Memo to Obama 2


A reader sent this to me. Full disclosure: In its first version that Carol forwarded to me, this did have someone else’s name on it, with instructions to share it everywhere. I asked Carol to verify, and confirm that I could use it. Unable to find the original writer, Carol told me that this writer articulates exactly what she believes. So she adjusted, and added to it, to mirror her own firmly held views. She is not alone as I have heard many echo these concerns. Read on:

My name is Carol Bishop. I am a 50 year old conservative white female. I have followed your campaign closely, including the speeches you and others made at the democratic national convention.

I am respectfully providing you with seven simple (probably shallow) reasons why I could never vote for you. I believe my opinion is shared by many people. While there may not be quite enough to prevent you from becoming president of this nation, I do think there is an awakening to the fact that you are not a (the) messiah that the media and liberal Hollywood entertainers are trying to portray you.

1. I hear your mantra of change, change, change. Yet, you picked a long term, liberal, Washington insider (Joe Biden) to be your running mate. This is NOT change. It is a move that hypocritically refutes the
very thing you supposedly stand for. Your campaign then slammed McCain for picking Sarah Palin, apparently, because she is NOT a Washington insider. She is a maverick who cleaned-up Alaska ‘s quagmire of political scandals. Which way is it, Barack? Is it okay for you to pick a Washington insider under the mantra of “change”, but not okay for John McCain to pick a smart, aggressive, reformer?

Go read the rest on Assoluta Tranquillita here.

*and yes, cross-posted everywhere…lol*

Memo to Obama 2


A reader sent this to me. Full disclosure: In its first version that Carol forwarded to me, this did have someone else’s name on it, with instructions to share it everywhere. I asked Carol to verify, and confirm that I could use it. Unable to find the original writer, Carol told me that this writer articulates exactly what she believes. So she adjusted, and added to it, to mirror her own firmly held views. She is not alone as I have heard many echo these concerns. Read on:

My name is Carol Bishop. I am a 50 year old conservative white female. I have followed your campaign closely, including the speeches you and others made at the democratic national convention.

I am respectfully providing you with seven simple (probably shallow) reasons why I could never vote for you. I believe my opinion is shared by many people. While there may not be quite enough to prevent you from becoming president of this nation, I do think there is an awakening to the fact that you are not a (the) messiah that the media and liberal Hollywood entertainers are trying to portray you.

1. I hear your mantra of change, change, change. Yet, you picked a long term, liberal, Washington insider (Joe Biden) to be your running mate. This is NOT change. It is a move that hypocritically refutes the
very thing you supposedly stand for. Your campaign then slammed McCain for picking Sarah Palin, apparently, because she is NOT a Washington insider. She is a maverick who cleaned-up Alaska ‘s quagmire of political scandals. Which way is it, Barack? Is it okay for you to pick a Washington insider under the mantra of “change”, but not okay for John McCain to pick a smart, aggressive, reformer?

Go read the rest on Assoluta Tranquillita here.

*and yes, cross-posted everywhere…lol*

Myth vs Fact

Myth Fact
Islam: Religion of peace. Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4715:

It has been narrated on the authority of Thauban that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: A group of people from mv Umma will always remain triumphant on the right path and continue to be triumphant (against their opponents). He who deserts them shall not be able to do them any harm. They will remain in this position until Allah’s. Command is executed (i. e. Qayamah is established). In Qutaiba’s version of the tradition, we do not have the words:” They will remain in this position.”

Tafsir

Who is a Patriot?


“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Said Samuel Johnson to Mr. Boswell, and Mr. Boswell and the world took note and remembered. Yet those who most often and most lovingly remind us of this famous aphorism are almost invariably those of a particular breed of skeptic who consider all national loyalties of any kind to be automatically suspect. However they seldom if ever repeat the second part of that renowned quotation, and by this slippery sin of omission they completely distort the true intent of the original phrase.
“But let it be considered,” Mr. Boswell continues, “that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self-interest.”

Boswell Life of Samuel Johnson

How then are we to determine what is or is not a “real and generous love of our country”, and what is merely “pretended patriotism” and just a “cloak of self-interest.”? Who then is a patriot? And who is not? Who is our true friend? And who is our true foe?

The people whom we are fighting against are often some of the nicest people in the world. But they are nonetheless wrong. Very wrong. And they do hurt us. And they don’t even see it. These people, often our friends and relatives and neighbors, often suffer from the worst sort of hubris. The pride of sanctified opinion. The firm belief that their opinions, no matter how grossly uninformed or ill-founded have value just because they are their opinions. They see themselves as superior patriots, honorable but objective physicians who are willing to tell their patient the truth about their serious condition, no matter how distasteful it may be. Telling their patients the awful truth has in point of fact become their sacred role, their primary function. Only in this way do they have a chance of saving their suffering charges. And if the truth is a bitter pill to swallow, then so be it. It must be done. It is to be seen as a painful but necessary catharsis.

However, just beneath the surface of this high-minded rhetoric, one can smell that familiar and unmistakable odor of unbounded pride and self-importance. Above all else, our dubiously sincere critics wish to appear profound and well-informed. The concept of actually becoming profound and well-informed through hard work and diligent study is evidently beyond the scope of their apprehension. They remain utterly content and unmoved by the force of reality. They have learned all that they need to know. And that is all that they need to learn.

How often have we seen some well thought-out essay, an obvious product of a great expenditure of effort and research, casually dismissed out of hand by a one sentence insult, or buy some oh-so-clever quip by one of these self-appointed Guardians of Truth. Yet, remarkably, and invariably, these very same people will without the slightest hesitation describe themselves unabashedly as patriots, true patriots who love their country and only wish to help her through her absolutely essential catharsis. In short, they say, the truth hurts. And their truth is of course the only unquestioned version.

God save us from these ‘true patriots’. With patriots like these who needs enemies? If these are, as I propose, our false patriots, who then are our true patriots? What after all is said and done, is a true patriot?

First and foremost a patriot is loyal. He has made an oath and he intends to keep it. A patriot is steadfast, he does not waver in the ever-changing winds of opinion. A patriot loves his country and is supportive of her. He does not look for ways to undermine the moral integrity of his country during a time of her utmost peril, during a time of war.

A patriot’s primary concern is in defending his country against any and all assaults upon her character, whether they come from enemies within or from enemies abroad. A patriot does not exercise his right to free speech in order to slander his own home and nation. He does not hold the delusional conceit that by publicly admonishing his country for her purported past and present blunders and atrocities he is thereby somehow helping her. He will not expend his energies seeking to find some new flaws in the character of his country, but rather does whatever he can do to defend her from the attacks of those who would happily bring her down. A patriot is not ashamed to be a trustworthy and loyal champion of his country. Rather, he is her proud protector and her shield. A patriot is unconcerned that his patriotism may be called simplistic and shallow by those false patriots. A patriot who is willing to sacrifice his very life for his honest love of country is not that easily cowed by these petty and effete naysayers.

A patriot does not mindlessly parrot the borrowed opinions of others merely based upon their current popularity. His is totally unconcerned about whether his patriotism is or is not in fashion this year. A patriot does his own independent research and thinks before he speaks. He will not allow his careless words to be used by his country’s enemies as weapons to wound her. Rather, a patriot will use his well-chosen words and his deeds to lift his country up even higher.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, patriots are deeply aware of their value to their community and their country. Patriots love life and they love their families, but are nonetheless willing to sacrifice themselves for their community and their country, not with that blind unthinking obedience of a totalitarian slave, but with an open-hearted generosity and love. With that ‘real and generous love of country’ of which our good Mister Boswell spoke so long ago.

Who is a Patriot?


“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Said Samuel Johnson to Mr. Boswell, and Mr. Boswell and the world took note and remembered. Yet those who most often and most lovingly remind us of this famous aphorism are almost invariably those of a particular breed of skeptic who consider all national loyalties of any kind to be automatically suspect. However they seldom if ever repeat the second part of that renowned quotation, and by this slippery sin of omission they completely distort the true intent of the original phrase.
“But let it be considered,” Mr. Boswell continues, “that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self-interest.”

Boswell Life of Samuel Johnson

How then are we to determine what is or is not a “real and generous love of our country”, and what is merely “pretended patriotism” and just a “cloak of self-interest.”? Who then is a patriot? And who is not? Who is our true friend? And who is our true foe?

The people whom we are fighting against are often some of the nicest people in the world. But they are nonetheless wrong. Very wrong. And they do hurt us. And they don’t even see it. These people, often our friends and relatives and neighbors, often suffer from the worst sort of hubris. The pride of sanctified opinion. The firm belief that their opinions, no matter how grossly uninformed or ill-founded have value just because they are their opinions. They see themselves as superior patriots, honorable but objective physicians who are willing to tell their patient the truth about their serious condition, no matter how distasteful it may be. Telling their patients the awful truth has in point of fact become their sacred role, their primary function. Only in this way do they have a chance of saving their suffering charges. And if the truth is a bitter pill to swallow, then so be it. It must be done. It is to be seen as a painful but necessary catharsis.

However, just beneath the surface of this high-minded rhetoric, one can smell that familiar and unmistakable odor of unbounded pride and self-importance. Above all else, our dubiously sincere critics wish to appear profound and well-informed. The concept of actually becoming profound and well-informed through hard work and diligent study is evidently beyond the scope of their apprehension. They remain utterly content and unmoved by the force of reality. They have learned all that they need to know. And that is all that they need to learn.

How often have we seen some well thought-out essay, an obvious product of a great expenditure of effort and research, casually dismissed out of hand by a one sentence insult, or buy some oh-so-clever quip by one of these self-appointed Guardians of Truth. Yet, remarkably, and invariably, these very same people will without the slightest hesitation describe themselves unabashedly as patriots, true patriots who love their country and only wish to help her through her absolutely essential catharsis. In short, they say, the truth hurts. And their truth is of course the only unquestioned version.

God save us from these ‘true patriots’. With patriots like these who needs enemies? If these are, as I propose, our false patriots, who then are our true patriots? What after all is said and done, is a true patriot?

First and foremost a patriot is loyal. He has made an oath and he intends to keep it. A patriot is steadfast, he does not waver in the ever-changing winds of opinion. A patriot loves his country and is supportive of her. He does not look for ways to undermine the moral integrity of his country during a time of her utmost peril, during a time of war.

A patriot’s primary concern is in defending his country against any and all assaults upon her character, whether they come from enemies within or from enemies abroad. A patriot does not exercise his right to free speech in order to slander his own home and nation. He does not hold the delusional conceit that by publicly admonishing his country for her purported past and present blunders and atrocities he is thereby somehow helping her. He will not expend his energies seeking to find some new flaws in the character of his country, but rather does whatever he can do to defend her from the attacks of those who would happily bring her down. A patriot is not ashamed to be a trustworthy and loyal champion of his country. Rather, he is her proud protector and her shield. A patriot is unconcerned that his patriotism may be called simplistic and shallow by those false patriots. A patriot who is willing to sacrifice his very life for his honest love of country is not that easily cowed by these petty and effete naysayers.

A patriot does not mindlessly parrot the borrowed opinions of others merely based upon their current popularity. His is totally unconcerned about whether his patriotism is or is not in fashion this year. A patriot does his own independent research and thinks before he speaks. He will not allow his careless words to be used by his country’s enemies as weapons to wound her. Rather, a patriot will use his well-chosen words and his deeds to lift his country up even higher.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, patriots are deeply aware of their value to their community and their country. Patriots love life and they love their families, but are nonetheless willing to sacrifice themselves for their community and their country, not with that blind unthinking obedience of a totalitarian slave, but with an open-hearted generosity and love. With that ‘real and generous love of country’ of which our good Mister Boswell spoke so long ago.

Myth vs Fact

Myth Fact
Islam: Religion of peace. Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4714:

It has been reported by ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Shamasa that Fuqaim al- Lakhmi said to Uqba b. Amir: You frequent between these two targets and you are an old man, so you will be finding it very hard. ‘Uqba said: But for a thing I heard from the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him), I would not strain myself. Harith (one of the narrators in the chain of transmitters) said: I asked Ibn Shamasa: What was that? He said that he (the Holy Prophet) said: Who learnt archery and then gave it up is not from us. or he has been guilty of disobedience (to Allah’s Apostle).

Tafsir

Myth vs Fact

Myth Fact
Islam: Religion of peace. Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4714:

It has been reported by ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Shamasa that Fuqaim al- Lakhmi said to Uqba b. Amir: You frequent between these two targets and you are an old man, so you will be finding it very hard. ‘Uqba said: But for a thing I heard from the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him), I would not strain myself. Harith (one of the narrators in the chain of transmitters) said: I asked Ibn Shamasa: What was that? He said that he (the Holy Prophet) said: Who learnt archery and then gave it up is not from us. or he has been guilty of disobedience (to Allah’s Apostle).

Tafsir

Anti-sharia legislation proposed

Cross posted from Monkey in the Middle

Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton, CO), pictured right, has proposed legislation that would prevent Shar’ia Law from becoming legally binding in the US. This bill would also deny U.S. visas to advocates of ‘Sharia’ law, expel Islamists already here.

WASHINGTON, DC – Amid disturbing revelations that the verdicts of Islamic Sharia courts are now legally binding in civil cases in the United Kingdom, U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) moved quickly today to introduce legislation designed to protect the United States from a similar fate.

According to recent news reports, a new network of Sharia courts in a half-dozen major cities in the U.K. have been empowered under British law to adjudicate a wide variety of legal cases ranging from divorces and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

“This is a case where truth is truly stranger than fiction,” said Tancredo. “Today the British people are learning a hard lesson about the consequences of massive, unrestricted immigration.”

Sharia law, favored by Muslim extremists around the world, often calls for brutal punishment – such as the stoning of women who are accused of adultery or have children out of wedlock, cutting off the hands of petty thieves and lashings for the casual consumption of alcohol. Under Sharia law, a woman is often required to provide numerous witnesses to prove rape allegations against an assailant – a near impossible task.

“When you have an immigration policy that allows for the importation of millions of radical Muslims, you are also importing their radical ideology – an ideology that is fundamentally hostile to the foundations of western democracy – such as gender equality, pluralism, and individual liberty,” said Tancredo. “The best way to safeguard America against the importation of the destructive effects of this poisonous ideology is to prevent its purveyors from coming here in the first place.”

Tancredo’s bill, dubbed the “Jihad Prevention Act,” would bar the entry of foreign nationals who advocate Sharia law. In addition, the legislation would make the advocacy of Sharia law by radical Muslims already in the United States a deportable offense.

Tancredo pointed to the results of a recent poll conducted by the Centre for Social Cohesion as evidence that the U.S. should act to prevent the situation in Great Britain from replicating itself here in the United States. The poll found that some 40 percent of Muslim students in the United Kingdom support the introduction of Sharia law there, and 33 percent support the imposition of an Islamic Sharia-based government worldwide.

We need to send a clear message that the only law we recognize here in America is the U.S. Constitution and the laws passed by our democratically elected representatives,” concluded Tancredo. “If you aren’t comfortable with that concept, you aren’t welcome in the United States.

From Monkey in the Middle:

I expect to see CAIR and the ACLU start challenges to this bill the minute it is signed into law. And if the Supreme Court has a majority of liberals on it (as it would under Barack Hussein Obama) then not only will this be thrown out but Shar’ia Law and No-Go Zones will become Standard. But if John McCain wins in November, the court will uphold this law.

The stakes this November are very high. For an Obama win is a win for Jihadists everywhere. Is a win for those who will (not might) destroy the very fabric of our society and place instead an Islamic regime, headed by a Muslim: Barack Hussein Obama.

Anti-sharia legislation proposed

Cross posted from Monkey in the Middle

Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton, CO), pictured right, has proposed legislation that would prevent Shar’ia Law from becoming legally binding in the US. This bill would also deny U.S. visas to advocates of ‘Sharia’ law, expel Islamists already here.

WASHINGTON, DC – Amid disturbing revelations that the verdicts of Islamic Sharia courts are now legally binding in civil cases in the United Kingdom, U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) moved quickly today to introduce legislation designed to protect the United States from a similar fate.

According to recent news reports, a new network of Sharia courts in a half-dozen major cities in the U.K. have been empowered under British law to adjudicate a wide variety of legal cases ranging from divorces and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

“This is a case where truth is truly stranger than fiction,” said Tancredo. “Today the British people are learning a hard lesson about the consequences of massive, unrestricted immigration.”

Sharia law, favored by Muslim extremists around the world, often calls for brutal punishment – such as the stoning of women who are accused of adultery or have children out of wedlock, cutting off the hands of petty thieves and lashings for the casual consumption of alcohol. Under Sharia law, a woman is often required to provide numerous witnesses to prove rape allegations against an assailant – a near impossible task.

“When you have an immigration policy that allows for the importation of millions of radical Muslims, you are also importing their radical ideology – an ideology that is fundamentally hostile to the foundations of western democracy – such as gender equality, pluralism, and individual liberty,” said Tancredo. “The best way to safeguard America against the importation of the destructive effects of this poisonous ideology is to prevent its purveyors from coming here in the first place.”

Tancredo’s bill, dubbed the “Jihad Prevention Act,” would bar the entry of foreign nationals who advocate Sharia law. In addition, the legislation would make the advocacy of Sharia law by radical Muslims already in the United States a deportable offense.

Tancredo pointed to the results of a recent poll conducted by the Centre for Social Cohesion as evidence that the U.S. should act to prevent the situation in Great Britain from replicating itself here in the United States. The poll found that some 40 percent of Muslim students in the United Kingdom support the introduction of Sharia law there, and 33 percent support the imposition of an Islamic Sharia-based government worldwide.

We need to send a clear message that the only law we recognize here in America is the U.S. Constitution and the laws passed by our democratically elected representatives,” concluded Tancredo. “If you aren’t comfortable with that concept, you aren’t welcome in the United States.

From Monkey in the Middle:

I expect to see CAIR and the ACLU start challenges to this bill the minute it is signed into law. And if the Supreme Court has a majority of liberals on it (as it would under Barack Hussein Obama) then not only will this be thrown out but Shar’ia Law and No-Go Zones will become Standard. But if John McCain wins in November, the court will uphold this law.

The stakes this November are very high. For an Obama win is a win for Jihadists everywhere. Is a win for those who will (not might) destroy the very fabric of our society and place instead an Islamic regime, headed by a Muslim: Barack Hussein Obama.