Defending Blue Collar, Working Class America From The Illinois Muslim

“But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

B. Hussein Obama
Democratic Presidential candidate

Legions have been the number of pundits who have opined on this quote. Still, despite that I though I would give it a go.

B. Hussein made the above statement in light of the loss of jobs. According to Barack Hussein people get bitter because jobs disappear and economic conditions go bad. Now the first thing to note is the non-sequitur in this quote. According to B. Hussein Obama people cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment not as a result of their frustrations but as a way to explain their frustrations.” Unless you mentally provide that switch in the quote it doesn’t make any sense, after all, who uses guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them in order to explain their frustrations? That’s just ignorant. I have listened to and read a good amount of punditry on this quote and I haven’t read anybody yet notice what a hatchet job it was on basic reasoning.

Secondly, many have already commented that such an attitude belies a typical liberal arrogant elitist attitude. Middle class working America, being unenlightened, grow bitter and so cling to things that provide security the way that toddlers cling to their favorite blanket or stuffed toy in times of insecurity. The subtext is that benighted elites like B. Hussein have risen above that simplistic behavior. Just as an adult knows, unlike the immature toddler, that the favored stuff toy or blanket doesn’t really solve the toddler’s threat so Barack knows, unlike the immature blue collar working class, that guns, religion, etc. doesn’t really solve the toddlers threat.

Americans, do yourself a favor and realize that when you ship your children off to American Universities, especially the elite Ivy League type schools, your children are going to be trained in this kind of condescending arrogance, and likely are going to come home looking down their noses at you and at their beginnings.

What I want to add to the conversation is that Barack may be right in his observation that people are bitter. Second, I want to even suggest that he may be right, if he was saying, in spite of his inability to craft a sentence, that as a result of middle class bitterness, the middle class clings to certain things. Where I would like to correct him is his thinking that somehow it is wrong or irrational for blue collar America to cling to the things, to which they cling.

First, let us consider the bitterness. At least some blue collar middle class Americans are bitter because the Government is creating the conditions whereby their way of life is disappearing. It is the policies of Democrats and Republicans alike that are exporting our industrial base overseas. It is the policies of Democrats and Republicans that levy such onerous taxes on the small businesses in small town America that result in people not being able to keep their heads above water. If blue collar middle class America is bitter, it is bitter because the State is crushing the life out of them.

Now as to what they ‘cling to,’ as a result of (not, per Obama, in order to explain) their frustrations.

First, according to B. Hussein Obama Americans cling to guns as a result of their frustration. I think that this is eminently reasonable. When people perceive that they are endangered the first thing to do is find the means of self defense. The key of course is to encourage the gun clingers to point their guns in the right direction. One can only hope that the direction that they are pointing their guns is towards those who would take them away.

Second, Hussein Obama implies it is wrong for Americans to cling to religion. I imagine that Barack Hussein would prefer if Americans would cling to the Federal Government. Still, at least in the Christian faith we believe that all things, including adversity, comes from the hand of God. The Christian faith further teaches that God is the only one we should cling to and that we shouldn’t cling to man whose breath is but in his nostrils. Middle Class, Blue collar America are being obedient to their Christian faith when they cling to God and religion as a result of their frustrations. Barack Hussein better hope that in light of the fact that they are clinging to their guns that they keep clinging to the Christian religion that informs them to respect those magistrates that are crafting policies that are making their economic conditions miserable. Barack Hussein doesn’t want to see a people clinging to guns who aren’t at the same time clinging to their Christian religion.

The next thing that middle America clings to is anti-immigrant sentiment and antipathy to people who aren’t like them. Here again I think this could be true and I don’t think there is anything wrong with this clinging. The US government has pursued a policy on illegal immigration that is killing middle America. Middle American is not only losing jobs and finding their wages depressed as a result of the influx of cheap labor by way of illegal immigration, but Blue collar America is also being required to fund the illegal immigrant horde by way of paying for education, hospitals, and welfare benefits. Now add to this that this illegal immigrant invasion is having the effect of changing the American way of life and it is altogether reasonable and fitting that middle class, blue collar Americans would cling to anti-immigrant sentiment and antipathy to people who aren’t like them.

Finally according to the Illinois Senator with a Muslim name Americans cling to anti-trade sentiment in order to express their bitterness. Again, as mentioned earlier, it is the government version of free trade (NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT,) etc. that is a large reason behind why middle class America is in its current economic condition. We need to keep in mind that in as much as this ‘free trade’ is government manipulated it really isn’t ‘free trade.’ So, if there exists bitterness and if it is expressed in a anti-trade sentiment it makes perfect sense.

So, I conclude that the Illinois Muslim was potentially correct in his observations though he was woefully incorrect in his arrogant posturing that this somehow communicates less than salutatory insights about middle class blue collar America.

Airline Cancellations — More then meets the eye?

I worked 15 years for a major airline.

In the 15 years I worked in American Airports I never witnessed the large scale routine cancellations for ‘mechanical purposes’ that the Majors are currently undergoing. Keep in mind also that ‘mechanical problems’ is standard language in the industry for ‘the customer doesn’t know any better so just tell them it is a mechanical problem that is the reason for the delay or the cancellation even though the reason really lies elsewhere.’

My Spidey senses are tingling and they are telling me that these cancellations that the Majors have been experiencing aren’t about mechanical problems or inspection irregularities (though these do happen — though not with this kind of regularity) but are more likely about the Feds looking for something.

Go ahead….

Call me suspicious … but keep in mind that I worked in the industry for 15 years.

Theodore Beza On Faithfulness By Dissent

“(Beza) now made the traditional distinction between tyrants who usurped their office and legitimate authorities who became tyrannical. Usurpers were to be resisted fervently, ideally by the authorized lower magistrates. But if these magistrates failed, even private persons, following the example of the ancient McAtee’s (oops — make that Maccabees), could lead the resistance if God opened a way to them. Legitimate authorities who became tyrannical, however, could be resisted only by the lower magistrates, such as the electoral princes in the Holy Roman Empire or the Estates-General in the kingdom of France. Private persons could and should disobey unjust orders and laws, or flee the jurisdiction. But they could not fight or resist on their own. ‘[We] do not cease to beg our brothers to arm themselves only with patience, until God comes to their aid, either in another way, or by raising up a [new] prince.’

These early reflections were ‘an embryonic justification for democratic revolution’ writes Robert Kingdon. Bez’s argument in a nutshell was this: the political office was ‘ordained by God and represents God in the world.’ But the political officers who occupy that office depend for their authority upon ‘the public consent of the citizens.’ When the political officer no longer respect his office and no longer represents God in the world, ‘public consent’ can give way to ‘public dissent.’ When this dissent is expressed properly through the lower magistrates, the political officer loses his authority and must be resisted, and if necessary forcibly removed from office.

John Witte, Jr.
The Reformation Of Rights — pg. 104-105

Now the question that commands our attention is whether our current situation here in these United States is a situation where tyrants have usurped their office or whether it is a case of legitimate authorities who have become tyrannical. Actually, I think this could be argued both ways. The former argument would reason that we have tyrants who have usurped their office because they are in violation of their oath to the Constitution. This violation of their oath to the constitution would de-legitimize any claim they might have to being legitimate authorities. On the other hand one could argue that they are legitimate authorities who have become tyrannical if only because they were lawfully elected to their positions. My instinct is to go with the former argumentation thus allowing more freedom for the individual to resist the tyranny but for the sake of discretion and prudence, I will, at this point, side with the latter argument that our current usurpers are legitimate authorities who have become tyrannical and who can only be resisted in the context of lesser magistrates. I think when we are considering a topic such as ‘faithfulness by public dissent’ we should be err on the side of caution.

The implication of this is that, we as Christians, should be earnestly petitioning God that He would be gracious to raise up lesser magistrates in order to lead His people against the tyranny that we are currently under in these United States. The second implication of this is that if God should raise up lesser magistrates to oppose the current tyranny that we are under it would be disobedience to God to not support these lesser magistrates with oaths of fealty and deeds of valor. If God should be pleased to raise up what some would characterize as ‘lesser magistrates’ to lead against what some would characterize as ‘greater magistrates’ we would need to return to the motto that ‘obedience to tyrants is disobedience to God.’

Until such a time as God changes the equation here we must give Him no rest in making known our desire of magistrates who would rule consistent with His Word. Also, we must be willing to bear all that is levied against us by wicked rulers as God’s just judgment against us for being complicit in arriving at this point where the foundations of righteousness are being decimated.

In the end though we must note this…

Given the right conditions Reformed doctrine requires faithfulness by dissent or to put it another way, should God provide the right conditions a lack of civil disobedience would be disobedience to God.

Calvinism and Religous Rights

“The Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution was defended in its day on a variety of grounds — with Enlightenment arguments among the most well known. It is no small commentary for this volume, however, that every one of the guarantees in the 1791 Bill Of Rights had already been formulated in the prior two centuries — by Calvinist theologians and jurists among others. Some of these rights were already formulated by Theodore Beza and the French and Scottish resistance fighters of the the later sixteenth century, more by Johannes Althusius and the Dutch constitutionalists at the turn of the seventeenth century, still more by John Milton and the English Puritans in the middle of the seventeenth century, and more yet by the New England Puritans from John Winthrop and Nathaniel Ward in the seventeenth century to Elisha Williams and John Adams in the eighteenth. Moreover, a number of the core ideas of American constitutionalism — popular sovereignty, federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, church and state, and more — were also quite fully formulated by Calvinists in the prior two centuries, especially in the Netherlands, England, and New England….The Calvinists wove many strong theological threads into the fabric of early American Constitutionalism.

John Witte Jr.
The Reformation Of Rights; Law, Religion, And Human Rights In Early Modern Calvinism — pg. 31-32

The very idea of an American Nation grew up out of the soil of Calvinistic Christianity. This doesn’t mean that all of the Founding Fathers were Calvinists or Christian. Nor does it mean that those who were Christian were perfectly consistent in their Christianity. What it does mean is that the origin, shape, and trajectory of These United State was Christian and Calvinistic. Even those Founding Fathers who were furthest away from Christian thought had been largely immersed in a cultural milieu wherein they imbibed Christian and Calvinistic political thought categories. Indeed, one can argue that even the Enlightenment arguments stemming from Locke, Rousseau, and others that some used to justify disunion with England were arguments that owed their origin to Christian categories.

In the book quoted from above Witte’s labor is to show how a long history of Calvinistic thinking in political theory by eminent theologians and jurists ended up shaping the West’s jurisprudential self understanding when it comes to the issue of natural religious rights. Witte contends that Reformed political theory eventually became so standard that it became the proverbial water in which Westerner’s swam for centuries.

This thesis runs contrary to much of what we are taught growing up about how the Enlightenment, as crystallized in the French Revolution, yielded to men rights of individual liberty that were unknown due to the stultifying presence of Christian ideas of Monarchy, Aristocratic privilege, and religious establishment. What Witte has done is to uncover the long Christian and Reformed legacy that spoke of the right of men to liberty against tyranny, tracing the story from Calvin’s genesis work on political theory in relation natural religious rights, to Beza’s development in light of the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre by Roman Catholic upon the Hugenots, to Althusius development in light of the Dutch Revolt against the Roman Catholic Philip of Spain, to Milton’s work in England during the conflict with King Charles I, and finally to the work of New England Puritan in the Holy Commonwealth. In each successive stage Witte draws out how Calvinistic political theory developed and adapted to the events swirling about and how Calvinist political theory sought to apply Scripture as a means by which men could understand their roles given their times.

Obama Baby

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

Sen. Barack Hussein Obama

Well, in today’s rapid news cycle this is already old news but I just heard this today and couldn’t resist commenting on it.

I’m just going to go through what I see here in the order I see it.

First, ‘I got two daughters?’

Never mind.

Second, he is going to ‘teach them morals and values’ while at the same time ‘giving them information’ on how his daughters can be immoral girls when they decide to reject the values that he teaches them. If Barack is going to teach his daughters ‘morals and values’ while at the same time ‘giving them information’ on how to best violate what they have been taught isn’t the giving to them information on how best to violate the morals and values they have been taught a moral and a value they are being taught?

Third, notice how sex outside of marriage is just a ‘mistake’ — you know, kind of like putting more sugar in the cake batter then the recipe called for, or setting your alarm clock an hour earlier then what you really wanted.

Fourth, Barack says that babies are a punishment. It is not a wonder that the guy has never met an abortion restriction that he likes. If babies are punishment then by all means let us kill them off in every way we can.

Fifth, having babies and being infected with an STD are considered parallel punishments. Indeed, getting pregnant might be less of a punishment for their ‘mistake’ then being infected with STD since it is easier to get rid of the baby punishment then some STD punishments.

Sixth, I think this confirms that if B. Hussein Obama is Islamic, he is only nominally Islamic. I don’t think a full fledge Muslim would give the information on how to have ‘mistake free sex’ to his young teenage daughters. I think we are going to give up this idea that he is a closet Muslim and be satisfied with the fact that he is a Black Nationalist Marxist.

I’ve been over and over this issue with Government educators but,

1.)Outside of marriage there is no such thing as ‘mistake free sex.’

2.)When you teach children how to have ‘mistake free sex’ you are teaching them to have sex. You cannot consistently, on the one hand, say something is inadvisable (that’s the strongest language Government educators will use about sex) and on the other hand teach someone how to most effectively do that which is inadvisable.