John Brennan, Obama's Counter-terrorism Advisor, Calls Jihad "Legitimate Tenet of Islam"

Obama's counter-terrorism advisor, John Brennan, justifies Islmic Jihad as a legitimate tenet of Islam. Here is the video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YpzOKyVH1o&feature=player_embedded

By definition, supporters of Jihad are traitors, bigots, homophobes, sexists and haters. here is a link to a related article:
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/counterterror_chief_says_jihad_is_Rm2iuCqr4siSwrsoxE9yjO

Jihadists are no better than Nazis. This is the equivalent of having a Nazi in the White house.

This is another in the long line of radical advisers in the white house. The White House is full of Communists, sex perverts, Marxists, socialists, Maoists, radical revolutionaries, and now Jihadist sympathisers. This is not an accident. The president appointed these radicals because they reflect his views. Obama is the equivalent of a Nazi sympathizer. Obama is a bigot of the worst kind. Obama is a traitor to his country. Obama needs to be impeached and tried for treason. Here is a link to a synopsis of Obama's radical associates and advisers: http://theobamafile.com/_associates/ObamaAssociates.htm

Does the American public know what Jihad is? I understand that the radical left, will find a way to justify Jihadism.

Jihadism is a holy war waged by Muslims against infidels. Jihad is the means that Muslims intend to convert or kill all non-Muslims on planet Earth.

Jihad will institute Sharia law which criminalizes homosexual behavior which is punishable by death in some cases. Sharia law calls for the genital mutilation of women. Sharia law calls for women to be subservient to me. Sharia law calls for arranged marriages between old men any underage girls.

Mainstream Islam, which calls for Sharia law, is not compatible with American culture. We must denounce Jihad, Sharia law and the Muslim culture loudly and strongly.

Apologists for Jihad must stigmatized and shammed just as Nazis and racists are. Jihad is the worst form of bigotry on planet Earth.

Jihad and Sharia law is worse than racism, it is worse than slavery it is equal to Nazi-ism. It is an abomination.

Obama's New Health-Care Bill Does Not Fund More Health-Care, It Only Funds New Bureaucrats

The health care bill supplies funding for 16,500 new IRS agents to enforce the penalties on people who do not buy health care. Also, it provides funding for thousands of new bureaucrats in 159 new government agencies to implement the new regulations.

These expenditures do not create any more doctors, clinics, labs, medicines and diagnostic equipment.

If we still have the same supply of medical resources, and they add 30 million more patients into the system, then each person who is currently insured will receive less care. Thus, rationing and death panels will be more widespread under this new system.

True health care reform would increase the medical resources, not the bureaucracy. If we used that money to build new hospitals, medical facilities and to pay the salaries of doctors, nurses, lab technicians, or to provide education and training for new health-care providers, then the quality and quantity of health-care would increase. This would inevitably lead to more access to better health care.

This legislation will definitely result in growing the size and scope of the federal government. However, this legislation does not increase the size and scope of the medical industry. I challenge any supporters of this bill to tell me where I am wrong.

Gay activist, Harry Knox, who serves on Obama's "faith based advisory counsel", attacks the Pope and spreads hurtful lies

According to Knox, the Pope is “hurting people in the name of Jesus,”. How is it possible that a man who Obama appointed to a position that is supposed to unify all faiths continues to attack the Pope with hurtful lies?

Here is an article and video about the false information that Knox continues to promote: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/60893

Here is an excerpt:

......According to Knox, the Pope is “hurting people in the name of Jesus,” because the Holy Father has suggested that promoting condom use in Africa will not end the suffering caused by the AIDS epidemic there and in fact increases the spread of HIV/AIDS. The problem with Knox’s position, despite his appeal to the ’science,’ is that the empirical evidence does not support his attack. It actually favors the Pope......

Here are some excerpts from an article that explains why Knox is wrong on the scientific evidence:

.....Almost one year ago, Edward Green, a senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health who at one time supported condom distribution in Africa to fight AIDS, wrote an op. ed. piece in the Washington Post about the Pope’s comments. There he points out that numerous independent studies have reached the same conclusion as the Pope. He writes, “In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations’ AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa.......

.......How does one explain these results? In scientific terms, Dr.Green calls it a phenomena known as “Risk Compensation”. In laymans terms it is simply the fact that when people feel safer while they participate in risky behavior they are more likely to increase the risky behavior. Add to that the failure rates of condoms due to human error, long shelf life, etc., and you have a recipe for disaster –..........

.....But this is only one half of the debate. The evidence clearly shows that increased condom use in Africa has increased infection rates, but does it also show that alternative prevention programs that focus on fidelity and abstinence are effective? Again, the answer is clear......

...........And now that we have examined the evidence, let’s listen once again to what the Pope actually said about the situation in Africa and see who sounds more in line with ‘the science.’

“I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome with advertising slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanization of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with those who are suffering, a readiness — even through personal sacrifice — to be present with those who suffer. And these are the factors that help and bring visible progress.”.......

Here is the link to the entire article: http://stmichaelsociety.com/2010/02/05/harry-knox-pope-benedict-and-the-debate-on-condoms-in-africa/

Here is an excerpt from an article that shows exactly who Harry Knox is:

.......Harry Knox, who is a member of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is the director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual activist group......

......According to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Web site, the religion and faith program run by Knox has created “a weekly preaching resource that provides scriptural commentary to ministers and lay people interested in an ecumenical gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender perspective on the Bible.".....

.....In addition to his remarks about the Pope, Knox also criticized the Catholic Knights of Columbus as being “foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression” because of the Knights’ support of Proposition 8. The latter was a ballot initiative that amended California’s state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and passed in November 2008........

Here is the link to the entire article: http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46192

I have no objection to Obama appointing gay people. Of course they can do the job just like anyone else. However, Obama has appointed two gay activists with radical agendas. They are Kevin Jennings and Harry Knox. I fear that the MSM will keep these stories quiet because it is not politically correct to criticize gays, even if they are intolerant, hateful, bigoted and perverted. This harmful form of political correctness is a direct result of the fear of intimidation and retribution that critics of gays face from the gay activists.

It is a clear sign that our society is in decline because we are being bullied by a bunch of sissies.

Anita Dunn Is The Latest Radical In The White House To Be Uncovered By Glenn Beck

I just finished watching an amazing Glenn Beck Show. He played a video of Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, singing the praises of Chairman Mao Tse Tung to a high school audience in June.

This past weekend, Anita Dunn was all over the news because she was trashing FOX news for 9 minutes straight on a CNN interview. Dunn said that FOX news was an arm of the Republican party and She says that FOX reports lies and distortions. Later, the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said that many stories on FOX News are untrue.

The white house has declared all out war on FOX news because they are reporting on the radical agenda of many of Obama's appointees that the MSM will not cover.

Glenn Beck's watch dogs are doing a great job uncovering the radical beliefs of those closest to the Obama White House. I fear for Beck's life.

The way Obama is controlling the media by discrediting his opponents, is common in communist, Marxist, tyrannical and totalitarian regimes, not Democratic Republics.

On the campaign trail, Obama promised to fundamentally change America. He does not like America's fundamentals, and the rewards and risks of our capitalist system.

Now, as president, Obama is sworn to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, yet he loathes our constitution and the visions of our founding fathers. He is trying to bring "redistributive change" to America. Hopefully, it will become so obvious before irreversible damage is done.  Just like Zayela was removed from Honduras before he shredded their constitution, I hope that Obama is removed from office before he and his minions fundamentally change America.

No American Should have To Choose Between Health-care And Booze, Designer Jeans and Protein Powder.

I might also add that no American should have to choose between heath-care and Harley's, between health-care and chrome rims, between health-care and a cool sound system, between health-care and cigarettes, between health-care and cable TV, between health-care and cell phones, between health-care and gold jewelry, between health-care and extreme tattoos and piercings, between health-care and flat screen TVs, between health-care and fast food, etc.

If someone chooses to smoke 2 packs of cigarettes per day at a cost of $450 per month, should taxpayers be required to pay for his health insurance because he can no longer afford it?

If an illegal alien sends half of his income back to Mexico to support his extended family, should taxpayers be required to pay for his health insurance because he can no longer afford it?

If health-care is so important, why are so many people unwilling to make the personal sacrifices necessary to be able to afford the cost?

Do you have anything to add? Leave a comment.

Parents should Have The Maximum Influence On Their Children, Not Obama, The Schools, Nor Pop-Culture

I was astounded to learn that the above video is being played for children in American Public schools.

I had previously thought that "hero worship" of political leaders was only done in monarchies, dictatorships and totalitarian governments. No wonder many parents are concerned about Obama's address to school children next week. Parental authority is being usurped by the state, the media and the arts.

Today's American youth have power over their parents and most authority figures who are frightened of disciplining them. If they get a spanking for misbehaving, they can turn their parents in to "child family services" and have them arrested and monitored by the state. They teach this to all children in today's schools. This has a very chilling effect on child rearing, when the state second-guesses the discipline of all children. Due to the misguided effort to protect a small minority of abused children, most children are actually suffering from a "disrespect for authority" and a disdain for reasonable self-restraint.

Look at the results. Today's youth have disdain for all that is good, right and proper and embrace and celebrate that which is twisted, abnormal, wrong and evil. This is the inevitable result when their parents are not their ultimate authority.

Today's popular culture ridicules, mocks, discredits and disrespects Christianity, the Boy scouts, the US military, the intact family and the police. At the same time they emulate, imitate and praise, gangsters, sluts, playboys, homosexuals, outlaws and foul language.

Today's popular music is filled with debauchery, drugs, crime, anger, profanity, violence and crude and explicit sexuality. The disrespect displayed by today's youth culture is so complete that they purposely wear tattered misfitting clothing, they show their underwear and purposely leave their shoelaces untied.

Most girls think that is is cool to get attention by dressing like seductive prostitutes, surgically enhancing their breasts and using their power of seduction over all-too-willing men.

They display symbols of evil on their clothing, tattoos and jewelry. Today's most popular symbols are skulls and crossbones which represent poison or murderous pirates (outlaws of the sea), daggers, the Nazi Iron cross, devils, serpents, the flames of hell, guns, barbed wire that represent the fences around prison and more.

They think it is cool to mutilate their own bodies with extremes tattoos and piercings that make them look freakish an non-human.

The last thing we need is for "these young minds full of mush" to be co-opted by politicians who could have selfish and/or malevolent intentions. The public schools, universities, the media and today's popular culture are teaching our youth to question most authorities including, the military, the police, their own parents and even God. It won't take much for a hip sounding president to win their loyalty through deceit and manipulation.

We need the opposite. We need the government to stop meddling with our youth. Our youth are already out-of-control because of the unintended consequences of the government's protection and propaganda. Government should have a minimum influence on children. Parents should have the maximum influence on their children, not the government.

Children need to learn their place and not be empowered by potentially tyrannical leaders, while churches and their parents are being neutered. Common sense says that children should learn from their  parents who have more experience and wisdom, not the other way arround.

It is detrimental to our entire society and to our children themselves when their parents lose their complete authority over their children. Political leaders should never have influence over our children. Their parents need to filter the political propaganda for their children who are unable to discern the truth from the deceptive manipulations that are the mainstay of politics.

Harvard Professor Henry Gates and US President Barack Obama Promote Racial Profiling of White Police Officers

Elite Universities Promote Racism

Have you heard the recent story about the Harvard Professor, Henry Gates, who accused a police sergeant, James Crowley, of racism and racial "profiling"?

The police responded to a 911 call from a neighbor who observed 2 men breaking into Prof. Gates' house. It turned out that Gates himself had broken into his own house because he forgot his key. When the police arrived, they asked Gates for identification to verify that he lived there. Gates immediately became belligerent, verbally abusive and uncooperative with the cops. He accused the white police officer of racism.

The ridiculous and untrue allegations of racism, racial profiling were affirmed by President Obama during his press conference last Wednesday. Obama accused the police of acting "stupidly" and he said that anyone would have been angered by the situation that Prof Gates found himself in. Here is the video of Obama's comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LucTPdK8VTc

Of course it is ridiculous that anyone would have been angry in that situation. Most people would have thanked the police and their neighbor for "looking out" for them and politely cooperated with the police. Only someone with a "chip on his shoulder" would be angry with a police officer who was protecting his own property in response to a call from his neighbor. The police report confirms that this particular Harvard professor has anathema for white policemen. IMHO, this professor, like many others, are teaching their own prejudices to their unsuspecting and naive students.

Click here for the official police report on this incident: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF

If you examine all of the known facts in this case, it appears that Prof. Gates is guilty of racially profiling the white police officer. It appears that Prof. Gates was guilty of a "hate crime" because he broke the law by becoming disorderly and verbally abusive with a police officer, based solely on the officers race. Obviously the charges were dropped because Prof. Gates has the best lawyers in the world at Harvard Law school at his disposal who will spare no expense defending this petty case.

It turns out that Prof. Gates teaches African American studies at Harvard. IMHO, African American studies classes are designed to promote racial disparity in America by blaming white people for the condition of blacks. These classes emphasise white racism against blacks, while ignoring or actually justifying black racism against whites. Click on the following link to read an excellent article that makes this point.: http://patterico.com/2009/07/24/the-officer-didnt-stereotype-henry-louis-gates-henry-louis-gates-stereotyped-the-officer/

In my opinion, we should strive to become a color blind society. This goal will not be achieved by pigeonholing people into distinct racial and ethnic groups and then pitting one group against another in an effort to achieve equal outcomes in all areas. I believe that we should judge each incident on it's own merits without regard to race and/or ethnicity what-so-ever. I believe this is what Martin Luther King meant when he said: "Don't judge by the color of one's skin, but by the content of their character".

Clearly, Professor Gates judged Sergeant Crowley solely because he was a white police officer questioning a black man. In my opinion, Professor Gates exhibited racist behavior by prejudging the police officer based on his race.

This behavior is right out of the liberal playbook. Liberals like to divide people into two groups, victims and victimizers. According to what I hear from the mainstream media and from university professors, most all blacks and Hispanics are victims. Most all police are victimizers, especially the white cops. I suspect that Prof. Gates believes in this dichotomy with every fiber of his being. The reason why I say this is because the good professor is still claiming to be a victim of racial profiling in this case.

During previous years I have had similar discussions regarding other cases of so-called police brutality. My point has always been that the best way to avoid being a victim of police brutality is to be respectful and cooperative when dealing with the police. Do not run from the police unless you are sure that you can get away. If you are caught after running, your chances of getting beaten increase dramatically. If you verbally and/or physically combative with the police, you might get hurt. This happens to be true regardless of race, however, when a black man is abused by a white cop the victim often plays the race card. With the support of the liberal media, the charges are usually dropped against the alleged criminal and charges are brought against the police officer. It is obvious that this environment makes it difficult for police to effectively and safely perform their duties while protecting themselves and the public.

Why don't schools and universities teach their students be respectful and cooperative when dealing with the police? Instead they teach today's youth not to cooperate with cops and to push their "rights" to the limit. In effect, they are teaching them to infuriate the police to the point of abuse. In many cases, the victim hopes that abuse takes place, so that they can get publicity and/or sue. Also, the slightest hit of racism and/or abuse can help to get the original charges dropped.

From what I read about this case, it appears that Prof. Gates egged-on sergeant Crowley in an effort to prove his belief that white police treat black men unfairly. In my extensive experience with police, they generally treat you the same way that you treat them.

The only motivation that I can think of for the professor's behavior was to purposely get himself arrested and/or verbally abused and then make a big stink about it. Since Gates is a friend of Obama's, I wouldn't be surprised if he had that question planted at Obama's news conference. Questions at past Obama news conferences have been staged. Obama's answer might have been prepared.

If the professor thought that he was in any danger what-so-ever, he would have shown respect for the cops. Liberals are often very brave when they are in no real danger. This episode played out exactly like Prof. Gates intended. As a result of this incident he has been invited to the White house to have a beer with President Obama and to discuss the issue of racial profiling. Prof. Gates, like many successful liberals, is a master manipulator. The sad part is that he is deceiving and manipulating America's youth in his classrooms every day.

Reverend Joseph Lowery Gives Racist Speech at Obama's Inauguration

The following is an excerpt from a speech that Reverend Joseph Lowery gave during the recent inauguration of President Barack Obama. Click on this link for a transcript of the entire speech http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/01/rev-lowery-inauguration-benedi.html or click on the embedded video above.

"We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around. When yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen."

Martin Luther King said that we should not judge people by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Lowery's statement categorizes people into separate racial groups and judges them on their color alone. I am offended by the outright bigotry and inaccuracy of Lowery's statement. If you are going to use color to generalize behavior of a group, why not be more accurate?

Although it is distasteful for me to categorize people into racial stereotypes and then make wholesale judgments based on race, I will do so here in an effort to demonstrate how absurd, insulting and inaccurate Rev. Lowery's statement is.

The day has come when "blacks will not be asked to get in the back". That day came over 50 years ago, when segregation was ended in America and civil rights laws were put in place and have been vigorously enforced ever since. I know of no known case of racial segregation since. If there were any, they have been corrected by our criminal and civil justice systems. In today's America, blacks are not asked to "get in the back".

On average, blacks are responsible for six times as much violent crime than whites in America. Shouldn't Rev. Lowery have asked the black man to "embrace what is right"?

On average, 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock and a majority grow up in fatherless homes. Shouldn't black fathers be asked to "stick around"?

I have learned from my personal experience in predominantly black movie theaters and neighborhoods, that most black people are much louder and more rowdy than most Asians. Shouldn't the black man asked "to be mellow" (especially in movie theaters).

During the past 50 years, affirmative action and racial quotas have insured that under-qualified minorities get ahead of more qualified white men in college admissions and employment opportunities. Black men, women and other minorities have been given an unfair advantage of "getting ahead man" in college enrollment and employment.

Today's civil rights leaders focus on disparities in "outcomes", between different "groups", rather than equal opportunities and responsibilities that all Americans share. I would like to work toward the day when civil rights leaders preach about the the virtues of individual responsibilities, consideration to your fellow man, the importance of the intact family and aspiring to live our lives according to the Christian principles that our great nation was founded upon.

Universities Are Churning Out Intellectual But Misinformed Graduates

It saddens me to see the lack of accurate political information that is in the minds of today's students and graduates. It seems that the more our collective intelligence accumulates, the less individual wisdom we possess. Thomas Jefferson said: "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” According to Jefferson's statement, today's electorate can not be trusted.

A Zogby telephone poll was conducted of 512 Obama voters. This poll included 97% high school graduates and 55% college graduates. They were all asked 12 multiple choice questions about the presidential campaign and high level political figures in the news that relate to the presidential campaign. Most of the questions they answered incorrectly. What is astonishing is that many of the answers were answered wrong by over 75% of the respondents, and there were only 4 choices given. This means that they answered them worse that if they had guessed. The only conclusion one can arrive at, is that they have been receiving deceptive, manipulative and biased information.

This study confirms my strong beliefs that the public schools, universities, the media and the arts profoundly distort the views of today's popular culture by purposely filtering the information that they disseminate.

Click on the link below to view this shocking video of well educated Obama voters, who are totally ignorant of many of the top issues regarding the recent presidential campaign.

http://howobamagotelected.com/

This video and poll are no surprise to me. I have been writing on my blog, for a long time, about how the public schools, universities, the media and the arts have been deceptive, manipulative and biased. The clearest example of this is the global warming theory. I find it amazing that an unproven theory, that defies common sense, is being taught in our schools and universities, as if it was a well established scientific fact.

These days, when I see college students, I do not admire them for their quest for knowledge because the majority are lacking in wisdom. They follow a heard mentality toward whatever is considered to be cool, offensive to conservatives and in opposition to "love of God", family and country. They have been brainwashed to believe that diversity, in and of itself, is a virtue. Thus they celebrate and embrace the most negative and bizarre forms of diversity. Often they are rewarded for this by respect, admiration and love from their peers, teachers and parent(s).

Most universities, media, and artists; question, reject and vilify, anything that supports our traditional American culture. They do not accept the premise that America has grown to become the freest, wealthiest and most benevolently powerful nation that the world has ever seen. They use convoluted logic, quote questionable statistics, take quotes out of context, either suppress or emphasize various information and use emotion to make their arguments, but they overlook the obvious truth, reason and common sense. Often they use examples which are the "least likely scenario". They often vilify their ideological opponents with charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, bigotry, and greed. Often this tactic is successful in silencing their opposition. These tactics work best for them , because reason, commonsense and personal experience are often not compatible with their conclusions. What is most troubling, is that an honest search for truth is rarely seen.

I see the bricks, that form the foundation of this nation's greatness, being removed one by one. We are on the road to becoming a third rate corrupt and poor nation, like Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela. It is sad to see this happening before my very eyes. What is saddest, is that this downhill spiral, from American exceptionalism to economic and spiritual bankruptcy, is being led by today’s students and the universities, media and artists, that fill their heads with propaganda which they call "progressive".

Joe the Plumber

I had written the following article just prior to tonight's third and final presidential debate. The name of an Ohio plumber was mentioned 20 times between the two candidates. I was very disappointed as the debate progressed, to find that neither candidate was able to truly understand the perspective of plumber Joe and the strengths of capitalism Vs. socialism.

Last week, at a recent Obama campaign event, an unscripted question was asked by an ambitious hardworking plumber named Joe Wurzelbacher. This ambitious plumber says he works 10 to 12 hours per day and lives in a modest 90 to 140 thousand dollar home. He asked Obama: "I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year, Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"

Obama's surprising response was: "It's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too ... When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Click on the video below to hear the entire exchange between Obama and "Plumber Joe"


Obama's response is wrong on many levels. What is worse is that Obama does not understand what motivates this plumber to work so long and hard, sacrifice for so many years and risk everything he has for a chance at success.

This plumber has clearly sacrificed for years, in terms of his time, effort, lifestyle and the saving of his money to purchase the company that he now works for. His motivation is clearly that if he works hard, long and honestly, and sacrifices fancy cars, clothing, houses, fancy meals and expensive vacations, he has a chance to become wealthy. Of course the chances are just as good, that after all of his sacrifices and hard work, he loses it all, and must start over from square one. This is what is meant by "risk Vs. reward". This is the fundamental principle of capitalism. Our capitalist system often rewards those who are motivated to offer their customers better service and value than their competition, and accommodate their customers by finishing jobs on time, even if it means working evenings and weekends and charging less than their competion. Democratic capitalism is capable of motivating people to do “the extraordinary”, while providing jobs, innovation and wealth for their community and their country. American capitalism has led to innovations that have truly raised the standard of living worldwide. Risk Vs. reward is at the core of American capitalism.

Innovation, honesty, hard work and excellence in service are used by a motivated individuals, in order to surpass their competition. Obama clearly showed his ignorance about American capitalism as well as human motivation when he said: "It's not that I want to punish your success," I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too ... When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

The last thing that this plumber wants is for his competition to have an advantage that he never had nor needed. He got where he is today by working harder, smarter, longer and better than those behind him. He wants them to continue to be behind him, that's how he gets ahead. Staying ahead is what motivates him to get up earlier than his competition, work longer than his competition, and offer a better value than his competition.

If the guy behind “Joe the plumber” wants a chance at success, all he has to do is to wake up earlier than Joe, work harder than Joe, be more innovative than Joe, hire better employees than Joe and offer his customers a better value than Joe. Joe knows this, and that is what motivates him to “walk the extra mile”. Millions of people like Joe, who walk the extra mile, is what has brought America the prosperity that we now enjoy. Obama is asking people like Joe to share the wealth, without asking others to share the risk, sacrifice, talent and priorities. Taxing a man's sacrifices, hopes, dreams and ambitions and giving the money to those who are less ambitious and averse to risk, is tantamount to larceny. It can also crush one's spirit.

When you “spread the wealth around”, you de-motivate people like this plumber to do extraordinary work, come up with extraordinary innovations, and demand excellence from employees in exchange for better wages.

By taking from the successful people and giving to people who “haven't made it”, you are rewarding mediocrity and punishing excellence. It is extremely clear to me that there can only be one end result. That result is more mediocrity and less excellence. This is exactly what you will get with socialism.

Democratic capitalism leads to innovation, high wages, efficiency, motivated workers, high rates of employment, good wages, excellent products, opportunity and greater wealth for all classes of society.

Socialism promises equality, which has never been attained. But more importantly, socialism guarantees mediocrity in goods, services, pay rates, employment opportunities and individual motivation. Most importantly, when you take from the rich and give to the poor, you end up with less rich people and more poor people.

Democratic capitalism provides greater wealth for all classes of society. People all have the opportunity to find their own way to the top if they choose to make sacrifices by spending their own money, time, effort and their natural God-given talents to improve their own lot in life. Most people do not choose this “tough row to hoe”, but those who do, have a chance at success. This is the very definition of freedom. The best, brightest, most innovative and hardest working people will rise to the top. Any system that leads these type of people to the top, will lift up everyone in the system. They have provided wealth for all of the people who work for them and the companies who they purchase goods from in the course of business. When a plumbing company succeeds, it also helps the company that manufactures and sells pipes, toilets, water heaters, etc. When a plumbing company succeeds, it also helps all of the people who enjoy the goods, services and innovations that it provides. Not that long ago, plumbers invented and made available, toilets, water heaters and indoor plumbing.

Each and every advancement was made by people like Joe, who were striving to get ahead by staying ahead of their competition. Obama says that Joe should want to help the people behind him. In fact, people like Joe, spend every waking moment trying to stay ahead of the people behind him, not trying to help them. Obama does not understand capitalism, business nor human motivation.

It is paramount that we educate all Americans to these truths. Unfortunately, many schools and universities are teaching our children that capitalism is corrupt and unfair but government regulation and social engineering programs, including “spreading the wealth”, is fair and helps the little guy. In this sense, our educational system is harmful to our economic well being and the future of our nation. Politicians use this theme to win elections because there are more little guys and less wealthy people. There have always been more common people than wealthy people. This is the way it is, and the way that history shows it has always been. Outcomes will never be equal because human motivation, passion, competency, priorities and desires vary among all of us. History has shown that human passions and motivation can only be stifled by government. Our individual abilities, passions and desires are given to us by God and are boundless when left unfettered by government regulation and taxes. Democratic capitalism, restrained and tempered by religious morals as exemplified in the Judeo-Christian ethic, is what has led to America becoming the freest, most prosperous and most powerful nation that this world has ever seen. America's wealth, innovation and compassion has improved the lot of people worldwide. Obama's socialist ideas of “ spreading the wealth around”, actually insures that there will be less wealth for everyone and will create regulations that breed corruption, waste and inefficiency. Our individual and collective prosperity can only increase, if government stands clear of plumber Joe's noble passions. Government may be able to redistribute existing wealth, but only motivated people like plumber Joe can create it.

Click on the video below to hear Neil Cavuto interview "Plumber Joe"

Character and Candidates

John Edwards is often touted as a brilliant trial lawyer. Hillary Clinton has been called the smartest woman in the world. I often hear Obama supporters touting his Harvard education and high level of intelligence as one of the main reasons for their support. While it is true that education and intelligence are desirable qualities, they only play a minor role in my voting decision. Intelligence is not, in and of itself, a virtue. Intelligence, knowledge, and education can be used for either good or evil. While education, knowledge, and intelligence can help a good man make more informed decisions, they can also be used by an evil man to carry out diabolical plans. What is most important to me is the character of a presidential candidate. Character is what separates good men from bad men, bad men from evil men, corrupt men from honest men, loyal men from traitorous men, selfless men from selfish men, faithful men from philanderers, humble men from conceited "show-offs", modesty from vanity, and ethical men from scoundrels.

Today's society places much emphasis on improving our bodies and our minds. Most people admire people of great intelligence, beauty, strength, and coordination. For the purpose of "full disclosure", I am compelled to admit that I have none of these characteristics, so I may be suffering from a case of "sour grapes". However, I believe that these physical and mental assets are nice, but in my mind, they are trivial when compared with good character. I do not admire talented singers, dancers, actors, athletes, Nobel laureates, engineers, doctors, scientists, philosophers, and intellectuals for those accomplishments in and of themselves. However, I am very impressed with a humble man who knows right from wrong and strives to improve his character and instill good character in his children. To do so without expecting reward, popularity, or recognition, shows the kind of character and humility that I greatly admire. Humility is a character asset. Our character is the essence of who we are. Character is a window into our soul. If you believe in an eternal soul like I do, our character, the essence of our soul, is the only thing that we will take with us when our spirit leaves this world upon our death. In the grand scheme of things, there is nothing more important than character.

Last week I read about an elite government microbiologist, Bruce E. Ivins, who committed suicide after an investigation implicated him in the 2001 anthrax terror attacks. Ivins apparently mailed anthrax laced envelopes, which threatened US senators and dozens of other innocent people with that deadly disease. Ivins received undergraduate and graduate degrees, including a doctorate in microbiology, from the University of Cincinnati. Ivins was a highly educated and intelligent scientist, but this did not stop him from carrying out an evil plan that led to the death of 5 people. It is believed that Ivins' altruistic motive for this horrific crime was to aid in the development of a vaccine against anthrax. Often diabolical crimes are carried out with an "ends justifies the means" altruistic motive. Ivins suffered from a defect in character that led him to perpetrate this horrific act, not a lack of education or intelligence.

In 1975 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , the president of Iran, took his entrance exams placing 132nd out of 400,000 at Iran University of Science and Technology. He earned an undergraduate degree in civil engineering and returned for his masters and earned a doctorate in traffic and transport engineering and planning. Despite these intellectual accomplishments, Ahmadinejad denies the Jewish holocaust in Germany, calls for the destruction of Israel, and seeks world domination through Islamic Jihad, in which he intends to kill or convert all non-Muslims. Ahmadinejad has twisted altruistic motives because he believes that this scenario will bring about everlasting world peace. Again, this "ends justifies the means" scenario is not compatible with our American cultural values based on Judeo-Christian ethics.

The Christian minister and civil rights leader, Reverend Martin Luther King, said: "Judge not by the color of one's skin, but by the content of one's character". Reverend King did not ask us us to judge people by their education, intelligence, looks, physical fitness, or other physical or mental characteristics. King directed us to judge people by the content of their character. Reverend King acknowledged the importance of judging of one's character.

These days, "judgment" seems to be a dirty word. We are told not to be judgmental, however, good judgment is essential to our health, happiness, prosperity, and safety. We all must use good judgment when choosing our friends, our spouse, our doctor, our pastor, our associates, and our president. We must use good judgment when purchasing a house, car, and investments to ensure that we do not get swindled. We rely on judgment to determine if we are safe and make the appropriate corrections to minimize our risks. Often we rely on generalizations and stereotypes to steer us away from danger or trouble. Generalizations and stereotypes are often true and a valuable tool in making judgments that we make every day. For example, we may not walk through a ghetto alone at three A.M. We may not purchase a major investment from a shabbily dressed person. We teach our children not to talk to strangers. We may not seek marriage counseling from a divorced counselor. We may not ask a convicted felon to "house sit" for us. We may not choose to date a known drug addict or alcoholic. We may not hire a known prostitute as our babysitter. In most cases, judging the character of the people that we deal with is more important than judging their intelligence and/or education. We all constantly make judgments based on people's personal appearance, past behavior, family background, criminal record, and other generalizations and stereotypes. Generalizations and stereotypes are often true because past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior and family background and associations has a great deal to do with our character.

Character assets, sometimes called spiritual principles, that I admire include: humility, self discipline, love, forgiveness, patience, faith in God, faithfulness to family, loyalty to country, friends, and associates, self-sacrifice, selflessness, honesty, and integrity. These spiritual principles are taken from the Judeo-Christian values that our American culture was founded upon. These are the principles that inspired our Declaration of Independence that is based on our self evident, inalienable rights granted to us by God, not government. These are the same principles that inspired civil rights leaders in the '60's to end segregation and pressure the government to pass civil rights legislation. These are the traits that I look for in friends, associates, and presidential candidates. Character is usually instilled in children by their parents, family, teachers, and spiritual leaders. Children who are born and raised by a loving mother and father and who have a strong faith in a loving God, are more likely to be instilled with good character.

Although Barack Obama is highly educated and intelligent, I believe that he lacks good values, character, and good judgment. Barack Obama is the product of an alcoholic polygamist father who abandoned his family when Barack was only two years old. Barack's mother left him to chase her dreams, traveling the world while Barack attended high school, leaving him with only his grandmother to look after him. Of course it is only a stereotype and generalization but children who are abandoned by their parents often have resentments which lead to lifelong psychological and spiritual problems. Knowing a person's family and upbringing is often helpful in judging that person's character. Obama's parents were both college educated. His mother was considered an intellectual and traveled the world as an anthropologist. His father left the family to study at Harvard and later on went back to Kenya where he died in an auto accident, when he was driving drunk. Both parents were highly educated, however, they both put their ambitions and pleasures ahead of their child. Although Barack Obama himself is highly intelligent and educated, did his spiritually vacuous parents leave him with a character deficit?

Also, Obama chose to join the Trinity Church in Chicago which is based on radical "Black Liberation Theology" . Black liberation theology is based on Marxism and Black Theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Obama was married in Trinity Church by Reverend Wright. He had his children baptized at Trinity and has attended Trinity with his wife and young children for sixteen years. Obama has called Reverend Wright of Trinity Church his friend and mentor. Reverend Wright is a highly educated man with two masters degrees and a doctorate degree. How can it be that Reverend Wright preaches that the US government purposely infected black Americans with the AIDS virus, that the US government plays a role in illicit drug use in the black ghettos, that the US is responsible for the 9/11 terror attack, and he preaches the words "God Damn America" from his pulpit at Trinity Church of Chicago? Could it be that this highly educated spiritual leader is himself suffering from moral and spiritual deficit?

Obama donated $25,000 to Trinity Church prior to his bid for the presidency. I think that Obama used Trinity Church and Reverend Wright to make political connections to further his political career. Obama has recently disowned Trinity Church and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright after Wright's racist and Anti-American statements from the pulpit became widely publicized. I think that Obama's longstanding relationship with Trinity Church and Reverend Wright reflects on his character and judgment. Obama's sudden disowning of his friend and mentor, Reverend Wright, who he had a twenty year relationship with, speaks for his lack of loyalty.

Another negative association of Barack Obama is the admitted domestic terrorist Bill Ayres. Bill Ayres is an anti-American radical who has admitted to bombing police stations and government offices. There were no casualties, only property damage in those attacks. He and his wife performed these terrorist acts as members of a radical group called the Weather Underground during the '60's and '70's as protests against the Vietnam War. They avoided conviction because their case was dismissed on the technicality of an improper search and the evidence was not allowed in court. As recently as 2001, Ayres has been recorded as saying that he had no remorse for his role in the bombings in the '60s' and 70's, he only regrets that he did not do more, because they were ineffective. Obama has recently admitted to being friendly with Bill Ayres. He said that their children went to school and played together. They spoke at several panels together. Also, William Ayres held fundraisers for Obama that helped launch his political career and Obama has been a guest in the Ayres' home. Ayers is currently a Distinguished Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education. Although Ayres is currently a respected professor at a prestigious Chicago university, clearly Bill Ayres is a man of high intelligence but low on character. Obama's association with him gives us a window into Obama's character.

Another shady associate of Obama is convicted racketeer Tony Rezko. Rezko has been recently convicted of giving cash and campaign contributions to several Illinois politicians in exchange for lucrative contracts for low income housing projects. Rezko contributed a quarter million dollars to Obama's political campaigns. Obama has since donated some of that money to charity, after Rezko was indicted. Rezko was also involved a in a real estate deal with Obama. Obama bought land adjacent to his newly purchased home from Rezko's wife, at three hundred thousand dollars below market value. Obama did nothing illegal, but he had to have known that Rezko would expect political favors in the future in exchange for the land deal and campaign contributions. This is exactly what Rezko got convicted of, getting lucrative housing contracts from politicians that he helped install in office with contributions, bribes, money laundering, and racketeering. Obama was selling his political soul to the devil by accepting contributions and favors from Tony Rezko. This too speaks to Obama's character and judgment.

In today's day and age, much value is placed on popularity, good looks, youth, education, wealth, diversity, and physical and mental talents. Also, I am seeing parents, schools, universities, the media, the arts, the medical community, and even churches endorsing a philosophy that says feelings, self esteem, fitting in, and being cool are paramount. Today's culture is teaching that any form of judgment and moral restraint is wrong, oppressive, and prejudicial. All forms of diversity are celebrated, especially if they are in conflict with traditional American values. On the other hand, little attention is payed to the universal spiritual principles that our great country was founded on, and that define us in the eyes of our Creator.

The separation of church and state is vital to our society. Just as we have a separation of powers within government (executive, judicial, and legislative), both government and our Judeo-Christian values are needed to keep one another in check. Judeo-Christian ethics, separated from and balanced by a secular government, is how our unique American culture is defined. The "Ten Commandments" are the root of our secular laws. Mitt Romney best describes this in his "Faith in America" speech.

All forms of diversity are not necessarily compatible with American culture. Islamic "Sharia law" is not compatible with American law due to its lack of women's' rights, punishment by amputation, lashing, and stoning. Sharia law also considers the act of homosexuality a capital crime. Atheistic values are also not necessarily compatible with our unique American culture. If atheism, Sharia law, and/or a hodgepodge of random spiritual beliefs become the majority, we will lose our unique American culture and the freedom, wealth, strength, and civil equality that it has brought to our nation.

Nearly one third of Muslim students in England believe it can be acceptable to kill in the name of religion, according to a survey published yesterday. It also found that 40 per cent want to see the introduction of Islamic Sharia law in Britain, 40 per cent think it wrong for Muslim men and women to mix freely together, and 33 per cent want to see a worldwide Islamic government based on Sharia law. Clearly this culture is not compatible with western culture. If this trend continues to grow, western culture in Britain will be threatened as a result of encouraging this form of diversity.

If we are to survive as a free, wealthy, and strong nation, we must return to the the principles that our nation was founded on. These values are what keeps our people free, prosperous, and strong. If our individual and collective character decays, we will become apathetic about choosing men of character to lead us. In fact, we will choose leaders based on how cool and popular they appear. If this happens, it will lead to deceit, manipulation, corruption, anarchy, and decay of the once great American democratic republic. Freedom without moral restraint is unsustainable and will lead to anarchy. Sanctuary cities and selective enforcement of immigration laws are glaring examples of the beginning of anarchy in America. When anarchy becomes widespread, it will lead to widespread violence and poverty. In an effort to squelch the violence and poverty that anarchy breeds, a totalitarian government may rise to power. Character and spiritual principles must trump education and intelligence when choosing our leaders if we are to preserve our unique American culture and survive as a great, free, and prosperous nation.

Women In The Workplace

Today I heard an audio clip of Barack Obama who said this before a cheering crowd: “When women still make just 77 cents for every dollar men make - black and Latina women even less - that doesn't just hurt women, it hurts families who find themselves with less income, and have to work even harder just to get by.” That statement made me very angry because it is deceptive, disingenuous, and just plain wrong on many levels.

First off, I would like to know, why do liberals confuse level of income, with the level of meaning in their lives? Next, I would like to know, why do liberal crowds always cheer when they are told that America is an unfair, mean place? Also, why are liberals always trying to achieve equality of outcomes, regardless of peoples choices and behaviors? But most importantly, I would like to discuss why Obama's statement is deceptive and disingenuous.

Obama's statement is deceptive for several reasons. That particular statistic does not compare women who work at the same type of jobs as the men that they are compared with. When you compare equal jobs, the disparity shrinks. When you include equal experience, it shrinks even more. That statistic also does not compare women who work the same number of hours as men. When you compensate for hours worked, the disparity shrinks even more. On average, women work 200 hours less per year when compared with men.

Many would say, women are discriminated against and forced to take lower paid jobs, such as receptionist or waitress. They claim that discrimination keeps women from holding high paying jobs because of a glass ceiling. Fortunately, in the US we are still given a free choice of what occupations we choose to peruse and we are also free to choose among a variety hours and times required to work at various jobs. It just so happens that women on average, choose to work at jobs that do not require as many hours to be worked annually. It is very deceptive and disingenuous to leave this fact out when quoting that statistic, yet I hear liberals constantly using that statistic unchallenged.

Another thing that Obama conveniently left out of his comment was that women, have similar, if not better education than men. Nobody is denying the fact that women have equal or better opportunities and higher education than men on average. Currently women make up 55% of all college enrollments. However, often women have more education but less experience than the males at the same jobs.

On jobs that I have held, I have always noticed that when there is a job opening, the manager always has a hard time finding a good person to fill the slot. As an auto mechanic, I worked on commission. The manager is always looking for someone who can work fast and with a minimum of mistakes or accidents. He is looking for someone who can get the most work done. Most managers would be looking for these qualities. But in commission work, they want to find the person that will make the most money for himself, because that person will be earning the most money for the company and keeping its customers happy. Since the customer never sees the mechanic it doesn't matter what he/she looks like, what race they are, what sex they are or how good their communication skills are. The manager is desperately looking for someone who can fix cars right the first time, and get it done quickly and safely.

I have worked in many repair shops and auto dealerships, but I have never worked alongside a female mechanic. However, women did work as service-writers, cashiers, in the parts department, in office jobs, and even as service managers. Out of all those job categories, the mechanics usually earned the most money (save some service managers). Do you think that auto dealerships discriminated against women by not allowing them to work as mechanics? I do not. I think that very few women choose to do the dirty, sweaty work required as an auto mechanic. Also, I think as a whole, women's innate talents, and desires do not lie in this area. Of course there are exceptions. And I have heard stories about very competent and happy women mechanics, but on the whole, women are not auto-mechanics because they choose not to work as auto mechanics, not because they are being discriminated against or relegated to lower positions at the auto dealerships. The free market determines how much each job category will pay depending upon how much money qualified and trained people are willing to do the work for, and the amount of supply viruses demand in the employment market.

Is it possible that many women choose not to work as many hours as men because they would rather have more time to spend raising their children, or doing other things? I believe that most women have an innate tendency toward child rearing, while most men have an innate tendency to be more competitive in their career. Most divorcées, and family courts also believe in this these innate tendencies. In most divorce settlements, the woman is usually awarded custody of the children, because she fights for it, and the judge usually agrees with the woman when awarding child custody. I do not hear Obama and liberals complaining about this disparity, because women are making these choices. So why do I hear them complaining when women choose to work less hours or choose less competitive careers?

Personally I believe that families would be better off, if women did not work while there are young children in their homes. Families would surly be better off if there was a full time mother and wife in the home. But we live in a free country, where women and men are free to individually choose how they will live their lives. We are free to choose how we divide our time between work, family and leisure. In today's day and age, many women choose a full time career. But some women also choose to be full time “stay-at-home-moms”, and others choose flexible jobs that will allow them more time at home. On the other hand, a vast majority of men choose to be full time breadwinners. As a result of “women's right to choose”, women, on average choose to earn 77 cents for each dollar that a man earns on average. Women have different priorities than men. As a result, many are not tied to a restrictive career path, they are free to leave the work force for years at a time.

Often, many women have a desire to “have it all”, a family and a meaningful, rewarding career. Unfortunately, in real life, compromises often have to be made, sometimes at the expense of the family, and sometimes at the expense of the career. In any case, it is today's women who are making these choices, not a sexist society who is trying to keep women down. I do not believe that in today's day and age, women are being held down in the work place.

I do not understand why liberals politicians are constantly trying to deceive the public about this. Why are liberal constituents so eager to celebrate anything that advances the premise that America is a mean and unfair country? Why do so few conservatives have the courage to hold Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other liberals, accountable for this disingenuous deception? I do not know the answer to these questions, but I do know that today's liberal culture prefers to believe in causes that makes them feel good, rather than perusing the truth. The biggest danger that America faces today, is putting emotion above reason and losing interest in the truth.

Obama, the First black President?

I think that race has helped Obama more than hurt him. Many white folks are voting for Obama out of a sense of white guilt or to show everyone how open-minded and progressive that they are. They think that by voting for the first black president that they are proving that they are a good person. Most Obama supporters can not even tell you what his policies are or what his record has been. All they know is that if elected, he will be the first black president.

Obama is a socialist. He wants to tax the wealthy and give to the poor. Just like Karl Marx said ,"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This sounds good but it doesn't work because people lose motivation and ambition. Eventually, the class that produces goods and services shrinks, so there is less wealth to go around. As a result, most people become poor and dependent on the Government. Please don't fall for it.