Obama is proving that he will do whatever is necessary in order to be reelected. In speech after speech he has been fanning the flames of Marxist styled class-warfare, effectively driving wedges between ordinary Americans. This might get him reelected, but it will be at the cost of having stirred envy and resentment in the minds of those who elect him, and at the cost of pitting citizen against citizen. Obama rejected the construction of the Keystone pipeline for no other reason than to placate his radical environmentalist base. He seems unconcerned about how much higher fuel prices will be for hard working Americans if troubles escalate in the Middle East. By refusing to exempt religious organizations from the contraceptive and abortifacient provision requirement in his healthcare bill, Obama demonstrates a total lack of concern for the consciences of religious people. Of course, this helps Obama by pleasing his liberal democrat base who wants tax payers to fund abortions. Obama is showing that he is willing to do absolutely anything in order to be reelected, which brings me to my main point.

If Obama determines that it is in his best political interest to bomb Iranian nuclear sites he will do so unhesitatingly. It may be done for purely political reasons, but I expect that he will do it. Conservative pundits might rightly question Obama’s motives for ordering such an attack, but they are wrong to think that he is “too weak” to do so! Obama is (at the very least) a big government statist, and statists judge anything “right” that promotes their cause. For the next several months Obama’s greatest “cause” is reelection! I suspect that Obama is looking for any opportunity possible to showcase his hawkishness. If the Iranians are smart they will consider this potential, and they will comply with IAEA demands.

Tim Haile

Plain Punditry

A so-called “pastor” from Florida finally followed through with his promise to burn a Quran. The “Quran” is the alleged “Holy Book” of Islam. It is the Muslim “Bible.” The results of this burning were totally predictable. Almost 40 people have been killed in retaliation. Some of them were even beheaded. Those killed were residents of Afghanistan and had absolutely nothing to do with the burning of the Quran. This incident once again reveals the mind-set of too many Islamists. They look for any opportunity they can find to kill their spiritual foes, including fellow Muslims who refuse to share their rage. Of course, as I have documented time and again, the Quran repeatedly instructs them to do so (Quran 2:192-194, 245-247; 4:48-49, 75-79, 85; 9:5, 29, 39, 41, 44, 111…et al). Verse 5 of chapter 9 of the Quran says, “Fight and slay the infidel wherever you find them…” The reality is that the only safe and peaceful Muslims are those who do not completely follow the Quran.

Regardless of what one thinks of the Quran, whether he views it as a “holy” book or not, whether he believes it should be burned or not, reasonable people should agree that there is no moral equivalency between the burning of a Quran and the beheading of a human being!

As one who has examined and been convinced by the abundant evidence, I accept the Bible as God’s “Holy Book.” It claims divine authorship. Paul said, “all Scripture is inspired of God…” (2 Tim. 3:16). As a Christian, I seek to convince others of the truthfulness of the Bible, and of the benefits and rewards of following its instructions. However, it should be understood that the actual books that contain this divine teaching are produced from common materials [paper, leather, cardboard, ink…etc]. Consequently, the “book” itself is not “holy.” Like other books, Bibles deteriorate and begin to disintegrate, and like other books, they may be disposed of and replaced. They may even be burned. No sin is committed in this process. Muslims claim that the Quran is different from the Bible, in that the Quran contains “God’s actual words.” Muslims, therefore, do not object to the burning of Bibles. But the Muslim is either misinformed, or he is propagandizing. Muslims should understand that Bible believers DO believe the Bible to contain the actual words of God! So, to be fair, the Muslim should feel as strongly against the burning of a Bible as he does against the burning of a Quran! [Note: Muslims claim that the Quran is not subject to textual transmission and translation errors because it was revealed "in Arabic." Of what significance is this argument when the Quran, like the Bible, has been translated into every language known to man! I could just as easily argue that the Bible is far superior to the Quran due to the fact that the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek! The argument proves nothing.]

Some books do need to be burned. After accepting Paul’s gospel message, the converts at Ephesus burned their own sorcery books, which were of significant value (Acts 19:19. I would personally like to see all pornographic and false religious materials piled up and burned [interestingly, Muslims agree with me on this point]. However, I know that doing so would provide only a short term fix, and would not solve the real problem of lust and sin. The Ephesians burned their own books. It serves no useful purpose to burn books that others consider “holy,” for such action does nothing to change their understanding and will. As seen with the Muslims, it often just enflames passions and provides an excuse for bad behavior. So, while Quran-burning serves no useful purpose (except perhaps to demonstrate the true nature of Islam), neither is it right to behead people for burning copies of the Quran!

Plain Punditry

It is somewhat ironic — and misleading — that the Chevy Volt is placed here along side the work of the great innovators Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, and Bill Gates, especially considering the regulatory oppression and unfair favoritism shown by the federal government today.

Benjamin Franklin’s operation would have been shut down due to unsafe work conditions.

Thomas Edison’s invention would be outlawed because it does not meet energy efficiency standards.

And could Bill Gates even have been able to start Microsoft out of his garage with all the government regulations, red tape, and fees required for one to start a small business?

Then you have the Chevy Volt, a product that nobody wants, made by a company that would have gone bankrupt if not for federal bailout money. On top of that, the government is trying to create an artificial demand for such a vehicle through vehicle efficiency standards and having an energy policy that causes gasoline prices to necessarily skyrocket.

The more the government intervenes in the realm of technology and innovation, the more inferior and expensive new products will be. Let the market (the people) decide what products and technologies we want/need. This type of freedom of innovation resulted in the advancements shown at the beginning of this ad, and it will produce the next great innovation, if we will just go back to trusting the people, rather than the government.

Plain Punditry

Thoughts and prayers go out to this woman and her family. As it is unlikely that the guilty parties will ever be found and duly punished, we can just hope she has a full and speedy recovery.

This incident is tragic, but was also unnecessary. I do not want to shift blame away from the parties responsible. But I believe it is important that we remember two lessons from this incident.

#1 – Islamists are often hostile toward women. Though it may not be politically correct, people must eventually come to grips with this reality. The population of Egypt is about 90% Muslim. I understand that not all Muslims act the way these attackers did. But the Quran does teach that women are naturally inferior to men. As a result, this type of behavior occurs more often in Muslim-dominated countries. After all, how many female reporters have been gang raped as they covered a rally for the “violent” Tea Party? None! Yet these attacks against women are not uncommon among Islamists (remember the 14 year old girl who was beaten to death, per a fatwa, for the crime of being raped by her 40 year old relative).

#2 – There are some places where a woman has no business being. There are many in our society that believe a woman should be able to do nearly anything a man can do. And I admit that my views on the roles of men and women are old-fashioned. But we need to face reality. There was no good reason to have this woman in the middle of this dangerous situation. That’s not sexist, that’s the truth. Given all factors involved, a female reporter was in far more danger than a male reporter, and we should all be able to admit that. Fox News correspondent Greg Palkot and cameraman Olaf Wiig were attacked and beaten while covering these “peaceful” protests, but they weren’t sexually assaulted as well.

It is tragic that we, as a society, have not come to grips with these realities before the attack against Lara Logan. Hopefully we learn the lessons soon before another similar incident occurs.

Plain Punditry

Tim Haile

I continue to be amazed by the readiness of liberals to accept and defend Islam. Many liberals are more accepting of Islam than they are of Christianity. They cringe when Islamic terrorists are so identified. They prefer that such terrorists be identified only as “terrorists,” and that their religion not be mentioned in any way. Why are liberals and liberal organizations, such as the ACLU, so quick to protect and defend Muslims? This question becomes even more intriguing when one factors in the typical antipathy that liberals generally have towards religion. What sense does it make for liberals to praise Islamic ideology and institutions, while denouncing those of Christianity?

I suggest three possibilities: Either most liberals are uninformed as to the true nature of Islam, including its doctrines and global intentions. Or, some liberals have sinister motivations, and they wish to work with Muslims for the purpose of collapsing the U.S. infrastructure and replacing it with some form of centralized control. Or, they, like others, are simply too afraid to speak out in opposition to Islamic ideology.

Possibility # 1 – Uninformed / Misinformed: Perhaps, like other people, most liberals are simply uneducated about the actual goals and intentions of Muslims and Islamic ideology. They have never read the Quran nor examined Islamic doctrines, so they are unaware of its dangers. If this is the case, then liberals do not understand just how intensely Islamic philosophy differs from theirs. I realize that there are different types of “liberals,” but the traditional “liberal” is one who believes in the maximum degree of personal liberty. He wishes to be free from the moral and legal restraints of government and society. How then, can a genuine liberal tolerate Islam? The philosophies of liberalism and Islamism are diametrically opposed to each other. Consider the following areas:

• Homosexuality: Liberals constantly defend homosexuality and gay marriage. They participate in gay-pride marches and generally support gay rights. However, the Quran specifically forbids homosexuality (7:80-82; 26:165-175; 27:55-58; 29:28, 29). Five Islamic states have the death penalty for homosexuality (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan and Yemen). Prior to Saddam’s ouster, Iraq had the death penalty for homosexuality, and prior to the ouster of the Taliban, Afghanistan killed homosexuals. The ultimate goal of Islam for every country is the establishment of a caliphate and Sharia law, which places all aspects of one’s life: social, civil, and religious, under Quranic rule. There can be no harmony between the liberal position and the Muslim position on subjects like homosexuality.
• Crime & Punishment: There has been a running debate in the United States for many years over the question of crime and punishment. Liberals tend to advocate for lighter sentences and against capital punishment. Conservatives tend to take a stricter approach. However, I know of no conservatives who go as far as the Quran in assigning punishment. The Quran calls for the cutting off of hands and feet on opposite sides of the body as a punishment for thievery, fighting in a war against Islamists, and other “crimes” (Quran 5:33, 38). If liberals are concerned that some criminal punishments are too strict, how can they possibly support the criminal punishments of Islam?
• Alcohol & Gambling: The same point can be made with respect to alcohol and gambling. Liberals generally believe that the use of alcohol and the practice of gambling should be legal. However, these practices are explicitly condemned in the Quran (5:190, 191). How many liberals want wine and the lottery to be officially banned by the government? Well, they are banned in Islamic countries, and they would be banned in our country if Muslims had their way and Sharia Law was to be implemented.
• Women’s Rights: For years in this country, the “Women’s Liberation Movement” has worked to achieve equal rights, including equal-pay-for-equal-work rights for women. In contrast, Islamic societies continue to treat women as second-class citizens. The Quran teaches that women are so naturally inferior to men that the testimony of two women is considered equal to that of one man (Quran 2:282). The Quran also teaches that a man is permitted to marry up to four women (4:3). However, a woman is not permitted to marry multiple men. Islamic cultures strictly govern women’s attire, as well as their interaction with males. I fail to understand just how the proponents of women’s rights can be united with Islamists. I realize that some women’s organizations do speak out against some Islamic practices, but too many liberals continue to defend Islamic practices.
• Free Speech: Liberals (like conservatives) cherish freedom of speech. Both prefer to address their differences in the arena of free and open discourse. They do not want their opinions to be censured by authoritarians. The Quran, however, explicitly prohibits any “public speech” that is “evil” (Quran 4:148). Before concluding that such a law might be good for our culture, one should read a few more verses. The immediate context of this passage defines “evil speech” as that which criticizes the laws and practices of Islam (vs. 150, 151). Where Sharia law is implemented, people are not permitted to speak out against Islam or Mohammed. The recent story of the Swedish’ cartoonist demonstrates how seriously Muslims take this law. Militant Muslims quickly offered a $100,000 dollar reward for killing Lars Vilks. His home was attacked in March of 2010, and a retaliatory bombing was carried out in December. This is just one of many such cases of violence by Muslims against the critics of Islam.

Though other areas could be cited, these are some of the major areas of difference between liberals and Muslims. Their ideologies and philosophies are utterly incompatible with each other. The acceptance of Islam by liberals defies reason and logic.

Possibility #2 – Common Goals: As I mentioned above, there are different types of liberals. Under possibility #1 I dealt primarily with the classic liberal. While all liberals take liberties with established laws, some liberals go farther than others. Some go so far as to reject the U.S. Constitution. This type of liberalism actually leans more towards socialism. Ironically, the label [“liberalism”], which suggests the advancement of personal liberties, actually ends up advancing them the least! Such liberals eventually call for the end of free-market capitalism, and they desire the establishment of some form of economic central planning to be set up in its place. Their ultimate goal is a transition from a democratic form of government to a democratic socialism, and some even want full-blown communism.

Islamic jihadists and ideologues also desire that the US government be replaced, albeit not with the same type of government, and not for the same purpose as desired by the socialist liberal. Both wish to collapse the present US infrastructure, but the Islamist has a different purpose. He desires the establishment of a worldwide caliphate. For this goal to be accomplished, each nation must come under Islamic and Sharia law. “Sharia” is Arabic for “the way” or “path,” and describes the civil law aspect of Islam. The Quran says, “The true religion with Allah is Islam,” and “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers” (3:20, 86). The Muslim wishes to change the United States into an Islamic utopia. The socialist liberal wishes to change it into a socialist utopia. What they both have in common is the dissolution American-styled democracy.

Some liberals may think that they can work with Muslims in order to achieve their common goal [collapse of the US infrastructure], then, at the last moment, they would hope to seize control of power before the Muslims do. While history does show that such alliances can sometimes be successful, anyone who has studied the history of Islam can tell you that it is often the Islamists who capitalize on such political arrangements. Socialist liberals may presume themselves to be in control, but it is far more likely that that the Islamists would have the upper hand in such a scenario. Unlike the liberal, the Muslim is motivated by more than just an ideology; his is a religious ideology. Regardless of what others may think of his religion, the Muslim is religiously motivated to fulfill his religious objectives. It is typically the case that no matter the type of religion, the true religionist is more dedicated to his cause. He is conscience-bound to accomplish his task. He does not surrender easily, especially the religionist who is convinced that being slain in battle is the surest path to eternal reward (Quran 3:159, 196; 4:75).

Some liberals may think that they have formed some sort of symbiotic relationship with Islamists. If so, they need to reevaluate their situation. If it is symbiotic, then the Muslims are the host, and the liberals are the easily removed parasites. Liberals, and particularly atheists, are just as much infidels to Muslims as are Christians and Jews. In the event of any collusion between liberals and Muslims, I suspect that the Muslims are the ones who are using the liberals, and not the other way around.

Possibility #3 – Cowardice: It is possible that some liberals and liberal organizations defend Islam because they wish to gain its favor. They have seen what happens to people who question or challenge Islam, and they do not wish to be subjected to the same kind of treatment. Those who challenge the tenets of Islam are often attacked verbally, and sometimes even physically. Sadly, the critics of Islam now have two enemies: Muslims, and the proponents of political correctness. Some may wish to believe Islam to be “just another religion,” but this is naïve and wishful thinking. According to the very teaching of the Quran, Islam cannot perpetually coexist with other religions. At some point it will stifle or eliminate all spiritual and ideological opposition, and Islam will stand alone as the only [openly] practicable religion.

Conclusion

Islam, with its system of Sharia law and theocratic approach to governance, is contrary to the basic philosophies of both liberals and conservatives. Liberals and conservatives may not agree with each other, but they can at least debate their differences in an open and honorable fashion. Islamic societies do not permit such dialogue. There is no “freedom of religion” in Islamic States. This proves that Islam is more than just a religion – Technically, Islam is a religious ideology. Sharia law is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution. Liberals and all other Non-Muslims need to awake to the true nature and goals of Islamic ideology. It poses a serious threat to all free societies, and it doesn’t care whether those societies are composed of liberals or conservatives. It seeks to defeat them both.

Tim Haile
timhaile@me.com

Plain Punditry

Because of all of this, many are almost certain that Obama will be a one-term president. As unpopular as he has become in just two years, there’s no way he’ll be electable in 2012, right?

Don’t be so sure. In a new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, this unpopular President beats a Republican challenger 42% to 39%. When the poll pitted Obama against Mitt Romney, the President’s lead increased, 47% to 40%. Against Sarah Palin, a favorite among the Tea Party, Obama leads 55% to 33%!

I don’t know how accurate this poll is. Maybe it’s flawed, who knows? But it should tell us one thing very clearly: Obama’s defeat in 2012 is not inevitable.

Just because someone runs as a Republican, that does not mean they will beat Obama in an election. The GOP needs to find someone who can win, not just someone to appear on the ballot. Making Obama a one-term President is not going to be easy, despite his unpopularity.

So who will be on the ballot? Who should it be? Sarah Palin? Newt Gingrich? Mike Pence? Ron Paul? Personally, based on what I know of him, I like Chris Christie, even though he has said he’s not going to run in 2012 (but in politics, we know that’s never written in stone).

What do you think? Who can the GOP nominate that will beat Obama?

Plain Punditry

While London police are investigating how this sort of security breach could have happened, it is important that we understand why it happened. Why was this group of students so upset that they would carry out this brazen attack against the Prince and his wife?

Tuition increases.

Yep, that’s it. They were protesting the government’s recent decision to raise the cost of college tuition. Granted, the increase tripled the cost of college for the students. No one having to pay for college would be happy with this. But responding with violent protests? That’s how these students chose to respond. Unfortunately, this is not the first time for something like this to happen. Recently we have seen the news of riots in France and Greece in response to the government finding ways to reduce spending.

How does this affect us in the United States?

The United States is growing deeper in debt while the federal government continues its wasteful spending, expansion of bureaucracy, and unsustainable entitlement programs. Enough Americans have noticed this that a good number of fiscal conservatives were elected to Congress last month with the mandate to get spending and the federal budget under control.

What does that have to do with the attack by student protesters on Prince Charles’ car? The reason why the cost of tuition was being raised in the U.K. was because government spending was out of control and cuts had to be made (just as the case is here in the U.S.).

So if the newly elected Congress is serious about reducing spending, cuts will have to be made here, too. Many of these cuts may not be very popular, but they will be necessary to help preserve the future for our children and grandchildren. We will have to wait and see if Congress will actually take the steps necessary to get our spending and debt under control.

But what if they do? What if Congress actually cuts spending significantly, reducing the funding for entitlements or eliminating certain programs altogether? Will we see the same type of violent protests and riots that have taken place in Europe?

No one knows the answer to that question. Only time will tell. But when people come to believe that they are “entitled” to receive education, health care, retirement income, etc., from the government, and the government stops providing these things (either by choosing to make spending cuts or by simply not having any more money) the temptation will exist for people to get angry and possibly to become violent (and there are certainly people willing to fan the flames of civil unrest).

We need to remember that all we are entitled to is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are not given by government, but by God. Government’s job is to preserve these rights. It is our responsibility, as individuals, to use the freedom that we have and the blessings we have been given to provide for ourselves and help others who cannot help themselves.

The other option is to make government responsible for our care and well-being. Many people are choosing this option. But remember: government cannot give unless it first takes, for government has nothing of its own to give. We can let the government take care of us, but not without being willing to surrender our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So, spending cuts are likely coming. How will we respond? Anger? Protests? Violence? Riots? Or will we use our freedom to provide for our own and help others? I hope that the American people learn a lesson from these events in Europe rather than repeating their mistakes.

Plain Punditry

Of course, a consideration of a “one-child” law begs the obvious question: How is such a law enforced? The Chinese enforce their law by means of forced abortion and sterilization procedures. I wonder if this is also what Ted Turner has in mind as the means of enforcement? I know that he is “pro-choice,” so he has no reservations about killing unborn babies through the practice of abortion, but does he approve of empowering governments to force abortions upon women? And what about repeat (pregnancy) offenders? Would he approve of governments sterilizing them against their will as a means of regulating and punishing them? This is what they do in China.

I never cease to be amazed by the reasoning processes of some liberals. They display immense concern for the well-being of the earth, but demonstrate little concern for the creatures for whom the earth was made. They attach no more value to human life than they do to animal life. One who would approve of the killing of a helpless human being while it is still in its mother’s womb has no business making decisions and proposals about the preservation of human life. Their thought processes are corrupt and their agendas are misguided.

Plain Punditry

Liberals, though, do not want spending to be cut. They want government to spend more and continue to grow in power and control over our lives. Spending cuts are offensive to liberals because it puts power and control back into the hands of individuals, businesses, and the states. So how do the liberals fight back? They call for cuts in defense spending.

Liberals know that conservatives generally are staunch supporters of the military and, despite the need to cut spending, are reluctant to agree to cuts in defense. The debate that ensues over defense spending is often enough to distract lawmakers from making necessary spending cuts (which is just what the liberals want).

Are conservatives being hypocritical by calling for spending cuts, but not wanting to cut defense? Not at all. There is a very good reason why we need to maintain a strong military while slashing current spending. And it is a reason that liberals just won’t understand.

The Constitution.

Last week, the Heritage Foundation posted an article — Top 10 Reasons to NOT Put Defense Spending ‘On the Table’.” The number one reason (and appropriately so) for not including defense spending with the other budget items to be considered was this: Providing for the common defense is an obligation established by the Constitution.

If Congress is to carry out their elected duty and cut spending, they must start with each and every bureaucracy, entitlement, stimulus, bailout, and pork project. Only after this spending is cut should Constitutionally-mandated spending (such as defense) be considered (if it is even necessary anymore).

People may not agree whether our involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Korean Peninsula, and other places are necessary. And there may also be ways to cut wasteful defense spending without diminishing the strength of the military. But it is in the American people’s best interest to have the strongest, most powerful, most advanced, and best trained military on the planet in order to ensure our own peace and liberty.

To the newly elected Congress: slash spending, balance the budget, reduce the deficit, but also be sure to maintain a strong national defense.

Plain Punditry

If the above paragraph doesn’t make sense, there’s a reason for that. And no, it’s not because I’m making this up. The federal government has issued new regulations that will require nearly every street sign in the entire country to be replaced in the near future. (Don’t worry, this only applies to roads with speed limits over 25mph.) Why are these signs to be replaced? They are, allegedly, difficult to read and therefore, a safety concern.

How are the current street signs difficult to read? Apparently, street signs that are in all caps are harder to read. (SURE, ALL CAPS IS ANNOYING ON THE INTERNET, BUT STREET SIGNAGE IS NOT THE SAME THING.) The new signs will have to use upper and lower case letters. The minimum letter height is also being increased from 4” to 6”, and the regulations require that a new, special reflective vinyl be used for higher visibility.

But one thing that is not happening is the federal government paying for these new signs. Of course, there would be no way that the federal government could pay for every street sign in the country to be replaced. But, your tax dollars will still be paying for this as local governments will have to come up with the money to pay for this “much-needed” street sign improvement.

Working in the sign business myself, I have a pretty good understanding about what is involved in replacing street signs. The company I work for has made and installed a fairly good number of street signs locally in the past few years. Yet even these brand new signs will have to be replaced under the new regulations. Who gets to pay for that? You, the taxpayer.

And when you think about replacing street signs across the country (many of which are in perfectly good condition), the cost will be higher than it cost to get them originally. First, you have the larger letters, which will necessarily require a larger sign, which will cost more. Plus, the signs will have to use a special reflective vinyl so that they are more legible, which will also add to the cost. (3M is one of the few companies that makes this special reflective vinyl. They also funded the study that found that the current signs are a safety concern. Weird, huh?)

Now you may be thinking, since I work in the sign business, shouldn’t this be good for the company I work for? After all, this boost in sales could help offset the exploding cost of health insurance thanks to the new health care law.

It is true that this new set of regulations will mean more business for us sign-makers. But it’s only temporary. After the new street signs are up, then what? This is only a temporary infusion of tax dollars into this industry. That’s all the government can do – create temporary fixes through tax-payer funded projects. It is not a long-term solution.

What I would rather see is taxes being slashed and bureaucratic hurdles and red tape removed. Then perhaps, instead of replacing nearly every street sign in the country, companies like the one I work for could get work doing signs, banners, vehicle graphics, and other related jobs for existing businesses (that are currently sitting tight, uncertain of what the federal government will do next), new businesses (started by people who are hesitant to make the entrepreneurial plunge right now because it appears that the government has stacked the deck against small businesses), local governments (who choose to do projects that would be of real benefit to the ones they represent), and others. And we could continue to replace street signs according to local need, rather than federal mandate.

This is just another example of the current need to emphasize the 10th amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Matters like this are better left to local governments, rather than to a detached and corrupt federal government.

Here is the video from ABC’s Good Morning America segment that investigated these new regulations:

-Andy Sochor

Plain Punditry