‘Peace-loving’ Muslims (if there are any) are irrelevant

There are two dangers facing the United States; one is a slow death and the other is faster.Under President Obama the country is losing its Constitution which is either ignored or revised by a Democrat controlled congress and the White House which should be repainted pink.

Around the world Islam is making headway and left unchecked will become the world religion (and I use the word "religion" loosely). Muslims are required by their holy book, the Koran, to eliminate everyone who doesn’t subscribe to Islam. The Islamic army comprises radical terrorists, also known as Jihadists, and those not yet terrorists. Past U.S. presidents at least recognized the threat posed by Jihadists and that they were Muslims. However President Obama, a one-time Muslim himself, apologizes for American action against Islamic terrorists and minimizes the danger of Islam.

In Obama’s speech on his Afghanistan strategy a few weeks ago he said in reference to Islamic terrorists, "As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda — a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents."

Obama would have us believe that "a group of extremists" are the only terrorists slaughtering innocents but the truth is they are not a "small" group and they are not all members of al Qaeda. Poll after poll shows that at least 10% of Muslims favor terrorist actions; since there are 1.5 billion Muslims, there are at least about 150 million Muslims who are actual or potential murders. Yet the world takes no action to protect against the future Islamic takeover by both violence and the womb. The situation is analogous to what happened in Germany as the NAZI rose to power and implemented their horrifying goals.

It has been reported that a German (believed to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist) wrote the following:

"A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

Americans are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although there may be some truth in this at the moment, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics killing people across the globe in the name of Islam.

"The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers."

"The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous."

The same phenomenon where "peace-loving" people kept silent while a violent minority took over occurred in Russia, China and Japan.

In communist Russia most Russians just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. Most of China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not warmongering but Japanese murdered and systematically slaughtered 12 million Chinese killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet and still more across South East Asia.

Peace-loving Russians and Japanese were made irrelevant by their silence; and so do the Muslims.

In today’s world so-called "peace-loving Muslims" will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like the man from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them; and all of us will suffer for their silence.

Around the world peace-loving people who are in the majority must speak up against there fanatics before it’s too late to do any good. Like in Germany, they may find themselves, along with the rest of us, living under a regime like the NAZI who came to power as a minority.

The rest of us should not rely on an awakening by peace-loving Muslims to stifle the Islamic jihads threat. Unlike Obama we must identify the threat as Islam and do everything in our power to keep Muslims from over riding freedom and liberty we enjoy through our Constitution in the United States.

History lessons are often incredibly simple yet we are missing the most basic and uncomplicated of point, we cannot rely on others to protect us.

　

Leaving the US - why and why not?

After the Bolsheviks took over Russia, many who lived there before were able to compare life before and after the Communist take-over. It became readily apparent that they had gone from the proverbial frying pan into the fire. However subsequent generations, having nothing to compare, had no idea what life could be under some other kind of government and simply accepted the regime as a way of life. Is this what will happen in the United States?

As we experience the "perfect storm" of leftist control of the government and the country, Americans stand to see our traditional way of life deteriorating under our very nose. Those of us who experienced life under less government control of our lives are outraged and oppose the direction of the Obama government and allies in congress led by Speaker Pelosi in the House and Senator Reid in the Senate. Clearly the views and beliefs of the people who are opposed to current Executive and Congressional action are not being represented in our so-called representative republican form of government. Sadly, our representatives choose to establish their agenda and care not if the public opposes the agenda. The leftist mantra is "if not now, then when?"

If successful, and there is presently no reason to expect otherwise, the total transformation of our country with less individual rights and freedom and more government control of our lives than ever envisioned by country's founders, is a virtual certainty.

In the years following the creation of the United States citizens would not tolerate any such transformation and would object at all costs. The inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights is no accident; it was provided as a mechanism for the public to resist a take-over of constitutionally guaranteed rights by the federal government. It is a sad commentary on the evolution of our country that this form of patriotism has been replaced largely by apathy except for remaining patriots such as comprise the Tea Party members.

The federal government now possesses enormous power. The third branch of government, the judiciary, was to function as a check on the other branches but has not; instead, it has assisted the congressional and executive branches to expand their governmental roles by usurping the authority "not granted to the [national] government and reserved to the respective states and to the people." The consequence of current federal government power is the practical inability of Americans resist transformation by means other than the ballot box and this will likely prove insufficient to undo leftists' achievements.

If you doubt a transformation of our country is underway, consider what President Obama and the Democrats have done.

Obama has amazingly managed to convince millions of Americans that "black is white, that cold is hot, that the bad economy is the fault of George W Bush, and the only things standing between America and peace on earth are those darn Republicans and greedy capitalists." (Nancy Morgan)

Thomas Sowell, one of the best writers today, has pointed in "Is Reality Optional?"
"… social history in the last 30 years has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good. And no-where is this more evident than in the 'change' Obama is foisting on the American people."

The empty rhetoric of 'social justice' and 'compassion' is convincingly and successfully being used to justify ever more ludicrous social policies, which just happen to come with a huge price tag and more government control - all outside the Constitution.

Failure of these policies has not prevented Obama and Democrats from advocating more and more of the same policies. Dr. Sowell points out, "The anointed are often wrong but never in doubt."

For another example, though 80% of Americans are happy with their health insurance, Obama has declared a health care crisis. Obama and congress have devoted most of the year to try to impose government run health care on all citizens, despite the fact that 61% of Americans oppose it.

Similarly, despite convincing evidence undermining the dire claims of global warming and the falsification of data to support the bogus claim of man-made climate change, Obama and Democrats continue to ignore relevant science and insist that a massive redistribution of our wealth is needed in order to pay an imagined 'climate debt' to third world countries. Meanwhile, record unemployment and rising fees and taxes continue to devastate businesses and families across the nation. Only federal workers, who just got a 2% pay raise, are immune to unemployment because the government does not have to make a profit to exist and in the process severely undermines the rule of law and ignores the limitations imposed by our Constitution.

Excessive spending, such as record debt of over $14 trillion and a record $12 trillion dollars budget, is the result of evading the role of government as prescribed by the Constitution.

The policies of Obama and Democrats are destroying the dollar and bankrupting America. Moody's has issued a warning that our country's triple A rating is in danger and Obama is in the process of ceding American sovereignty to world bodies like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.

Once again, Thomas Sowell says it best: "We may be entering an era where the greatest dangers to the survival of Western civilization will come from internal social deterioration. Other great civilizations have declined and collapsed. We may be the first, however, to sink slowly into the quagmire, still beaming from ear to ear in self-congratulation at how 'innovative' we are in our social policies."

Obama is a dangerous man. He has convinced millions of Americans that they are entitled to the fruits of another's labor. "Virtually all of his policies to date have been designed to foster a dependence on government. But what the government gives, the government can take. As millions of enslaved peoples across the globe could attest - if they were allowed." (Marilyn Morgan)

The result of all this is that some people are considering leaving the United States. Ironically those who are considering such extreme actions likely comprise the strongest patriots because they are the ones who feel the most love of country but can't abide the destruction of the country they care about is being forced to take. Since remaining in the United States not only exposes them to life under the transformed government, it becomes frustrating to be unable to return to the type of government that the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, James Monroe and the others who risked life, limb and fortune to create.

So what to do - leave the United States - why not?

Leaving the US – why and why not?

OIL - you better sit down

Obama uses tax payer money to destroy the free market

America became a great country by letting its people be all they can be without interference from government. In just less than a year all this has changed. We have seen the government dictate everything from toilets to light bulbs and take ownership interests in private enterprises in major segments of our economy. The formerly largest auto company has been taken over by the government and major banks now have the government sitting on their boards. The free market is no longer free and government expansionists are not through yet. We are looking at the one-fifth of our economy in the form our health industry becoming under the control of those running the government and under the guise of controlling alleged pollution virtually all the remaining remnants of the free market will be subject to bureaucratic regulation.

How did this happen and how does the government take over our lives? The answer is simple, with our own money – money earned under what once was a free market system and confiscated by tax laws.

Since the 1930’s under four-term President Franklin D. Roosevelt the government has spread tax money around beyond its constitutional role and infiltrated state governments and private enterprise. Under current President Barack Obama and with the aid of a virulent uncontrolled congress, government expansion has grown like an atomic mushroom cloud. By distributing tax payer money, often without being asked by recipients, the government has used this largesse as reason enough to dictate what those getting the money may or may not do.

Historically private enterprise has answered for the most part only to its owners, whether privately or publicly owned. However today we see and largely accept that if tax payer money finds its way into free enterprise in what should be a free market, the government which distributes the money can say how the business can be run, even to the point of dictating salaries and employee compensation.

There is much hysteria generated by government bureaucrats, the executive and legislative branches of government, broadcast by a sympathetic news media, who ask the question “how dare they pay executives (and others) huge salaries and bonuses when the government ‘bailed’ them out?” It seems that if money is given to a business, it has the right to become involved with how the business spends its money. There is virtually no publicly stated opposition to this idea even though the premise can be used to justify government intervention in almost all aspects of our lives – that the government has not as yet gone this far is only because those in charge have not thought of it, for now.

Let’s just see what could be done if we accept the idea that not only big business can be put under the government thumb but anything and anyone else that benefits from something the government does “for them.”

Money deposited in banks is insured by the FDIC, does this mean the government can tell the depositor how the insured money can be used?

Many students take out loans for their education. The government has recently decided that such loans must be given by the government and not privately owned banks (if there are any left). Can the government say what course of study the student borrower can have?

Home mortgages are often obtained directly or indirectly from the government or insured by government controlled agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why can’t the government use this link to approve or disapprove a buyer’s purchase selection or what the home owner wants to do with the house?

Government money finds its way into schools by one means or another and actually has enabled the government to dictate curricula and what students may eat at the school and what food may be served in government sponsored school lunches. As a result we see all manner of propaganda imposed on school children from programs praising the president to aggrandizing homosexuality. Private home schooling is discouraged because it is free from government control.

The federal government gives money to states and can then dictate speed limits (remember the 55 mph national speed limit) and all manner of rules and regulations which absent government money would be under the control of elected state officials.

The authority of the federal government of the United States is limited by the Constitution, intentionally, to prevent the government from taking over freedom and liberty; at least that’s how it supposed to work. But as you see tax payer money can be used by the government to extend its reach well beyond what the Constitution intended.

During the ten months or so Barack Obama has been president an enormous amount of money has been distributed to what had been publicly owned companies usually operated by company officers overseen by a board of directors on behalf of the owners, i.e. shareholders. This is how free enterprise works in a free market system but under the “hope and change” promised by Obama there is no boundary for the government.

Obama declared multiple crises and used the fear generated to invigorate dormant leftists members of congress to transform America into a socialist/Marxist society which has been their goal for years. The irony is that they did this with tax payer money for as long as it lasted and then with the printing presses in the Treasury Department under orders from the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank.

With the aid, if not direction, of the Federal Reserve Bank leadership, billions and billions of dollars were given to businesses and banks under the guise of helping them out to avoid private bankruptcy and the financial disruption that would cause - even to banks who did not want government help. In return for this infusion of tax payer money, the government received ownership interests in the businesses receiving the government “bailout” money. With virtually no opposition, or much knowledge of the public, the federal government wound up with 60% ownership of General Motors; 35% of GMAC; 35% of Citigroup and 10% of Chrysler. The Obama administration used the rubric of the peoples’ money given to businesses to dictate not only how the businesses and banks are to operate, but what compensation can be made to company employees. One of Obama’s “Czars” went so far as to require compensation reductions of as much as 90%.

Let’s ask those business leaders and unemployed who supported Obama’s election – how is that hope and change working out for you?

The UN Human Rights Council's Goldstone report rewards terrorism

For eight years, while Hamas indiscriminately shelled Israeli civilians with rockets provided by Iran, the UN stood did and said nothing. Only when Israel tried to stop this, did the Human Rights Council dominated by Muslim countries act. What did they do, they condemned Israel. This so-called Human Rights council passed a resolution calling for an investigation. Last month, the results of this "investigation" of Israel’s defensive action in Gaza were presented by Justice Richard Goldstone (a Jew) to the HRC. But the report did not deal responsibly with the issues it merely was a one-sided anti-Israel diatribe, as even Goldstone acknowledged as being one-sided. Goldstone is now trying to distance himself from the results of his own handiwork.

Last Friday he discussed his disappointment with the action taken by the HRC, telling the Swiss daily Le Temp: "This draft resolution saddens me as it includes only allegations against Israel, there is not a single phrase condemning Hamas."

We must now deal with the consequences. The council's adoption of the Goldstone report constitutes nothing less than a reward for terrorism in more ways than one. First, the resolution adopted Friday ignores the reality of Hamas criminality, blaming the victim, rather than the real perpetrator of war crimes in Gaza. The HRC ignored the war crimes committed by purposely firing thousands of missiles at Israeli civilians, endangering Gaza civilians by firing from populated areas and abducting Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit.

Israel had a responsibility to protect its citizens, made every effort to avoid confrontation and did all that it could to minimize civilian casualties. The only relevant consideration for the HRC was the fact that an opportunity had presented itself to demonize Israel in the international arena.

By ignoring the atrocities by Hamas, this resolution essentially grants immunity to the terrorists and prevents a law-abiding state from defending its citizens. The Human Rights council has sanctioned new form of warfare in which terror groups launch attacks against "enemy" civilians from behind a shield of "friendly" civilians.

The Goldstone snowball is gaining momentum since the report has now been passed to the UN General Assembly in New York for further action.

By the way, President Obama has reversed the Bush administration refusal to join the farcical Human Rights Council and has joined the Muslim-dominated UN agency and its Islamic crusade against Israel and humanity."

Isn't America under Obama great?

In case you missed it, Obama has proposed a new auto insurance reform plan with a public option. There are millions without auto insurance that need to be protected and it is not fair that they are not covered. The unfortunate who do not have documentation to prove they are American citizens must be also able to share the American dream of a car in every garage or front yard. Although children of the undocumented who are born in the United States would qualify for auto insurance, they may be too young to get a driver’s license at present.

Under Obama’s plan a Federal Auto Reform Tribunal (FART) will be established that will determine federal standards for what vehicles may be covered (for example, it may be that only "green" cars can be insured), and rules for what auto insurance coverage may be available and to whom, e.g. what vehicles may be insured and what repairs may be included. FART will also determine whether private insurance policies meet federal standards; only policies that meet these standards can be sold. Though FART will only make recommendations, once approved by the Secretary of HEW the recommendations will become law.

The Obama Insurance for National Coverage (OINC) reform plan focuses on late model vehicles. Clunkers, cars that have seen better days and usually require more repair at that stage of their life, will only qualify for reduced coverage and repairs because the cost of repairing the clunkers comprises the greatest amount of repair costs.

Auto insurance will be mandatory; everyone will be required to buy insurance. It has not yet been decided whether those not owning cars will also have to pay for national auto insurance under OINC. Anyone not buying auto insurance must pay an annual fine in an amount intended to encourage purchase of insurance. (Of course, fines for families will be greater than for individuals.)

So as to not be burdensome for those with low income, those with incomes under a maximum amount (to be determined) and members of ACORN will be reimbursed by the government for the cost of insurance. High income earners (earners who don’t qualify as low income earners) will pay an extra surcharge to assure OINC is made available to all and reduce the overall cost of OINC so the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will be able to report a lower overall cost of OINC.

In order to insure fairness, and help pay for OINC, private insurers offering auto insurance with coverage which exceeds the federal standards and those buying such insurance will have to pay a tax to make up the difference.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will enforce OINC to make sure everyone pays their fair share.

OINC also includes a government, or public, option that offers auto insurance that will compete with private insurance for the purpose of offering competition to state-limited private insurance companies. The government insurance will compete against private companies that are unable to sell across state lines. Since government enterprises are not required to make a profit, it is anticipated that government auto insurance will cost less than private insurance so those seeking to reduce their auto insurance cost will likely switch their insurance to the OINC, thus assuring that in time only the government option will exist as private companies cease to sell auto insurance.

Americans have often complained that private insurance company employees are too often difficult to deal with. OINC will offer everyone an alternative by allowing people to deal with government employees (sometimes referred to as government bureaucrats). This arrangement has the added advantage of increasing employment (albeit government employment) since a very large bureaucracy will have to be created to service OINC.

Another public complaint has been that insurance companies do not cover preexisting conditions. When insurance coverage is really needed because of prior injury, insurance companies refuse to offer coverage; and this is simply unfair. Probably the greatest benefit of OINC is that it remedies this situation by requiring auto insurance to cover preexisting conditions.

Under OINC if you have a car that has been injured you will be able to get auto insurance to cover repairs of the injured vehicle. It does not matter whether or not you have had insurance at the time of the injury; you will get the needed coverage and reimbursement for repair after the injury. No longer will car owners fear that they will not be able to afford putting their vehicle in like-new condition because they are unfortunately unable to afford the cost.

Isn’t America under Obama great or what?