I can’t say we’ve entered a new realm of silliness after the Orlando terrorist attack. There’s nothing new about the silliness that has been making the rounds from those on the progressive side of the cultural and political spectrum.
How to lay blame for what happened? If you listen to most Democrats/progressives/mainstream media (these are synonymous terms), you have a choice of targets: Christians (for not endorsing homosexual acceptance in society); Republicans in general (because they are naturally in favor of anything the “Christian Right” wants, right?); the NRA (those bloodthirsty gun owners who can’t wait to conduct their version of the Valentine’s Day Massacre); any combination of the above.
Never mind that the shooter boldly claimed allegiance to ISIS. Forget his history of radicalism, even to the point of rejoicing over 9/11. No, the blame for this attack must not be laid at the feet of Islamism. As President Obama famously stated in one of his autobiographies (more to come?), he will always take the side of Islam if he perceives it being under attack.
That’s why the words “radical Islam” or “Islamic terrorism” must never be uttered.
You can make too much of words, our Ideologue-in-Chief instructs us. Funny, but I remember him saying pretty much the opposite when he was first running for the highest office in the land:
How does a mind like Obama’s perceive reality? This illustration might offer a clue:
And that’s why he has once again focused laser-like on what he believes is the crux of the problem:
And the solution is what?
If you think some logic might be lacking here, that might be because you are a logical person:
But if the president can convince enough people to think as he does, he can accomplish his goal of protecting those poor, oppressed Islamists. I’m certain he will have their undying gratitude:
Meanwhile, more of his fellow citizens will be dying—literally.
Comments Off on The Progressive War on Anything but Islamic Terrorism
He did it again. Although, to be honest, I expected nothing less. What am I talking about? President Obama’s statement after the terrorist rampage in Orlando this weekend. Once more, he ignored what was staring him in the face. He refused to call what happened Islamic terrorism.
Yes, he said it was an act of terror, but, as always, he hid behind the old mantra of not really knowing what was behind it. We don’t have all the facts, you see. Never mind that the perpetrator called police and said he was doing this in solidarity with ISIS. Never mind that he shouted that typical “allahu akbar” phrase as he murdered 50 people.
No, this had nothing to do with Islam.
Then he did what he always does best: switch the subject to gun control. Again, never mind that this terrorist passed a background check and bought his guns legally. Never mind that no law will ever stop a lawbreaker from obtaining a weapon. Never mind that the penalty for this action will now fall on innocent gun owners who are responsible citizens and merely want a means of self-defense.
This is pure emotion, disconnected from reality. Unfortunately, some courts are willing to go along with it, such as the nefarious Ninth Circuit, well known for its “progressive” decisions.
President Obama learns all the wrong lessons from events. That’s because his ideology blinds him.
For those of us who refuse to be blinded, let’s take this away from the horror in Orlando: Islamic terrorism must be dealt with forcefully; regardless of the target of that terrorism, we must stand firmly against it. The terrorists want to destroy America. We must not allow that to happen.
It’s going to take leadership to turn that tide. I’m sad that the choices being put forward by the political parties are not the leaders we need. When I say we must pray for the future of our nation, I’m not just using a cliché. God is our refuge and our hope.
President Obama was in Japan a few days ago, where he laid a wreath at Hiroshima, the site of the dropping of the first atomic bomb. Many were concerned he would turn this event into another apology for America. That was a valid fear since he seems to consider his own country to be responsible for most of the evils of the modern era.
I’ve read through his speech at Hiroshima. There is no apology per se, but the language does suggest an unwillingness to differentiate between aggressor and victim in how American involvement in WWII began. He mentioned how wars are caused by a “base instinct for domination or conquest,” yet pointedly never identified who was seeking domination and conquest at the time. His words leave it open to the possibility that America was just as guilty.
Let’s be clear: there is no moral equivalence historically with respect to the combatants in WWII. Too many Americans in our current generation suffer from severe historical ignorance.
Japan, in the years leading up to the war, was ruled by a military with a fascist worldview, which included a sense of ethnic superiority—all other peoples were inferior to the Japanese. Lacking certain natural resources, that ideology led them to invade and conquer the peoples around them and take over the resources they wanted.
It also led to 7 December 1941, the attack on Pearl Harbor that sought to take America out of the equation, thereby clearing Japan’s path of domination and conquest.
That attack killed nearly 3,000 Americans and is what drew our nation into this world war. What followed was an unbroken series of atrocities at the hands of the Japanese military: Bataan Death March and prison camps that rivaled anything Hitler concocted.
That’s another key point: Japan was in alliance with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. As soon as America declared war on Japan (although Pearl Harbor made it clear who declared war first), Hitler declared war on America in solidarity with his Asian ally.
Once America and her allies began to push the Japanese out of their occupied areas, the Japanese government pledged to fight to the last man against any invasion force. Allied military analysts predicted extremely high casualties not only for their own troops, but for the Japanese as well.
The Manhattan Project was the secret development of the atomic bomb. It was begun only because Hitler was working on getting the weapon also. A world in which Hitler had an atomic bomb and no one else did, would have been a world living in constant fear of what a madman would do with it.
President Truman, after the surrender of Germany, received word at the Postdam Conference in July 1945 that the bomb had been tested successfully. Was he now going to use it?
Here’s where our historical ignorance enters in again. It has become fashionable to blame America for using this terrible weapon. Yet if you had been the president at that time, here is what you would have considered, and it’s what Truman considered: dropping one bomb might end the entire war without any further casualties for American troops.
Given the choice between an invasion that would have resulted in more American deaths and an even higher number of Japanese deaths, or the dropping of one bomb that would be devastating enough to bring the Japanese to stop fighting, Truman made the choice that was actually more humane.
In an attempt to minimize the deaths of Japanese civilians, leaflets were dropped over Hiroshima telling the people that devastation was coming; they were urged to leave.
After the bomb decimated Hiroshima, did the Japanese military realize they needed to end the war? Hardly. They pressed their scientists to come up with the same weapon. That led to the dropping of a second bomb, this time on Nagasaki.
The saddest part of this episode to me is that Nagasaki wasn’t the first choice of a target and became the target only because of the weather. Nagasaki was the most Christian city in Japan and was most resistant to the government’s policies. Such are the cruel ironies of war.
Even after the Nagasaki bombing, the military refused to surrender. The only authority in Japan that could overrule the military, the emperor, finally decided to do so. He addressed the Japanese people on the radio, informing them that the war was over. The military tried to stop the broadcast, but was unsuccessful. Many of the top military leaders then committed suicide.
These facts are either ignored or glossed over today. There is this great desire to paint America as the heartless combatant. Yet that is far from the truth.
Here is an excellent video—only 5 minutes and with interesting graphics, so you ought to invest those 5 minutes in watching it—that provides a fine overview of the Hiroshima decision. The speaker is Father Wilson Miscamble, a professor of history at the University of Notre Dame. After viewing it, in conjunction with what I’ve written here, I hope you will have a clearer understanding of what took place and why.
Ignorance of history can be corrected. What’s harder to correct is an ideology that seeks to remain ignorant.
One’s worldview definitely matters. Take Barack Obama, for example. When he said he wanted to fundamentally transform America, he wasn’t kidding, and his inspiration for that goal is his radical worldview.
I believe that Obama’s vision is fueled by a fury against those he perceives as “oppressors.” He has an undercurrent of anger toward an orthodox Christian understanding of truth and the faith’s stance on morality. In his mind, Christianity provides the foundation of oppression.
That’s why he turns a blind eye to Muslim atrocities; they are an oppressed people simply getting back at a Christian-dominated culture that has unjustly kept them down.
That’s why he has turned morality upside-down, beginning with approval of homosexuality, followed by promotion of same-sex marriage, followed by a focus on transgenderism, leading to his decree that all public schools must allow any student who feels trapped in the wrong gender to use whichever restroom and locker room that student desires.
Before proceeding, I can already imagine an objection, the tired old claim that Obama is a Christian. Well, using trendy terminology, I would respond that Obama may “self-identify” as a Christian, but his idea of Christian is more aligned with a radical, Marxist liberation theology, which is, at heart, anti-Christian. And his agenda has had the effect of putting long-recognized Christian morality on the defensive, hinting (and in some cases more than hinting) that those who hold to such ancient concepts of morality are rather bigoted and driven by hatred.
No, I don’t accept Obama’s self-identification as a Christian as legitimate.
I have two problems with Obama’s latest decree: the first is moral; the second is constitutional.
There are some people who are genuinely confused over their gender due to genetic disorders of some kind. That’s a purely physical cause, not a moral problem. But the percentage of the population in that situation, according to what I’ve read, at least, is about 3/10 of one per cent. What the Obama agenda requires is that we now reorient our entire society around those individuals.
And we all know his decree will be applied far more generously than that. Anyone who “feels” confused about gender identity will be allowed to use whatever restroom or locker room they choose. It’s a wide open door to sexual abuse; in a supposed move to be “fair” to a hypothetically discriminated-against segment of the population, the rest of the population will be forced to bow to the new morality.
It’s a certain Biblical passage now being manifested before our eyes:
Then there’s the constitutional side of things. Where, in that document, does one find the authority for a president—any president—to simply declare what will be the policy for all public schools nationwide?
Where, in fact, in that document, is there any authority whatsoever for the federal government to be involved in education at all?
I submit that no matter how long or how deeply one inspects the Constitution, such authority never will be found there. What we are seeing now is perhaps the most dictatorial action, among many other dictatorial actions, that Obama has ever attempted.
This is a clear case where states have all constitutional authority to rise up and say, “This will not happen here.” I applaud those state leaders who have spoken up already and sincerely hope more will join the chorus in the coming days.
We are supposed to be a nation operating by the rule of law, not by the whims of one man—and his party—who seeks to destroy all semblance of the rule of law.
We are a country at a serious crossroads right now. Is Biblical morality to be forever banished from our public policy? Are we finally going to kill whatever is left of our Constitution and give it a decent burial?
Or are we going to stand up for Biblical truth?
Answers to those questions are still forthcoming.
Comments Off on Obama’s Worldview & the Transformation of America
Every once in a while, in the midst of a heated campaign, we need to be reminded that we have a president already who is doing his best to ruin the country. As we wind the clock down on the Obama years, there will be many reviews of what has occurred during his two terms. May I begin that review today?
Let’s start with the economy, which was rather broken when he took office. He immediately rushed into that arena and made matters much worse.
How does a nation go from $9 trillion in debt to about $20 trillion in seven years? Most would have thought that impossible, but Obama has achieved it.
Then there was his signature piece of legislation: Obamacare. As state exchanges collapse and major insurers start a stampede for the door (e.g., United Healthcare), I think it’s about time to make a judgment on the efficacy of that radical makeover of the healthcare system:
That probably illustrates its status as well as anything I’ve seen lately.
We’ve also become rather confused morally and culturally in the Obama years, from same-sex marriage to acceptance of transgenderism. Obama himself has been the chief cheerleader toward his image of a Brave New World.
Hey, we’re now free to “self-identify” as anything we choose to be. Perhaps we can extend that philosophy to the rest of creation also:
If you think that’s ridiculous, just take a moment and ponder how ridiculous it would have seemed if, seven years ago, we had been told that we would now have people boycotting North Carolina because the state took a stand on men and women using their own separate bathrooms. Would you have believed it?
With the total destruction of our societal norms and the basic Biblical worldview that used to inform it, we can add the rise of ISIS (due to a rapid and disastrous pullout in Iraq), the marginalization of Israel, and Obama’s cozying up to to communist dictators (just to mention a few of the international messes he has created). I can understand why he might want to divert our attention elsewhere:
Nothing can be more important than changing the face on the twenty-dollar bill, right? For the record, I don’t mind Andrew Jackson being removed; he’s not on my list of favorite presidents. And while I might have other worthy suggestions for his replacement other than Harriet Tubman, I have no problem with a brave Republican woman who helped undermine the slave system being recognized instead.
How to summarize the Obama administration thus far?
I sincerely hope he’s done with his “accomplishments.”
In this heated Republican nomination battle, I wholeheartedly support Ted Cruz. My support is not, as others have indicated, a choice between two flawed candidates; rather, I firmly believe Cruz is a committed Christian constitutional conservative who seeks to reverse the course of the last seven years.
My first knowledge of Cruz was in 2012 when he ran for the nomination for the Senate in his home state of Texas. His Republican opponent was the sitting lieutenant governor, David Dewhurst. Cruz startled the political world with his upset victory. Today, Dewhurst has endorsed his once-rival for the Republican presidential nomination, stating, “I want to make sure that we have a good conservative in the White House next January.”
Although a first-term senator, Cruz has taken a leadership role against the Obama agenda, much to the chagrin of the Republican leadership in that legislative body. I’m not sure his tactics have always been the best, but I can excuse failed tactics when I perceive that someone’s principles are solid; at least he, unlike most of his Republican colleagues, attempted to roll back Obamacare.
Cruz also once stood in the Senate and accused Mitch McConnell of lying to his fellow Republican senators, saying that McConnell had gone back on a promise not to make a certain deal with Obama. That earned Cruz McConnell’s enmity but showed he was willing to challenge his own leadership on the issue of integrity.
When he was the first Republican to announce his candidacy, and he did so at Liberty University, I admit I wondered if that was a political stunt designed to hoodwink conservative Christians. Now I believe it was a sincere effort to let that voting bloc know just who he is and what he wants to do as president. I also believe it was a wise move, as it provided a jumpstart to a campaign few saw as ready for prime time.
As Cruz stood on the stage in the debates that followed, surrounded by sixteen other candidates, it took a while for him to carve out his message—too many voices. At first, my pick was Scott Walker because I appreciated how effective he has been as governor of Wisconsin. When he chose to withdraw from the race, it came down, for me, to a choice between Cruz and Rubio. Although I liked Rubio, Cruz came across as much more consistent and, frankly, as more effective in debate.
That’s when I listened more closely to Cruz’s words and policy positions, and concentrated on his character. As I learned more about him, I became convinced his Christian testimony was genuine, a factor reinforced when I also listened to his wife, Heidi. If she is simply putting on a Christian “show,” she is one of the best actresses in the country. Her faith is the real thing as well.
Cruz is well-spoken, fully knowledgeable on the issues, and projects the kind of seriousness and lack of circus atmosphere that I want in a president. Neither has he descended into the gutter with Donald Trump, no matter how outrageous the latter has become in his personal attacks.
I know that candidates can promise a lot and not be able to deliver, but when Cruz says he wants to repeal every word of Obamacare, he has a track record of attempting to do that very thing. When he declares that he will reverse every single unconstitutional executive order Obama has put into effect, I believe he will do precisely that. Why? He is devoted to constitutional authority and the limits placed on the federal government in that document. He understands that our liberty depends on the rule of law, the federal system, and the separation of powers.
Cruz’s Christian faith makes him a staunch advocate for the pre-born. When he says he will defund Planned Parenthood, he speaks from personal conviction, not political expediency. His Biblical morality is necessary in a time when we are a gender-confused and sex-crazed nation. He knows what real marriage is and what it is not; he knows which bathroom people ought to use.
Doesn’t that last statement reveal the depth of deception rising in our nation right now? Whoever thought anyone would have to affirm that?
Ted Cruz will not be a progressive ideologue like the man who currently resides in the White House. He will not be a tinpot dictator who has used the system all his life to get what he wants at everyone else’s expense. Yes, I’m talking about the so-called “frontrunner” for the Republican nomination. A Trump nomination will doom the Republican party to defeat in November.
Hillary Clinton has to be the worst candidate the Democrats have ever put forward. Never has anyone been so eminently beatable. Cruz is the man who can carry Republicans to victory over Clinton. All Republicans have to do now is give him the chance to prove it.
Reject the phony candidate; choose Ted Cruz, the real Christian conservative constitutionalist.
One hardly knows how to express anymore the depth of the disaster of the past seven years of Obama. I’ve tried, but am almost at the end of words to describe how he has damaged our country, perhaps irreparably.
The main responsibility of our government—with a president leading the way—is to understand the threats we face and protect our liberties. Yet President Obama has gone out of his way to discard basic liberties, especially for Christians whose consciences are being threatened by that very government. We’re now supposed to bow to the new morality of LGBT correctness in all areas of life, even to the point of accepting transgenderism as natural.
On the economic front, we now have someone who promotes the very ideology that has laid waste to many other nations:
And his visit to Cuba only solidified his fascination with that ideology:
When Islamic radicals terrorize Europe, he practically invites them to come here also:
His anti-colonialism dominates his worldview, blinding him to the real threat:
When asked what he’s going to do about this threat, he mouths some of the right words for public consumption and says he’s already dealing with it—trust him, his plan will work:
What could be worse for the country than what we have experienced in two terms of Obama? Well, a couple of things: