Posted by revkharma on November 16, 2015
Paris is burning, and DC is chilly. We have seen a well planned, well executed and devastating attack in Paris. Islamic fanatics have killed scores and it appears to be a direct result of the plans and achievements of the leaders of the West.
“Refugees” from Syria, and radicalized Europeans have struck in the heart of France with bloody results.
In the US, reaction is mixed. Our president has resolutely refused to change course, with his administration standing firm in their plans to import tens of thousands of those very same refugees.
After years of minimizing the role of ISIS, and refusing to even say ‘Islamic Terror’ President Obama on Friday, the day of the massacre, was quoted once more with noted ignorance, claiming that ISIS was now contained, and not a growing threat. At the gathering of world leaders, the American president was noticeably late for the formal gathering for a memorial moment of silence to honor the dead from the ISIS assault.
Even today, when pressed by media, President Obama has steadfastly refused to respond forcefully, with this the most telling exchange:
“CNN’s Jim Accosta said…’I guess the question is, and if you’ll forgive the language is”Why can’t we take out these bastards”?
Obama scoffed at the question: “What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of ‘American Leadership’ or America winning’ He said firmly”
This, then is pretty decisive and clear. This man, the president of the USA is NOT interested in victory by America.
Immediately following the attacks, Obama announced that he was releasing five Yemeni prisoners from Guantanamo, including the man who was Osama Bin Laden’s body guard. He appears bent on showing he cares more for Islamists than Americans.
Why is this? What can possibly be the answer?
Our president has sometimes been portrayed as being an islamist. He has denounced those who have questioned his Christian credentials. Recall the scrambling to rephrase and reframe this famous quote in an interview with George Stephanopolis, where he responded to a question with an answer about ” My Muslim Faith” ? If in fact, Obama had been raised as a Muslim by his father, then later in life he became Christian, then according to the Sharia law, he is an apostate. If this were the case, he would be subject to death by true believers. As it happens, there have not been calls for his death for this crime. Yet he continues to show more concern for defaming Islam than defending Christianity.
Answers range from his leftist upbringing, racialist philosophy, to Al Taqiyya.
But, in truth, the answers are irrelevant. The truth, the facts, are plain enough. As long as he is in command, Obama will not lead, will not permit America to win. He has stated plainly such. He must be thwarted, his successor must be someone capable of reversing his damage.
Keep the Faith!
Posted in Big Government, Border, Christianity, Civil liberties, corruption, Culture of Death, deception, fascism, Freedom, Global government, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, International, ISIS, Islam, Obama, Obama Administration, Presidential race, religion of peace, Terrorism, transnational law, unconstitutional | Tagged: al taqiyya, American Defeat, ISIL, ISIS, islamic terror, Islamist, Obama, obama islamist, paris, refugee crisis, Syria | Leave a Comment »
Posted by revkharma on June 9, 2014
KHARTOUM (Reuters) – A Sudanese court has sentenced a 27-year-old woman to death for converting to Christianity, judicial sources said.
Mariam Yahya Ibrahim had been ordered to abandon her newly adopted Christian faith and return to Islam. She had also been charged with adultery for marrying a Christian man.
OK, Where is the condemnation from the United Nations? From western nations? From the White House? From the House or Senate? From ANY leaders anywhere in the world??
And one more thing:
“Sudan is committed to all human rights and freedom of faith granted in Sudan by the constitution and law,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Abu-Bakr Al-Siddiq said. He added that his ministry trusted the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
Note the phrasing ‘Granted… by the Constitution and Law…”
The words betry a mindset, one which is different from the original ideas enshrined in the US Constitution. At least originally our founding documents declared that our rights pre-exist and supercede our constitution and laws. Rights co exist with humanity, ‘endowed by their Creater’ and inalienable.
As soon as they are ‘granted by law, or granted by Constitution’, they can be removed or altered by law.
As we in this nation continue to ‘grant rights’ by government fiat, we move quickly toward a legal grant which can be removed also by law.
Watch out, we are moving toward the very standard embraced by the Sudanese.
Posted in Bill of Rights, Civil liberties, Constitution, Culture of Death, Government Power, islamism, Politics, religion of peace, transnational law, Uncategorized | Tagged: Bill of Rights, change, Constitution, Freedom, Government Power, Islamism, liberty, society, Sudan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by revkharma on May 6, 2009
Consider Ms. Carrie Prejean who, by all accounts is a beautiful young woman, driven and focused to win. Her chosen venue is various competitions, Beauty Pageants. She won the title of Miss California in March of this year. These contests, while playing up the angle of question and answer, community activity and involvement are still dedicated to finding and promoting physically attractive women.Certainly there are personality and intellect requirements in the modern era, as the contestants now are thrust into a media whirlwind as soon as their names are disclosed. They choose this life for themselves. The attention, pressure and constant scrutiny are a given, and any woman who cannot take such focus will not long survive.
There was a tempest stirred up when one of the judges of the 2009 Miss USA contest asked her a question about her views on homosexual marriage.
Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?
Note of course that Mr. Hilton is known as a gay rights activist. (We will not discuss here if it makes sense that a gay man should be a judge of a female beauty contest) Miss Prejean gave a carefully worded reply which reflected her personal opinion:
Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage …. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offence to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.
Let’s be clear here: This was a question in the “Personality” competition section of a beauty contest. She was asked a question by a celebrity judge, one who brought his personal baggage to bear in his judgements and influence. Miss Prejean gave a personal opinion as an answer, hedged her response carefully allowing that anyone could make their own choice, and moved on. Mr. Hilton however, would have none of it. On his personal blog, immediately after that exchange used a coarse term to refer to her, and stated later that he would have ‘ripped the tiara off her’ had she won. He also told ABC news that before that question she was the front runner, but afterward there was no way she would win
Clearly she was penalized for her spoken views. She made no mention of intent to force others to accept her views, to make them law, nor to prevent others from acting or legislating anything different. She has subsequently been the focus of attacks and a campaign to discredit her. All this because of her spoken words on a televised program in the United States
Consider also radio talk host, Michael Savage. He is a man of varied background and experience. He published several books under the name of Michael Weiner he has several degrees, including a PhD in something called “Nutritional Ethnomedicine.” His radio persona, Michael Savage, host of the “Savage Nation” rails on various topics, focused upon a mantra of ” Borders, Language, Culture.” He attacks liberals, and those he believes are destroying the historic culture of America. He surely does not sugar coat his views, and his show has grown to be among the top five radio talk shows in the nation. His language is blunt, his opinions are fiercely held, and he simply will not allow dissenting callers to win. Particularly since the 9/11 attacks, he has sharpened the stick he uses to poke into the eye of his opponents. He uses what his detractors call offensive terms to demonize Islamic terrorists, democrats and liberals in government, and essentially anyone who disagrees with him. His intent to offend and bring on attacks was clearly demonstrated by the title of his NY Times best selling book ” Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder”. He clearly relishes the controversy.
Yesterday the British Government published a list of “Named and Shamed” people who would not be permitted to enter Britain. Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary published a list of names, stating that those named were barred from entry under a law introduced in 2005. The most famous application of the law was the prohibition of a Dutch member of Parliament, Geert Wilders,who had been invited by the British Parliment to present a short film about the dangers of radical Islamic terrorists. The reason given by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was that his entry might incite others to violence, due to his record of anti Islamic remarks and the film he was invited to present to the British Parliament.
On that new list just released is none other than Michael Savage. It seems the land which gave the Magna Carta to the world now gives blacklists due to ‘offensive topics.’ Mr. Savage has announced plans to sue. England, which has libel laws which are quite different than those in the US, will provide a venue which makes his victory quite likely. Unless, of course he is prevented from suing because of his offensive views.
We live in a time which is turning concepts of civilization inside out. Those who advocate for the destruction of our societies and government are given protected status. Those who speak against them are demonized and pushed aside, their views labeled as ‘too shocking’ to be permitted. Dissent is only allowed on one side of the debate. Political issues are supposed to be the area of free wheeling and open debate. Now, in the two nations which blazed the path of freedom and open societies, minority opinions are the only opinions permitted.
We are being pulled along on a path to disintegration by an increasingly militant left which is abetted by activist courts and compliant legislators. The Federal Government is expanding scope and influence and crushing the liberty of individuals and the states which originally formed the nation. Politicians no longer stand on principle, or ideas, they run simply to obtain, and maintain a seat at the table of power. This was amply demonstrated by Senator Specter’s shift to the donkey party from the elephants. He made no attempt to disguise his reasons, he has openly said he knew he would lose his primary this year, and changed parties to keep his seat in the US Senate. In the past, this would have subjected him to rage and a demand that he resign. Now it is greeted with a shrug from his constituents, and a pat on the back from his media allies and his new party cronies.
There must be a way for Americans who revere the founding principles of this nation to regain the momentum. We who believe that the Constitution was created to protect us from intrusive and oppressive government must find a way to restore that balance. We must look again to Thomas Jefferson:
“When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.”- Thomas Jefferson
Keep the Faith!
Posted in Banned from England, Big Government, Bill of Rights, British Home Secretary, Carrie Prejean, Civil liberties, Constitution, Democrats, First Amendment, Founders, Free Speech, Freedom, Government Power, Islam, liberal court, Michael Savage, Political parties, Politics, Senate, State Supremacy, transnational law | Tagged: Big Government, Bill of Rights, British Home Secretary, Carrie Prejean, Constitution, democracy, First Amendment, Free Speech, Freedom, government, Government Power, Islam, Leviathan, liberty, Michael Savage, Perez hilton, rights, society | 1 Comment »
Posted by revkharma on May 1, 2009
A scorpion scuttles to the bank of a stream, seeking a way across. He spies a frog and asks him to carry him across the water. The frog is doubtful, and asks the scorpion “Why would I do that? What if you sting me?” The scorpion replies, “I would not do that, if I were to sting you, we would both drown.” Thinking for a moment, the frog agrees. The scorpion climbs on his back and they head into the water. About half way across, the scorpion wields his tail, stinging the frog with a deadly poison. Just before they sink below the water, the frog asks the scorpion “Why…?” To which the scorpion replies:
“It is my nature to do so”.
(From Aesop’s Fables, roughly from memory)
The political pundits are whirling and spinning, all trying to explain or excuse the move yesterday by Arlen Specter from Pa. He has returned to the Democrat party which he left in the 1960’s. He has said coyly that the Republicans ‘left him’. He felt uncomfortable in a party which would not allow for diverse views. Republicans are stunned, and media mouths are dropping in shock. I can’t understand anyone being shocked. Mr. Specter has shown his sense of political expediency outweighs his courage since he switched affiliation in 1965 to defeat a Democrat incumbent for a district attorney position. Mr. Specter has always walked the walk of political survival. Recall his courageous vote ‘Pursuant to Scottish Law I vote Unproved’ during the impeachment trial of President Clinton. Rather than take a stand and display principle, he managed to evade accountability. He saw the poll numbers and knew there was no slam dunk with either side, so he took no side.
In the same way he saw the poll numbers and knew he might not win reelection this time, so rather than take a stand, he took a leap. Only weeks after stating flatly that he was a ‘republican, and would always be one” he jumped to the other party, ensuring that he would now have some measure of power in congress that he could not earn in the minority party.
Republicans supported Specter in the 2006 election. President Bush expended much time and effort to help reelect Specter, and he made promises to help the republicans work toward their objectives. (Why would I aid the democrats? If I do that we all lose!”) He repaid the work and effort by giving his vote to Obama and his ‘stimulus package’ (Because, it’s my nature!”)
The Republican party was once home to bedrock conservative ideas: Small government, limited taxation, and support for the Constitution. Over the last decade or so they have drifted, becoming essentially a smaller version of the Democrat party. They agreed in principle that big government was essential, they just haggled over the exact size and goals of that government. In essence the debate was not over a controlling centralized government. It was over who should hold the reins, and in which direction the power of government would be directed. With two parties controlling things, the debate becomes one in which actions of ‘our guys’ is deemed good, and the actions of ‘those guys’ is deemed bad. As long as it’s ‘our party’ we are told to cheer for any application of government power, especially when punitively applied to the other party.
After 9/11, George W. Bush’s ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ was transformed into something sometimes referred to as ‘ American Greatness Conservatism”. This was merely a different mask on the face of an expanding State system. The thinking seemed to be that as long as the controls were in the hands of ‘the good guys’ it was not a bad thing to have Big Government. The flaw here is that in the constitutional system set up in the U. S. those controls don’t belong to a single party for long. And once the Democrats get hold there is no reason for them to slow the expansion of government, as they can accurately say the debate is over. Now that the party in control is all about spending, people like Specter can go along, join them and have no fear of reprisal. They will happily spend others money and reap short term benefits. Arlen Specter moved from one party to another because control of our government is held by parties, rather than by representatives of the people.
As I was mulling all of this, one more thing came to my attention. There are now stories that Justice Souter will be leaving the US Supreme court, giving President Obama his first opportunity to show his true inclinations and philosophy. The dominance of parties will be on display here. The leftists who now control the Democrat party will push for the appointment of someone who shares the deeply felt, but deeply hidden views of Mr. Obama. A clear indicator of his thinking is the nominee to be legal adviser to the State Department, Harold Koh. Mr. Koh is an ardent proponent of what he he casts as ‘Transnationalism’. This is a political theory which, if put into practice, would literally undermine the US constitution and replace it with ill defined concepts of multi- national, or global law. Such foundational principles as our First
Amendment freedoms of speech and religion, which he regards as an obstacle to America joining with the ‘international community’ will be pushed aside.
Writing for National Review Online, Ed Whalen gives us a preview of Koh’s stunning views:
As part of his general case for what he contends to be the “more venerable strand of ‘transnationalist jurisprudence’” over the “blinkered view” of a “nationalist jurisprudence” (Koh, International Law as Part of Our Law, 98 Am. J. Int’l. L. 43, 48, 52 (2004)), Koh approvingly sets forth the transnationalist view that
domestic courts must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law, not simply to promote American aims, but to advance the broader development of a well-functioning international judicial system. In Justice Blackmun’s words, U.S. courts must look beyond narrow U.S. interests to the “mutual interests of all nations in a smoothly functioning international legal regime” and, whenever possible, should “consider if there is a course of action that furthers, rather than impedes, the development of an ordered international system.”
(98 Am. J. Int’l. L. at 53-54 (emphasis added).
In order to ‘coordinate’ like this, there is only one path. That path is to subordinate, or abandon the Constitution, and substitute some form of ‘International Law”. This is not the same thing as historically understood, and agreed upon framework such as the outlawing of piracy. This is an entanglement of regulations and rules designed and implemented by groups similar to the EU.
If we allow this, we allow the end of the United States of America.
George Washington, at the end of his time as President spoke forcefully about the dangers of Parties and the destruction they could do to the new born American nation. We see his words as prophetic now, as parties run the government for their benefit, instead of the benefit of the people who put them in place.
I think we may have a short time with an open window here. Arlen Specter’s party change exposes clearly the raw power of parties, and their strangle hold on government and our nation in general. Perhaps we should encourage others, who have complained that they feel marginalized by the parties to leave. Instead of switching, they should be encouraged simply to leave and follow no party at all. It seems as if the Republican party is sliding into irrelevance. Let’s see if we can prevent another ‘party’ from replacing it, and instead have the American people be represented. If we allow another party to form, we risk the fate of Aesop’s frog, for we already know what is in the nature of political parties.
Posted in administrative power, Big Government, Bill of Rights under attack, Civil liberties, congressional representation, Constitution, deception, Freedom, George Washington, Government expansion, Government Power, liberal court, liberty, Obama Administration, Political parties, Supreme Court, transnational law, unconstitutional, White house | Tagged: Arlen Specter, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, dishonest government, Federal Government, Freedom, freedom of religion, Government Power, liberty, Obama, parties, Politics, Supreme Court, Transnationalism | 1 Comment »