A Clinton Indictment?

Another few thousand pages of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails have been released. The latest estimate is that nearly one in every twenty contains classified information—all transmitted on her own private server (which was undoubtedly hacked by those seeking to undermine American security—I’m talking about other countries, not Obama, by the way—he has his own methods for undermining American security).

Her presumed husband has rushed to her defense:

Refuse to Stand By

Together, they have concocted an old scheme that seemed to work so well last time:

Almost Forgotten

One can practically hear voices of the ghosts of the impeachment proceedings sixteen years ago:

Out to Get Her

Clinton’s defense of himself as the House Managers attempted to awaken the American people—“this is all just politics” and “these are evil people out to get me”—has been resurrected. But will it fly this time?

Account Overdrawn

The stonewall continues, but one has to wonder how long they will be able to concoct these fanciful explanations before Hillary has to bow to the inevitable:

Erased

I was watching Judge Andrew Napolitano (no relation to Janet) on Fox this morning predicting that by the end of the year, the Justice Department is going to recommend an indictment because even an Obama Justice Department can’t refuse to face the facts. But he went on to say that it would still be up to Obama himself whether any indictment would be allowed to go forward. Napolitano then predicted that if Obama rejects the indictment, many principled people in the FBI might resign in protest.

This will be a fascinating story to follow, so don’t start thinking it’s old news. We get new news about Hillary every week.

A Time for Boldness

Supreme Court aside, we are changing as a nation regardless. For years, conservatives have comforted themselves by saying that the majority of Americans still hold to traditional morality despite the trend of the government and the media, yet if polls are to be believed—and there is always a caution with that—the majority may no longer be tied to the Biblical values that have characterized our national framework of thinking. We may be on the verge of a radical transformation.

Self Identify

Even though this development is due primarily to a loss of our Biblical foundations, it has been helped along considerably by approval from the top of our government:

Bigot

The radical shift has manifested itself most prominently on the issue of homosexuality, of course. And let’s be honest—same-sex marriage was merely the window dressing for a movement that doesn’t believe in marriage at all, and that seeks the removal of all Biblical morality from our culture. It is every bit as totalitarian in nature as the terrorist threat we face:

Convert

The breeding ground for all of this is the education system. We can complain all we want about how terrible it is and how America’s children are not being educated, but I believe it actually is accomplishing the purposes of those who are directing this system. The goal for many in the educational establishment is to create a generation without any real knowledge of or appreciation for history, government, and Biblical morality.

It begins at the secondary level and extends all the way through college. Take, for instance, the pronouncement by Janet Napolitano, who now heads the University of California system, as to what professors are allowed or not allowed to say:

That Stupid

This radical transformation of our society is pervasive, and it will take a major effort on our part to forestall this transformation. Politics and government are not the primary means for reversing the trend, but they do reflect who we are as a people. If we really want to see a change, we need to redouble our commitment to the real transforming power: the true Gospel message that changes hearts and minds. When we do that God’s way, we will see changes take place in the society overall and the government specifically.

Christians need to take their message to the nation more boldly than ever. We need to stand firm and be wise in how we communicate. We need to vote accordingly. Now is not the time to retreat into a shell; rather, the battle is upon us, and we need to call upon the Lord for the courage to wage it.

Social Justice, White Privilege, & Microaggressions

Three terms have lately become a more regular part of our cultural and political vocabulary: social justice, white privilege, and microaggressions. Are they valid concepts or masks for a radical agenda? I would like to explore them a little today.

“Social justice” is the oldest of the terms, at least in modern usage. Take the words strictly as words, and there’s no problem with them. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who isn’t in favor of justice in society. But those who use this term the most have a very specific meaning for it that either excludes or minimizes other applications.

Social JusticeFor instance, social justice, more often than not, seems to be little more than a new way of saying the government needs to redistribute income. The only people who are lacking in social justice, according to this view, are the poor, the marginal, the ones left behind economically.

The Religious Left has picked up on this and has used it as a hammer against those on the conservative side of the political spectrum, especially Christians who believe in limited government, personal responsibility for one’s place in society (through decisions one has made, for good or ill), and traditional Biblical morality.

I find it telling that those of the Religious Left are more exercised over income inequality than stopping the horror of abortion or standing firm on Biblical standards of sexual conduct and marriage.

Social justice, in my view, is a term that has been hijacked by those who continue to harbor a Marxist view of the world and who place material well-being ahead of the more significant spiritual truths. That’s why it’s a term I hesitate to use.

White privilege is an accusation I could better understand if we still lived during those times when blacks were either held in slavery or discriminated against through Black Codes or Jim Crow laws. But we don’t live there anymore.

We have a president who is black (well, half-black, at least) and the multitude of minorities who are now very wealthy through either athletics, the entertainment media, or via the political route is prominent in our land.

Got PrivilegeOne cannot legitimately blame any so-called white privilege for Baltimore’s woes, for one example. Blacks dominate the politics of that city, and the policies they have promoted have certainly enriched those who are in the seats of power, but not so much the general population. Government programs that came to the forefront beginning in the 1960s have decimated the black family and are a primary reason that approximately 70-plus% of children now grow up in the inner cities without a father in the house. Poverty follows in that wake.

I recall when I applied for a professorship at one Christian university back in the 1990s. I did get an interview and was flown out to the university, but when I got there, I was informed that the only reason I even got the interview was that they couldn’t find a woman or minority for the position. I felt so wanted. White privilege?

By the way, I didn’t get the position.

The cry of “white privilege” emanates more from a desire to keep the flames of racial animosity alive than from the reality of America in 2015.

Then there’s this new word, made up out of thin air: microaggressions. What are they? Actions that can be interpreted as aggression toward different races, genders, etc., that the aggressor doesn’t even realize are aggressions. In other words, you can do or say something that is perfectly innocent in your own mind, but as long as someone else feels slighted by what you have said or done, you have committed a “microaggression.”

According to the American Psychological Association: “Some racism is so subtle that neither victim nor perpetrator may entirely understand what is going on—which may be especially toxic for people of color.”

Well, if it’s so subtle that neither the victim nor the perpetrator is aware of it, who is being harmed?

Janet NapolitanoHere’s where the concept of microaggressions has led us: Janet Napolitano—remember her as the former head of Homeland Security?—is now president of the University of California system. She has now told professors they must not say the following things because they are all considered microaggressions:

  • America is the land of opportunity.
  • There is only one race, the human race.
  • I believe the most qualified person should get the job.

Yes, this is what we have come to.

We now have social justice warriors who are quite selective about who should receive justice (based on their Marxist philosophy—even if they don’t realize the source).

We have racial agitators that keep the flame of bitterness burning bright through charges of “white privilege,” while simultaneously enriching themselves as the champions of the underclass.

And now we have total inanity with microaggressions, which attempt to make everyone feel guilty when they have done nothing wrong.

Some terms only make things worse. We need to change both the tone and the language of our national conversation.

Obama & Islamic Terrorism

When Nidal Malik Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar” and killed thirteen and wounded twenty-nine at Ft. Hood in 2009, the Obama administration refused to call it what it was: Islamic terrorism. The Department of Defense classified the attack as simply “workplace violence.”

Remember the comical attempt by Janet Napolitano, our chief of Homeland Security, to rename Islamic terrorism as “man-caused disasters”?

The September 11, 2012 Benghazi terror attack, which killed our ambassador and three others, was blamed on an obscure anti-Mohammed video, not on the real perpetrators, and the administration has stonewalled on that incident ever since, blocking access to the truth about Hillary Clinton’s role in the fiasco.

Now, with the Boston bombers, we are seeing the same approach—refusal to call it what it really was. Aided by their compatriots in the media, the administration tried to deflect attention away from the Islamic roots of this latest act. They hinted it might be “right-wing extremists” since the bombings took place on tax day. They were disappointed.

One almost expected another Benghazi explanation:

President Obama tells Americans not to rush to judgment. Fine. We haven’t. We can see clearly what’s happening. It’s the federal government that is blind:

Why the obfuscation? A longtime reporter who has excellent sources, Bill Gertz, has come up with the answer. Here’s what he has written recently:

U.S. officials familiar with the FBI’s counterterrorism training program and its controversial public outreach program to Muslim groups said FBI policy toward Islam—that it should not be used to describe those who seek to wage jihad or holy war against the United States and others they regard as infidels—has prevented both effective counterterrorism investigations and training.

The officials said the problem is that most field agents understand the nature of the threat but have been hamstrung by policies imposed by senior FBI leaders who are acting under orders of political appointees in the Obama administration, including Islamic advisers to the White House. The policies have prevented the FBI from conducting aggressive counterterrorism investigations of Islamic radicals or those who are in the process of being radicalized.

In other words, this is the official policy of the Obama administration: never blame the Islamists for what the Islamists do. The FBI is hampered by the political appointees, some of whom are Muslims, who actively prevent honest investigations.

There are some who will immediately jump on this to say that Obama is a Muslim. Well, if he is, he’s the most non-observant Muslim in the world. No, he is, and always has been, a convinced Marxist/anti-colonialist who sees Muslims as a group oppressed by the West. Every once in a while that attitude sneaks out for all to see, but he usually keeps it mostly under wraps, schooled as he is in the Saul Alinsky tactic of working from the inside to revolutionize the nation.

The Boston Marathon bombings are just another example to showcase the Obama worldview. This insidious, destructive worldview needs to be more fully exposed. Americans need to wake up and realize whom they have placed in the highest office in the land.

More on Holder, Radical Islam, and Profiling

Yesterday, I wrote about Eric Holder’s amazing confession: he never even read the Arizona illegal immigration bill that he was so bitterly criticizing. After writing it, this very appropriate cartoon surfaced, so it’s worth sharing.

Even a fictional conversation can contain a lot of truth. Actually, I believe Holder has read the Constitution; he just has a different take on it—that it should be ignored.

Incidentally, it’s now a matter of record that Janet Napolitano, director of Homeland Security, former governor of Arizona, and another critic of the new law, hasn’t read it either. Is this our comic relief for the week?

I also noted in the posting yesterday that in an appearance at a congressional hearing, the Republican questioner couldn’t convince Holder that radical Islam should be clearly identified as a threat. Holder refused to acknowledge it without multiple conditions. Perhaps his attitude is captured in this:

Who’s the real coward?

Speaking of radical Islamic terrorism, remember how eager the media was to pin the Times Square bombing attempt on someone connected with the Tea Party? It was a severe disappointment when the perpetrator turned out to be . . . well, a radical Islamic terrorist. Yet when it comes to the mainstream media, it’s difficult to dissuade them.

Maybe profiling is the answer after all.

No, that’s not what I meant. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it became reality.

The Real Threat?

I would find it even more amusing that the mainstream media and their philosophical allies are  disappointed the Times Square bomber isn’t a member of the Tea Party if it weren’t so disturbing. They don’t see the real threat right in front of them.

Their whole scenario just blew up before they could indoctrinate their subjects fellow citizens.

Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano is on the case.

Reinforcements are always available in the person of a certain ex-president.

I repeat: it would be amusing if it weren’t so disturbing.

Time Bomb Is Still Ticking

The scare in Times Square a couple of days ago is simply another indication that the war on terror must continue. This particular bomb didn’t go off, but what about the next one? And the next one? The World Trade Center didn’t collapse in the bombing attempt of 1993, but 2001 was a different scenario.

We know now that the bomb didn’t work as planned. I heard—haven’t read it yet—that the clock that was used as a timer was set incorrectly. Apparently, the mad bomber didn’t know the difference between a.m. and p.m.

Also, the fertilizer he used wasn’t the proper type for the most effective explosion. One account says that even though it wasn’t the optimum ingredient, it still would have caused a damaging fireball.

The alleged suspect [who  eagerly admitted everything when he was captured—which kind of makes a joke of the “alleged” part] is a native Pakistani who became an American citizen just a year ago. His name is Faisal Shahzad.

He was trying to make his escape to the United Arab Emirates when it was discovered he was on the plane that was getting ready to take off. Fortunately, the authorities arrived just in time to nab him. He apparently likes to talk; he’s been doing a lot of it since then. He had recently returned from a five-month terrorist training camp in his native country. Thankfully, he wasn’t the brightest of the budding terrorists.

Yet this is no joke. The next attempt may be carried out by someone far more talented. Are we ready?

I doubt it. The attitude of the Obama administration doesn’t inspire confidence. Our homeland security chief Janet Napolitano is at the bottom of that confidence list in my mind. Shahzad’s name had been added to the no-fly list, but the airline he was taking hadn’t been given the updated list. When asked for comment, all Napolitano would say is that the plane was prevented from taking off. Okay.

Then there’s attorney general Eric Holder who assures us he “was never in any fear that we were in danger of losing him.” Right.

While I’m at it, let’s mention New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who had previously speculated that the bomber could be someone upset with President Obama’s healthcare bill. We’re tyring so hard not to be accused of racial profiling that we’ve lost our common sense.

Yes, there are some of those homegrown terrorists who are not part of the Islamic jihad. Timothy McVeigh is a prime example. If we ask, though, what percentage of the actual terrorist attacks and the foiled attempts can be attributed to McVeigh types, we come up with about . . . zero.

If we’re serious about saving lives and protecting our country, we need to recover our common sense.

I like what Ronald Reagan said in his farewell speech to the nation back in January 1989:

In all of that time I won a nickname, “The Great Communicator.” But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: it was the content. I wasn’t a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn’t spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation—from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the “Reagan Revolution.” Well, I’ll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.

We could use another great rediscovery about now. Our future depends upon it. The time bomb is still ticking.