What if it was the Kurds, not the Palestinians?

The Kurds are the largest ethnic group in the world without a homeland.

Turkey does not allow them their own land, despite ages-old ancestral claims. Wonder how Turkey would feel if neighboring nations tried to force their way in to blockaded Turkish territory to aid the Kurds, perhaps smuggling weapons in the process? And what would the UN do?

And what if the Turkish government had made a very generous offer of land and peace to the Kurds, but since it wasn't 100% of what the Kurds wanted they turned it down?

And what if the Turks generously withdrew from a Kurdish-claimed area as a gesture of peace? What if the area was some of the most prime real estate in the world? What if the Kurds then used that area, close to densely populated Turkish areas, to launch DAILY missile attacks into Turkey?

And what if the Kurdish leader who rejected the fine offer of peace was a terrorist with a history of ordering the deaths of hundreds of Turks, and of his own people? What if he personally was more interested in the benefits TO HIMSELF of continued warfare, sacrificing his own people's future in return for the $$ and power to be gained by demonizing Turks in the minds of those with natural antipathies to them?

And what if the UN decided to back the Kurds, who had legitimate grievances but chose to try to resolve them through blowing up Turkish children in Turkish malls and teenage hangouts? Would the world's opinion of the UN drop, especially given the fact that Turkey was given authority to own their land BY THE UN ITSELF?

And what if the USA was led by people with no foreign policy experience, who saw the world as a place of moral relativism, and whose desire for Kurdish autonomy caused them to look past the targeting by Kurds of young innocents and see only the harsh response of the Turkish government to the slaughter of their children? Would this naive US leadership recognize the impossibility that a nation built on terrorism by terrorists could ever live peacefully with its neighbors, given the fact that terrorism worked? After all, if terrorism got them what they wanted, why ever discard it as a tactic?

And what if the Kurds had formed a partnership with a psychopathic regime that was wealthy and had access to truly terrible weapons, and the will to use them? And what if that regime was religiously committed to ushering in a "new age" that saw this world as a battleground to be won by its perception of god, and condoned national suicide as a way of hastening that new world order?

And what if this regime saw the USA as led by weak-minded people who just wanted to talk about peace, but weren't willing to back up their talk with serious and severe repercussions to those who fomented war? Would they be happy to continue talking with the USA as a way of buying time to develop more weapons, and even more lethal ones?

Does weakness by the USA promote peace, or create a vacuum of power that allows genocidal regimes to flourish?

In the past 30 years, have we been closer to widespread mass bloodshed in the Middle East than we are now?

Saying "I'm concerned." doesn't come close to expressing my thoughts right now.

Gospel vs. Religion

Pretty darn good comparison! (Click the chart to enlarge)

This is why every Christian (at times) walks around with a look of shocked stupefaction. The AMAZING power and gift of Grace!

This is also why we feel compelled to offer to those we love the greatest gift we ourselves have ever received.

Please, non-Christian friends, don't get po'd at us for doing so.

We are all free to reject, but it's necessary to be clear about what is being rejected: The gift of eternal love and eternal life.

You and I can't do a darn thing to earn those things, yet they are priceless and freely given.

You say you're not a fan of religion? We Christians agree!

Hat tip to Buzzard Blog

Were our Founders Christian?

By "Founders" I refer to those men who established (founded) the USA. America's founding docs are the Declaration and the Constitution. The majority of those who signed these docs (the Founders) were Christian (believers in Jesus as the Savior of mankind)... it's just a fact of history. No spin.

The first sentence of the D of I.... we're used to it, but it's a world-shaking document. Man is "created", he's individually valued, he's endowed with rights by God that nobody can take away, protecting those rights is the primary function of govt. This is NOT a secular document, and it's not any other religion but Christian.

Christians do NOT hold a copyright on these values. They resonate in every human heart, but Christianity made them part of our official civic life. Copyright implies something you want to protect and keep the benefits for yourself. Christians want to SHARE these values freely and abundantly!

The First Amendment is a Christian statement because it enshrines freedom of religion. This is the power and RADICALNESS of Christ...freedom to accept or reject. The Perfect God who gave us freedom, perfectly respects our freedom.

Man codified it into the greatest founding document of all time. Miraculous that men would actually rise above their base instincts to do so! This is not normal throughout human history....even in "Christian" nations. The King, Ruler, or Govt typically defined the religion of the nation.

By Christian Nation, I do NOT mean we adhere to the tenets of Christianity as institutionalized codes in our civic apparatus. This would NOT be Christian, as Christ separated the two.

Christianity is, rather, the water we swim in here in the West, so we don't even know we're wet. One doesn't have to profess the faith to have internalized the values. You and I likely grew up with and take for granted values such as the respect for individual rights and basic freedoms. Again, many don't profess Christianity yet hold these values dear, and assume they are universal.

It is not spiritual arrogance to trace these values back to Christianity's arrival in the Ancient World. It is just what happened. Individual life was not valued. Females were not equal. Slavery was normal. Class privilege was a fact of life. Legal codes varied depending on one's status.

Christ came along and turned all that upside down...and it was not anything else that did it. The Christians were considered a bizarre aberration from the norm. Christian values are now our norm, even as they are not personally professed as belief about salvation and the soul.

Organized religion has DEFINITELY caused a lot of bloodshed down through the centuries, with Christianity being a big part of that! Please don't forget that Christ came to destroy "organized religion", and to establish the New Covenant based on Grace...NOT religion!! Of course, man has corrupted that, but we keep being renewed by disobedience-birthed suffering. I have little use for organized religion. Please don't confuse the Gospel with "religion".

By "orthodox" I mean the basics of authentic Christianity: The Bible as divine revelation, Christ as the Son of God and Redeemer of mankind. I don't put my stock in some dogmatic man-created view of what God wants.

So lets bring this to life with a current issue facing America: Illegal Immigration.

We were all in some sense immigrants, yes. No argument there!

But... we came to a nation of laws, not of men. The immigration here worked because there was no one above the law. Everyone was equal before it (though of course corruption is part of the deal... damn humans!).

When we ignore laws and let law abiding people suffer and die, the blowback against the immigrants is heightened and more severe. People in Arizona, for example, are suffering and dying because laws on the books are not enforced. And then they are condemned for wanting to enforce the laws and thereby NOT suffer anymore! What??

Though we fall short in execution of the principles laid out in our founding documents, they still contain the promise of equality and freedom never before seen in the world. That promise has been unfolding, sporadically for sure... lots of dead bodies (native Americans, Blacks, Chinese, Irish, etc.) attest to that!

The "Promissory Note" that is our Constitution, however, is being cashed in. A lot of suffering has occurred at our hands as we ignored the promises, but that's not the fault of the promises...it's the human heart corrupting the good in promotion of the self.

More to come soon...

Robin of Berkeley ALWAYS makes me smile!

As an ex-liberal myself, I always enjoy reading Robin of Berkeley's insight into the liberal mind.

She's a self-described "recovering liberal" and psychotherapist living and working in Berkeley, California... home of the fossilized liberal, still alive and kicking, but beliefs cemented in stone for decades.

Robin snapped out of it a couple of years ago, and is very tuned into what made her "tick".

Here's a few gems from a recent column:

Conservatives can mistakenly assume that liberals think like they do, in a learned and rational way. This is an exercise in futility since liberalism is not based on logic.

To become a conservative, I've had to learn a whole new language, one based on reason. If conservatives want to understand the liberal mind, they should consider becoming bilingual, too.

Liberals live in a stratosphere centered on emotions and magical thinking. If you've tried to reason with your daughter and she looks at you blankly; if your neighbor changes the subject during your compelling arguments; if your cousin says this about Obama: "I don't know why. I just like the guy"...that's why.

And this is true about liberals, about their sources of information, and their fear-based analysis:

Further, when liberals take the time to tune in, they get their "information" from progressive propaganda. And they don't question the Left's authority.

That's the biggest problem -- not questioning the party line even though there are obvious gaps and gaffes. A big reason for this is fear.

I had a telling e-mail exchange with a liberal friend. When I wrote that I thought Obama was a Marxist, she responded, "Don't say that! You're scaring me!"

Aside from intellectual laziness, the Fear Factor makes otherwise intelligent liberals stupidly fall into line. Liberals can scare easily.

Here's the whole article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/liberals_are_from_mars_conserv.html


Make Robin a regular read!

Good ol' Civility...

We often hear Democrats and President Obama calling for "civility".

Too often, that call for civility is addressed at people who are dissenting... with civility. Still, they are dissenting, and their dissent is vigorous.

That vigorous dissent is perceived as "uncivil".

My take: "Grow up."

Put on your Big Boy Pants and engage the debate on the merits and facts of the issues. Opponents of Obama/Democrat agenda items don't oppose based on incivility. They oppose based on solid, mostly well-developed ideas that are grounded in principles rooted in our founding documents.

But of course, the "game" of politics is easier to play if you can just isolate your opposition, and demagogue them as uncivil and unworthy of engaged debate. Obama is a master of this, constantly depicting opponents' positions as based on wanting to "do nothing".

He's not only intellectually opposed to free market and republican (little "r") principles, he's surrounded himself with profane, obscene people.

Rahm Emmanuel comes to mind:

“I’m going to kill that f***ing dog,” and his yelling to a male staffer: “Take your f***ing tampon out and tell me what you have to say.”

Is it surprising?

No. This is who Obama is. For proof, just look at the people around him (Emmanuel, Axelrod, Gibbs). Small-minded, adversarial people who are tough as nails against POLITICAL threats (Tea Partiers, Palin), but weak-kneed against REAL ones (Iran, Islamic Terror).

Want more proof?

Look no further than the church Obama sat in for 20... 20! ... years.

A "church" led by a "pastor" who... is Racist and blames the world's problems on white people; hates Jews; screams "g@d d#*n America!" at the top of his lungs in church!

I can't think of anything LESS Presidential than sitting in that racist, America-hating church for 20 years.

Imagine ANY other politician sitting in a White Supremacist church, condemning Jews and America for 20 years. They wouldn't last 5 minutes on the campaign trail.

Why did Obama?

Media and the Cult of Personality, plain and simple.

A Tale of Two Obamas

First, there's... Candidate Obama:

"Even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us--the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of 'anything goes.' Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America--there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America--there's the United States of America."--state senator Barack Obama, Democratic National Convention, July 27, 2004

Then, there's... President Obama:

"In the video message to his supporters, [President] Obama said his administration's success depends on the outcome of this fall's elections and warned that if Republicans regain control of Congress, they could 'undo all that we have accomplished.' 'This year, the stakes are higher than ever,' he said, according to a transcript of his remarks provided by Democratic officials. 'It will be up to each of you to make sure that young people, African Americans, Latinos and women who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again. . . .' "--Washington Post, April 26, 2010


Which is the REAL Obama?

Hint: people say and do a lot of things to get elected. Once in power, the real person is revealed by what they DO with power.

This is the tired old Democrat "identity politics" game they've played for decades.

For some reason, people still allow our "leaders" to get away with this.

Obama's REAL ambition?

This is a VERY interesting theory, that makes quite a bit of sense.

It's from a Letter to the Editor at "The New Republic" (NOT a conservative publication!).

It's long, but worth it:

Dashendorf - As an ex-Chicago Jew (for the 8 years before moving to Israel) I must protest that not all Chicago Jews supported Obama. Hell, I didn't even vote for him for the Senate as I had a lot of vague doubts back then. Not all Chicago Jews are starry-eyed naifs.

I want to float a different hypothesis to explain Obama, different in the sense that I don't recall seeing this elsewhere. If someone has seen idea this elsewhere I'd love to know where.

Obama has let loose a few hints that he might well be satisfied to be a one term president. And as several have observed, he doesn't really seem to like the job of POTUS. In view of this, a friend and also an ex-Chicagoan (and my son's father-in-law) suggested that Obama's bizarre, and seemingly counterproductive approach to foreign policy becomes more understandable if he is merely using the presidency of the USA as a stepping stone to become UN Secretary-General.

To wit:

First of all, UN Sec'y General is the perfect job for Obama, from his perspective. He gets to sit around or travel the world and jabber with world leaders & strive to fix the world but without having the degree of administrative responsibility and accountability that is inherent in the US presidency. Indeed the UN Sec'y Generalship is almost without any accountability. Furthermore there is none of the messiness of electoral & party politics.

It's essentially a job that offers a lot of opportunity for pontification without actually having to build or do something. Just like academia from whence Obama came.

Furthermore Obama claims to be a great believer in the moral & political superiority of doing things via transnational institutions, a belief that almost has a religious, mystical quality to it. Hence his recent nuclear disarmament conference in Washington DC designed more than anything else to polish up the heavily tarnished respectability veneer of the ineffectual NPT, but without actually dealing with the pressing Iranian nukes problem in a meaningful way. Hence Obama's insistence on making-do with merely symbolic, "nibbling" sanctions that have the official blessing of the UN Security Council, as opposed to going for more effective, but less (in his mind) legitimate crushing sanctions imposed by the USA & a coalition of the willing.

Indeed, given his own views on "world governance" (also exemplified by the appointment of Harold Koh to a senior legal position in the administration) what could be a greater achievement in his mind than to become Sec'y General of the UN, in effect Supreme Leader of the World?

He seemed most in his element, most comfortable when he chaired the the UN Security Council meeting last fall. Ditto for the Climate Conference.

Assuming that Obama probably has a greater chance for the job coming as a "transnational" nominee from the Third World bloc (if need be I am sure he could arrange to get Kenyan citizenship in a flash) & hence his policy & behavior have been aimed at ingratiating himself to the Third Worlders, in part by "dissing" the icons of the first world.

Dump on the Europeans & especially the Brits, particularly by distancing himself from Brown, returning the Churchill bust, and giving ridiculous gifts to the queen & prime minister. Show undue respect to Third World monarchs & despots regardless of their human rights records.

Downplay human rights violations in third world countries so as to placate their political leadership & hence gain their support. Re-join the UN Human Rights council, a hot bed of Third Worldism, to give it increased legitimacy.

Show favor to Muslims who control a big bloc of support at the UN, by banning mention of Jihad & radical Islam.

And most of all dump on Israel, the favorite bete noir & boogey man of the Third World countries, while shielding the Palestinians -- the quintessential poster children of an "oppressed" third world people (to hell with facts like the 8+% growth in the Palestinian economy in 2009) -- from any criticism or from having to actually do something to advance the "peace process".

I am sure if you go through Obama's policies & decisions and behaviors you could come up with more examples that are quite consistent with an undeclared ongoing campaign to become UN Sec'y General by being a nominee of the Third World.

Food for thought...

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem