Old Time Religion

Chris Matthews just asked on his Sunday morning show what many liberals have been asking since Wednesday’s press conference with the South Carolina governor. In a very smarmy way and with a gleeful laugh he asked: “Have Republicans finally embarrassed themselves out of calling themselves the family value party?” I flip to Face the Nation and later to This Week and sure enough the first topic is about the SC scandal. And again the hosts question what this will do to the image of the family value party and one of them asks if the party should shift their emphasis away from values and these social issues. If I had watched Meet the Press I am sure they probably asked the same thing. You get the feeling that the liberals are having a field day exploiting the SC governor’s adultery and its impact on the Republican’s stance on family values.

How boring. They sound like a bunch of smug teenagers who just discovered that their parents and the rest of the people in church don’t always follow the 10 commandments or Jesus’ teachings. Duh. Guess what? People are human and don’t always do what is right. I have a friend who refuses to go to church because as a teenager he realized that the congregation wasn’t perfect. But just like the liberals he misses the whole point. It is because people are imperfect that they turn to the church.

For Christians it is pretty much a stacked deck against you. Even the most saintly among us would probably be breaking many of the 10 commandments or the 7 deadly sins. I don’t want to get tangled up in theological debates but think how ludicrous it is to say that it is hypocritical for a sinner to go to church. To continue doing wrong is hypocritical but to continue to go to church is where this person belongs.

This same idea should be applied to the Republican Party and its embracement of family values and morals. They might not always follow these values and even have some members blatantly disregard them but it doesn’t mean they should turn their backs on family values. What I don’t understand is if you aren’t for family values and morals then what are you for? Is that the real purpose of the mainstream media? To tear down these values so that we become an anything goes kind of country with no moral compass to help show the way?

I also wonder if many liberals identify family values and morals with Christian/Judaism teachings. Where else would these values come from? Is this what bothers liberals so much? That Republicans do cling to their religion and believe that their faith is what provides their guidelines of values and morals? Is the hidden agenda of the liberals to ridicule churches and religion? You can’t help but wonder if liberals simply despise Christians and Jews because they believe in something to help them in their lives other than government. Hmmm, wasn’t that the aim of communism?; To take away religion and replace it with dependency of government?

There is also the “if you can’t beat them, join them” effort of the liberals. For example, I recently heard on the news that atheism is now considered a religion. That’s right. I guess if you can’t get rid of religion then twist it into something unrecognizable. In fact google Atheist Church and you’ll find a lot of entries including The First Church of Atheism. How utterly perverted is that?

Although Atheist Churches are a fairly new concept before these monstrosities there was the Unitarian Church. The Unitarian Church’s website states that “Unitarian Universalists include people who identify as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, and others.” Isn't there a saying that if you believe in everything then you believe in nothing? Sounds like it would apply here. The website then has a page specifically for Pagans which states “There are many Wiccans, witches and Pagans and people with earth based spiritulaties who lead and worship in Unitarian congregations”. Excuse me? It sounds like the start of a bad joke – a Catholic, a Jew and a Witch walked into a bar….

So is this what the liberals are trying to do to the Republican’s morals and family values? To twist these ideas into something they are not just as they twisted the idea of church and faith into something grotesque? It has become commonplace for liberals to blame religion for the problems in the world. And they are quick to point out all of the wars caused by religion. But can you imagine the anarchy and chaos if there was no religion, no morals, no family values? This country was founded by men of Christian/Judaism beliefs, what if we had become a nation of men who have no morals or family values and therefore have no comprehension of what is evil? There is a word for a man like that – sociopath. Is that what liberals want?

The bottom line is that Republicans must continue to stand for their family values and morals. Will others faulter and fall along the way? Of course. People will fall in love outside of their marriage, teenage girls will get pregnant, others will hate or covet or do any of a myriad of sins. But this doesn't mean we turn aside from our values. Instead we must always try to live up to our morals and family values for this is a struggle as old as religion itself.

Doomed Iranian Students

In 1989 there were two revolutions – one in Tianamen Square which failed miserably and one in Eastern Europe that resulted in the demise of the Berlin Wall and the Communist regime in Russia. Why did one work and one failed? I have two theories about that. Based on my theories I predict that the newest Iranian revolution will be crushed perhaps even brutally with extreme force and imprisonment of the most radical revolutionaries.

History tells us that almost every revolution begins with the students. Young people who rebel against almost anything anyway band together to revolt against society, against the harsh rules, against the tyrannical regime ruling their country. But this revolt is almost always doomed if it remains a student rebellion, if no one else joins in to help them. So my first theory is that successful revolutions are dependent upon the involvement of the older generations. If the fathers of these students stand on the side lines, worrying about their sons and daughters, but not participating, then there is little hope for the success of the chanting students. On the other hand, if men and women of all ages participate, as they did in the American Revolution than it has a greater chance of success.

I was glued to the TV watching the Tianamen Square revolt. I had never seen anything like this and was thrilled that these students would rise up against the crushing Communist government ruled by ancient old men. I thought of course this would make a difference. This rebellion just had to initiate needed changes in China. But then the soldiers and tanks moved in. I had cried when these students built their own Statue of Liberty, a touching heartfelt salute to my country. Days later, I cried again when I watched the military destroy this symbol of their hope for democracy. This was as upsetting to me as when I watched that lone student standing against those tanks. As quickly as the students had assembled and built their tent city it was demolished and the students imprisoned or in hiding. I finally realized that real life is not like the political thrillers I read. The world could be hard and cruel and the good guy doesn’t necessarily win.

Shortly after this happened, we witnessed the collapse of the Berlin Wall and later, Communist reign in Russia. So why did this work whereas the Tianamen Square revolt didn’t? I know that history books are filled with the facts and figures regarding both rebellions. But in a nut shell my first theory is that the Chinese rebellion was primarily led by students. On the other hand, one of the key figures in the downfall of Russia was a Polish union leader, Lech Walesa. Walesa was no starry eyed student but an experienced determined man who led his union and then his country into a coupe against the Russian leaders. Middle class men and women worked hand in hand with the students to revolt against the Communist regime.

Perhaps this is giving too much credit to my country, yet I can’t help but believe that America’s reaction was also a determining factor in another country’s successful rebellion. President Reagan stood firm against communism, going so far as to call Russia, the “evil empire” and loudly proclaiming that “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall”. Wow. Between Reagan, Prime Minister Thatcher and the Pope there was constant pressure against Russia.

Compare Reagan’s emphatic statements and support of Walesa and all the rebels to the statements of President George H.W. Bush in 1989 about the China rebellion. In a memo declassified ten years later we read that Bush 41 said while he deplored the violence in China he “believes deeply that a solid relationship” between the countries was in the interest of world peace. Oh yeah, that is telling them.

Unlike his father, Bush 43 followed in the footsteps of Reagan by stating which countries were enemies to the US. He was never shy about using strong language when discussing Iran or North Korea. In return he was despised by these countries and I also believe he was actually feared. They saw him as a loose cannon, a wild cowboy who might shoot first and ask questions later. Yet I doubt if North Korea would have threatened to bomb Hawaii if Bush were still president. But more on this in a later blog.

OK, here we are today with a new revolution in Iran. Students are outraged at the recent election believing that it was rigged. They are probably correct but unfortunately based on my two theories this rebellion doesn’t stand a chance. As far as I can tell the revolt is still primarily driven by students. You simply don’t hear about older men participating in it. And now, the Guardian Council, Iran’s top electoral council, announced today that there was no fraud in the election. Yeah right. For those who disagree, the feared Revolutionary Guard is threatening to use violence to quash the rebellion.

As for American involvement, Obama’s tepid response is right up there with Bush 41’s lack of support. I sure miss Reagan who had no qualms about supporting groups that tried to replace despotic regimes with freedom and democracy. But Obama isn’t able to do that. Then again it is probably ludicrous to hope that Obama would support fledgling democracy abroad when our president isn’t able to support democracy in our own country.

So I believe that those Iranian students are doomed. Sooner or later the soldiers will silence this rebellion and the old leaders will continue to rule. I bet that Obama will then be one of the first to call and to set up a face to face meeting with the “re-elected” Iranian president Ahmadinejad before the blood of the students have even been scrubbed away from the streets.

Short Retort

There is a lot of talk about health care bills. The Senate and the House each have their own version of a bill that would provide health care for everyone. They are massive bills filled with pages and pages of legalese and bureaucratic jargon which no one ever reads. Yet these Washington politicians and their mainstream media side kicks bombard us with stories and lectures on how wonderful these health care bills are. But no one mentions one small detail; not everyone is covered in the new health care plans. There is one group who will be exempt from following this "wonderful" new health care plan - the politicians themselves! You have to wonder... why aren't the Senators and Congressmen and women who are writing and designing the new health care system going to be forced to use it just like everyone else? If the proposed new health care system not good enough for Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and all the rest of the politicians then why should we be forced to use it?

Stage Struck President

The Phantom of the Opera is one of the best, if not the best, show ever to hit Broadway. To prepare for this role of a lifetime, the lead actor spends two hours each day in makeup. And yet, the Phantom is only on stage for 40 minutes. That’s all. If you’ve ever seen the show you would have sworn that the Phantom appeared for more than 40 minutes of the two and half hour show. That is the mystic of the Phantom that even when he isn’t on stage you are still aware of him, his power, his feelings, his desires.

Obama needs to take a few lessons from the Phantom for this President seems to be on stage 24-7. He’s always delivering speeches, holding town hall meetings or giving in-depth interviews to the mainstream media. Every night we see him espousing on the crisis of the day. And his exposure isn’t limited to just here in the states. He’s already taken a number of trips where once again he can be found reading from that teleprompter as he apologizes for our behavior, talks about things he really doesn’t understand and telling other nations how to behave.

Unlike past Presidents, Obama seems unable to delegate tasks or speeches to the people working for him. OK, I can understand why he doesn’t want Biden talking for him but he has hired other experienced professional staffers. So why not let them do their jobs? Is he that insecure that he must constantly be in the limelight? Maybe, but I think it is also the sign of someone who has no experience as a manager. Obama has never run a business, oversaw staff, been required to meet a budget, produced a product or made a profit. A president needs to be able to do all of these things. Instead we have a man who is a politician/professor with no managerial experience at all. And if, like Reagan, you aren’t a manager then you need to delegate, which Reagan did, but which Obama seems incapable of doing.

Obama is a great politician and he probably was a good law professor but he is clueless when it comes to running a business, much less our country. A review of his first few months clearly shows that he has acted more like a professor or politician and not like the President of the US of A. For example, the most important aspect to being a good politician or professor is the ability to get money; the former from the public and the latter in grants (also ultimately from the public).Being a good politician/professor the first thing Obama has done is to grab money, lots and lots of money, with few strings attached. What happens with this money is secondary. Obama can’t be bothered with those details. He only knows how to reach out and take as much money as possible.

Another important part of being either a politician or a professor is to be published. And Obama has become a prolific author. Guess how many books Amazon.com shows have been released with Obama as the “author” since the first of the year? Would you believe there are ten books! This country is falling apart, people are hurting yet still Obama found time to produce nine books with a tenth due out in September. Even if it is compilation of his speeches or updating past books, this man is such a perfectionist, never speaking unless he has that teleprompter, he had to have had spent some time reviewing each of his ten books. But our president should be running the country, not writing books! The public should be outraged at this waste of presidential time when there are so many crisis and problems he should be concentrating on instead of books! This isn’t how a president should act!

It is rare to find either a politician or a professor who likes big business or even small business. They despise business managers and owners believing that they pollute the earth, abuse and exploit the little people who work for them and produce useless products. Professors and politicians are always for the little people, yet in private they jeer these workers with their guns and bibles and hold them in utter contempt. They despise the average Joe while at the same time show unending “love” for those who refuse to work and are dependent on the largess of the politician.

Obama is now trying to realize the dreams of every liberal politician and far left professor. He is trying to redistribute the wealth by going after the rich who don’t agree with him and handing their money to the idle poor who voted for him, while destroying the middle class who never have completely swallowed his kool ade. He is also systematically destroying business in America. He has taken over our car industry and our financial industry and is trying to take down energy businesses. Again like any politician or professor, Obama is now telling these industries what the end product should be but with no regard as to how to actually produce those products. Those details are beneath him and that’s what those business people should figure out. As for making a profit, well, business leaders have been too greedy in the past and don’t need to make profits.

The world is a scary place and we need a President not a politician/professor and definitely not a narcistic actor clamoring for more time on stage. The mystic of the Phantom is enhanced by the fact that he is seen in less than half the show. So President Obama needs to back off, to not have constant interviews, give endless speeches or even be seen going out on Saturday night dates. Obama keeps telling us he is President now it is about time he begins to act like one and not like a politician/professor or a stage struck actor. Otherwise we will find one who does.

Czar Takeovers

Ronald Reagan started it with one. Clinton increased it to three and the last president upped it to four. Our current President, however, has gone over the top with 16 and probably more to come. Of course I am talking about Czars. What started out innocently in Reagan’s day with a Drug Czar has become a dark and disturbing trend under this President. It seems that Obama is announcing new Czars all the time and no one seems to care. Yet you should. In fact you should be very very frightened.

One of the latest Czars to be announced is the Pay Czar. According to the Wall Street Journal “The Obama administration plans to appoint a "Special Master for Compensation" to ensure that companies receiving federal bailout funds are abiding by executive-pay guidelines, according to people familiar with the matter.” That doesn’t sound too ominous however later in the same article the WSJ reports that “The government is also pursuing a separate revamping of financial-sector rules that could change industry compensation practices more broadly. For instance, the Federal Reserve is considering rules that would curb banks' ability to pay employees in a way that would threaten the "safety and soundness" of the bank”. Excuse me? Who will decide if the pay is threatening? The government? And notice they now are targeting "employees" and not just the executives!

Forget what you hear on TV. Yes some of the large Banks pay exorbitant amounts to the top tier of executive but that is only a handful. Before all of this, Banks were actually known for handing out great sounding titles but paying low salaries. Now add in the new Pay Czar and his rules which will be applied to all of the employees, not just the very top tier. Can’t you just see some poor teller making less than $25,000 a year being told that she won’t get a raise this year because it would “threaten the safety and soundness of the bank”? No raise this year? Sorry, not management’s fault – blame it on the Pay Czar. Oh yeah, this is going to happen alright.

If the Pay Czar can regulate bank salaries, what industry is next? When will this unelected Czar with unlimited powers start to reach into your pocket and affect your salary? And if not the Pay Czar there is sure to be one of the other 15 Czars who will affect your life, your salary, your expenses and your family. Oh yes, and your computer with one of the latest Czars, the Cyber Czar although not sure how the Cyber Czar differs from the Technology Czar.

How soon before the Cyber/Technology Czars start to control the internet? Will there be a day that I am told that this blog “threatens the safety and soundness” of this country? That perhaps speaking out against the government will be a hate crime or maybe that will fall under the Homeland Security Czar.

Will the Health Czar reach into your home, your life, telling you what doctors you can see and what food you can eat? Hey don’t laugh. They are already doing the latter – controlling what you eat. They got rid of trans fat, whatever that was, and are now discussing taxing unhealthy foods such as soda and candy.

All of these Czars are working for your own good, of course. All because they don’t trust you, the public, to make the right decisions so the Czars will make the decision for you. What foods you can eat. What cars will be available for you to drive. What salary you should earn. Coming soon – what doctor you should see. And on and on and on.

In case you are curious, here is a list of the Czars announced to date. Just reading the titles of these Czars gives me a chill: Drug Czar, Energy and Environment Czar, Homeland Security Czar, Health Czar, Urban Affairs Czar, Economic Czar, Regulatory Czar, Technology Czar, Government Performance Czar, Border Czar, WMD Policy Czar, Intelligence Czar, Car Czar, Great Lakes Czar, Cyber Czar.

In total, these Czars control over $1 trillion. But no one voted for them. No one vetted them. Congress never approved them. They have broad powers. They can make a law, police the law, and determine penalties for not obeying their law. They are all three executive branches in one person, one Czar. And they serve only President Obama. Now are you frightened?

Remembering D-Day

I am watching the moving tribute to the soldiers of D-Day and I have two thoughts in addition to the wonder and gratitude for these soldiers of the Greatest Generation. First, it seems so very wrong not to have the Queen be a part of these ceremonies. Perhaps these youngish men and women Presidents and Prime Ministers knew that the Queen would have upstaged all of them as the only one who actually remembered WWII. Nonetheless, she should have been included.

My second thought is that I can't help but wonder what the average young French and German is thinking today. To put it into perspective, when you were a teen or young adult, what was happening 65 years earlier and did it really matter to you? For example, I was 20 years old in 1978. So 65 years before that would have been 1913. When I was 20 I thought WWI was ancient history and I am sorry to say that I know very little about the battles and generals and even all of the countries involved. Yet WWI to me, is the equivilant of WWII to today's 20 year olds.

So I can't help but wonder if the French youth really care about D-Day much less are filled with the same gratitude of their parents or grandparents who had lived in an occupied France. And what must the young Germans be thinking today? I bet there are a lot of young French and Germans who are thinking that this is ancient history and to get over it already. That it is demeaning to their country to be constantly reminded of the roles of their nations in WWII. I wouldn't be surprised if they are tired of being told that they should be grateful to America, England and Canada who were responsible for saving their countries. I can't find it but I recall a quote that basically says if people are forced to continuously be grateful to someone they will eventually turn on that person. Yes, we need to hold these ceremonies honoring the soldiers of D-Day and all the men and women serving in WWII. But we also should understand if the young French and Germans either no longer care or feel anger towards the US and not gratitude.

A New Middle East Strategy?

Once again a US President is going to try to tackle the Middle East problem of Israel vs. everybody else in that region. Ever since Carter’s Nobel Prize winning yet spectacularly failing effort each President has felt compelled to bring about peace in the Mid-East. When will they realize it isn’t going to work? That no matter how often you get a photo of some high level Saudi or Egyptian or even Palestinian shaking hands with a high level Israeli they will then return to their countries and continue plotting the destruction of each other.

Let’s face it. These people have been fighting each other for centuries. And don’t let anyone tell you otherwise, this is all about religion. Sure the agnostics and atheists will again clamor for the end of religions yet you can’t help but wonder if maybe there really is something sacred about Jerusalem and the surrounding land. First it was told to the Jews that this was their holy land, promised to them by their God. Many centuries later a Jewish rabbi preached a new religion while he wandered throughout these same lands. Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Galilee and all the surrounding areas then became sacred lands to Christians. A few centuries later, Mohammed visited Jerusalem and from there he is said to have ascended into heaven and returned making Jerusalem a sacred site for Muslims. You have to admit that it is a little spooky that three of the largest Religions in the world. Judaism, Christianity and Muslims, each believe that this one small piece of dusty land is sacred. Unfortunately, although the Jews and Christians coexist peacefully with each other, the Muslims in the area would prefer to kill any non Muslim.

And now it is President Obama’s turn to try to bring about harmony between Israel and basically everybody else in the Middle East. But there are some very important differences this time. First, Iran is close to having nuclear weapons, if they don’t already have them. Again, religion is at the heart of the matter. Both Iran’s Ayatollah and President Ahmadinejad have repeatedly stated that Israel should be wiped off the map simply because their Muslim religion orders them to kill all Jews. So if somebody has repeatedly stated they wanted to kill you and are developing the weapons to do just that, wouldn’t you be more than a bit worried? And would you really blame the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, if he made plans to take offensive measures before it is too late and Iran has made good on their threat to wipe Israel off the map?

To make this dangerous situation even shakier we now have President Obama stepping into this mess. Unlike all previous Presidents, Obama is showing signs of favoring the Muslim countries and not Israel. Tomorrow the President is planning a major speech from Egypt which has Israel worried. And they probably should be concerned. According to the NY Times Global edition, the Saudi ambassador to the Arab League said “I think we should hear something positive from President Obama. I think he is going in the right way.”

If Obama does take a more pro Muslim stance and if I were Israel, I would seriously consider taking action now. What choice does Israel have? Does Obama believe that Israel, which has always been a friend of the US, will passively listen to a harsh lecture from our President? How could Israel not feel isolated as it is boxed in on all sides by nations who want to kill them and now to lose their staunchest ally? Should they simply sit and wait for Hezbollah or Iranian or Palestinian terrorists to make the first move? If Obama’s speech on Thursday is pro Muslim and anti Israel then this country, feeling it is now totally on its own, just might decide it has nothing to lose by taking action.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe Obama’s speech tomorrow will show that this country will continue to be a staunch supporter of Israel. But all signs are showing that the US President will be true to his upbringing and align himself with the Muslim nations, not Israel. He may not bow this time but his words and speech will belie his attitude toward the Muslim nations and leaders. I just hope that unlike that bow, Obama will be careful of what he says and truly understands the consequences of his actions….