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.

Freedom of Religion and the Constitution

In support of free speech I say you are entitled. Quoting the article on the Fox News website:

An atheist organization is blasting the U.S. Postal Service for its plan to honor Mother Teresa with a commemorative stamp, saying it violates postal regulations against honoring "individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings."

Now to exercise my free speech:

Yes, once again we hear from the imbeciles over at the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Their name says it all. To think that you can rid any and all religious references, hints or appearances from life is so brainless. Not to mention this "right" to rid us from religion is not theirs! The first amendment clearly states that all citizens of the USA have the right to freedom of religion not a freedom from it. Why do they think they can force it out of lives? Oh yes, because of that silly idea of "separation of Church and state". Laughable; show me where that is in the constitution.

Those who have twisted that non-constitutional phrase into something that could or should possibly shape our society are fools. You incorrectly think it means that God should stay out of the government's business. Make it mean whatever you want it to mean, it doesn't apply because it is not in the constitution. What is in the constitution clearly states that the government must stay out of the business of how the people chose to exercise their religion. A stamp with Mother Theresa, or Moses, or Buddha or Muhammad or Jesus, I could care less. But no person or institution has the right to say no to it.

I do take exception to the Post Office having a regulation that says they won't honor individuals whose achievements are religious in nature. That is nothing more that a politically correct cop out and what fuels these complaints. I can protest that decision and do my best to convince them to reverse it. But, the Post Office can freely choose to display anything they want on their stamps and I have no right to force them to do anything, so long as the image doesn't violate any law.

Do you believe the Constitution contains timeless truths; things that are true for all people, in all times? Not if you think like the stream of so called intellectuals that have come along over the ages. One sits in the White House now. In Mr. Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" he states:

Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.

Not me. Our founders laid down a blueprint for a government this world has never known before. It has provided it's citizens a standard of living far greater than any country has ever had in the history of the world. It must be interpreted today as the founders laid it out then. To stray away from it would mean to stray away from what and who we are as Americans.

Veterans Day 2009

Just two things; a link to my Veterans Day post from last year and a video.

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!

The title of this article are the words famously stated by Patrick Henry and which is the motto of New Hampshire to this very day. Twenty years ago today the berlin wall finally fell. I posted a short video below that shows you the celebration of freedom and how dearly it is loved by all people everywhere! Watch it and then continue reading.




The fall of the Berlin wall was the culmination of years of cold war which pitted democracy against Marxist socialism. It was in a speech two years before the fall of the wall given by President Ronald Reagan where he demanded "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall!" No matter what side of history you are on, everyone knew that if Communism is such a benefit to its people, why do you have to force people to participate in it? The answer: Statism always requires force, and it always strips people of liberty. It always comes with handcuffs and prison camps and, yes, even murder when needed.

Now switch gears to this past weekends successful vote in the House .




What are we becomming?

Public Education = Bleak Future

Read the article linked here: Schoolhouse Shariah

I can add little commentary on this except that if you are a parent, please, PLEASE get involved with what the schools are teaching your children. I have no problem with schools giving a lesson in world religions and cultures, but come on. It is clear that when truth and balance are omitted, indoctrination is the goal. Why is this needed? Why would a school district adopt this curriculum? Why, when they see what the curriculum teaches do they NOT have an issue with it?

Why? When I think about the answer to that I remember a conversation I had via Face Book with a complete stranger. Maybe I'll post that conversation soon.

In Memory: USS Conolly DD-979

I served aboard the USS Conolly DD-979, a Spruance class destroyer, from 1983-1985. She was sunk in a training exercise this past April 2009.

This picture was taken in 1984 after a complete overhaul at Bath Iron Works in Portland Maine. I was on board when this picture was taken.

I first came aboard while the ship was at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as a 2nd class Electronics Warfare Technician. She was my second ship to serve aboard. It was the height of the cold war and being in the Navy at that time was exciting. Us against the USSR, the high seas, playing cat and mouse. I was promoted to 1st class while on board.

Even though all of 1984 was spent in the ship yards, I made numerous deployments most notably circumnavigating South America, West Africa, 2 Med cruises (that's the Mediterranean for you land lubbers), Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf. On the Connoly I navigated the Panama canal and the Suez canal. I crossed the equator just west of Ecuador and once again crossed the equator at 0.00 and 0.00 off of the west coast of Africa.

If I were able to be board her today I would know my way around as if I never left her. She was good ship and I'm saddened at her end.

Happy Birthday America!

A Great Man With A Great Message

Watching this video is a must. Yes, it's nearly 30 minutes long, but it is eye opening; like discovering a time capsule.

How we need this man and his message today.



By the way, I don't think this is the Republican National Convention as the video is titled. I've read elsewhere that it is actually the 1964 CPAC Conference, but I could be wrong.

I've Got A Funny Feeling (Funny-Bad)

It's been building for awhile and it looks like it's coming together. Ultra liberal congress, super-liberal President, soon to be liberal supreme court, and right around the corner legislating "Hate speech".

I'll be keeping an eye on a few things, but most importantly whether or not S.909 and HR1913 the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 passes congress. The ambiguous wording of this bill would allow for special prosecution of people who commit crimes that are

..motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Ttribal hate crime laws.

This means that someone convicted of a crime against a person who is considered a member of a special "protected" group of people will receive a stiffer penalty than if the same crime is committed against a person who is NOT in that group of specially protected people. Who are some other these specially protected groups of people? Some 30 groups of sexually perverse people! Read the list right here.

On the ACLU website you'll find this as the opening of their information concerning hate speech:

In recent years, a rise in verbal abuse and violence directed at people of color, lesbians and gay men, and other historically persecuted groups has plagued the United States.

I just happen to read an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that described a meeting in Fort Worth where the motives of American Muslims was being discussed. The article started with:

What are the intentions of Muslims in America? A local activist told a Republican club Monday night that Muslims are intent on overthrowing America. But the Tarrant County medical examiner, who is Muslim, denounced such remarks as hate speech.

I'm getting a real bad feeling about this. Anyone who "feels" like what I say is hateful can sue me or have me arrested? What if the preacher at Church speaks out against homosexuality? What if I write on my blog that I think Asians can't drive worth a crap, all Italians are crooks, women are notorious liars or all Jews are money grubbers. I don't really think that, but I'm making a point. Is not my speech free under the first amendment?

Again, the first amendment provides me the freedom OF speech, NOT freedom FROM IT. The first amendment provides me with freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM IT.

I don't think we'll have these freedoms for much longer. I'm not saying...I'm just saying.

Case in point, I've written a little about the fall out from Miss California simply stating her opinion on same sex marriage. The liberals and the gay-lesbian community are tearing her apart and doing everything they can to destroy her reputation. In the very near future they will have laws on their side to prosecute!

I could go on and on. I read another article today that described how over 30 colleges and universities in the US have adopted same room co-ed living arrangements and the reason for this is "to create a more welcoming atmosphere for transgender and homosexual students". Don't believe me? Here is the article and you can read many more just like it with a simple web-search.

He's Right

In my opinion, this is exactly what I've been feeling lately. Here here to Glen Beck. It's a long piece, but listen to it all. I especially like the way he exposes Bill Maher, one of the most hateful men I know on TV.

They Have To Be Stopped...And I have To Stop Them

I don't get it. This fallacy that suggests there is a separation between Church ans state and that this idea is actually law; where did that come from? Do you know there is no such thing mentioned in the U.S. Constitution? The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I understand that to mean:

1. Our country will not establish a state sanctioned official religion. This stems from persecution found in Great Britain back in the day. The Church of England was the official church of that country and if you weren't a member you were persecuted. We believe in freedom!
2. The government WILL NOT PROHIBIT the FREE EXERCISE of RELIGION. In other words, unless your religion involves breaking the law the government will stay out of your business.
3. All citizens have the right to free speech. If you don't like what I have to say, tough. Then say something back that I don't like. So long as I don't say something that breaks the law e.g. defamation or slander, I can say whatever I want.
   

OK. With that in mind why are Christians being told to stop talking publicly about God? Especially in school! Where does this come from?

Read the article by clicking here and make sure you scroll down and look at the before and after pictures of the posters. Also, remember that the phrase "In God We Trust" is...our...national... motto.

The Fairness Doctrine: President Obama's Decision

I was glad to read yesterday that the President is against the Fairness Doctrine. But, I'm still skeptical. Why? First, it was not a quote directly from the President, or by his press secretary, his chief of staff or any other high ranking official in the white hose. Rather it was reported to come from an unnamed white house spokesperson. After all, it is the President who says that he supports the traditional definition of marriage of being a union between one man and one woman, yet supported California's Prop 8. He also says he is a follower of Jesus Christ and honors all life, but is the most pro-abortion liberal ever. So excuse me if I am not impressed by this news.

The Wall Street Journal had a good Op-Ed piece called Mr. President, Keep The Airwaves Free, written by Rush Limbaugh. I am not a Rush listener, but I do agree with most of his views when I come across them. It's worth a read.

Update on AZ Rancher

Ok; that's it. Like I said on February 9 in my post called "Illegal" Only Means Something if You're A US Citizen", it's over. That AZ rancher was fined in this case:

A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn’t violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who claimed that he detained them at gunpoint in 2004. The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn’t liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment. But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive. Barnett declined to comment afterward, but one of his attorneys, David Hardy, said the plaintiffs lost on the bulk of their claims and that Barnett has a good basis for appeal on the two counts on which he lost.

Incredible.

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!!

Depression

I know the word “depression” is being tossed about regarding the economy. Last month 600,000 jobs were lost. Businesses are closing. Banks are failing. Wall Street is in a panic. People are afraid. But truly, our country, given its history has survived much more than this and can survive much worse. But the depression I am talking about is my own depression.

Why am I depressed? Carol and I have jobs. And they are good jobs with stable companies. We have good health, good family and faith in God. Thank you God for your provision. So what am I depressed about? It’s because of the changing face of our nation.

I’m sure that part of this stems from me becoming more mature every day. Yes, in most cases older does mean wiser. I also believe in the God of the Bible, so He shapes my world view and every day I see the world more clearly and all the things that go on in it. God is the standard by which I compare everything that happens in reality.

Let me explain what I am seeing.

Last month the entire nation celebrated US Airlines pilot Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger III. “Sully”, saved 155 lives by landing that plane just right—level wings, nose up, tail down, glide that baby in, get everyone out, get them counted, and then, at night, wonder what he could have done better. The national collective reaction was to shake our heads in awe and jump for joy with tears in our eyes. He is cool, modest, competent, and tough in the good way. He's the only one who doesn't applaud Sully. He was just doing his job. This is why people are so moved: We're still making Sullys! We're still making those mythic Americans, those steely-eyed rocket men like Alan Shepard in the Mercury rocket: "Come on and light this candle!"

But Sully, 58, Air Force Academy '73, was shaped and formed by the old America, and educated in a culture in which a certain style of manhood—of personhood—was held high. The fact is, Sully’s are becoming more and more rare every day.

There are many examples on the other end of the spectrum. One is “Octamom” Nadya Suleman. The dizzy, selfish, self-dramatizing 33-year-old mother who had six small children and then a week ago eight more because, well, she always wanted a big family. Suleman doubletalks with the best of them. She had needs and took proactive steps to meet them, and those who don't approve are limited, which must be sad for them. She seems aware of the predicament but she doesn’t care about anyone else but herself. She doesn’t care about the health and welfare of the children, her parents, or the state which is left holding the financial burden for her selfishness.
Another example is society as a whole. Each generation of Americans become more selfish, greedy, entitlement expectant, blame shifting, and out of touch with our National heritage and the people that made this country great.

During the presidential campaign it was clear that a majority of American’s prefer a government that will give them stuff and the new Democratic party is ready to give it to them. I turned away from the Democratic Party around the 2000 election. Although I was on the fence at that time I did vote for Al Gore in that election (excuse me, I just vomited a little in my mouth). I had voted democrat in every election in my voting past. I was all for the call of JFK “Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country”. At the time of Al Gore and Howard Dean’s campaign I began noticing a shift in the Democratic Party. More and more to the left with an ideology heading toward socialism. Their policy was “You give us your money and we’ll take care of you”. Now, I am all for responsible social programs intended to help people in a time of crisis. But it’s like the old analogy of the tow truck. A tow truck is intended just to get you from the point of your trouble to a place where you can get your car repaired and back driving on your own again. Tow trucks are not meant to drive you all over the place forever! Apply that to our welfare system and soon to be welfare state.

The first Republican I voted for was Mitt Romney when he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. This was the first election I paid close attention to and what I heard began a changed in me. First I am ashamed because I never really paid attention in the past, yet always voted Democrat anyway. Why this is true is explained in the last paragraph. Anyway, in this election the democratic candidate was State Treasurer Shannon O’Brien. I watched every single debate and was shocked to hear how she was radically pro-abortion, so much so that it shocked me! By the way, at this time I was firmly planted in the pro-choice group. But she was in favor of all abortion methods, at all times, for everyone. She was against parental notification. She was for gay marriage. She was for wiping out any mention of religion in schools and science class was to be centered on evolution only. The list went on and on.

Now we have President Obama. Although he didn’t win by a land slide, 53% to McCain’s 46%, he is exactly what a majority of the nation asked for. We have seen the shift happen and the shift is toward a nation of greedy consumers who, when faced with tough times, point fingers and say gimme-gimme-gimme!

During one of Obama’s election rallies a reported interviewed Peggy Joseph who was excited after hearing Obama speak. Ms. Joseph was asked why she was so moved by the experience, to which she replied “…I never thought this day would happen. I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I help him He’ll help me.” Click Here to watch the video.

Last week President Obama travelled to Florida to promote the Stimulus bill. Some of the questions posed to the President were all about how is the government going to provide for me? Click Here to see a news report that talks about the very thing that is upsetting me and shows these peoples questions.

Bottom line. If the parents are greedy, lazy, entitlement minded people, so will their children and so forth and so on. Steel is refined by fire. In tough times you make tough decisions. If you make less today than you did yesterday, then you cut back, spend less, change your lifestyle.

People, please; open your eyes. The Democratic Party has changed. Look at what it is today and vote your conscience based on your values. Hey, if you are for unrestricted abortion, for gay marriage, for bigger government, for higher taxes, for open borders, etc. then vote Democrat. I respect that. But I refuse to believe that most Americans are for those things. They just vote Democrat because that’s what they’ve always done, their family has voted that way and that’s just the way it’s been.

But the Democratic party of today is, in my opinion, dangerous. Unless you want the USA of old wiped out and a new nation built.

One last thing. I firmly believe that those who vote Democrat are made up of a minority of people who truly understand the party’s values, agree with them and can verbally explain why they agree with them. The vast majority of people who vote Democrat are uninformed people who cannot even begin to rationally explain why they are a Democrat. They’ve been spoon fed by the main stream media. I’ve heard time and time again people say they do not understand how anyone can be a Republican. Just a week or so ago Cher was quoted as saying “I don’t see how anyone could be a Republican except maybe rich, white, Christians. That’s it.” Republicans, on the other hand, are the complete opposite. More Republicans have investigated the issues and have made a decision based on where they stand on the issues based on their values. It’s a rational decision based on fact and knowledge. A majority (but not all) Democrats base their decision on “feelings” but cannot tell you why they vote the way they do in a rational fact based manner. See my post from November 19 called “The Death of Journalism”.

My opinion; That’s it.

"Illegal" Only Means Something if You're A US Citizen

Read this article from the Washington Times. I find it unbelievable that it would even make it before a Judge, much less make it to trial.

I'm going to watch what happens with this. If the judge or jury punishes this ranch owner, even in the smallest way, we're done. It's over.

Wake Up America

I wanted to re-print an article from NRO. It's right on and worth sharing:

Soul Survivors
The meaning of Mumbai.

By Thomas Sowell


Will the horrors unleashed by Islamic terrorists in Mumbai cause any second thoughts by those who are so anxious to start weakening the American security systems currently in place, including government interceptions of international phone calls and the holding of terrorists at Guantánamo?

Maybe. But never underestimate partisan blindness in Washington or in the mainstream media where, if the Bush administration did it, then it must be wrong.

Contrary to some of the more mawkish notions of what a government is supposed to be, its top job is the protection of the people. Nobody on 9/11 would have thought that we would see nothing comparable again in this country for seven long years.

Many people seem to have forgotten how, in the wake of 9/11, every great national event — the World Series, Christmas, New Year’s, the Super Bowl — was under the shadow of a fear that this was when the terrorists would strike again.

They didn’t strike again here, even though they have struck in Spain, Indonesia, England, and India, among other places. Does anyone imagine that this was because they didn’t want to hit America again?

Could this have had anything to do with all the security precautions that liberals have been complaining about so bitterly, from the interception of international phone calls to forcing information out of captured terrorists?

Too many people refuse to acknowledge that benefits have costs, even if that cost means only having no more secrecy when making international phone calls than you have when sending e-mails, in a world where computer hackers abound. There are people who refuse to give up anything, even to save their own lives.

A very shrewd observer of the deterioration of Western societies, British writer Theodore Dalrymple, said: “This mental flabbiness is decadence, and at the same time a manifestation of the arrogant assumption that nothing can destroy us.”

There are growing numbers of things that can destroy us. The Roman Empire lasted a lot longer than the United States has lasted, and yet it too was destroyed.

Millions of lives were blighted for centuries thereafter, because the barbarians who destroyed Rome were incapable of replacing it with anything at all comparable. Neither are those who threaten to destroy the United States today.

The destruction of the United States will not require enough nuclear bombs to annihilate cities and towns across America. After all, the nuclear destruction of just two cities was enough to force Japan to surrender — and the Japanese had far more willingness to fight and die than most Americans have today.

How many Americans are willing to see New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles all disappear in nuclear mushroom clouds, rather than surrender to whatever outrageous demands the terrorists make?

Neither Barack Obama nor those with whom he will be surrounded in Washington show any signs of being serious about forestalling such a terrible choice by taking any action with any realistic chance of preventing a nuclear Iran.

Once suicidal fanatics have nuclear bombs, that is the point of no return. We, our children, and our grandchildren will live at the mercy of the merciless, who have a track record of sadism.

There are no concessions we can make that will buy off hate-filled terrorists. What they want — what they must have for their own self-respect, in a world where they suffer the humiliation of being visibly centuries behind the West in so many ways — is our being brought down in humiliation, including self-humiliation.

Even killing us will not be enough, just as killing Jews was not enough for the Nazis, who first had to subject them to soul-scarring humiliations and dehumanization in their death camps.

This kind of hatred may not be familiar to most Americans but what happened on 9/11 should give us a clue — and a warning.

The people who flew those planes into the World Trade Center buildings could not have been bought off by any concessions, not even the hundreds of billions of dollars we are spending in bailout money today.

They want our soul — and if they are willing to die and we are not, they will get it.

© 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

The Death of Journalism

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