Superman Renounces U.S. Citizenship in ‘Action Comics’ #900

Apr 27th 2011 By: Laura  Hudson

Superman Renounces U.S. Citizenship in ‘Action  Comics’ #900

After  recently undertaking a journey to walk — not fly — across the United States in  the “Grounded” storyline and reconnect with the country and  everyday Americans, Superman appears to be taking another step that could have  major implications for his national identity: in Action Comics  #900…

…Superman announces that he is going to give  up his U.S. citizenship. Despite very literally being an alien  immigrant, Superman has long been seen as a patriotic symbol of “truth, justice,  and the American way,” from his embrace of traditional American ideals to the  iconic red and blue of his costume. What it means to stand for the “American  way” is an increasingly complicated thing, however, both in the real world and  in superhero comics, whose storylines have increasingly seemed to mirror current events and deal with moral and political  complexities rather than simple black and white morality.

The key scene  takes place in “The Incident,” a short story in Action Comics #900  written by David S. Goyer with art by Miguel Sepulveda. In it, Superman consults  with the President’s national security advisor, who is incensed that Superman  appeared in Tehran to non-violently support the protesters demonstrating against  the Iranian regime, no doubt an analogue for the recent real-life protests in  the Middle East. However, since Superman is viewed as an American icon in the DC  Universe as well as our own, the Iranian government has construed his actions as  the will of the American President, and indeed, an act of war.

Superman replies that it was foolish to think that his actions would not  reflect politically on the American government, and that he therefore plans to  renounce his American citizenship at the United Nations the next day — and to  continue working as a superhero from a more global than national perspective.  From a “realistic” standpoint it makes sense; it would indeed be impossible for  a nigh-omnipotent being ideologically aligned with America to intercede against  injustice beyond American borders without creating enormous political fallout  for the U.S. government.

While this wouldn’t be this first time a  profoundly American comic book icon disassociated himself from his national  identity — remember when Captain America became Nomad? — this could be a very significant turning point for  Superman if its implications carry over into other storylines. Indeed, simply  saying that “truth, justice and the American way [is] not enough anymore” is a  pretty startling statement from the one man who has always represented those  values the most.

It doesn’t seem that he’s abandoning those values,  however, only trying to implement them on a larger scale and divorce himself  from the political complexities of nationalism. Superman also says that he  believes he has been thinking “too small,” that the world is “too connected” for  him to limit himself with a purely national identity. As an alien born on  another planet, after all, he “can’t help but see the bigger picture.”

Do  you think the shift to a more global role makes sense for Superman? If he really  is going to renounce his U.S. citizenship in order to function as a more  international figure, how do you think it will affect the character?

Read More:  http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/04/27/superman-renounces-us-citizenship/#ixzz1KrtbzwHe

Yes He Did; Obama Betrayed Christians on Easter

Yes He Did; Obama Betrayed Christians on
Easter

April 26th, 2011

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

On Easter Sunday, Barack Obama continued perhaps his least recognized
redistribution policy: the redistribution of respect. Not content to betray
Armenian Christians
, he insulted all their brethren in the faith. On Holy
Saturday, Obama issued a statement on the Armenian genocide that studiously refused
to admit the Muslim murder of 1.5 million Christians rose to the level of
“genocide.”
However insufficient the proclamation was, it was better than
other American portions of the Body of Christ got. Barack Obama issued
no statement for the celebration of Easter
, the holiest Christian holiday,
whatsoever.

Obama has made no similar slight against Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist,
Sikh, or Jainist holy days. He has not overlooked Nowruz, the Persian New Year
reflective of Zoroastrianism. But the Founding Founders’ faith and majority
religion of most citizens of the United States no longer merits written
recognition from the president.

Obama seems to have singled out Islam for special recognition and
approbation. Last August, he hosted an Iftar dinner, where he declared
his support
for the Ground Zero
Mosque
. He released statements on Eid-ul-Fitr,
Hajj,
and Eid-ul-Adha.

A presidential
statement commemorated Passover
, which falls near the date of Easter each
year. Indeed, the president’s staff posted
Passover recipes on the White House website
. (Obama has held a
Passover Seder
since at
least his days on the campaign trail in 2008
.)

Obama wrote out a
statement to honor
the Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist/Jainist festival of
Diwali.

Indeed, those celebrating the holiday need not be American to receive the
president’s undivided attention. He has spoken “directly to the people and
leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” on Nowruz,
the Persian New Year. His 2009 message was particularly
subservient
, telling Iran’s leaders, “We know that you are a great
civilization, and your accomplishments have earned the respect of the United
States and the world.” This year, he posted a slightly tougher (sub)missive on
the White House website in both Arabic
and Persian.
(He has ended each message with the greeting, “Eid-eh Shoma
Mobarak
!”)

The president has no trouble taking pen in hand to recognize even the most
exotic festival of non-Christian faiths. But the holiest holiday of the
Christian religion got passed over.

Read
more
.

Islam Is Fire

Islam Is Fire

Amil Imani

The Islamic fire, fueled by immense oil income, is raging in certain regions of the world, smoldering in others, and is ready to ignite in yet other parts of the world. It is imperative for the free people of the world to abandon all illusions about Islam and put out its fire, once and for all.
Multiculturalism, live and-let live, is a delusion of kind-hearted naïve people. Islam, as fractured as it is, is a non-compromising monoculture; a cruel culture of a primitive people handed down by Muhammad some 1400 years ago.
Most religions are intended to attenuate human fears.  They are based on natural fears, many of which are irrational…but natural nonetheless.  For example, many pagan religious practices were focused on the seasonal cycles related to the harvest.  Why?  Because if the harvest was poor, their entire civilization could perish, or be weakened to the point where a neighboring tribe would kill them off.  While they misunderstood the scientific basis for weather, they created natural (yet irrational) religious beliefs about weather and harvest.  In this sense, religions were psychologically useful and inevitable in addressing natural conditions.

But some religions establish for themselves fears of things which do not exist…which the religion itself invented in order to create and perpetuate fear, and then artificially addressed it in order to establish a political regime.  The political nature of Islam transcends personal spiritualism and becomes a cult of oppression. This is fraud. This is evil. This is Islam.

Islam essentially invents the idea that Christians, Jews, and pagans are abominations and offensive to Allah, and that their very existence represents an attack upon the self-defined Islamic right to reign over the world.  Allah thus enlists Muslim believers to eradicate by force those who offend him and by disbelieving, prevent his rule.  True Muslim believers therefore become the enforcers, hit men and mercenaries for their god, in order to establish a global Caliphate for their parasitic clergy.  Their targets are artificially constructed adversaries.  Believers are instructed to fear the “great Satan.” and are told that if they do not live up to Allah’s calls to Jihad, they are themselves offensive to Allah and to their families.  It’s a “you’re either for me or against me” strategy.

Contrast this with say, Christian fears.  Christians too fear offending God, because they believe that God will judge their lives when their bodies die.  So their fears are reduced by atoning in personal alignment with the teachings of the Bible.

So, as a political religion, Islam creates artificial fear of alien groups, and then eliminates the fear through war and coercion.  Islam pleases Allah with brutality and Jihad.  Islam seeks to instill a political regime to enforce its provisions.  When such a political doctrine declares that “resistance is futile”, it is referring to corporeal enforcement by people.

Personal religions acknowledge natural fears, and then use light, wisdom, and the capacity for human nobility to eliminate them through a positive, spiritual exercise.  Other religions encourage voluntary, personal spiritual alignment.  The only “coercion” in a religion based on personal spiritualism is the conveyance of the natural idea of a soul and judgment.  If you believe in these things, you change and atone, perhaps out of fear.  If you do not, you accuse the evangelizer of being fraudulent…but a fraud is a demonstrable deception not an opinion, and the one who disbelieves in a personal religion cannot prove his point of view, so fraud is not in play as a driver of personal spiritualism.  When a personal religion declares that “resistance is futile”, it is referring to spiritual enforcement by God.

This is the difference between day and night, between good and evil. Islam believes in the rule of Islam, Caliphate to the Sunnis and Imamate to the Shi’as. Hence, to Muslims, all other forms of government represent the handiwork of the Satan and the infidels. Therefore, one and all non-Islamic systems of government must be purified by the Islamic fire.

Islam is and has always been political, in the form of Imamate, Caliphate or by proxy where Islam, through religious divines, controlled the state. Saudi Arabia, for instance, does not even have a constitution. The Quran is the constitution. The country has a king. Yet, the king is the supreme enforcer of the laws dictated by Islam.

Islam is so radical that even the term “radical” does not adequately depict its true character. The founder of Islam, Muhammad, behaved in extreme ways whenever he could. Early on, in Mecca, among his tribe of Quraish, he was ridiculed as a crazed Poet. Ordinary residents of Mecca scorned him in their habitual way of treating the mentally deranged. What did Muhammad do? He personified meekness itself. He put up with extreme indignities, did not fight back and suffered abuses.

Time was on Muhammad’s side. Before long, he attracted followers, some of whom were men of power and influence, such as Umar, Uthman and Abu Bakr. Then the pendulum swung. The long-suffering meek became the tyrannical avenger. He ordered all the idols in the idolatry of Mecca destroyed, except the one called Allah. Yet, he selected the same name for a non-corporeal deity who commissioned him as his messenger.  Then Allah’s messenger, Muhammad, set out to systematically exterminate people he perceived as his tormentors and enemies—Jews of Medina, among others.

The Quran is full of black and white, right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable verses. Men who didn’t convert to Islam were labeled infidels and slaughtered; their women and children were taken along with all their belongings as booty. It was either Islam’s way or the highway. This radicalism is very much in action today.

In another Islamic country, Iran, where the mullahs rule, the constitution is squarely based on the Quran. Many laws are strictly drawn from the Sharia. The mosque is the state and no other competing political ideology is permitted. But marrying religion with government is stoking fire with explosives. In free democracies, governments are accountable to the people and serve at the people’s pleasure. In Islamic theocracy, governments are accountable only to Allah and the people must serve at the pleasure of the government. And one can see the result of Islamic total or partial rule in fifty-four or so countries which rank among the highest nations of the world on every index of misery.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Iran threw off its oppressive theocratic rule and established a government “of the people”, with room for all beliefs?  Iran could be a powerful nation and a peaceful one, an example for the rest of the developing world of how to thrive without Islamic politics.  However, the road to freedom is perilous.  Nothing as worthwhile as freedom can be purchased easily. But the cause is worth it.

While I desire freedom in Iran, I am a committed anti-Islamist and anti-communist in general. I believe communism, as an expression of materialist naturalist philosophy is atheistic, representing a desire by man to dominate both nature and man.

It is a mentality of enslavement that drives Islam…“submission” in which man subdues other men in order to establish a kingdom of oppression and hatred on earth. Atheism, materialism and Islam appear as contradictions with respect to each other, but when you peel away the veneer of their pretense, you see that their aims are the same.  Fascism is fascism.

We live in a society, which worships “experts” and specialists.  However, our distorted society of “experts” has continually failed us.  Almost nothing they have told us has turned out to be true.  Thus, I am a revisionist in that I believe much of what we believe is true is utterly false.  I also believe in good and evil, a notion sadly obsolete in our nihilistic time.  I don’t think Satan is any more a metaphor than is God.

Islam is theocracy, the rule of the clerics. The authoritarianism runs from the top to the bottom in a strict hierarchy with Allah at the top, to his Prophet, to the Caliphs or the Imams, to the lesser men of cloth along the chain of command. No one is allowed to contest or dispute the word and actions of the authorities. Islam and democracy, therefore, are inherently irreconcilable. In some Islamic circles Muslims speak of Islamic Democracy—an oxymoron.

Jihadists are the army of Allah. The use of violence as an instrument of policy has been and continues to be central to Islam. Muslims war under the firmly-believed and widely-cherished set of ideas that are rabidly militaristic. No matter which side is killed, Islam is the victor, “You kill them, you go to paradise; you get killed, you go to paradise,” are two examples of exhortation to jihadism and war.

To cut to the chase, we need to eliminate some disinformation and myths about the “war on terror”:

1.    We are not fighting terrorism.  We are engaging in an ideological battle between freedom, conservatism, democracy, individual rights, capitalism, “Christian” ethics and Islamofascism, communism-socialism, theocracy, and tyranny.  There are also internationalist, dictatorial, globalist forces that seek to use the conflict to create an international government and a unification of all religions by the destruction of nationalism, patriotism, individual rights and sectarianism.
2.    It is not “fanatical”, “radical”, or “extreme” Islam that we are fighting, but normal, orthodox, canonical, typical, accepted, traditional Islam, straight from the mouth of the Muhammad.  Islam is violent in direct proportion to its mission and scripture.  The so-called fanatics are only upholding the truth of their principles.  There are those who do not openly engage in terrorism or warfare, but are in support of it, or are working in other ways to spread Islam by force or fraud.
3.    Islam is evil, by any accepted definition of that word, and must be seen as such by all rational non-Islamists.  There is no such thing as “peace” in Islam except the peace that comes after a successful war against infidels.
4.    Islam can work by brute force and by the lengths to which the believers will go to perpetuate it.  Its theology and practices make it inherently evil and dangerous to all of mankind.  It has already spread and infected the world like a cancer.  How do you nuke it out of existence?  You can’t…in fact, they will nuke us first, I am sure of that.  When this happens, all hell will break loose, and most freedoms will be up in smoke.
We must begin to declare Islam evil, not from a sectarian perspective, but from a universal, humanist one.  Every encroachment of Islam as a religion must be rejected, harassed and discouraged by all people everywhere.  Any leftist attempts to give aid and comfort to this religion of hate must be denounced and frustrated at every turn.  Otherwise, get used to your radioactive suit and your fallout shelter, a standard of living—and a level of freedom of 1/10th of what you have today.

Warning to free men and women: remain a spectator at your own peril. It is imperative that you take a stand and do your part at denouncing the fraud of Islam and do all you can to prevent the Islamic fire from devouring our civilized democratic system.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and a pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com. Amil Imani is the author of the smashing book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad.

Obama’s Misery Index

Obama’s Misery Index

Frank Gutting

In 1980, Ronald Reagan masterfully handed Jimmy
Carter the misery index to illustrate the pain caused by his incoherent
policies. The misery index added the inflation rate to the unemployment rate and
came to a total of 21.98. Barack Obama has surpassed Jimmy Carter. From gas
prices and inflation to unemployment and massive federal spending, Barack Obama
is happily presiding over the decline of the powerhouse that was the United
States economy.
The clearest example of his failure as President is
evidenced in the price of a gallon of gas. In the latter part of his
administration, George W. Bush received much flak for the rising price at the
pump. Americans were hurting as the price per gallon reached a historic high of
over $4 per gallon in June 2008. Pundits and politicians flung political attacks
against the President for his previous oil adventures, while others blamed
speculators. On July 14, 2008, with an average price per gallon of $4.05,
President Bush issued an executive order lifting the ban on oil drilling in
federal waters. Amazingly, by August 4 the average price per gallon had fallen
to $3.82 and continued to decline to $1.59 by December 2008. Then on January 20,
2009, Barack Obama was inaugurated and, with his election, the average price per
gallon reversed a 5 month decline, reaching $2.60 by May 2010! Next, on May 28,
President Obama issued a moratorium on all off shore drilling. As a result, the
price for gas today has risen to $3.78 per gallon, and is expected to reach $5.
His inaction and lack of concern are evidence that the rise in price does not
concern him and he is willing to allow it to continue.
Okay, so gas prices are just one issue. What about
jobs? President Obama has said repeatedly that he has a “laser like focus” on
putting Americans back to work. For over a year he touted his $800 billion
stimulus package that would create “shovel ready jobs,” all while preventing
unemployment from surpassing 8%. Not only did unemployment pass 8%, but it
passed 10% in October of 2010. To make matters worse, the President then
revealed, after spending over a trillion dollars, that there is no such thing as
a “shovel ready job!” Furthermore, the number of long termed unemployed has
continued to rise and the prospect of reversing this trend is dim. Today, even
as the government unemployment number has fallen below 9%, real unemployment
remains around 17%. So much for the Keynesian policies of government spending to
stimulate economic growth.
Speaking of spending money, all that spending has a
consequence! This week, Standard and Poor revealed that it lowered its outlook
on the credit of the United States to “negative;” a strong indication that the
rating agency is considering lowering our AAA rating. President Obama has
intentionally inflated our national deficit to four times the deficits under
George Bush and continues to advocate for more deficit spending. Why? The
spending, along with the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing, has caused
inflation to rise up to 10%, according to an article by CNBC, as the
value of the dollar continues to plummet to new lows. Perhaps the President
intends to monetize the massive debt that he is accruing? Or, maybe he is
ignorant of the consequences of these policies? Either way, the affects on the
American people will be devastating: prices will climb as the dollar falls,
interest rates will have to be raised, unemployment will rise again, your taxes
will go up, and the stock market will begin another historic dive.
With 10% inflation and 17% real unemployment,
Barack Obama’s misery index is 27. This is the change Obama promised in 2008.
This is the change he intends to bring. Don’t like it? Vote for a new President
in 2012!

Baracknaphobia

Baracknaphobia

D.L. Hammack

For every human being, life, along with its joys and
pleasures, is also full of fears and phobias.  For me, standing on a tall rock
outcropping, peering between my toes at the cavernous abyss below, causes
immediate panic with weak kneed, spine tingling, wet-your-pants fear.  They call
it acrophobia.

Others have fears of spiders or snakes, or perhaps tight spaces.  The world
has recognized these fears by giving those names like arachnophobia,
ophidiophobia, or claustrophobia.
As the world evolves and new fears arise, it is only natural for us to
recognize these fears and continue to grant them the names they deserve in an
attempt to better label the fear, and then deal with that fear and the resultant
anxieties.
As 2012 nears I have a recurring fear that is so powerful that it finds me
praying for soiled pants via a cliff dive or an enclosed coffin teeming with
spiders.  The dominant fear is such that I have found need to name it; to give
it a label: Baracknaphobia.  Each time the man who leads what used to be the
most powerful nation in the world goes on television, my stomach turns.  When he
speaks, I convulse at the sound of his conceited, self motivated, lies.  When he
travels abroad, I cower in embarrassment.  When his arrogant, condescending tone
reverberates in the halls where true leaders like Reagan stood, I cringe.
Baracknaphobia is the inescapable fear that this country will be subjected
to another four years of ideological, radical, in-your-face narcissistic
control.  Baracknaphobia is also the reluctance to call the man out for his
lies, because of the color of his skin.  Baracknaphobia is fear of the demon
that could destroy America.
God instilled in man an innate ability to experience “gut feel” and
recognize danger.  The “gut” instinct is given so man can avert that danger and
carry him to safer locales.  If one is afraid of snakes, then one simply avoids
traipsing in areas that are known for snakes.  But what if the snake is in the
White House and there’s no way to avoid dealing with it each and every day of
your life?  My God-given “gut” feel tells me that the reality that shadows this
fear will be far worse than a tumble in a snake pit.  The lasting effects of
evil will forever scar a nation that out of political correctness voted a
monster into the White House.
We have labeled the fear.  Now let us recognize that the resultant
anxieties associated with this fear will be forever lasting and forever
inescapable.  The only way to eliminate the fear is to vote with your gut and
send this man and his minions packing (czars and all).
2012 will, by our choice and, regardless of the outcome, be a year in the
history of the world that will forever be remembered.  Shall we be remembered as
those who stood and faced fear or those who cowered on our knees overwhelmed by
PC?

Open letter to Sen John McCain

Senator McCain,

My husband
worked and paid into Social Security from 1952 to 1998. That’s 46 years. I paid
into it from 1953, on and off for 8 years. My job was to stay home and raise
two sons.

Tell me why
it’s called entitlement. Because of reckless decisions and spending in
Washington we have not had a cost of living raise since 2009. Our cost have
gone up like everybody else’s, but you voted to give these benefits to illegals
who have not put in one penny. WHY?

Please, be the
Conservative Representative we hoped you were when we voted for you. Perhaps
you’ve been in Washington too long and made too many friends across the aisle.
Is that it?

Our Country and
our National Reputation are being stolen out from under us. I’m 78 years old
and have seen a lot of different people come to represent me, but at this time
I do not have a voice in Washington.

William
Spencer, my Great Granddad, removed nine times, was one of the Founders of
Jamestown. He came here in 1607 on the Susan Constant. The people on the three
ships met at Cape Henry, Virginia and raised a 7 foot wooden cross and
consecrated the land to God. I mention this because our [present] President
says we are not a Christian nation. He didn’t even come here until he was grown
and I am not that sure that he was ever an American. I’ve read his wife’s
thesis and certainly she’s not proud to be an American.

We are in need
of Proud, Conservative, Fearless, Patriotic and Godly people to save our country.
Please, stand up and be that person. Never before do I remember a voice in
Washington from the Oval Office being so ready to criticize our USA.

Bettye Simmons

Tempe, AZ

LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH – very embarrassing!

LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH – very embarrassing!


The American people can now more readily “understand” why
the Obama’s were omitted from the guest list to the Royal wedding in April!
This is a very sobering article.  Our handling of relationships with the Britons
over the oil spill didn’t help
either.



From The London
Daily Telegraph Editor On Foreign
Relations

Quote:

“Let me be
clear: I’m not normally in favor of boycotts, and I love the American people.  I
holiday in their country regularly, and hate the tedious snobby sneers against
the United States.  But the American people chose to elect an idiot who seems
hell bent on insulting their allies, and something must be done to stop Obama’s
reckless foreign policy, before he does the dirty on his allies on every
issue.”

One of the most poorly kept secrets in
Washington is President Obama’s animosity toward Great Britain, presumably
because of what he regards as its sins while ruling Kenya
(1895-1963).

One of Barack Hussein Obama’s first acts as
president was to return to Britain a bust of Winston Churchill that had graced
the Oval Office since 9/11.  He followed this up by denying Prime Minister
Gordon Brown, on his first state visit, the usual joint press conference with
flags.

The president was “too tired” to grant the
leader of America’s closest ally a proper welcome, his aides told British
journalists.


Mr. Obama followed this up with
cheesy gifts for Mr. Brown and the Queen. Columnist Ian Martin described his
behavior as “rudeness personified.” There was more rudeness in store for Mr.
Brown at the opening session of the United Nations in September.  “The prime
minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure
five minutes of face time with President Obama after five requests for a sit
down  meeting were rejected by the White House”, said London Telegraph columnist
David Hughes.  Mr. Obama’s “churlishness is unforgivable”, Mr. Hughes
said.

The administration went beyond
snubs and slights last week when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed the
demand of Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, a Hugo Chavez ally, for
mediation of Argentina’s specious claim to the Falkland Islands, a British
dependency since 1833. The people who live in the Falklands, who speak English,
want nothing to do with Argentina.  When, in 1982, an earlier Argentine
dictatorship tried to seize the Falklands by force, the British — with strong
support from President Ronald Reagan — expelled them.

“It is truly shocking that Barack
Obama has decided to disregard our shared history,” wrote Telegraph columnist
Toby Young. “Does Britain’s friendship really mean so little to him?”  One could
ask, does the friendship of anyone in the entire world mean anything to
him?

“I
recently asked several senior administration officials, separately, to name a
foreign leader with whom Barack Obama has forged a strong personal relationship
during his first year in office,” wrote Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page
editor of the Washington Post, on Monday. “A lot of hemming and hawing ensued.”
One official named French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but his contempt for Mr.
Obama is an open secret.  Another named German Chancellor Angela Merkel. But,
said Mr. Diehl, “Merkel too has been conspicuously cool toward
Obama.”

Mr.
Obama certainly doesn’t care about the Poles and Czechs, whom he has betrayed on
missile defense.   Honduras  and Israel also can attest that he’s been an
unreliable ally and an unfaithful friend.  Ironically, our relations with both
Israel and the Palestinian Authority have never been worse.   Russia has offered
nothing in exchange for Mr. Obama’s abandonment of missile defense.   Russia and
China won’t support serious sanctions on Iran.   Syria’s support for terrorism
has not diminished despite efforts to normalize diplomatic relations.  The
reclusive military dictatorship that runs Burma has responded to our efforts at
“engagement” by deepening its ties to North Korea .

And the Chinese make little effort
to disguise their contempt for him.

For the first time in a long time,
the President of the United States is actually distrusted by its allies and not
in the least feared by its adversaries.  Nor is Mr. Obama now respected by the
majority of Americans.  Understandably focused on the dismal economy and Mr.
Obama’s relentless efforts to nationalize and socialize health care,  Americans
apparently have yet to notice his dismal performance and lack of respect in the
world community. They soon will.

– London Daily Telegraph editor –
Alex  Singleton

Muslims Aren’t Terrorists; You Are

Muslims Aren’t Terrorists; You Are

April 11th, 2011

Doug Book, FloydReports.com

With the election approaching, Barack Hussein Obama has spared no effort in
proclaiming his undying love of his country (the United States, we are told), his
veneration of the Constitution, his enduring
belief in the power of prayer, and the
firm conviction that Americans have the
right to keep and bear arms
.
But we proletarians who manifest such sentiments had best beware of the
Department of Homeland Security and its commandant, Big Sis Napolitano.
A proud assertion of patriotism
by Americans who actually mean it may well succeed in marking one as a
Suspected Domestic Terrorist
….
Read
more
.

Obama, The God That Failed

Obama, The God That Failed

By Paul
Kengor

 

As someone who has studied, taught, and written about the Middle East for
years, I’m the first to concede that President Obama has a tough task. What
would I do about Libya if I were president? How about Egypt?
I’m not exactly sure. The situations are complex, with too many daunting
unknowns. Chief among them, who, or what, precisely, is behind the
opposition? Would a Gaddafi or Mubarak be replaced by Muslim democrats or
theocrats, by an Ayatollah, by a Hamas, by a Hamid Karzai, by a Saddam or Sadat,
or perhaps by the first Thomas Jefferson in the Arab world?
Of course, my personal struggle with the complexities doesn’t matter much.
I’m not president. Obama is. And alas, it’s here, with Barack Obama as
commander-in-chief, that the left once again has failed itself and America in
the process.
The left pinned its hopes and dreams on Barack Obama. He wasn’t merely
another politician, he was post-modern, post-racial, post-cultural,
post-political. We were told Obama didn’t need political experience. His
international upbringing, his multi-national background, his inherent diversity
and multiculturalism, his youthful hopping and groping from country to country,
culture to culture, faith to faith, through
Islam, Buddhism, asceticism, Christianity
, Augustine, Aquinas, Graham
Greene, Nietzsche, Rev. Wright, and whatever else — heaped atop his overflowing
innate brilliance — would beget a new breed of political man, a supreme
decision-maker worthy of the most vexing challenges. He was no George W. Bush;
he was the anti-Bush.
All of this, of course, was twaddle, but it’s sadly in keeping with the
perverse political-spiritual sentimentality that plagues the left. Liberals have
a bizarre tendency to revere their political leaders as geniuses. They did so
even with the Clintons and Al Gore. In handy contrast, they reflexively
caricature their opponents, irrespective of stature or fact, as stupid. It’s a
very shallow thing to do, a triumph of emotion over logic; still, they do it
incessantly.
Worsening the situation is the hard secularism of today’s left.
Progressives are more agnostic and atheistic than ever. They tend to search for
salvation in politics, which is a god that will always fail. In Obama, many of
them hoped for some sort of political
messiah
, approaching levels of earthly omnipotence not possible by previous
presidents.
This brings me back to the Middle East. Now, with great historic moments — and perhaps opportunities — afloat in Libya and Egypt, on the heels of Iran in June 2009, watching Obama unable to arrive at a clear sense of understanding, let alone direction or purpose, has liberals flummoxed. They wander in the desert without their Moses, who, in a much anticipated speech on Libya last week, at best muttered something about a humanitarian crisis; how utterly unsatisfying.
Remember, too, it was the Middle East that was supposed to be Obama’s
strength. He would be better than Bush, and precisely at the right place and
time. Far from Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name being a liability, liberals
assured us it was his saving grace. Their faithful leader would know what to do,
in a way that “Bush,” Texas rube, was fully incapable.
Instead, Obama appears clueless on the small picture let alone big picture,
as do the wise men and women he has surrounded himself with. Neither teacher nor
disciples have answers.
Of course, those of us not suffering on the left recognized liberals’
grandiose blather about Obama as pure codswallop from the outset. Sadly,
however, and not surprisingly, liberals duped enough moderates and independents
to elect Obama president. And now America suffers en masse, as does,
potentially, the worldwide “March
of Freedom
” that both Bush and Ronald Reagan trumpeted
and pushed
.
To be fair to Obama, he never billed himself as messiah; his acolytes did.
He was the light that had been hidden under bushel. He needed to be chosen by
the people so his light could shine before men. American wasn’t the beacon, the
Shining City — Barack Obama was.
That brings me, in closing, to a Reagan analogy that provides a measure of
just how tragically out of place Obama is at this historical juncture: When the
Solidarity movement rose up in Poland in opposition to Soviet communism, Ronald
Reagan knew exactly what to do. He was born for that moment; his entire life
experience, from the First Christian Church in Dixon, Illinois to Hollywood to
the White House, had prepared him. His international contacts (unlike Obama’s)
were soul-mates and the real deal, profound figures like Pope John Paul II and
Margaret Thatcher, who in the fullness of time had the proper understanding of
nature, man, Providence. They possessed a shared comprehension of the big
picture. The same was true for movements like Lech Walesa’s Solidarity and
Vaclav Havel’s Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia. Reagan knew what stood behind them
and what opposed them. He got free elections within a decade, and the liars and
thieves were tossed to the ash-heap of history.
And all along, liberals, naturally, called Reagan a moron.
There’s a distinct intellectual vacuity among the American left. I’m
reminded of a Reagan quote regarding the distant-left cousins of liberals:
“Marxist-Leninist thought,” Reagan informed, “is an empty cupboard.”
So it is. And right now, we’re seeing the left empty. After burning down
the house of Bush — torching a good man with every weapon in the smoldering
arsenal — and assuring a Promised Land under Barack Obama, the left appears
naked, with no answers anywhere in the cupboard. No water-turned-into-wine, no
manna from heaven, no Holy Grail. All that remains are false promises from a
false messiah made in the Left’s own image. From Iran to Egypt to Libya, there
are no solutions. This wasn’t supposed to be.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City
College.
His books include The
Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism
and
Dupes:
How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a
Century
.

Save America; Get Outraged

Save America; Get Outraged

April 8th, 2011

Don Feder, GrassTopsUSA.com

Where’s the outrage?
Given what Barack Obama is doing to the Constitution, the economy and our
future, the American people should be up in arms (metaphorically speaking, civility-hysterics
take note). Citizens should be marching on Washington with pitchforks and
flaming brands in hand (also a metaphor).
Every city should see demonstrations to make the most raucous Tea Party rally
look like Sunday night in Pierre, South Dakota.
Instead, it’s a mental fog as usual. Hey, the unemployment rate is now
(barely) below 9 percent! Wasn’t that a cold winter? Gee, I wonder what zany,
drug-induced thing Charlie
Sheen
will do next?
So, while America burns, we fiddle with our iPhones and talk about the
upcoming HBO series about vampire bootleggers and Borgias duking it out in
Camelot.
Other than Tea Party activists, the public seems supremely unperturbed by
Obama’s relentless assault on America. The president’s March 21-27 approval
rating was 45 percent. At the same point in their first terms, Clinton’s
approval rating was only three points higher – Reagan’s three points lower. Both
were re-elected, you may recall.
It’s true that since Obama occupied the White House, his
party’s stock
has taken
a nose-dive
– a net
loss
of 9 governorships, 7 Senate seats, and 60 House seats. But there’s no
guarantee that trend will continue.
The leader of the party that whines incessantly about the influence of money
in politics has announced he’ll spend $1 billion to win re-election….
Read more.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers