Tag Archives: America

Racism at Books-A-Million (I Dare you To read This)

I don’t have to give a disclaimer.  I only do it to establish a common decency.  I do not identify with either the Alt Right or the New Left.  I despise Antifa as well as the David Dukes of the world.  I consider the KKK to be pond scum (that gives pond scum and insult).  I have little use for anyone who judges another person based on their skin color.  I teach my children that all human beings are created in the image of God.

I insistently teach my children that all human beings are created in the image of God. Blacks and Whites are equal.  We are all equally valued by God.

We do not talk about white pride in our home, although we are proud of our identity.    We are proud Americans.  Why wouldn’t we be?  America is great.  It is the greatest nation on Earth.  We talk often about American exceptionalism.  We talk about the uniqueness of America and her citizens.  Black people, brown people, white people, and a variety of others are all indissolubly linked to the making of our country. We celebrate that.

We celebrate that, unapologetically.

Because we celebrate our diverse origins and identity as Americans, we celebrate the Negro Spirituals and the fact that a true glimpse of divine beauty can emerge from horror, as well as the music of Tin Pan Alley, Motown, New Orleans, Chicago, California, and Nashville.

We love the Beach Boys, Elvis, Johnny Cash, and the Temptations.

I firmly believe that racism must be taught.  My children do not see any difference at all, in people, outside of appearance, between a Black and a White person.  My son, when given an opportunity to choose a baby doll, chose one skinh black sin.  He sleeps with him every night.  I didn’t teach him that.

I didn’t teach him that.

That being said, I was forced this week to bring up issues of race with my 6-year old daughter.

In what should have been a benign trip to Books-a-Million, my daughter and I overheard the words, “Donald Trump…hate…murder…racist..blacks.”   I had to fight the urge to set this utterly and undignifiedly uninformed employee straight, but I composed myself.  I could tell that my daughter carefully regarded these words, and then found herself taken aback.  It caused for her, a moment of cognitive dissonance.  She knows that in our home, all races are equal.  She knows that her Mom and Dad are both, NOT RACISTS.  She also knows that her Mom and Dad would not vote for a racist.  She knows that her Mom and Dad DID vote for Donald Trump.

I let it go.  Unfortunately, I could tell that my daughter carefully regarded these words and then found herself taken aback.  It caused for her, a moment of cognitive dissonance.  She knows that in our home, all races are equal.  She knows that her Mom and Dad are both, NOT RACISTS.  She also knows that her Mom and Dad would not vote for a racist.

But here is the clincher:  She knows that her Mom and Dad DID vote for Donald Trump.

Uh Oh!

Now, she is reasonable.  She can tell good from bad.  She’s young but shrewd.  She is well trained.  She has heard Trump on television.  She has heard my wife and I talk about him—often positively. Despite being 6, she has a pretty firm grasp on who this guy is.

Back to Books-A-Million:   After the comments she heard from the employee sipping on his Starbucks, typing on his iPhone, and wailing about corporate greed; next came the coup de grace:  She handed me a book she found that portrayed President Trump as a starfish with a sphincter for a mouth.  Out of his mouth (crevice) blew flatulence with words superimposed over a poof of smoke representing his breath.  She knew it was Trump because of the orange tint and the hair (clearly).  She asked me why he was shaped this way.


I explained to her, “Some people do not like PRESIDENT TRUMP.”  Then, she asked me in response to the comments about hate and murder she had heard.  “Daddy, why did they say those things about Donald Trump?”  I don’t know if it was cognitive or not, but she paired the hate she heard from the employee, with the parody and pictures she found in the book.  Most Ivy League students couldn’t perform such a feat.

Most Ivy League students couldn’t perform such a feat.

Call me a racist if you want, but here is what I told her: “Baby, some people are so bent on calling things stupid or racist, that they resort to calling people who they disagree with stupid or  racist—even if they aren’t stupid or racist.  They have been so effectively programed (by activists and politicians who benefit financially from stirring up racial conflagration) that they see it as a good deed to call these people these things.  To them, anything that doesn’t match what they have been programmed to think makes a light go off that says “Racist!  Racist! Racists!  Stupid! Stupid!  Stupid!”

I explained to her that I believe that the earth is millions of years old, but that I reject Darwinian theory.  I reject the view that says bacteria became bugs, bugs became animals, and animals became humans.  I reject it outright.  I told her, that among my peers, I am seen as anti-science (stupid).  I explained that the word stupid is invoked because Darwinian theory has a number of weaknesses that they cannot account for.  So, in defense of their view, they hurl the word “Stupid!”  I explained to her that the cries of Racism are simliar.

I went on to explain to her that racism is horrible.  I explained past and PRESENT slavery to her and told her about the history of America and its role in the Transatlantic Slave Trade, and its role in ending it.  When I finished, I told her, “These racial programmers do not want racism to disappear.” Jesse Jackson has no intention of helping to ERADICATE racism.

Do you doubt me?  Are you kidding me?  If racism were to disappear tomorrow, there would go Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton’s meal ticket.  There is lots of money to be made in agitating grievances.


I will take it a step further:  If most blacks in this country were persuaded to believe that most whites wish for them nothing but success (which is the truth), the Democratic Party would go extinct.  Gone.  Nonexistent—like the dodo bird.

But I am brought now to an uncomfortable question:  Can the racial divide in this country be healed?   I think the answer is “Yes.”  I am optimistic.  I think it will take a swallowing of pride on both sides, white and black.  It will take admitting that slavery, though horrific, did cause horror and untold pain for blacks (the very ancestors of our friends).  On the other side, I think it will take blacks admitting that no matter how bad slavery was, and how horrific their forbears were treated, that whites today have no responsibility (it wasn’t us…it was our forebears).

For better or worse, we are both here, on this soil.  We are both Americans.  We both salute the same flag, and bleed the same Patriot red.   Whites have died for the freedom of blacks, and blacks for the freedom of whites.  Can we not celebrate that?!

I am a proud Southerner, but I apologize for what my ancestors may have done—or may not have done.   This doesn’t mean I disavow my ancestors or my heritage.  I am proud to be from the South, on my Father’s side.  On my Mothers side, I am proud to be from the North.  There were anti-slavery soldiers, both black and white,  on both sides.  I celebrate that! What it means is that I acknowledge that man by his very nature is flawed.  My ancestors were no different.

When we realize that MAN that man by his very nature is flawed, we see the reality of the whole situation.  My ancestors were no different–they were flawed.  Sinners.  Many of my Ancestors were victims of The Norman Conquest, the Irish Potato Famine, Decline of the Hapsburg Dynasty, Napoleonic and Czarist adventurism, and gratuitous insults and speculations about the intelligence of Europeans of Polish descent.Despite this fact, I live my life.  I am proud to be an American.

Despite this fact, I live my life.  I am proud to be an American.  God has shown ME grace.  For that I am thankful.  I wish to share it with others, no matter the color.

Perhaps you can as well.




Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GK Chesterton, TRUMP, CLINTON, the 2016 election, and the Medical Fallacy

TRUMP and CLINTON (hey, it was in the title).

Throughout the presidential campaign of 2016 we have heard a recurring theme:

“Our country is sick.  It needs to be made well.  Vote for me and I will provide the remedy it needs.  I will bring the healing that our country needs.”

There has been no shortage of rhetoric like this on either side of the political divide.

According to the inimitable G.K. Chesterton, however, this is a fallacy.  He terms this the Medical Fallacy.  How can politicians pontificate about what ‘well’ is in absolute terms, if the idea of well is of the most disputed issues in all of academia?  One side of the ideological divide defines well in one way, while the other defines it differently.

What is seen as a remedy by one side of the political spectrum will be seen as an exasperation of the original problem to the other.  This whole business of talking about “well” and “sick” is patently absurd.  It is play on emotions.  It is like invoking balls and strikes when talking about football.  Only in medicine and science can this terminology be used.

Why you might ask?  In medicine, we agree on what a well body looks like.  We agree on what good is.  The disagreement comes when it concerns malady.  In politics and social science, we agree on what bad looks like—we disagree on what constitutes the good.

That is a profound problem.

To give you an analogy, Chesterton makes this grand point:   It is a fact that a man may have pain in his leg and walk into a hospital, and due to medical necessity, come out with one leg less.


Never will that man find himself under the scalpel of a doctor, and in a moment of creative rapture, walk out of the hospital, having being given one leg more.

Don’t fall for fallacies.  Nonsense doesn’t cease to be nonsense just because it is uttered by an “intellect” or a “smart” politician.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What Then Shall We Do?

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom

The American founders recognized that man, by nature is flawed and capable of great evil.  This is why they distrusted rulers.  But they also recognized that for a society to be free, its citizens must be virtuous. James Madison noted, “a republic once equally poised, must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty.”  Similarly, Patrick Henry declared, “Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.”  John Adams, who would go on to be our second president, noted, “The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.”

Without virtue, there is no hope.  Without God, there is no virtue.

Even the skeptical Benjamin Franklin recognized that, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” But even more directly, Proverbs 14:34 states, “Righteousness exalteth a nation.”  It would seem that our framers were speaking of a government whose aim was to govern those who were already engaged in private, self-governance.  It seems that they were speaking less of a freedom to do what we want, but rather, a freedom to do what we ought.

America is truly a beautiful place.  It isn’t made beautiful because of our inherent goodness, however.  It is beautiful because God has blessed our land with His divine providence, allowed us to flourish, and given us His blessing. She is only beautiful because, for America, God shed His grace on Thee. And crown thy good with brotherhood From sea to shining sea.

The framers all have a common theme in their words:  Virtue is required for freedom.  They also acknowledge that Faith is required for Virtue.  It is with this truth that we have what Os Guinness calls the Golden Triangle of Freedom:

Freedom requires virtue.  Virtue requires faith.  Faith requires freedom.

In 2016, I would argue that virtue is a relic of a long forgotten and provincially simple past.  It is an afterthought—condemned to oblivion in the hearts and minds of most Americans.  On the other hand, faith has been so pushed to the periphery of the public square, systematically attacked through government and culture, that, for the majority of Americans is not a part of their lives.

When faith and virtue become scarce, freedom becomes extinct.

Freedom is not doing whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want.  That is anarchy.  Freedom is the power to do what one ought.  You can see how the other necessary intangibles are important.  Without virtue, we cannot be free.  We are not capable of doing that which we ought.  Without faith, we can have no virtue.  We must have faith to believe that God’s precepts and His moral law is right.  And without freedom, we cannot practice our faiths in the public square.

Some say, “We have the right to have faith. Even in China they have the freedom to worship.”  No, my friend.  The Constitution guarantees us the right to exercise our faith.  No family owned business should be forced by the government to provide contraception if it violates their Christian faith.  Exercising our faith is a command.  We must exercise our faith.  In fact, the Bible declares that faith without works is dead.  It is not enough to just know truth. We have to act on it.

We live in a culture that wants to do away with consequences.  We want relationships without commitment.  We want sex without babies.  We want money without earning it.  We want results without discipline. We want freedom without the responsibility of virtue, and without the challenge of faith.

Where am I going with all this?  I think this election is a referendum on whether or not we want faith to be completely pushed out of the public square altogether.  I am not saying that Hillary Clinton is Nero.  What I am saying is that this election is clearly about going in a specific direction.

The direction of more state or less state.

The problem is, we want more state.  We aren’t governing ourselves!  Because our citizenry by and large has rejected virtue and faith, we are not capable of freedom; and as a result, we are in danger of losing our Republic.  Only a virtuous citizenry can govern themselves.  What happens virtue is gone?  I think we end up with an election that offers the choices we see before us.

The Bible talks about this.  In 2 Chronicles 15:3-6 we read:

For a long time, Israel was without the true God, without a priest to teach and without the law. But in their distress they turned to the Lord, the God of Israel, and sought him, and he was found by them.  In those days it was not safe to travel about, for all the inhabitants of the lands were in great turmoil.  One nation was being crushed by another and one city by another, because God was troubling them with every kind of distress.

As Tony Evans notes, “When God is your problem, only God is your solution.”

So what do we do?  Well, it isn’t as simple as just electing the right president.  Revival never starts at the White House.  It starts in your house.  We must be people of the Book.  We must be people of prayer.  We must be people who fast, discipline ourselves, teach our children the way of the Lord, and make disciples.  We must be people who engage the Bible more than just Sunday morning at Church.  We need to be in regular deep, critical, Bible study.

Can you defend your faith?  Can you give good arguments to destroy evil arguments?

Doing our Christian and civic duty is a responsibility.  It isn’t enough to attend church on Sunday and vote every four years.  That is a recipe for pretty churches, but dead souls.  It is a recipe for candidates who lie, cheat, and steal—and then tell you what you want to hear at election time.

Hint:  They know this about the culture.  They know we are docile.  They know we cannot govern ourselves.  They know they can lie without accountability.

Unfortunately, that mindset in both the church and the culture is why we see what we see.

You see, many of us want a McDonalds type of faith.  We want to drive up and take the things we want off of the value menu, but leave the expensive stuff alone.  It costs too much.  No, my friend.  We are called to take it all.  We are called to become like Christ.

  Too many of us want to work part time for God but get full time benefits.  We want love without sacrifice.  We want meaning without truth.  We want design without a designer.  We want good without the prospect of evil.  We want law but no lawmaker.  We want god but no God.

Likewise, as citizens, many of us know virtually nothing about our country.  We know where to locate it on a map but that’s about it. We are more likely to know the characters of the Kardashians or Chrisley Knows Best than we are to know how many members of Congress there are.

That being said, we are at a critical point, but we aren’t a people who are capable of governing ourselves!  We aren’t prepared.  We have given that away.  We want full control over our 1,000 cable TV channels, but when it comes to things that matter—like health care—we have given that decision away! We have abdicated it elsewhere.  So what do we do?

I argue that for Christians, the first responsibility is to actually commit to the Lord.  We must change.  We must take Him seriously.  We must turn from our current lackadaisical ways and make Him our priority and source of strength.  We must realize that we as Christians are the blame.  We are a barometer for the culture.  A cold in the Church is pneumonia in the culture.  Think about that.  As the Church goes, so goes the culture.

Meanwhile, if we are interested in preserving a culture that is at least not violently hostile to our living our faith in the public square, we should choose the best candidate with a chance of winning who does not show an open animus toward us. Notice that I didn’t say that person has to be a believer himself.  There have been numerous examples in history where non-Christians have governed in a way that was not dangerous to Christians.  Can one choose between Constantine and Diocletian?

What I am not saying:  I am not saying that a government must be tolerant of Christianity for Christianity to survive.  I am not saying that.  Christianity has outlived all of its pallbearers.  Chesterton notes that the Church has gone to the dogs at least five times.  Each time it was the dog that died.

Can an immoral man be fit to lead?  Could a Christian possibly vote for Donald Trump?  I cannot answer that for you.  All I can say is our country is not at the point where it could elect a Godly leader.  Aristotle in his book Politics talks about a righteous man amongst a sea of immorality.  He says the righteous man would be cast out.

We are an unrighteous people today.  There is no righteous candidate.  Any candidate who was close to being one was cast out.

I have said it before, elsewhere; I am a one issue voter.  The choices before me are bad on the one hand and catastrophically horrible on the other.  I will also consider which candidate, aside from his personal exploits, will be less hostile to the Christian faith.  It is something to think about.

But regardless of the election, let me just say this:  We as the Church have much work to do, and it might be extremely uncomfortable.

I leave you with a quote from one of GK Chesterton’s political novels.  Chesterton firmly believed in a fallen human nature. Because of this, he thought society would eventually give up on the difficult task of democracy. Look at this prophetic quote from the story:

We are, in a sense, the purest democracy. We have become a despotism. Have you not noticed how continually in history democracy becomes despotism? People call it the decay of democracy. It is simply its fulfilment. … The old idealistic republicans used to found democracy on the idea that all men were equally intelligent. Believe me, the sane and enduring democracy is founded on the fact that all men are equally idiotic. Why should we not choose out of them one as much as another. All that we want for Government is a man not criminal and insane, who can rapidly look over some petitions and sign some proclamations.


Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Morality of Greed

If you were to be completely honest, one of the prevailing themes you have grown accustomed to hearing is the idea that greed is inherently evil.  Now, I have to be honest:  As a Christian, I personally believe that it is my duty to seek first the Lord and His kingdom.  If I do this, all these things (my needs being met) will be added unto me.  So, for me, the byproduct of work is not primarily money.  The byproduct of work is, first and foremost, glorifying God through excellence.

That being said—if I seek Christ’s Kingdom first, there is nothing wrong with me also desiring to earn compensation for my work.  I cannot find any instance in the Bible in which desiring to be paid an adequate wage for ones efforts is wrong.  You might say, “But those greedy Wall Street guys are surely engaging in immoral behavior,” or “Greed is the root of all evil.”  Some of them probably are.  In fact, the very college academics that make that claim teach moral relativism, but when a banking executive actually exercises moral relativism in his work, he is suddenly immoral?  But Greed being inherently immoral?

The problem with this type of reasoning is that to make this case, one has to read social grievances into the Biblical text itself.  Jesus Christ did not come to give us a perfect economic system or to be a social agitator.  He came to cure man’s sin problem.  I do agree that Jesus talked about the impact of money, but I feel it comes from a different angle than just “wealth disparity.”  I think Jesus’ commands about money and not loving money have to do with what a person places ultimate value in.  Is your ultimate value your money?  If so, you are a slave to your money.  Is your ultimate value your body?  If so, you are a slave to your health.  Do you find your ultimate value in your financial success?  If so, you are a slave to work.

Our ultimate value should be found in Jesus Christ.  The Bible even says, “for they did not love their lives when faced with death.”  Our lives are not our ultimate value.  Neither is our money.

But is ‘greed’ necessarily evil?  Let’s look at it.  While we do so, let us remember that passionate issues require dispassionate analysis.

If you look objectively at definitions of greed, you will see that greed is very different from envy, jealousy, or covetousness.  It is different than materialism.  It is even different than greediness.  Greed is nothing more than seeing the furthering of one’s own interests as his primary motivation for work.  This goes against the conventional wisdom, without question.

So how can greed drive a person’s work?

Let us think about a few examples of this in real life:  Picture for a moment, a farmer in Idaho.  Can you imagine his days’ work?   Picture him getting up well before daylight, venturing out into a field—facing sleet, snow, and bitterly cold wind.  All this is done in order to harvest potatoes.  Because of his hard work, New Yorkers can have potatoes for dinner.

Now picture a Colorado cattle rancher.  He gets up well before dawn as well.  He feeds the cattle.  He breeds them.  He moves them from location to location so that they can eat greener grass.  His entire life is circumscribed by taking care of cattle.  He faces the dead of night, winter and snow, cold rainy mornings, and even the dry heat of the summer—all to make sure New Yorkers can have a steak next to that potato.

Here is the question:  What if New Yorkers—in their desire to have a steak and potato for dinner—had to rely on the inherent charity and willingness of ranchers and farmers to care enough about New Yorkers to send them steak and potatoes—rather than their desire to make a living for themselves?

I would be grieving for New Yorkers.

You see, in serving the interest of themselves, the rancher and farmer necessarily serve their fellow man.  Their desire to earn a living (greed) demands that they produce what other people want.

Our free market is driven by an imperative:  It is more profitable to serve your fellow man than not to serve him.  Adam Smith talked about these principles in his book, Wealth of Nations.  The free market system is essentially a moral one.  It depends upon supplying people with what they desire at a price that they are willing to pay for it.

This of course comes with risk.  What if the New Yorker doesn’t want to eat a steak or order a potato?  What if instead, he desires to eat bacon and eggs?  No one forces him to buy what the rancher has to offer.  Then again, no one forces the rancher to plant potatoes.  It is all about individual choice.

Similar to this is the idea that the free market works only because of trust.  When is the last time you bought beef at the supermarket and actually weighed it yourself to see if it weighed what the packaging said?  When was the last time you measured a 2-liter of soda to see if it really contained 2 liters?  In fact, we rely on trust all the time.  You dont carry around scales and measuring devices in your pockets.  It would cost too much.  It would take up too much room.  It would cost you convenience.  Trust is an important concept here.

Still yet, is an even more moral situation:  If I cut a person’s grass, and at the end of my work, he pays me 30 dollars; that is essentially a certificate showing that I served my fellow man.  When I take my thirty dollars and walk into the supermarket and buy steaks, potatoes, and sodas for my family and I to eat for dinner—the cashier of the supermarket basically says to me:  You want the rancher in Colorado and the farmer in Idaho to serve you?  How have you served your fellow man?  I then produce the certificate of achievement (30 bucks).

Wealth itself is nothing more than scarce information.  I have 30 dollars in my pocket.  If you just compare the cost of goods, you could say that my 30 dollars is worth much less than the food I eat at Applebees.  In fact, if I were to buy the same products that I will consume at Applebees, it might be half as much.  The problem is, I cannot consume 30 dollars.  It is only a piece of paper.  So, I exchange it gladly for something that is worth more to me than the money itself:  namely, food.  Because I am not in the restaurant industry, I do not have the skills, infrastructure, or the resources to make quality dinners.  I don’t have the extra time either!   So—for that scarcity of information, I gladly pay more than it is worth.

A thing derives its value by how much a person is willing to pay for it.

Consider this:  I walk into a supermarket and tell the manager I want a gallon of milk.  He charges me 3 dollars.  If that milk is worth to me more than my three dollars, and my three dollars is worth more to the manager of the store than the milk, we engage in a voluntary contract.  We voluntarily engage in a transaction of trust.  I trust he gives me a gallon of milk, and he trusts that my three dollars are worth three dollars.  I make him feel good and in return, he makes me feel good.  This is called a positive sum gain.  On the flip-side, if I were to walk into that same supermarket and hold a gun to the manager’s head and say, “Give me the milk or I will kill you,” I have just said, “If you do not make me feel good, I am going to make you feel bad.”  This is a zero sum gain.

In all of human history, there has never been an economic system prior to the free market that did not function without zero sum gains.  Most of recorded history notes looting, plundering, theft, and coercion as the norm.  The exception has been the free market system.  It is a system based on trust and reciprocity.

The rule among fallen men is theft.  The exception is voluntary trade.

These are all moral concepts.

Greed isn’t inherently evil.  It drives our transactions.  After all, what is wrong with wanting to better the lives of you and your family?  Even the most ardent socialists I know send their child to piano lessons.  Why?  They want the best for their child.

The contrast of greed is the idea of envy.  Picture this:  You work a 60-hour per week job sweeping floors at a Fortune 500 company.  One night while walking home, you see a large group of people who work at the company eating in the restaurant.  You pause and watch through the window.  The person driven by greed will think to himself, “What must I do to be where they are at?  What have they done that I haven’t?”  This might prompt your working so hard that everyone notices, taking night classes, reading more books so that you can pass a promotion test, or finding a new job at which advancement is possible.  Either way, these are healthy questions to ask.  The other view would say, “It is inherently unfair that they have what I do not.  How can I have some of what they have?”

Now, the political left is well aware of these two differing types of thinking. The conservative would usually reply to this man, “I am going to work to get you equality of opportunity; you are going to have to work to ensure an equality of outcome.”  The progressive, on the other hand would declare, “I agree with you.  It is unfair.  He only has his stuff because he stole it from you.  You deserve to be in there too.  In fact, if you vote for me, I will promise to take some of what he has and give it to you.  I cannot ensure equal opportunity, but I can ensure equal outcome.”

This is zero sum economics.

If you pick the pockets of Peter to pay Paul, you will always have Paul’s vote.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Peter Kassig, Beheadings, Islam, and Multiculturalism

I am in a bit of a somber mood today.  We are becoming irreversibly multicultural in the United States.  Multiculturalism and diversity are where societies go to die.  Now, don’t get me wrong.  I was born abroad—and I love true multiculturalism.  I would love to see more diners that represent a worldwide palate and I love to hear music and regularly listen to singers from different parts of the world.  I love the idea that if you are tired of eating ham and rye at the diner night in and night out for your entire life; that if a Hungarian diner opened up across the street, and now you can eat goulash–that is great.  That is the best kind of multiculturalism.  I am in favor of cross cultural co-mingling.  Why not?   In fact, I count it a virtue that I have so many friends from other parts of the world.  You see, I have the assumption that everybody, if given a choice would like to live in an advanced Western society.  That’s why you see alot of immigration movement from Yemen to the UK, or from the slums of Mexico to Dallas, Texas.  There just aren’t alot of Scandinavians who want to live in Yemen, and not many Texans who want to live in Guadalajara.  Even leftists, who call themselves multiculturalists use the term, “The developing world.”  Their assumption is that these countries are developing toward something more like the arbiter of North America or Europe.  The idea that all cultures are equal is false.  There is only one civilization that offers greater prosperity, greater freedom, better health care, and better opportunities to reach your full human potential.  To pretend that this isn’t the case is just absurd. I think multicultrualism really stems from the “Who are we to say” types in our society.  For instance, “Who are we to say that democracy is better that sharia?”  Or, “Who is to say that our democratic republic and rule of law is better than the tribal system in this particular patch in the middle of nowhere?”  We feel bad about saying this, but the fact is, common law is a better form of justice than Islamic law.  There shouldn’t be anything wrong with saying that!  Now, someone may come back and say, “Oh but that isnt true.  You cant make comparisons about two different placs in the world.”  that is false.  For example, in Saudi Arabia, if a woman is raped, she is punished, not the rapist.  This is a backwards form of justice that tramples on the victim.  No, you can compare societies and freedom.  there are objective measurements by which you can look at freedom in society.  You can look to see whether or not there is a political system that isnt tribal. You can look at property rights and whether or not you  have them.  You can look at the role of women in society.  These are objective measurements of freedom in society. But to me what is sad is that today’s multiculturalism has been hijacked by this elementary type of ideology that seems to say:  A person is truly multicultural if they put a bumper sticker on their car that says, “Free Tibet.” Now, of course my 4 year old daughter can see the problem here.  Everyone is for a free Tibet, but no one is for freeing Tibet.  If during the Bush administration, Donald Rumsfeld had come to the podium and said:  “As we speak the 101st airborne division is systematically and strategically freeing Tibet.  They are being supported by fighters and bombers, and we expect to have eradicated all tyranny by lunchtime,” the multicultural crowd would throw a fit.  They would be creating new bumper stickers that say, “War is not the Answer!”  You see, multiculturalism is a safe haven for people to go to who don’t care to and don’t know anything about any other parts of the world.  It is a cult of ignorance.  Being a multiculturalist absolves you from knowing anything about other places.  Do a man on the street interview, and find for me a multiculturalist for me who can tell you the primary exports of Bhutan, or the capital of Nepal.  Good luck.  Multiculturalism isn’t about knowing anything about the world at large—it is only a name to throw around in the faculty lounge.  It means “I am one of you guys.”  It is a fraud. Along those lines: Do you find it somewhat coincidental that in the wake of some of the most blatant and obvious crimes—a woman being beheaded in Oklahoma, a police officer with a hatchet stuck in his skull in NYC, a guard being shot at the War Memorial in Ottawa, someone hacked to pieces in the streets of London in broad daylight—even the most obvious examples of violence, motivated by err, Islam—we duck into multiculturalism?  What is sad is our president, Barack Obama, the citizen executive—who is currently trying to come up with a way to overextend his executive authority in hopes of letting upwards of 5 million people illegally enter the country—keeps saying in response to these type of attacks:  “No Islam to see here, folks.”  It is immediately saying something like this of course, that he runs to the nearest golf course. Does it feel reassuring to be told “No Islam here,” by the same guy who said, “If you like your health care plan you can keep it.  If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?”  Is it reassuring that this is the same guy who said of the IRS, “Not even a smidgen of corruption?”  I mean this is the same president who warned that amnesty would be bad for our middle class, but now, he wants it.  I digress (a lot it seems when I am talking about Obama). I haven’t even mentioned the latest incidence of Islamic head chopping (is there a verb for this yet?).  We have yet another death at the hands of the Islamofascists—this time, an American citizen and former Army Ranger, Peter Kassig.  It is already clear that the citizen golfer is going to go to every extent possible to ensure that this guy’s head being chopped off “represents no faith, least of all the Muslim faith“. That isn’t even the biggest insult.  To me, what insults the greatest is The President’s dimwitted assertion that Kassig’s enforced submission to Islam is in fact, a genuine conversion. But I mean, why should any of this surprise you or me?  Do you remember the story that came out not long ago that paints into broader significance— this multicultural fascination with Islam?  Of course, I am talking about the German lingerie ad.  Mark Steyn brought this to attention a while back, and he notes that it is the small things, not the big events, that to me paint a clearer and more somber picture of our current state of disaster.  It is the little things that are ignored.  You can’t ignore a beheading.  Even if Obama talks idiotically about it, it can’t be ignored.  As Steyn noted today in a column, a “head being chopped off on YouTube has to be acknowledged—Obama has to talk about it.”  It is the things that our leaders say nothing about that bothers me. So, paraphrasing Steyn:  there is a German lingerie ad where this attractive woman—seemingly having just finished a shower, is getting ready to go out on a date or something.  The picture is kind of blurry, so as to imply what you are seeing.  But, she is putting on all this lingerie and putting on her stalkings and bra and the rest of her outfit.  Right before she leaves to get in her car, she pulls a burqa over her head and then closes the door as she leaves. The message is:  hey look—you evangelical right wing bigots,  Islamo babes are just as hot under the burqa as any of your women—and it is just as sexy to wear a burqa as to not wear one. First of all, no one cares.  Who have you heard argue that?  What makes me cringe is the reality.  In reality, if a Muslim woman—or a Muslim actress actually played that role in the commercial, she would be dead.  In the words of Obama, “Let me be clear”:  She would have been honor killed.  As Mark Steyn deftly notes:  Her husband, upon finding out about it would have thrown her off a balcony, as happens in Sweden; or he might have run her over in the car like the incident in Peoria, Arizona—or he might have just chopped her head off like the incident in New York.  Steyn continues by saying that no Muslim woman, when her husband says, “Honey, where were you today,” can reply, “Oh, I was in lingerie for 8 hours filming an ad.”  She would be dead. Don’t you find stories like that or like the fact that Mattel has decided that it is necessary that little girls are presented with Barbie…being issued in a burqa—To me, these things are almost more disturbing than the beheadings. Maybe the most egregious example is the Toronto Public School that uses its cafeteria as a mosque on Fridays. At the school mosque, boys enter the front door and girls enter the back.  The boys sit (kneel) in the front, and of course the girls sit in the back, because clearly, they are inferior.  Who sits in the furthest rear portion of the cafeteria?  The menstruating girls, of course.  They are after all, unclean. Doesn’t it smack of diversity to have a guy at the rear entrance asking every girl who comes into this taxpayer funded mosque, whether or not she is at that point of the month?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama, “maybe tragedies,” and photo ops at burger joints

Let me ask you a question. A civilian jetliner has been blown out of the sky by a sophisticated surface to air missile—early reports that are subsequently confirmed show that this missile was fired by Russian
-backed separatists—nearly 300 innocent people die—Here is the question: Is it a slap in the face to the world writ large for the President of the United States to devote a whopping half minute to this “maybe” tragedy before launching into jokes—or is it the type of action that smacks of unbelievable arrogance? I mean even Hillary Clinton told the obsequious Charlie Rose of PBS that it is time for “tough language” when it comes to Russia (keep in mind, not tough action…just tough talk). So, in light of that, what do we get from our citizen executive?

Nothing—Nothing but arrogance and frothy jokes—oh and more perpetual fundraising. Fundraising—this is despite the fact that Obama hates money being mixed with politics—conservative politics that is.

Do you realize that not even 12 hours after this plane was shot down, your Commander in Chief, yeah the guy that 300 million Americans elected to represent us to the world was off fundraising?  That’s right, Mr. “Hope and Change.” He didn’t even refer to this atrocity as a terrorist attack. He called it a tragedy…”maybe.”  He actually said, “maybe.” Folks, “maybe” is something you say when your wife asks if you want to grill burgers outside tonight, despite the fact that it is raining.  Secondly, a legitimate us of the word “tragedy” is in the presence of a hurricane, a tsunami, or a meningitis epidemic. It is a kid who dies from cancer. A tragedy is the day a hard working dad tells his family they cannot afford to keep their home. When a missile is fired toward—and hits a civilian airliner—this is an act of terrorism.  “Maybe a tragedy.” That was his first speech.

Oh wait—this just in: Obama got a second crack at his “maybe tragedy” speech. Today (Friday) he said that an Asian airliner went down over Europe. Here are his words exactly:  “An Asian airline was destroyed in European skies filled with citizens from many countries…” Now, folks—this is absurd. Asia and European skies don’t even exist geopolitically. That would be like saying a plane went down over the Americas. Does it matter or not if it went down over North America or Central America? Does it matter or not if it went down over The United States or Mexico? Well—does it matter then if it went down over Atlanta, Georgia or Tijuana, Mexico? Of course.  Now, this entire, “citizens from many countries” line is egregious.  Among the causalities are actually, 44 Malaysians, 27 Australians, 12 Indonesians, 9 British, 4 Germans, 4 Belgians, 3 Filipinos, 1 Canadian and 1 New Zealander.

This was a Malaysian airliner that happened to be carrying citizens of the Netherlands, Indonesians, at least one American, Brits, a Canadian, and Australians. Heck, most of them are from NATO countries.

So, in all fairness, today’s speech wasn’t quite, “Hey folks, there may have been a tragedy…but anyways, how are you in Delaware? How’s that burger—ha ha ha!” It wasn’t that jovial, but it wasn’t serious either. We know he gets his news from watching tv, so if by chance he was watching the Charlie Rose show; and if he heard what Hillary said about strong words, he has opted not to do tough talk. In fact, it seems he has decided to dial the language back! He is talking like we are living in a Post American world. Why the passive language? Where is his ire?

I haven’t even mentioned the fact that there were 100 AIDS researchers on the plane. You do realize that is a pretty large group of AIDS scientists to go down at once, right?

I mean, here we are in America—and if you aren’t on board with the whole homosexual thing—you can get your home décor show yanked, get suspended by the NFL, you can lose your role on a duck hunting show—or if you are the CEO of Mozilla, you can get bounced. Heck, you can probably get yourself an audit by the IRS.  But, Vladimir Putin blows 100 AIDS researchers (who are pretty important in the homosexual world) out of the sky, and we get passive talk from the progressive in chief?

I mean, just a few months ago. Putin wasn’t being criticized for invading countries; he was getting flak from our sexually enlightened progressives in America because he was shutting down gay nightclubs before the Olympics. I mean if Putin were to bomb Kiev—you’d hear crickets from the left, but if he drove tanks into Kiev and closed all the gay nightclubs, you wouldn’t hear the end of it. The truth of the matter is that the homosexual angle has been a major component of our foreign policy. Don’t you remember when the dictator in Uganda was going to criminalize homosexuality with life imprisonment—and John Kerry said he was going to send credentialed homosexual academics from our best universities over—to bring the guy up to speed on gay science? Well, I don’t know what happened to them. We have not heard anything about it since. But you see my point? The gay issue has been a major foreign policy issue—and here we are today: 100 AIDS researchers go down and…we get silence from the gay left, and we get Obama playing Mr. Passive on the world stage.

This entire demonstration of leading by passivity is embarrassing. Yesterday was hideous. Here is the president of the United States in a burger joint in Delaware, fist bumping the customers—well, not really “real” customers. It isn’t like it was a spontaneous trip into a burger joint between Obama and Reggie Love, and people “just” happened to be in there eating…at which point they start fist bumping the hip president who is eating with the common folk.  You know, the president who understands their plight.  Don’t be a sucker, folks.  Every person in there—the staff and the clientele alike had to submit their SSN’s and undergo a thorough background check just to share the same air space as our citizen executive—why does the media even go along with this stuff? I mean, just to get into King Barack’s presence, a citizen has to divulge their government number and undergo an extensive check (unless they are an illegal alien staying in a $1,000 per night suite on the taxpayer’s dime)—all so Barry can stroll into a burger joint and act like he is fraternizing with regular Americans.

Do you remember after Benghazi? He went to Las Vegas and gave a speech that actually compared the 4 dead Americans to his own campaign workers? He said they represented the best and brightest in the nation. Well, at least in all fairness, he didn’t go out there in his speech yesterday and compare the Dutch AIDS researchers who were blown to pieces and scattered all over the Ukrainian countryside to the plight of Delaware citizens who had trouble getting into the burger joint to meet the president.

My point—what in the world does it take to get Obama to cancel one of his photo ops or fundraisers? With his track record, had he been president in the 1940’s, he would have announced Pearl Harbor from a fundraiser. “A Day that Will Live In Infamy…oh, hey! How are y’all doing in Atlantic City?  Are you glad to see Joe Biden tonight?” Do you remember all the criticism Bush got for being informed about 9-11 while he was reading My Pet Goat to grade school children? Obama would have announced 9-11 amidst jokes at a OFA fundraiser.

BY the way—let’s talk about the number of Dutch people who died in this attack. 154 Dutch subjects were blown out of the sky. The population in the Netherlands is roughly 16 million. Now, on 9-11 in the United States, we lost 3,000 Americans. Our population is 300 million. Comparatively speaking, the amount of citizens that the Netherlands lost in yesterday’s attack was a 9-11 to them. Where is the outcry from our media, president, and from the left? Where is our New York Time’s headline that says, “We are All Dutchmen?”

Do you remember what the response from the rest of the world was when we were attacked on 9-11? Do you remember John Howard, the prime minister of Australia saying, “This is no time to be an 80 percent ally?” Do you remember the front page of Le Monde? “We are All Americans Now.” Could you imagine is President Chirac had devoted 16 seconds to the horrific events of 9-11 before having a photo op at a burger joint? Could you imagine if Tony Blair had sloughed off a few remarks about the deaths of these Americans before going to a fundraiser? We should all be ashamed of the face that we presented to the world in the face of this attack. We should treat the world better. We are Americans. We don’t roll our eyes at the headlines and go to regularly scheduled photo ops.

Look at it this way: When we had an atrocity on our soil, the rest of the world didn’t do that to us.

Tagged , , ,