Why Would Anyone Think Obama is a Muslim?

So, 20% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim. How could they possibly think that? I’m not going to say that he is, or that he isn’t, I don’t know; but I can certainly understand why 1/5 of us think so; and that number is growing.

1. Wait a minute! Didn’t Obama spend 20 years in Rev. Wright’s church? Oh, that’s right. That church is a black liberation-theology church that preaches hatred of whites and hatred of America, and Obama never heard anything that Wright said.

2. Well let’s look at his school, college and graduate school records and writings, and clear this up. Oh dear, we can’t. Somehow all the records of an American president that have always been made available have been sealed in Obama’s case. Strange.

3. We can still clear this up easily. Just look at his birth certificate. Oh gee, we can’t do that either; it has also been sealed, and only a Record of Birth that tells almost nothing has been made available.

4. How about his mother and his father and his relatives? Oh boy, his father was a Muslim; his mother was an atheist, and all his known relatives are Muslims who say Obama is a Muslim.

5. Well, what about his prosecution of the War on Terror? Well, we can’t say “War on Terror” anymore. He wants to close Guantanamo; he set an end-date for Afghanistan, guaranteeing failure there; he tried to deny that the Fort Hood massacre, the Christmas bomber (a foreigner almost immediately granted rights of a US citizen) and the Times Square bomber were acts of Muslim terrorism. He also supports the Cordoba mosque and has sent and financed its promoter, a man who also preaches hatred for America, on a fund-raising trip abroad.

6. How about his prosecution of the men who murdered 17 US sailors on the USS Cole?

Cole killer confusion

August 28, 2010 New York Post

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri is a man with blood on his hands.

A year before 9/11, the Saudi al Qaeda operative masterminded the bombing of the guided-missile destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 sailors as the vessel refueled in the Yemeni port of Aden.

A Guantanamo tribunal was ready to arraign him last year, but since the Obama administration took office, it's been a case of trial and error.

No trial -- plenty of error.

As the 10th anniversary of the Oct. 12, 2000, attack looms, the White House has inexplicably frozen the prosecution.

The Justice Department said this week that "no charges are either pending or contemplated with respect to al-Nashiri in the near future."

And it's not the first time the Obama White House has meddled with Nashiri's case.
Nashiri's charges were held in abeyance for nine months last year as the Justice Department conducted a review of all cases against Guantanamo detainees.

In the end, White House officials chose to discard years of careful legal work by the Navy's JAG lawyers when they removed the 9/11 suspects' cases from military jurisdiction and turned them over to the federal courts.

But Nashiri's case stayed where it was.

Attorney General Eric Holder said last year that because the Cole bombing was an attack on the military, Nashiri's trial should proceed in a military tribunal.

Did it really take nine months to figure that out?

It's not apparent why the administration is delaying Nashiri's trial now.

What is clear is that the White House has called off any action until after the November elections, learning a lesson -- the wrong lesson -- from their troubles.

"It's politics at this point," one military official told The Washington Post.

Correction: It's been politics from Day One, when Obama made a foolhardy promise to close Gitmo within a year of taking office.

And it's been politics ever since, as the administration has bumbled its way toward 9/11 trials, which now appear years away from even beginning.

We've always been skeptical that you could use the "rule of law" to handle terrorism cases, a worry borne out by the administration's fumbling so far.

If this administration can't figure out how to convict the monster behind the murder of 17 sailors, then let Nashiri simply rot in prison.

Just don't let him out.

What do I Want From Muslims?

What do I Want From Muslims? What would shut me up?

My readers are well-aware of my campaign to warn America of the dangers posed by Muslim terrorists and by various attempts to impose Sharia law in a series of hardly-noticeable steps. They are accomplishing Sharia-compliance in England and in other European countries. Just as California provides insights into America’s future on most matters, Europe provides a warning example as to the intentions and successes of Muslim organizations.

1. Move the Cordoba “victory” mosque away from “Ground Zero” and change its name; also change the design of the Flight 93 memorial in Pennsylvania so that it honors the brave passengers and crew who died there, and NOT the terrorists who took it down.

2. Stop funding and making excuses for Islamic terrorists. Every Muslim leader I have heard discussing Islamic terrorists tip toes in their condemnations and then goes on to make excuses and whine about being unfairly treated. Of course the rest of us are angry about all the murderous acts of terrorism happening every day.

3. Break the wall of silence presented by so-called moderate Muslims about terrorism. Speak out publicly and daily and condemn their butchery. If you believe your religion does not support their actions, say so loudly and clearly.

I can understand why citizens of Muslim countries are afraid to speak out, but why should American Muslims be afraid?

4. Renounce the Sharia as being totally out of place in America, and close or reform all those mosques that teach and indoctrinate Sharia law.

5. Acknowledge the incredible assistance given by Americans to Muslims in places like Bosnia, Kosovo and Indonesia, plus the costly removal of the butcher of Baghdad.

Maybe the 911 Mosque is a Good Thing

The attempt by Muslims to build a mosque just steps away from where 10 Muslims mass-murdered over 2600 innocent people may turn out to be a good thing. If they keep pushing this, it will show, with crystal clarity, just in what complete contempt the Muslim population of the United States holds of the rest of us, and, perhaps, it will wake up a sleeping and clueless population to the dangers that Muslims pose to American ideals, traditions and freedoms.

I have two Muslim friends; they are gentle people, and they strive mightily to reconcile their Muslim religion with life here, and, in particular, they work very hard to shield their children from pop culture. There are many Muslim citizens who are dedicated to this country, however, wherever Muslims have gained a significant foothold in the countries they enter, they make increasing demands to impose their Sharia (a feudal system of laws involving death for adultery or homosexuality, and cutting off of hands, among other barbarities). They start by invoking Sharia for themselves (they have met some success with this in England already), and then they try to impose it on others. The province of Ontario in Canada narrowly escaped having this happen in the name of political correctness.

Bill O’Reilly often has Muslim leaders on his program to discuss Muslim terrorism, something that occurs every day someplace in the world and leaves people dead – often with their heads chopped off (more people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined). These representatives invariably react with arrogance, give excuses and make whiny demands. They all make me sick.

To get a full picture of what Muslims are doing every day in all parts of the world, go here.

Last year I published an article explaining this problem in some depth. The article can be found here, and includes an adaptation from a book, “Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat” by Dr. Peter Hammond

“Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious rights.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious rights, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works.

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace in never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.”

The Continuing Obamacare Nightmare

J.C. Watts, in the article below, reviews the massive fraud, destruction of healthcare and hidden costs of Obamacare. If for no other reason than to defund this program (and eventually after 2012 to repeal it), Republicans must be returned to office in droves this fall.

The continuing health care nightmare

J.C. WATTS Aug. 22, 2010 Las Vegas Review-Journal

Repeal of ObamaCare can't come fast enough

We "have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it," proclaimed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the end of last spring's congressional health care debate. Indeed, Americans are rapidly witnessing just how much an ever-expanding federal government is siphoning away states' power and saddling them with new costs.

A first glimpse was seen with communications firm AT&T's $1 billion write down against earnings thanks to the tax changes buried in the new 2,300-page health care law. The Heritage Foundation calculates that is a full third of AT&T's $3 billion earnings for the fourth quarter of 2009.

Other write downs have occurred, and a major reason involves the new tax treatment of prescription drug benefits for retirees. Companies that currently deduct part of their costs for providing these benefits to retirees will no longer be able to do so. Roland McDevitt, director of health research at Towers Watson, estimates that just this tax change alone eliminates $14 billion in U.S. corporate profits. At a time when the national jobless rate hovers at almost 10 percent, this wholesale destruction of wealth and capital is a national tragedy toward unemployment.

ObamaCare not only limits doctor-patient choice, it will -- if not reversed -- eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone under a government-run system.

An Aug. 5 Wall Street Journal editorial warns, "ObamaCare mandates that insurers spend a certain percentage of premium dollars on benefits, but Democrats never got around to writing the fine print of what counts as a benefit. So, a handful of regulators are now choosing among the tens of thousands of services that doctors, hospitals and insurers offer. Few government decisions will do more to shape tomorrow's health market, or what's left of it."

What will the government's final regulations be when they are issued this fall? Will the bureaucrats decide on a narrow definition of medical expenses? The insurance industry hopes not, and is rightfully lobbying for a less rigid standard. After all, as the Journal notes, it will be easier to run a business and turn a profit if more of the costs are considered truly medical in nature.

Critics were right to ask how President Obama and proponents said they wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year, yet their bill included $20 billion in new taxes on medical devices (along with the aforementioned new costs regarding prescription drugs). Even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office warns that these taxes will be passed along to patients.

The Medicaid program, Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum notes, could soon be eating up 36 percent of his state's budget -- and that's before ObamaCare's new costs kick in. Federal health, educational, environmental and labor mandates are chipping away at the states' ability to keep their taxes low, to expand jobs and to target money for their own priorities. So it is no wonder McCollum's counterparts in 19 other hard-pressed states joined him to file a constitutional lawsuit to get out of Obamacare. (It is also no wonder that more than 70 percent of the Missouri residents who turned out at the polls recently voted to annul the "individual mandate" within state lines -- the ObamaCare requirement that everyone buy insurance or else pay a tax.)

"The brazen nature of this administration is undermining the basic rule of law, the confidence of the public, and taking away states' authority -- creating an ever stronger federal government. My role is to make clear we're not going to put up with this," says McCollum about the lawsuit.

President Obama and the Democrats controlling Congress still refuse to admit that their budget-busting legislation, bullied through on a party-line vote, doesn't "lower costs." The president has been less than forthcoming because he never admitted that his real goal is the imposition of federal power over everything from doctors to health insurance.

The CBO confirmed the dishonesty when it concluded the other day that the new bureaucracy the health care legislation creates is so complex and indiscriminate that its size and cost is "currently unknowable." Incredible.

The defunding of this new health care bill by a new Congress next year, as well as driving a stake through its heart by its eventual rollback, cannot come fast enough.

J.C. Watts (JCWatts01@jcwatts.com) is chairman of J.C. Watts Companies, a business consulting group. He is former chairman of the Republican Conference of the U.S. House, where he served as an Oklahoma representative from 1995 to 2002.

What's Forgotten About the 9/11 Mosque

Americans have a short memory span, and most Americans are entirely ignorant of the significance to Muslims of the building of a mosque on the hallowed ground of those they have conquered. The dispute about the building of a mosque adjacent to the site of the Twin Towers is not about religious freedom, it is about stopping Islamic fundamentalists from celebrating their victory there – while shoving our noses into the dust left behind by their murderous attack.

Muslims have long memories, and they teach their children to remember long-forgotten events. They have a long history of destroying symbols of the religions of non-Muslims, and then building mosques on those sites. Cordoba, the al-Aqsa mosque, the Umayyad mosque, and the Hagia Sophia were all mosques built on top of razed churches and temples of their non-Muslim enemies. These events are celebrated by Muslims today as if they happened just yesterday.

Maybe few non-Muslim Americans are aware of this history and the true significance of the 9/11 mosque, but every Muslim in the world is aware of it. The Twin Towers was a temple of evil to the Muslim fundamentalists who brought them down.

The building of a mosque on an adjacent site that was struck by one of the planes must be stopped.

The Two Faces of the Ground Zero Mosque

by Raymond Ibrahim June 22, 2010 Middle East Forum (Excerpt)

“At any rate, the true history of Cordoba, not to mention the whole of Andalusia, is far less inspiring than what Western academics portray: the Christian city was conquered by Muslims around 711, its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. The original mosque of Cordoba—the namesake of the Ground Zero mosque—was built atop, and partly from the materials of, a Christian church. Modern day Muslims are well aware of all this. Such is the true—and ominous—legacy of Cordoba.

More pointedly, throughout Islam's history, whenever a region was conquered, one of the first signs of consolidation was/is the erection of a mosque atop the sacred sites of the vanquished: the pagan Ka'ba temple in Arabia was converted into Islam's holiest site, the mosque of Mecca; the al-Aqsa mosque, Islam's third holiest site, was built atop Solomon's temple in Jerusalem; the Umayyad mosque was built atop the Church of St. John the Baptist; and the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque upon the conquest of Constantinople.

(Speaking of, in 2006, when the Pope visited the Hagia Sophia in Turkey, there was a risk that the "Islamic world [would go] into paroxysms of fury" if there was "any perception that the pope is trying to re-appropriate a Christian center that fell to Muslims," for example, if he had dared pray there—this even as Muslims today seek to build a mosque on the rubble of the Twin Towers.)

Such double-standards lead us back to the issue of double-meanings: As for the literal wording of the mosque project, "Cordoba House," it too offers opposing paradigms of thought: to Westerners, the English word "house" suggests shelter, intimacy—coziness, even; in classical Arabic, however, the word for house, dar, can also mean "region," and is regularly used in a divisive sense, as in Dar al-Harb, i.e., "infidel region of war." Thus, to Muslim ears, while "Cordoba" offers allusions of conquest and domination, dar is further suggestive of division and separation (from infidels, a la the doctrine of al-Wala' wa al-Bara', for instance).

Words aside, even the mosque's scheduled opening date—9/11/2011—has two aspects: to Americans, opening the mosque on 9/11 is to proclaim a new beginning with the Muslim world on the ten-year anniversary of the worst terror strikes on American soil; however, it just so happens that Koranic verse 9:111 is one of the loftiest calls for suicidal jihad—believers are exhorted to "kill and be killed"—and is probably the reason al-Qaeda originally chose that date to strike. So while Americans may think the mosque's planned 9/11 opening is meant to commemorate that date, cryptically speaking, it is an evocation for all out war. A "new beginning," indeed, but of a very different sort, namely, the propagation of more Islamists and jihadists—mosques are, after all, epicenters of radicalization—on, of all places, soil sacred to America.

Some final thoughts on the history of Cordoba and the ominous parallels it bodes for America: though many Christian regions were conquered by Islam prior to Cordoba, its conquest signified the first time a truly "Western" region was conquered by the sword of Islam. It was also used as a base to launch further attacks into the heart of Europe (until decisively beaten at the Battle of Tours), just as, perhaps, the largest mosque in America will be used as a base to subvert the rest of the United States. And, the sacking of the original Cordoba was facilitated by an insider traitor—a warning to the U.S., which seems to have no end of traitors and willing lackeys.

Such, then, is the dual significance of the Cordoba Initiative: What appears to many Americans as a gesture of peace and interfaith dialogue, is to Muslims allusive of Islamist conquest and consolidation; mosques, which Americans assume are Muslim counterparts to Christian churches—that is, places where altruistic Muslims congregate and pray for world peace and harmony—are symbols of domination and centers of radicalization; the numbers of the opening date, 9/11/11, appear to Americans as commemorative of a new beginning, whereas the Koranic significance of those numbers is suicidal jihad. Of course, the two faces of the Cordoba House should not be surprising considering that the man behind the initiative, Feisal Abdul Rauf, also has two faces.

Going along with the historic analogy, there is one bit of good news: As opposed to the vast majority of onetime Western/Christian nations annexed by Islam, Cordoba, Spain did ultimately manage to overthrow the Islamic yoke. Though only after some 700 years of occupation.”

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.

Obama and 9/11 Mosque by Debra Burlingame

Debra Burlingame is the sister of Captain Charles “Chic” Burlingame, III, pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. She is co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America (www.911familiesforamerica.org) and has testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security Sub-Committee on Transportation on the subject of pilot screening and terrorist travel.

Debra Burlingame: 9/11 Families Stunned by President’s Support of Mosque at Ground Zero

August 14, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America

Statement of Debra Burlingame, Co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, in Response to President Obama’s Remarks about the Ground Zero Mosque

9/11 Families Stunned by Presidents Support of Mosque at Ground Zero
New York, NY, Aug. 14 —

"Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see. Since that dark day, Americans have been asked to bear the burden of defending those values, again and again and again. Now this president declares that the victims of 9/11 and their families must bear another burden. We must stand silent at the last place in America where 9/11 is still remembered with reverence or risk being called religious bigots.

Muslims have worshipped in New York without incident both before and after the attacks of 9/11. This controversy is not about religious freedom. 9/11 was more than a “deeply traumatic event,” it was an act of war. Building a 15-story mosque at Ground Zero is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah. Those who continue to target and kill American civilians and U.S. troops will see it as a symbol of their historic progress at the site of their most bloody victory. Demolishing a building that was damaged by wreckage from one of the hijacked planes in order to build a mosque and Islamic Center will further energize those who regard it as a ratification of their violent and divinely ordered mission: the spread of shariah law and its subjugation of all free people, including secular Muslims who come to this country fleeing that medieval ideology, which destroys lives and crushes the human spirit.

We are stunned by the president’s willingness to disregard what Americans should be proud of: our enduring generosity to others on 9/11–a day when human decency triumphed over human depravity. On that day, when 3,000 of our fellow human beings were killed in barbaric act of raw religious intolerance unlike this country had ever seen, Americans did not turn outward with hatred or violence, we turned to each other, armed with nothing more than American flags and countless acts of kindness.

In a breathtakingly inappropriate setting, the president has chosen to declare our memories of 9/11 obsolete and the sanctity of Ground Zero finished. No one who has lived this history and felt the sting of our country’s loss that day can truly believe that putting our families through more wrenching heartache can be an act of peace.

We will honor the memory of our loved ones. We will protect our children, whose lives will never be the same. We will not stand silent."

How American Youth Are Turned Into Liberals

Manufacturing Liberals

By Larrey Anderson August 12, 2010 American Thinker

Liberals are not insane, as many conservatives believe. Most liberals (I am not speaking here of the political or intellectual class) are ordinary human beings pursuing everyday human lives -- just like the rest of us. Here is a brief summary of why most liberals are liberal and what we can do to help at least some of them understand conservative thought:

1) Indoctrination, not education

Polls consistently find that over 70% of college professors identify themselves as liberal. The percentage of liberal faculty members is even higher if one removes responses from those teaching the "hard" sciences. In our prestigious universities, the figure approaches 90%. Both of these reported percentages are probably lower than the real figures.

The fact is that America's universities and colleges are no longer institutions that offer their students various political, social, and economic perspectives. There is no exploration of competing concepts, no real debate. Students are not taught how to think, but what to think. Our universities are indoctrination camps (and our public primary and secondary education systems are not much better) -- not campuses for learning and critical discussion.

Almost all of the students who emerge from these indoctrination camps have attended, for years, classes based upon moral, scientific, and epistemological relativism.

Many of those students have never seriously considered, or even been exposed to, alternatives to the propaganda they receive during school. A person cannot change from position L to position C if that person doesn't know that position C is an alternative -- or if the student has been brainwashed into thinking that "C" stands for greed, racism, homophobia, etc.

Yet the hard truth is that conservatives far outnumber liberals in America. It is our fault that we have allowed our educational systems to become indoctrination camps run by the left.

2) Imagination, not intelligence (or possibility, not probability)

One of the most egregious errors that our educational systems dish out, and that the students ingest, is that the imagination is more important than the intellect (or, from a slightly different angle, that possibility is more important than probability). In The Passions of the Soul, Descartes contended that the passion of imagination should be used to employ newly discovered mathematical principles (essentially what is now the calculus) and the scientific method to rule the intellect.

Today's intellectual elites agree with Descartes that the imagination (and, thus, the possible) is more important than reason (and the probable). For instance, a favorite philosopher of intellectual left, Friedrich Nietzsche, claimed, "Art is worth more than truth".

Here is an extreme (but typical) example of how far out of hand this thinking has gotten in our culture: Many programs that deal with absurd legends on the Discovery, History, and various "science" channels will close the episode by playing spooky music while the narrator says something like this:

Even though we still lack hard evidence, the search for Bigfoot goes on. [Narrator's sonorous voice becomes deadly serious.] Too many questions remain unanswered. And no one can deny that the existence of Sasquatch is ... [momentary pause during musical crescendo] ... possible. [End scary music. Roll credits.]

This approach is banal, but it keeps the viewers coming back to see the next production on Bigfoot that, once again, proves nothing. These programs demonstrate that in our popular culture, imagination is more important than rational thought and possibility is held higher than probability.

Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth is the prime example of (bad) art masquerading as the truth. The movie is filled with factual errors and outright lies. But these distortions count for little in a society where "art is worth more than truth." (Commence creepy music. Roll credits. Stay tuned!)

In making real-life decisions, probability is much more important than possibility. It is possible that I might win the lottery if I buy a ticket. It is more than 99.999% probable that I will not. Life tutors us in this truth -- this is one of the reasons why people tend to become more conservative as they grow older.

Because of our educational system, most liberals are never taught this basic fact of life. It is part of our job to help our liberal friends understand the simple and crucial truth: Just because something is possible does not make it probable.

3) Sympathy, not empathy

Liberals tend to be sympathetic. But sympathy is not empathy. Sympathy is a product of the imagination. Empathy is a result of knowledge acquired through personal experience. Because liberals tend to be sympathetic rather than empathetic, they see other people from two distorted (and imaginary) points of view:

First, liberals tend to see those for whom they have sympathy as victims. This is a natural (though irrational) way of perceiving those who are less fortunate -- or have an unconventional lifestyle. If I have not had the experience of being poor, then I cannot understand the causes of any particular poor person's poverty. I can imagine some causes, pity those who are destitute, desire to act to end my imaginary causes, and quell my sympathetic feelings of guilt. Since sympathy comes from what I imagine to be true (not from what I know to be true), I could be wrong. My "cure" for poverty could be worse than the disease.

Second, liberals tend to view people as groups or causes -- not as individuals. Because sympathy is based in the imagination instead of on experience, the poor are not seen as distinctive human beings -- rather the poor are viewed as a class. The same is true of other categories like homosexuals, women, illegal immigrants, etc. Imaginative sympathy distracts us from seeing the other (any other) person as a unique human being.

Empathy develops as a person matures. It is a visceral and legitimate emotion. We empathize with the individual (not with a make-believe category of people). Empathy drives us to specifically address a problem in the life of someone who needs our help. And we address the problem knowing something about it.

Many liberals are empathetic. But most of them do not or, because of their education and ideology, cannot differentiate between sympathy and empathy. A man who was born in poverty and later becomes successful has some idea of when a particular needy individual requires practical advice or a loan -- rather than a gift of money. The successful man is able to use his accumulated knowledge and/or wealth to specifically address a poor person's problems. The empathetic person knows the difference between a handout and a hand up.

If liberals were consistent in their ideology, they would voluntarily give their extra income to the government. Liberals, who really believe government can eliminate poverty, manage health care, save peoples' houses, etc., should be putting their money where their sympathy is.

But overwhelmingly they don't. Deep down, some liberals get it. The extra ten bucks in a liberal's wallet is better-spent on a friend who needs gasoline to get to work than donated to the DOE's green energy programs. Another of our tasks as conservatives is to explain to our liberal acquaintances what some of them already understand: Sympathy is not empathy.

4) Control, not freedom

As I have discussed at length in a couple of other articles, liberals generally prefer an outside power (the government) to fix those difficulties in life that they cannot personally control. I have used the desire of liberals to establish universal health care -- but not universal lawn care -- as an example.

When we put these four principles together, we begin to see a familiar pattern. The mindset of ordinary liberals begins with indoctrination. The world is primarily viewed through the imagination. Liberals favor sympathy over empathy and embrace possibility rather than probability. Liberals long for a utopia, or perfect world, and believe that some greater power (the government) can solve problems outside of their personal control.

Notice how similar the liberal mindset is to the belief systems of the pious -- with a crucial difference: Members of the various religions accept the fact that many of their theological principles are based upon belief. Knowledgeable practitioners of most religious sects willingly admit that the acceptance of a particular dogma is, in the final analysis, a matter of faith. This is why the catechism and the various professions of many denominations feature the words "We [or "I"] believe ..."

Liberal thought parallels religious belief -- except liberals do not understand (or are loath to admit) that their thought processes are, in effect, grounded in faith.

Let's reconsider an example given above. Instead of offering a friend ten dollars for gasoline, the liberal gives his "friend" a lecture on the evils of carbon dioxide, tells his associate to walk or ride a bike the thirty miles to work, and (being consistent in approach) donates the ten dollars to the Department of Energy. The danger for liberals, and for the rest of us, should be obvious: by avoiding close scrutiny of their Weltanschauung, liberals are is getting perilously close to sliding past liberalism's religious orientation and into the nightmare of...the cult.

Note: Article footnotes available in original article at above link.

Missouri Rejects Obamacare, Mass. to Follow?

This morning we learned that Missouri voters opted out of Obamacare by a 3 to 1 vote yesterday. We also learned recently that it will cost American businesses billions to process the added 1099’s that the Obamacare legislation requires. When business leaders pointed this out, a Democrat panel told them to shut up about it.

Now we have also learned that Massachusetts’ doctors are showing us what doctors across the nation are getting ready to do – refuse to treat Obamacare enrollees:

Rx needed for Mass. doctor shortage

Physicians: Health-care reform has had ill effects

By Christine McConville , August 3, 2010 bostonherald.com (Excerpt)

"Dr. Kate Atkinson, a primary care physician with a busy practice in Amherst, doesn’t accept new patients.

Massachusetts, we have a problem.

The Bay State spent about $32 million this year to enroll people in the state’s health insurance.

But good luck finding a doctor.

The Pulse called 10 family doctors at random yesterday, saying we had just signed up with MassHealth - the public insurance option for the poor - and needed a routine physical exam.

It took a while, but we finally got past voice mail and reached human beings in seven doctors’ offices.

Only one of them, Dr. Richard Dupee of Wellesley, said he would see us.
“It’s bad,” Dupee told The Pulse after we dropped the ruse, referring to the shortgage of primary care doctors.

Since 2006, when the state’s sweeping health-care overhaul passed, 184,000 Bay Staters have enrolled in MassHealth.

But during that time, the wait for healthy people to get in and see a doctor has skyrocketed to an average 50 business days for an appointment with a family doctor. Assuming you can find one.

The truth is, more doctors are simply refusing to see new patients because they say they can barely do enough to treat their current ones." Boston Herald

OBAMA HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART