Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Destroyer of Worlds
By Tony Blankley
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In the Birla Temple, a Hindu temple in Delhi, India, there is a plaque that reads: "He who is known as Vishnu the Preserver is verily Rudra the Destroyer, and He who is Rudra is Brahma the Creator." This fact (from Arthur Herman's book "Gandhi and Churchill") came to me over the weekend as I was rereading Sen. Obama's Berlin speech. Now, let me assure my easily offended friends in the Obama camp that I am not suggesting Obama is or ever was a Hindu. I take him at his word that he is whatever he says he is. (Pass out more eggshells.) But it is precisely his words regarding his philosophy of government that I find ambiguous — and potentially disturbing.
Secular would-be leaders of men who promise transcendence and transformational change have something in common with the promises and warnings of many religions. They claim to want to preserve what is good in their people and change what needs to be changed to make their lives and souls even better. But unlike some religions, secular leaders with transforming visions of their missions often skip over the bits about what must be destroyed in order to bring those better things to man. And that is where religions are often more honest.
For instance, in Hindu, the god Rudra, who is also known as Lord Shiva, is the third god in the Hindu trinity. He destroys worlds. Specifically, he destroys the evil passions and animal instincts that usually characterize human consciousness in order to make room for divinity to enter man's world. He is believed by many Hindus to inspire people to perform acts of courage, spiritual wisdom and devotion.
Now, I am, God knows, no expert on comparative religion. But among the more popular human attributes that many religions condemn is the human desire to possess material things. (Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's oxen or wives, etc.) And most religions remind us that we are all brothers and sisters of one humanity.
But man persists in liking to have things and organizing around groups smaller than humanity. Specifically, modern Western civilization — and the United States, in particular — has done rather well organizing into nations and permitting its people to be free to produce and keep most of the fruits of our labor.
Reading Obama's Berlin speech, I see dangerous suggestions that he doesn't share that happy view of American prosperity. As he said, while he came to Berlin as "a proud citizen of the United States," he also came to Berlin as "a fellow citizen of the world." Putting aside the thought that a rally in Berlin in front of a quarter-million glistening-eyed, bosom-clenching, swooning Germans is a historically awkward spot for a leader to proclaim his worldwide goals for tomorrow, his actual words are disconcerting enough — even if they had been delivered in peaceful Switzerland.
He said: "The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between … natives and immigrants … cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down. We know that these walls have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a union of promise and prosperity."
That last sentence would suggest that Obama is not terribly keen about nation-states. It suggests that he believes that nation-states have outgrown their practical and moral utility. That is why, presumably, he says that we must tear down the walls between the countries "with the most" — that would be the United States — and those with the least. That is why he calls for tearing down walls between "natives and (illegal?) immigrants." That is why he is for strict reductions in carbon emissions for the United States, even if it reduces our prosperity more than it does poorer countries.
That is why he is a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 2433, the Global Poverty Act, a bill Obama's own Web site proudly claims would "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015." Now, that bill would only authorize the end of gross wealth disparities between nations; it doesn't appropriate money for it or order taxes to pay for it. So technically, that promise doesn't cost a cent. But if Obama is sincere about those goals he proudly champions — and if he has the political power next year to raise taxes and appropriate taxpayer dollars — we could see the beginning of vast transfers of our wealth to his "fellow citizens of the world."
Sen. Obama owes it to the public to let us know how much of our hard-earned money he, in his wisdom, believes we have a moral obligation to give away to poor people around the world — and how much of our money that he has a moral obligation to extract from our wages forcefully, through federal taxation. He has a moral obligation to do as the Hindu god Rudra did and tell his intended subjects what of ours he will destroy to make us better people.
I hope Obama is just saying stuff that he thinks sounds good to the kids. But if Obama means what he says, we should brace for the wrath of Rudra.
“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”–Barack Obama, May 18th, 2008
It is a stretch to suggest that while much of the American public and a grossly irresponsible media are caught up in “Obama-mania,” our enemies conspire against us? Let’s take the latest news about the above countries one-by-one:
–Iran. Unquestionably the world’s number one sponsor of international terrorism. Once again, just like they have every other time in the past four years of “negotiations” with Europe (and now the United States as well), they have refused to halt their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Their stated intentions: the destruction of Israel and the United States. Serious threat? Not according to Barack Obama.
–Cuba. As of two days ago, the U.S.S.R.–oops, I mean Russia–has stated its desire to put nuclear bombers in that bastion of Soviet-style Communism–situated 90 miles from our coastline. How fast could they get here? Twenty minutes. Serious threat? Not according to Barack Obama.
–Venezuela Hugo Chavez has just concluded a series of deals with Russia to acquire billions of dollars of additional military equipment, adding to the $4 billion dollars worth of hardware purchased by Chavez between 2005 and 2007. Unconfirmed story: the Russians will be invited to establish a military base in that nation as well. Serious threat? Not according to Barack Obama.
With four-plus-dollars-a-gallon gas to distract them, Americans may be overly focused on the economy regarding the 2008 election—an election, if one remembers, that supposed to be a “referendum on Iraq.” And in all the hoopla surrounding Barack Obama it is easy to forget that, arguably, the most important part of being president is assuming the mantle of Commander-in-Chief.
Is the economy important? Absolutely. But as some mesmerized-for-Obama Americans clearly forget, one of the biggest blows to our economy occurred on September 11th, 2001. We haven’t had another attack since for one reason: our current president clearly understands what constitutes a “serious threat” to America. So does John McCain.
Barack Obama? A man who doesn’t “pose a serious threat” to those who would do us harm.
I notice the 3 cable news networks are handling the L.A. earthquake differently.
MSNBC: Earthquake Hits L.A.; Bush Blamed
CNN: Earthquake Hits L.A.; Obama Policies Would Have Prevented It
Fox News Channel: Earthquake Hits L.A.; City Moves to Right
Chinese man held for quake photos
Parents are angry at the ease with which some schools collapsed
A Chinese teacher has been detained for posting images on the internet of schools that collapsed in the Sichuan earthquake, a rights group has said.
Human Rights in China said Liu Shaokun had been ordered to serve a year of "re-education through labour".
Mr Liu was detained for "disseminating rumours and destroying social order", the group said.
The 12 May quake killed nearly 70,000 people. Many of those who died were children whose schools collapsed.
The poor condition of the school buildings has become a sensitive political issue for the government, and grieving parents have staged numerous protests demanding an inquiry.
Many have accused local officials of colluding with builders to allow them to get away with cheap and unsafe practices.
"Instead of investigating and pursuing accountability for shoddy and dangerous school buildings, the authorities are resorting to re-education through labour to silence and lock up concerned citizens like teacher Liu Shaokun and others," said Human Rights in China Executive Director Sharon Hom.
According to Human Rights in China, Mr Liu's wife was informed by police last week that the teacher, from Guanghan Middle School in Deyang city, had been sent to a labour camp.
The "re-education through labour" system allows police to incarcerate a crime suspect for up to four years without the need for a criminal trial or a formal charge.
The system, in place since 1957, has been widely criticised by the UN and other organisations.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
U.S. Soldiers provide security at a produce market while a donkey cart passes during a combined patrol in the Shula district of Baghdad, July 20, 2008. The Soldiers are from 2nd Platoon, Bravo Troop, 1st Squadron, 75th Cavalry, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division. Photo by Spc. Charles Gill, Joint Combat Camera Center â€“ Iraq.
US Army Soldiers Battle Taliban Fighters After Thier Camp Being Ambushed In Afghanistan (((Intense F
US Forces From 173rd ABCT Firefight With Taliban Fighters In Kunar Province, Afghanistan.
By Thomas Sowell
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Random thoughts on the passing scene:
Government bailouts are like potato chips: You can't stop with just one.
Anyone who is honest with himself and with others knows that there is not a snow ball's chance in hell to have an honest dialogue about race.
I wonder what radical feminists make of the fact that it was men who created the rule of "women and children first" when it came to rescuing people from life-threatening emergencies.
Barack Obama's motto "Change you can believe in" has acquired a new meaning‘ changing his positions is the only thing you can believe in. His campaign began with a huge change in the image he projects, compared to what he was doing for 20 years before.
Despite the New York Yankees' awesome record over the years, no one has ever made 3,000 hits in his career as a Yankee, nor has any pitcher ever had 300 lifetime victories with the Yankees. Despite their well-deserved reputation as "the Bronx Bombers," there is only one Yankee among the top ten career homerun hitters.
After getting DVDs of old "Perry Mason" TV programs and old "Law & Order" programs, I found myself watching far more of the "Perry Mason" series. The difference is that too many "Law & Order" programs tried to raise my consciousness on social issues, as if that is their role or their competence.
What is amazing this year is how many people have bought the fundamentally childish notion that, if you don't like the way things are going, the answer is to write a blank check for generic "change," empowering someone chosen not on the basis of any track record but on the basis of his skill with words.
With all the big-name entertainers who have put on shows in prisons, why have so few put on shows for our troops in Iraq?
To me, the phrase "glass ceiling" is an insult to my intelligence. What does the word "glass" mean, in this context, except that you can't see it? Yet I am supposed to believe it without evidence because, otherwise, I will be considered a bad person and called names.
When New York Times writer Linda Greenhouse recently declared the 1987 confirmation hearings for Judge Robert Bork "both fair and profound," it was as close to a declaration of moral bankruptcy as possible. Those hearings were a triumph of character assassination by politicians with no character of their own. The country is still paying the price, as potential judicial nominees decline to be nominated and then smeared on nationwide television.
Some of the most emotionally powerful words are undefined, such as "social justice," "a living wage," "price gouging" or a "fragile" environment, for example. Such terms are especially valuable to politicians during an election year, for these terms can attract the votes of people who mean very different‘ and even mutually contradictory‘ things when they use these words.
It may not be possible to have machines call balls and strikes in baseball, since the vertical strike zone depends on the height of each batter. But a machine can tell whether any part of the ball passed over any part of the plate, so that umpires won't be able to call their own "wide strikes" any more.
It is hard to get the supporters of Barack Obama to give a coherent reason for their support. The basis for their support seems to be guilt, gullibility or‘ in the case of some conservatives‘ a hatred of John McCain.
It is heart-warming to see the Williams sisters maturing as people. They made tennis history from the beginning but they had a lot to learn about human relations‘ and now they seem to have learned it.
How many in the media have expressed half as much outrage about the beheading of innocent people by terrorists in Iraq as they have about the captured terrorists held at Guantanamo not being treated as nicely as they think they should be?
Although most of the mainstream media are still swooning over Barack Obama, a few critics are calling the things he advocates "naive." But that assumes that he is trying to solve the country's problems. If he is trying to solve his own problem of getting elected, then he is telling the voters just what they want to hear. That is not naive but shrewd and cynical.
conversation between New York and San Francisco
* 1957, the International Atomic Energy Agency was established
* 1958, President Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space
Act, which created NASA
Monday, July 28, 2008
Petty Officer 1st Class Stephanie L. Minix, 32, from Graham, Wash., an independent duty corpsman with 1st Supply Battalion, 1st Marine Logistics Group, measures a patient's height during a cooperative medical engagement, July 24, 2008. The CME provided medical care to more than 130 locals. Photo by Lance Cpl. Cindy Alejandrez, 1st Marine Logistic Group Public Affairs.
Barack Obama has the erasure talents of a wizard.
With fantastic “1984″ Orwellian flair, Team Obama has scrubbed from existence some highly important statements made by their candidate. Most recently, they sanitized the Obama campaign website of all of his previous criticisms of the U.S. military surge in Iraq, particularly his description of it as a “problem.” The surge is, of course, a major military and political success, so Obama needs to chuck his previous position on it (which got him nominated) and go neutral. He can’t actually embrace the right side of history, of course, because that would be a bridge too far.
On July 2nd, Obama gave a “call to service” speech that included his desire to create a “civilian national security force” that was just as big, “strong,” and “well-funded” as the military.
Huh?Â He is calling for a separate military and police force with the same power and resources as the existing (and constitutional) military, and no one noticed?Â No one raised any questions about its constitutionality, cost, and reach?Â What, exactly, did he mean?Â No one knows, because you’re not allowed to ask.
And no one knows because this statement has also been scrubbed from the official transcript of that speech. It still exists in YouTube land, but with the Obama erasure experts at work, there’s no telling how long it will stay there.
All of this is very Stalinesque: making inconvenient or controversial statements just disappear, vaporized into thin air, as if they were never spoken. “What?Â I didn’t say that. You must be crazy!”
The guy has us questioning our own sanity. Now THAT’S an effective–and totally terrifying and creepy—presidential campaign. Something tells me that the second he becomes president, all of these statements will become policy, and he’ll say, “What? I told you I was going to do this. Didn’t you hear me?”
Until then we are witnessing the Etch-A-Sketch candidacy: now you see it, shake shake, now you don’t.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Flynn staggered home very late after another evening with his drinking buddy, Paddy. He took off his shoes to avoid waking his wife, Mary. He tiptoed as quietly as he could toward the stairs leading to their upstairs bedroom, but misjudged the bottom step. As he caught himself by grabbing the banister, his body swung around and he landed heavily on his rump. A whiskey bottle in each back pocket broke and made the landing especially painful.
Managing not to yell, Flynn sprung up, pulled down his pants, and looked in the hall mirror to see that his butt cheeks were cut and bleeding. He managed to quietly find a full box of Band-Aids and began putting a Band-Aid as best he could on each place he saw blood.
He then hid the now almost empty Band-Aid box and shuffled and stumbled his way to bed.
In the morning, Flynn woke up with searing pain in both his head and butt and Mary staring at him from across the room.
She said, ‘You were drunk again last night weren’t you?’
Flynn said, ‘Why you say such a mean thing?’
‘Well,’ Mary said, ‘it could be the open front door, it could be the broken glass at the bottom of the stairs, it could be the drops of blood trailing through the house, it could be your bloodshot eyes, but mostly…..it’s all those Band-Aids stuck on the hall mirror.
Friday, July 25, 2008
As you may have heard, Barack has been in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia this week.
Today, he spoke in Berlin, Germany.
In a city where a wall once divided the free from the oppressed, he talked about tearing down the walls that divide all peoples so we can address our common problems -- the threats of terrorism and nuclear weapons, global warming and genocide, AIDS and poverty.
Watch Barack's historic speech and share it with your friends:
Please forward this email to your friends, family, and colleagues.
Obama for America"
WWhen Russia was still Soviet and some of her citizens came to America to escape persecution, would we have tolerated the emigre's continued allegiance to Communism? Shouldn't a person who comes to America for freedom embrace the ideals that make that freedom possible? Shouldn't a person who flees a country because of oppression renounce the ideological pillars of that oppression?