Recycling We Can Believe In

28 10 2008

Is Barack Obama’s mantra of “change” really anything new? As I’ve noted before, it’s more of a recycling of old-time socialism first brought to political life by Woodrow Wilson and perfected by FDR and his New Deal. 

Voters who are so disgusted with George W. Bush that they will take any candidate of the opposing party need to understand what they are getting in exchange for their loathing. The fact that Obama appears charming lulls these voters into an even deeper trance. But neither hatred of Bush nor sleep-walking with the Pied Piper of Politics is an excuse for the facts.

Jonah Goldberg‘s column in the LA Times today is worth the read:

Wilson, Roosevelt and now Obama — all their ideas sprung forth from the work of John Dewey, the most important liberal philosopher of the 20th century. Dewey held that “natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology,” and that “organized social control” via a “socialized economy” was the only means to create “free” individuals. Dewey proposed that statism be taught as a kind of civic religion in our schools so that Americans could be raised to see the government as the solution to all of our problems. 

Dewey lives on too in the education reform ideas espoused by former Weatherman Bill Ayers. Ayers, now an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, often invokes Dewey when justifying his own dream of indoctrinating public school students in “social justice.” Obama doesn’t condone Ayers’ ’70s-era bombings, but he certainly subscribes to Ayers’ educational vision. In fact, Ayers’ educational work is the primary defense for the candidate’s association with an unrepentant terrorist. 

Much has been made of Obama’s comment to “Joe the Plumber” that things are better when we “spread the wealth around.” The Obama campaign, with the usual willing accomplices, has rebuffed charges of “socialism” or “radicalism” with the usual eye-rolling.

But Obama’s words that day in Ohio were perfectly consistent with his past statements…

Read the rest. It’s a must-read.





Tax Me so I too can be Patriotic

19 09 2008

Joe Biden insulted every American today with is remarks about taxes yesterday:

CANTON, Ohio — Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden on Thursday called Republican John McCain’s answers to the current economic crisis “the ultimate bridge to nowhere” and said that paying higher taxes would be patriotic for wealthier Americans.

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people,” Biden said. Of those who would pay more, he said: “It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

So, the millions of Americans that are poor and middle class aren’t worthy of this “level” of patriotism, according to Joe Biden. And what about the wealthy? Since when is higher taxes (government theft of income) a prerequisite for patriotism? Patriotism is reflected more in the lives of those who have donated their time, money, and other resources to the disadvantaged. Paying higher taxes is not patriotic. It makes the wealthy a victim of theft. 

Joe Biden made $2.9 million last year and only gave $900 to charity. Talk about unpatriotic. 

Patriotism is not having more money forcefully taken from the wealthy and given to Joe Biden so he can spend it on government programs. Patriotism is about sacrifice and giving. Joe Biden obviously knows nothing about that. He could deliver one humdinger of a speech on how to hoard for oneself and spend other peoples’ money.

The scope of government, as outlined in the Constitution by the Founders, is to punish evil and commend good. Paying taxes for those purposes are patriotic. Beyond that, it’s theft and no amount of liberal government programs at the taxpayer expense justify an increased patriotism. Americans don’t want a government that will do everything for them. We don’t even want the government to “stand beside us,” as Michelle Obama thinks. Americans want the government to get out of our way. Just stay within the scope of the rights we the people grant you the government and nothing else. WE will stand beside the country, as the song goes, when need be.





BFF’s: Planned Parenthood and YouTube

6 09 2008

Planned Parenthood’s BFF, YouTube, last week tried to bail the racist, pro-murder group out of hot water by removing four videos. None of which violate any of its terms of use. 

YouTube, the popular Internet-video website, blocked four videos from the pro-life student organization Live Action over the past two weeks, saying that the videos contained “inappropriate content”. YouTube gave neither advance warning nor specific reasons for why the videos were removed, and has not responded to Live Action’s request to cease censorship and to unblock the videos for public viewing.

The content in these videos is not violent, profane, or sexually explicit.

DESCRIPTION: PP Part 1: Video plays audio and transcripts of Planned Parenthood of Ohio and Idaho accepting racist donations from callers to target Blacks for abortion. This video was removed from Live Action’s account, but remains on another user’s channel:

View the remaining removed videos here

Google CEO Eric Schmidt asked on-camera September 4th why the Live Action Films videos were removed from YouTube. It’s a bit hard to hear, but you can see him squirm and throw out the usual “I don’t know enough to comment” excuse:

YouTube has a history of helping pro-abortion pro-murder individuals and groups:

July 2, 2008
YouTube.com, in what the Population Research Institute (PRI) is calling a case of blatant censorship, has removed a video from its website for the sole reason that it criticizes a pro-abortion journalist. (source)

April 2008
” Google refused to run ads for a UK Christian group opposed to abortion, explaining that “At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain ‘abortion and religion-related content.'” Google policy does not prohibit advertisements for abortion clinics or pro-choice sites.” (source)

Feb. 19, 2008
YouTube also removed a video produced by the American Life League which is critical of Planned Parenthood. It has since been restored. (source)

Nov. 12, 2007
At Google, we have a bias in favor of people’s right to free expression,” Brand said. “Google is not and should not become the central arbiter of what does and does not appear on the Web. (source)
“We do not allow articles and sources expressly promoting hate speech viewpoints in Google News, although referencing hate speech for commentary and analysis is acceptable”. (source)

October 2007
” Google banned advertisements from Maine U.S. Senator Susan Collins’ reelection campaign, citing its trademark policy. The ads contained the words “Help Susan Collins stand up to the MoveOn.org money machine.” At the time, Google permitted the use of company names like Exxon and Wal-Mart in other non-sanctioned advertising, and an ad running at the time of the article read “Keep Blackwater in Iraq?” (source)

June, 2007
World Ahead president Eric M. Jackson tells the Sinclair network’s evening news that the Google Adwords editorial policy seems to have a liberal bias.

May 10, 2007
“Shareholders of Google voted down an anti-censorship proposal for the company. CEO Eric Schmidt and founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin recommended that shareholders vote against the proposal. Together they hold 66.2 percent of Google’s total shareholder voting power.” (source)

Oct. 12, 2006
Don’t think it matters? Consider that, according to USA Today, 98 percent of the money donated to political parties by Google employees — “Google Millionaires” — went to Democrats. (source)

Oct. 12, 2006
“YouTube blocked video mocking Clinton administration.”
“It has in the past censored various Christian-themed ads, but allowed porn ads.”WorldNetDaily Article

Oct. 9, 2006
“company took a scrub bucket to some questionable political graffiti on its servers, including a video entry from the doyenne of right-wing blogs, Michelle Malkin.” New York Times Article
See the Malkin video that was removed.

May, 2006
In early 2006 Google removed several news sites from its news search engine because complaints were received about various articles that were critical of Islam. (source)

“It is discriminatory for YouTube to selectively censor material that clearly does not contain inappropriate content,” states Live Action President Lila Rose. “We will continue to apply pressure on YouTube until it restores the videos.”





Video: Jesse Jackson REALLY Must Dislike Barack Obama

9 07 2008

Out of the heart, the mouth speaketh. Even for a viper like Jesse Jackson:

O’REILLY: ‘We held back some of this conversation… we didn’t feel it had any relevance to the conversation this evening. We are not out to get Jesse Jackson. We are not out to embarrass him and we are not out to make him look bad. If we were, we would have used what we had, which is more damaging than what you have heard’…

But Jackson later apologized and Obama accepted

Ed Morrissey

Jackson may have done Obama a bit of a favor. Mainstream America has long distrusted Jackson, and anything that puts distance between him and Obama can only help support Obama’s status as a member of the new generation of black politicians. He didn’t do himself any favors by attacking Obama; it will underscore his identification as a mostly discredited has-been.

I’m not sure any apology will do in this circumstance. 

In the fallout of this, I look for liberals to equate this absurdity to the Jeremiah Wright relationship. Liberals have tried to dismiss Obama’s association to Wright by comparing this relationship to McCain and Hagee, which of course is absurd because McCain was not a member of Hagee’s church for twenty years. Obama’s denial of Wright’s views makes him look worse than Roger Clemens and Mark McGuire. At least with Jesse, liberals will have some substance to the claim that Obama has no relationship to him. 

Others: Michelle Malkin, Stop The ACLU.





Video: Left Bellyaching Over Dobson Reaction to Obama Speech

24 06 2008

The Left is all up in arms over Dr. James Dobson’s statements today criticizing Barack Obama of distorting the Bible. 

[redlasso id=”c45b5731-e2f1-4aae-83ca-5893e77016ed”]

Here is the AP release:

Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination…”

“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson said. “… He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”

He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the “lowest common denominator of morality,” labeling it “a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.”

“Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?” Dobson said. “What he’s trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe.”

Audio of Dobson’s broadcast here

The, uh, “Reverend” Barry Lynn of Americans United moans:

“Dobson is an extremist who wants the government to impose his fundamentalist viewpoint. He simply cannot accept the fact that America is a diverse nation that welcomes people of all faiths and none. His tirade today is deplorable and probably the most insensitive of his career.

“Our Constitution mandates the separation of religion and government,” Lynn concluded. “That means each of us is free to follow our own consciences. Dobson has no right to set himself up as some sort of spiritual dictator who gets to make personal decisions for the rest of us.”

Lynn first statement is mostly true. But if Lynn thinks Dobson is an extremist, then that label would extend to nearly every Founder as well. In truth, it is Lynn who is the extremist. He quotes only a handful of Founders, usually out of context, to suit his agenda. His second sentence is completely inaccurate. Dobson most certainly understands the same thing the Founders understood about the diversity of religions in America. This country is made up predominately of Christians and has always been that way. Other religions are welcome to freely worship here, but Christianity is to be encouraged by the government, according to quotes and speeches during the Constitutional convention. And the third claim is a baseless opinion. Any Christian who understands the Bible should consider it more deplorable to be a hypocrite than a citizen merely criticizing the social stances of a presidential candidate. 

His second paragraph is demonstrably wrong and couldn’t be further from the truth. 

Here is another extremist liberal who wrote a response letter to Dr. Dobson. How do they come up with this stuff?

Dear Mr. Dobson,

I heard that you believe that Obama is distorting the Bible, and I must say that is a pretty devastating attack coming from a person like you who would obviously never distort the Bible. I mean everybody knows that the Bible is a book that is entirely focused on stem cell research, gay sex, and Sponge Bob cartoons. Look at Jesus, he was clearly a Republican. Never mind all that crap he said about peace and helping the poor and stuff, that is all outdated crap now. If he were still alive today he would clearly be calling to go blow some Iranian ass to kingdom come, and instead of giving aid to the poor there is no doubt he would be pushing to stop a minimum wage increase and working to ensure that our CEOs take home even more money. There is absolutely no doubt in anyone’s mind that if Jesus were alive today he would be waterboarding people for America, and he would be singing along to a Lee Greenwood song while he did it.

We all know that all that liberal crap that Jesus spewed in the Bible is distorting what Jesus’ position would be today so we ignore those parts people and focus on the parts that are important. Like the parts about Jesus hanging out with prostitutes, a tradition that many Republicans have followed him on.

You sure do have an interesting interpretation of the Bible, but I am sure that people will take you seriously when you criticize Obama for distorting the Bible. But that is not all you criticize Obama for Mr. Dobson, you also tell us he has a “fruitcake interpretation” of the Constitution.

You are completely opposed to those fruitcake interpretations though, you demand a barley cake interpretation. As Ezekiel 4:12-15 tells us “thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man.” The dung that cometh of man Mr. Dobson, that is certainly a verse of the Bible that you have lived up to very well, and that is no distortion.

Sincerely,

A Citizen

I’ll admit that Jesus is not a Republican nor a Democrat. But He is far more conservative-minded than liberal. For example, all that stuff in the bible about helping the poor are commandments to individual believers, not governments. When Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,” he laid the basic foundation for conservative government. I realize that reading the bible in context is difficult for liberals, but it is necessary. Side note: one wonders since liberals are unable to grasp biblical concepts in their correct context, how much worse is their interpretation of the Constitution? 

I also wonder if the letter writer is aware of the number of times in biblical history God led His people into war and wiped out entire nations. Didn’t think so. 

So I’d probably be correct in assuming the writer has no clue what the bible says about making a profit for one’s work. Look at Matthew 25:15-29, a parable Jesus told about risk, entrepreneurs, and profit. Verse 28 is the key verse:

28″ ‘Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 

Jesus could have done the liberal thing and had the servant divide the talent (worth more than $1,000) evenly between the other two, after a 40% tax of course. Or he could have had the servant distribute the money to the poor. But Jesus is not a liberal. He believes His followers should receive a reward for their work. 

Oh, and for the record, Jesus IS alive today. He’s just doesn’t have an earthly address. If you’re going to criticize someone, at least get their corporeal status correct. 

Others: Hot Air.





Video: How to Speak “Democrat”

20 06 2008

Hat tip: Hot Air

A lesson by Rep. Thad McCotter.

This is perfect, although, it’s thin ice for another politician to be giving the lecture. It illustrates the point that liberalism is all about emotion (watch the “Democrat” words) and NO facts (watch translation words). 

Transcript below the fold. 

Read the rest of this entry »





License Plate CHOICE Violates First Amendment?

20 06 2008

Americans United for Elimination of Church and Religion Separation of Church and State has done it again. The state of South Carolina unanimously passed legislation to produce a license plate with the words, “I Believe,” featured with a large cross and a stained glass window. Note this minor detail: the plate is optional; no one is forced to purchase it. Of course, AU omits this in its news release and the entire argument. A voluntary, optional license plate in a convoluted way, violates the First Amendment.

The Summers v. Adams lawsuit charges that the Christian plate gives preferential government treatment to one faith. 

“The state has clearly given preferential treatment to Christianity with this license plate,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “I can’t think of a more flagrant violation of the First Amendment’s promise of equal treatment for all faiths. I believe these plates will not see the light of day.”

The Americans United lawsuit says the Christian license plate violates the separation of church and state as well as freedom of speech. It notes that other religions will not be able to get similar license plates expressing differing viewpoints, nor can a comparable “I Don’t Believe” license plate be issued.

Not be able to get a similar plate? A contrasting, “I Don’t Believe,” can’t be issued? Where exactly does the Constitution indicate lawmakers must satisfy everyone, and simultaneously not offend anyone?

Clearly, Christianity was the preferred religion of the Founders. The Constitution they established did not need to mention Christianity or God. Their high esteem of Him is easily discovered by reading records of the Constitutional Convention. They founded a country that would welcome all religions to practice freely. But government was to encourage Christianity above all others. 

If AU wants to get technical, the First Amendment was only intended to limit the scope to the Federal government. State governments were free to establish any religion they saw fit. Judicial precedent demonstrates this for over 150 years since the country’s beginning. It wasn’t until Chief Justice Hugo Black’s blunder in the 1947 Everson case, in which he systematically linked the Fourteenth Amendment (via a ruling from 1868 ) to the First Amendment (with a ruling from 1791). Funny thing is, that connection had always existed for 79 years prior with many, earlier courts and many Founders included, oblivious to such a connection.

Allahpundit:

Exit compromise: You can keep this if the state also offers a plate featuring an image of Hitchens, drunk, above the slogan, “Abandon all hope.”