Posts

Is America Prepared to Fight Radical Islamist Chained by Political Correctness and the U.S Administration’s Extreme Aversion to Denounce It?

/in /by

In the wake of the terrorist attack of the Boston Marathon, and the subsequent capture of one of the supposed perpetrators, the questions regarding the U.S Administration in this matter are; 1) Why does Mr. Obama appears to have a more expressed passion and vigor in going after law-abiding American gun owners than going after radical Islamist in this nation? 2) After the apprehension of the suspect, unlike G.W Bush after the 911 bombing mentioning how the terrorist are now our [the nation’s] enemies, Mr. O curiously remarked about the people of Boston, “one of the things that makes Boston such a great city, is that we welcome people from all around the world — people of every faith, every ethnicity, from every corner of the globe. So as we continue to learn more about why and how this tragedy happened, let’s make sure that we sustain that spirit.” Why he never mentioned the word terrorist, Islamic radical, or anything referring to how we as Americans will fight and defend against any terrorist – foreign or domestic?  Does the intellectually vacant drive of “political correctness” preclude us from being able to identify our enemy – if they’re not Caucasian males, politically conservative, or unapologetically American? And 3) With the Administration’s unabashed desire to allow untold numbers of unidentified foreign trespassers to enter America through its southern borders, even after September 9th, 2011, can the American people afford to blindly trust the U.S government to protect us?

I remember during the G.W Bush Administration’s early push to erase America’s southern borders by allowing untold numbers of Mexicans to cross into the country as though they were crossing the street that the F.B.I reported it wasn’t just Mexicans crossing the street unidentified, but members of foreign terrorist groups as well. This was reported in 2004. Then in 2010 Fox News reported that some fed agencies issued a Terror Alert along the Mexican border warning of possible terrorist groups coming into the country. Yet, very little has been honestly done to remedy the situation. In fact with the Administration’s blatant acts of appeasement and disinterest in dismantling the yellow brick road for foreigners to disobey our nation’s immigration laws and securing the nations borders, the issue of foreign terrorist living amongst us only grows.

But what is even more concerning is Mr. O’s severe psychological discomfort saying anything or acting visibly in any way against anything Muslim or Islamic. And it is obvious that he has more then a passing appreciation for the religion. Let’s remember that both of his fathers were reported to be of the Islamic faith. But due to his public denials of his favor towards the religion it causes a more than apparent disconnection with his, and therefore the federal government’s, actions regarding such displeasing acts of the radical core of Islamic followers verses someone who’s of a more fundamentally Christian faith or position. His fervent refusal to call the attack of a self-proclaim follower of Islam on the Fort Hood Military Base an act of radical Islamic terrorism, but instead call it “workplace violence”. This false classification caused military persons wounded during the attack to not get needed benefits. Even in the aftermath of the attack on the U.S Consulate in Libya the Administration, and the complicit Media, dared to call it a terrorist attack carried out by a radical Islamic group. Instead he, his Administration, and the Media chose to divert the public’s focus to a benign You Tube video. He chose to even carry this blatant untruth onto the world stage at the United Nations.

The fact is that the Administration and the Media of the United States government seem to be quite deflated in the fact that the culprits were not Caucasian, male, conservative, or boastfully proclaiming love for America. To the point that I look for this matter to get the full treatment of blaming any and everything short of these guys being born sideways for their treacherous acts and again diverting our attention from the real threat of Radical Islam.

America is becoming a pool of mind-numbing illogical political correctness to the point that not only is there less identifiable societal absolutes, but less identifiable enemies and friends. A neighbor and acquaintance or the young suspected bomber during an actual interview by ABC News admitted recognizing the suspect but did not call the authorities for fear of somehow wrongly accusing him based on his religion and ethnicity. What if his son, daughter, or friend were one of the victims killed or maimed by this suspect and brother? Why has it become so accepted in America that it is okay for our neighbor and fellow American to lose his liberty, his freedom, or even his life, so long as it doesn’t inconvenience me or that I’m not directly affected negatively?  The psychological self-correcting trigger of political correctness paralyzes us from making the most basic of choices and judgments of right and wrong in an era of growing attacks on American culture, traditions, and way of life from not just abroad, but even more concerning from within our borders from fellow Americans who honestly are of good intentions.  Years of mis-education via the government educational system, the Establishment Media, and entertainment complex has numbed our senses to what use to call us to arms.

There use to be a time in America that any threat to our nation, our way of life, or our fundamental truths, especially by a foreign source would have been faced with resounding condemnation by the people. And no Media outlet would dare to show the source of such threat any sort of favorable light or sanctuary. Today the fact that the suspects where of a Radical Islamic sec, that they may have killed many fellow Americans who were partaking in the liberties and freedoms that this nation holds above all others, or that this may be the shot across the bow of things to come due to the U.S government’s misguided and treasonous immigration policies, is all far less of importance than how these two young men may be misunderstood, or that they may have been called a name growing up, or their religion and ethnicity may be unduly stigmatized, or even how they may have been mistreated by the police seeking to arrest them.

Too many in today’s America find more comfort in being popular and wrong in a crowd then being right and standing alone. We fear hearing the hard truths that that may reveal our imperfections and prefer the easy lie that gives us a warm fuzzy feeling. And too many of us prefer the silk chains of government privilege and promised security and reject the harsh responsibility of being free.

If Americanism is to ever be reduced to the back pages of history and remember whens, viewed again as extremism, or totally removed from existence from these lands, it will not be due to any foreign terrorist group or army; not from any form of radical religious belief or doctrine; or even a government running of its chains. It will be due to the American people totally rejecting and surrendering what has made us exceptional for some 200 plus years – our Constitutionally protected rights and liberties, and our traditional culture and way of life. As Abe Lincoln prophetically stated, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” The choice is ours.

Walking back from the edge: The aftermath of the 2012 Presidential Production Is One Of Ideology

/in , /by

Ok I’m back from the bridge.  There were a lot of people seemingly prepared to jump after Mr. Obama’s re-election for four more years sitting in the seat of the Presidency of the United States.  I, after having time to reflect and take several deep breathes the question that I have is, who didn’t see this coming?  As I reported in my article in February of this year, Obamanation Is Setting The Stage For Another Orchestrated Election, we have seen this played out before in Obama’s charmed political life.  He gets to run against no one from his party, so that he is unchallenged, and no real light or scrutiny is cast on him until he gets to the general election to face the opposition Party’s candidate.  And that Party’s candidate is either severely over matched by Obama, due to some anomaly, and or he runs a basically token opposition race.  Figuratively speaking,the supposed opponent goes to fight with an gun that is not loaded against a guy who’s willing to fire everything in his arsenal to win. In this election the Republican candidate’s gun still has the safety switch on.  Mr. O seemingly is operating from a different page of rules of engagement.

Mitt Romney was a flawed candidate when he quit, still without explanation, in the ’08 Presidential Race and he was more of a flawed candidate in this race.  First of all, of the Republican choices in the Primary he had the most loses in seeking political office.  He was only elected for one term as Governor of Massachusetts.  He won the Primary not due to his strong and provocative ideas for the nation’s future, vision for the nation, or dominating debating skills.  He won it because his pockets were deeper than the other guys.  Period!  And very much unlike Obama, rather than run to embrace the base of the Republican party – the conservatives to his right – he ran from it while giving it his middle finger.  The base never trusted nor warmed to Romney.  But most importantly Romney never took the gloves off, just as McCain chose not to do in the ’08 Elections, to hit Obama on his most glaring vulnerability – his character and a sever lack of an ethical compass.  Obama is a walking illustration of how to run the Office without morality, ethics, or the Constitution for that matter, as an obstacle to his objectives.   Romney never presented a clear distinction between him and Obama on the one thing that American people won’t excuse, even from the mightiest of sports icons, immorality and a blatant lack of honesty and character.  He was seen as Obama-lite.  It was more of a case of choosing between the devil known verses the devil unknown.  The citizens of the United States chose the devil known.

But this is symptomatic.  The fundamental issue of what is wrong with the Republican Party today as a whole that is growing like a cancer, at the federal level particularly.  When any individual from within the Republican ranks voices a strong conservative ideology, such as an Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Col. Allen West, or anyone who dares to present the opposition party, the Democrats, as what it truly is, a party with a  liberal-socialist ideology, they get taken to the preverbal woodshed and or be cannibalized upon.  Ever since Reagan, the Republican National Party has sought to have only the most non-Reaganist, non-conservative, that it could get away with representing it.  George H. Bush won only once because on his second run he chose to run to the left.  G.W. ran as a “Compassionate Conservative”, plus the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan kept him in for a second term.  But since the Bushes, the National Republican Party has wanted to be more like the Democrats-to the left.

Contrast the Republicans to the Democrats who have chosen the most leftist man to be the face of its party, Barack Obama.  And it does so with no public reservations or shame.  The Democrats may have differences within, but they marshal behind what is its main objective, its main ideology, and that is to make Americans dependent on government, to be ever beholding to their Party, and to create a socialist society so it – Democratic Party – will be forever in power.  When was the last time you ever saw the Democrats demonstratively publically attack its own?  But, the Republicans do it seemingly at a drop of the hat, such as when Mr. Romney spoke about “the 47% Percenters” during the election or when Rush Limbaugh spoke of Mr. Obama being Santa Claus, one who seeks to give everyone gifts/benefits from the government.  The remarks weren’t debated or rebutted upon the basis of whether they were right or wrong, but that they were “insensitive”, not politically correct.  And it was not the Democrats coming at the Republican or Conservative with pitchforks and rope who made the comment, but other Republicans; Or so-called Republicans.  The Democratic/Progressives cannot defeat Republican/Americanism -a belief in basic Conservative American principles toe to toe in the arena of ideas.  That’s why they have to lie, deceive, and manipulate.

 

What brought me off the bridge, and what may bring many of you off the cliff, is to view the battle less of a political battle, Republican verses Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, but a battle of ideology – a battle between the Progressive, socialistic, or what Goldwater called governmental-paternalism, when the government provides the people with the basics and govern their lives.  That ideology verses the Americanistic, or Conservative, ideology of self-reliance, personal responsibility, and the belief in God.  The former denotes a position of weakness, dependency, and an economically impoverish consciousness.  While the latter denotes a position of strength, independency, and an economically resilient consciousness.

As I reported in my September article, This Year’s Election Will Be between Those Who Cherish Personal Freedom and Morality, and Those Who Do Not, “The ultimate choice is that of the U.S citizens and the American people whether we believe that rights and freedoms is the venue of the government or of the people.  Whether we are to be destined to live within the plantation of the collective mind or free to prosper or fail limited only by one’s own dreams and choices as free-minded individuals.  Or whether we reinvigorate our uniquely American belief that our rights come from God and not from man and that it is we the people who give life to the government and not the government that gives life to the people.” It really doesn’t matter what actors are put before us to represent the supposed Parties, it comes down to who speaks to the ideology that rings truest to the voter’s hearts – whether it is freedom or paternalism.  At the end of the day it is up to us to decide.