Think About It

Obama's Ties to Militant Islam?

New information about Barack Obama’s church is the subject of an Investor's Business Daily editorial.  They report that when Obama joined the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1991, Obama swore allegiance to something called the Black Value System, which is a non-Biblical code of ethics written by blacks for blacks.  This brand of Afro-Centrism  encourages blacks to group together and separate from the larger American society by pooling their money, patronizing black-only businesses and backing black leaders. “Such racial separatism is strangely at odds with the media's portrayal of Obama as a uniter who
reaches across races,” reports Investor’s Business Daily.  “The code also warns blacks to avoid the white "entrapment of black middle-classness," suggesting that settling for that kind of ‘competitive’ success will rob blacks of their African identity and keep them ‘captive’ to white culture.  In short, Obama's ‘unashamedly black’ church preaches the politics of black nationalism.”

The militantly Afro centric Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who has quietly slipped from sight, constantly reminded his flock, “We are an African people and we remain true to our native land.”  While there is nothing wrong with Wright having pride in his place of origin, it became a problem when the Rev. Wright decided to take a trip with his old Muslim friend, Louis Farrakhan, to meet with the terrorist leader Muammar Qaddafi.  Wright and Farrakhan both engage in vitriolic attacks again whites and Israel.

Investor’s Business Daily goes on to report: “Obama has close family ties to Kenya, and even founded a school in his ancestral village -- the Senator Obama School.  In the bloody conflict there, which already has claimed some 700 lives, Obama appears to have  sided with opposition leader Raila Odinga, head of the same Luo tribe to which Obama's late Muslim father belonged.  Obama's older brother still lives there. Abongo "Roy" Obama is a Luo activist and a militant Muslim who argues that the black man must "liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture." He urges his younger brother to embrace his African heritage.”

One cannot help but wonder how all of this would affect a Barack Obama presidency.  Investor’s Business Daily reports “Odinga is a Marxist who reportedly has made a pact with a hard-line Islamic group in Kenya to establish Shariah courts throughout the country. He has also vowed to ban booze and pork and impose Muslim dress codes on women -- moves favored by Obama's brother.”

Al-Qaida is actively recruiting in the whole of Africa.  Does the West need a pro-Western Kenya to fall into the hands of Islamic extremists?
Obama reportedly interrupted his New Hampshire campaign to speak by phone with Odinga, who claims to be his cousin. He did not speak with Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki.

Whether the media will ever bring themselves to discuss it, either out of fear of being called racist or because of political correctness or because of outright bias, remains to be seen. 

The question is:  Will Obama put African tribal and family interests ahead of American interests?

Can President Bush Win This One?

Surprise, surprise, it now appears that somewhere between  1,000 and 5,000 people who claimed they were victims of Hurricane Katrina were over paid as much as $175 million.  The federal government is now going to try to get them to return the money.  It’s being reported that many of those “victims” received about $35,000 on average, but it turns out these applicants weren’t supposed to get anything.   In other words - fraudulent applications. 

Poor President Bush.  He caught hell from the left wing and the media for not moving fast enough to help the victims of Katrina.  There was endless news coverage, coupled with endless caterwauling by the Democrats.  Bush speeded up the process which resulted in a large number of cheats getting  in line for government payments.

The question of the day:  When the government goes to collect these overpayments, who will line up in front of the television cameras to denounce Bush as a right wing racist?

A.  Those who submitted fraudulent applications                              B.  Jesse Jackson
C.  Al Sharpton                                                                               D. Barack Obama
E. Hillary Clinton                                                                            F.  Leadership of the Democratic Party
F. CBS                                                                                            G. NBC
H. ABC                                                                                           I.  PBS
J. All of the Above

Hollywood's Liberal Bias

People reading this blog might think I’m obsessed with movies that claim to be based on true stories, but in fact turn out to be fabrications.  I apologize; please bear with me.  I just finished watching the movie The Hoax, which purportedly is the true story about the con-man Clifford Irving’s forgery of the infamous Howard Hughes autobiography.  The Hollywood political propaganda machine has turned out their own twisted hoax. 

To digress, Clifford Irving was a little known novelist who hit upon the idea of fabricating a book about the billionaire recluse Howard Hughes.
Hughes had disappeared from public view and hadn’t made any public statements for many years, so Irving figured he could proceed with his hoax.  With the aid of several forged letters and notes, supposedly written by Howard Hughes, Irving conned publishers into paying him and “Howard Hughes” over a million dollars for the manuscript.  The scam fell apart when the real Howard Hughes held a telephonic press conference to expose the hoax.  Irving, his wife Edith, and Irving’s coconspirator Richard Suskind all pleaded guilty and went to prison.

Hollywood producers Betsy Beers, Mark Gordon, Leslie Holleran, Joseph Maurer, and Bob Yari couldn’t resist taking the story of a second rate con man and turning it into a left-wing political diatribe against Richard Nixon and George Bush.  They did this by inserting a wholly fabricated portion that shows Irving (played by Richard Gere) receiving a box full of secret files from Hughes that implicated Nixon in a host of crimes.  The scene continues with Nixon and Hughes entering into an agreement whereby Hughes will disavow Irving and his book in exchange for Nixon exerting his influence to get an airline merger approved for Hughes. 

Even Irving was disgusted with the movie:  “I was hired by the producers as technical adviser to the movie, but after reading the final script I asked that my name be removed from the movie credits. I didn't want anyone to believe that I had contributed to such a historically cockeyed story where the main character, almost by coincidence, happens to bear my name,” said Irving.  “The Hughes people mailing the package of files to me is also made up... The movie is best thought of as a hoax.”

The end result?  If anyone has any doubts about whether Hollywood is controlled by the left wing, they should regard this movie as exhibit “A”.

Treason or Free Speech

Hollywood in the 1940s pitched in a did their bit for the war effort.  They not only made training films for the military, but they cranked out a steady stream of morale building movies for the troops and the folks at home.   There was no doubt whether Hollywood supported the American and allied armed forces.  Somewhere along the line, things changed and Hollywood has become a willing ally of our enemies.

One can expect an antiwar or antigovernment movie now and then, but recently there has been a spate of antiwar and antigovernment movies. In the past year, Hollywood has released the movies Redacted, Stop-Loss, In the Valley of Elah, and Rendition just to name a few.  There is also a noticeable absence of movies where the man wearing the white hat is a soldier or anyone from the government.

Fifty years ago, two things would have happened.  1) The American people would have been incensed by these movies, which would have led to boycotts, picketing and Congressional hearings.  2) The  word treason would be used, freely. 

The interesting thing is that none of these movies has made a lot of money.  Some are alleging these films are being made knowing they won’t do well financially  in the U.S., but there is a large secondary market for them in the foreign anti-American market.

The question is this: Who is putting up the money for these marginal movies?  Are they making them for the secondary foreign and DVD market or are they simply misjudging the mood of the American public?  These movies certainly don’t do anything for our troops’ morale.  At what point does this become “giving comfort and aid to the enemy”?  Is it treason or just free speech in a democracy?

Liberals and Conservatives

  I think of myself as a Conservative, but I somehow don’t think the label Conservative or Liberal fully describes how one thinks.  Perhaps there should be sub-categories so we can more accurately describe those we’re talking about.  I, for example, am a lifelong Republican, hawkish on national defense,  a Life Member of the NRA, and I believe the President’s motivations are reasonably honorable.  At the same time, I’m a Life Member of the U.S. Chess Federation, a contributing member of the Nature Conservancy, a past president of our city’s Arts Council, don’t like Country Western music, and I tend to hang out with artists and writers, most of whom in all probability are Democrats at the least.   Politics, of course, is an off-limit subject; we agree to disagree.  Perhaps I’m a Moderate Eco Arts Loving Conservative.

  On the flip-side, a good friend of mine who lives in California, is by his own definition a  Democrat and a Liberal.   He is retired and spends a lot of his spare time photographing birds, sends hefty contributions to the Southern Poverty and Law Center, hands out $10 bills to bums on the street, and is a general all round do-gooder.   He also is a Navy veteran who loves to go to the gun range and blast away.  He’s pro police and still shakes is head over the O.J. Simpson jury’s decision to acquit him.  My friend might be accurately tagged as a Gun-Toting American Legion Liberal.

  The point, of course, is that none of us are pure anything.   I don’t subscribe to the idea that only Democrats and Liberals go to the opera, nor do I subscribe to the idea that it’s only Conservatives who occupy offices on Wall Street.  The truth is we as individuals tend to have much in common, but we tend to identify with our respective party’s platforms.  If we were truly a Liberal or a Conservative, we could accurately predict the outcome of every election, but it is this moderate commonality that causes Liberals and Conservatives to defect to the winning side.

  So, to avoid confusion, we need working definitions for this blog.  Liberals, for the purpose of this blog, will be defined as those who believe they should be allowed to reach into my pocket, take my  money and give it to those whom they feel deserve it.  Liberals will further be defined as those who believe only a Democratic President could can have lofty motives.  They also believe Republicans and their ilk are part of a world wide cabal who would destroy all plant, animal and human life, then detonate the entire planet with a thermonuclear device.

  Conservatives, for the purposes of this blog, will be defined as those who will help the truly needy, but who stubbornly resist the idea that we should deliver monthly checks to those who refuse to help themselves.  Conservatives will further be defined as those who enjoy visiting other countries, but believe we live in the best country in the world, a country that that has liberated more countries from tyranny than any other country in the history of the world.  In addition, Conservatives will also be defined as those who resist the idea that we can invite all of those in the Third World to come to this country and convert the U.S. into a Third World country. 

Well, you get the idea.  Please feel free to add your own definitions.

Obama and Racial Stereotyping

"Veritas" has some thoughts on racial stereotyping.

"Racial stereotyping rightfully meets with widespread disapproval.  No group has been more vocal on the subject than high profile African Americans, including Senator Obama.

Senator Obama recently referred to his white grandmother as a "typical white person." When queried about his racial stereotyping, he said that he should have said that it was typical for a white person of his grandmother's age group. What a tangled web he wove when he came up with that explanation.

Now, we not only have racial stereotyping but have an added factor of stereotyping based on age. Senator Obama's insensitive  and inaccurate stereotyping leads me to conclude  that he has had very limited contact with white people on an informal and perennial basis. Otherwise he would have known that you will encounter more "one of a kind" individuals in that age group who are fiercely independent in thought and action. No apologies have been offered. There are those who will call this rank hypocrisy and others who will call it a poor choice of words. When all else fails Senator Obama's staff can say that he misspoke. Think about it."

Clinton and Obama Promise Mortgage Bailouts

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are trying to make political hay out of the home mortgage crisis.  Both, of course, are blaming the Bush administration for not properly overseeing lending practices.

The subprime mortgage crisis is more complicated than it appears.  It isn’t merely a case of greedy lenders making unwise loans, which now have turned into bad loans.  Poor lenders?  No, many of these lenders will be just fine, thank you.  The lenders packaged these questionable loans and sold them to various Wall Street houses, who in turn packaged and sold them as high-yield securities.  These “packages” were purchased by unsuspecting investors all over the world.  When the bubble burst these securities went into the tank. 

What we have left is a sprinkling of lenders who kept their own loans and were burned when buyers defaulted.  We also have a large number of investors who now realize they have been had.  And, of course we have the people who borrowed more than they could afford and/or found themselves with a house that is worth a lot less than their mortgage.

So what to do?  Clinton and Obama are calling for some kind of bailout for the home buyers.  McCain hasn’t indicated that he is for such a plan.  So, who are we really bailing out?

Clinton says the Federal Housing Administration, "should also stand ready to be a temporary buyer to purchase, restructure, and resell underwater mortgages.”

Last week Clinton also called for a five-year freeze on interest rates for all subprime mortgages and a new stimulus package that includes $30 billion to help state and local governments buy foreclosed properties, restructure mortgages, and undertake "anti-blight programs."

Obama, not to be outdone, will create a fund to help borrowers refinance their mortgages.  If you smell another giveaway in the works, you’re right.  If Obama or Hillary Clinton is elected, the taxpayers will bail out the homeowners and ultimately the mortgage companies and their investors. 

The questions are:  Should the “unsophisticated” borrowers be bailed out? Should those who borrowed to speculate in the booming real estate market be bailed out?  Should the lenders be bailed out?  Those who bought these “packages”?

McCain Avoids the Obama / Wright Controversy

A John McCain aide was recently suspended for posting a controversial video of Barack Obama and his pastor, Jeremiah Wright.  I expected there surely must be some great untruth in it, but upon viewing the video, it tells no untruth.  The video did, however, come down hard on the Obama/Wright relationship.  I suspect McCain doesn’t want to want incur any allegations of race baiting.  You can judge the video for yourself.  Just cut and paste the web address into your browser.

http://election.newsmax.com/mccain_aide/?s=al&promo_code=47A6-1

The question is this:  If Obama is nominated, will McCain make the Obama/Wright connection off-limits?  How long will McCain continue to make it off-limits?

Will this Christian Nation Become Secular?

  It’s Easter and there probably is no story more befitting of Easter than a story the Daily Telegraph published on 3/19/08, titled “Mikhail Gorbachev Admits he is a Christian”.   The former President of the Soviet Union and his daughter Irina paid a visit to pray at the tomb of St. Francis of Assisi, where it was reported that Gorbachev spent a half hour on his knees.  The local Italian newspaper, La Stampa, hailed it as “spiritual perestroika”. 

  When asked, Gorbachev said, "St Francis is, for me, the alter Christus, the other Christ.  His story fascinates me and has played a fundamental role in my life.”  Gorbachev’s parents were Christians, and he was baptized as a child into the Russian Orthodox Church.  Many, including President Reagan,  suspected for years that Gorbachev was a closet Christian.  It now appears his visit to Pope John Paul II in 1989, may have been more than a perfunctory visit.  Gorbachev’s wife, Raisa, was raised by deeply religious parents, who were killed during WWII for having religious icons in their home.

  A friend pointed out the interesting wording in the title of the Telegraph article.  It is the use of the word admits, when it should have been acknowledges.  Admits usually connotes that someone has done something wrong.  This could be a poor choice of words or perhaps it was worded that way by a secular leaning reporter. 

  If current trends prevail, the U.S. will become a secular nation in another 50-100 years.  Church membership has declined 10% since 1960.  A full 25% of those polled have no church affiliation.  Regardless of one’s church affiliations, we look to Christian/Judeo teachings for our concept of morality.  This begs the question:  Can a secular nation, be a moral nation?  Will Christianity eventually disappear? 

What Else Can We Screw Up?

  Well meaning liberals running amok often result in unintended consequences.   Most of us remember a few years ago when many in Puerto Rico demanded the U.S. Navy get out of the Puerto Rico island of Vieques.  It wasn’t long before well intended activists and their Hollywood friends joined Puerto Ricans to shake their fists at the American Navy.

In 2002, the bombing exercises were transferred to an Air Force bombing range in central Florida not far from Jacksonville and Pensacola Naval Air Stations. In January, many of the protesters were back in Puerto Rico, celebrating the final bombing exercise on Vieques and waved Puerto Rican flags and placards that read "U. S. Navy, get out of Puerto Rico."

The following February, Rumsfeld announced that the U. S. Navy will close the Roosevelt Roads Naval Air Station in Puerto Rico in 2004, eliminating 1200 civilian jobs as well as 700 military positions.This naval facility is estimated to have put nearly $300 million annually into the local economy.

  The next day a stunned Governor Sila Calderon, held a news conference in San Juan protesting the base closure as a serious blow to the Commonwealth's fragile economy. The governor stated that "The people of Puerto Rico don't now or never did have an interest in closing the Vieques bombing range or the Roosevelt Roads naval base. We are interested in both staying in Puerto Rico .

  When asked, the Commander-in-Chief, Western Atlantic Command, said, "Without Vieques, I see no further need for the facility at Roosevelt Roads. None."  Chalk one up for the protesters.

  This isn’t the only time that a bunch of well meaning liberals have shot themselves in their collective feet. Let us take the matter of energy.  First, they railed against nuclear power plants, and they effectively brought the building of new nuclear power plants in the U.S. to a halt.  That left oil and coal.  World demand for oil is rapidly sidelining oil as a fuel to produce electricity.  That leaves coal, which is plentiful in the U.S., but environmentalists have opposed burning coal to produce power.  A huge legislative fight over this issue is taking place in Kansas as we speak.  That leaves wind and solar, right?  Environmentalists are now lobbying against wind turbines.  Why?  Well, a few birds are getting killed by the giant blades.  And so it goes, the short sighted continue to paint all of us into the proverbial corner.

  One wonders if the same group isn’t doing the same thing to us with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan?  If Obama and / or Hillary Clinton is elected in November we will surely pull out of those countries.  When they abrogate our responsibilities in that portion of the world, it will set off a new unforeseen chain of events.  What next?