RealDealPolitics.com

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency .It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” – author unknown

Dr. Savage gets a free trip thru hell, thanks to a caller with a mental disorder who doesn’t even know where the money for her welfare check comes from. Starts as a discussion about borders, which she thinks should be removed.

Update: Attack # 18 came on December 25, 2009 as a Nigerian muslim attempted to ignite explosives on an airliner in Detroit, wishing everyone a Christmas as miserable as he is. Nobody was injured except himself.

Another radical muslim has just commited yet another terrorist act on our own US soil. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an admitted muslim, conducted his own jihad at the Fort Hood US Army base in Texas, leaving 13 dead and 29 others wounded, in the largest US terrorist attack since 2001.

Add this to the list of other individual radical muslim jihads since 9/11/2001:

· Muslim soldier who murdered his officers at US Army base in Kuwait in 2003 killing two

· Radical muslim imam has a shoot out with feds in Detroit last month and dies, fortunately

· Muslim fanatic attacked an Arkansas recruiting station in June of this year killing one

· New York muslim cable TV network owner beheads his wife in Feburary this year

· Muslim father ran over his own daughter in Arizona for being “too westernized” she lived

· 5 muslims arrested in 2007 for plot to kill Army members at Fort Dix NJ (3 were illegal aliens)

· Bosnian muslim in 2007 shoots up the Trolley Square in Utah leaving 5 dead, 4 wounded

· Muslim stole a car in Minneapolis and rammed other drivers in the name of Allah

· Muslim ran over people in San Francisco 2006 with his SUV, telling police he was a terrorist

· Muslim goes on a shooting rampage at Jewish community center in Seattle 2006

· Muslim student runs over students with SUV at a NC campus in 2006 to protest Iraq war

· Muslim student in OK blew himself up with a backpack bomb in 2005 outside of football stadium

· Egyptian muslim opened fire at LAX killing 2 and wounding 4 in 2002

· Saudi muslim student in Houston decapitated his Jewish “friend” in 2003

· Two gay muslims terrorize the entire national capital area in 2002, taking pot shots from the back of a car, known as the infamous “DC snipers” 13 total dead including previous shootings

· Muslim opened fire at New Orleans airport ticket counter in 2002, killing 1

That is a total of 17 terrorist attacks since 9/11 that I know of. There are perhaps others that the media successfully covered up, as they are very good at. Did you have any idea the count was that high?

The death toll is now 38, with dozens more injured, and untold millions terrorized.

If you notice, there is one thing all these attacks have in common: they were all conducted by muslims against unsuspecting people, in a cowardly manner. Another thing they have in common is that the government and media refuse to call them terrorist attacks.

Guns are not at fault here. Note in the list of above terrorist attacks, the diversity of weapons: guns, knives, bombs, and cars. A lot of people have cars, should we outlaw them?

Soldiers reported that Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar!” while shooting at dozens of unarmed employees. This phrase, which means “Allah is great,” is always repeated by Islamo-fascist terrorists. It has something to do with their mental self-justification for doing something they know is a terrible crime.

Clearly, Hasan and his radical Islamic ideology are at fault, but also complicit in this act is political correctness, the same which has already compromised free speech, and has now compromised our own military, and with it our national security.

The signs of trouble were visible early in his career. In Army medical school, students and faculty both knew that Hasan had problems. In fact, one even told him so. “I told him, `There’s something wrong with you,’” said Osman Danquah, co-founder of the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen. “I didn’t get the feeling he was talking for himself, but something just didn’t seem right.”

His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan’s “anti-American propaganda,” but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint. You heard it right. Anti-American propaganda, and yet he stayed in the US army because of political correctness.

Dr. Finnel, who studied with him at medical school, said Hasan made a presentation that justified suicide bombing, spewed out anti-American propaganda, and argued that the war on terror was a war against Islam. Finnel and another student complained about him, but no formal complaint was filed.

Hasan received a poor performance evaluation, and had some problems that required counseling and additional supervision. Some of the doctors even reported that he had mental health problems. Despite all of this, they graduated him and promoted him to Major upon his graduation from the medical center.

But the story goes back to his youth, when Hasan attended a mosque in Falls Church that has been linked to 9/11 terrorists and al-Qaeda. The former imam of such mosque is a radical muslim known to be connected to al-Qaeda, named Anwar al-Awlaki, was in fact the leader of that temple while Hasan attended.

Awlaki praised the recent actions of Hasan:

“Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people,” wrote al-Aulaqi, who now lives in Yemen since leaving the U.S. in 2002. “This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier.”

I will agree with Awlaki on one point, that a muslim can not properly serve Islam and serve as a US soldier. I would strike the word “decent” and replace with “devout.”

During his time at Ft Hood, Hassan, who was a psychiatrist, was assigned to counseling soldiers returning home from war. So we had a psychotic doctor counseling other soldiers. That’s efficient. In this capacity, he told them to question whether their sacrifices in fighting the war were worth it, and argued with them about the nature of the war.

Hasan also warned a room full of senior Army physicians in early 2008, that to avoid adverse events, the military should allow muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars against other muslims.

Hasan was supposed to be making a presentation on a medical topic, but instead lectured them on Islam, suicide bombers, and threats the military could encounter from muslims conflicted about fighting in muslim countries. “It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims,” he said in the presentation.

He was right that there would be problems, but apparently nobody knew he was talking about himself. I would have had one question for him: Why the hell are you still in the Army if you so vehemently disagree with everything they do?

The last bullet point on one page reads simply: “We love death more then (sic) you love life!” Ok, in the future I would advise these type of muslims to just kill themselves if they love death. Those of us that are normal people, don’t like it.

Under the “Conclusions” page, Hasan wrote that “Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam,” and that “Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly — will vary!”

The final page, labeled “Recommendation,” contained only one suggestion:

“Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as ‘Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.”

So this is the gratuity he shows the Army for sending him to medical school for free, paying him to be a subpar employee that constantly sought to undermine their mission and beliefs. A room full of dead soldiers.

On top of all of this, US Intelligence knew long before the attack, that Hasan has been in contact with an al-Qaeda sympathizer. About that term, in my book if you are a terrorist sympathizer, then you are a terrorist suspect. I mean, do we really have to assume you’re NOT going to act on your beliefs?

Hasan also showed some final typical warning signs, giving away belongings to others, saying good bye to friends and neighbors, and attending a local strip club named Starz several times in his final weeks before the attack. He assumed that he would end up dying in the attack, which he should have.

Hasan had also been in contact in 2008 with the same radical cleric named Awlaki referenced above, and federal authorities knew it. What did they do about it? Apparently, nothing. My guess is they were concerned about being accused of “profiling.”

Profiling is a term that in the past was used to describe a process by which law enforcement was doing their job correctly by singling out various individuals for surveillance who fit the profile of a criminal or terrorist. Now, it is a derogatory term and considered racist by the liberal media and others who collectively comprise the politically correct thought police.

In short, a process that used to protect our people by preventing crimes by would-be criminals, or at least bringing them to justice, is now itself a crime. That makes a lot of sense.

This “political correctness” movement is a thought control device used by communists, to not let people speak truths that they don’t want to hear. It has successfully infected all levels of our society, law enforcement, and now even the military.

But once the military and federal intelligence agencies are afraid to report the truth about someone who is obviously an Islamo-fascist wacko, what line of defense do we have against them? Who do we appeal to when they won’t do their job of eradicating extremists from their own ranks?

I would appeal to the American people as a whole. Stop complying with the communist thought police. Speak out about things you know are wrong. Don’t accept the dereliction of duty by federal employees. Don’t tolerate elected officials who try to sweep this under the rug or pretend it’s not a problem.

When we have a list of 17 terrorist attacks with 38 dead, and over 50 wounded, and millions terrorized, then it is definitely a problem.

We the people have a unique ability that is not available in most countries. That is, we can fire our elected public officials when we don’t agree with their policies (as long as we don’t let Acorn and other communist organizations undermine our vote with fraudulent election practices.)

Stop voting for that old windbag just because he or she brings pork into your state or district. If you’re a taxpayer, you’re paying for that pork anyway. Is it really worth sacrificing your own safety and that of your friends and neighbors?

Terrorism in this country is unacceptable. It may be acceptable in other countries, but not mine. I’m tired of living in my realistic fear that there is a radical muslim just around the corner, who may just be planning a terrorist attack.

Why do we have to live like this? We DON’T have to. We need to stand up for our rights to not be terrorized. We know who these people are. We know what mosques preach this kind of hatred. We need our law enforcement officials to protect us. Don’t accept anything less.

We can’t continue to stick our heads in the sand and pretend we don’t know what the problem is. The matter needs to be discussed and resolved. Radical muslims can not be allowed to exist in our society. I don’t care what we do with them, just get rid of them. Are you listening Congress?

Part of the problem we’re facing today is that many young people just don’t know the difference between right and wrong in this society of blurred boundaries. When someone is wrong, they can always claim that they’re a victim of something else. Society made them that way.

Where does one get the notions of right and wrong from anyway? Today, most are getting it from the media, politicians, sports and musical entertainers, and anyone else they idolize. This is probably the worst group of people to get morals or ethics from; they’re not only a very flawed cast of characters, but most of them are shameless about their constant immorality.

Our society is headed further down the slope of the dark side of immorality as it has for decades, and its relative morality travels with it just like an index fund.

If right and wrong are defined by politicians and the media, I would suggest we are all going to hell if we follow their notions. Politicians and the media both lie to us incessantly, then take no responsibility for it, and are not held accountable.

Is right and wrong defined by law? To some extent perhaps, but law is nothing more than a version of the legislated morality of the society it represents. Let’s look at some examples.

Speeding is wrong, right? I would argue that some people can safely operate their vehicles at a higher velocity than the posted limit. I see no wrong in that, as long as they are in control, and not unnecessarily risking the harm of others.

Is it wrong for an 18 year old to drink a beer? It wasn’t 30 years ago, why was it suddenly wrong 10 years later? Remember prohibition? A lot of people were illegal during that time.

Adultery has been long considered wrong by many. In fact, there are laws against it in most states. However, they have not been enforced in decades. Is it now right to have sex with another’s spouse? If you think so, think about whether you would like their spouse or family to find out.

(I understand in our new age of ‘enlightenment’ that there are ‘swing couples’ that are OK with sharing their spouse. I see their point, but not sure why they got married if they want to behave in that manner.)

There used to be laws about sodomy on the books, but now most have been erased or are not enforced. Does that make it right? If homosexual marriage is legal and right, then why not polygamy? Those are consenting adults also. Why can’t man or woman marry a consenting animal?

It is legal for our government to tax a large percentage of our income, before we even see it, in order to waste most of it on fraudulent bureaucracies, and other programs as they see fit. Many of these people in charge didn’t pay their taxes, but are forcing the rest of us to, which is another story. But is it right?

You are legally allowed to sell “snake oil” to the public, on the internet, or wherever, and if you make the worthless product sound good enough, many people will buy it, only to be disappointed afterward that it doesn’t work at all. Is that right or wrong?

Greedy banks, while extorting their customers at every turn, got too greedy and lured customers into paying for things with credit that they couldn’t afford, which ran their businesses into the ground. Then they accepted billions of dollars of taxpayer money from the government as a bailout. Is that right?

Some rap gangsters, doing what they preach in the form of various crimes, have rap sheets longer than any of their rap songs. But they’re not behind bars; they’re still out there freely performing their “art.” Right.

It’s also legal to sell your body for sex, sell your soul for rock and roll, have abortions, lie and deceive others, be unkind to your neighbor, curse at an old lady, buy and sell people, mismanage someone else’s money and take no responsibility for it, adopt an underage child to have sexual relations with him/her, and the list goes on.

Some people would find the aforementioned items of questionable morality. In fact, some would call them just plain wrong. So we’ve proven that the law does not provide an accurate authority on right and wrong, right?

What is right and wrong then? Do we just feel it? Some do, I would argue, but why, and how? Clearly serial killers, rapists, thieves and others, don’t see it the same way I do.

Morality and ethics used to be well-defined, once upon a time in America. Schools and parents alike taught kids the real difference between right and wrong, and why it was so. The Ten Commandments were used as the general standard.

Today, parents leave it up to the government, schools, and media to raise their children. Now, God and his Commandments can’t be mentioned in schools without bringing about a law suit. They are even scoffed at in the public square by the media.

In the not too distant past, half a century ago, Americans knew the difference between right and wrong. Crime was low, and people were punished for doing the wrong thing.

Then we had the drug induced, sexual revolution, anything goes, moral relativity, “awakening” decade of the 60’s. Manson, Bundy, and a whole host of other serial killers sprouted out of this era.

The children of this generation have terrorized others in schools with guns and bombs, for no apparent reason. But there is a reason: they have no moral compass. They simply subscribe to the moral authority of the day: Moral Relativism.

Pure Moral Relativism states that the morality of anything is simply relative to the people or society of the day, or even to personal preference.

Fortunately, for now, most Moral Relativists will at least admit there is a line you don’t cross: you can’t hurt other people. But if you listen to the rest of their debate, you may not agree with their definitions of hurting people.

Some interesting examples:

A drug addict hurts nobody except himself right? Ask his family members: his wife, kids, etc. whether they think this is true. Aside from that, has he helped or harmed society?

A sexual relationship between an adult and child hurts nobody, since they are both consensual participants, right? Again, ask the child’s family if they feel this is true. The same argument can be made for the adulterous relationship.

If a man presents an investment without substance, such as a Ponzi scheme, or snake oil, and people buy into it, then that is their choice. It’s just another stock market gamble. The victims would disagree.

What if a man makes money off others by a legitimate business such as selling food or cloth? Does he therefore hurt others by taking their money while he makes a lot of it? Some would argue so.

The fact that Moral Relativists will mostly agree to not hurting others is convenient, but who decides whether even hurting others is right or wrong? What if most people were to agree that hurting others for your own benefit is right, as in survival of the fittest? We have still to define the “hurt.”

Such is the slippery slope of Moral Relativism. If there is not an absolute right or wrong for most issues and crimes, then who defines it? Simply, it’s the individual. Therefore, if enough individuals decide that it is right for them to kill, maim, rape, steal, and destroy, then it is OK according to Moral Relativism.

Suppose you end up stranded on an island, and there are 10 men and 3 women. The nine other men have collectively agreed that it is OK for any man to rape any of the women. What do you do?

In order to prevent sliding further down the slope to complete immorality, we must admit that there is an objective right or wrong. We can either do that now, or continue pretending that we don’t have a standard for this so that we can be “tolerant” of others’ rights to be immoral or unethical.

Regardless of your version of how Moses’ Ten Commandments came into being, it is generally agreed by scholars that they appeared about 3500 years ago. Since then, they increasingly took hold in the western world as the moral standard by which most laws have been based.

If you haven’t ever read the Ten Commandments, look them over real quick and then answer this question: Is anyone harmed by the following of these rules?

Perhaps you are an atheist, and disagree with the first three. I still aver that nobody is harmed if you follow those. If you don’t know how to follow them then don’t. (An aside to atheists: those first three are meant for you.)

The bottom line is that, if people did adhere to these Commandments, regardless of your religion, the criminal harm of others would be almost nonexistent.

Seriously, if nobody steals, murders, adulters, lies about their neighbor to his detriment, or covets other’s property, how many more serious crimes are there? Assault and rape, I would assume, but every civilized country has laws on the books about this, because we know they are wrong. And I would propose keeping such laws.

Some financial scheming crimes aren’t covered, you might say, but we can categorize most of these under the 8th Commandment regarding theft.

The fact is that, unless we admit that there is a higher authority regarding morality, then the pure relativity of it that leads to chaos, will take over.

In the past, court witnesses were required to raise their right hand, put the other on the Bible, and state, “I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”

Obviously some people didn’t believe in the truth, or God, but this method was still very powerful, because the witness was consciously condemning himself in front of God if he did not tell the truth, whether he believed it or not.

Now, that commitment on top of the Bible and God no longer exists in courts, since it offended some people. I’m so sorry that they were offending criminal suspects, by the way. But without swearing to God, who are the witnesses swearing to?

Since the truth is relative, and without making an oath to God, the witness or suspect is only swearing to himself and his own relative morality. What good is that? Can we expect any modicum of truth out of him?

The entire justice system of our society has been compromised by Moral Relativism, from the courts, to how police can handle the suspects without offending them, to the definitions of the crimes that are committed.

Remember how OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder because the lead detective had made a racial joke in the past? Which is worse: the joke or the murder? The slippery slope of relativism simply leads to more crime and more chaos, with fewer repercussions.

This is what happens to a society that abandons its commitment to God and his Commandments. Immorality, unethical behavior, and crime are not only tolerated but promoted from the Moral Relativist segment of the society, under the banner of Tolerance of course.

I’m not trying to sell religion here. Each person is free to worship in his own way. What I’m proposing is that we respect the commitment to God and the Judeo-Christian ethics that our Founding Fathers set forth in this country. They obviously had good reason for doing so.

If you’re one of the small minority that doesn’t believe in God (less than 10%), then you’re in a small enough segment that you shouldn’t be able to enforce your version of morality on the 90% majority.

Even so, consider following the Ten Commandments anyway. Just think: if you’re wrong and there is a God, then at least you’ll be doing the right thing by him, and that may count for something one day.

In the meantime, we need to admit as a society and nation that there are universal truths, rights, and wrongs. We need to return to following God’s law as it was stated thousands of years ago, which doesn’t hurt anyone, but in fact protects people from getting hurt.

What have we got to lose by having a more moral and ethical society?