A Christian Nation Read this carefully

A Christian Nation

Posted By Jeremy D. Boreing On August 29, 2009 @ 2:49 pm In Featured Story, Politics, Religion | 57 Comments

In the comment section of a recent post, I drew some fire for making the following, apparently shocking claim:

We [Americans] see America, from the Pilgrims who signed the Mayflower Compact to the Biblical scholars… who birthed the nation, to the spirit of sacrifice and charity that thrives to this very day, not as a nation of Christians (for that freedom is at the deepest core of our common philosophy) but as a Christian nation.

It seems that there is a growing belief that because our Founders were stalwart advocates for religious liberty, and because some of them had very nuanced and sometimes cynical views about organized religion, the United States was somehow conceived to be a secular nation. This belief is not only untrue, but detrimental to an adequate understanding of the underlying political philosophy of the founding, not least of all because it envisions the government as the nation instead of merely the organization through which the nation conducts its civil affairs, and more importantly because it betrays the singular belief that undergirds the entire American experiment: That the rights of man come not from government but from God. Read the rest of this entry »

Obama and his Thugs

Obama and his Thugs

August 29th, 2009

By Kyle-Anne Shiver, American Thinker

Obama is sending his civilian army out to advance his agenda

Early last fall, an old friend of mine and long-time volunteer for Republican women’s associations, called me from her home in Orlando, Florida.  She was quite shaken.  She had just returned from what was intended to be a small, quiet McCain support outing, just like the ones she had been dutifully attending for 30 years.  The small group of middle-aged homemakers took their little signs to an approved street corner, carried their small American flags and assembled to do their hour’s vote-for-our-guy walk before heading off to the nearest coffee shop to divvy up coming-week duties of stuffing envelopes and making phone calls.

But something had changed between the last election and 2008.  My friend told of a morning from hell, in which the women were rudely accosted on the street by young male thugs (her word), who called them “c*nts,” “whitey whores” and “stupid bitches.”  These young males got in their faces and jostled them with angry shoves.  My friend said that in all the years she had been doing just this simple patriotic activity, she had never had such a frightening experience.  It was to be the first of several, which have left her shaken to this day.

Later on into the fall campaign, I spoke with Dr. Lynette Long, a former Hillary supporter compiling data on what she deemed, “Caucus Fraud.”  She referred me to a set of video testimonials, in which middle-aged women mostly, gave grizzly accounts of the same thuggery employed against them in caucus settings.

Read More:

Airbrushing out Mary Jo Kopechne

Airbrushing out Mary Jo Kopechne
Only a Kennedy could get away with it.

By Mark Steyn

We are enjoined not to speak ill of the dead. But, when an entire nation — or, at any rate, its “mainstream” media culture — declines to speak the truth about the dead, we are certainly entitled to speak ill of such false eulogists. In its coverage of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s passing, America’s TV networks are creepily reminiscent of those plays Sam Shepard used to write about some dysfunctional inbred hardscrabble Appalachian household where there’s a baby buried in the backyard but everyone agreed years ago never to mention it.

In this case, the unmentionable corpse is Mary Jo Kopechne, 1940–1969. If you have to bring up the, ah, circumstances of that year of decease, keep it general, keep it vague. As Kennedy flack Ted Sorensen put it in Time magazine: “Both a plane crash in Massachusetts in 1964 and the ugly automobile accident on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969 almost cost him his life.”

That’s the way to do it! An “accident,” “ugly” in some unspecified way, just happened to happen — and only to him, nobody else. Ted’s the star, and there’s no room to namecheck the bit players. What befell him was . . . a thing, a place. As Joan Vennochi wrote in the Boston Globe: “Like all figures in history — and like those in the Bible, for that matter — Kennedy came with flaws. Moses had a temper. Peter betrayed Jesus. Kennedy had Chappaquiddick, a moment of tremendous moral collapse.”

Actually, Peter denied Jesus, rather than “betrayed” him, but close enough for Catholic-lite Massachusetts. And if Moses having a temper never led him to leave some gal at the bottom of the Red Sea, well, let’s face it, he doesn’t have Ted’s tremendous legislative legacy, does he? Perhaps it’s kinder simply to airbrush out of the record the name of the unfortunate complicating factor on the receiving end of that moment of “tremendous moral collapse.” When Kennedy cheerleaders do get around to mentioning her, it’s usually to add insult to fatal injury. As Teddy’s biographer Adam Clymer wrote, Edward Kennedy’s “achievements as a senator have towered over his time, changing the lives of far more Americans than remember the name Mary Jo Kopechne.”

You can’t make an omelette without breaking chicks, right? I don’t know how many lives the senator changed — he certainly changed Mary Jo’s — but you’re struck less by the precise arithmetic than by the basic equation: How many changed lives justify leaving a human being struggling for breath for up to five hours pressed up against the window in a small, shrinking air pocket in Teddy’s Oldsmobile? If the senator had managed to change the lives of even more Americans, would it have been okay to leave a couple more broads down there? Hey, why not? At the Huffington Post, Melissa Lafsky mused on what Mary Jo “would have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history . . . Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it.” What true-believing liberal lass wouldn’t be honored to be dispatched by that death panel?

We are all flawed, and most of us are weak, and in hellish moments, at a split-second’s notice, confronting the choice that will define us ever after, many of us will fail the test. Perhaps Mary Jo could have been saved; perhaps she would have died anyway. What is true is that Edward Kennedy made her death a certainty. When a man (if you’ll forgive the expression) confronts the truth of what he has done, what does honor require? Six years before Chappaquiddick, in the wake of Britain’s comparatively very minor “Profumo scandal,” the eponymous John Profumo, Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for War, resigned from the House of Commons and the Queen’s Privy Council, and disappeared amid the tenements of the East End to do good works washing dishes and helping with children’s playgroups, in anonymity, for the last 40 years of his life. With the exception of one newspaper article to mark the centenary of his charitable mission, he never uttered another word in public again.

Ted Kennedy went a different route. He got kitted out with a neck brace and went on TV and announced the invention of the “Kennedy curse,” a concept that yoked him to his murdered brothers as a fellow victim — and not, as Mary Jo perhaps realized in those final hours, the perpetrator. He dared us to call his bluff, and, when we didn’t, he made all of us complicit in what he’d done. We are all prey to human frailty, but few of us get to inflict ours on an entire nation.

His defenders would argue that he redeemed himself with his “progressive” agenda, up to and including health-care “reform.” It was an odd kind of “redemption”: In a cooing paean to the senator on a cringe-makingly obsequious edition of NPR’s Diane Rehm Show, Edward Klein of Newsweek fondly recalled that one of Ted’s “favorite topics of humor was, indeed, Chappaquiddick itself. He would ask people, ‘Have you heard any new jokes about Chappaquiddick?’”

Terrific! Who was that lady I saw you with last night?

Beats me!

Why did the Last Lion cross the road?

To sleep it off!

What do you call 200 Kennedy sycophants at the bottom of a Chappaquiddick pond? A great start, but bad news for NPR guest-bookers! “He was a guy’s guy,” chortled Edward Klein. Which is one way of putting it.

When a man is capable of what Ted Kennedy did that night in 1969 and in the weeks afterwards, what else is he capable of? An NPR listener said the senator’s passing marked “the end of civility in the U.S. Congress.” Yes, indeed. Who among us does not mourn the lost “civility” of the 1987 Supreme Court hearings? Considering the nomination of Judge Bork, Ted Kennedy rose on the Senate floor and announced that “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit down at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution . . . ”

Whoa! “Liberals” (in the debased contemporary American sense of the term) would have reason to find Borkian jurisprudence uncongenial, but to suggest the judge and former solicitor-general favored re-segregation of lunch counters is a slander not merely vile but so preposterous that, like his explanation for Chappaquiddick, only a Kennedy could get away with it. If you had to identify a single speech that marked “the end of civility” in American politics, that’s a shoo-in.

If a towering giant cares so much about humanity in general, why get hung up on his carelessness with humans in particular? For Kennedy’s comrades, the cost was worth it. For the rest of us, it was a high price to pay. And, for Ted himself, who knows? He buried three brothers, and as many nephews, and as the years took their toll, it looked sometimes as if the only Kennedy son to grow old had had to grow old for all of them. Did he truly believe, as surely as Melissa Lafsky and Co., that his indispensability to the republic trumped all else? That Camelot — that “fleeting wisp of glory,” that “one brief shining moment” — must run forever, even if “How to Handle a Woman” gets dropped from the score. The senator’s actions in the hours and days after emerging from that pond tell us something ugly about Kennedy the man. That he got away with it tells us something ugly about American public life. 
Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2009 Mark Steyn


National Review Online – http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjZlNjA1MTRmYWViNjMwMDUyNjc1ZTg0NDQwZjk2ODc=

Czech President: Neosocialism Threatens Europe

Czech President: Neosocialism Threatens Europe

By The Brussels Journal
Created 2009-08-28 11:27
klaus_stamp.gif

Václav Klaus

 Below is the text of a speech which President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic gave last Sunday in Aix-en Provence (France). We thank President Klaus for his kind permission to republish his speech at this website.
 
Thank you for the invitation to come to Aix, for giving me a chance to address this reputable audience where I see many friends and, above all, thank you for continuing to organize the Summer University. I only don’t understand why you call it Summer University of the New Economics. Which one is the old one? We have only one, good, old economic theory and it is our adversaries who use the term “new economics” as an attack on our views. 

This year’s main topic of your gathering is “Markets and Morality.” I only hope that by choosing this title you wanted to say that there is no morality, at least in the public arena, without markets. It is an important and, again, a very old message. In our early post-communist years, I was being often patronized that what we needed then was morality, whereas I stubbornly repeated that what we needed were markets. My critics argued that a strong, ex-ante infusion of morality is necessary – with the implicit expectation that it would be them, who’d be supplying it. It was the substance of my disputes with my predecessor in office, President Václav Havel. I hope the speakers at the Summer University will be on my side.
 
I am here already for the third time in this decade. It demonstrates – at least I wish it does – my respect for what you’re doing. I was here in August 2002 when we, at the beginning of the second post-communist decade, started to reassess our journey from communism to a free society. The title of my speech then was “Post-Communist Era: Atmosphere of Victory or of Lost Illusions?” We had a mixed feeling at that time. We had quite rapidly liquidated the formal structures and mechanisms of the communist society and successfully established parliamentary democracy and market economy. The question was whether we were building free society based on classical liberal principles or whether we – instead – had fallen into another blind alley of regulated society, of unproductive welfare state, of brave new world of European socialdemocratism and of empty and artificial Europeanism. My answer to that question was that the winner of the transition decade was democracy, not freedom or classical liberalism. Our original slogan: “deregulate, liberalize, privatize” was gradually transformed into a different one: “regulate, adjust to all kinds of standards of the most developed and richest countries, listen to the partial interests of the NGOs and follow them, get rid of your sovereignty and put it into the hands of international institutions and organizations.”
 
This year we celebrate already the 20th anniversary of the fall of communism and we are again in a reassessment mood. The situation has not changed for the better.
 
My second visit here was in August 2006. The title of my presentation was “What is Europeism (or What Should not be the Future for Europe)?” (CEP, Center for Economics and Politics, Prague, 2006) Europeism is – for me – an inconsistent, evidently heterogeneous, but in principle neosocialist doctrine, which characterizes the current thinking in Europe. It believes neither in freedom, nor in spontaneous evolution of human society. It is a “conglomerate of ideas” that includes
 
economic (or social) views based on the concept of the so called social market economy (which is the opposite of the market economy);
 
views on freedom, democracy and society based on collectivism, social partnership and corporatism, not on classical parliamentary democracy;
 
views on European integration, which favor unification and supranationalism;
 
views on foreign policy and international relations based on internationalism, cosmopolitism, abstract universalism, multiculturalism and on denationalization.
 
To my great regret, I am afraid the same speech should be repeated today. Europe is more and more dominated by this way of thinking despite the fact that it is an extremely naïve, unpractical and romantic utopism, not shared by European silent majority, but predominantly by European elites.
 
Looking back, I am slightly surprised that in 2006 I did not mention environmentalism and global warming alarmism as a new threat to our freedom and prosperity. My book “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” – after its Czech, English, German, Dutch, Russian, Polish, Spanish, Bulgarian and Italian editions – has since May also its French version with the title “Planète bleue en peril vert.” I would like to thank all those who helped to make this publication possible, most of all Professor Jacques Garello.
 
I am more and more convinced that the real threat is not global warming itself. The real threat is playing with the climate (and with all of us) by irresponsible politicians and all kinds of environmentalists. I tried to express this view of mine in a question I raised in the subtitle of my book “Qu’est-ce qui est en danger: le climat ou la liberté?” My answer to this question is clear and straightforward: “C’est la liberté qui est en danger. Le climat va bien.”
 
One frequent misunderstanding needs to be dispelled. People tend to confuse two conceptually different things – a rational protection of the environment and an irrational attempt to protect (or even to fight) the climate. I am very much in favor of rational efforts when it comes to the environmental protection because we have to take care of our rivers, lakes, seas, forests and air, but I resolutely reject any attempts to change – or as I frequently hear – to combat the climate.
 
The current Global Warming Debate is not about temperature or CO2 levels. It is also not part of a scientific dispute inside climatology. It is an ideological clash between those who want to change us (rather than the climate) and those who believe in freedom, markets, human ingenuity, and technical progress. It is a dispute about us, about people, about human society, about our values, about our habits, about our way of life. Temperature fluctuations are only an instrument, not a real object of interest for those who play that game.
 
The advocates of global warming alarmism ask for an almost unprecedented expansion of government intrusion, of government intervention into our lives and of government control over us. We are pushed into accepting rules about how to live, what to do, how to behave, what to consume, what to eat, how to travel. It is unacceptable. Radical, human freedom and prosperity endangering measures and policies owing to global warming are not necessary.
 
The available evidence tells us quite convincingly that:
 
1. The warming we witness is not global. It materializes in the cold, but not in tropical regions, in dry, not wet areas, in the winter, not in the summer, and during the nights, not during the days.
 
2. The warming is not large. The average global temperature increase in the last century was only 0.74 °C. In addition to it, the climate stopped warming more than a decade ago altogether. The temperature now is similar to the temperature in the year 1940, regardless of a huge increase in CO2 emissions.
 
3. The warming is not unique and unprecedented. The temperature in the Medieval Warm Period and in many other moments of history was higher than it is now.
 
4. The mild warming we experience is not dominantly man-made or CO2-made. There are many other factors influencing the temperature and climate and the whole very complex climate system is still full of major uncertainties. One author recently calculated that the term “uncertain” or “uncertainties” appear more than 1300 times in the text of the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report.

 
We have to come up with an optimistic message that human adaptation, human flexibility, technical progress and the markets themselves will be sufficient to deal with all future potential problems of that kind.
 
The last topic I would like to mention here today is the current financial and economic crisis. The economic profession, the politicians, as well as the public did not expect it to come. They all accepted the validity of the so called “Great Moderation” hypothesis based on the belief in the omnipotence of central banks and governments to control the macroeconomy and in the feasibility, rationality and positiveness of microeconomic regulation, especially in financial and banking sectors. This hypothesis was, of course, wrong and the dream about the eternal removal of business fluctuations did not materialize.
 
The current crisis is a consequence of a combination of government failures. On the macroeconomic side, it was the unprecedented build-up of imbalances in the world economy and the unusually long period of low real interest rates. On the microeconomic side, the existing partial and very imperfect regulation distorted the behavior of banks and financial institutions and motivated them to look for ways to escape it by means of various “financial innovations”. They found it relatively easy to move their activities outside the regulatory perimeter, the most known example of this is the securitization of subprime mortgage credit.
 
I am convinced that the current crisis is not the result of a market failure or of any inherent deficiency of capitalism. It is a government failure, resulting from the immodest and unhumble ambitions to control such a complex system as society and economy.
 
I believe this is what the whole Summer University is about.
 
Václav Klaus, 31st Summer University of the New Economics, Dinner Speech, Hotel Roy René, Aix-en-Provence, France, August 23, 2009
.

 


The crap the left tries to peddle

The crap the left tries to peddle

Big Fur Hat
I’ve made a decision. After thoughtful reflection I’ve come to the conclusion that my life can have no greater purpose than to sacrifice it for the sake of another.  But this sacrifice cannot be for some Jack Nobody. No, I am looking to lay my life down for a very specific type of person.

If you are a young person of privilege, perhaps the black sheep of your family, and have an alarming drinking problem and been thrown out of an ivy league university, you might be the person I am looking for! Oh, quick question, were you a legacy to that exclusive institution, despite the fact that you were a dim C student at a lesser school?  This could be an important factor if I’m torn between two qualified applicants.

 

Are you an adulterer?  You’ll get special consideration if you are! Do you have multiple reckless driving citations?  Good for you! Remember, the more unqualified you’d be for any other endeavor in life the more qualified you are for my purpose. So, make sure you adequately communicate just how loathsome you are.

 

Here’s the deal. I want to be the catalyst that propels you into becoming a career politician. So… kill me. You heard me, murder me. It’s the only way you can become a yea/nay voter right down your party line. Becoming a party hack requires an epiphany of epic proportions.  And after you kill me you’re going to have a lot of self-reflection.  After all, your life of privilege will be in the balance. So you’ll promise to devote every ounce of your brainpower into toeing your party line and trying not to kill anyone anymore. You’ll still drink and cheat on your spouse, and maybe testify on behalf of a rapist, but by golly, you’ll be alive and I’ll be dead. And it will be soooooooo worth it.

 

In the last moments, as my life is being snuffed out, I can imagine you as the lion of the senate, thundering from the floor, questioning your political enemies ethics and morals. I’m getting a thrill up my leg just thinking about it. Call me, we’ll go for a drive.

 

When I read Melissa Lafsky’s piece in HuffPo I actually thought for a moment I was reading THE ONION. Her contention was that Mary Jo Kopechne, being what would be called a progressive today, might very well think  (if her capacity to think wasn’t snatched away by an irresponsible drunken coward) that it was “worth it” to be the catalyst (catalyst being another word for sacrificial homicide victim) for the re-making of Ted Kennedy. Did Lafsky ever consider for one moment that had Kopechne escaped from that death car, and learned that her “progressive hero” fled the scene, that she might have had an epiphany about left-wing morality? Of course she didn’t. She was too busy writing the most inane, insulting and outrageous blather in order to, not only whitewash a despicable act, but to audaciously turn it into a positive. If you fall for this ridiculous propaganda, I have a Dike Bridge to sell ya.

Apologies to Rick Moran, who covered this topic well, from a different angle.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/08/the_crap_the_left_tries_to_ped_1.html at August 29, 2009 – 05:48:36 PM EDT

Libyans have a blast, literally, at the West’s expense and, by the way, where was Obama?

Libyans have a blast, literally, at the West’s expense and, by the way, where was Obama?

UNITED NATIONS — The stunningly stupid move by Scotland’s Justice Secretary allowing the release on “compassionate grounds” of a Libyan terrorist convicted in the bombing Pan Am 103 with the loss of 270 lives, was supposed to go under the radar with barely a political blip. Instead, Kenny Mac Askill ignited a firestorm of global indignation which threatens British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s already embattled government

, but is equally awkward for the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

CIA Investigation insanity

CIA Investigation insanity

By Paul Carlsen

Flashback to 9/11 and imagine the reaction if George Bush stood with the firemen amid the smoldering ruins and said the United States government will prosecute CIA interrogators for blowing cigar smoke in the face of the terrorist masterminds.  The Bush administration would have been overthrown by the Honduran military. Seven years later and all common sense seems to be going up in smoke. Long gone are the images of Green Berets on horseback.  Ranches, action heroes, and slap shots are out.  Social media massages are in. The quitters can eat a hockey puck. The White House is white, not the American flag.

 

The Attorney General, Eric Holder, worked for the law firm that defended terrorists before he was chosen by Obama to lead the Justice Department, similar to putting the lawyer for an organized crime family in charge of the FBI. The Obama Justice Department is treating the CIA much like Henry Louis Gates went off on the cops. Their own psychological hang-ups and political baggage are apparently too much for them to put aside and view the world with balanced perspective. How dare a CIA employee make threats and poison the room with second hand smoke in the middle of a war. What was he thinking?  This isn’t Jack Ryan’s war. James Bond is a KIA.  The Surgeon General is the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Swisher Sweet cigar smoke has become napalm.

 

Regardless of what happens in Washington, the free world will fight on, even if it means being led by the Honduran military. Mitch Rapp is the guy in real peril, much more than Dick Cheney. If the CIA employees think they are demoralized, pity the writers of espionage and thrillers. The great suspense writer Eric Ambler’s “Journey into Fear” describes God as a waiter with a fly swatter.  The Obama administration is the waiter and Mitch Rapp is the fly.  Rudyard Kipling’s famous quote will have to be changed to “When every smoker is dead the Great Game is finished.”

 

The Cold War was replaced by the War on Terror which now has been replaced by the War on 1970s Television. The generation growing up with “All in the Family” and “M*A*S*H” have seized power. Meathead has gone to Washington. Corporal Klinger is a K Street lobbyist for GE and the green industrial complex.

 

What happened to the critic’s complaint that President Bush wasted precious seconds seated in front of school children instead of manning the battle stations during 9/11? They’re now complaining the CIA was too mean? In a war where the enemy uses women with Down’s syndrome as suicide bombers in city markets, making threats is considered torture? As Archie Bunker would say,

 

“Oh geeze.”

 

President Meathead takes on the Taliban.

 

The outcome won’t go down well with the silent majority. Military pictures of the dead caskets are now allowed, and these photos, come election time, will be compared to the pictures of terrorists on the Bermuda golf course, smiling at how their fortunes have changed for the better with President Meathead in the White House.  

 

President Obama is going need to keep some of the Mitch Rapps around if he intends to have a second term. When I was a teenager, I worked at a convenience store in a high crime area. One of the older clerks always came to work with a gun, and wanted to let the bad guys in the neighborhood know he had a gun. When he left, one of the bad guys came in and said, “We know the man with the piece is gone.” 

 

The bad guys around the world know the man with the piece, President Bush, is gone. Hugo Chavez , Castro, Putin, the Taliban, all of them understand the man with the piece is gone. The world is becoming a more dangerous place because of it. The CIA interrogators weren’t trying to intimidate shoplifters. The CIA prisoners want to see Americans die in large numbers.

 

Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates kept saying it wasn’t about him. His diatribe against the cops showed that it was all about him. The attacks on the CIA and the War on Terror are also all about the critics, not the victims, and their vain template of how  the world ought to operate.

 

If President Obama has no desire to read fictional exploits of Mitch Rapp and the suspense writers, he should find the time to read historian Paul Johnson’s ‘Intellectuals.” Those intellectuals who believe their ideas are more important than reality have a bad ending.  God’s fly swatter, if not Mitch Rapp, will get them in the end.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/cia_investigation_insanity.html at August 29, 2009 – 02:38:56 PM EDT