Obama's Game Plan

Listen to the language of [Socialist International],
and realize that Obama uses the same cloaked messages.

I subscribe to Act! For America's email newsletter. "I founded ACT! for America," writes Brigitte Gabriel, "because Islamic militants have declared war on America. I know what this means. For years, I witnessed first-hand how brutally jihadists treat non-Muslims.

"We are in for the fight of our lives and we must ACT! - before it's too late."

Gabriel grew up in Lebanon--when it was a mostly Arab Christian nation, and she watched as the Islamicists took over and the Christians fled, though a few do still remain behind in their native land.

Gabriel is not the only author and/or activist writing and working against, not Islam, nor the Muslim people, but against Islamicism, the insidious fascism in the mindset and the world-view of a comparatively few Muslims who do not recognize human rights. They recognize only the inherent slavery of Muslims to Allah.

In the blog Death By 1000 Papercuts (DBKP), authors "LBG and pat" write: "Once again we find where the most innocent of innocents, children, are being victimized and exploited by those who protest the Israeli siege of Gaza.

"Now we find that children are being exploited by Palestinian supporters in Europe.
During a pro-Palestinian rally in Brussels, children were rounded up in groups then forced to read slogans they clearly did not understand.

"Children were forced to carry banners and placards with messages of hate, while others were forced to wave flags of the terrorist organization of Hezbollah.
Children were allowed to set fire to an Israeli flag then watched as adults stamped on it chanting “Allahu Akhbar”.

"The most shocking exploitation of the children: at the end of the “demonstration”, the children were forced to lie on the ground in a “die-in” symbolizing the children who had perished in Gaza. Yet how many children have died as the result of being used as “human shields”?"

Act!'s recent newspage contained a link to the blog "Atlas Shrugs", in which Pamela Geller writes: "Of all the clergy in America ..... why her? Obama invites Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood linked ISNA [Islamic Society of North America] to offer prayer at inauguration. ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in the same Hamas funding case that named CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations] as a Muslim Brotherhood group - in the same Brotherhood document that speaks of its goal of destroying Western civilization from within."

Who is this female clergy? "Ingrid Mattson, the first woman president of the Islamic Society of North America," at the National Cathedral, no less. This means she will be speaking to all the members of Congress, all the former Presidents, all of the Supreme Court Justices, anyone who is anyone in Washington, and to the entire world because these events are broadcast so we Americans--and the rest of the world, including Islam--can watch, also. AP

So the President of an American Organization linked to Hamas, the Islamic Brotherhood, and CAIR, has been invited to lead the new President's prayer service. Is Obama an appeaser, rather than a uniter? Keep reading.

In Act!'s newsletter, we read this: "Since we emailed you on Monday and Tuesday about Hamas’ abuse and exploitation of children, the number of views of the video we forwarded (showing Hamas treatment of children) more than doubled. After we sent out the petition launch on Tuesday, the number of views increased by more than 120,000 in less than 24 hours--our bandwidth usage on our website was higher on Tuesday than it’s ever been. Today, we have another video for you to view. You’ll see in greater depth and detail how Hamas is brainwashing children and preparing the next generation of jihadists. The more we in the West see how Hamas is operating, the more we will understand why Israel has no option but to vigorously defend itself."

As if to explain the importance of Mattson's appearance at the Cathedral, Act! continues: "We will also better understand why appeasement of such evil will never lead to peace, but only serves to embolden the radical Islamists whose ultimate goal is to impose their doctrines on the rest of us, by any means possible."

"By any means possible" in this case means being invited by Mr. Obama. Obama is an appeaser. He has actually brought together the left and the right wings of American politics, keeping a Republican Secretary of Defence, nominating other more-conservative-than-liberal people to his Cabinet, while bringing in one avowed Socialist, if not more.

This is not fence-building nor fence-mending. This is compromise, and not of methods or plans or other things that legitimate compromise allows for. This is compromise of the principles of individualism, and because Islamicists want to dominate the earth it is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

"When president-elect Barack Obama appointed Carol Browner to be his "energy czar" back in December, the conservative blogosphere was buzzing about her being a member of Socialist International, 'the worldwide organisation of social democratic, socialist and labour parties.'

"At the time, she was fourth on the website's list of members in the 'Commission for a Sustainable World Society.'" NewsBusters

The Commission " has been established by Socialist International to articulate from the world of progressive politics a way forward to address global environmental concerns, climate change and the issues of governance required to deal with these common challenges."

Listen to the language of that, and realize that Obama uses the same cloaked messages. Never once did he ever admit to being a Marxist, but never once did he have to deny it because as far as I know no one ever asked him. Telling Joe the Plumber he wanted to "redistribute the wealth" was enough of a give-away, but he deftly managed to get around that thorny issue the way he is maneuvering about the Washington Beltway of politics.

The language is, first, that the Commission will "articulate from the world of progressive politics." "Articulate" used here is "cloak-speak" for "attempt to dictate, cajole, plead, embarrass, harass, and otherwise politically cage the world into progressive politics." Not from rational evidence-based science, but from progressive politics. Progressive itself is cloak-speak for collectivism.

How can I know this? The history of socialist language is full of such examples. The second example of such language is the Commission's statement that they "address global environmental concerns, climate change and the issues of governance required to deal with these common challenges."

Those issues are flatly stated as being progressive-politics oriented. Many of the members of Socialist International are center-left. If we were worried about a "New World Order" during the administration of Presidents Bush 41 and Clinton, we now are going to have Mrs. Clinton as our Secretary of State, Carol Browner as energy czar, and Mr. "redistribute the wealth" Obama as President.

I can't think of a game plan for a "new world order" of "progressive", i.e., socialist, politics than that plan.




The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Sci Naturalism's Goal of Liberal Humanism

SN's Humanism Part and Parcel
of Incivility Toward Man

Yesterday I wrote, "If the goal of scientific naturalism (SN) is humanism..." I should have written, "Since the goal of SN is humanism..."

Tom Clark, the author of the Guide to Naturalism, once wrote me and said the "Guide" and the Q&A "will be a start in understanding where the progressive, humanistic implications come from in this version of naturalism."

No where that I have been able to discover do any of the websites linked to Clark's "version of naturalism" state explicitly or implicitly that there is any other version of naturalism but the one in his "Guide." When writing about his version, he simply says "naturalism this" and "naturalism that." He conveniently forgets SN was not the norm when naturalism was the dominant doctrine of Greece and western Europe, before Augustine. On the Nature of Things

What Clark's version of "this and that" is, is a scientistic, politically liberal, "father-figure" when it comes to the role of law and the courts.

To quote from a website on the subject of law, punishment, and justice, is to understand this "progressiveness" better:

"I see two assumptions embedded in your question [about what to do with someone who breaks the law]:
1. Punishment is the appropriate response to actions not in agreement with laws
2. Punishment is justice
"My first impression is that those two assumptions are more consistent with a Strict Father view of justice than that of a Nurturant Parent. Progressive justice concerns itself with patiently nurturing responsible behavior towards the community. Laws consistent with that vision can be considered fair. Actions not in accordance with those fair laws should be sanctioned, as long as the sanctions do indeed benefit the whole community, including the sanctioned individuals and their loved ones."

So, progressive justice means turning the courts and the laws into "Nurturant Parents"! The idea of "patiently nurturing responsible behavior towards the community" used to be called "civics class"--before I was born. It is no longer taught. No one any longer understand that "Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. American Sphinx,The Character of Thomas Jefferson

No one remembers that whites are Citizens of the Several States, while blacks did not gain citizenship until the 14th Amendment with its "citizens of the United States Clause," which in effect made them wards of the Federal government. However, we all are now wards of the Federal government.

An important provision was the statement that “'nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' The right to due process of law and equal protection of the law now applied to both the Federal and state governments." http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=43

This was the beginning of the government's power to nationalize legislation to give it undue power over the states, such as the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the FTC, the FCC, and the military draft provisions. It is difficult for people who's individual sovereignty is crafted and manipulated by governments to remain civil under certain conditions; we call such incidents by the name of "civil unrest," and deliberate actions taken to bring attention to such unlawful manipulation is often called "civil disobedience."

But psychologically, it is possible for millions of people who feel deprived of their birth right to fail to care about the birth right of others, and to become unjustly selfish in their actions toward others, thereby forgetting that civility is the best means of accomplishing one's own life, not to mention allowing others to accomplish their own lives.

Look at the state of many individuals' incivility toward others. And when incivility is allowed, as it is today because adults are afraid that opening their mouth might get them shot or beaten, then shootings and beatings occur anyway.

"[U]ndercutting belief in free will has the effect of leading people in a more liberal, compassionate direction, or so I believe," Clark continued. "Of course, naturalism isn’t the only source of humanistic values since there are many humanistic theists."

It is certainly no wonder to me that Christians and other theists decry this form of naturalism. What they fail to understand is that this version, though it is unarguably the prevailing form, is not the only form.

Metaphysical naturalism (MN) does not "undercut belief in free will." MN seeks to provide an understanding of why human will is free will.

What I find incredible is that Clark can openly admit that he welcomes my criticism, "since that can only correct or improve my very likely flawed thinking," he wrote. Yet I have not seen that my criticism has changed one word of his web sites.

Under the sub-heading Social Justice, Clark wrote this: "But there’s another, more fundamental question about poverty [Hurricane Katrina and others] raised: what’s the moral difference between needy victims of a hurricane and those needy to begin with? If the Red Cross funnels millions of dollars to feed, clothe and house those displaced by floods, why not do as much for the homeless already among us? Instead, under cover of deficit reduction, the Bush administration and Republican-controlled Congress are bent on cutting funding for food stamps, school loans, child support, Medicaid and other programs that address the causes and consequences of poverty."

This thinking demonstrates some of the "flaws" Clark in was talking about in his "thinking". The government is not the Red Cross. The Red Cross takes voluntary donations; the government takes "donations" at the point of a gun. Try not paying your taxes, if you think I'm wrong. Without a gun, the IRS has no power at all. Look at what it did to Nat Cole, Willie Nelson, James Brown and others both famous and obscure. The IRS sold Willie Nelson's gold records--after confiscating his house and all its possessions.

Like Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," progressive, humanistic thinking, whether backed by scientism, or by theist or collectivistic thinking, shows a disregard for comparing apples to apples. Before the Supreme Court reversed itself during a more liberal and progressive period in its makeup and gave its stamp of approval to the IRS and its gun, per capita charitable donations were at an all time high, but they dropped to a near record low within two years of the implementation of the IRS.

We now have a religious-humanist incoming President who intends to increase the amount of money that goes into the Bush-implemented policy of giving public money to faith-based organizations. This is obviously not SN, but it isn't MN either, nor is it Objective. It is collectivization for the purpose of redistributing wealth, and Obama is not the only elected official who makes this goal his policy.

But every penny spent for new programs, new bureaus, new agencies costs Americans' more of their sovereignty, and undercuts what little is left of our will to be free. Our free will is limited more by government interference than by any other form of encroachment on our liberty, certainly more than Clark talks about concerning genes, memes, environment, and nurturing.

Actually, redistributing wealth is more than a goal or a policy; it is the doctrine that the common good outweighs the right to individual sovereignty and its exercise of free will. It does not outweigh that sovereignty, not morally, but only in the fact that it has the power of the gun behind it.

Republican democracy, or democratic republicanism, the political system under which America is governed, is specifically charged with the task of writing laws that take as little from common sovereignty as possible, but when it does need to take that sovereignty, it is added to what is called, by Locke and Hobbes, Rousseau and others, as "common sovereignty."

Common sovereignty does not translate into "the common good." Individual sovereignty translates into "the general Welfare" and to securing "the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Preamble to the Constitution of the United States (which, by the way, did not mean, until the 14th Amendment, a single entity called the United States; but instead means individual States United. That is no longer what it means, and Lincoln proved it by declaring that no states had the right to withdraw from the Union--and then kept them united.)

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/