Daniel Pearl and Barack Obama

I actually wondered if I was missing something that I was utterly appalled by Obama's "speech" last week in which he referred to the beheading of Daniel Pearl as "captured the world's imagination" and something to the effect this act demonstrated how important the free press was.  Really?  An innocent American's head was chopped off on film by cutthroat, vile, evil religious fanatics who happened to be Muslims and the best this wimp so-called President of the US can come up with is that the act "captured the imagination of the world"?  This is the limit.  We do not have a flesh and blood, thinking, reflective President.  We have a media construct who speaks in platitudes and banalities.  This man makes Jimmy Carter, pitiful as he was and is, look like a giant of history. Where did Obama come from?  No one knew the answer to this question before the election last year because the media didn't bother to find out who he was, where he came from, what his record was, who were the influences in his life, who were his mentors, heroes and on and on.  As a consequence a misguided and misinformed majority of gullible and irresponsible Americans (and I knew quite a few personally) voted this fraudulent, disgusting phoney into the highest office in the land.  America is getting exactly what it deserves for this collective act of stupidity.  One would like to think the individual act of voting for the office of POTUS in our democracy is an informed one based on a careful review and assessment of many relevant factors including the character of the candidate, and qualifications based upon his or her experience and record of achievement.  This man was voted into office based solely on the color of his skin, his oratory skills, and his exceptional ability to pander to voting blocks.  Any more than Mark Steyn here, I don't know how we can survive with leadership of this quality.  In a dangerous world we need leadership that can rally us all to deal with this ugly, real fact of life.  That leadership is most definitely not Obama.

ADDED:  In addition to all the outrage of the above, Austin Hill writes here that Obama, by denigrating the US in public and often, to whomever will listen, has undermined his country in the eyes of the world at large.  Austin notes the net effect of this calumny is reflected in the expressions of dismay by Tea Party movements, as well as the recent election results in Virginia, NJ, and Massachusetts .  This has to be a one-term presidency or else the US becomes one more largely disfunctional state that we see all over the globe.

ADDED:  And there is also this open letter to Obama from Lou Prichett, former Procter & Gambel executive, that has been circulating on the internet for over a year and which strikes very, very close to home:

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

-- Lou Pritchett

David Horowitz and Jonah Goldberg

Anyone who interested in what goes on on college campuses these days, knows that David Horowitz (a radical liberal mugged by reality along the way and now a conservative) fights the good fight by taking his message into the lion's den of colleges to fight political correctness and other debilitating viruses liberals embrace and promote.  Jonah Golberg, conservative sometime columnist for the liberal LATimes, describes in this article an encounter Horowitz recently had in a Q & A session with a muslim woman on the UC San Diego university campus. Goldberg also describes the reaction of the administration there to her answer to Horowitz's question asking if she supported the statement of a representative of Hezbollah who asserted he hoped all Jews would go to Israel because it would be easier to kill them all in one place than have to hunt them down all over the world. Her answer was, "I do", and the response of the administration was almost as disappointing.

The Episcopal Church

The ECUSA has just appointed its second gay bishop, an act that provoked the post from Reverend Mead here.  The church has been losing communicants at an alarming rate since its first gay Bishop, Rev. Robinson, was elected in, I believe, New Hampshire, several years ago.  The position Rev Mead takes is principled and anguished as he realizes that the ECUSA is estranging itself from the Anglican church traditions and is likely to be invited to disassociate itself from that body.  Many of the remarks associated with this post of Rev Mead's reflect the anguish of communicants and especially interesting are the points made by many who have already left the church.  It appears that the church, in its actions regarding this matter,  is reflecting the same position as the liberals in our contentious political life today.  Namely, the mores of our society are changing and we should be changing with them.  Or put another way, the US Constitution is a living document which should interpreted in the light of the changing mores of the society in which we live, versus the conservative position that the principles embodied in the Constitution are enduring and matters coming before it should be adjudicated according to its original intent.  Episcopal leadership is saying that the gay lifestyle is now mainstream and should be embraced on equal terms with the heterosexual lifestyle.  Or, same sex marriage is to be blessed by the church.