I see America as strong – perhaps stronger than most nations. But the people seem to be changing, and not for the good. We need to entrench within ourselves and our children and associates those values that helped us become great. We’re either going uphill or going downhill – there is no resting, no plateau, no station to rest. Our government didn’t bring us where we are today, we did. Our government won’t lead us to future success, we will.
One of most pernicious ideologies that hinders a nation’s progress and development is statism. The state is not the answer. That’s why we fought a war with the British. That’s why the establishment of a government was such a contentious affair in the beginning of our history. There were plenty of models to choose from, but few which didn’t include statism as its foundation. The Founding Fathers erected a system of government that not only didn’t enshrine statism but, in fact, tried to prevent it. By going against their mechanisms, we are now turning into a statist nation.
I had lived in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates for so long that when I returned to The United States, I was a statist. I’d wonder why the government isn’t doing this thing or that thing, why it wasn’t solving such-and-such problem or issue. Or I posited that the government is the solution to our ails and woes. After all, in Pakistan, the first question that’s asked when an issue arises is: “What’s the government doing about it?” But I realized that this statism causes more problems than it solves. Rather than relying on the industry and ingeniousness of the people, we were relying on burdensome, cumbersome, inefficient bureaucracy. Each involvement of the government, furthermore, eroded the people’s freedoms, their area of movement and activity, and, indeed, even their will to work, solve, and prevail.
Mark my words – every statist nation is full of dullards, lazy people, unrealistic ideologues, and far from industrious.
I don’t care about communism or socialism. Russia, China, or Iran won’t do us in. If things don’t change, statism will be end of America as a world power.
So, Iran has teh Bomb, eh?
Not surprised. It was evident and obviously that powerful world powers will do everything to make sure Iran becomes a nuclear power. People are very much interested in tilting the balance of power from the West to the East.
But, think about this for a second. What mechanism are these Eastern powers using vis-a-vis the West’s techniques? When we want to prevail we use jeans, rock and roll, and salacious movies. We move markets. But the East? No, they’re still stuck in the barbarian ages where the man with the biggest stick is chief.
I don’t know if this will work. Sure, they will freak Israel out. Oh, boy, will Israel freak out. But America? We’re too busy worshiping Obama or worrying about getting our next fat-laden meal to think much about Iran. And those who think right are worried, but, really, what’s Iran going to do?
The world needs to pay attention to Japan. They threatened us. We nuked them. End of story. If Iran directly threatens us with any nuclear weapons, I guarantee we will strike back with such force Australia will vibrate from the shockwaves. Not because the president – whoever he may be – is a good ole American. Nope. It’s because if he doesn’t swing the big stick, and hard, and sever a head, he won’t be reelected.
It’s all about reelection, folks. If we know their weak spot, why not use it?
Are we a Christian nation?
The technical answer is that we are not a Christian nation. Unlike many countries, we do not have an official religion. No religion or religious body receives any especial recognition or patronage. (This is one of the purposes of the First Amendment.)
Some might say that Americana is America’s religion – our volumes of scripture are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, our prophets are the Founding Fathers, our salvation lies in furthering America’s interests, in following the American dream.
But the technicalities do not betray a very real element of America: while America, technically, as a State, is not Christian, at least not officially, the American people are Christian, and thus America is, indeed, unofficially Christian. What’s more, America is not Christian the way England is Christian. America is perhaps one of the most diverse and devout of the Christian nations.
When people go around saying, “Oh, America is not a Christian nation!” they will come off as two-faced. Why is he saying this while America is so overwhelmingly Christian? Is he trying to trick or fool other people?
“Founder’s Quote Daily” for Tuesday, February 17, 2009 from The Patriot Post:
“The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife.”
–Thomas Jefferson, letter to Spencer Roane, 9 March 1821
From a Jewish jokes e-mail list I’m on:
So far we have Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Ronald Klain, Larry Summers, Paul Volcker, Tim Geithner and Peter Orszag. Maybe it’s just because I’m Jewish, but am I the only one noticing that Obama and Biden are not so much assembling staff, as gathering a minyan?
Warning: there’s a sermon-like post coming up on Sunday. Something that’s been on my mind.
So, we experienced a major defeat. Yet let us not become too despondent. We cannot always win, and perhaps it is better we lost than having won.
With the loss of our candidate, we are not in the position of having to endure someone whom we might not have liked or supported anyway. If we cannot stand behind either candidate, let the fall of the Republican be the nourishing water at the roots of the tree of conservatism and good governance, to reinvigorate the Republican Party and bring its people to abide more closely to its nourishing principles and values.
This offers up a great opportunity. Let us use this opportunity to sweep into power honorable representatives who will not betray us, who will honor the principles of good governance. Let us support and move forward those who will help America and her people, not those who will exploit their power for greed or expediency.
After having a Congress with one of the lowest approval ratings in history, the Democrats have control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House. Their failure can only be blamed on them now. When the novelty of this historic election wears off, and as those in power realize that their magic incantations don’t work in the real world, the people will see these people for who and what they really are. Reality will be inescapable.
And behind this, all the while, we should be advocating the principles and values and standards of good governance. Give the American people solace and guidance as they face the reality of their choices. Let us show them the way to a better nation.
Let us gird up our loins and fresh courage take, and continue our trek to bring America to a better place.
Brothers, sisters, friends – onward!
I thought this was interesting:
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act – abbreviated to EESA, modified to Eesa, the Muslim Arabic name for Jesus (in full: عيسى بن مريم Eesa bin Maryam, Jesus the son of Mary).
Trivia: Muslims refer to Jesus as عيسى Eesa (عيسى بن مريم Eesa bin Maryam (Jesus the son of Mary) or عيسى المسيح Eesa-l-Maseeh (Jesus the Messiah)). Christians, however, refer to Him as يسوع Yasoo’ (يسوع إبن اللة Yasoo’ ibnillaah (Jesus the son of God) or يسوع المسيح Yasoo’ al-Maseeh (Jesus the Messiah, or Jesus Christ)). The Christian form is closest to the Hebrew form of the Lord’s name.
People may begin to think: what rebellious people those Texans are, trashing international law!
In one sense, there is no such thing as international law. I say this because states that are signatories to international law bodies apply the law (or ignore it) according to their whims, wishes, and interests. Rather than viewing international law bodies as neutral international regimes, they are viewed as bodies through which to further their own agendas against states they don’t like. If State A doesn’t like State B, it State A will do everything to get an international law body to issue a ruling against State B. However, if the ruling goes against State B’s opinions or whims, it will simply ignore or refute such rulings. So, in effect, there is no international law body that has actual power. Consider the fervent efforts of Pakistan and India against each other through international regimes, and the result of both countries essentially ignoring these international regimes.
What makes American law a little more complicated is the sovereignty of states. Each individual state has great leeway in establishing its own laws and policies. This remains in place despite the fact that federal law has been expanding exponentially recently. States, and their people, don’t want to concede sovereignty, especially to foreign parties.
Americans are notorious for being open about their repudiation of international regimes. We simply ignore things we don’t like. Of course, we’re also very resilient to sign onto any international regime. While the President can attend a summit and think America should join a treaty or body or policy or law, he has to think, more importantly, whether the American people, through the Senate, will accept his opinion. As Woodrow Wilson demonstrated, it is a grave mistake the ignore this. Despite the fact he was instrumental in the founding of the League of Nations, and wanted America in it, the American people rejected his opinion and, to his great embarrassment, refused to ratify America’s joining the organization.
Now, from one viewpoint, this was a major embarrassment. Americans rejected such a good idea. But then, as now for the most part, we don’t care what the world thinks about us. At the very least, we don’t use international opinion to form our policies and laws. We do what is in our best interests, and other states and international regimes can protest all they want.
Now, treaty-wise, one can argue back and forth whether America is bound to the World Court. But in practice, we have ignored the World Court. Of course, this is nothing new or different as many states ignore the World Court and other international regimes.
One thing Americans complain about, and legitimately so, is the burden placed on America to comply with every dinky body’s rulings while other players and states get away with brazen noncompliance. A recent example, which troubled me, was Hezbollah. Israel mandated that a condition for it to agree to an end to the recent Israel-Lebanon war was that Hezbollah would have to disarm below a certain point. The Lebanese government had to guarantee it. In order to end the war, Hezbollah and the Lebanese government conceded. The ink had not dried on the agreement when Hezbollah announced it would not disarm, and the Lebanese government announced it had no intention to make Hezbollah disarm. And yet no one said anything.
And so those that charge America for intransigence should really drop their arguments unless they will just as actively protest other intransigent parties.
However, what this demonstrates, more than anything, is the true standing of these international regimes. They don’t exist to usher in a better world: they exist for states to use them as tools in their foreign policy to further their own national interests. It is naive to suppose otherwise.
Do I have the right to write or say something that offends another person?
America is quite unique in this regard. People are, generally, allowed to say and do what they want. This gives rise, inevitably, to racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and a host of other evils. And they are, essentially, protected by law.
Most people in society recognize that these things are wrong and bad. They seek to educate people about what is true, right, and good. But some want to go further: they want to put an end to these evils by force of law.
I belong to a number of minority groups that could make me a target of negative comments. But I don’t care. I believe it would be utterly wrong for someone to be punished because they said something offensive, even if it’s vile. They can say what they want to say: I can respond back if I choose to do so.
One of the immense drawbacks of censorship is that it puts us on a slippery slope. What is considered unacceptable will widen, greatly stifling expression. Pretty soon, all dissent would be banned.
We see this clearly on college campuses, where in the name of tolerance all contrary opinions (contrary to the politically-correct line espoused and promoted) are discouraged if not punished. There is no real freedom of thought, expression, or speech. When Ralph Reed attracts more condemnation and vitriol than Farrakhan, something has gone wrong.
People on the Left are all for censorship, because they are the ones doing the censorship. The people on the Right are the ones who will loose.
And so we must protect our freedoms and liberties, which are slowly being taken away from us in the name of tolerance, acceptance, and other PC values.
Some headlines from today’s issue of Investor’s Business Daily:
“Bush: Lift Offshore Drilling Ban”
“Bush Urges Contress To Lift Ban On Offshore Oil And Gas Drilling”
“Surging Oil Primes Political Pump For New U.S. Drilling”
The point these articles make is that Bush says that rising energy prices is bad for America, and to alleviate this we need to explore other options, such as offshore drilling. He is, as can be expected, opposed by the Left.
But this typical of the Left. The Left complains incessantly about rising energy prices and places the blame squarely at the feet of Bush. But when alternatives are mentioned, alternatives which would help us lower energy prices, the Left goes into a tizzy, and the Left ends up opposing any practical solution for some reason or another. And they complain Bush isn’t doing anything when Bush can’t do anything, what with the Left striking down all practical solutions. So the Left paints a deceptive picture.
But then, the Left contains philosophies, values, and paradigms that don’t really match reality. They skew the order of things that actually matter, placing soft and irrelevant issues (environmentalism, animal conservation, not inconveniencing animals, redistribution of wealth, and so on) higher than things that do matter or that should matter (such as lowering the cost of getting things done in the economy, promoting free enterprise, supporting business endeavors to enrich people, let people enjoy the fruits of their own efforts, and so on). And so while the Left wants to sacrifice everything of value to intangible things and issues (might I say, to false gods?) and make everyone equally miserable, the Right wants to help everyone advance themselves by themselves, to enable everyone to be happy, and to allow practical solutions that affect our livelihood.
So the fault, really, lies not at Bush’s feet but at the feet of those hinder him from doing what should be done.
What is the purpose of a state? I believe this is an important question, and one which many in the West, sadly, seem to be unaware of.
States came into existence to help protect and further the interests of the people over which it presided. The leaders of states, or whatever polity may exist, were usually skilled in warfare in order to protect the resources of the state and its people and to be able to appropriate the resources of other states (and their people) for the leader’s state and its people. States also existed to preserve internal harmony and stability by dictating the people’s duties and dealing with internal issues (crime, creation of law, executing and enforcing law, punishment, deterrence, etc.).
The point is that the state came into existence to serve the interests of the state and its people for the advancement and maintenance of the people thereof. Read the rest of this entry »
Thanks to Nice Deb for alerting us: Major Stephen Coughlin, who was to be fired by the Pentagon under pressure from an Islam Hisham (close aide to Gordon England, Deputy Secretary of Defense), and known Islamist-sympathizer, will be retained by the DoD albeit in another area.
For more info, please see:
Major Stephen Coughlin, employed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was recently fired under pressure from Islamists, most alarmingly the ring-leading Islamist (Hisham Islam) working in the Department of Defense. They opposed his exposé of the rôle of Islamic law (shari’ah) in jihad. Declaiming him to be an extremist and whatnot, endangering the military’s efforts to build bridges with the Muslim community.
(I learned about this from Lady Vorzheva’s blog Spanish Pundit in her post “Terrorismo islámico (III): continuación del caso Stephen Coughlin, el experto anti-terrorista despedido del Pentágono por “islamófobo”” which means “Islamic Terrorism (III): continuation of the case [of] Stephen Coughlin, the anti-terrorism expert fired by the Pentagon for “Islamophobia”". I was a little but surprised I had not heard of this before.) Read the rest of this entry »
Sometimes I wish I could simply ignore the build-up to the elections, then go out to vote, and then have it all come to an end. This is going to be a long year, especially with the coverage of the election cycle being inescapable (whether on TV or on blogs).
I’m still reeling from the winners in Iowa. Unbelievable. But as some say, probably irrelevant. It may be significant as far as momentum is concerned, but otherwise not important.
Even so, I have been tempted over the past few days to write about Obama and why he should not be chosen as Democrat(ic) presidential nominee or even as President of the United States.
I’ll hold off for now.
They say that Benazir’s assassination will be or is Pakistan’s JFK assassination. This was meant to refer to the untimely and tragic loss of a popular politician who had much to look forward to.
But that is not how it is turning out. Yes, it was a tragic incident, as assassinations tend to be, but this is Pakistan’s JFK assassination because of another aspect or facet: conspiracy theories. Read the rest of this entry »
Though I have to say you are right, about the brown skin. . . . kinda, but not cuz of the skin, but because as you described your own ancestry, basicaly you don’t have one, right? Your father was from one nation, your mother from another, you were born outside the nation, and have become an American since?
Thats kinda hard to reconcile. (or am I thinking tushar?)
My parents are from two different countries (and, despite this, are related). However, I was born in The United States. True, I lived most of my formative years abroad, but I always retained an American identity.
But you are right: it is not so much the color of the skin as much as the ethnic origins that matter. (It so happens that many “suspect” ethnicities give rise to darker skin.) If a red dot-bearing Hindu man from India or Nepal or wherever were in a sensitive position, I would have no problem whatsoever despite the man’s darker skin color. That said, an American-born man of American (that is, ultimately European) origins who hangs out with Muslims would be just as suspect, in my eyes, as a Muslim.
Recall the converts: they throw us off, which is why Islamists seek to convert them to Islam and then recruit them for Islamism (for one of their many battlefronts).
Thank you, Wicked. I applied to every three-letter government agency I could find.
I was turned down by each one.
One I applied to three times. Turned down each time.
I also applied to the FBI three times, each for a different position. Turned down each time. (These three times are different from the ones mentioned before.)
I have read that agencies and entities of The Government are having a hard time staffing reliable people. Anyone who isn’t apple pie American has a good chance of being shot down (as it were). And I do not blame them. The Government has already had enough very bad experiences with impressionable double agents and incompetent employees. (Regarding the latter, one group in particular comes to mind: it was a group of men of Arab origins, working for the Army, who translated Arabic. But they were caught buggering each other while at work. Now, I believe homosexual sex is not an intrinsic part of the Arabic language, but I could be wrong.) Frankly, if I saw a darker-skinned person working for The Government in such a sensitive position, I would be concerned. The ideology of Islamism is very insidious indeed.
My problem is that I have no professional certification or experience in translating. No classes or degrees. They find that a bit suspicious if not of doubtful reliability. I don’t blame them. My duty is not to work for the government. It is to be free of the inevitable encumbrances thereof and to motivate you, of the West, to greater zeal in building up and defending the American Republic.
Because Heaven knows you need more pontificators, and that you need more lecturing to.
Our Overlord, Dread Lord Karl Rove — known with great honor and awe by His many Republican minions as “Darth Lord Rovius”, “The Dark Lord” and “The Dark Lord of the Sith” –, has announced He shall resign at the end of August.
All the peoples of the world have broken out in gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, donning sackcloth and sprinkling of ashes. Our grief is inexpressable.
After leading the American Empire for so long, to whom shall we turn for guidance, leadership, and orders? Who shall dictate our every move? Who will control the weather, unleashing powerful hurricanes against decadent cities and flooding their unused busses (buses?)?
Oh, woe is (are?) us!
And the most pressing concern: shall He reveal His apprentice or keep his identity secret? Only time (and our Dread Lord, The Dark Lord of the Sith) will tell.
Tariq Azim, minister of state for information, said talk from the United States about the possibility of U.S. military action against al-Qaida in Pakistan “has started alarm bells ringing and has upset the Pakistani public.” He mentioned Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama by name as an example of someone who made such comments, saying his recent remarks were one reason the government was debating a state of emergency.
(From “Pakistan may declare state of emergency” by Matthew Pennington of AP.)
As if one needs any more reason to oppose Obama. His remark was most irresponsible. It has provoked outrage, and for good reason.
I have no problem with unilateral action against or in Pakistan if the target warrants such. But a public statement explicitly stating such is entirely unacceptable. Doing so harms the interests of The United States. Doing so was a stupid, stupid thing to do. If anyone is truly aware of the delicate situation in Pakistan, one would know how disastrous such a statement could be.
Obama’s statement has brought even more public opposition to Pakistan’s cooperation with America in World War III, cooperation that could only be sustained because Musharraf acts because of his monopoly of force and not democratic legitimacy.
And to think that Pakistanis are rabidly pro-Democrat and anti-Republican. The Republican Party has always been the best one for Pakistan and Pakistanis. I hope Pakistan realizes this, and I hope American Pakistanis realize this next year when they have to help us elect a new president.
Funny, isn’t it, the various ways Democrats undermine American national interests.