Obama’s Wisdom on Burning of Koran

Regarding the proposed building of a mosque at Ground Zero, President Obama has said that he will “not comment on the wisdom” of such a project. A large majority of Americans regard it as outrageous that a place of worship for an ideology in whose name thousands of Americans were slaughtered is proposed to be built in the very area where the slaughter took place. Nonetheless, Mr. Obama can’t bring himself to denounce the proposed mosque. However, he is willing to say that Muslims have “…the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property….”

By contrast, in the case of the burning of the Koran, which is a matter of constitutionally protected free speech on behalf of Americans who are opposed to the Koran’s message of Jihad and Sharia Law, his approach is the exact opposite: Not only will he not affirm individuals’ right to burn a book on their property, but also he does offer his opinion on the wisdom of taking such an action. And his verdict? In essence: Don’t offend the Muslims.

In the conflict between Americans who oppose Jihad and Shariah law and people who openly or silently support these ideas, he sides with whom?

The word jackass comes to mind, of course, but think of the deeper implications of the situation: This is our Commander-in-Chief. This the stance that the leader of the supposedly Free World and of its military forces takes in the face of calls for global Jihad against the United States? Perhaps when his term is up, he can run for President of Iran.

Obama's Logical Fallacy on Muslims' Religious Rights: Neglected Aspect

In regard to the recent controversy over Muslims building a mosque near ground zero, President Obama has said that Muslims, “Have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in the country.”

Given the context that a significant element within the Muslim faith subscribes to or advocates Jihad or Holy War against non-Muslim peoples, with America being at or near the top of such a list, it is either intellectually negligent or intellectually dishonest for Obama to make such a statement.

That such a mosque should not be built is a separate issue. (Though judging by the polls, Americans seem to have gotten it right this time.) However, on the issue of Muslims practicing their faith, the elected leader and Commander-in-Chief of the United States has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution—the purpose of which is to protect the individual rights of its citizens. The only proper statement that is consistent with such an Office and with America’s values and principles would be something as follows: Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country so long as their practice of it does not include advocating Holy War or acts of Terrorism against the United States or any of its citizens.

To fail to take this aspect into account is intellectually negligent; to omit it knowingly is intellectually dishonest. Either way, such an omission is damning—damning either cognitively or morally with respect to Mr. Obama and damning practically, physically, existentially with respect to us, the citizens of a country whose Constitution was designed to protect our individual rights—including our lives.

Obama's Nuclear Policy Fantasy

In recent days, Obama and the Russians signed an agreement which seeks to limit the use of nuclear weapons by the United States and Russia. In one news report of the story, this move by the Obama administration was hailed as a step toward making the world safer against the "nuclear threat." How exactly does this make the world safer from the "nuclear threat?" I didn't realize that America threatened the world with nuclear weapons. I was under the mistaken belief that it was Iran that was the "nuclear threat." A semi-free, moral country renouncing the use of nuclear weapons somehow prevents a backward, theocratic dictatorship from using such weapons?

Absurdities such as this leave most people scratching there heads, wondering how it is that well educated people can arrive at such stupidity. The answer lies in the basic philosophical ideas which our "educated" receive in the universities. They are taught that reality is not an absolute, to which thinking must conform, but rather the other way around: whatever chain of (sloppy) thinking they can concoct, reality must conform to it. Therefore, if one wants to decrease or eliminate the potential of nuclear attack from a theocratic dictatorship by renouncing the use of his own weapons, why let reality stand in the way? If it is our wish that this should somehow work, why shouldn't it work?

As ridiculous as this sounds, this is at root the mindset operant behind our elite's most bewildering schemes today. They substitute fantasy for thinking; they evade facts lest they conflict with their wishes.

We don't merely need to replace the particular holders of public office with new ones. We need more fundamentally to replace an almost century long philosophical corruption with a philosophy of reason.

The Obituary of The United States of America

The United States of America, died Sunday, March 21, 2010, at the age of 233, after an almost century-long bout with welfare statism, stretching at least as far back as the 1930’s. America was found dead in the U.S. House of Representatives on Sunday from a vote for a government takeover of its healthcare system—despite repeated warnings from other countries which have suffered similar fates. The details behind the murder are still unclear, but it seems that a handful of ideologically driven political leaders, hell-bent on statism, through a series of arm-twisting, backroom deals, buying of votes, payoffs, and bribes, corrupted the political process to thwart the will of the American people and forced passage of the lethal bill. Although no suspects have officially been named, American people are focusing their investigation around a Mr. Barry Hussein Obama, a certain Mrs. Pelosi, and someone by the name of Reid.

Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 4, 1776, to the Founding Fathers, the United States of America became the greatest country in the history of man. In 1776, it declared that the purpose of government is to protect individual rights. In 1788, via the Constitution, it created a constitutionally limited republic which secured these rights. Peace and prosperity in this new country flourished, and its ideas captivated and inspired the nations of Europe. As a result of this influence, the Industrial Revolution took off not only in America but across Europe as well. The ensuing century, therefore, saw mankind’s progress take off in the Western world in general and skyrocket in America in particular. Because of the tremendous practical consequences of freedom (not to mention the moral necessity of it for man’s life and happiness), the United States continued to smash through barrier after barrier scientifically and technologically throughout the 20th century, elevating human life to a level undreamed of in previous eras.

America is survived by it’s intellectual heirs—Ayn Rand, John Galt, and the Objectivists; by those amongst the Tea Party movement who have a healthy respect for reason, rational self-interest, freedom, and individual rights; by millions of Americans who still retain the original American sense of life; and by those who are just plain pissed off at the way in which a relatively small group of power lusting politicians are cannibalizing the productive and the able on the behalf of those who are not productive or able.

Memorial services will be held for the United States of America throughout the country on April 15th, on July 4th, on November 2, 2010, and again in November, 2012.

Per the wishes of freedom loving Americans, the United States of America will be cryogenically frozen in the hopes that one day reason, individualism, and freedom will be rediscovered, that rational self-interest will become understood and embraced, and that the United States of America can therefore be brought back to life.

In the meanwhile, Americans are looking for any leads in bringing to justice those involved in the slaying. Freedom loving Americans are calling on anyone who can be of assistance in this matter: the American electorate, state attorneys general, state legislatures, future U.S. Congresses, the Supreme Court of the United States, and, if need be, members of the armed services and law enforcement who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.