The Nuts are With Us

The last few weeks have brought the nuts out of the woodwork. Nuts of every race, color, creed, and ideology. And, I’m horrified to admit that more than a few of them were on my side. 


After Seal Team 6, in a covert operation, infiltrated a compound in Pakistan, we received the news that Osama Bin Laden had been found and killed. In an address that offered little more than passing thanks to the U.S. Military, President Obama stood up before the world and accepted both the responsibility and the credit for this mission and its success.


The uproar began almost immediately. There were those who were outraged when it came to light that Bin Laden was given a respectful burial at sea including passages from the Koran being read over his body. On one Facebook page I saw comments that ranged from people wishing he had been doused with lighter fluid and burned to those who wanted to see his head mounted on a pike. Some suggested that he should have been wrapped in pig skin, or that he should have been dismembered and tossed overboard to the sharks. One even went so far as to announce that all mini marts would be closed the next day due to a death in the family.


The reason for this sentiment is obvious - Bin Laden was the driving force behind the most heinous terrorist attacks on American soil. He was responsible for September 11, 2001. And if it were him dealing with American prisoners, we know that fairness and mercy would not play any part. Americans want him to pay for that. 


The fact of the matter is, he is paying for that. Justice belongs to the Lord. (In this case it may have been expedited by the American military.) 


But beyond that, Americans get upset when the bodies of soldiers are desecrated because it is treatment they do not deserve. If we were to act our vengeance out on his body, the next time someone defiled the body of an American soldier we would no longer be able to claim that the action was undeserved. As Americans we do not treat others the way that we do because it is what they deserve. We do it because we hold ourselves to a higher standard even when we’ve been struck down, hurt or crippled. After all, if we sink to their level and treat their bodies the way they would treat ours - or even the way we would like to sometimes - then we are no better than those we guard ourselves against. If we stoop to racist statements and actions (such as the comment about the mini marts), then how can we stand outraged when those who oppose us politically call us racists?


There were others who, as I did, took issue with the way that President Obama handled the situation. He gave a short statement concerning the event, and though he offered a brief thanks to the military, he basically took sole credit for the outcome. He did not, as some thought he should, offer thanks to George W. Bush or his administration for their tireless efforts in this particular task prior to his taking office.


Why should he have thanked George W. Bush? The information that ultimately led to American forces pinpointing Osama Bin Laden’s location, according to Obama’s own Leon Panetta, was procured using enhanced interrogation techniques. In short, it came from one of the three men who were water boarded at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Interestingly enough, during the Obama administration, no one was water boarded. In fact, by Presidential mandate, all enhanced interrogation was stopped. Which means that the information that led to Seal Team 6’s successful mission came from… the George W. Bush Administration. When Obama took office in 2009, all he did was allow the mission that had already begun (to search for Osama Bin Laden) to continue.


What concerned me further is the fact that many of the people who were upset with the way Obama handled things were making that information known in tones that were less than civil. A new rash of people referred to Obama as a Muslim himself, and suggested that he had only allowed Bin Laden to be killed to further the Muslim agenda. Some claimed that he had known where Bin Laden was for months but was waiting to make the kill when it could help him most in the favorability polls. Still others simply hurled profanities and epithets in the President’s direction, calling him things like “Obummer.” 


What they don’t realize is that the cameras are always on. Every time a conservative makes a comment that is racist, we are all painted with that brush, and rightfully so. Every time a Christian speaks out in anger and pain, we are all blanketed in the hatred they release. Every time they open their mouths and allow words of that caliber to slip free, they chip away at the credibility of those who choose to educate themselves rather than retaliate in anger. 

Shut it down - see what it gets ya.

If the parties can't agree on a budget by the end of this week, the government will run out of money and will therefore be effectively shut down. There has been much discussion on this topic from both sides of the aisle, mainly because a government shutdown could stop all pay and benefits to active and retired military members. In light of this, Republicans have proposed a short term agreement that includes all military pay through the end of the fiscal year - an agreement that was quickly rejected by the Democrats and the White House. Confused, I began to ask myself why Democrats would support a government shutdown that included the stoppage of military pay and benefits? And I stumbled upon a few simple, if devious, answers.

First, the Democrats could be attempting to hold military pay hostage. It's no secret that Republicans are more vocally pro-military and are more likely to make concessions in order to ensure that soldiers and their families are taken care of. The Democrats may believe that they can ransom military pay in exchange for other budget items that they find favorable.

Second, they may be laboring under the delusion that the military will turn 180 en masse and blame the Republicans if a shutdown causes a stoppage in military pay. The military in general skews right, and the Democrats may be using this to turn them away from the Republicans in time for the 2012 election season.

And third, if there is such a shutdown, when a budget is finally agreed upon, all military members and beneficiaries will receive all the back pay they are owed. The Democrats may be hoping that, with a little help from their friends in the mainstream media, they can jump in and claim responsibility for finally righting all the wrongs and reclaiming what rightfully belongs to the military from the evil, greedy Republicans who don't care if children starve while their fathers and mothers defend our freedom.

The problem is that the military is not completely comprised of idiots. They know that Republicans generally fight for the military. Thanks to Facebook and a recent cut-and-paste status update, they are all aware that when President Obama is left to make budget decisions on his own, welfare recipients get larger pay raises than soldiers. And if they are paying attention to current events, they know that the Republicans are the ones pushing for  a temporary budget agreement that includes covering all military pay and benefits for the entire fiscal year - and they also know that the President and the Democrats in Congress have rejected that proposal.

So bring it on, Democrats. Bring on the government shutdown that you think will be your saving grace. But when I get my benefits in back pay, I'll be thanking the Republicans. First, for standing strong as America demanded last November, and second, for supporting the military at every turn rather than using them as a pawn for political gains.

Real women of the world...learn to spell.

A few weeks ago, in the midst of the news of political crisis in Egypt and Libya and the earthquake and tsunami disasters in Japan, President Obama informed the world that what we really needed to do was pay a little more attention to Women's History Month. 

Beyond thinking him politically tone deaf for choosing that moment to discuss something as trivial as Women's History Month while the world goes to hell around us, I didn't dwell on it much. I have classes to attend, and a husband and children who occasionally demand my attention and my time. 

But then last week at school (Southern Illinois University Edwardsville) I happened past a bulletin board in the hallway near one of my classes. It read "Celebrate Womyn's Herstory Month!" I nearly cried. Ladies, who else is offended by this?

First, I would like to make the point that no amount of Political Correctness is worth spelling THAT BAD. "Womyn?" Really?

Second, the word "history" is not the rumored misogynistic "study of man" at all, but comes from the Greek "istoria," which means "to learn by investigation."

And third, it makes women's rights activists look as desperate as they are - do they really believe that the only way to make a visible impact on this world as a woman is to change words around until they get noticed?

But what really bothers me is what will eventually get me crucified by NOW (the National Organization for Women). They support these alternate spellings and such because they believe that women have been oppressed by men since the beginning of time, and that they finally have the chance to step out into the spotlight and be the unique women that they are. Not that I disagree that women are unique - I believe that we are absolutely unique, and that what we have to offer the world can never be offered by men. But I also believe that our true worth and beauty is most visible when it is held up alongside men rather than when it is bullied forth in an attempt to subvert our "oppressors." When women push themselves to the forefront to drown out all of the evil men, they all become the same. After all, how can you glorify the uniqueness of women if there is no male counterpart with which to compare? 

We are our most effective, most beautiful, as partners, not as bullies. 

And for Heaven's sake, let's not let our spelling suffer for the sake of a little recognition.

Where is the line between outreach and worship?

Several conversations over the past week have all ended up in the same concept: should Christians, and the church as a whole, strive to meet people halfway for the sake of outreach and conversion? The answer, I think, is no. 


This is not to say that the church should not engage in outreach, only that it should not confuse outreach and worship. In worship, the function of the church is to bring like-minded believers together. Outreach is an attempt to reach the people with what they need in order to bring them into the fold. If the line between outreach and worship is blurred, the things that originally brought those like-minded believers together - such as the traditional liturgy and closed communion - begin to be compromised. And though you may be reaching more people and bringing them in to your church, you are bringing them into a watered-down fold that has compromised its core principles. In effect, you can be losing your church even as you grow it.


So I ask myself what Martin Luther himself would say. And I find it difficult to believe that he would support the compromise of the worship service or of the sacrament for the sake of conversion(s). Why? Because conversion is the work of God, not man. If a man is going to be brought to Christ, but only if we are willing to change the way we worship, then how real can his conversion be? 

Can you even BE a racist if you aren't white?

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/27/texas-group-offers-scholarships-to-white-men-only/?a_dgi=aolshare_facebook


A white male student, after attempting to find scholarships and batting zero, created a scholarship that would help those like himself in the often overlooked demographic: white males. 


Of course, most people are crying racist, but that's because Americans are conditioned to believe that it's only racism if it is perpetrated by whites against other groups. In fact, just recently a group at the University of California Davis was forced after legal scrutiny to remove the following definitions from its charter: 
Racism - white people discriminating against anyone who is not white.
Religious persecution - Christians discriminating against anyone who is not a Christian.


On the surface, it may seem like a racist thing to do - to offer a scholarship opportunity only to white males. But unfortunately, when you take into account Affirmative Action, the group is right on target in saying that white men are being neglected. It was an old joke in the Army - the best way to get passed over for promotion is to be white, male, and good at your job. Because of the litigious nature of our society everyone is so terrified to take a step that might irritate a minority that the majority is all but overlooked. If you can get a scholarship simply on the basis of Hispanic or African American descent, it's ludicrous to attack a group that offers the same scholarship simply on the basis of Caucasian descent.


The tables have turned, but the laws have stayed the same. Affirmative Action, which was purported to be the great equalizer, has worn out its welcome in a very real way. Instead of balancing the workforce, it has created new depths to which racism in America can sink. Affirmative Action claims to level the playing field so that minorities in the workplace can get a fair shake. But in reality, it promotes the idea that without some kind and compassionate legal maneuvering, those minorities would not have what it takes, they would never be good enough or qualified enough or smart enough on their own to compete with whites. Affirmative Action lets the minorities know that the only reason they are allowed to play with the white kids is that the government stepped in and forced them to allow it.


Discrimination against whites happens everyday, and no one takes notice. Five students at a San Fransisco school wore American flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo last year. At least two of them were Hispanic. The Principal ordered them to either change their shirts or go home because the fact that they wore American flags to an American public school was considered offensive.

And just a little more food for thought: in American public schools, African Americans are taught to be proud of their roots. Hispanics are taught to be proud of their heritage. Asians, Arabs, American Indians, all are taught that they should be proud of their ancestry. White students, in contrast, are taught that they should embrace all of these other groups but are never taught that they too should be proud of their own European ancestors.

Or try this analogy on for size: suppose you grow up with one sibling. At every meal you get enough to eat, but your sister is allowed a second helping. You get to attend school, but your sister is allowed to participate in extracurricular activities. Your parents agree to pay $10,000 for your wedding, but they fork out $50,000 for your sister. In no way have you been deprived of anything you need, therefore your parents were not discriminating *against* you. However, they have been discriminating *in favor of* your sister. It's the same thing in racial politics today. It's not that whites are actively discriminated against, only that concessions are made for minorities that would not be made if the person on the receiving end was white.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/opinion/20blow.html

In the above article, NYT columnist Charles Blow quotes a poll that claims that more and more white American conservatives are claiming to be the victims of racism. And then, of course, he explains to you how it's impossible for white people to be the victims of racism, simply because they are...wait for it...white.

What's funny to me is that he is simply jumping onto the liberal bandwagon of defining eligibility for victimhood by skin color and crying racism at people who refuse to do so.

However, if I walk down the street, an African American can call me "cracker," and a gay man can label me a "homophobe." They can do this without reason, and if I so much as raise an eyebrow, I am labeled a "racist" and a "bigot."

I can't speak for all conservatives, but I do not consider myself a victim. The victims are the people who truly believe that 50 years after the Civil Rights Movement and nearly 150 years since slavery was abolished we still have something for which we need to do penance. The victims are the minorities who have been conditioned through careful manipulation and in some cases outright pandering and bribery to believe that even though most of them have grown up free to attend any school they want and drink from whatever fountain they choose the big bad white man owes them something simply because he is white and they are not.

Blow goes on in his NYT piece to praise the Democrats because while over 50% of Republicans and Tea Party activists believe that racism against whites is a real problem in America only 30% of the Democratic ranks agreed that it was even happening.

NEWSFLASH: Democrats agree with this statement in smaller numbers because keeping minorities in their place is what guarantees them an *injustice* upon which to build a campaign.

President...Trump?

So...I inadvertently started a war on my Facebook page the other day. It was a simple post, really:


"Donald Trump is pro-life, pro-border security, and would like to impose a 25% tariff on all goods coming in from China. Is it to much to ask that he run for President in 2012?"


The responses were immediate and all over the map. 


One comment voiced concern over entrusting the Federal Government to "the Donald" since he has had businesses go bankrupt in the past. In my mind, that's the beauty of the whole idea: the Federal Government is already bankrupt. Worse than bankrupt, actually. And even with a history of business troubles, Donald Trump has proven time and time again that he has the guts, determination and knowhow to doggedly soldier on and rebuild, from the ground up if necessary.


Another comment informed me that at that very moment he was on CNN live, making it clear that a run for the Presidency was definitely on the table and that a formal announcement would be made this coming June...


And then someone asked what was a good argument for imposing a tariff on China, suggesting that any limits on trade would be bad because according to a college macro economics class, trade was good for all parties involved.


The argument for a tariff is simple: other countries are already taxing their American imports. Our government thinks that if we do the same and tax imports from other countries (which would make it much more cost effective to buy American here in the States) those countries would respond by making their tariffs higher. Which is probably true. But if it once again becomes cost-effective to buy American, more people will. And that will return the need for a manufacturing base here as well, which would provide more private sector jobs. If America manufactures more, the cost of that manufacture will go down - because we now have a reason to manufacture in bulk, and because the one thing Obama got right in his State of the Union Address last month is that, when faced with a challenge, no one does innovation like Americans with a necessity to get things done. There really isn't a good argument for NOT imposing a tariff, especially on things from China. 


The commentator then made the point that we shouldn't "force" people to buy American, and that the things we import from China, such as cheap t-shirts, are things that Americans don't really want to make anyway because they have better things to do.

It's not about forcing people to buy American. But if we can stimulate the American economy and provide jobs while not rewarding a nation that is building an empire on the breaking backs of its people, then maybe we should aim for that. 
Also, with an unemployment rate hovering around 10%, I think it's quite safe to say that the number of jobs Americans don't want to do - like making t-shirts or making $4 an hour to pick fruit - is a lot smaller than you think.


And as for China in specific: You need to take into consideration that things made in China can be bought so cheaply because their workers are paid next to nothing and forced to work in horrific conditions. Those curly light bulbs that everyone is raving about - look up how many Chinese workers die every year from mercury poisoning as a result of their light bulb industry. All so that Americans can feel better about saving the ozone layer, one Chinese laborer at a time. 


China is also taxing American goods so heavily that the workers (who are being paid a small fraction of their worth) cannot afford to buy American. Then they sell to Americans at a rate that they can only sustain by continuing the unethical treatment of their workers. By not placing a reciprocal tax on Chinese imports, the American government is making American businesses less viable and displaying tacit approval of a regime that shows no regard whatsoever for human rights.


So why Donald Trump? America needs a businessman - someone who understands how to make things work. But more than that, America needs someone who will take a risk in the UN "boardroom" or in an interview with Matt Lauer. Someone who realizes that promoting America's interests could possibly annoy people in other parts of the world. We need someone who realizes that fighting for a future that features a strong America is more important than making sure President Hu has a good time in Washington. (Even George W. Bush got that.)


Donald Trump does not expect everyone to like him; in fact he expects some people NOT to like him. He expects them instead to respect his ability to take actions that will be in the best interest of his business venture - in this case, possibly America. That kind of confidence has been missing from the Presidency for a long time. We caught a glimpse of it in George W. Bush, and a lot more of it in Reagan. And that's something we need to get back to. If Donald Trump can take us there, I say let him try.

At least Reagan gave up acting when he got to Washington...

On the eve of what would have been the 100th birthday of President Ronald Wilson Reagan, Americans are resigned to listening to people discuss the similarities between Obama and the Gipper... 


http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_newsroom/20110204/pl_yblog_newsroom/the-fast-fix-obama-the-reaganite


While it is true that both Obama and Reagan campaigned on a message of hope for the future, Reagan put his hope in the strength of the American people. Obama clearly puts his in the simultaneous expansion of the Federal Government and the deficit.


It is also true that both Obama and Reagan faced major disappointments at the midterm elections, but the pendulum swing in favor of the Tea Party movement was one of the biggest swings in Congressional history.


And as for the economic "crisis," Reagan's response was to allow the private sector the freedom to create the jobs that would pull America out of the slump. And it worked. Obama's current strategy seems to be to apply regulations and moratoriums that guarantee that in the next 50 years all Americans will either be employed by the Federal Government (due to its unprecedented and astronomical expansion) or getting paid by the government in the form of entitlements.


In a meeting with Presidential historians, Obama was most interested in hearing about Reagan and his time in office. It seems to me that Obama could not pick a better Presidential role model than Ronald Reagan. The problem is that he is trying to reconcile with the Reagan role model policies that line up more with Marx. Reagan said that when it came down to most things, Government was not the solution. It was, in fact, the problem. One might ask why, if Obama looks up to Reagan so much, he wouldn't try to achieve the results Reagan got by attempting to implement similar policies? 


The American people are trying to climb a ladder toward a stronger economy. While Reagan's response was to get the Federal Bureaucrats out of the way and give the people room to move, Obama's is to get out a chainsaw and systematically remove the rungs of the ladder. Every so often he turns off the chainsaw to smile and remind America "Yes, we can!"


The real difference between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama? My husband put it best: "At least Reagan gave up acting when he got to Washington."