Sunday, November 22, 2009

US Media Ignores Obama’s Muffed Japan Visit

So how does the left now square Obama’s many failures in representing America to the various countries of the world (England, Russia, Israel, Iran, China, Japan…)? Given their ridicule toward George Bush with his so-called lack of diplomatic finesse, it may be hard to swallow that Mr. Obama by their own measure makes “W” appear to be quite the statesman.

The “lightness of being” that is Mr. Obama is becoming more apparent with time. And it appears his administration is over-populated with the same like minded, light-weights who are out of their league in the world arena.

Wasn't Obama's raison d'etre vis-a-vis Bush how he would better represent America to the world?

Well, check out this bit at Big>

US Media Ignores Obama’s Muffed Japan Visit

According to the mainstream Japanese weekly magazine Shukan Bunshun the visit was the “worst” one ever... and additionally-
“To tell you the truth, it had to have been the worst US-Japan Summit Meeting in history,” from a source at the Japanese Foreign Ministry.

In the words of dear Gilda Radner...

Update (11-23-09):
N.Y. Times - Assessing The China Trip

Germany's Der Spidgel Onlne - Obama's Nice Guy Act Gets Him Nowhere on the World Stage

Times of London - Barack Obama dream fades as China visit fails to bring change

Hat tip to Hot Air

Friday, November 20, 2009

Further Fort Hood thoughts...

Following up on my post "When is a mosque not a mosque?", here is a link to a an article at National Review Online by Cliff May entitled Lessons of Fort Hood.

May's troubling conclusion:

The revolutionary jihadis also have this advantage: the reluctance of so many in the West to accept that a serious war is being waged against them — even after an American military base in Texas has been turned into a killing field by what appears to have been a turncoat furious over Islamist grievances, driven by Islamist dreams.

In his remarks at the memorial in Fort Hood last week, President Obama said: “No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts.” But the faith embraced by Major Hasan, al-Aulaqi, and millions like them has been invoked to justify the slaughter of Christians, Jews, and Muslim dissidents for decades. It would be enormously helpful if our political leaders would acknowledge this reality and consider its policy implications. But that’s not going to happen, at least not any time soon.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

When is a mosque not a mosque?

Or, when does a place of worship relinquish it’s Constitutional protections of “free exercise” of religion? The recent revelations concerning the Fort Hood terrorist, Nidal Hasan, and his association with a Virginia mosque that Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour–two of the 9/11 terrorists–also frequented, has gotten me to thinking along these lines…

A bank forfeits its legitimacy as a lawful financial institution when behind the scenes it serves as the means of laundering money gained from criminal activity. That bank no longer is serving its legal business function and therefore should be brought to justice in order that the illegal financial operations be ended and the underlying criminal activity exposed and prosecuted.

In the same way, doesn’t a mosque (or any other religious institution) cede its legitimacy as a place of religious worship, protected under the First Amendment, when it functions as a vehicle for the laundering of terrorists bent on carrying out their murderous vision of religion in the United States?

In the example of the bank, the bad money is given a cover of legitimacy through deceptive financial accounting. This allows the illicit money to have the cover of honest gain in order that it can be used to further illegal activities without exposure.

So too with the laundering mosque cited above, bad actors or otherwise jihadists (those waging a holy war on behalf of Islam as a religious duty) are afforded a veneer of peaceful, legitimate religious beliefs (in this case a misguided application of cultural diversity one might say) by the deceptive “house of worship” in order that those individuals can plan and carry out their terrorist intentions. When this occurs then that religious institution is likewise a criminal accesory and, I dare say, a treasonous enterprise. Such organizations should be broken up with the same or even more conviction exercised in law enforcement toward money laundering banks; exposed for what they are and those responsible brought to justice.

I am aware of, and sympathetic to, the objections of our government sticking its nose into private religious affairs. But when evidence of the above surfaces, then that evidence should be followed by investigation and, if warranted, indictments and the cessation of the bogus religious operation. The terrorist considers his mosque related activity as obligatory religious warfare. How are we to view it?

My gut tells me that we entertain squeamishness in this matter at our own peril.

Friday, November 13, 2009

The art of debate coninued...

More of my thoughts on the matter...

Frequently finding insult and impugning motive in others when in debate reveals the paucity of one's argument.

Corollary: Lacking the persuasiveness of fact, he moralizes.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

The Art of Self-Righteous Debate

My verse written for today,


It seems righteous umbrage is on the rise,
In those who ironically patronize.
Through pc contrivance they demonize,
Eschewing debate to marginalize.

... I take some solace in having diagnosed my frustration with debate in today's open square.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Cranmer, martyred for Justification by faith...

Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, principal author of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles, burned at the stake on March 21, 1556 in England by the Roman Catholic Church under Bloody (Queen) Mary... from his sermon on the salvation of man:

"Three things must go together in our justification. In these aforesaid places, the Apostle touches specially three things, which must go together in our justification. Upon GOD'S part, his great mercy and grace: upon Christ's part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of GOD'S justice, or the price of our redemption, by the offering of his body, and shedding of his blood, with fulfilling of the law perfectly & throughly; and upon our part true & lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, which yet is not ours, but by GOD'S working in us: so that in our justification, is not only God's mercy & grace, but also his justice, which the Apostle calls the justice of GOD, & it consists in paying our ransom, & fulfilling of the law: & so the grace of God doth not shut out the justice of God in our justification, but only shuts out the justice of, that is to say, the justice of our works, as to be merits of deserving our justification. And therefore S. Paul declares here nothing upon the behalf of man, concerning his justification, but only a true & lively faith, which nevertheless is the gift of GOD, and not mans only work, without GOD: And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, & the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified, but it shuts them out from the office of justifying...

"... But this saying, That we be justified by faith only, freely and without works, is spoken for to take away clearly all merit of our works, as being unable to deserve our justification at GODS hands, and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of man, and the goodness of GOD, the great infirmity of our selves, and the might and power of GOD, the imperfectness of our own works, and the most abundant grace of our Savior Christ, and therefore wholly to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification unto Christ only, and his most precious blood shedding."

Nothing like Obama to cause one to long for...

the Clinton years...

those were the days...