ArtLindsey.com

RICHMOND, Va. — A 90-year-old Medal of Honor recipient can keep his 21-foot flagpole in his front yard after a homeowner’s association dropped its request to remove it, a spokesman for Democratic Virginia Sen. Mark Warner said Tuesday.

Thank goodness. It’s nice to know that some order of sanity can still be maintained out there. What have we come to when homeowners associations are even entertaining the notion of American flags being code violations, let alone actually petitioning to have one removed from a decorated veteran’s home?

It boggles the mind to think that some people actually find one of the greatest symbols of freedom in the history of the human race to be an eyesore. How can this be when the flag is an icon of the one place on Earth where you actually have the right to complain about anything you want without fear of retribution? Wanting to see it removed is rather self-defeating, and well, stupid, isn’t it?

Why is it considered “patriotic” by some to show dissent or to burn a flag, yet to display a flag is interpreted as “offensive” ? Those two things just don’t add up, and one would most likely be hard-hard pressed to find an instance where the display of an American flag actually lowered property values, would they not?

We could spend countless hours debating the usefulness and the true nature of homeowners associations, but that’s not really the point, here. The greater point is that we’ve lost our collective minds. Men like Colonel Van T. Barfoot should be eternally celebrated, not hassled with such trifling things. This man served his country with honor and distinction. He should not be treated as a vandal. It is shameful, and disrespectful to the United States Armed Forces as a whole, and freedom-loving Americans everywhere.

The fact that something like this escalates to the point where White House press secretary Robert Gibbs is forced to comment on it, saying the whole thing was “silly”, once again aids credibility to the argument that common sense in America is in fact dead. Yet, at the same time, Robert Gibbs should be praised for actually getting something right for a change.

Maybe there is “hope” after all.

Popularity: 49% [?]

Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) gave a speech on the senate floor yesterday to push for “Rosa’s Law”. Rosa’s law is a piece of legislation that mandate the phrase “mentally disabled” be used in place of “mentally retarded” when referring to such citizens on health and education paperwork.

“In changing the language, we believe it will be the start of new attitudes towards people with intellectual disabilities.”

-

This madness must end. America is in the middle of two strenuous wars, and we have an economy on the brink of total collapse, yet we have a senator who seems preoccupied with the use of a certain descriptor used in government documentation. Yet again, another bleeding heart Democrat who is more concerned with feeling good, rather than doing good for the nation as a whole.

Now, before I get chastised for being heartless by those who would accuse me of standing in the way of a little girl’s supposed happiness, I would like to disclose the following:

I am physically disabled. I have Cerebral Palsy, which prevents me from walking without the assistance of an orthopedic device or another person. I have been called many things, such as “disabled”, “differently-abled”, “handicapped”, “handi-capable”, “crippled”, and a few other words along the way that can’t be shared here.

Guess what?

In spite of all the labels that have been assigned to me and others like me, one thing has remained constant:

My condition has never changed. People need to learn that while words do have meaning, which is important, context is also a key component in this equation. For instance, “retard” means to slow or hinder. It does not mean “stupid”, and the modifiers “mental” or “mentally” refers to the type of impediment. It is not, in and of itself, an attempt at ridicule or character assassination. Referring to someone as “mentally retarded” in official paperwork is not the same as yelling it in anger toward the person who cut you off at the intersection. It just isn’t. The words have a benign meaning. It’s the context in which they are used that can change them.

Quite frankly, when one looks at this objectively, this proposed law is nothing more than a time wasting exercise by those in our legislature, which will change nothing, except maybe making a few self-loathers feel better about themselves.

For the Record, the namesake of this legislation, Rosa Marcellino, has Down’s syndrome. She is, for all intents and purposes, mentally retarded. She is also 7 years old. With that in mind, one could probably say with a high degree of certainty that Rosa has no interest in official health and education paperwork at this point in her life. So, it stands to reason that this crusade was most likely started by a family member looking for attention, and Rosa is to be used as a face for it.

Honestly, that is just sad.

More than that, has anyone thought of the road this could lead us down? This is one step away from thought policing. How long will it be before legislation is introduced which will prevent us from saying certain words? It may very well be just around the corner. Such measures may never pass, but the mere possibility of such things being proposed should frighten any freedom-loving American.

We should be more concerned with today’s truly pressing matters. There are circumstances today which threaten our very way of life, yet some of our legislative officials seemed more concerned with how you feel, and more importantly, how they feel about themselves. The future of America is too important. We shouldn’t be wasting time on this drivel.

Words are just words. The only powers they have to offend are the ones that we decide to give them.

Popularity: 14% [?]

It’s over. Sound the bagpipes. Journalism is officially dead. I’m sure this comes as a shock to none of us, because we have all seen the mainstream media take the sharpest of left turns over the past decade, but I never thought it would get this petty.

What am I talking about, you ask? I’m talking about Rush Limbaugh’s bid for a stake in the NFL’s St. Louis Rams.

As I alluded to earlier, it’s no secret that the media is decidedly liberal, and sportscasters are no exception. This has to be one of the biggest media pile-ons over a trivial matter that anyone has ever seen. This has led me to a startling revelation:

A lot of sportscasters and sportswriters are just flat out stupid people. They are. Case in point, I just finished watching ESPN before I began writing this piece. The reporter in question asked Atlanta Falcons wide receiver how exactly he was able to achieve his record-setting 210 yard, two touchdown performance this past Sunday against San Francisco.

Of course, Roddy had to do his best to make the answer sound intricate, but we all know how he did it. He was able to run past the San Francisco defense, catch the ball when it was thrown to him, and keep running with the ball afterwards. That’s how he did it. It’s as simple as that, really. I don’t want to hear any crap about oversimplification on my part, either. I’ve been involved in organized football. I’ve coached. I’ve been a fan for over 25 years. When you strip away the nuance, good play boils down to one player doing his job better than the other guy. The sportscaster is just there to complicate things. His or her job is simply to ask an inane question, wait for a bloated answer, and then repeat the process.

Deep down, I think they know that, so many sportscasters will jump at the chance to drone on about someone who is as omnipresent in the American consciousness as Rush Limbaugh is. It makes them feel better about themselves. We’re talking about of group of people who still haven’t figured out the fact that nobody really cares whether or not Barry Bonds took steroids. That’s not why people don’t like him. People don’t like Barry Bonds because he’s a jerk. If Americans honestly cared about that, sports stadiums would not be filled every day, all across the country. It’s a question of simple math, really, and it’s become apparent that most in the sports media isn’t good with deductive reasoning or facts in this particular case, and here’s why:

The media is currently hanging its hat on supposed racist quotes by Limbaugh. Quotes which make reference to “slavery having its merits”, and the “streets being safer at night” because of it.”

These quotes are yet to be sourced, and were supposedly uttered in 1998. I for one have been an avid listener of Mr. Limbaugh’s for many years, and I have never heard him say anything of the sort. Not only that, I have not heard even a rumor of such words until now. If they are indeed accurate, why have they been under wraps for over a decade? Given the mainstream media’s obsession with Mr. Limbaugh, I find it unlikely that it would let comments of such a bigoted nature go unpublished for so long. Something isn’t right here.

The second ploy, which is also supposedly tied to racism, deals with comments Mr. Limbaugh made a few years ago about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb when he was employed as a commentator by ESPN. Limbaugh stated that McNabb was overrated, and was in a sense being propped up as a star because the media and the NFL had an overwhelming desire to see a black quarterback succeed. The comments of course started a firestorm of controversy, and Limbaugh resigned under pressure from the network.

Never mind the fact that the statement is accurate. Donovan McNabb is 1-4 and conference championship games and has never won a Super Bowl, and apparently is prone to vomit. Never mind that Limbaugh statement was actually an insight on the media and the league and not McNabb’s skin color. We all know word’s mean things, but apparently not in this case.

The truth is that McNabb is a non factor. I think what we should be more concerned with is the lack intellectual honesty on the part of the NFL and the media. Is it really so hard to believe that these two institutions have a vested desire in seeing a black quarterback succeed? Of course not. Don’t believe me? How many puff pieces have we football fans read over the years about the lack of black head coaches in the NFL? Quite a few. Remember the Super Bowl XLI , the first time two black head coaches (Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy) faced each other? The sports world could barely hold its water. Smith and Dungy were getting more press over their skin color than their accomplishments, and it was embarrassing. So I ask you: How is it that these people have an obvious desire to see black coaches succeed, but concept of pushing black quarterbacks is considered racist?

Simple. It’s not. This is nothing more than another obvious double standard and the media, and NFL should be ashamed of themselves. This is nothing more than a political agenda run amok.

Rush Limbaugh would be good for the NFL and the St. Louis Rams. He is a true fan of the game, which is something that isn’t readily apparent in terms of current NFL ownership. If he is a racist, why does he want to buy into a sport which is overwhelmingly black? He has proven he is a shrewd businessman by singlehandedly resurrecting the talk radio, and he has shown he has a heart, by choosing to invest in a terrible football team near his hometown, when he probably could have just as easily bought a piece of the Miami Dolphins, a team which is local to his current place of residence and seems willing to sell a chunk off to anybody with a passbook savings account.

This is hardly the effort of a sinister man. This is simply a guy chasing one of his boyhood dreams. Should he be handed the Rams simply because of whom he is? Of course not. Life will go on one way or the other. But on merit, Rush Limbaugh is just as qualified as anyone else to own an NFL franchise, and that is how he should be judged.

Popularity: 22% [?]

I’ve been sitting on this one for a few days, unsure if I should write about it or not. Probably because it involves a little bit of navel gazing, which I am not a big fan of, but sometimes it needs to be done, and maybe there’s a lesson that can be learned, or even taught from it. Anyway, here goes nothing.

The other day, I had a longtime friend of mine (who happens to be Canadian, as it were) ask me my opinion of the recent happenings with Arlen Specter. My friend referred to him as “long time Republican guy” or something like that.

Now, as we all know, I recently expressed a no-holds barred opinion of the Arlen Specter situation. So, in order to save time, I told my friend to go read the piece. I figured since my articles are notoriously long, almost always exceeding the thousand word mark, he would certainly be able to grasp my opinion.

I wasn’t so lucky. Within seconds of beginning to read, my friend came back at me with “Wow, you really hate Obama” and “You are a crazy, Art. Crazy. You really are a psycho. You’ve lost touch.”

To put this in context, I did refer to President Obama as a “fascist” in the piece, but one must understand that when I say that, that is not a hate filled statement. That is merely my observation of Observation of Obama’s method of governance. Any man who has asserted control over a nation’s monetary policy and private industry as he has, *should* be considered a fascist. My words aren’t hate speech; they are merely the product of a math problem. In fact, if I had to pick a fascist to enjoy a beer at a ballgame with, Barack Obama would be the guy. He certainly seems like a nice enough fellow.

However, to parse what I’m saying properly, one needs a few things:

One – A decent grasp on the language.
Two – A fundamental understanding of the American political and monetary system.
Three – (Most important) A core belief system, regardless of bent, and the ability to understand that a person must have solid belief structure in order to flourish and function properly in society.

Unfortunately, my friend has minimal understanding of number two, and absolutely no grasp on number three.

He will be reading Newt Gingrich books one week, and telling me how America would be better off with someone like Newt in the Oval Office, to calling me a psycho for offering an opinion on how to build a conservative majority which someone like Newt could use. In fact, sometimes when I do this, I parrot Newt’s ideas, so I’m not so sure what’s going on here. When I told my friend I was going to CPAC ’09, he told me I should “be careful” in going to things like that. Undoubtedly because in his mind, people who attend events like CPAC have convictions and that bothers him. In fact, I can hear him now, trotting out some cliché about “strong convictions making strong convicts.” Yet, he also likes to say “Know where you’re going, know who’s coming with you, and never get that order mixed up.”

This is what he does. Don’t worry, it confuses me too.

So, back at the Ranch, I said, “You know, in all honesty, you don’t have the understanding required to grasp what I’m talking about.”

This is true, and keep in mind he *asked* me for my opinion. After I informed him of this (politely, mind you,) he insulted me again, to which I said, [paraphrasing] “You just say whatever suits you because you want everybody to like you. You always have.”

Maybe I shouldn’t have said that, but it is true, and occasionally, you have to whip the truth out there.

My friend said, “Catch ya later.” and I haven’t heard from him since. I was angry for about 30 seconds, and then I let it go. Running away is par for the course for him, but I think the stream of insults caught me off guard. His ego is his problem, and he shouldn’t blame me if he doesn’t have the chops to engage me. I’ve got better things to do than be berated by someone with an informational deficit.

Now, I’m sure you are probably asking yourselves, “Why did you tell us this story? Did you feel the need to call out a friend in public?”

No, it’s not that at all. I just want to use this experience to illustrate a point:

It’s okay to believe in something. Look, I make no bones about being a hard core conservative. I am. I love it. I embrace it fully, wrapping myself in it like a warm blanket. I find it to be an ongoing intellectual pursuit, and my feet are firmly planted on the ground. I believe in it fully, because I’ve seen the good that it does.
That in mind, here comes the lynchpin of the lesson today:

Why I don’t agree with liberals at all, and I do think their policies are destructive, I do admire one thing about them:

They’re just as balls to the well as I am. People need to realize what a good thing that is. Ideas start at the ends and (sometimes) meet in the middle. At the ends of the spectrum you have your leaders, such as Ronald Reagan and FDR respectively. In the middle you have your sheep. Those who are led. No matter which side you are on, the fact is that the middle does not inspire. It does not motivate. Dare I say, it has no…gravitas.

Stand for something. Put yourself out there. We’re all for a clean environment and against child pornography. That doesn’t count. Hold your head high and be willing to take some dents. Be an individual. If you try to get everyone to like you, very soon, no one will find that very few, if any, can stand the sight of you.

Popularity: 69% [?]

Introduction:

After viewing the film, I was able to sit down for a moment with Gregory Ross, Communications Director for Clarion Fund, to talk about the project:

Art Lindsey: Could you tell us a little bit about whom you are, what you do?

Gregory Ross: I’m originally from Los Angeles and have lived overseas for many years. I moved back to LA from New York after 9-11, and a stint on Wall Street, and started working in the Hollywood Entertainment community.

AL: How did you become involved with this film, and what was/is your specific role?

GR: The producer of “Obsession”, Raphael Shore, is an old friend of mine. He approached me over a year ago about representing the film in Hollywood. My exact title is, ‘Director of Communications’ for the Clarion Fund (non-profit, 501c3), and I assist in everything from internal/external communications, dealing with the press, and helping to secure distribution for our films. We also engage in educational activities online and on college campuses, as the mission statement of the Clarion Fund is to educate Western Civilization about the threat of radical Islam.

AL: Who financed the film, and what was the cost? How long did it take to complete the film?

GR: The film was financed by a concerned citizen who has a long standing relationship with our organization. The cost was under $500k and it took over a year to complete.

AL: While the subject matter of the film is obvious, in your opinion, what is the ultimate goal of this film?

GR: Ultimately, our goal is that of self-protection. This is a non-partisan film that looks to warn Americans and other Westerners of the growing existential threat that we all face – radical Islam. Our enemy does not care if they kill a Democrat or Republican, black or white, Christian or Jew, or even in some cases other Muslims. We all, moderate Muslims included, need to ban together in order to succeed in this battle with the fundamental Islamists. No less than our Democratic way of life and the liberties it provides are at stake.

AL: In your estimation, how many people have seen “Obsession”?

GR: At last count I believe over 18 million people have seen “Obsession”. It has aired on CNN, Fox and other news outlets. It’s impossible however to truly gauge how many people have seen the entire film as it seems countless universities, churches, temples and other organizations have arranged screenings without our knowledge – which is just fine by us. We encourage activists to take matters into their own hands and spread the message. For us it’s all about getting the job done – not who gets credit for getting it out there.

AL: What is being done with the proceeds from this film?

GR: Proceeds from “Obsession” have primarily gone back into marketing the film. We’ve had a 2 year run so far since the films’ release, and yet there is still a large segment of America that does not know about the enemy we face. Our job is to reach those people, and fast!

AL: Have you received requests for the film from educators? Do you know of any institution where it is part of the curriculum?

GR: I know that the U.S. Department of the Navy uses the film and that it has also been shown on Capitol Hill on many occasions in order to education politicians. We have also screened it at countless universities and colleges. However we are unsure as to if it is being used in their curriculums – we certainly hope it is.

AL: How has it been received in a critical sense by the general public? Favorably or otherwise?

GR: Many people leave watching the film in a state of shock, however most all viewers are grateful for, and enlightened by, the information we provide in the film. This is scary stuff indeed! The public is extremely uniformed about the threats we face, and the general media is too consumed with Iraq to pay attention to the larger issues at hand. In the past years we have won and placed in numerous film festivals, and many critics have praised the film highly. Indeed, Glenn Beck said…”Obsession is without exaggeration one of the most important films of our time”.

AL: Have you received any feedback from Muslim groups such as CAIR because of this film? If so, what has that been like? Any backlash?

GR: Let’s just say that CAIR is not a big fan of our work – and they shouldn’t be! We uncover the lies, deception and terrorist activities that they work so hard to hide from us all. Other more moderate Muslim organizations and individuals actually use “Obsession” as a primer for their talks and lectures. We work closely with all moderate Muslims that look to reclaim their religion from the radical fanatics.

AL: What is your opinion on the current state of our war against Radical Muslim Extremism? Do you think the public truly grasp it? What aboutOur leaders in Washington? What is your view of the future, all things considered?

GR: Now that is the big questions, isn’t it? The public? Unfortunately, largely clueless. That’s why we are doing the work we do. The politicians? Some are not much better informed than the people they represent, especially when it comes to what is going on in their own backyards. The prison systems where hate and killing are being taught by radical Islamic chaplains who are paid for by the U.S. government, radical Islamic communities sprouting up in the U.S., Shariah financing on Wall Street, etc. We indeed have a big task ahead of us to get the people in Washington to do their job in protecting American citizens.
In terms of my overall view on the situation…go visit Europe now and kiss it goodbye, in our lifetimes it will be overrun by radical Islam. As far as America is concerned I think the Middle Eastern expert Bernard Lewis sums it up best in our new film when he succinctly suggests that America “wake up!” We have a short window of opportunity to turn the tide, and we really must join all of our resources in fighting what is the most dangerous threat today to our society and way of life. The global climate crises may present problems in 20-30 years, but if we don’t counter the threat of radical Islam, we might not be around that long to ‘enjoy’ the warm temperatures that our carbon footprints provide.

Popularity: 83% [?]

Irreconcilable Differences?

Even in California, with divorce rates hovering around 50%, the dissolution of a marriage is still looked upon as a sad and tragic event – celebrity breakups notwithstanding. Most people still believe (I hope) that one should work thru their marital difficulties and use divorce only as a last resort. The question is: Does this hold true for the relationships between countries…and are we now at that point with the Arab world?

Many people would like to think that we can still salvage our relationship with Arab nations; however, the harsh realities of the Middle East paint a dismal picture indeed. One need look no further than recent events in Lebanon to realize how bleak prospects are for marital harmony between Western civilization and our Muslim ‘other half’. It boggles the mind that anyone could be anything but aghast at the lack of humanity Hezbollah terrorists displayed in their recent celebration of death. Samir Kuntar’s brutal killing of a 4 year old girl, coupled with his countrymen rejoicing in the return of their “hero”, leaves even the mildly perceptive wondering about the perversity of how these people think. Is there some way to save this marriage between our civilizations? Or, is it time to recognize our irreconcilable differences, and file for divorce?

The problem is, unlike the divorcing spouse that just gets up and moves to another house, our world has become too small and interdependent to revert to such isolationist behavior. This is especially true as we are on the cusp of a nuclear armed Iran. This, added to our reliance on foreign oil – which in turn adds more zeros to terrorists’ bank accounts (can anyone say $5.00 per gallon!) – has us feeding the very beast that aims to consume us. Wow! Did it just get too expensive and dangerous to get a divorce?

Here are a few facts that speak for themselves….

1. Islamic countries with large investment portfolios now own sizable parts of Citigroup and NASDAQ.
2. At current gas prices, within 5 years OPEC countries can have a controlling interest in every major U.S. company.
3. Within 10-12 years OPEC countries will have the financial wherewithal to buy every major U.S. company outright.

And if that isn’t enough to scare you into scrambling for the remote to zone out on an old “Seinfeld” episode, consider this…

4. Current Saudi Arabian oil reserves are now worth more than all of the companies on the NYSE combined.

(For more depressing info on our country’s self-defeating energy policies (or lack of them), see the recently released YouTube video.

So, is there still time to get out of this mess? Any sane person would have already called their divorce lawyer (or at least a marital counselor) decades ago. But sadly, America and the rest of the Western world are far, far, far from sane.

Hence, enters the documentary “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” – www.obsessionthemovie.com . Obsession attempts to awaken Western civilization and unveil the truth about our militant Arab ‘spouses’. While painting a glimmer of hope by calling for moderate Arabs to rise up against the radical Muslim minority that looks to enslave us all, Obsession clearly delineates the inhumane principals by which our adversaries live.

In no uncertain terms Obsession graphically depicts that we are in a war, defined by its opposing religions and cultures, which is nothing short of a battle for global supremacy being foisted upon us by radical Islam. This leaves me to ask how in the hell we in the West can continue to pay homage to so-called political correctness. Take for example multiculturalism. It’s simply not true that all cultures and religions have the same values, and as Hezbollah and other terrorists have shown us, they have little regard for truth or human life. If knowing your enemy is the path to victory, then Obsession is the sourcebook for the battle plan we so desperately need.

Don Vito Corleone (“The Godfather”) once said, “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”. The reality is that we can’t financially afford to get divorced from the Arab world and we will have to continue to live together (until lunar condos become available). However, on November 4th Americans can choose who will wear the pants in this family, the Muslim world or Western civilization. Let’s just pray that whoever is elected doesn’t wear trousers made from Jimmy Carter’s cotton farm.

Gregory Ross
Director of Communications, Clarion Fund

****Tomorrow: An Interview with Gregory Ross

Popularity: 62% [?]