Speaking Truth to Power

There were many town hall meetings across the land this past week. Some estimate that there were over 1,000. (I am sticking to that modest number because it is perhaps better to understate the size and velocity of the anti-Democratic Healthcare Plan movement). I know in Yakima there was a 2^nd gathering in the space of two weeks.

In Clark County, Washington, Congressman Brian Baird got name recognition a few weeks ago when he used the words “brown shirt tactics” and “lynch mobs” in describing town hall attendees. To his credit, he held another Town Hall meeting after those remarks. It created another unforgettable moment that hopefully brought clarity to the topic Baird spoke of.

The speaker in the green shirt, David Hedrick said afterword, "I was one questioner out of 38, that was called at random from an audience that started at 3,000 earlier in the evening. Not expecting to be called on, I quickly scratched what I wanted to say on a borrowed piece of paper and with a pen that I borrowed from someone else in the audience minutes before I spoke. So much for the planned talking points of the right wing conspiracy. "

Congressman Baird supports a bill in Congress that is being written by lawyers who were elected by no one. Was he elected to represent the wishes of Washington DC lawyers? At another Town Hall meeting, a Congressman tried to explain that he didn't write the bill even though he was supporting it. Someone from the crowd yelled back for him to go get the lawyers who are writing it then. "Apparently that is who we need to be talking to!"

Open Letter to Patty Murray

Dear Senator Murray:

As you know, there was a collection of people with signs in front of your office in Yakima recently. They showed up to make their feelings known about the Health Care bill you are considering. They knew you were not going to be there but they took time from their busy schedules to come anyway. Why weren’t you there?

If any American were to list the duties of our elected officials in Washington, somewhere at the top of the list would be the purpose of listening to your constituents so as to better represent them in Washington. THAT IS YOUR JOB. It may be unpleasant for you. It may be bothersome for you, but it is clearly something we are paying you to do. Every person who showed up set aside their busy schedules to be there. None were paid. You are paid for precisely that and you conveniently avoided the scene. If you would have shown, it appears to me that you would have been the youngest one there. Are you afraid of facing people decades older than you?

Part of the profound frustration of people today is your refusal to stand in their midst and listen to them. You have been a leader in slick website propaganda, and the phone “teleconference” meetings that sound just like the slick AARP teleconference meetings. But we have come to the point that we are extremely tired of being manipulated by this full court press to pass what you have been told to pass concerning our health care. It is clear that you represent the Washington DC lawyers’ interests and your purpose is to tell us what we get. Have you grown so “professional” that you have lost site of the fact that your job is to do just the opposite?

The fact that you are just too busy to come here on your recess and listen to your own constituents in front of your own office is the answer to that question. On your website you try to portray that you are “fighting” for health care reform. Your rejection of the opportunity to hear your own people’s profound frustration tells us clearly who you are fighting against.

There are no facts, there are no figures, there is no history that could ever lead us to believe that the public option insurance plan is workable. History is full of facts and non-partisan experts have many figures to show us that a federally created and run health insurance option is unworkable, unsustainable, costly, and ruinous. Please join us to reject such an ill-conceived notion.

Thank you.

Real Questions. We want Answers

One of the best criticisms of the whole Health Care debate involves the unbeleivably high pressure put on Congress to get the bill approved. With 20% of the economy all wrapped up in this issue, people are wondering why they are insisting on the frenetic pace to get to the bill approved. I am paraphrasing, but one man remarked, “It took President Obama 6 months to choose the White House dog. Why do we have to have this monumental plan done in 6 weeks?”

The Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. They introduced a horribly complex bill that would impact every person in the country in the most profound way and then tried to rush the approval process. Fortunately, the citizens of this country are not serfs but are educated human beings. Given just a little time, they can read the bill.

What follows is very long. You may not want to read it all. I don’t blame you. Our Congressmen and Senators have not read their own versions of the bill and they certainly do not want to read these 20 questions. President Obama hasn’t read the bill and doesn’t want to answer specific questions about it. These questions come from Robert Tracinski by way of Pamela Geller’s website, Atlas Shrugs. They both encourage us to go to our own Town Hall meetings and ask questions such as these.

1. The government has been "reforming" health-care for sixty years—tax breaks for employer-provided health-insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, encouraging HMOs and managed care, and government health-insurance at the state level in Massachusetts, Maine, Oregon. Government health-care has expanded until it is now more than 50% of all health-care spending. Yet after sixty years of government "reform," the problems with health-care are just getting worse. So why should we believe that even more government is the solution?

2. President Obama keeps telling us that he's not trying to get rid of private health insurance. But the bill being debated in Congress would require all new insurance policies to be offered through a government-run exchange, in which the rates that can be charged and the coverage that has to be provided will be dictated by the government's so-called "Health Choices Commissioner." Employer-provided health-insurance will fall under the same regulations in five years. How is this insurance going to be "private" if the government controls everything about it?

3. A video on YouTube shows Barack Obama back in 2003—only six years ago—saying that he is in favor of a "single payer" system. The "single payer" is government, so this means he was in favor of socialized medicine. And just a few weeks ago, Barney Frank—one of the Democratic leaders in the House—said that he considers the current bill a step toward "single payer." So when Obama and the Democrats tell us this bill won't lead to a government takeover of health-care, why should we believe them?

4. Medicare is broke. Social Security is broke. Federal tax receipts are falling, and Congress has already voted on trillions of dollars of stimulus and bailouts in the last year. The national credit card is maxed out. So how can you justify voting for a bill that will require even more money that we don't have?

5. The health-care bill that is being discussed includes huge taxes on businesses to force them to provide more health insurance for their employees, as well as a whole set of mandates telling health insurance companies who they have to cover and what they have to cover them for. This is an enormous increase of costs for businesses and insurers. Have you considered how they're going to pay for all of this, or whether they will even be able to pay for it? How many of these companies will go out of business or lay off more workers after the government forcibly increases their expenses?

6. One of the main demands of the health-care bill is that insurers are required to cover people with "pre-existing conditions." That's like getting insurance on your car after you crash it. It's just a way of getting someone to bail you out for something that has already happened. This isn't insurance, it's a handout. So doesn't that mean that the rest of us will have to pay more for our insurance to absorb the cost of those handouts?

7. The health-care bill will mandate what costs insurance companies have to cover. For example, they will have to pay for routine check-ups and physicals, or they will have to provide every woman with maternity coverage. But what if you don't want to pay for that extra coverage? Right now, if you're young and healthy and don't need frequent check-ups, you can save money with a high-deductible insurance that doesn't cover them. Or if you don't want children, or already have children, you can save money by dropping the maternity rider on your policy. By taking those choices away from us, won't this bill actually make our insurance more expensive, not less?

8. A lot of people have been upset about Congress passing bills that they haven't had time to read—and they haven't even finished writing the health-care bill yet. But what I want to know is, with a bill this big and complex, have you taken the time to read it and understand it? Can you really say that anyone has had the time to figure out how all the parts will work together and what all of the consequences will be? With a bill this big, is it even possible to figure out all of that and really know what you're voting for?

9. President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making us a lot of promises about what we will get and what we won't get from this health-care bill. But what is or isn't in this one particular bill is not the end of the story. For example, how many times has Medicare changed over the last forty years? As more and more of us become dependent on the government for our health-care coverage, won't we have to worry about what some future Congress or some future bureaucrat will decide to cover or not cover?

10. The defenders of the health-care bill claim that it's going to lead to all sorts of savings, not by actually cutting any services or denying care, but just by finding "inefficiencies" that will save money. Do you think this is remotely plausible? When has anybody ever said, "This project has to be lean and efficient—let's get the government do it"?

11. One of the ways that has been proposed for government-provided health insurance to save money is by substituting Medicare reimbursement rates for market rates when paying doctors and hospitals. But many private hospitals and medical practices have said that if they have to accept these lower rates, they can't cover their expenses, and they will go out of business. So doesn't this bill guarantee an immediate shortage of doctors and medical services?

12. Medicare cuts costs by paying lower rates to doctors and hospitals, who then shift these costs to those of us with private health insurance, who get charged higher rates. But if the government takes over and starts dictating Medicare reimbursement rates for everyone, who will the costs get shifted to then?

13. When the government starting portraying people in the financial industry as villains and started limiting their pay and subjecting them to more regulations, banks reported a "brain drain" as smart and well-educated people left the industry or went overseas looking for better pay and less stress. But the term "brain drain" was originally coined in the 1960s when doctors and medical researchers left Britain to escape socialized medicine. Aren't you afraid we might see the same kind of brain drain from the medical profession here in America?

14. Do you know the meaning and significance of the term "quality adjusted life year"? (For this question, you will need the answer, which you can supply if your congressman is forced to admit that he doesn't know it—preferable after some stammering and a long, awkward pause. "Quality adjusted life year" is a term used under socialized medicine to determine whether elderly patients are allowed to get expensive drugs or treatments, depending on some bureaucrat's calculation of how many good years they have left. You should ask your congressman: Can you assure us that the same thing won't happen here?)

15. One of the proposals for how the government is going to save money is that it's going to have a panel of medical experts who will dictate from Washington, DC, what the proper medical practices are that should be paid for, and what practices are supposedly "wasteful" and "unnecessary." Won't this mean interfering with decisions that would normally be made by me and my doctor? And won't this discourage innovation by requiring any new idea to get approved by a board of establishment "experts" before a doctor can even try it out?

16. Government-run health-care is not some new, untested idea. In Britain, it has led to a "postcode lottery," where the medical procedures you are allow to get depend on where you live. In Canada, it has led to a shortage of doctors and waiting lists for major surgeries. In America, Medicare ended up costing far, far morethan anyone expected. Massachusetts and Maine spent enormous amounts of money to extend government coverage to very few people. The Oregon Health Plan may not cover your cancer treatment—but it will cover assisted suicide. Given all of this experience, what makes you think that somehow this will be the exception that will avoid all of the problems that government health-care has always led to?

17. Why does "reform" always mean more government? Are you aware of proposals that have been put forward for free-market reforms of health care? Congress has already approved Health Savings Accounts, where individuals buy their own high-deductible health insurance and save money tax-free, which they can use for their out-of-pocket health-care expenses. This gives people more control over their spending on routine medical treatments while keeping them covered for a serious illness, and it allows them to keep their health insurance if they change jobs. But this program has been limited in size. Are you open to ideas like this, for free-market reform of health-care?

18. A lot of doctors say that medical malpractice insurance is what is really driving up health-care costs. Doctors have to charge more to cover their expenses, and they also have to practice "defensive medicine," ordering unnecessary extra tests just to make sure they can defend themselves in court if something goes wrong. So why isn't tort reform—for example, limiting excessive jury awards in malpractice lawsuits—being considered as part of health-care reform?

19. What part of your decision on this bill, if any, is affected by a consideration for liberty, individual rights, and the Constitution? Would you consider opposing this bill for no other reason than because it gives more power to government at the expense of the freedom and property rights of private businesses and individuals? Would you consider opposing it simply because it grants powers to the government that are not authorized anywhere in the Constitution?

20. Thomas Jefferson said, "A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." Notice what is not on his list: government-provided housing, or government-provided food, or government-provided health care. And Jefferson's views on the role of government were widely shared by America's Founding Fathers. So my question is: Please explain where you disagree with the vision of our Founding Fathers, and why.

If every Congressman and Senator took the time to answer these questions, their intelligence, love for the people they are supposed to serve, and integrity would become absolutely clear to all of us.

Groucho Marx once said "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

I Got Mail

Both President Obama and Senator Patty Murray emailed me tonight. Both emails came within 10 minutes of each other. Both had the same message. Their health care plan is good for you. The lead off good thing they both are excited about and are are offering America is this: Senator Murray: “insurance companies would no longer be able to refuse coverage to individuals due to preexisting conditions.” President Obama told me this: “No discrimination for pre-existing conditions.” I wrote back to pose this question:

Wow. That is good. But let’s think about that. Let’s say we got the same deal with auto insurance. Let’s say that auto insurance companies couldn’t turn us down for our automobile’s preexisting condition. Sweet! That means I can drive uninsured and then go get insurance after I wreck my car! Let’s apply the same principal to life insurance. And let’s apply the same idea to fire insurance for our houses. I wonder how long it would take before insurance companies would go broke. Why would you sign up for insurance before you needed it if there was no downside to waiting until after you needed it?

Think I will get a reply?

Palin's 4th of July Fireworks

Sarah Palin has again diverted all attention towards her. Remember during the campaign when Barack Obama was going to do his big speech in Denver? All eyes were on him. Then out of nowhere, McCain announced his new running mate. She immediately took center stage. You know that Obama’s team was stunned by the fact that she was stealing attention away from him like they had never seen before. Well, she is back.

Yesterday’s announcement was calculated to have a similar affect. It was another out-of-the-blue moment. Just when the people who hate her had been put on their heels, she took center stage again. This time she doesn’t have just a few short months to gain support. She has three full years. And during that time, Obama will have to get used to the fact that he will be sharing the front page with her. What does that mean? There will now be a countering voice that will make it to print and will be heard on mainstream TV.

Oh, the radical left will not be on their heels for long. You can already feel them gearing up. Make no mistake, they hate her. They have already announced that her quitting her job in Alaska has somehow disqualified her from going on. Well, let’s see. That decision is best made by people who will vote, not by people who hate her. And, ironically enough, if she runs, Obama’s best criticism of her is her lack of experience. All he has to do is point out how his lack of experience has really messed things up.

MSM: Just Another Administration Department

One of the themes that I keep coming back to is the one where the Main Stream Media has willingly allowed the Obama Administration to use it as its own tool to reshape truth and reality. There are deniers in my audience, which is curious because the fact is not hidden anymore by the media, itself. Anyone who continues to deny this is most likely practicing an extremely high degree of personal censorship, choosing only to access media that stays within the confines of the approved party-think . So much for freedom.

What is great about these times is that no sooner do I post my concerns about something than something happens out there that documents it better than I ever could. Such is the case here. Doubly so.

First is the case of Helen Thomas. She is the Grand Old Dame of the Washington Press Corp that goes all the way back to the Nixon years. Her seniority with this group has been something that has been honored for decades by Democrat and Republicans alike. She is the one who signals the end of the Press Conferences by saying “Thank-you, Mr. President.” Obama changed the event format by selecting a planted blog reporter who was armed with a known question. Then, when he grew weary of answering questions, obviously skipping over Helen Thomas, one of his own staffers rose and said, “Thank-you Mr. President.” I hope this is a wake-up call for her. With past Presidents she was known for asking the question that he didn't want to be asked. Wouldn't that be a change for President Obama?

Second, we have the Buy Your Influence Right Here event fully sponsored by the Washington Post. Powerline gets to the essence of the matter. WAPO, upon discovering that its slip was showing, has done some serious back-tracking since they broadcasted the flier for the event. It is so blatant in its unabashed effort to formalize and galvanize a WAPO/lobbiest/Administration group for the purpose of policy making that its own Editors were shocked and horrified. I am impressed that some in their organizatoin are still fighting for a remnant of intgertiy. Why bother? Just change your name to PRAVDA and go with it.

A couple of interesting observations about the WAPO fiasco. First, it was an "evil " lobbiest who recognized the ethics problem and broke the story, not newsmen or Administration people. Second, apparently the New York Times has made it a front page story. Wow, so much for professional courtesy. That means it might even get to the networks. Do I detect cracks in the armor?

Obama Administration Chooses its Friends

So Obama has kept a light touch on his criticism of Iran because peace is better than conflict and we don’t have a right to mess with their internal affairs. I get the rationale. Obama is our President and we need to get in line with the fact that this is the way he has chosen to approach the world. I get that, too.
The Berman Post has some of the best coverage of what is happening in Iran. He just said something really interesting. Speaking of the fact that the demonstrations seem to be petering out, he says:

The lack of needed support from the outside world and the absolute slaughter appears to continuing to cut down on their numbers.

Hey well, when peace is at stake, you just have to sacrifice some things like justice and liberty right? I hope all those brave Iranians understand. This is a higher way for our country to exist in the community of nations.

So, wait a minute. With less press coverage, Honduras is undergoing similar conflict. There, President Manuel Zelaya was arrested by the troops and apparently we are getting active in this one. The message from Hillary is very stern that this action should be condemned by everyone.”

What is the conflict? Zelaya wants to put forth a referendum that would allow him to rule for more than two terms. Their Constitution does not allow for it and their Supreme Court ruled that he can not call for the referendum. He was defiantly proceeding with it when the army stepped in and stopped him. Zelaya was pulling a Hugo Chavez! Their constitution, their military and their court system said no thank you. AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS ALREADY WEIGHED IN ON THE SIDE OF ZELAYA!!

So do you believe all of this gibberish about how this administration is so wise because it is above the fray? I don't. They are choosing which leaders they want to deal with. So far, the only thing consistent is their support for the despots.

Beware of These Leaders

There come times now and then when the world must endure a certain kind of leader. This leader has certain characteristics that make him unique in the world. They are the most dangerous because the importance of their cause becomes higher than the importance of their people. Some common characteristics are:

1. He believes that he has a destiny to fulfill. There are hints that this destiny comes from a higher calling.
2. He is successful in manipulating or controlling the media. Different leaders have had to resort to different tactics to make this happen, but the truth remains that this essential characteristic is up and running.
3. He controls the language. By that I mean he controls what is discussed and he commandeers the issues, bending them to his agenda. He even rewrites history to pave the way for his agenda.
4. He guarantees future success by stripping power from the opposition. Obviously, there are lots of ways of getting this done. There is brutal murder to vote manipulation all done by operatives loyal to the leader.
5. Then there is an uncanny respect that these kinds of leaders have for each other. They are not as hard on each other as they are on the leaders who champion freedom and democracy.

Obviously, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is one of these leaders. Perhaps Hugo Chavez is another. Maybe some other leader?

Melt Down in Iran

Last week I posted a few thoughts on Lebanon and the direction it appeared was possible; that the Christians there could gain ground in the election because it was becoming clear that Hezbollah was complicit in the death of President Rafik Hariri. I also posted thoughts on how this could carry over to Iran as well if Iran allows for a free election.

Things played out as I expected. Lebanon’s Christians got a thrilling victory and it set the stage for a change in direction for Iran. But as we now know, Ahmadinejad, also seeing what happened in Lebanon, put the fix in. He is claiming a stunning 65% victory. That is completely absurd. Never in the history of elections has any candidate with support in the rural areas gotten a 2 to 1 victory over a candidate who has support in the urban centers.

However, history is replete with many examples of incumbent candidates who controlled the military, controlled the press, and most importantly controlled the polls, winning in a landslide. Joseph Stalin’s remark about elections seems to have ruled here. He once quipped that it isn’t as important who votes as it is who counts the votes. I feel sorry for the people of Iran. As I write this, thy are rioting and shouting “Down with the Dictator” in the streets.

So, these things seem to be leading up to some even more important cataclysmic events. Here is what I see as possible.
• Demonstrations in Iran will be brutally crushed. It remains to be seen if the opposition can weather this and turn it into a movement.
• Hezbollah in Lebanon will flex its muscle, showing its people that they will not take a back seat in the government.
• Ahmadinejad will become more apocalyptically prophetic and Obama will perhaps finally realize that there are some leaders who aren’t interested in hearing his speeches about common interests.

If Israel has ever considered attacking Iran to take out its nuclear capabilities, it is looking at this immediate time as the best opportunity it is ever going to have to do it. While the world is asleep, cards are being played in rapid fashion that are pushing that direction.

Noble Paths

As I have thought about it, I have found that there are two main types of noble paths that we undertake. For simplicity sake, I categorize them simply as the “do” path and the “know’ path. Of course, both have their roots in our Christian faith. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” “Know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” These two paths are certainly intertwined. To ignore one path while we pursue the other, I believe is a shortsighted endeavor that will doom us to mediocrity.

The reason I started thinking about it was a recent visit by a favorite niece. She attended a conference in our town that was dedicated to motivating the people in her profession to pursue goals beyond themselves, to engage the public sector, volunteering their time and skills for the betterment of government and society. Fresh from the conference she was bubbling with excitement and challenged to go forward and serve. I thought about my own experience and remembered when I was her age, how I thought nothing of serving on several boards and commissions in my community. But over the years I realized that I changed. I started changing my priority from physical effort to spiritual effort. Oh, I still look to do, but I have found the power of seeking to know.

Years ago, when hard economic times hit my town, and builders’ homes stopped selling I served on a panel that met with representatives of the Governor’s office and several Federal housing agencies to help mitigate the issues that were plaguing the housing market. I know we did some good. Homes started selling again. This year amid a similar housing slump I spent quite a bit of time visiting empty houses that my clients had built and praying that God would somehow bring the buyers for them. In the midst of a bunch of unsold homes, the houses I visited and prayed for ended up selling. And when the builders discovered what I was praying over their houses, they were surprised that a bank Senior VP was investing spiritual effort on their behalf. I know now that it wasn’t about the houses selling as much as it was about the builders knowing that God was willing to intervene on all our behalves.

I remain an ardent admirer of people with the energy and enthusiasm to pursue the “do” path. But I have become sold out to the “know” path. I have a greater realization that God loves it when we pursue Him. He wants us to realize that He is ready and willing and able to intervene on our behalf. Jesus said several times that it was good that he went away because He was sending His Helper, the Holy Spirit who would interact with us on a constant basis. He loves to bless us and help us with everything that we bring to him. And most of all He loves it when we acknowledge (know) it is Him and we seek to know Him even more. And what I am learning is that the more about Him we know, the easier it is to do.

Watch Lebanon

Interestingly enough, one of the indictments against George Bush is that he and Condoleezza Rice encouraged elections in Lebanon and Gaza. They look at the results and proclaim that elections are not for some societies. “Look what they did, they legitimatized Hezbollah and Hamas,” the claim goes. But I believe that time will tell and that history will show that the Bush vision for the region, that of democratizing country after country will be revered as one of the great accomplishments in our time. Facilitating change of any country from an oppressive regime to one where people chose their leaders stands up to any indictment.

Where one election turned out in favor of the better organized and better funded terrorist groups, there are always more elections to come. The unique thing about elections, if they are allowed to be freely done is that they provide a self-correcting mechanism for any society. Over time, the elected people tend to establish a balance in the middle somewhere between the radical extremes. Over-played agendas tend to be reversed. If one extreme catches a vacuum of credibility caused by the opposite extreme, they are able to rush in and seize more power than they normally would.

In Lebanon we may get to see the phenomenon. Hezbollah won based on people’s fears of a weak government. Lebanon’s popular President Rafik Hariri had just been assassinated, not only leaving a leadership vacuum on the Christian side, but leaving an angry population. Now, it appears that a stunning revelation is coming out of the UN inquiry into who killed Hariri. It might not have been the foreign nation, Syria. It might have been the opposition party itself, Hezbollah.

The UN has yet to announce the findings. A German newspaper has unofficially leaked the information. Truth was leaked in spite of a well organized blanket to cover it. The results could be catastrophic for Hezbollah not only in the upcoming elections, but militarily as well. Likewise, it could be another devastating blow to Iran’s ability to control the region. Hezbollah’s sponsor is also having an election. Perhaps the association will cause enough damage to the ruthless Shiites in Iran as well.

Should all that happen and elections do what they are intended to do, we will see the peaceful change of power against these radical Islamists – all courtesy of the Bush Doctrine. However, there is also a scenario many are concerned about. And that is the one where the Shiites of Hezbollah and Iran lose their elections and yet refuse to relinquish power, proving what many have suspected. That is the concern that they were only interested in democracy when it served their purposes. If that proves to be the case, they will go militant and the Middle East will erupt. Gone will be the canard that it is all about Israel. It is really all about ruthless power. It always was.

There are several great articles on this. If you only access the MSM you aren't getting it. Here is a good Michael Totten article.

Up to Jerusalem

Oh I know the press has so many things to cover that it just can’t do it all, right? And, the Pope is always going here and there and it is hard to just keep someone assigned to cover his whole itinerary. So it isn’t surprising that when you google Pope in Jerusalem you don’t bring up any stories from the main-stream media.

So, do you know he was in Jerusalem today? Yup, he went there and sat face to face with he head Muslim clerics in the City. Apparently, the chief judge there, the one in charge of enforcing sharia law really went off on the Pope about the evil Jews. AND POPE BENEDICT XVI GOT UP AND WALKED OUT ON HIM! Hey Judge! That was the Pope who got up and walked out on you!

I like Pope Benedict. I think he is looking for ways to make peace with Muslims. That doesn’t mean he is fooled by them. He has had a previous clash with them before. He accurately quoted from a 400 year old text and Muslims went berserk because they didn’t like what it said, even if one of their guys said it. He learned from that incident that in order to dialogue with them we need to first establish a peaceful rapport. That is what he was trying to do in Jerusalem. Good for the Pope. But when he got an earful of “we hate the Jews and so should you!” , he got up and walked out.

Now, President Obama, I hope you read my blog because I am giving you a big hint here. You are going to visit the same Middle East in a few weeks. This is a test. It is a test by God, himself. You are going to get the same blah, blah, blah from the same people. What are you going to do? Are you going to be a man, look them straight in the eye and tell them to pound sand? Or are you going to apologize for their harsh treatment and side with them on the idea that Israel must give them more land while they continue to pursue Israel’s extinction.?

The worst case scenario is if Obama somehow signs on as the Muslims’ benefactor and champion for their rights WHILE SIMULTANIOUSLY signing on as Israel’s protector and defender.

This is all happening in the next few weeks. Are you ready?

In the Process

I commented earlier about the phenomenon of the Tea Parties. A couple of things seemed amazing to me. 1) The tea parties were real protests with real grassroots people. No one belonged to some affiliation that brought then together. It was real and amateur. 2) The government and their press showed their shame by pretending to ignore the over 300 events that happened nation wide.

Only today did Barack Obama mention the Tea Party events. In a carefully crafted event, surrounded by “real people too” he criticized the protesters. Here it is.

I am not much of a Ghandi fan, but the man understood the mechanics and the process of peaceful protest. Regarding the process he said:

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

Does Obama understand he, his fans and his press represent the establishment that must make room for the new wave? They are the old school. Their ways are already tired, outmoded and headed for the trash heap. The process has started. Obama and the press ignored the Tea Parties. Now comes the ridicule. That will go on until they realize that with each attempt to ridicule them, the protests will grow. At that point the ridicule will turn to persecution. Gandhi knew that once they persecute you, unless you resort to violence yourself, you will win and they will lose.

It is all about Freedom

I just posted my thoughts on comparing the Tea Party demonstrations occurring across the country with leftist demonstrations. I remember back in the 70’s when I was attending college. Earth day in 1970 was the kick-off for many demonstrations on campuses across the country. I was there. My roommate was arrested along with about a dozen guys in my house. We didn’t have the media on our side. We didn’t have George Soros organizations on our side. We didn’t have the President on our side. We have come full circle. Here we are again. Lefists – Democrats, you are the establishment. You are the culture and we are counter-culture. You are the mainstream and we are the radicals. You believe that the government can do no wrong and we disagree.

April 15 is like that day in 1970. The President has a problem. Watch for protests to get larger and larger. Watch for the President having to make careful choices of where he shows up in public because there will be demonstrators there – always there.

Bookworm Room is one of my favorite bloggers. She is a young attorney and a young mother with excellent writing skills. She is an anomaly in the law profession these days because most attorneys have sold out to the leftist agenda. She has the courage to evaluate and believe in the important things in her life. Read her blog regarding the Tea Party demonstrations and how Leftists could be trying to steal their thunder.

It is all about Freedom.

Tea Parties Are Not a Joke

I have been watching to see how the Tea Party demonstrations were going to come off. You have to understand the context. It is not insignificant. The last time people took to the streets to protest the government in cities across the nation about anything was the Viet Nam war.

Oh liberals will tell you that there are plenty of demonstrations going all the time, environmental protests, gay rights events, etc. But those are carefully organized leftist charades made to look like the genuine article. The Tea Party demonstrations are the real thing. The passion is spontaneous. Ordinary people, not counter-culture people are painting signs, driving great distances and protesting the current Administration of our country.

Leftist organizers have to admire this. As a matter of fact, they tried to steal some of its thunder. Below is a photo of an organized effort by leftists against who they believe are the real culprits of the financial crisis: the evil banks.

Pathetic. Thirteen people in St Louis. They chose a middle-class town in the center of the country. Sounds like the best place for a photo op to steal a little thunder from the Tea Party demonstrations. One person remarked that there were so few people show up they couldn’t have even had a softball game.

Now below is a photo of a spontaneous demonstration, typical of what are hundreds, maybe even over 1000 demonstrations across the county around the week of April 15. But this one is in the land of the leftists, Pittsburg. More unemployed people, more Union people, more Democrats per capita than just about anywhere. You would think that there would be horrible attendance there and perhaps even efforts to discourage the demonstration.

This is something that even Barney Frank can’t shout down. I hope the Democrats are noticing. I bet if you took a poll, you would learn that the people who are attending these Tea Parties have never demonstrated about anything in their entire lives. It is happening across the country. It is happening on the Democrats’ watch. And it is all about protesting their actions. If you are a Democrat and you think you can rationalize that they are there to protest what Bush did also, then just show up and listen. If you would like to offer the lame Obama comment that this problem was there when he took office and he is just trying to fix it, then show up and listen to what the protestors are saying. They are not buying it. That is why they are out there. Democrats – this protest is for you!

Instapundit had the photos

I am Convinced: President Obama Needs Prayer

So, after 4 months of our new President - how is he doing?

I saw a celebrity on Mike Huckabee's show a couple of weeks back; Tony Danza. Huckabee asked Danza an open ended question regarding how he felt about the new administration. Danza's response was something like, "We are just so fortunate that he decided to be our President." Another celebrity started his time in front of a camera with the platitude, "Isn't it just great that we have an intelligent, knowledgeable, wonderful man in the White House now?

So, there are some who are extremely pleased with what they see so far.

Then there are others who are just as profoundly disappointed in his out of the gate performance. You can just shred off this criticism by saying it is negative emotion of the losers, but frankly the reality is that those who are disappointed tend to quote facts and figures. The reason I am asking the question now as opposed to a month ago is that I believe the old mantra "Obama just inherited the problem" is now over. Oh, sure Democrats and their most loyal media people are going to beat that drum incessantly. But the truth is that he is rapidly having to focus on repairing his own mistakes now. A recent article elaborating on that was titled something like, "52 days in office and 52 mistakes; 1408 to go . . . " I hope not. For all of our sakes, I hope not.

My Pastor, shortly after the inauguration sensed that he heard God say that Obama would have what he called a “stealth anointing”. God would move upon Obama in a way not unlike how He moved on Saul who became Paul. It is the best way I know to pray for our President. And if the lack of success is any indicator, he is getting closer to the point where he will be open to this huge transformation. At that point, he will really need our prayers, because like Paul, his allies will become his enemies and we Christians will need to surround him and protect him.

No Warmth for the Global Warmers

This is getting old. And it is stupid. It is stupid that over and over the same type of thing happens. Global Warmers trying to promote or prove global warming get frozen or blown off their location. Will they ever learn? Read about it here.

The latest challenge occurred as “scientists” ventured to the North Pole to measure the polar ice. Now that is good because apparently they have been verifying the ice thickness with fly-overs. Actual core sampling is more accurate.

Well, things didn’t go well. Here is a quote from the leader:

“We’re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice,” expedition leader Pen Hadow said in a statement e-mailed yesterday by his team. “Waiting is almost the worst part of an expedition as we’re in the lap of the weather gods.”
The severe weather is jeopardizing a journey aimed at projecting when global warming may melt the entire Arctic Ocean cap, a phenomenon that scientists say might trigger further gains in temperature.

Darn, how can you prove global warming at the North Pole when record cold and ice keep you from your task?

It’s the Gore Effect again!

Can You Handle More Truth?

Two years ago, I posted a link to a 47 minute long video clip on this blog and asked that you take the time to view it. I called the post "Can you handle the Truth?" I knew that many people would not have time to view it. But I wanted it to be on the Truth Seeker blog because Evan Sayet stated a truth that very effectively cuts through issues called “How Liberals Think.”

I know some watched it and in one case it caused an intense family argument. Mr. Sayet, who was once a liberal was sharing profound truth about what liberals believe and why.

Two years later he was given another opportunity to talk at the Heritage Foundation. This time his talk is an hour long. So here is what I am asking. Turn on your TV. Turn to one of those detective shows you watch week after week and figure out that it is a rerun. Instead of wasting that hour, put some headphones on and listen to Evan Sayet. He is entertaining, articulate and he makes you think about things you should think about.

Who AreThey? Why Shouldn't We Know?

There has been a realization recently of a nefarious group called Journolist. Journolist is an invitation-only website where liberal issues are brought up, discussed, and shaped. From them, liberal policies and approaches to news stories and information filters are formulated. Apparently membership to Journolist consists mainly of Democrat political strategists along with journalists, from television, newspapers and the blogosphere. Have you ever wondered why the Democrats have been so consistent in covering only certain talking points on issues and avoiding other important issues over the last couple of years? Given the randomness of perspective that has always endured in the press, it has been a mystery why lately this untalked about lock step of thought and reason has manifested so pervasively. Now we know why. Part of the entry agreement into Journolist is the pledge to never discuss its existence to outsiders. The realization of this group is now coming to light. It would be very healthy for America if the membership of this exclusive club was known by all Americans.

Think about it. The advantages of a journalist being a member of Journolist are enormous. You get the inside scoop for your stories. The more you regurgitate the party line, the more you get to contribute to the give and take of the formulation of positions. In this day and age when major news media establishments are headed for bankruptcy, this is probably the most secure lifeline a journalist could ever have. Where old-school news people had to get out and dig to get on the inside for stories, the inside is automatically opened for you. And there is the oh so enticing seduction of insider power that comes with this package.

There is no equivalent group on the right. For many reasons that I hope to cover later, it just isn't in our DNA. Our form of the Journolist is talk radio; hardly exclusive, hardly private, exposed for all the world to hear and partake in.

Now, a group like the Journolist group is not illegal. This is America, after all. But what I would like to know is that when I see an ABC or CBS or NBC talking head delivering news stories, I want to know if he or she is a member. When I read a political story generated by a reporter from the New York Times, it is important to me to know if the author of the story belongs to Journolist. Further, it would be very important if we knew whether or not the source of the story that the author was relying on for information is a member of Journolist. That will obviously help us understand the believability of their perspective on the issues better when we read it.

If the disclosure became mandatory, then perhaps maybe some day, membership in Journolist and other secret political/media webs would rightfully become a blemish to a reporter rather than a secret asset. And journalism, as a profession would be healed of its tarnished image