FRED! has a few things to say about this election and the guy running for Socialist-In-Chief

Part Two



H/T to NiceDeb

I Wish I Could Say I Am Shocked...

She'll be among those crying the hardest when the nasty surprises flow forth when Barry The Blessed™'s mask slips.



H/T to Pajamma Momma at The Hostages.

Visions From My Pensieve

The post from Wednesday has taken some interesting turns. I had a client in my office yesterday, and of course, the conversation turned to politics. I told him "Hold on, I wrote and posted on my internet site the other day something that I think you might like." and I printed off a copy of Wednesday's post. I handed it to him, he scanned it for two seconds, and he said "I have this. Somebody emailed it to me." I looked at him with shock, and said "Really?"
He said "Yeah. I know this guy up in Arlington, and he's emailing it to people."
To that I say "Guy in Arlington: Its important stuff, so emailing it? Ok, but I ask that you either give a link or attribution. It is an original work, and that particular post actually took a little time to write. A nod to the author, at the least, is in order, and if you have already paid me this courtesy, then Thank You. It's nice to know you thought it was worthy of sharing."

Another part of this conversation? This client sees a whole lot more people in a day than I do. He says he cannot believe how many people he talks to about the election who seem very invested in one issue, but then know nothing about the others. Nothing at all. I thought about that a lot last night and today. The idea bothers me quite a bit. How the Hell did we get to the point where people would be so ignorant about something so important? I realize that it is a combination of factors, but it still irritates me. There is enough ignorance involved with this election, from the people who say "What's wrong with social and economic justice? Then things will finally be fair!!1!" to the geniuses who think that the Constitutional requirement that a person be a "natural born citizen" is either an archaic concept that doesn't fit with modern day standards, or that it is a "nebulous term" that has never been defined in any applicable way, or both. Leave it to members of my tribe to create the perception of ambiguity where none actually exists. If we are to survive as a republic, we cannot allow this standard of ignorance and narrow focus to continue. However, if we are going to turn this course back to a thinking and informed body politic, then we will have to put conservatives back in to the classrooms and newsrooms of this country. We cannot allow these professions to remain as the last resort for those among us who were capable of little else or those determined to execute the leftist strategies of taking our children and corrupting them early with concepts corrosive to our unity as a nation and our tradition of excellence. Concepts like "Diversity" which celebrates the attributes of the individual and teaches that the whole is lessened without each of us retaining and demanding recognition for our respective racial and national identity, rather than adopting the identity of the nation that is our home. Or "Moral Equivalence" which teaches that every philosophy, religion, and culture is no better or no worse than any other, ignoring the fact that this simply isn't true, and there is a wealth of empirical evidence demonstrating the hollowness of this belief. Better yet, we have the cornerstone of newspeak which the left needs to destroy us: "Political Correctness". Political Correctness is the idea that certain people should be forbidden from saying certain things, because someone might get their feelings hurt. This is the wellspring for idiotic notions that everyone should be a winner, or that everything must be fair. It also hampers any real discourse on any matter of consequence because serious people will never be able to make their points. Serious people call things what they are. The acolytes of PC will demand that ephemisms be substituted, and if they still hit too close to home in any conversation, then the person trying to make a point or engage in a serious discussion must further circumvent conversation in an effort not to hurt someone else's feelings. This ignores the fact that sometimes, feelings should be hurt, and feelings should take a backseat to truth. The acolytes believe that this makes them more enlightened; I believe that it makes many of them marginal intellects at best, as they have surrendered the ability to do something in the pursuit of good feelings. As for the rest, they sleep at night secure in the knowledge that they have spawned a whole new shibboleth for serious people to contend with on a daily basis, and have shaped and warped an entire generation of young minds into a de facto police force to monitor and denounce the thought crimes of the rest of us. Think I'm wrong? How many times have Obama supporters or the Press (but I repeat myself) called us "Racist!" because we have expressed the idea that we will not vote for Barack Hussein Obama. Better yet "You CAN'T say HIS middle name!!!11!!! That's racist!!!11!!" or "You're implying that he is a Muslim!!!11!!" You and I both know that no matter how many President's middle names we can name, or how many perfectly good reasons that have nothing to do with Obama's race we give for not voting for him, or the fact that no matter how many years he sat in the pews at Reverend Wright's "Hate Whitey" church, even he can't seem to recall for moment to moment if he is a muslim or not. Their politically correct analysis demands that you be declared guilty of the crimes they accuse you of, because if they ever had to move beyond feelings, then they might just have to consider the idea, even for a microsecond, that they might be wrong in their enthusiastic support for him, and in their presumption of your guilt.

This is the real reason why we need to all become educators. Sure, I'm as guilty as the next conservative of simply lowering the boom on the lefties where ever they sprout up and mouth their talking points, but really, our best offense is also our best defense. Educate them. Innundate them with facts, with logic, with reason. Sooner or later, all but the hardest of the hardcore true believers will no longer be able to ignore the elephant in the room, especially when you introduced them and told them its name. And teach your children well, because no one wants to retire to a socialist workers paradise.

A Story Of A Man Applying For A Job

SoHoS has a post that casts this all in a very easy to understand light. Go read it. Shoo.

An Open Letter to Barack Hussein Obama Supporters

Regrettably, we have met. Your barely contained enthusiasm for THE ONE™ is as undeniable as it is unexplainable. Emotion and a belief in vague and hollow promises for things like CHANGE! and HOPE! have propelled a man who believes that he is a messianic figure to the top of the Democratic Party's ticket and reveal just how much you failed to learn in your civics/government classes in high school. Most of you have been sold a bill of goods, and cannot or will not see the mistake you have made. I fear that revelation will not come until you have gotten us all into a fine mess.

I know. You have your reasons, all of which are important to you and motivated you to cast your support to a man who wants to radically alter this country into a nation that our founding fathers would be incapable of recognizing. You see him as the fulcrum to affect those things which have elicited your pledge. You might be right, but if he's elected, you might get what you hoped for, and that will bring results that you neither want nor expect.

For some of you, the war is your issue, and THE ONE™'s statements assure you that the "unwinnable" war will be brought to a close. If you are easily offended, stop reading now, because I'm going to tell you things you are not going to like reading.

To the aging hippies seeking that one last "Hurrah!": You didn't change the world. You wrapped yourself in cowardice, and pushed for a change in policy to prevent you from paying for the liberty that kept you safe and brought you through your adolescence. Your actions brought the change that got numerous people on the other side of the world killed because they took us at our word and trusted us, but you couldn't see past the ends of your own noses long enough to understand that the world isn't about you, and that being right, and standing up for what is good and right requires real sacrifice. You reveled in your "accomplishments" and spit on those who answered when their country called, denying them the honor they earned and so richly deserved. You aren't heroes and the blood of too many people who sought their freedom with our assistance stains your hands. Sleep well. I have it on good authority that cowards serve an eternal watch without respite in the outlands of Hell.

To the dreamers who believe that violence never solves anything: You get to cling to this childish belief because of violent men doing violence to protect this country and its people from those who want us dead simply because of who we are. Your beliefs are yours to hold because of the freedom that these brave realists shed their blood to preserve.

To those who believe that we have engaged in an illegal/unjust war: War is diplomacy by other means. The UN itself passed numerous resolutions in the wake of Desert Storm, all of which were ignored by Iraq, which was paying a bounty to the families of suicide bombers and providing a safe haven for some of the most villainous terrorists on the planet. You can scream about Bush! Cheney! Haliburton! all you want at the top of your lungs. When the rest of the world talks about doing something, it falls on us to actually DO something. The UN was never actually going authorize real action. The kleptocrats of that august body were making too much money from the Oil for Food scam to actually stop Sadam's gravy train. The fact is, we have done yeoman's work in Iraq, the country enjoys a level of freedom today that it has never enjoyed before, and their people are willing to do their own fighting to keep it that way. Another inconvenient fact is that by fighting terrorists there, we have not had to fight them here. Whine all you want. There has not been another attack since 9/11, and taking the fight to the terrorists has had EVERYTHING to do with that.

To those who want to adorn themselves in sackcloth and ashes because of Bush and the war: Get over it, and get over yourselves. Fighting terrorists is not like fighting a conventional army, because although they may receive support from states, they are essentially stateless. Such a battle takes a long time, even under confined conditions. Your childish whining and stomping your feet over the actions of a man who has labored to keep this nation, and you, safe, doesn't make you brave or intelligent. It merely makes you appear to be the worst kind of ingrate, and it makes me embarrassed to call you my fellow countrymen. If you cannot bring yourselves to say the appropriate thank-yous, then at least do the rest of us the courtesy of shutting up, because we're tired of the childish derangement you continually exhibit.

For some of you, race is the issue. While I do not agree, I can at least understand. However, voting for race in this campaign may set race relations back a great deal, rather than achieving a pinnacle in the Black Experience in America. For white people who have this feeling that they are somehow responsible for slavery and subsequent injustices, I assure you, you are not. The last 40 years brought an end to Jim Crow, segregation, and inequality of opportunity. Good people, black and white, sacrificed, and in some cases, died to bring these promises to fruition. Not only was opportunity opened to all, remediation was imposed in education, admission to colleges and universities, and the job market in the form of lowered standards, quotas, and affirmative action, and today's trendy belief, diversity. Add these to the blood shed in the Civil War, and the debt is paid. Guilt is not a good reason to make a decision, because you end up making the decision for the sole reason to assuage that guilt, oblivious to other facts or information that would inform you that choosing that person would be a bad choice. If your guilt prevents you from being honest with yourself when you ask "If everything about him was the same except he was white, would I still vote for him?", then you are not thinking clearly.

To those who would vote for him because they too, are black:
Time for some hard truths here. The years since the Civil Rights Movement have not seen all the promise that everyone might have hoped. The good news is that this can be fixed. The bad news is that you have to decide to step up and claim your birthright as an AMERICAN, and reject your victim rights as African-Americans. The doors were opened to you, but by and large, you decided to continue to select leaders who put their best interests first, and their lip service to your needs as the bones they will toss to you. Many of you chose the slavery of the attitude that the government owes this or that, and when members of your own community step outside of that mindset and build success, and then tell you that you can do the same, you berate them and belittle them as sellouts, or call them "Uncle Tom's". The real pioneers of the civil rights movement, the ones who shed blood to give you the chance would be horrified at how you rejected the hand up for the hand out, and chose on your own to re-segregate yourselves at various levels of society. Voting for him because primarily he is one of you spits in the eye of Dr. King's dream of men being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. Why do I attack his character? Because he has demonstrated time and again that he does not have any. He has friends of dubious character. Because he has a preacher who has preached racial hatred for more than 20 years. Because he has been the candidate talking about race, and using it to make himself out as the victim in this campaign. Do you want a leader, someone who represents you, to be someone who claims to be a victim, or someone who decided to overcome history and succeed in spite of it? What does that choice say about you? If doing it because he is black is your standard, then you validate the racist aspect of the nation's past, and it will never be washed from Liberty's Garments. You will have failed those who fought for the promises of this nation to be extended for all citizens, and more importantly, and sadly, you will have failed yourselves. History has been made by this election, and I have every confidence that we will someday elect an African-American President. I think we all deserve to have one that we can all be proud of and look to as a great leader. This first-term Senator who's greatest accomplishments are writing two memoirs is not that man.

To the ones who believe that Obama and a Democratic Congress will fix the economy:
The evidence is there for the finding. You just have to look carefully. Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac? These two entities mushroomed because the Democrats under Clinton thought that it would be a wonderful thing if people who could not afford homes got to buy them anyway, because Fannie and Freddie would be there to back the loans. Only thing is, WE THE PEOPLE backed Fannie and Freddie. While companies like Countrywide got to originate these loans and pocket the exorbitant fees that went with them, the taxpayers were left holding the bag when the music stopped. For the last eight years, Bush and McCain both made multiple attempts to call this impending disaster to the attention of Congress so that the bomb could be defused before it went off. Democrats, like Senator Obama, blocked any attempts at reform. Why? Because there was still money to be made. The former head of one of those agencies, Franklin Raines, walked away with tens of millions of dollars...for sticking US with the bill. This same man is one of Obama's campaign advisers.

Other prominent Democrats also bailed out of these entities before the crash, but not before they received compensation packages in the Millions of dollars. And the Senator himself? He was the second largest beneficiary of Fannie/Freddie campaign dollars in the Senate...in his first term. This man has proposed a ruinous tax plan that will punish success, discourage small businesses from hiring more employees, and will cost this country jobs and opportunities. He has proposed that by mandating certain technologies, he will create jobs, but this is an unsuccessful strategy whenever it has been tried. He proposes measures that will strengthen unions and impose tariffs. These measures succeed in stripping working Americans of more of their pay and opportunities, while robbing workers and businesses of the incentives to be innovative and productive. He has advocated for redistribution of wealth, under the guise of social and economic justice. This will simply remove any incentive for producers to produce if they cannot be the beneficiaries of their labor. Equality as enforced by the state kills merit and ambition, and robs us all of the benefits that they bring.

To those of you who are seeking something to believe in, or a government to give you things: Grow up. Really. I mean that. If your life is so empty that you need to have a politician to believe in, then you need to work on yourself, because something is sorely lacking in you. Politicians, and especially Obama are not to be trusted. They will whisper pretty words in your ear, and tell you all the things they will do for you, in order to get your vote. They will make you slaves for that all-important vote. If you think that the government's purpose is to provide you with things, then you too, have a problem, because you get what you pay for.
You want guaranteed employment? Move to Europe. See how that works for them. You want government health care? Be ready for rationing and poor quality of care. Don't listen to what the man with the teleprompter tells you. It will be rationed. It will have to be, because if a cost benefit analysis is not applied, then there simply will not be enough to go around.

What it comes down to is this. Obama believes that you can't. You can't be successful without his help. You can't overcome bad things in your life without his help. You can't provide for your families without his help. You can't be trusted to make your own decisions without his help. This is not what America is about. If everything is handed to you, then you value nothing, and only want more to be given to you. America is about the freedom to decide what you will do, about how you will do it, about who you choose to help out with your money and your time, about how you will live. America is about choosing how to live your life without state interference. Obama believes you can't be trusted to make your own choices, and that government can spend your money better than you can.

Stand up next Tuesday and cast a vote for your own choices. You can choose to continue to choose, or you can choose to surrender all rights and responsibilities and settle for what the government chooses to give to you. It really shouldn't be a difficult decision.

The Wednesday Morning Mix

More transcript from that 2001 interview with Barack Hussein Obama:

The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.

He can think of a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts???

Still think he isn't a Socialist? There is nothing in the Constitution, its Amendments, or interpretive caselaw that would justify a ruling encompassing "economic change" as BHO envisions in this interview.

As I pondered this on the drive in, along with his slip in front of Joe The Plumber, his past association with radicals, and his wanton interference with the last elections in Kenya, which contributed to many deaths there as a result of tribal violence, a thought occurred to me. Zimbabwe.

In 2000, Robert Mugabe, the country's only leader since independence embarked on a program to redistribute the wealth of his nation, that wealth being the farm land that helped Zimbabwe actually produce enough food to feed its people and contributed to a functioning economy. However, it was seen as necessary to promote "social and economic justice" to redistribute this once productive farmland from the largely white land owners to black citizens who lacked the requisite knowledge, equipment, and resources to maintain the farms as successful going concerns, especially since many of them were more interested in furthering their own social justice programs, which included rape and murder of many former white land owners. Criticism of Mugabe's administration has adverse consequences for those who dare oppose him, especially after the 2002 elections which he rigged in his favor. Opposition voices are silenced, and violence against those who do not favor his rule is widely sanctioned. His policies have been ruinous for a nation that was once considered one of Africa's successes, and strangely enough, it appears that some parallels could be drawn with the vision for this nation that Obama has shared, and his past activities in African politics. I'd like to think that I'm wrong, but frankly, anyone who thinks that he can justify court mandated wealth redistribution under the Constitution as written, and has been caught lying as many times as he has, and continues to arrogantly refuse to acknowledge that he has done so, and to "punish" any journalist who even dares to ask a "difficult" question is capable of many unthinkable things, and we have people in this nation who are willing to empower him to do more. I see some scary things ahead.

The Obamessiah Demonstrates Understanding America FAIL!

From a radio interview with the 'community organizer':

“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Team Obama is, predictably, using the "it has been taken out of context" canard. The problem with this lame justification is that I can think of no context where such words would be appropriate for someone running for President of the United States of America. If you can think of one, please feel free to let me know.

The Secret™

The media has kicked fully into spin cycle., doing their level best for their candidate, Barack Hussein Obama. The days till the election are almost gone. The pollsters are calling two and three times a day with their obviously slanted questions. And they all hope that the American People have forgotten The Secret™. What's that, you ask? Wow, you must be a journalist. I guess I'll have to tell you. No amount of pictures drawn in crayon will help you get it otherwise. The Secret™? Character and judgment matter.

"So what?" you ask. "Americans know this" is my answer. When properly informed, everyone in this country can make a smart choice. And despite the best efforts of the press in this particular election, people still have more than enough evidence of both candidates' character and judgment before them to come to the conclusion that Barack Obama sufficiently lacks both to be a reasonable choice for President.

In the article fisked below, Jonathan Alter makes the accusation that the Republican party has become "the party of cynicism." In so doing, he adopts the first part of the Democratic playbook for this election: Projection. Their chosen candidate sat in the same church with a "Hate Whitey" pastor preaching this message for twenty years, doing his part to retain victimhood and the bondage that goes with it instead of rising above it. When exposed, we got an idiotic rationalization and a trusted figure in his life for over 20 years got flung under the bus. The message: You know that associations matter, but I think you're stupid enough to believe a silly excuse and the sacrifice of someone who had been an important figure in my life for over 20 years. The real meaning: I think you're stupid enough to believe my outlandish reassurances, and I do not have the courage to openly be who I actually am in public. And the press, seeing that Obama's pastor was a problem, decided to play moral equivalence and attack prominent pastors who had endorsed John McCain. It wasn't the same, but the press has never been above implying what it could not prove, as long as the message was served.

The lack of the two necessary traits became painfully obvious again when the question of William Ayers came up. Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground, participated in a series of bombing across the country with the intent of bringing down the US government and replacing it with a marxist-hippiocracy that would stick it to "the Man", and imprison and kill those who did not conform to their "new" way of thinking about America. Ayers escaped prosecution, has admitted to his guilt, and has publicly regretted not doing more. Obama's spin on this association would be entertaining if it was not so telling. As the inconvenient facts keeps sprouting up like daisies, Obama continued to change his story on the campaign trail while brazenly lying about it in the last debate with McCain. Ayers was a guy in his neighborhood. Then, they served on a board together. But they also shared an office...for three years. They served on two boards together. Obama, his protests to the contrary in the last debate, kicked off his political career in Ayers' living room. Obama wrote a blurb for Ayers' book. We know these things. They have been proven. And yet, he refuses to own up to these things, preferring the lie, spoken reassuringly but firmly, in his ordering an arugula and lobster voice. This demonstrates bad judgment in choosing his friends, regardless of what he wants to call them, and it demonstrates an appalling lack of character to get caught in a lie, repeatedly, and only alter the lie to accommodate the finding, rather than the whole story.

But perhaps the most callous lies are those Obama has uttered with regard to his record on abortion. As an Illinois state senator, Obama did not just stake out a pro-life position, he actively advocated denying any health care to babies who survived their mothers' attempts to abort them. Think about that for a minute. He didn't just want women to be able to kill their kids as a method of birth control. He wanted make sure the ones who survived still died. This from the man who doesn't want his kids "punished with a baby if they make a mistake". These are people. These are citizens who are unable to speak for themselves, and if they somehow survive the attempt to kill them, he still wanted them dead. Is this the person you want making decisions that could influence your life? When he finally could not deny his position on the matter any longer, he elected to lie again, stating that he would not support a measure requiring that such children receive health care because "there was already a law requiring it". Except there wasn't, and even if there were, he elected to go on record as declining to vote for a law giving these children any such lifesaving treatment. No character at all.

On the campaign trail, candidates have so few opportunities to do anything that demonstrates their judgement. Perhaps the most illustrative event is when the candidate chooses their running mate. For Obama, it was a career politician with a history of saying mildly racist things and a track record of being wrong on very nearly every foreign policy matter he has offered an opinion on. A selection who had made remarks endorsing his opponent earlier in the campaign and who had referred to Obama himself as "Clean" and "articulate." A candidate who continues to say things on the trail that do not help his boss, and embarrasses anyone who is listening.

In contrast, John McCain chose a fresh young face, one with real executive experience, and a track record of conservatism, and challenging corruption,even when it was in her own party. The left and the press decided that they had to attack her on the issue of experience, despite the fact that Obama has none, other than the dubious "running for office" experience that they tried to transmute into serious credentials.

On McCain's credentials, they decided to imply that he was a disaster in the cockpit as a Navy pilot. An implication that did not find an audience. They tried to diminish his POW experience, one that left him crippled and broken to this day into a liability by saying that he aided the enemy with a bamboo confession, despite the fact that he turned down an early release, knowing others had been in captivity longer than he. They tried to turn his divorce upon his return from Vietnam into a character issue. This particular issue demonstrates they did get one thing right, but still fail to identify redemption of the same sort that they so desperately want to confer on William Ayers with their "It was 40 years ago" comments. McCain has remained married to the same woman since that time, and has expressed regret. Ayers has emphatically denied regret for his actions, instead regretting that he had not done more. As for the moral failing that the act symbolized, it was somewhat disconcerting to hear it from the same quarters defending Bill Clinton for getting blowjobs in the Oval Office from an intern while he was married. And then there is the allegation of racism. Obama himself raised this spectre himself, telling us that if we don't vote for him, the only possible explanation is racism. He is the one who trots out this straw man and makes him dance whenever anyone wants to have a discussion about facts. He can't do this with world leaders. They will not give him a pass, and they are delighted at the prospect of an America headed by someone with his bad judgement and poor character. Let's not give them the chance to roll him, and us, in the process.

Weekends with Muzzy, Part 2

Actually, I come here for three reasons:

A) It’s genuinely enlightening to interact with people who hold views so diametrically opposed to my own.
B) It’s the only place I know where I’m guaranteed to get a good argument.
C) I’m secretly in love with B.C.

Well, you would be correct on the second. As to the first, I generally find that "interacting with people who hold views so diametrically opposed to my own", generally leads to the wear of shoe leather as I traverse the pretzel logic path inhabited by those with such views and generally being shouted down in lieu of anything them engaging in anything representing a debate or even 'heated discourse', but not being in Europe, I can concede that leftists there may have a very different playbook than leftists here. As for the third, I could have gone the rest of my life without knowing that. However, I'm sure he'll be...uuumm, flattered.

Also, wouldn’t the equivalent of intellectual vomit be, y’know, actual vomit? That’s a little harsh. I mean, hey, we disagree on a lot of stuff but so far you’ve never made me regurgitate anything more than talking points

What? You regurgitate talking points? No, I have to give you more credit than that, because you frequently expand on them, something the typical leftist is unwilling or incapable of doing. It still doesn't bring you to the point of being right, but let no one say that I do not give credit where credit is due.

They recognized that the STATE could not establish a religion if the grand experiment were to succeed, but there never was an intent exile God or religion from daily social or political discourse.

I agree with this as well. The controversy over “expressions of religion” in public spaces concerns the fact that they can be also interpreted as expressions of governmental preference for one religion, and it’s adherents, over another. People object to the display of religious paraphernalia in public spaces because it suggests state sponsorship of that religion. A Muslim walking into a courthouse only to be confronted with a giant stone carving of the Ten Commandments can reasonably worry that his own religious affiliation may work against him in court. Moreover, he could reasonably object to his tax money being used to promulgate a religion that is not his own. If all faiths were allowed to express their religions in a similar manner, this would be less of a problem. However, that would lead to further problems because, as I said above, one man’s devotional is another man’s blasphemous idol.

There are a few flaws with this argument, the first of which being is that judeo-christian beliefs are the starting point of law in this society, and it is not a secret. Even with that being the case, the law, even with such influences, does not mandate a negative result against any person in court. The ideal is that all men are equal before the law. Sometimes the execution does not achieve this desired result, but it is still superior to the alternative, and having read many, many cases, I am not familiar with any modern ruling by any court in this country where a person subject to its jurisdiction was discriminated against in the result on the basis of their religion alone. Secondly, the argument about having tax dollars supporting the promulgation of religion is an example largely without merit. Many such fixed displays would have been placed in public buildings, especially courthouses, decades ago, at a time when such recognitions of the nation's common heritage and beliefs were not a source of controversy. Being fixed displays, no funds would be expended on keeping them where placed, so the current objector's tax dollars 'promulgated' nothing; in fact, the use of tax dollars to remove such displays, because someone's personal offense trumped the recognition of the role of such things in our history and culture is more of a 'promulgation' of a religion...that of secularism. (Yes, I know you still disagree, and I'll address that further down.)

This holds true within Christianity itself. How would you feel if you found out your tax money was being spent on the construction of dozens of ten foot tall statues of the Virgin Mary, to be placed in front of every high school in your district? How would the Catholics feel if you objected? Allowing free expressions of all religions in public spaces, especially when funded by tax-payers of all faiths, just opens a massive can of worms. Better to just keep those spaces free from expressions of all religion.

Whoa! Commonality FAIL! I know you are well-read, so I'll toss this out there for you. If such a thing were to happen, then you have an example that finally makes sense. However, I do not know of such an event ever coming to pass. Again, when we talk about public displays of Christianity, they usually focus on commonalities, not specifics. The Ten Commandments, a Nativity Scene, or a cross would be common to nearly every sect of Christianity that I am aware of; statues of the Virgin Mary are not.

After all, in a way, this works out better. Have you ever wondered why Christianity has flourished in America but has become stagnant and anaemic in England? It isn’t because of the influx of other faiths. It’s because in England, Christianity actually is the state sponsored religion. In America, competition forced preachers to devise more and more effective ways of disseminating their message in order to build congregations. Essentially, the spread of Christianity became subject to market forces and grew all the more tenacious for it. If Christianity was relieved of the pressure of market forces, it may very well lose its teeth.

Now this is an interesting assertion, and your example conjures a question that has vexed me for some time now. England's state religion is a Christian denomination. The crown, which is still ostensibly the head of state, is charged with being the Defender of the Faith, and yet, you have member of this clergy and of your own government that openly consider allowing people who came to your country, to have their own court system, rooted in religious beliefs not just different but contrary to those of your own state sponsored religion. And then you pass laws regarding "hate speech" which allow these same immigrants to bully and intimidate those who object to the absurdity of such things. I am truly interested in hearing your perspective on this. As for the idea that Christianity's success in the US is due to market forces is interesting, but incomplete.

Historically speaking, churches filled pews on Sunday because the residents of the towns and villages were Christian. And for a long long time, there may have only been one church in smaller communities. Today, yes, there are "mega-churches", where congregations number in the thousands, and such churches may have any number of smaller ministries offering the congregations many different ways to participate and/or get something fulfilling from the experience. However, the faith as a whole in this nation has many small congregations as well, absent of any 'innovative ' methods of disseminating their message; preaching from the pulpit being the same method of doing God's work, as much as it would have been in England prior to the puritans, and the migration of Christians who left for America. So while Christianity has made use of technology, it hasn't changed the message, and as it has always been, people in this country are free to choose from the particular stripe of Christianity that they choose to subscribe to, be it formal and ritualistic, or more informal and free of many rituals, as many mega-churches are. You argue that the success is in the marketing; I submit that it is in the degree of choice to begin with, and the fact that no particular choice among the general category underpinning the legal and moral traditions of the country enjoys an advantage to the the imprimatur of the state.

And the idea that religion has been excluded from daily social and political discourse is frankly ridiculous. America is 93% Christian, 45% Creationist. More people believe in Satan than evolution. You’re a few months away from electing your 44th Christian President, and it is common knowledge that a non-Christian Presidential candidate wouldn’t stand a chance of attaining that particular office. Tens of millions of people make weekly donations to a slew of televangelists. People wear God T-shirts, own God bumper stickers, have God screensavers and read books about God on their lunch break. In some parts of America, you can hardly throw a stone in any direction without hitting a Church. President Bush mentions God every chance he gets. You have God radio stations, God TV channels, Christian retreats, even Christian telephone companies who promise to donate a percentage of their profits to spreading The Word and put a little crucifix on your quarterly bills. All this, to say nothing of the frankly disconcerting role that Christianity plays in determining public policy. It is, for me at least, a small issue, but there is no denying that the laws prohibiting Gay marriage and civil unions are entirely faith based.

Many of the activities you quote here are as much personal acts as they are components of political and social discourse, and in many ways are the expressions left to Christians, who in many ways have been hounded away from so many expressions once so commonplace in this nation by a vocal minority empowered by a silly and excessive interpretation of the establishment clause that propounds a separation of church and state so very extreme that it is doubtful that many daily events would not be recognizable to the Founding Fathers who held "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". At the same time, while a prayer by a valedictorian at commencement, or a prayer at a football game is strictly verboten, schools in California, under the guise of teaching how others live, can require all students to dress like Muslims and pray toward Mecca, without allowing Christians to opt out, imposing a similar object lesson in Christian beliefs. Public invocation of God or Christ by a public official is treated as an opportunity for ridicule and belittlement, as so many on the left have pursued such taunts of W throughout his tenure in office. Belief in the delineation between right and wrong, and the rejection of nuanced, modern viewpoints that exist in contravention to the teachings of traditional Christianity subject the believers to the derision of a Presidential candidate who wants them marginalized as bitterly clinging to their guns and Bibles. This same candidate is the darling of those who have constantly and consistently used the second tenant of the faith of secularism, THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED, as grounds to push the exercise or acknowledgment of Christian Faith for forums where it has always dwelled. Having television shows, and radio shows, and bumper stickers is an expression, but it is what Christians are being left with.

Yes, I do have religious objections to gay marriage, but I have non-religious ones as well, that have yet to be suitably answered by the proponents. Primarily, that we are seeing fit to confer a protected status on what amounts to a lifestyle choice, rather than an immutable characteristic, such as race or gender. Yes, I’m familiar with the arguement that gays don’t choose to be that way, but in the absence of any discernable proof, I’m going to decline the opportunity to buy into that particular bill of goods. I can see where that primrose path will lead us, and I’ll leave it for the more nuanced and enlightned peoples of the world to skip along it merrily. When we accept Neal and Bob as husband and husband today on the basis that they can’t help being that way, and that they want to have the same thing everyone else has (although it isn’t the same, because they are different), then it will be harder to deny Neal 20 years from now when he comes to us and says he really likes his German Shepard and wants to marry it, or when Neal’s sister who is 30, wants to marry Steve, who is 12, because hey, they really like each other, and they want what everyone else has. It can’t happen, you say? No one could possibly think that this would be OK, you say? Yeah, that is really only possible when there is a common frame moral reference that is recognized by those who make the laws. As God is continually pushed from the venues where he once dwelled, this common reference continues to fade, and weak arguments based on personal preferences suddenly become justification for conferring rights where none should exist. In the meantime, those who were, at least at one time most deserving of such potections should be the most insulted, but being self-absorbed in protecting the doctrine of diversity, which ensures status to those who might not otherwise attain it if they had to rely on merit alone, they embrace the new ones to the fold, conferring an undeserved legitimacy to their claims.

The Ten Commandments is as much a part of the law of Western Civilization as the Magna Carta or Bill of Rights, because it is a codification of conduct deliniating what society will and will not deem acceptable from its citizens.

I’ve heard this a lot and it always makes me wonder: If you are so supportive of overt displays of the Ten Commandments in schools and courthouses, how enthusiastic would you be to see the Biblically mandated punishments for breaking them displayed in a similar fashion. Do you know, for instance, what God intended to be the punishment for adultery? It just happens to be death. The punishment for working on the Sabbath? Death again. The punishment for smartmouthing one’s parents? Hey, you’re catching on. If the Ten Commandments are as much a part of the law of Western civilisation as the Bill of Rights, surely the punishments ought to be to, right?

I know that this has already been answered to some degree, so I'll keep it brief. The New Testament brought a change to the extremity of punishment as Jesus took the burden of all man's sin as his own. That wouldn't waive the offense, but the punishment has been taken by another. Spiritually saying, this isn't a license to go forth and sin some more, but being imperfect beings, it is the grace of another that grants at least spiritual salvation to all who accept the gift as offered. The catch is that acceptance of the gift charges one with the knowledge of sin and the understanding that doing so again subjects one to the consequences. Some consequences are for the state to impose, some will naturally accrue sooner or later. Its been years since I have read any portion of the Code of Hammurabi, but I'm willing to bet that a careful read would also yield an offense and punishment which some would consider unacceptable, that none would impose in this day and age.

Moreover, I don’t think much of the Ten Commandments as a legal code. They’re deeply flawed and could be improved extremely easily, even by a schmuck like me. This is rather a grand statement, considering that they’re the only thing in the Bible that God felt it necessary to dictate personally, but it’s absolutely true. Consider the second commandment. No graven images? Does that really strike you as the second most important rule available for the successful governing of human social interactions? I submit that we could replace the second commandment with a blanket prohibition against slavery, the third with a categorical injunction against rape, and the fourth with a stinging condemnation of child molestation, and the Ten Commandments would be a far more moral and relevant document than it is now. We’ll deal with the avalanche of social problems caused by the proliferation of graven images as and when they arise.

You are free to think of them however you like; their inclusion in the body of law of western civilization is not a partisan act on my part. Being an officer of the court, I have had occasion to study the works of jurists much smarter than myself, and such a designation is generally considered to be a fact of history.

The Progressive or secular movement in the early twentieth century strove to upend the core beliefs of this society for a variety of reasons, and found many willing acolytes because the idea of a world without God, or his rules freed them from any sense of accountability or shame for going their own way and doing whatever they pleased, even if it was damaging to the society that had been so successful under the rules and mores of God.

I would dispute this, too. Secularism is more about allowing individuals to worship privately than about stamping out God altogether. There have been, believe it or not, numerous occasions when the much vilified ACLU has defended Christians who feel that they have been unfairly persecuted for their religious beliefs. See here for more details. You seem to be conflating secularism with atheism, which is a category error. A true secularist would be just as uncomfortable living in an atheistic society where private religious observance was prohibited, as he would in a theocracy.

We can agree to disagree. Secularism as practiced here is a practice not neutral to other religions, but hostile to them. You can't talk about God, or acknowledge his existence, at least not on the local levels. Even in places where Christianity is common to all residents, groups such as the ACLU see fit to sue to prevent towns from allowing a nativity in the city park, or prayers before sporting events, not even because a non-christian or atheist was present or complained, but to continue to force God out of the public discourse. Some such cases succeed, others do not, but they keep coming, the very potential is wielded like a sword of Damocles, to be dangled about the heads of small town councils as a threat that can bankrupt them, win or lose.

You have stated that secularism is not a religion. I submit to you that secularism is indeed a religion, and the most dangerous one that any society seeking to avoid anarchy can be presented with. Even muslims, who violently react to any perceived slight or disrespect of their beliefs, and are therefore considered backwards savages by most thinking people who long ago learned that violence is one of the last resorts rather than the first, surpass the secularists in terms of preserving a society, because the common core of beliefs remain relatively unchanged, and believers acknowledge an accountablity to something outside of themselves.

Secularism is not, and indeed cannot, be accurately termed a ‘religion’ without robbing the word of all meaning. Secularism has no scriptures, no prophets, and no metaphysical baggage of any sort. How could secularism possibly be a religion in the commonly understood sense of the term?

Piffle. Secularism, like atheism, recognizes no authority other than the primacy of man. Any meaningful recognition of a higher authority must be railed against, because to allow such recognition to stand unmolested might allow the concept of shame (not ostracism imposed on those who run afoul of the doctrine of PC) to be a force in society today, and the "If it feels good, do it" mentality that continues to shape the direction of this country would be seriously called into question, as it should be.

And are you really saying that you would prefer to live in Muslim Iran than secular Finland?

Whether you realize it or not, this is really the nub of the argument. I prefer neither. Unlike Muslims, I have no expectation of moving to a country founded on principals so opposed to those of my own that nearly every aspect of the culture and society is foreign to me, and expect them to conform to my way of doing things. I guess I'm just funny that way. As for secular Finland, if I wanted to live in a mediocracy, I could move to Canada or Europe. The single greatest lie that Western Civilization has bought into is that all cultures are equal. Its why the west in general continues to defer to the offense of the newcomers rather than deftly, but firmly reminding them that the reason they came here is that it is not there, and they can adapt, or they can leave. If we are sufficiently advanced that migrating here is more attractive then living there, then I can only conclude that it is because we do something right. We need to quit apologizing for it and instead expect it to be perpetuated.

Political Correctness is so poisonous to society because it first would take away the ability to engage in honest discourse about matters of import to society. It chills speech. Many find themselves afraid to speak up about pursuits and directions that have no redeeming social values for the very fear that some person or group that voluntarily chooses to identify themselves by a condition, race, ethnicity, or lifestyle choice might be offended and use that offense to squeal, cry, stomp its feet and shout until others come to their aid and sanction the offender for the crime of not recognizing the primacy of that identification and the person’s right to be free from offense, the central right of the church of secular humanism, from which all other doctrines and tenants flow.

I both agree and disagree (how’s that for contrarian ). On the one hand, I do agree that there are people out there whose lives are so empty that they have nothing better to do than amble around looking for things to be offended over. It is also true that, occasionally, this bullshit gets out of hand. Take the immigration issue, for example. This is an issue which should be discussed solely in economic and pragmatic terms. Hurling accusations of racism at those who are opposed to immigration for economic reasons does nothing but widen the divide between those on both sides. Also, I confess I bear a deep emnity toward the term “African American”. It’s a pet peeve of mine. Charlize Theron is as white as a ghost, but being born in Johannesburg, she is technically an “African American”. People shouldn’t be embarrassed to use words like “White” or “Black” when referring to their own ethnicity or that of others.

On the other hand, political correctness has raised awareness of terms and attitudes which are genuinely offensive. It has made people more reluctant to stereotype, and more willing, when considering others, to discount their ethnic baggage and focus on their merits.

I disagree. We have been forced to make the offense the focus rather than the exchange of ideas. We cannot have a discussion on the merits because problems require solutions. When one is entitled to THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED, the problem is always the fact that someone else might want to discuss your behavior and how it might be changed to solve the problem. This is then cause for BEING OFFENDED, and therefore, rather than discussing the problem, your offense becomes the issue. Demonstrated neatly by recent news stories regarding the flap in the city council meeting in Texas where in a discussion about parking tickets disappearing in a city office, a white city councilman mentioned that the office was a "black hole". Invoking the right not to be offended, a black councilman demonstrated that sensitivity trumps intellect and immeadiately responded, yelling "Excuse me??? Excuse me??? You mean a White Hole!!!" No explaination that he was using a scientific term to make a point was acceptable; he had committed the cardinal sin of using a word without permission of the POTENTIALLY OFFENDED CLASS. One example of many that can be used to demonstrate the point. Real conversations grow increadingly difficult in any venue here, and merit is not generally a component of the discussion.

What the nice gentleman in the film was trying to tell those of us who care is that there is still time to reverse this trend before the bloodshed that this trend places us on an inevitable collision course with.

And I’m not saying he didn’t have a point, just that commingling religion and the state is counterproductive.

Missing the point that removing it from where it used to be has had a corrosive effect. If the reason for the law can no longer be discussed, then there is no understanding of why it is the way it is, and there will be no apparent reason for not changing it to suit the whims of who ever wants it changed. Law divorced from reason will become mob rule, and the darkness that rests in the heart of a mob, answerable only to itself, would eclipse all logic or socially desirable result.

And the Neck Bone's Connected to the Head Bone...

I posted this comment this morning at the Rott, in response to the blockquoted comment within, made in response to the same video in the post below this one. For those of you who aren't regulars at the Rott, "Muzzy" is the closest thing the Rott has to a regular troll. His comments originate in the UK, although I don't know what citizenship he holds. I fully expect a vehement response from him in which he will use generalities to marginalize everything said, but his remarks, like so many comments there, helped me to better put into words my thoughts on these matters.

Muzzy,
I have to admit, you are something of a cypher to me. Sometimes, I read your comments, and I conclude that you choose to come here and leave the equivalent of intellectual vomit for the sole purpose of being contrarian, and then you say things like you have today which make me believe that you fundamentally misunderstand so many things about this nation that are necessary components of our historical core beliefs. I’m not surprised about this, and it saddens me to say that many young people in this country no longer understand it either since the teaching of history and government in our schools took a back seat to building esteem and taking over the various parenting roles that the boomers abandoned in their never ending quest for ‘personal fulfillment’.

“Separation of Church and State, yes. Separation of God from public life? Never intended by your Founding Fathers”

Doesn’t the former, rather entail the latter? And what, I wonder, would be this guy’s response to a burgeoning (hypothetical) movement to interpret “God” as “Allah”? It’s easy to advocate tainting the public discourse with religious metaphysics when it’s your God everybody’s talking about. Someone else’s? Not so much.

No, the former does not entail the latter. The nation and its government were established by a people who had attained a certain degree of religious homogeneity, that is to say, were overwhelmingly of a “Christian” extraction, and therefore possessed a common morality and code of conduct, yet many were not so far removed from recent experiences where only a certain stripe of Christianity was considered to be the approved brand by the state in which they dwelled, and the rest were relegated to a status less privileged than the rest. They recognized that the STATE could not establish a religion if the grand experiment were to succeed, but there never was an intent exile God or religion from daily social or political discourse. You are free to dispute this is much as you wish, in fact, I would likely be disappointed if you didn’t. It doesn’t change the facts that are evident for all who read. The founding fathers were “mindful of him” in the texts of the very first documents. Every word was labored over, every phrase is deliberate. No single word was intended to be superfluous or ‘dicta’. The tenants of christianity were understood to be the starting point for the laws that we would all live under, and even those who did not subscribe to christianity itself understood that the intellectual underpinnings of our law were rooted in common judeo-christian beliefs, and accepted this as necessary for the society to function. The Ten Commandments is as much a part of the law of Western Civilization as the Magna Carta or Bill of Rights, because it is a codification of conduct delineating what society will and will not deem acceptable from its citizens. Later waves of immigrants with different religious backgrounds still came, at least implicitly understanding that our society worked and our nation was the destination of choice, because despite varied backgrounds, histories, and beliefs, we had accepted and lived by a common set of principals and morals that allowed predictability, intellectual and societal advancement based on the diligence and intellect of the individual, not a person’s lineage and race.

The Progressive or secular movement in the early twentieth century strove to upend the core beliefs of this society for a variety of reasons, and found many willing acolytes because the idea of a world without God, or his rules freed them from any sense of accountability or shame for going their own way and doing whatever they pleased, even if it was damaging to the society that had been so successful under the rules and mores of God. You have stated that secularism is not a religion. I submit to you that secularism is indeed a religion, and the most dangerous one that any society seeking to avoid anarchy can be presented with. Even muslims, who violently react to any perceived slight or disrespect of their beliefs, and are therefore considered backwards savages by most thinking people who long ago learned that violence is one of the last resorts rather than the first, surpass the secularists in terms of preserving a society, because the common core of beliefs remain relatively unchanged, and believers acknowledge an accountability to something outside of themselves. Secular humanists believe only in the primacy of man, which means that they can only believe in themselves. God is removed as authority, and each Secular acolyte usurps that throne for himself. There is no predicable result and no common belief. There is no anchor for the boat called society; by banishing a common belief in God, that boat is going out to sea on a rising tide.

We have ourselves to blame. This attitude could not have gained the upper hand in today’s society without a generation or two that believed that the desire and pleasure of the individual was more important than discipline, sacrifice, and the preservation of this nation’s finest legacies for the generations coming after them. This dovetailed nicely with “Progressive” agendas, and it allowed for the perversion of the legal and political traditions that had helped this country grow and prosper. Constant legal action and decades of subversion in academia allowed for the transformation of not having a state religion to the vigorous and zealous pursuit of what is still acknowledged to be the dominant religious view in this country from the public and political discourse; the ascendancy of the cult of self allowed made an individual’s desire to reject moral authority more important than the common religous heritage of the nation. And the cult of self busied itself with its own commandments and edicts, many of which are gathered under the diaphanous aegis innocuously titled “Political Correctness”.

Political Correctness is so poisonous to society because it first would take away the ability to engage in honest discourse about matters of import to society. It chills speech. Many find themselves afraid to speak up about pursuits and directions that have no redeeming social values for the very fear that some person or group that voluntarily chooses to identify themselves by a condition, race, ethnicity, or lifestyle choice might be offended and use that offense to squeal, cry, stomp its feet and shout until others come to their aid and sanction the offender for the crime of not recognizing the primacy of that identification and the person’s right to be free from offense, the central right of the church of secular humanism, from which all other doctrines and tenants flow.

As a result, we cannot refer to anything and anyone by commonly understood terms because those people and things did not get to name themselves. This has lead to a condition of low-grade anarchy which continues to this day and is a distraction from any attempt to actually address any matter of national or societal import as we are daily presented with a new list of words that cannot be uttered, or may only tumble from the lips of certain people and are strictly forbidden to be used by others, and only certain people are allowed to determine what words, topics, or opinions are to be allowed. No predictability, other than the secular religious expression of offense, for “crimes” that change daily, and are decided by individuals and not the body politic.

Lincoln was right, a house divided against itself cannot stand. The genius of the American Experiment was neatly summed up in E Purblis Unum. From many, one. By banishing God, and yes Muzzy, I mean the Christian God, as he is common to Western Civilization, and by constant chiseling, his rules, from the public square and public discourse, we have glided to a precipice whereby we now allow newcomers to dictate their rules to us, and 30 years of indoctrination to the tenant of diversity in our schools, colleges, and universities, which by its very nature sanctions continuing to be separate rather than assimilating, we are morphing in to “From Many, Many”, which invites continuing division, mediocrity, and eventually, death as a society. What the nice gentleman in the film was trying to tell those of us who care is that there is still time to reverse this trend before the bloodshed that this trend places us on an inevitable collision course with.