in the eyes of the world.

He shares the Europeans' contempt for the terminology of good and evil: "A lot of evil's been perpetuated based on the claim that we were fighting evil," he says. If his heart thrilled at the sight of Iraqis twice braving suicide bombers to go the polls, he kept it to himself. The war in Iraq, in his view, was nothing more than a "cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors... to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the cost in lives lost and in hardships borne."

And he expresses understanding for the grievances of the perpetrators of evil - Hamas, Hizbullah, even the perpetrators of 9/11, which he characteristically portrayed as part of "an underlying struggle between worlds of plenty and worlds of want" (despite the affluent backgrounds of the attackers). He voted against a Senate bill to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Obama's most fervent support has come from the university campuses and cultural elites - where attitudes tend most to resemble those of Western Europeans, and where scorn for those who "cling to guns or religion" runs rampant. These campuses also happen to be the redoubts of the greatest hostility to Israel.

AN AMERICA that more closely resembles Western Europe will not be good for Israel. Western Europeans consistently deem Israel the greatest threat to world peace. And they are remarkably cavalier about Israel's defense of its own existence. Recent memory does not include any Israeli response to attack that the Europeans did not deem disproportionate. The Western European countries have done little to prevent the United Nations from degenerating into an anti-Israel debating society, and a number have supported or abstained on UN Human Rights Council resolutions supportive of anti-Israel "resistance" - i.e. terrorism.

Many commonly held attitudes predispose Europeans against Israel. Western Europe is far along a project of transferring political legitimacy from nation-states to supranational organizations like the European Union, the UN and the International Criminal Court. Having achieved their nation-state rather late in the day, the Jews of Israel remain proud of it. To the Europeans, however, a non-Muslim state based on national/religious identity seems an atavism.Western Europe's almost religious faith in international institutions of open membership, like the UN, and a declining concern with national sovereignty threaten Israel. International criminal jurisdiction has already rendered Israeli military personnel wary of traveling abroad. Obama frequently demonstrates a similar reverence for the UN, and has a long list of international treaty obligations to which he is eager to submit the US.


Europe has adopted a stance of appeasement toward both external threats and to Islamic minorities within. (Ironically, the US, which offers no special dispensation to Muslims, has done a far better job of integrating Muslim immigrants than European countries.) Europeans' abhorrence of any resort to military action causes them to instinctively recoil from Israel, the superior military power in the region.

Having moved beyond simplistic categories of good and evil, Europeans try to take, at best, an even-handed approach to any conflict, invariably warning, for instance, against a "cycle of violence" whenever Israel responds to attack. Obama's immediate call for "mutual restraint" after the Russian invasion of Georgia was a classic example of that tendency.

Worse, European sophistication favors whichever party can present itself as the aggrieved underdog, or serves to mask an ugly cynicism, as in the recent multibillion-dollar deals signed by Austrian and Swiss energy companies with Iran.

To the extent that Obama's likely election betokens a move toward a more European America, the special ties that have bound the people of America and Israel show signs of fraying.

Sphere: Related Content

Community Organizing: Seizing Power, Creating Socialism

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

[transcription of above] Our final goal is the destruction of imperialism, the seizure of power, and the creation of socialism. Our strategy for this stage of the struggle is to organize the oppressed people of the imperial nation itself to join the colonies in the attack on imperialism. The process of attacking and weakening imperialism involves defeat of all kinds of national chauvinism and arrogance; this precondition to our fight for socialism.

The above from Prairie Fire - written by William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn

Zomblog has copies of a rare Weather Underground newspaper known as Osawatomie. Published in 1975 as William Ayers and Bernardine Dohn were hiding from authorities, and as Zomblog put it:

"transitioning from terrorism..."

to inside work for the revolution...what we now know was a plan to overthrow the government of the United States, tells us what community organizing is all about, and it's all about the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis.

If you are beyond weary of hearing about William Ayers' connection to Barack Obama, Zomblog makes THE point, and I'll use it here, because it cannot be said better:

Ayers was not simply protesting "against" the Vietnam War. Firstly, he wasn't against war in principle, he was agitating for the victory of the communist forces in Vietnam. In other words: He wasn't against the war, he was against our side in the war. This is spelled out in great detail in Prairie Fire. Secondly, and more significantly, the Vietnam War was only one of many issues cited by the Weather Undergound as the justifications for their violent acts. As you will see below, in various quotes from Prairie Fire and in their own list of their violent actions (and in additional impartial documentary links), Ayers and the Weather Underground enumerated dozens of different grievances as the rationales for their bombings -- their overarching goal being to inspire a violent mass uprising against the United States government in order to establish a communist "dictatorship of the proletariat," in Ayers' own words.

The plan was to overturn the government by "creativity and AUDACITY."
The following from Osawatomie:

[transcript]… the system itself is inhuman, and socialism is a real alternative; the energy crisis is the fault of Rockefeller and the oil companies, not the Arab people; unemployment is caused by capitalism not “illegal aliens” stealing jobs; war in Indochina or the Mideast is part of the problem, not the solution; political and social action can change things.

[transcript of above] Organizers must be intimately aware of every problem and each injustice, and they must show that underneath each particular problem lies another problem, and another and another until you reach the system of imperialism itself. The system is designed to create problems for poor, Third World and working-class people. Organizers need to find small solutions to small problems and great solutions to great problems. Our solutions should be drastic.

We need to build a successful struggle, strong organization and a winning revolutionary party. This is a process, which will not emerge full-blown from our minds. It will emerge and change and grow from practice. We know where to begin.

It is with all this in mind that we have created OSAWATOMIE, the revolutionary voice of the Weather Underground Organization.

The following from Ayers and Dohrn's book, Prairie Fire (more at Zomblog):

William Ayers is a communist. But don't take my word for it. He said so himself:

[transcript of above] We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years.

[Zomblog] And not some nicey-nice peace-and-love kind of communist. Through his group the Weather Underground, Ayers was planning to "seize power" in a violent communist takeover of the United States:

[transcript of above] We need a revolutionary communist praty in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build the new society.

Manufactured Crisis:

[transcript of above] Our job is to tap the discontent seething in many sectors of the population, to find allies everywhere people are hungry or angry, to mobilize poor and working people against imperialism.

You've heard by now that Prarie Fire was dedicated to U.S. "political prisoners,"...one of those deemed a "political prisoner" is Sirhan Sirhan - the murderer of Robert F. Kennedy. Here it is, scanned directly from the book:

Visit Zombietime.com for more.

Sphere: Related Content

Myth vs Fact

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.9.16 O9.16: Truces (O: As for truces, the author does not mention them. In Sacred Law truce means a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam, involving a cessation of fighting for a specified period, whether for payment or something else. The scriptural basis for them includes such Koranic verses as: -1- "An acquittal from Allah and His messenger..." (Koran 9:1); -2- "If they incline towards peace, then incline towards it also" (Koran 8.61); as well as the truce which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made Quraysh in the year of Hudaybiya, as related by Bukhari and Muslim. Truces are permissible, not obligatory. The only one who may effect a truce is the Muslim ruler of a region (or his representative) with a segment of the non-Muslims of the region, or the caliph (o25) (or his representative). When made with other than a portion of the non-Muslims, or when made with all of them, or with all in a particular region such as India or Asia Minor, then only the caliph (or his representative) may effect it, for it is a matter of the gravest consequence whether globally or in a given locality, and our interests must be looked after therein, which is why it is best left to the caliph under any circumstances, or to someone he delegates to see to the interests of the various regions. There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo. Allah Most High says, "So do not be faint-hearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost" (Koran 47:35). Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of members or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce in the year Mecca was liberated with Safwan ibn Umayya for four months in hope that he would become Muslim, and he entered Islam before its time was up. If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years. The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax (def: o11); namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be done to non-Muslims until it expires.)
Tafsir	The Command to Facilitate Peace when the Enemy seeks a Peaceful Resolution Publicizing the Disavowal of the Idolators Nullifying the Disbelievers' Deeds and the Command to chase Them

Sphere: Related Content

Arizona's Ballot Propositions--Statewide Only

I'm swiping an idea from Eric over at The Tygrrrr Express who just published the California Propositions. It seems like a GREAT idea to publish my state's propositions so they're all in one spot and people can review them. CAVEAT: I will emphasize key words in each proposition and explain what a "yes" or "no" vote means on each. How you choose to vote is YOUR CHOICE--as long as you get out and VOTE!

Proposition 100
Official Title: Proposing an Amendment to Article IX of the Arizona Constitution by Adding a New Section 24 Relating to a Prohibition of Any New Real Property Sale or Transfer Tax in Arizona.

Descriptive Title: Prohibits State, County, City, Town, Municipal or Other State Political Subdivision From Imposing Any New Tax, Fee, or Other Assessment On the Sale, Purchase, Transfer or Other Conveyance of Any Interest in Real Estate After December 31, 2007/

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of prohibiting any new tax, fee, or other assessment on the sale, purchase or other conveyance of real estate after December 31, 2007.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law, which allows taxes on the sale or transfer of real estate.

Simply put, this proposition is meant to stop the imposition of additional taxes on the homeowner, in particular a "transfer tax" when the property is bought/sold. If passed, it will put a stop to a double taxation situation wherein you're taxed on the sale/purchase of a property, as well as paying the property tax.

********************

Proposition 101
Official Title: Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article II of the Arizona Constitution by Adding Section 26 of Article II; Relating to Freedom of Choice in Health Care.

Descriptive Title: PROHIBITS (this is a biggie key word here folks, read this CAREFULLY) Laws That: Restrict Person's Choice of Private Health Care Systems or Private Plans; Interfere With Person's or Entity's Right to Pay Directly for Lawful Medical Services; Impose a Penalty or Fine for Choosing to Obtain or Decline Health Care Coverage or For Participation in Any Health Care System or Plan.

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of prohibiting laws that restrict a person's choice of private health care systems or private plans, interfere with a person or an entity's right to pay for lawful medical services and impose a penalty or fine for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any health care system or plan.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding a person or entity's health care choices.

Simply put--this is a two-fold law. On the one hand, the current law apparently has the right to penalize a person for choosing their own health care. This proposition seeks to overturn that restriction and make it illegal--constitutionally--to penalize a person for choosing and paying for their own health care rather than being told who they can see or what services they can pay for. It is essentially a first strike proposal which helps YOU retain who YOU want to provide your medical services rather than the state or any other entity telling you who you HAVE to utilize. It also keeps you from being penalized for exercising your choice for your care.

********************

Proposition 102
Official Title: Senate Concurrent Resolution 1042 - Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending the Constitution, by adding Article 30; Relating to Marriage

Descriptive Title: Defines That Only a Union of One Man and One Woman Shall be Valid or Recognized as a Marriage in This State.

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, while maintaining the current statutory law of the State of Arizona, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current statutory law of the State of Arizona, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex, but would not amend the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Simply put, same sex marriage is currently illegal in Arizona; however, it is not a part of the state Constitution. This proposal would make that law a Constitional Amendment and thereby protect it from depredations such as we've seen in California, Vermont and Massachusetts. It is worth noting the people of Arizona have consistently voted to keep the current law as the law.

********************

Proposition 105
Official Title: Majority Rule-Let the People Decide Act-Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article IV, Part 1, Constitution of Arizona, by Adding Section 1.1 Relating to Initiative Measures and Requiring That Any Mandatory Tax or Spending Increase be Enacted by a Majority of Qualified Electors (more key words here folks).

Descriptive Title: Requires an Initiative Measure That Establishes, Imposes or Raises a Tax, Fee or Other Revenue, or Mandates a Spending Obligation, Whether on a Private Person, Labor Organization, Other Private Legal Entity or State, Shall Not Become Law Unless the Measure is Approved by a Majority of Qualified Electors Registered to Vote.

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of requiring that a majority of registered voters approve any initiative measure establishing, imposing or raising a tax, fee, or other revenue, or mandating a spending obligation, whether on a private person, labor organization, other private legal entity, or the state, in order to become law.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law under which an initiative measure is enacted upon approval of a majority of registered voters that vote on the measure.

Simply put, this is worded in such a way as to take away your privilege to vote on a measure. It would take the power of the voters out of the hands of the voters on monetary issues and put it in the hands of the government wherein only the government has a say on what taxes can be imposed. "Electors" herein is meant to be representative in the same manner as "Electors" in a presidential race. If you want to retain control over your money and your taxes and what you're charged, a "no" vote is the only vote.

********************

Proposition 200
Official Title: Payday Loan Reform Act

Descriptive Title: Extends Payday Licensing Program Indefinitely; Allows Electronic Debit Agreements; Prohibits Services Over 35 Days; Requires English or Spanish Agreements; Prohibits Certain Fees; Requires Payment Plan if Requested; Prohibits Arrangements With Customers Having Outstanding Repayment Plans; Allows Licensee to Make Other Loans; Requires Licensee to Maintain Minimum and Maximum Net Worth.

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of repealing the July 1, 2010 termination date for the existing "payday loan" licensing program thus allowing it to continue indefinitely, allowing payday loan licenses to provide electronic debit agreement services, prohibiting services over 35 days, requiring payday loan agreements be in English or Spanish, prohibiting certain fees, permitting only one payday loan transaction with a customer each business day, requiring a payment plan if requested by the customer, prohibiting arrangements with customers having outstanding repayment plans, allowing licensees to make other loans and requiring licensee applicants to maintain a minimum net worth of at least $50,000 per location up to a maximum of $1,000,000.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding payday loans, which are to terminate July 1, 2010.

Simply put, this is designed to halt the abuse of payday loans by customers and the abuse of customers by payday loan outlets. It requires more flexibility for loan repayment and prohibits usurious interest rates. Unfortunately, it also panders to the illegals who refuse to learn English, as well.

********************

Proposition 201
Official Title: Homeowner's Bill of Rights

Descriptive Title: Allows Prospective Dwelling Buyer Lawsuit; Permitting Lawsuits Despite Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreements; Prohibits Seller Attorney Fees; Shortens Notice and Response Time; Requires Seller Inspection and Licensed Contractor; Requires Seller Contract Provide 10-Year Warranty; Seller Must Disclose Conflicts; Gives Buyer Cancellation Rights; Expands Time to File Improvements Suit; Expands Purchaser Remedies.

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of granting "prospective buyers" a right to sue over a dwelling action, permitting lawsuits despite alternative dispute resolution provisions in sales contracts, shortening buyer purchaser notice and seller response period before and after filing defects lawsuit, requiring seller to inspect dwelling after receiving notice, requiring any seller offer to include repair or replacement option that must be performed by a licensed contractor, eliminating seller right to receive attorney fees and costs if the seller prevails, mandating seller to provide ten year warranty of materials and workmanship,requiring newly constructed dwelling contract to include disclosure of seller's financial relationship with a financial institution, disallowing seller from requiring a buyer deposit unless contract allows 100 day cancellation period, extending from eight to ten years the time to file suit against any person making improvements to the real property, and expanding remedies available to an owner who is successful in a dwelling action against the seller.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding purchaser dwelling actions.

Simply put, this is designed to take away all choice a homeowner may have as to who they hire to make any repairs/improvements to their home. At such time as the homeowner decides to sell their home, it puts extraordinary burdens on them prior to sale. It will have an impact on current home sales as well as new home sales. It also allows people who DO NOT BUY the home to sue the homeowner as if they had indeed purchased the home. It leaves a homeowner wishing to sell their home completely vulnerable with no recourse while the buyer or alleged buyer has all recourse.

********************

Proposition 202
Official Title: Amending Title 13, Chapter 20, Arizona Revised Statutes, by Amending Sections 13-2008, 13-2009 and 13-2010; and Amending Title 23, Chapter 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, by Amending Sections 23-211, 23-212, 23-213 and 23-214 and Adding Section 23-215.

Descriptive Title: Modifies Laws (more of those code words people--pay attention!) That Suspend or Revoke Business Licenses for Employers Who Knowingly or Intentionally Employ an Unauthorized Alien; Increases Penalties on Identity Theft Related to Employment; Adds Fines on Employers Who Pay Improperly Reported Cash Wages; Establishes Presumption Favoring Employer That Verifies Employee Eligibility Under Federal Law.

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of modifying the laws covering employers who knowingly or intentionally employ "unauthorized aliens," suspending or revoking licenses of businesses that employ unauthorized aliens, adding penalties on employers who fail to properly report cash wages, increasing penalties for identity theft related to employment and establishing a presumption favoring an employer that verifies employee eligibility under federal law.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of retaining Arizona's current employment laws that suspend or revoke business licenses for employers who knowingly or intentionally employ an unauthorized alien.

Simply put, a yes vote undermines the current employer sanctions law, a law voted in by the people. This one is written to be purposely misleading, hoping to revoke a law already on the books, and which has been challenged repeatedly in court. Such challenges have been driven back and the law stands. Now, the intent by the border lobby groups, is to trick you, the voter, into repealing the law you already voted in by using such misleading wording.

********************

Proposition 300
Descriptive Title: Provides for an Increase in the Salaries of State Legislators From $24,000 to $30,000 Per Year.

"Shall the Recommendation of the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers Concerning Legislative Salaries be Accepted?" Yes/No

Recommendations, if Approved by the Electors, Shall Become Effective at the Beginning of the Next Regular Legislative Session Without Any Other Authorizing Legislation.

Current Salary - $24,000

Proposed Salary - $30,000

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of raising State Legislators' salaries to $30,000 per year.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of keeping State Legislators' salaries at $24,000 per year.

Simply put, do we give the bums a raise or not?

********************

Those are the statewide propositions on this year's ballot for Arizona. Mark your ballots carefully. Think before you write. Above all, VOTE!

Sphere: Related Content

I'd rather be in my hell than your "heaven."

A young second-generation Egyptian-American recently demanded that a blogger-friend of mine apologize to him, and to his father, because of something she’d written on her blog. She had re-published (from public records) a partial list of just the “Letter A” section of the donors to the Obama campaign with Muslim names and his father was on the list, along with a very large number of others disproportional to the Muslim-American demographics. He said he and his father were proud Obama supporters, so he was proud to be included on the list, but went on to explain that he was outraged and offended by what he assumed were her reasons for publishing such a list.

During the course of my online conversation with him as he simultaneously espoused the virtues and superiority of the religion of peace and demanded apologies from my friend and me for our apparent lack of sensitivity, I realized something. On one hand, this young Egyptian-American enjoyed the clout that being indirectly associated with such a powerful group as Islamic jihad gave him, but on the other hand, he wore that clout like a chip on his shoulder, daring anyone to knock it off. I also realized I’d seen this type of doublespeak before.

Many years ago, I had an Italian sister-in-law. She was one of my favorite in-laws, actually, as we had a lot in common, and normally got along very well, but I recalled a very strange and awkward conversation we’d had in the beginning of our relationship, in which this woman had misinterpreted something I’d said (I never did quite figure out what it was I’d said), but she apparently thought I had insinuated that she was “connected” to the Italian mafia, and had become very offended.

Well, at the time, we were living in upstate New York, no where near any large cities. I had lived in Las Vegas during the 1970’s, when the Italian mafia was very active there, so I was familiar with who they were, but this was the late ‘90’s, and I hadn’t really thought about them in years. I discretely inquired of my other in-laws as to why my sister-in-law was so sensitive about this…Was the mob active in our area? Did she have relatives that were active in the mafia? They just rolled their eyes, and explained no, they didn’t think so, and that they didn’t know why she acted like that from time to time. After I’d met more of her family and friends, I began to realize that a few of them, like the Egyptian-American I met recently, liked the social “power” that it gave them to make people think that they just might be “connected,” yet it gave them a different kind of social power to, at the same time, feign offense, and effectively play the “race card,” when anyone brought the subject up (even by accident).

We are seeing this same doublespeak phenomenon, right now, in the political arena, as the Obama-Biden campaign is enjoying the benefits of touting the socialist ideals of social justice and wealth redistribution to garner votes from the poorer members of our society, and financial support from international leftists. Yet, they are also enjoying the social power that being able to call anyone a “racist,” who dares to use the “S” word gives them in the media.

Regardless of who wins this election, and becomes our President in January (or whenever they get through with all the re-counts), we are going to be fighting a war of words. To win this war, we are going to need to be able to accurately identify and describe the various “ministries of truth” that have made great advancements online, in our government, in international government, and in commerce.

Corporate employees have been fighting this war of words for a long time in the United States. The word “diversity,” used to pertain to financial assets and to agriculture, but now it’s applied to human beings, and has come to mean giving preferential treatment to designated minority groups. Our Founding Fathers struggled with the idea of “religious tolerance,” but generally applied it when refraining from killing someone regardless of how warped you thought his ideas were. Now, religious tolerance has come to mean that you will “embrace” the diversity doctrine and the values of every minority group, or you will be unemployed and ostracized.

Christians have also been fighting this war of words for a long time. Our adversaries have tried to use misinterpretations of our scriptures to try to control us. For example, they’ll mockingly ask “Isn’t it a sin to ‘judge’ people?” as they try to play on our fear of hell – and of disappointing our Creator – for the advancement of their own Marxist, political-correctness agendas.

In this war of words, and in this world of doublespeak, those of us who love individual freedom are going to have to summon the courage to resist. We have reached the time that the apostle Paul talked about when he wrote to the Church at Ephesus, “Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.” It won’t be easy, and there is no doubt that some of us will face persecution.

At times, it will seem like it would be easier to just give in, and go with the flow. But folks, I’ve taken a look at what the enemies of liberty have to offer. The so-called “heaven” promised to the jihadis does not entice me. The soulless, lifeless void of communism has nothing to offer me. I have news for them. Yes, I’m a Christian, and yes, I love God, and I’m planning to spend eternity with Him, but frankly I’d be better off in my hell than in the so-called “heaven” that any of them are offering.

Those of us who have known and loved freedom know what we’re fighting for, and we know it’s worth it. Freedom is worth it. America is worth it. And we can win – Together, and with God on our side, we can win.

I believe, as King David said in the Psalms, that God will confound and put to shame those that seek to kill the soul of America, and He will cause them to be tangled in the very traps that they laid for the destruction of our nation. Our Founders, who were preparing for a battle that was different in nature, but just as serious wrote, “…With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

So, as Todd Beamer, before he sacrificed his life in helping stop terrorists from most likely destroying our nation’s capitol, said, “Are you guys ready? Let’s roll!”


(The above speech was given during the first 20 minutes of the second half of the Rally for the Conservative Cause on Blog Talk Radio - The link is below). For the first half of the Rally, click here.

 

Sphere: Related Content