Behind the Scenes at the UN

Diana West has a syndicated column up entitled The Anti-Blasphemy, Anti-First Amendment President that explores in more detail the President's UN Speech last week. Go read the article in full. She connects the dots between the Presidents speech, full of code words, and the behind the scenes action.

One of the things you need to understand about Islam is the type of reasoning used in Islam. I'll let Ms. West explain:

Of course, the Islam-Christianity comparison isn’t a perfect match, given the peculiar definition of “slander” under Islamic law (Shariah). According to such authoritative sources as “Reliance of the Traveller,” a standard Sunni law book approved by Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, “slander” in Islam includes anything Muslims perceive to reflect badly on Islam and its prophet, including the truth. In other words, any negative fact about Islam and Muhammad is, under Islamic law, deemed “slander.”

In the same way, the Koran does indeed seem to admonish Muslims to wage only defensive wars. But since not believing in Allah and Islam is sufficient to constitute aggression against Muslims, they are free to wage war on anyone anywhere at anytime. Problem solved!  Most of Islamic reasoning is like this, such that if you showed that Allah is not a god, but our Lord's opposer, then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.  They can only maintain their totalitariam system by oppression and terrorism.

In my younger days as an engineer, I considered working for a year with ARAMCO, the Arabian, American Oil Company. It was paying seemingly incredible sums for engineers to come to Saudi Arabia for a year and work. I was tempted. Then I talked to someone coming back. He told a story of an American who was driving a car, and was hit in the rear end by a Saudi driving another car. When they went to court, the Saudi won, even though at fault. It seems that since if the American had not been there (by implication, where he didn't belong) the Saudi driver would not have hit him. Therefore, it was clearly the American's fault. One can see easily enough how such "legal" reasoning will go. I decided to stay home.

So, our President is indeed endorsing Islam, and raising it above Christianity and Judaism, and presumably the Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, Wiccans and various animists as well. In the process, he is betraying our First Amendment, once so jealously guarded by our legacy media, but now, not so much. The question is why?

Sharia law and our Constitutional law are wholly incompatible.  You can have one, or the other, but not both.  Recognize how dangerous this is for Constitutionalists.  If we are to preserve the Constitution, we can not allow Muslims to reach the tipping point in the country, which has been estimated at 3% of the population.  Living in a Muslim country where Sharia is enforced is like living in Nazi Germany, only now Allah is the Fuhrer.  There are plenty of holy men around to tell you what to wear, what and when to eat, when to pray, and pretty much everything else about your daily life.  Do they sound like liberals?  And of course, Obama and company would naturally be our earthly rulers, now protected against anything that might embarrass them.  Oh, and you better go to Friday prayers whether you want to or not.  You see, it's not about what you believe, or don't believe, as long as you conform to the outward picture of a pious Muslim and shut up.

Update:  Ok, if we understand why our elites seem to like Islam, why do liberals seem to love it?  They are always yammering on about diversity, gay rights, the environment, women's rights, and so on.  In particular, you might think the women's rights movement and the gay movement would have real problems with Islam.  But not a peep. Interestingly, Muslims feel entitled to be superior to other men (remember that they consider women to be like cattle) and become infuriated when you do not recognize their obvious superiority, rather like Muhammad himself. The Pact of Umar supposedly set the standard for all future treaties between Muslims and conquered peoples, and it clearly shows that Muslims are the ones in charge. But this piece at the American Thinker makes it very clear. Because they feel entitled to respect and to be the superior ones, each apology, each appeasement, only raises their ire.  

Is President Establishing Religion?

I scratch my head every time I note that the godless Left seems to be in bed with the Islamists in trying to bring down the United States of America. But I am slowly figuring it out. At first, I thought the Left believed that they could use the Islamists, and once they were done taking over, they could kill them all, and be done with it. As it turns out, they seem to look upon Islam as more to their liking than Christianity, and seem to be yearning to become Muslims themselves. Why do you think that is?

I also often wonder about the atheists who get so offended by a mere mention of God (it is not his name, but merely his title). They go around taking down crosses, no matter how much history those crosses represent. They go about demanding that the 10 Commandments not be written on courthouse walls, lest they might have to see them. Oh, and Christmas has them in a tizzy as the try to eliminate Nativity Scenes, and Menorahs, and get cities to change the name of their trees to "winter holiday tree." But so far, not a peep as the President seems to endorse Islam. Could it be they know it isn't really a religion, but a totalitarian governing system?

The President, of whom it has been said that he is a Muslim himself, made some disturbing remarks to the United Nations this week. You can find some discussion of these remarks at Hot Air. So far, so good. But then the President had to say:

"The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam!"

As reported at Hope n' Change

Really, Barry? Really...?! Let's pause a moment to chew on that - and the fact that the president was allegedly, at some point, schooled in law and the specificity of legal language.

Which is why he should know that an offensive video (or cartoon, or book by Salman Rushdie) would be an example of libel...not slander.

No, slander applies very specifically to the spoken word. Which means B. Hussein's statement isn't directed at (or limited to) editorial criticism of Islam which occurs in video or print...it means that the president of the United States envisions a future with no room for those who dare to say bad things about the Prophet of Islam.

And it doesn't take much of a logical leap to realize that simply expressing doubt over Muhammed's status as a prophet could be seen as the most unacceptable slander of all.

In a system where we all have freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, what makes the "Prophet of Islam" so special. When an "artist" can offend millions of pious believers around the world with his blasphemous picture of Piss Christ, with no repercussions, what do the Muslims think makes them any more immune to offense than anyone else?  We Christians were surely scandalized by that picture, but we survived.

What, one wonders, are the Muslims afraid of? Could it be that inquiry into their beloved "prophet" might reveal that he was a phony, a fake? That is, if he existed at all?  The Christian church puts up with inquiries into the life of Jesus, and into biblical archeology because we have found that such inquiries lead often to the truth, and knowing the truth makes us stronger.  Never mind the Appeaser in Chief, he is not the Church, and I doubt he is a Christian either.  But really, what are Muslims afraid of?  Are they afraid that Islam will be shown up for what it is?  Namely, a system of control over the peoples of the earth?  I will have more to say after I get through studying the Koran

Update:  On a related topic, over at Way Up North. But it is not just for the Jews. He is coming for Christians too.

Update 2:  Sultan Knish has a very excellent post up over at his blog. The interesting part:

The multicultural Muslim world has imported its own competing form of multiculturalism to Europe, Australia, America and Canada. So far its multiculturalism appears to be more potent than the local secular variety because despite being a third-rate bastardized version of Christianity and Judaism, with some tribal customs and pagan elements mixed in, it's still more vital than the thin gruel that the progressives feed their people to keep them occupied while they dig deeper into positions of power.

I wish I was that eloquent.

Our Lawless Unjustice Department

I have only read excerpts so far of the long awaited IG report on the Fast and Furious scandal, but the Gun Owners of America done a more complete analysis, and their findings are interesting to be sure. Meanwhile the media is reporting that Holder has been cleared. This report from CBS is fairly typical.

I was struck that nobody seems to be holding Eric Holder to the "reasonable man" standard. In this case, the reasonable man standard would ask "what would a reasonable Attorney General do in such a situation?" Certainly, a "reasonable" Attorney General would have read any memorandums coming to him. A "reasonable" Attorney General might decide that the guns could not be reasonably traced and fired some individuals, while taking administrative action against others. A "reasonable" Attorney General would have put an immediate stop to the gun walking as soon as guns were lost, and not resumed until the guns could be traced to the ultimate buyer. A "reasonable" Attorney General"...but we are not dealing with a "reasonable" Attorney General, are we? No, in this case, we are dealing with an official who wanted to maintain "plausible deniability" for actions of his subordinates. But that brings us to the next thing.

When one is in charge of a department, one has to accept responsibility for the actions of one's subordinates, whether or not those actions were personally known. That's because as a "reasonable" Attorney General, one would be expected to have procedures in place to ensure one knows what goes on in one's department.  Even if the actions of those subordinates truly was to run a sting operation that went horrible wrong, and even if Holder knew absolutely nothing about what was going on with Fast and Furious by his subordinates, it speaks to his poor judgement and poor management skills that he appointed and allowed to operate unsupervised, people who would break the law to enforce the law.

M. Catherine Evans had it right at the American Thinker where she penned Guilty as Sin, Free as a Bird. Ms. Evans writes:

That the AG didn't know about this far reaching program before February 2011 is only believable if one concedes Holder is a bumbling novice unfamiliar with the rule of law. Holder is no rookie. He's been breaking the rules for a long time as chronicled by many writers here at American Thinker...

Skirting the rules is one thing, but this was lawlessness on a massive scale, that resulted in the murders of perhaps 300 Mexicans and at least two Federal Agents. That sort of thing can not stand.

We Live in Two Separate Countries

Much is being made of the incestuous relationship between the DOJ and Media Matters. The Daily Caller rightfully has the scoop, as they were the ones who placed the FOIA request. Some of the specific e-mails mention Mike Vanderboegh by name, one of the citizen journalists, along with David Codrea, who brought the Fast and Furious scandal to the world's attention.

Mike decided to e-mail back to Media Matters blogger Matthew Gertz. Mike Vanderboegh of the Sipsey Street Irregulars is ever a good writer, and an excellent story teller, might I even say a racontuer, and his response to Matt Gertz of Media Matters is telling. The relevant portion is here:

I note with interest your 2 November 2011 statement to the DOJ wicked witch of cover-ups, Tracy Schmaler, that I'm "about three inches away from being an insurrectionist." I think you need a new ruler. It is not insurrection to resist a nascent collectivist tyranny which is itself in insurrection against the Constitution and the Founder's Republic. I am a fighter for Restoration, not insurrection. Of course it is silly to pretend that we share a country anymore. The inhabitants of your country believe that the people should serve the government, whereas we believe with the Founders that government should serve the people. Like I said, two different countries.

The emphasis is mine.  It is possible that you might read past this little, elegant passage, and miss its importance.  One of the themes to come out of the Democratic National Convention this year was the notion that Government is the only thing we all belong to. Again, you could miss the ominousness of this slogan if you equate, as you are intended to, the government with such voluntary memberships as the Masons or the Lion's Club. But make no mistake, they are trying to suggest that you and I belong to government.  The Founders' vision, on the other hand, intended for government to belong to you and me.  The difference could not be more profound, and the stakes could not be higher.

If you and I belong to government, then government can do whatever it wants with us.  The owner of a thing can use it, or dispose of it as he pleases.  It is this notion that somehow the government owns us that led, for example, to laws on the books that permitted the sterilization of the "unfit" and of disapproved racial groups. At the link, you can go to the individual States to see the horrors perpetrated by the collectivists in your State. You can only imagine what a government who thinks it owns you might have in store when you are no longer able to work and supply the State with its mother's milk, taxes. But the President already gave you the answer, take a pain pill and go home (to die already.)

Mike speaks of a "nascent collective tyranny."  Perhaps, but it has its foot "pedal to the metal" to complete that tyranny as fast as possible.  Already, the Congress has been made somewhat irrelevant, with the help of Majority Leader Harry Reid.  The House can pass what it wants, but it will never see a floor vote in the Senate, which leaves Obama free, in his own mind, to rule by Executive Order.  One man rule may be defined as a functioning dictatorship, call it what you will.  One wonders when we will be required to give the fascist salute whenever two people meet.

The Founders left us with a Constitution that put much of the social and cultural affairs of the nation out of reach of the Federal government, leaving most of that to the States, or to the people. It was a relatively weak government of limited powers. This November we will have a choice, though not the choice I would have wanted.  On the one hand, you can continue down the path of "nascent collectivist tyranny" or you can choose to begin rebuilding the Constitution.  Of course, keep your powder dry, and your stocks of food and ammunition up.  this will be a long fight, perhaps a generational fight.  It will require more than just voting of course.  But it is a fight worth having: either the government owns us, or we own the government.  Take your pick.

The MSM, As Liberal as Ever

The liberal, leftist bias of the mainstream media (MSM) such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC is well known by now. Bernie Goldberg has written about it in his book Bias. In Goldberg's telling, the press doesn't consist of bad people, necessarily, but they are victims of group think. Because everyone around them is also liberal, the notion that ideas outside the liberal group think milieu they swim in could be true horrifies them. Rush Limbaugh yesterday espoused a similar idea when he noted that many CEOs were profoundly liberal, yet ran their lives and their businesses like a conservative. The disconnect had puzzled him for years. Then he realized that Freud had propounded late in life that the main driver of man was a need to be respected by those he considered important to him. Thus, if his wife, or members of his board of directors, or members his country club are liberal, chances are he will also espouse liberal views.

All that is very interesting, and explains why a Warren Buffet might come out and make statements that clearly go against his own interests. But more and more, people are expressing a view to me that I have felt myself. Namely, that despite the failures of this regime on so many levels, whether it be economic, foreign policy, the budget, or the numerous acts of lawlessness committed by this regime, it seems as if Obama might well win a second term. It looks for all the world that Romney/Ryan is going to lose, and I can't figure out why? In spite of running a tepid campaign, most people should be aware that a second term for Obama would leave this country so weakened, in the throws of a depression so profound that we might never recover from it. But at least half the country appears ready to bring it on. What is wrong with these people?  Could it be that the MSM has been covering up some of those failures, and making the actions of the regime seem better than they are?

The answer may lie in an article at the Patriot Update by Jan Morgan entitled Mainstream Media AGENDA driven...not TRUTH driven A quote from Ms. Morgan:

The mainstream media has a documented history of liberal slant which is understandable since a majority of their correspondents are liberals and vote democratic. In one poll, Washington correspondents declared that they voted Democratic 93 percent to 7 percent, while the nation is split about 50-50.

This statistic, in addition to the obvious bias in their coverage convinced me that many reporters for CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and CNN write with a liberal filter. Tim Groseclose writes in his book, “Left Turn”, that this liberal slant is also have an impact on voting habits of Americans who listen depend on these media outlets for their news. Groseclose says, “Using objective, social-scientific methods, the filtering prevents us from seeing the world as it actually is. Instead, we see only a distorted version of it. It is as if we see the world through a glass—a glass that magnifies the facts that liberals want us to see and shrinks the facts that conservatives want us to see.” He adds: “That bias makes us more liberal, which makes us less able to detect the bias, which allows the media to get away with more bias, which makes us even more liberal.”

A recent example can be found in the riots taking place in Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere around the middle east, in which the precipitating factor is a supposed video that apparently has been seen by about 10 people. The video was so shrouded in mystery, that the media for the first day had no idea what video the regime was referring to. Supposedly the perpetually outraged Muslims became inflamed because of this video, and like little children threw a tantrum that resulted in the death of our Libyan Ambassador and three others.

Now, anyone with the most meager of critical thinking skills will note that this all started on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, and that the date might, just might have something to do with Muslims rioting. Yet, despite more and more evidence coming out that the entire affair was preplanned, and that the killing of our Ambassador was one of the goals, the MSM continues to utter the meme that the rioting is all about a video.

In the 1950s and the 1960s, and even in the 1970s, the MSM would have gotten away with telling a lie, and repeating that lie until most of the people believed it to be the truth. With the invention of the Internet (thank you AlGore) people have more places to get their news. Some of these places do indeed express views that are hard to corroborate. But if one is careful, one can find news outlets that shape a more realistic outlook on world events. It is entirely possible that the elections will be a November Referendum on the Liberal Media (read the whole article, by Lee Cary over at the American Thinker) as much as it is a referendum on this regime. Update: I recommend reading Musings After Midnight bythe Welshman of the Liberty Sphere. Its a highly readable statement of where we are today.

Court Issues Permanent Injunction against NDAA, Regime Will Ignore Court

In an article posted at Monachus Lex, John Pierce tells us that a Judge has issued a permanent injunction against the National Defense Authorization Act. Go read the whole article. By the way, I found the article courtesy of Keep and Bear Arms, an indispensable site that should be on every one's daily reading list.

The NDAA is a bill that is passed every year, to actually authorize the spending that is approved by the appropriations process. I have no problem with authorization in general. What I find reprehensible, and lawless is a key provision of this year's bill that authorizes the indefinite detainment of American citizens anywhere in the world, including on American soil, without a warrant, without charges, and presumably without habeas corpus. The bill was passed by a majority of 86 senators, including McCain, Lindsay Grahamnesty, Marco Rubio, Burr...well, you can read it for yourself. How could so many supposedly freedom loving Republicans vote for such a monstrosity? Who were they aiming for with such a broad brush? Since the law allows individuals to be detained indefinitely, without being charged and without benefit of a lawyer, how do we know that the provisions of the NDAA have not already been used?

That the regime intends to ignore the Court's permanent injunction is yet more worrisome. Just as God's covenant with Abraham was binding on both God and man, so the Government can not exempt itself from the law. In this case, a duly authorized court has ruled against it. It may appeal to a higher court, but it can not simply ignore the ruling. Otherwise, it risks setting anarchy in motion.

The Biblical Case for Self Defense

Once again I find myself frustrated that after all the ink spilled by so many thoughtful people about the God given right to self defense, that someone writes drivel like today's featured letter to the editor of the Lakeland Florida Ledger, "Claim of Modern Need For Guns in Home Simply Not Supported."  I can not, for the life of me, figure out why such half baked ideas are printed by an editorial page, when there are so many erudite opinions that support gun ownership out there.  While the Bible makes abundantly clear that the act of murder is against God's purposes, self defense is an exception. Exodus 22:2 makes that pretty clear.

To the first point, that we no longer have Redcoats breaking down our doors:  So? Could our own government not decide that We the People don't matter, and that all that does matter is that they stay in power? What? It can't happen here? Interestingly, Governor Bev Purdue of North Carolina has proposed the suspension of elections as a trial balloon. She was roundly criticized, but I believe it was at the request of someone in the Administration.

Here's one scenario. Let's say we elect a House, a Senate, and a President. The new Congress sets about writing a bill that a majority of Americans oppose, and that is not within the Constitutional powers delegated to the Congress. Let's say that in the middle of this bill being debated, a Senator of the majority party in the Senate dies, and a special election is held. Let's say that the candidate for the minority party campaigns on stopping this bill, and he wins the election. But the majority party will have its way, and through kick backs and special deals to various Senators for their States, manages to pass the bill. The majority party in the House threatens to not pass the bill, reading the mood of the country, but ultimately it is deemed passed, and the President signs it. During the debate, questions of Constitutionality are waived off with "are you serious?"  The Speaker of the House even tells us they'll have to pass the bill so we can know what it contains.

The now law is taken before the Supreme Court, where at the last moment, a novel theory prevails, such that the law is declared Constitutional, despite the fact that the theory depends of the law imposing a tax instead of a mandate. But tax laws, according to the Constitution, must originate in the House, so that the theory is essentially flawed. Would you consider such a law an intolerable act? What if the people then elected one who vowed to repeal this unpopular law, but the President refused to recognize the validity of the election. Can't happen? Well, just to be sure, a lot of people will hang on to their guns.  Such a scenario was one, but only one, of the reasons the Second Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights, and human nature has not changed in 223 years.  Defending against a government that wishes to dictate to you what you will believe, as the government is attempting to do to Catholic institutions as we speak, is self defense.

Our author then claims that she can find no text in the Bible authorizing self defense.  Hmmm.  I suspect she hasn't looked hard enough, or she would have found Exodus 22:2.  The story of Cain killing Abel, his brother, certainly tells us that God does not approve of murder.  And the Sixth Commandment plainly says "You shall not murder" (not you shall not kill.)  But then we have in Genesis 14 Abram, later to become Abraham, taking 318 men in pursuit of Lot's captors, and slaying them.  What to make of that?  I think it means that if a loved one is in danger from an attacker, and we are in a position to stop it, that we may do so with God's blessing. In the very next chapter, Abram becomes Abraham, and God makes his covenant with him.  And while Jesus did say to love your enemies and pray for them, what to make of  Luke 22:36 where he says to sell your tunic to buy a sword.  Reading between the lines here, I take it to mean that we are to defend ourselves if brought under lethal attack through no fault of our own.

God's greatest gift to us is our lives.  To fail to defend our lives is to spit on God's greatest gift.  To fail to defend others when we have the power to do so is also to spit on God's gift.  The most effective tool we have to accomplish that is a gun.