You should have done more.

The British Prime Minister, David Cameron is feeling the heat today after the mother of a severely disabled girl has taken him to task on an Internet message-board.

AFP reports:

Riven Vincent, whose daughter Celyn is blind, quadriplegic and has cerebral palsy and epilepsy, accused Cameron of reneging on a pledge he made before May's elections when he visited her family near Bristol.

She wrote Wednesday on Mumsnet, a popular Internet forum for parents, that she has asked social services to take her daughter into care because they had refused extra respite assistance, adding: "I can't cope."

In a statement on Thursday Vincent said that putting her daughter into social care was the "last thing we want for her but we just can't see any other option."

This story is obviously tragic. I don't know anything about this woman but her love for her daughter leaps off the page. I believe that she has given everything she can to support her daughter and that she is simply exhausted, mentally and physically. I can't imagine any sane mother would willingly give her daughter over to the State after giving that much blood, sweat, and tears to her for years and years. I pray that this woman can find peace in her decision and that her daughter will thrive in social care.

The truly tragic part of this story in my opinion is the disillusionment. The mother seems to believe that Cameron gave her assurances that things would be taken care of once he was elected. Whether this is true or not (and whether this was simply a campaign-trail promise or not), the fact remains that this is symptomatic of socialized medicine and socialism in general. The fatal flaw of all totalitarian power structures is that the demand always overrides the supply. This happens for a variety of reasons: greed, an indolent populace, scarcity of resources, dictatorial control. But it happens. The State simply cannot deliver on what it promises, for the length of time that it promises to deliver.

And consequently, this is why so many Conservatives are fighting Obamacare, tooth-and-nail. It's not, as MSDNC would like you to believe, that we don't want to share our health care with the poor and uninsured. It's that we know that our government will fail us. Recently the Association of American Medical Colleges estimated that the United States will likely face a shortage of nearly 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years. With Obamacare, we will be adding an estimated 32 million uninsured people into the system and losing 150,000 doctors over the next 15 years. One doesn't have to be especially proficient in mathematics to realize there is a problem with this situation.

Progressive politicians and activists want a Public Option. They've never made any bones about it. It's only thanks to the Tea Party that there wasn't one included in the bill that was passed. If they get their way and we are eventually thrust into a single-payer health care system, like Britain's, we will be in a world of hurt. Any economist or business owner will tell you that when demand outweighs supply, one of two things happen. 1) The supply is exhausted and there is no more product available for anyone or 2) the product becomes much more expensive in an effort to reduce demand. If either of these happen to our health care, how will it affect you? Will this situation be better for you and your family than today's situation?

Mussolini created the term "totalitarian". Of course when he coined the term, it was ostensibly a good thing. He described it using his famous motto: "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State". With each step down the road to socialism which we are on, we come closer and closer to realizing Il Duce's dream here in America. As I watch the riots in Britain, Italy, and Greece I see anger and disillusionment on those faces. They have been sold a raw deal and they know it. They have surrendered freedoms and taxes with the understanding that the State would take care of them for the rest of their lives. They are now waking up to the reality that the State cannot fulfill its promises. I don't condone the chaos and damages they are causing, but I can certainly understand their frustration.

I pray that not only will we step back from this precipice of socialism by repealing Obamacare, but that we will retreat back to the foundations of this country's founding. The concept that hard work coupled with boundless opportunity under a limited government created the atmosphere where this great country could germinate and blossom. The sooner we realize that depending on government to provide our every need is foolishness, the sooner we will begin again to cultivate the proverbial American Dream in each generation's heart. As Thomas Jefferson said, and the 20th century proved, "A government large enough to give you everything you want, is large enough to take away everything you have."

SB 1070 lawsuit response - Prof. Lovell

Unprecedented. Excellent commentary on the U.S. Government's lawsuit against Arizona's SB 1070. Professor Lovell is a professor at Yavapai College in Prescott, Arizona.

There is nothing in SB 1070 which is racist. Nothing.

R.I.P. Golden State

Oh, California. You've been on the brink of madness for years, but methinks you've finally fallen off your fulcrum. Progressivism has deep roots in California and we're now seeing the rotten blossoms of this pernicious ideology. For those unfamiliar with the term, Progressivism is defined by Wikipedia as "a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action." It is part of the long history of innocuous-sounding phrases which the Left uses to couch its more detrimental ideologies (see "choice", "diversity", and "tolerance").

How that translates for you and I is the exponential increase of GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Progressives don't trust you to make decisions on your own, or I should say that they don't trust that you'll make the decision that they want you to make. So they use regulation to ensure that you will make the CORRECT (read: their preferred) decision. This is an anti-American ideology and is unarguably harmful to our nation's guaranteed rights. One of the many beautiful things about America is that we are free to act and express ourselves as we see fit, provided we don't trespass on the rights of our neighbors. I am free to do the Chicken Dance in my own yard 24 hours a day, if I see fit. The only way anyone should be able to force me to stop is if my dancing is infringing on their rights, like if my music is too loud or I'm trampling someone's flowers on their property for example. Incrementally, we have had our rights and freedoms eroded in this country, most often under the guise of it being "best for the community". The Progressive mindset is an alluring temptress, I must admit. We can all probably think of times when we were sufficiently annoyed at the actions of someone and thought "I wish someone would write a law and throw that idiot in jail!" We like to think that our way is the best way and therefore everyone else should be following it.

We see the fruit of Progressivism in the UK and Europe. Britain now has 1 closed-circuit camera (CCTV) for every 14 people (1). That's 1.5x the amount of cameras in Communist China, despite the fact that China's population dwarfs England's. The People's Republic of China, one of the most repressive regimes in the world, has 1 camera for every 472,000 people. Britain also has trash police, called "bin police". Households are forced to choose a resident to be in charge of their trash bins. Whoever is named as the household's trash representative faces fines of 100 pounds and "a criminal record if their household then puts the wrong rubbish in its wheelie bins, puts them out too soon, or puts them in the wrong place" (2). But it doesn't end there. The questionnaire which the household representative is asked to fill out asks if "there are any other reasons why a member of your household generates more rubbish than average (e.g. a medical condition). Please tell us about this." Progressivism sneaks the camel's nose under the tent by parading behind the guise of acting for the good of the community. But as with any form of power-granting operatus, we humans cannot resist abusing positions of power and control. Progressivism quickly devolves into nit-picking insanity and regulatory power-trips, at the very least.

How does this involve California, you might ask. California has been on the cutting edge of American Progressivism since the beginning of the 20th century. In 1902, progressive Republicans in the state formed the "Lincoln-Roosevelt League" and 10 years later Hiram W. Johnson became the running mate for Teddy Roosevelt on the new Progressive Party ticket. Like many Progressive utopias, California seemed an idyllic success. Buoyed by the discovery of gold and oil, and the resulting population and economic boom, California was attracting all kinds of entrepreneurs. MGM, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers were the first 3 film studios to build production facilities in Hollywood. By 1950, Hollywood was the epicenter of film and television production. Following World War II, California enjoyed steady, upward population growth, most noticeably in the Los Angeles area. The population of the state grew to 20 million residents by 1970. By 1980, California was the world's eight-largest economy (3).

Fast forward to today:

• Unemployment sits at 12.4%, more than 200 basis points above the national percentage (4).
• They have lost more jobs than any other state in the union during the current downturn (5).
• The state is facing a $26b shortfall for this fiscal year's budget. This budget gap is larger than the annual GDPs of Cyprus, Albania, Senegal and Jamaica.
• Predictions are the they will be another $19b short next year, that's in addition to this current shortfall.

How is this possible? How does a state, blessed with such rich natural resources and welcoming climate become the pauper of the United States? Quite simply, Progressivism. Over the past year the liberal mecca of San Francisco has banned Happy Meals, which have been a staple of fun for kids since I was a rug-rat. Why? "'We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice,' said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure (6)." That's right: food justice. We know justice is blind, apparently it's also lacking taste-buds. They believe that children shouldn't eat high-calorie foods or be enticed to do so by a free toy, so they decided that no one can have a Happy Meal. Never mind McDonald's right to sell any product deemed legal to anyone who wishes to buy one. Never mind my right to buy a Happy Meal and deal with the consequences myself. It is not allowed. They know better than you what you should and should not be doing to your body. There are now lots of families who will not be buying Happy Meals at McDonalds anymore. This hurts McDonalds' revenue. Why would McDonalds Corporation have any desire to open more of their restaurants in a city that tells them what they can and cannot sell? They wouldn't. It's such a seemingly "noble" gesture by the City Council, but once we start to examine the ramifications, it's not hard to see how progressivism bankrupts a community by a) taking the responsibility and initiative out of the hands of the individual and b) creating regulation which forces businesses to make cost-ineffective adjustments.

Surely that's it though, right? After that guffaw-inducing decision, surely California no longer

wants to be the butt of jokes anymore. Sorry Charlie, they're just getting warmed up. Voters will be asked to vote in 2011 on a measure in San Francisco next year which would ban the practice of circumcision (7). That's right, this measure would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise your child, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and up to 1 year in prison. And that's not all. Long-known as a haven to hippies, beat poets, and the down-and-out, the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood of San Francisco isn't quite so hospitable these days. Proposition L, which passed with 53% support in November, makes it a crime to sit or lay on public sidewalks from the hours of 7am to 11pm. That's right, you cannot sit on a public sidewalk during the daytime. Ostensibly this is to curb all of the loafers and deadbeats which this neighborhood (and city) attracts. Anyone who has visited this city will tell you they are a scourge, but that's only because the city prided itself on a "tolerant" attitude towards the bums. Now the bums have over-ridden the city and no one can sit on a sidewalk anymore. I would imagine the next step is to ban sitting and laying on public benches next. There is no end to this madness. Progressive policy is a chinese finger-trap. Once you've bought into it, you can't get out without more progressive policies. It's intrusive and negates our God-given freedoms, which thousands of Americans have fought and died to protect.

But the ultimate reason why Progressivism is wrong should be apparent to any grace believer. Progressivism represents legalism and a return to the Law. It posits that the reason why you won't do something is because there is a law forbidding you to do so. As believers, we know that the Law awakens sin in human nature and encourages our innate rebel nature. As we understand the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, we should come to see that the motivation of the heart is of the utmost importance, far more important that adherence to the law out of fear. To relate it to the examples we are discussing, if we are truly adults and worthy of the freedoms and responsibilities which we have been granted, it should be no trouble at all for us to use the

correct trash bin. The trouble with Progressivism (and legalism by proxy) is that the more a culture is exposed to it, the harder it is to wean them from the teat. A people get used to being confined by laws and regulations and are completely unable to even comprehend liberty (grace).

This is the reason why I champion liberty and decry Progressivism. Not so that I can have the freedom to act without consequence, but that I might fulfill my duties and responsibilities by choice, not compulsion. "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may

abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:1-4)

1. http://tinyurl.com/lo9xof
2. http://tinyurl.com/6jk8fk
3. http://tinyurl.com/27vh34r
4. http://tinyurl.com/2bcl2zp
5. http://tinyurl.com/28bv7t3
6. http://tinyurl.com/2ek62gp
7. http://tinyurl.com/24klkse

The enemy of my enemy..

Just reading today about some of the links between the Nazis and the early Pan-Arabist movement. The ties are clear and pretty well-documented. After all, the word Iran translates to Aryan in English. I was interested to learn how far back the ties started.

One of the main collaborators was Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and one of the PLO's ancestors. This is the man whom Yasser Arafat referred to as his mentor and his guide. He was one of the first despots to seek a unified Arab presence (Pan-Arabist), which could be used to drive the Jews from the region. He was appointed Grand Mufti in 1921 and by the end of the 1930s he had effectively silenced any moderate Arab opinions in the territory of Palestine. In the 1940s, the Mufti traveled to Rome and Berlin, offering the services of the Arab nation to the war effort with the stipulation that they "recognize in principle the unity, independence, and sovereignty of an Arab state of a Fascist nature, including Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Trans-Jordan (Jordan)." (1) In October 1941, the Nazi government issued a communication from Berlin in which they promised to help in the "elimination of the Jewish National Home in Palestine." (2) After a personal meeting with Hitler, the Mufti began to work even more feverishly on behalf of the Nazi regime, even appearing on radio broadcasts to make his pleas heard:

"If, God forbid, England should be victorious, the Jews would dominate the world. England and her allies would deny the Arabs any freedom and independence, would strike the Arab fatherland to its heart, and would tear away parts of it to form a Jewish country whose ambition would not be limited to Palestine but would extend to other Arab countries. . .

But if on the other contrary, England loses and its allies are defeated, the Jewish question, which for us constitutes the greater danger, would finally be resolved." (3)

But even this exhortation and bald-faced anti-semitism pales in comparison to his role in the Final Solution. During the Nuremberg trials, much of this information regarding the Mufti's involvement came to light. A Nazi official, Wilhelm Melchers testified that Husseini wanted to see "all of them (the Jews) liquidated." Adolf Eichmann's deputy, Dieter Wisliceny said that Husseini

played a role in the decision to exterminate the European Jews. The importance of this role must not be disregarded. . . the Mufti repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he was maintaining contact, above all to Hitler, Ribbentrop, and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry. He considered this an appropriate solution to the Palestinian Problem. (4)

and that

The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and advisor of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say that

accompanied by Eichmann he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz. (5)

Mufti's legacy of literally killing off voices of moderation or dissent and feverishly working to eliminate the Jewish race was passed on to others like Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, who established the Arab world's first totalitarian state in 1952. Nasser in turn created special anti-Israel Palestinian military units where the likes of Yasser Arafat, Abu Iyad, and Abu Jihad all received their first training and inculcation of Pan-Arabist, anti-Zionist indoctrination. These men would go on to create the PLO, which revolutionized modern terrorism and helped to turn world opinion against the fledgling state of Israel.

In today's misinformed and manipulated zeitgeist, it is facile to bleat the propaganda that the hatred of Israel by the "Palestinians" is due to Israel's aggression and their occupation of "Palestinian" lands. But the hatred and militant activism against the Jewish people existed long before the nation of Israel was established. Like most of the "Palestinian" propaganda which is circulated in the media and ivory towers, it defies both logic and history. Much like the Jewish claim to the territory traditionally labeled "Palestine" stretches back much further than Arabian claims, the anti-semitism of the "Palestinian Liberation" movement stretches back much further than the establishment of the Israeli state.

As an early Ba'thist leader wrote of this pre-WW2 period:

We were racists, admiring Nazism, reading its books. . . We were the first to think of translating Mein Kampf. Whoever lived during this period in Damascus would appreciate the inclination of the Arab people to Nazism, for Nazism was the power which could serve as its champion. (6)

Hannah Arendt argues in her seminal work, The Origins of Totalitarianism, that historically totalitarianism is accompanied by the normalization of anti-semitism. As we see the seeds of a totalitarian state rising in Venezuela, already accompanied by a rise in anti-semitism, Ms Arendt's observation seems to hold true. One can only hope that nations like Brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay, and Educador will resist the pressure to join the totalitarian regimes which are hostile to Jews already existing in Iran, Syria, and elsewhere.

Indeed the enemy of an enemy will most often become a friend. I pray that the Lord's strong arm will continue to protect and sustain His people in these dark times.

(main source: Netanyahu, Benjamin "A Durable Peace")

(1) Lewis, Bernard "Semites and Anti-Semites" (New York: Norton, 1986) p 151

(2) ibid, pp 152-153

(3) ibid, Mufti quoted on p 155

(4) Schechtman, J.B., "The Mufti and the Fuhrer: The Rise and Fall of Haj Amin el-Husseini (New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1965) pp 159-160

(5) ibid, p 160

(6) Donohue and Esposito, "Islam in Transition", Al-Banna quoted p 80

Dusting off the keyboard..

So it's been a bit since my last post. Over a year and a half, to be precise. I'm not sure if anyone is even out there, but I've decided to take up my blogging torch and sally forth.

Look for more frequent posting in the near future.

Liberal Delusionation: Religious Communism

This will be a new feature on the blog, the Delusionating of Liberals and others. I am hereby defining (and coining, I believe) delusionation as:

de-lu-sion-a-tion [di-loo-zhuhn-ay-shun]

-noun

1. an act of pretending that something you desire is reality, regardless of actual reality.

2. a voluntary false belief that something imaginary is real.

Related forms: delusionatory, delusionate, delusionation

As a recovering liberal, I have seen delusionatory behavior first-hand. The uninitiated might be surprised at the vehemence of a liberal acquaintance's delusionation. It is usually accompanied by a flushed face, muttering "Bush" and/or "Cheney" under the breath, and staccato vocal outbursts. The most telling sign that someone is suffering from a delusionation is when they refer to something that they want as something that is real. Now that alone isn't a delusionation. I want ice cream to be cold. This isn't a delusionation for the simple fact that most ice cream is cold and ice cream is intended to be cold (hence the ice in the name). This only becomes a delusionation if what this person is referring to as real is not in fact real. Using the same example, if for some loony reason I enjoy hot ice cream I could say to my friend, "Ice cream is hot". Now this is a delusionation. Just because I would like ice cream to be hot, does not mean that ice cream is indeed hot. See the difference? Reality vs. what I would like reality to be. Not always the same thing.

In this maiden voyage of the Liberal Delusionation segment, I would like to examine Religious Communism. The fine people at the People's Weekly World have posted an interesting story touching this topic. For those of you unfamiliar with the PWW, they are "a national, grassroots weekly newspaper and the direct descendant of the Daily Worker." They fully admit that they are partisan saying:

"The PWW is known for its partisan coverage. We take sides — for truth and
justice. We are partisan to the working class, racially and nationally oppressed
peoples, women, youth, seniors, international solidarity, Marxism and
socialism."

You might say that there is some delusionation going on in their mission statement with the near equivalence of Marxism with truth and justice, and you would be correct but they don't stop there. The PWW published an interesting story a couple of weeks ago about the Communist Party USA. It seems that the Communist Party USA has established a Religion Commission to "strengthen its work among religious people and organizations." To the head of this commission, they appointed Tim Yeager. Tim is a trade unionist in Chicago and also a member of the Episcopal Church. According to the article, Yeager notes that:

"[t]here is a common misconception concerning the position of the Communist
Party USA about religion. . . Many who are unfamiliar with the party wrongly
assumes that all Communists are atheists, or that the party requires its members
to be atheists. Nothing could be farther from the truth."

Really, Tim? Is this the same Communist doctrine derived from Marxism? Because Marx himself said, "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness," (Marx, K. 1976. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right). Lenin himself wrote the following in his book Religion, "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism." Anywhere communism has been adopted in an official capacity, religion is one of the first targets of the Nomenklatura.

Now I'm not denying that there have been communists under a sheepskin amongst the flock for a long time. There are quite a few here in the Chicago-land area - Pfleger I'm looking at you. But how ever much these nut-jobs would like to equate Social Justice/Communism with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it ain't happening. It's simply a delusionation.

The two are antithetically opposed. (I'd like to focus on the tensions between Communism and Christianity primarily but as you can see from the first point below, nearly every major religion would have an inherent inconsistency with Marxist/Communist doctrine).

1. Communism is a strictly materialist doctrine. No spirituality, after-life, omnipotent Creator allowed. Christianity is a system of beliefs that is rooted in an individual's faith in "things unseen".
   
2. Christianity highlights the fallen state of mankind and the need for redemption. Every man, woman, and child is innately sinful, leading to the necessity of Christ's substitutionary death on the Cross. Marxism could be considered a humanist doctrine, in that it sees evil arising not from internal sources in man but from external influences, such as capitalism and greed. That man, once freed from capitalistic and class-based structures, will ultimately prove his inner goodness.
   
3. In Communism, the State is the highest good. In Christianity, God is the highest good.

The tensions between the two are myriad and numerous, but as you can see the fissures begin at the ground floor and just get wider the further you examine these two belief-systems. So for Mr. Yeager to state that Communism and Christianity are compatible is a pretty serious Liberal Delusionation. I pray that Mr. Yeager will seek the foundation of his Episcopalian Church (the stone that the builders rejected) for his inspiration, instead of seeking the dictatorship of the proletariat here on Earth.

ACOTUS?

I love the bloggers at American Thinker. Yesterday, a young woman by the name of L.E. Ikenga discoursed on the phenomenon of the African Colonial, a label that she applies to President Obama. She defines an African Colonial (AC) as someone who has a direct connection to Africa through their birth or heritage. However, an AC's worldviews are shaped not by their tribal lineage, but by the ideals of "European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period." She goes on to describe how AC's use their African heritage when it is convenient and discard it when it becomes a distraction.

Wow.

This certainly describes President Obama's identification with his multi-ethnicity and the way that he touts his it (his Muslim past) when convenient (Cairo) and dismisses it when inconvenient (campaigning in America). L.E. draws evidence from the President's book, "Dreams of My Father" (which I have not read, so I quote her below):

"In his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father -- an eloquent
piece of political propaganda -- Obama styles himself as a misunderstood
intellectual who is deeply affected by the sufferings of black people,
especially in America and Africa. In the book, Obama clearly sees himself as an
African, not as a black American. And to prove this, he goes on a quest to
understand his Kenyan roots. He is extremely thoughtful of his deceased father's
legacy; this provides the main clue for understanding Barack Obama.

Barack Obama Sr. was an African colonial to the core; in his case, the apple did not fall far from the tree. All of the telltale signs of Obama's African colonialist attitudes are on full display in the book -- from his feigned antipathy towards Europeans to his view of African tribal associations as distracting elements that get in the way of
"progress". (On p. 308 of Dreams From My Father, Obama says that African
tribes should be viewed as an "ancient loyalties".)"

Where is the foundation for this behavior in President Obama? Beyond the obvious benefits that this kind of Janus-ification has reaped (a successful Presidential campaign), how or why does one begin to attempt to be both sides of the story? In my opinion, you don't need to look any further than one of his early intellectual mentors, Saul Alinsky. Alinksy, dubbed the 'Godfather of Community Organizers', advocated behavior very similar to the behavior described above. He encouraged his organizers to infiltrate a community by any means necessary. Once ingratiated into a community, the organizer must convince the community that he understands their needs and will fight to the death for them, whether or not he actually will. All the while, the organizer is encouraged to decide for himself what is best for the community and chart their course accordingly. This course frequently demands creating friction where there was none in order to get a community excited and motivated. According to Alinsky, the community is apparently unable to think for themselves but needs an external advocate to perform this service for them.

"The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The
disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community
organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be
displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and
organization of the new." (Alinsky, Saul "Rules for Radicals" p.116)

What Alinsky is describing is a parasite. Think about it. A tapeworm disguises itself in food, giving the animal/human the impression that what they are consuming is for the body's benefit. Internal order is disrupted (nutrients are consumed by the parasite instead of the body), leading to radical internal changes (increase consumption of food), which in turn leads to the parasite benefiting from the disorder. This kind of community advocacy is a social manifestation of the parasitic relationship we see in nature among parasites and their hosts. It seems to me that what Ms. Ikenga has identified as African Colonialism is simply a more complex way to ingratiate himself into a community, in order to begin his advocacy. What lies ahead in our President's plans? We've seen hints (cap-and-trade, socialized healthcare, radical transformation of social issues) but can we learn more from history? Ms. Ikenga believes that there is a strong correlation between the European Imperialist and the African Colonial.

"Like the European imperialist who spawned him, the ACP is a destroyer of
all forms of democracy.

Here are a few examples of what the British did in order to create (in 1914)
what is now called Nigeria and what Obama is doing to you:

1. Convince the people that "clinging" to any aspect of their cultural (tribal)
   identity or history is bad and regresses the process of "unity". British
   Imperialists deeply feared people who were loyal to anything other than the
   state. "Tribalism" made the imperialists have to work harder to get people to
   just fall in line. Imperialists pitted tribes against each other in order to
   create chaos that they then blamed on ethnic rivalry. Today many "educated" Nigerians, having believed that their traditions were irrelevant, remain completely ignorant of their ancestry and the history of their own tribes.
2. Confiscate the wealth and resources of the area that you govern by any means
   necessary in order to redistribute wealth. The British used this tactic to
   present themselves as empathetic and benevolent leaders who wanted everyone to have a "fair shake". Imperialists are not interested in equality for all. They are interested in controlling all.
3. Convince the masses that your upper-crust university education naturally
   puts you on an intellectual plane from which to understand everything even when you understand nothing. Imperialists were able to convince the people that their elite university educations allowed them to understand what Africa needed. Many of today's Nigerians-having followed that lead-hold all sorts of degrees and certificates-but what good are they if you can't find a job?
4. Lie to the people and tell them that progress is being made even though
   things are clearly becoming worse. One thing that the British forgot to
   mention to their Nigerian constituents was that one day, the resources that were being used to engineer "progress" (which the British had confiscated from the Africans to begin with!) would eventually run out. After WWII, Western Europe could no longer afford to hold on to their African colonies. So all of the
   counterfeit countries that the Europeans created were then left high-and-dry to fend for themselves. This was the main reason behind the African independence movements of the1950 and 60's. What will a post-Obama America look like?
5. Use every available media outlet to perpetuate the belief that you and your
   followers are the enlightened ones-and that those who refuse to support you are just barbaric, uncivilized, ignorant curmudgeons. This speaks for
   itself."

Thankfully, this situation is daily unearthing more and more Americans who are fed up and willing to share their knowledge, enthusiasm, and commitment to protect American liberties. I pray that this Presidency will lead to the magnification and glory of God.