The Times Square Bomber: Where Have Our Patriots Gone?

I'm finding the words hard to come by. I can't even begin to describe it! How did we get here in such a short period of time? I thought the lead up to 9/11, then the actual attack of 9/11 and the continued activities of terrorist organizations around the world would only solidify this fact:

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but to me it seems 99.99% of terrorists are Muslim.

There are those in power and in the media who either hate our country and our form of government and want to "fundamentally transform" the United States of America or are just plain stupid. President Obama mentioned that "fundamental transformation" would be the result if he became president [said just before the election].

Now, just 8+ years from 9/11, those in power and in the media seem to wish that acts of terror were perpetrated by white conservative American citizens. Even better, wouldn't it be great if they were part of that tea party movement! Everything is upside down and backwards. It's maddening and I can't stand it any longer. Don't worry, I'm going to hang in there. But it is at an unbelievable level and to be honest, a level that is beginning to scare me.

There is too much to go into, but here are just a few things to chew on.

As I write this, just this morning it was announced they've made at least one arrest in the attempted car bombing in New York's Time Square. Officials arrested Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized US citizen of Pakistani birth. It is also now known he traveled to Pakistan and went through some level of terrorist training. There have been others taken into custody, but as of now this is what I know.

Let's go back to yesterday, before anyone had any idea who was behind the attempted bombing. NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg had this to say to Katie Couric when asked who he thought might be behind the attempted bombing:




Thank you mayor Bloomberg for giving Muslim extremists a pass and instead, your 25 cent guess, that it could be anybody, like... 1) the perp acted alone, 2) the person is "home grown", 3) someone who is mentally deranged and 4) someone with a political agenda like not liking the "health care bill" [even though it is a law now, he called it a bill. Maybe the Mayor needs to watch the old School House Rock video about how a bill becomes a law].

Can you believe that?! By saying the perp probably "acted alone" he's saying that the person isn't a Muslim extremist tied to any organized terror group and probably a political activist who doesn't like the current efforts of the President and congress, like, oh I don't know...maybe one of those racist tea party people?

Then today, after the suspect was arrested, MSNBC's Contessa Brewer said it all in regards to where the media stands. And yes this is where 99% of the media stands.




Yes Contessa too bad he wasn't one of those dangerous tea party "haters" with their lawn chairs and American flags. By the way, the suspect is Muslim and he's a registered Democrat in Connecticut. He's one of yours Contessa!

And finally, now that [one of] the "alleged" perp(s) is under arrest, Mayor Bloomberg has these words to the fine citizens of New York

New York will not tolerate any bias after the arrest of a U.S. citizen from Pakistan in the Times Square car bombing attempt [which] also applies to potential backlash against Muslim New Yorkers. There are a few bad apples among any groups.

'At away to support your citizenry Mr. Mayor.

Pray On!

The "Roose" of Christianity

I found this article to be fascinating. A must read: Ivy Leaguer `infiltrates' Falwell's university

It is about how a Brown University student named Kevin Roose transferred to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in an attempt to perform research for a book he planned to write about fundamentalist Christians called "The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University"

On one hand I have to chuckle a bit that Mr. Roose felt that Christians are a group worthy of some kind of anthropological study. But, I do have to give him credit for his approach to the project. He seemed to be fairly open minded even though he came to the university with a certain amount of negative preconceptions toward Christians.

IMPORTANT! This is all I ask of anyone and it is a rule I apply to myself. We all have preconceptions and assumptions. But are we brave enough to NOT allow our preconceptions and assumptions to affect the results? Too often this is what happens. In science and in journalism the truth is compromised because the results of research differ from what I want the result to be prior to beginning the research.

Digging for "truth"

I came across this ABC video of a news piece produced by John Quiñones called "What Would You Do?". I don't know if it's a stand alone show or part of the 20/20 program, but this one caught my eye so I watched it.

To me this is nothing more than a media stunt and ABC should be ashamed for passing this stuff off as valuable, or even remotely informational.

In order to demonstrate the horrible intolerance of mainstream American culture they plant a gay couple in an average "straight" bar in New Jersey. Knowing they may not get the reaction they hope for, ABC also plants other people; a heterosexual couple and a straight guy to sort of goad the unknowing bar patrons on.

Bottom line, every attempt to show how supposedly intolerant and hateful average Americans are failed. Every time the bar patrons supported the gay guys and harassed the "plants" that were harassing them. Only one person got singled out by the news show because he muttered under his breath that he was disgusted by the two men showing affection and kissing.

Even worse, the host never pointed out the positive results that might indicate that Americans are not a bunch of homophobic hate mongers.

Relativism Run Amok

Can I call 'em or can I call 'em? OK, try and stay with me as I set the stage. On February 10, 2009 I posted an article called No Liberal Bias Here! in which I highlighted Helen Thomas' question to the president where she referred to those a$$holes hiding in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan as "So Called Terrorists". (Side note - those so called terrorists released a video the very next day showing them beheading a polish engineer which they kidnapped). Then on February 18, 2009 I posted an article called Moral Standards? in which I talk about moral relativism. In that article I used the example of how right after 9/11 I heard people say "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and how that is an example of how our society has drifted away from moral absolutes of right and wrong. Rather, in the world we live, right and wrong are relative to each individual.

WELL, today (Feb. 22) I came across this clip of Helen Thomas explaining why she used the term "so called".




Here is a little history lesson. After World War II the Allied forces brought the worst Nazi criminals up on charges and held war crime trials called the Nuremberg Trails. The initial defense used by the Nazi's to explain how they could kill millions of Jews along with thousands of Catholics, the retarded and deformed people was this (in a nut shell):

"In our culture what we did was considered OK. In our culture we are taught that there is nothing wrong with doing these things. Who are you to come into our culture and force your values on us?"

When everything is relative, who decides what is right and wrong? And the more we work to remove God and His laws out of our schools, businesses, courts and government the worse it will get. I mean can you imagine in just 8 years since 9/11 we have actually come to this point? I am praying God doesn't allow another yet far worse "wake up call" to our nation. But if it brings us to our knees in terms of recognizing the God is Sovereign, then I say bring it on.

The Fairnes Doctrine: Who Are We Becomming?

One of my favorites, Megyn Kelly, provides a sound argument against the "fairness"......

The argument for this is so weak, so unintelligible, and so un-American. Yes, everyone is entitled to state their opinion, but that doesn't make all opinions pro-American!

The Fairness Doctrine: Trampling the Constitution

I am speechless after reading this in the online version of The American Spectator and I continue to be baffled by this:

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman is moving forward with discussing ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine”. Waxman is also interested in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them." One idea Waxman's committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place "advisory boards" that would act as watchdogs to ensure "community needs and opinions" are given fair treatment. Reports from those advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be reviewed at least annually by FCC staff.

They say it’s all about “diversity in media”? Listen, if I don’t like what a radio or TV show is talking about, I don’t have to listen. If a website is “heavily trafficked” do they link to other sites that present alternate views?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!

Now they are talking about having media advisory boards that “watch” what the media outlets do and if they don’t think it conforms to their ideas of so-called “fairness” they can prevent license renewals! News agencies that don’t conform will be penalized by the inability to stay in business. All controlled by what one group of elitist people think!! This is communism!!

Voting on the Issues...A Reminder

Keep in mind the below video was made on election day...

The Fairness Doctrine - You Have Been Warned

If you have not heard about the Fairness Doctrine, I hope you will look into it and learn exactly what it is. For me, I am shocked that something like this would even be contemplated in the US.

Here are the basics:

1. "Progressive" (aka liberal) talk radio has no audience to speak of. Again and again every attempt at successful liberal radio programs have left the airwaves because sponsors stop sponsoring the shows, not because of content, but because listenership is so low.
2. Conservative talk radio is very popular. Talk radio such as Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Laura Ingram and a host of other local radio shows have enjoyed long running success.
3. Democrats don't like the truth of the matter; that because of the poor ratings of liberal talk radio, their message isn't getting out to the folks.

So what's a Democrat to do? Introduce legislation called "The Fairness Doctrine". If you want the full explanation click here. But in short, the Fairness Doctrine forces radio programs to allow the opposite side equal air time to state their side. So, if a network plays Rush Limbaugh's show, they would be forced (yes, forced!) to have another show that poses the opposite view as Rush, no matter if no one listens and causes a net-loss in profits for the station.

Don"t think this is real? Below is just one radio clip of a Senator saying the legislation needs to be introduced. This is real! Democrats try and convince us that they are the party of all views and the ones who are really inclusive. The truth is they can't stand you if you have a different opinion than what the party line is.

The same would be true with the "Freedom of Choice Act", or FOCA, that I've written so much about. FOCA will remove all state legislation intended to limit and protect people where abortion is concerned, like parental notification. If FOCA is signed by the President, it will FORCE doctors to perform abortions even if they disapprove as a matter of conscience. A Catholic, Presbyterian, or Methodist hospital who may have chosen not to perform those services because it violates their Christian creed, would be FORCED to perform abortions or face fines and penalties.

No Liberal Bias Here!

Reporter Helen Thomas make me sick. The last time she was relevant was back in the Lincoln administration. She represents the most liberal anti-Christian, anti-Israel, Pro-Palestinian, PRO-TERRORIST arm of our nut bag filled country. It makes me sick.

Here is her question from last nights press conference, Obama's first press conference since becomming President:

Mr. President, do you think that Pakistan and -- are
maintaining the safe havens in Afghanistan for these so-called terrorists?

"So-called TERRORISTS" !!!!! That's what I yelled out when I was watching on TV. Those people hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan would kill you and me AND HER in a second, given the chance. But she can't see it because all she knows is hate for Israel.

The second part of her question took me awhile to decode....

And also, do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?

At first I thought the question was an attempt to see if the President would say that one of those America hating, Godless countries had a weapon. But what she is really trying to get the president to say is "Yes, Israel". She's actually defending and promoting Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon simply because Israel has them!!! OMG! She should be hung in the town square.

One last thing on Helen Thomas; here is the first question she asked George Bush at his first press conference:

Mr. President, why do you refuse to respect the wall between the church and state? And you know that the mixing of religion and government, for centuries, has led to slaughter. The very fact that our country has stood in good stead by having this separation -- why do you break it down?

All Hail Mother Earth! Kill the Humans!!!

The spiritual person will know who is really behind all of this; and so it continues. In a Feb. 1, 2008 article in the British newspaper the Mail, reports a government official Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, stating:

Couples who have more than two children are putting an 'irresponsible' burden on the environment. I recommend we divert money away from curing illnesses and more towards contraception and abortion services to limit the country's population and help in the fight against global warming.

I’d like to know which diseases he prefers to underfund so the state can shower the land with more condoms.

Furthermore, Mr. Porritt continues:

We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers.

So the role of the state should be to convince ambivalent mothers to abort them?!

I would hope that this thinking is way out on the fringe. Bur I've learned that it is in fact the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. So many of our policies have been shaped because of the loud (and may I add grating) voice of the minority.

This report comes on the heals of Al Gore appearing before a Congressional committee at which he professed his gloomy news about global warming. Mr. Gore, whose pundits affectionately call him the "Goracle", had this to say:

Current climate trends will bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth -- and this is within this century, if we don't change.

These lawmakers took turns asking Al Gore for advice, as if playing with a Magic 8 Ball. I am sure the report telling us of the impending death of human civilization will find it's way into legislation even though a majority of scientific data shows no such trend. As it turns out we don't have to wait long because $400 million of the $800 billion stimulus plan awaiting a Senate vote is for Global warming research.

We better watch out because that $400 million may go towards contraception and abortion. No better way to reduce the country's carbon footprint than to prevent more human footprints from ever appearing.

God help us.

Politics and the English Language

From an Article written by Liam Julian called Entering Casablanca November 13, 2008 - National Review Online:

President elect Obama is selecting his staff and readying himself for the challenges he will meet when he assumes the presidency in January and Americans will soon see truthfully what type of president we’ve elected. But before Campaign 2008 recedes into history and is, as our modern way would have it, erased from our memories, it’s worth reflecting on the words of the man who will now inhabit the White House, on how those words inspired so many, and on whether the person who spoke them meant them — and whether the words actually mean anything at all

President elect Obama inspired the nation with a campaign focused on change and hope. He energized an electorate with his words, and I doubt there is hardly a person around who would disagree that Barak Obama campaigned on this idea of Hope; Hope for change. Here are just a few of the thousands of quotes regarding this theme:

“In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?” July, 2004 – Keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention

“All odds — all odds — said I shouldn’t be standing here. But I am because of love and education and lots of hope. That’s what we can stand for in four days. That’s what you can stand for.” – January, 2008 at New Hampshire Primaries

“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” - 2008 Democratic National Convention

Hope is his thing! He communicated it to the thousands — sometimes hundreds of thousands — who attended his rallies. He wrote a book called “The Audacity of Hope”. Dr. David Spiegel, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral science has been recently quoted on NPR as saying,

”If hope gets too far off the mark, it’s more likely to hurt you than help you. Hope works when the person who is promising you something is genuine about trying to deliver it.” (Emphasis mine)

It is unquestionable that Obama inspired millions, but on what is their inspiration based? Is their hope perhaps "too far off the mark"? At the end of his report, the host of the show on NPR said,

“Barack Obama inspired me. . . . His promise sits like a weight on his shoulders.”

If I think back on the campaign I cannot remember one instance where he ever tried to temper the Hope. But now, as the transition to the White House has begun, I’ve seen two news conferences where that temperance of hope is being communicated. Today, his staff claims to be startled that their man’s preaching hit home! Here is a link to one of the many news reports on this: NY Times - Obama Aides Tamp Down Expectations

In Obama’s memoir, Dreams from My Father, you’ll find this remarkable passage:

“When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly. Instead, I’d pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House. . . . Change in the Congress. . . . Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed.”

Astounding, isn’t it? He didn’t know what to say then, so he just blurted out “change.” One has sufficient reason to wonder whether Obama didn’t employ this exact strategy, of evoking amorphous change in lieu of solid substance, throughout the past two years and thereby ascend to the highest office in the land.

If you have the time I recommend you read an essay written in 1946 by George Orwell, called Politics and the English Language. Its subject is the depreciation of the English language — more specifically, how bad writing leads to poor thinking leading to more bad writing and, eventually, begets a society that cannot distinguish meaningful words from empty ones. To bait you into reading it, here is the opening paragraph:

Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.

Here is the link: Orwell 1946 Politics and the English Language

The Missing Link

As you may or may not know Katie Couric took over the position of anchoring the NBC Nightly News. Along with the new anchor, NBC began a free speech segment where ordinary folks can deliver commentary during the broadcast. With the recent tragic incident involving the shooting of children in a small Amish school house, NBC invited Brian Rohrbough to delive that nights commentary. Mr. Rohrbough, whose son was killed in the Colombine high school shootings, had this to say:

"I am saddened and shaken by the shooting at an Amish school today and last week's school murders. When my son Dan was murdered on the sidewalk at Columbine High School on April 20th, 1999, I hoped that would be the last school shooting. Since that day, I tried to answer the question why did this happen? This country is in a moral free fall. For over two generations, the public school system has taught in a moral vacuum, expelling God from the school and from the government, replacing Him with evolution, where the strong kill the weak without moral consequences. And life has no inherent value. We teach there are no absolutes, no right or wrong. And I assure you, the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including by abortion. Abortion has diminished the value of children. Suicide has become an acceptable action and has further emboldened these criminals. And we are seeing an epidemic increase in murder/suicide attacks on our children."

For me, the teaching of evolution in public schools has fostered an environment that leads many students to believe that there is little or no meaning to life. As Mr. Rohrbough plainly understands, evolutionary indoctrination declares that we are only animals in the struggle for survival. This has created a mindset in many of our young people that life lacks purpose. Yet, otherwise intelligent people can not see the link between this teaching and the ever increasing violence in our country which is steadily devouring younger and younger victims.

As time goes on, I believe this will only get worse. Yes, God can bring about revival in our country if it is His will and Christians should pray for the current state of affairs to be reversed. But, I honestly think this country will continue to decline steadily toward an ever greater state of immorality and that immorality will be looked upon as having nothing wrong with it.