It has been apparent for several years now that Obama disliked patriotic Americans especially if the believed in a Christian God and the US Constitution. Every since he took office he was moving closer and closer to being able to censor our thoughts and classify us, especially the Tea Party, as the real problem in America. I think this is the year it will all come together.
Tag Archives: EJ Social Justice
Firewall with Bill Whittle: Brass Tacks on Immigration
February 20, 2015 In his latest Firewall video entitled “Brass Tacks on Immigration” Bill Whittle takes on the issue of illegal immigration. As usual he hits this one out of the park.
Obama Suggests His Critics Are ‘Embracing the Terrorists’ Narrative’
I will agree that the biggest threat to America is a domestic citizen but sadly its president Obama that is the biggest threat to the country. But there is hope he only has 23 more months in office!ther is no doubt in my mind that with all that Obama is doing the republicans can run anyone it will not matter no Democrat will be able to win in 2016 after the damage that Obama has done.
I am the worst terrorist the United States will ever face!
Daily Quote 2.13.15
Well said!
George Will
” The primary goal of collectivism — of socialism in Europe and contemporary liberalism in America — is to enlarge governmental supervision of individuals’ lives. This is done in the name of equality. People are to be conscripted into one large cohort, everyone equal (although not equal in status or power to the governing class) in their status as wards of a self-aggrandizing government.”
—
Illegal Amnesty Is Drive For Permanent Democratic Majority
And there is little doubt that this loop hole will be put to good use by the Progressive Democrats!
Obama Amnesty Creates Loophole For Illegal Immigrants To Vote In Elections
” President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty will make it easier for illegal immigrants to improperly register and vote in elections, state elections officials testified to Congress on Thursday, saying that the driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers they will be granted create a major voting loophole.
While stressing that it remains illegal for noncitizens to vote, secretaries of state from Ohio and Kansas said they won’t have the tools to sniff out illegal immigrants who register anyway, ignoring stiff penalties to fill out the registration forms that are easily available at shopping malls, motor vehicle bureaus and in curbside registration drives.
Anyone registering to vote attests that he or she is a citizen, but Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted said mass registration drives often aren’t able to give due attention to that part, and so illegal…
View original post 8 more words
IRS Admits They Will Pay Refunds To Illegal Aliens Who Never Paid Taxes….
WOW in a few years the illegal aliens will own the country!
States Increasingly Turning To Nullification To Combat Federal Overreach
Right now Nullification based on the tenth amendment is the only way to stop the federal governments unconstitutional power grab short of arrmed rebellion which need to be avoided at all costs!
States Rise Up Against Washington
” State legislators around the country have introduced more than 200 bills aiming to nullify regulations and laws coming out of Washington, D.C., as they look to rein in the federal government.
The legislative onslaught, which includes bills targeting federal restrictions on firearms, experimental treatments and hemp, reflects growing discord between the states and Washington, state officials say.
“ You have a choice,” said Kentucky state Rep. Diane St. Onge (R). “To sit back and not do anything or say anything and let overregulation continue — or you have the alternative choice to speak up about it and say, ‘We know what you are doing or intend to do and we do not think that it is constitutional and we as a state are not going to stand for it.’ ”
Last month, St. Onge introduced H.B. 13 to nullify federal gun control…
View original post 140 more words
Political Correctness and the Last Man
By Paul Eidelberg
Those who say President Obama’s denial of “Islamic extremism” is mere “political correctness” are themselves guilty of “political correctness”; for to use that epithet to describe Obama is to use a euphemism for intellectual dishonesty.
Obama’s “political correctness” is nothing is less than flat out lying; but no journalist has the guts call Obama a liar.
Obama is not simply a fool, utterly ignorant of the truth. Nor is he simply stupid. Perhaps he has been tongue-tied by moral relativism, which denies the existence of truth. But to accuse him of being “politically correct” is a double entendre, as if he transcends dichotomy of ignorance and stupidity.
Be this as it may, it’s Obama’s moral relativism that made him an “empty suit.” During his first presidential campaign he called himself a “cosmopolitan” – call him a man without a country. But inasmuch the United States is the most powerful country in the world, a cosmopolitan like Obama would want to strip this country of its worldwide influence, especially in relation to Obama’s origin, the Third World. This may explain both his bowing to Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the spearhead of Sunni Islam, and his appeasement of Iran, the spearhead of Shiite Islam.
However, since Obama is a multicultural moral relativist, one may wonder how he can logically favor any ideology. But why should this “empty suit” be logically consistent? Logical consistency would contradict Islamic theology, which posits the absolute and arbitrary Will of Islam’s deity, Allah. This is why Islamic theology rejects the Genesis concept of man’s creation in the image of God, which involves the primacy of Reason.
Enter the Taliban, the Muslims who believe that “reason stinks of corruption.” By rejecting reason, these guardians of the faith have no limits on what they may say or do. This Islamic mentality is consistent with the refusal of Obama to denounce “radical” Islam or Islamic “extremism,” let alone as “evil.”
To associate Islam with evil would belie Obama’s moral relativism. It would also place in question his appointing to the Executive branch members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Even more ominous, ponder his appointment of multiculturalists to the lifelong tenure of the American Supreme Court. This cannot but hasten the demise of America, of the Pax Americana, which saved Europe from Nazi and Communist totalitarianism, and which alone can save Western Civilization from Islamic totalitarianism.
This is not to suggest that Obama is animated by aggressive grandiose ambitions. He is no Hitler or Stalin or a Saladin.
He is indeed an empty suit, a politician history has belched out to display the decadence and final stage of Democratic Man. Ortega called this empty suit the “mass man.” Nietzsche called him the “Last Man,” a man devoid of any noble aspiration, of whom Flaubert said would make any man of taste want to vomit!
The trouble is that this vacuous human being, who harbors a hatred of Western Civilization, is shielding Iran, the spearhead of Islam. Iran’s acquisition of ballistic nuclear missiles would have grave implications for Israel and America, the two standards bearers of all that we cherish for ourselves and posterity.
Solving Basic Public Problems
By Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Habit, no less than reason, is what prompts people to blame the head of their government or its ruling party for failure to solve basic public problems. I say “habit” because if you live in a long-established regime, you are not likely to blame its form of government for its inept foreign policies or its serious socio-economic and moral problems. It’s much easier to denounce the failings of your president or his party. And more “practical” because it’s far more difficult to change established institutions than to elect a new president or replace the party in power with another.
Few people in a democracy discern or trouble themselves about the defects of their system of governance. Fewer still see the relationship between faulty government policies and their country’s electoral laws. Most people take their governing institutions and electoral laws for granted.
Nevertheless, many basic problems are the result of unrecognized flaws in a country’s law-making and policy-making institutions. The attributes of institutions — the qualifications for voting and holding office, the mode of election, the size, tenure, and powers of the various branches — can either increase or decrease the probability of getting competent office-holders on the one hand, and facilitate salutary public policies on the other.
I have elsewhere shown that Israel’s Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches are poorly designed. They render it extremely difficult to pursue policies conducive to national solidarity, self-confidence, and security. Although more and more people in Israel are learning this, basic institutional or constitutional change is very difficult, and for various reasons.
First, and as indicated, most people find it simpler to blame the failings of this or that politician or party for their country’s plight, rather than the design of their system of governance. Second, political parties and various economic groups, having learned how to exploit and profit from the system, have a vested interests in preserving the institutional status quo. Third, Israel’s precarious situation in the Middle East discourages others from venturing on basic institutional reform. Fourth, there are many people who do not see that it is precisely the defects of Israel’s political and judicial institutions that are largely responsible for the country’s internal and external dangers.
For example, it’s easier to say that the government is inept, or that it ignores public opinion, than to see that the country’s parliamentary electoral laws may discourage high caliber individuals from seeking public office, while making it easier for low caliber politicians to remain in office and betray their voters.. Very few people in a democracy have the professional training to recognize that its electoral laws may be largely responsible for inferior leadership and even official corruption. But electoral laws very much determine not only the extent to which a government is democratic and faithful to the electorate, but capable of advancing to public office men capable of dealing effectively with the country’s basic tensions and dangers.
Consider. Democracy means the rule of the people, which translates into the rule of the majority. The rule of the majority means the opinion of the majority on this or that public issue. Knowing this opinion, Legislators have an obligation to translate that opinion into public law, or, in the case of the Executive, to apply existing law in conformity with public opinion. Although this is a simplified view of things, it corresponds to the idea of representative government. Admittedly, public opinion on a particular issue is not necessarily correct or just. But there are occasions when public opinion actually represents the basic principles of any decent or civilized society. Here is an example.
On May 31, 1994, eight months after the signing of the Israel-PLO Accords, the following question was posed to Hebrew-speaking Israelis in a Gallop poll: “There are those who claim that senior PLO officials, such as Arafat and others who are suspected of murdering Israelis, should not be put on trial, because such an action would probably damage the peace process. There are others who claim that everyone is equal before the law, and therefore suspected PLO officials should be investigated and put on trial. Which claim do you support?”
Almost 66% of the population, including 59% of Labor voters, held that senior PLO officials should be put on trial even though it might damage the peace process! From this data one may conclude that the Rabin or Labor-led government of 1994 did not faithfully represent the public’s attitude toward the policy of “territory for peace” – which perhaps may also be said of every succeeding Israeli government! Even if many Israelis are resigned to that policy, it does not accord with their deepest and abiding convictions. They are simply following their “leaders,” having no leader with wisdom and courage enough to offer a viable alternative. So much should be obvious.
But it should also be obvious that if Israel’s political institutions and electoral laws were designed in such a way as to render Israeli politicians more dependent on public opinion, the September 13, 1993 Israel-PLO Agreement would never have taken place, indeed, would have been implemented even partially! The same may be said of the 2004 Evacuation Law, which Ariel Sharon virtually imposed on the Knesset despite the fact that the policy embodied in that law—“unilateral disengagement”— was rejected by an overwhelming majority of the public in the 2003 election.
If MKs were dependent not on their party leaders but on the voters for their continuance in office, Oslo would not have occurred and Israel would not be in its present mess. But as we see, Israel’s political elites can ignore public opinion with impunity, which places in question the widespread belief that Israel is a genuine democracy – however democratic it may appear in comparison with its Arab neighbors. Imagine Netanyahu boasting of this comparison when he addresses the Congress of the United States!
In any event, to transform Israel into genuine democracy will require fundamental changes in Israel’s institutions and electoral laws. Merely to replace one Prime Minister with another will not solve Israel’s basic problems.
Centinel2012 