Today’s Politically C-O-R-R-E-C-T/incorrect Cartoon
“Walking” the Talk
June 21, 2014
No matter how we label ourselves — conservative, liberal, moderate or none of the above — we all must grapple with the ever-expanding size and scope of government.
America has reached a tipping point. The federal government has grown exponentially, not just in spending, but in its reach. Government intrudes into virtually every aspect of our daily lives, from the type of toilet we can buy, to the mix of fuel we put in our cars, to the kind of light bulb we can use.
Government policies have stifled domestic energy production while pouring billions of tax dollars into alternative-energy subsidies, reflecting the elitist, “progressive” faith that bureaucrats can pick winners and losers better than individuals making voluntary decisions in their own interests can. Unelected bureaucrats have been empowered to stipulate what health services we will purchase, and how and from whom we will receive them.
Excessive government intervention not only limits individual freedoms, it stifles entrepreneurial creativity and job creation. It locks the poor into a lifetime of dependency and poverty. And it limits the ability of hard-working Americans to enjoy upward mobility.
The federal government also dominates in spheres of activity traditionally reserved to the states. This leaves little or no room for state-level innovation in areas such as education, transportation, health care, welfare and even law enforcement.
The pace of expansion has been breathtaking. The rapid growth of federal grasp and reach is unsettling, leading Americans to question whether their children will inherit a better future — and even whether it’s still possible to achieve the American Dream.
That’s why it’s more important than ever for us, as we begin a new year, to recommit ourselves to the principles that led to the founding of our great nation.
At the heart of these principles is the belief that people are free by nature and possess inherent rights. The use each of us makes of these rights will naturally differ, and the outcomes of those choices will naturally differ, too. The choice remains ours.
Freedom is thus inextricably bound up with living our lives as we see fit. This is self-government in the truest sense of the term. We the people need not slavishly defer to experts. We can be trusted to govern ourselves.
That is why government must remain limited. The people have given it only limited powers, as described in the Constitution. When government takes more than we have given it, it renders our choices meaningless. At worst, unlimited government is tyrannical; at best, it imposes a dull uniformity that crushes true diversity and saps the independent spirit of the people.
The Founders understood this. That’s why they avoided creating a government that could be dominated by a single faction. Whether that faction was a minority or a majority, it would seek to promote its own narrow interests at the expense of the people’s liberties. The Constitution’s checks and balances are intended to restrain the ambition of the powerful — to ensure that government genuinely promotes “the general Welfare.”
As the federal government has grown over the past century, the business of government has increasingly become taking from Paul to benefit Peter, and then borrowing from Peter to pay off Paul. What the supporters of big government call the general welfare is merely the artful distribution of favors to particular factions.
The federal government is not supposed to be the most important institution in America. In securing the general welfare, it is supposed to do only those things that are provided for in the Constitution.
It must, for example, provide for the common defense and regulate our relations with foreign nations. It must respect our right to enjoy the fruits of our labor by taxing lightly, and defend the freedom of the marketplace by ensuring the rule of law.
And it must remember that the family and religion are where we learn virtue — and that without virtue, government cannot be both limited and free.
Let’s see if we can move America back in the right direction together during 2014.
Originally appeared in The Washington Times
By Luke Hamilton http://clashdaily.com/2013/04/equality-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/
Tolerance. Diversity. Poverty. The Rainbow. Leftists are exceptional at taking concepts, stripping out the entrails, stuffing it like a sausage with their own utopian brain-farts, and then beating us over the head with it until the concept loses all vestige of original meaning. It’s like that game you used to play as a kid on road trips where you’d repeat the same word over and over until it sounded unrecognizable to your own ears and everyone else in the car was ready to give you a wood shampoo.
They demonstrate Tolerance and Diversity by chastising and ostracizing anyone who disagrees with them. They agitate for more wealth confiscation from the rich so that Americans on welfare don’t have to choose between keeping their cable and getting a new cell phone. A new cell phone, by the way, manufactured in Chinese factories where the working conditions are deemed so terrible that people are committing suicide in order to bring attention to the plight of their fellow workers, in other words made by folks who are actually poor(1).
How pervasive is American poverty when 92% of poor households (as described by the Census Bureau) have a microwave? 31% have 2 or more automobiles. Nearly 2/3rds of them have cable TV or satellite and 1/3rd have LCD televisions.
This is poverty? Our poor would be considered wealthy in half the countries around the world. On a side note, why do we only compare ourselves to the rest of the world in hand-picked situations? If we have to hear about how much better Costa Rica is because of their eco-tourism and commitment to green initiatives, why don’t we talk about the fact that their GDP is ranked #82 in the world, behind countries like Myanmar and Sudan?
Let’s not forget the most popular banner under which the Left marches today: the Rainbow. Its original purpose was to serve as a covenantal reminder between mankind and God that He would never send torrential rains to wipe out the entire human population, as He nearly did during Noah’s time. In a twist of biting irony, the rainbow now serves as a battle standard for the very forces which led to the flooding of the earth in the first place. One can almost see the former residents of Sodom and Gomorrah gleefully marching in today’s Pride Parades under the banner signifying God’s eternal forbearance.
But why stop there? Why not continue the adoption of ironic symbols, so as to stick the thumb further into God’s eye? Forget the Ground Zero Mosque, we should build the Ground Zero Tower of Babel.
Let’s design mobiles for infant cribs. Instead of falling asleep to gently rotating stars and a moon, your baby can drift off to slumber while sleepily watching plush cut-outs of fire and brimstone circling above her head, signifying how proud and tolerant Dad and Dad are.
How about an awards show, called The Salties where salt-pillar trophies are given to the members of the Christian community who made the most difference on behalf of the LGBTQWFNXAIR community over the past year. It sure would be a nice way to say thank you to the hapless Christians who know better than God and can’t be troubled to turn their Bibles to Romans 1.
But there are few concepts which have suffered a worse drubbing than Equality. It is almost Orwellian how gruesomely the Left has twisted the concept of Equality. No one has described it more aptly than LBJ: “[F]reedom is not enough… [T]he next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights is not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result… To this end, equal opportunity is essential, but not enough.” – President Lyndon B Johnson, Howard University 1965
Apparently, the Founding Fathers were slack-jawed idjits. “Equality as a right is so-so”, is what he’s saying. But what he’d really like to see is equality as a result and a fact. So what he and his fellow Progressives have been doing ever since is trying to reverse-engineer our society to arrive at the desired result. This is their playbook. They pick a goal and then twist the existing framework to try to artificially manufacture their desired goal.
They did this with our housing market by punishing banks which refused to lend to sub-prime borrowers. Why? Because that’s how they planned to reach their goal of increasing home ownership amongst the poor. They did this with our currency when they created the Federal Reserve system, which allows them to tinker with interest rates and money supply to achieve their ideological goals. Time and again, they have refused to let natural forces operate and have forced us to suffer through the inevitable course corrections.
There is no way to achieve “equality is a fact” or a “result” without abandoning equality to get there. And what good is achieving something you have to violate to obtain? The first mistake is expecting Leftists to adhere to the laws of logic. The second is expecting them to see beyond their myopic, Machiavellian machinations. In their brilliance, our Founding Fathers realized that no man-made government could achieve equality of results and so they crafted a system that recognized the equal value of each American citizen and offered them an equal opportunity at success and happiness.
The American Dream is not wealth, success, and happiness. Many are born with that in this country or exert little effort to obtain it. No, the American Dream is found in the space between that equal opportunity and achieved success. It is the ability to make the journey, not the destination itself.
(1) The author is well aware that there are Americans who are desperately poor and is sensitive to their plight. He also understands that the number of truly poor Americans is dwarfed by the number of Americans who are perfectly capable of working and perfectly comfortable not working. These are the people who soak up available tax revenues which should be going to those who are truly in need.
by John DeMayo http://lastresistance.com/1784/backstabbing-schumer-negotiates-immigrant-prevailing-wage-to-solve-his-immigration-failures/
Democrat Senator, Chuck Schumer of New York, has over 30 years of sleazy experience in the art of political espionage. Schumer has a well documented history of voting to weaken immigration laws and contributing to the explosion of illegal immigration and drug trafficking crime plaguing America today. Yet once again, he wants Americans, and his naïve Senate colleagues, to take him at his word that this time he is going to get it right and honor his commitments.
Let us take a gander at Senator Schumer’s honorable record on U.S. Immigration and Border enforcement policies and his new “immigrant prevailing wage” agenda.
In 1986, then Congressmen Chuck Schumer, a protégé of liberal Senate lion, Ted Kennedy, voted in support of the Democrat praised Reagan era “Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)”. The 1986 IRCA made historic changes to existing U.S. immigration law and granted citizenship to an underestimated 3 million illegal aliens. This amnesty, offered as an attempt to curb illegal immigration, allowed illegal aliens living and working in the US to apply for lawful permanent residency if they filed 3 years of back tax returns and paid their back taxes. In turn, our government, Republicans and Democrats, promised to work to secure the U.S. southern border with Mexico, and pursue legal penalties against American businesses who continued to employee undocumented alien workers.
Almost immediately after voting for the IRCA, Schumer went to work betraying his word to his colleagues, and more importantly the American people through his attempts to have the IRCA’s illegal alien tax filing obligations undone in another historic piece of legislation, the “Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA)”. Although Schumer was unsuccessful in forcing amendments to the TRA to abate the IRCA’s immigrant tax filing/paying requirements, Schumer eventually voted in support for the passage of the legislation.
Shortly after passage of the TRA, Schumer began pressuring the U.S. Treasury to issue an independent regulation, exempting illegal alien citizen candidates from the tax filing provisions of the IRCA reconfirmed in the 1986 “Tax Reform Act” Schumer supported. In a letter to the Treasury, Schumer argued that Congress “did not intend” to subject amnestied aliens to the tax disclosure and payment requirements he voted for 2 weeks earlier. According to Schumer : “Obviously, we could not have a successful legalization program if by submitting an application an alien became vulnerable to an enforcement action by the IRS.”
The IRS never issued the regulation requested by Schumer, however, in 1988 Congress issued 499 pages of new tax legislation entitled the “Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988“. Buried deep inside this piece of legislation was one sentence absolving illegal aliens of their past tax filing and debt obligations. So much for “shared responsibility.”
Fast forward to 2006, when President Bush signed the token border security law we know as the “Secure Fence Act (SFA),” The SFA’s goal was to secure the U.S. southern border with Mexico to decrease illegal entry, drug trafficking, and security threats, by building 700 miles of fence and authorizing funds for more vehicles barriers, checkpoints, lighting and an increase in the use of advanced technologies like cameras, satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce infrastructure at the border. Senator Schumer tried to filibuster the 2006 Secure Fences Act and has also opposed all border security infrastructure spending, choosing instead to support the liberal position that building border fences is not an effective deterrent to illegal border traffic.
Opponents of the SFA claimed border fences have the potential to damage U.S./Mexico relations, disrupt the environment, and inhibit natural animal migration patterns. Further, liberals claim that border fences increased the risk to illegal workers, who used to return home after pursuing seasonal work and fences might force them to bring their families with them and remain permanently in the United States. I’m not making this up.
Chuck Schumer has vigorously opposed every single piece of legislation designed to commit resources to improving US border security and slowing the growth of illegal immigration. During a recent trip to the Arizona/Mexican border, Schumer was heard to express his reservations about the federal government’s ability to secure our southern border given the ineffectiveness of currently available technology. Would this be the very same technology that he has consistently opposed funding for over two decades? Or is this the technology he lavishly praises for improving border security under the stewardship of the Obama Administration? That is, before he actually visited the border, and then recently condemned it? Oh brother.
Now we hear that Senator Schumer has brokered a backroom deal between Richard Trumpka’s AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to establish as part of proposed Immigration Reform legislation, an immigrant “prevailing wage” plan. I won’t bore you with the details, since the specifics of this new Democrat idea—much like the details of bio-metric worker I.D. cards—have yet to be made public. However, it is in your best interest to read up on this garbage, because you’ll be paying for it.
Funny, I don’t remember electing Richard Trumpka or the US Chamber of Commerce to anything, so why are they involved in government efforts to curb illegal immigration, reduce immigrant entitlement dependency, and control the growth of Mexican gang violence and drug trafficking in America? More importantly what does an “immigrant prevailing wage” have to do with border security and decreasing illegal immigration? I guess it must be that old campaign contribution thing popping up AGAIN. Either way, there goes all that cheap illegal immigrant labor right into the ranks of the Obama loyal SEIU.
Chuck Schumer wants nothing more than to increase the size of his loyal Democrat voting entitlement dependent constituency. The only thing you can trust about Senator Schumer, is his history of going back on his word, and his use of political sleight of hand and outright criminal deception to get what he wants. If Mr. Schumer, and his gang bangers of 8, are working on legitimate and trustworthy immigration reform efforts, why is it that everything must be done in secret, behind politically expedient closed doors?
A Florida college professor causing national outrage for requiring students to write “Jesus” on a piece of paper, then put it on the floor and stomp on it, turns out also to be a top official in the local Democratic Party – the latest in a string of acute leadership embarrassments.
Although one student who refused to participate claims he was punished by being suspended from the class, Florida Atlantic University is defending the controversial assignment.
The dissenting student, Ryan Rotela, told the local CBS TV affiliate WPEC that his instructor, associate professor Deandre Poole, told everyone in the class to write the word “Jesus” on a piece of paper in bold letters, then put it on the floor and stomp on it.
Rotela, a junior from Coral Springs, said some of his classmates complied, but he refused.
“Anytime you stomp on something it shows that you believe that something has no value. So if you were to stomp on the word Jesus, it says that the word has no value,” he told WPEC.
A religious Mormon who attends church every Sunday, Rotela complained to school officials but said they responded by suspending him from the class.
According to Florida Atlantic University, Poole was conducting an exercise from the textbook “Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach, 5th Edition.”
A synopsis of the lesson plan in question, obtained by Fox News, goes like this:
“Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture.”
Grove City College professor Paul Kengor, author of “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor,” told Fox he wasn’t surprised by the “lesson.”
“These are the new secular disciples of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’ – empty buzzwords that make liberals and progressives feel good while they often refuse to tolerate and sometimes even assault traditional Christian and conservative beliefs,” Kengor told Fox, saying classes like the one at FAU reflect “the rising confidence and aggression of the new secularists and atheists, especially at our sick and surreal modern universities.”
Kengor added: “Gee, I wonder if the instructor would dare do this with the name of Muhammed.”
It turns out, the “stomp-on-Jesus” professor, Poole, also has a prominent position in local politics. As Bizpacreview reports, Poole is vice-chairman of the Palm Beach County Democratic Party.
Moreover, this isn’t the local party’s first brush with negative publicity.
The former chairman of the county Democratic Party was forced to resign in September after comments he made at the Democratic National Convention last year in Charlotte, N.C.
As WND reported, Mark Siegel reportedly told an interviewer Christians who support Israel want to see Jews “slaughtered.”
Siegel was quoted as saying, “Oh no, the Christians just want us to be there so we can all be slaughtered and converted and bring on the second coming of Jesus Christ.”
And two months earlier, a Democratic Executive Committee member from Palm Beach County also slammed Israel. Evelyn Garcia sent an email accusing the Jewish state of atrocities, writing, “By supporting Israeli occupation with U.S. foreign aid, we are all complicit and guilty of their crimes against humanity.”
“And, I deeply resent U.S. taxpayer funds being used to continue Israeli aggression (yes, confiscating other peoples’ land and building illegal settlements is aggression), not to mention ‘incursions’ that kill PEOPLE, destroy civilian homes and infrastructure all over, mass concentration prison camps, etc,etc,etc,” she added.
Garcia quit her post after a public outcry.
In the meantime, still no word from Florida Atlantic University on whether it will discipline the professor who urged students to stomp on “Jesus” and whether Ryan will have his suspension from class lifted.
FAU did, however, email this press statement: “Faculty and students at academic institutions pursue knowledge and engage in open discourse. While at times the topics discussed may be sensitive, a university environment is a venue for such dialogue and debate.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/dem-party-official-makes-students-stomp-on-jesus/#Jj7I62Jdftl1boVL.99
The Senate Judiciary Committee passed Feinstein’s gun-grabbing bill that bans over 150 different types of guns, but it didn’t pass without a fight from Republicans. Ted Cruz grilled Feinstein on the Constitutionality of her gun ban, reminding her that the same “right of the people” applies equally to the 2nd Amendment as it does to the 1st and 4th Amendments.
He asked her if she thought it within the purview of the federal government to ban certain books because it didn’t like them (in violation of the 1st) or claim that certain citizens are not protected against unlawful searches and seizures (in violation of the 4th). After all, he contended, this is what she and her Democrat team are doing with the 2nd Amendment and semi-automatic weapons. They’ve simply deemed those firearms “assault” weapons and have arbitrarily decided that they are scarier than other guns for the time being, and because of that, they can be legally banned.
But she didn’t want a lecture on the Constitution:
”I’m not a sixth grader. Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war — and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I — you know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture.”
She strongly objected to Senator Cruz’s use of the term “prohibited.” She said that nothing’s being prohibited, because there are 2,271 exemptions. She said:
“Isn’t that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high-powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I don’t think so.”
After she didn’t answer Cruz’s question, he asked it again, to which Feinstein reluctantly responded, “No.” The government does not have the authority to ban certain books, because that would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.
But then she backpedaled when other Democratic members of the committee chimed in and reminded her of child pornography. She then changed her answer and said that child porn books can be legally banned because they are not protected under the 1st Amendment. So, banning weapons (with “exceptions”) is OK, because they’re not protected under the 2nd Amendment, just like child porn. Therefore, it’s not a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
When are they going to say that with regard to handguns and shotguns and knives? Who decides which weapons are not protected by the Bill of Rights? Apparently Dianne Feinstein. And we should trust her to make these arbitrary decisions because she’s “not a sixth grader.” She’s a “reasonably well-educated” person. And yet she still doesn’t get it that banning semi-automatic guns won’t do anything to curb violent crime, but will most likely increase it.
The Denver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitled Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, so far to little notice. It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. As reported elsewhere, some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers. Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month. Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years. In America.
Add to this perplexing outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation. As observed by “paramilblogger” Ken Jorgustin last September:
[T]he Department of Homeland Security is apparently taking delivery (apparently through the Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico VA, via the manufacturer – Navistar Defense LLC) of an undetermined number of the recently retrofitted 2,717 ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ MaxxPro MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.”
These MRAP’s ARE BEING SEEN ON U.S. STREETS all across America by verified observers with photos, videos, and descriptions.”
Regardless of the exact number of MRAP’s being delivered to DHS (and evidently some to POLICE via DHS, as has been observed), why would they need such over-the-top vehicles on U.S. streets to withstand IEDs, mine blasts, and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proof glass? In a war zone… yes, definitely. Let’s protect our men and women. On the streets of America… ?”…
“They all have gun ports… Gun Ports? In the theater of war, yes. On the streets of America…?
Seriously, why would DHS need such a vehicle on our streets?”
Why indeed? It is utterly inconceivable that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is planning a coup d’etat against President Obama, and the Congress, to install herself as Supreme Ruler of the United States of America. There, however, are real signs that the Department bureaucrats are running amok. About 20 years ago this columnist worked, for two years, in the U.S. Department of Energy’s general counsel’s office in its procurement and finance division. And is wise to the ways. The answer to “why would DHS need such a vehicle?” almost certainly is this: it’s a cool toy and these (reportedly) million dollar toys are being recycled, without much of a impact on the DHS budget. So… why not?
Why, indeed, should the federal government not be deploying armored personnel carriers and stockpiling enough ammo for a 20-year war in the homeland? Because it’s wrong in every way. President Obama has an opportunity, now, to live up to some of his rhetoric by helping the federal government set a noble example in a matter very close to his heart (and that of his Progressive base), one not inimical to the Bill of Rights: gun control. The federal government can (for a nice change) begin practicing what it preaches by controlling itself.
Remember the Sequester? The president is claiming its budget cuts will inconvenience travelers by squeezing essential services provided by the (opulently armed and stylishly uniformed) DHS. Quality ammunition is not cheap. (Of course, news reports that DHS is about to spend $50 million on new uniforms suggests a certain cavalier attitude toward government frugality.)
Spending money this way is beyond absurd well into perverse. According to the AP story a DHS spokesperson justifies this acquisition to “help the government get a low price for a big purchase.” Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: “The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.”
At 15 million rounds (which, in itself, is pretty extraordinary and sounds more like fun target-shooting-at-taxpayer-expense than a sensible training exercise) … that’s a stockpile that would last DHS over a century. To claim that it’s to “get a low price” for a ridiculously wasteful amount is an argument that could only fool a career civil servant.
Meanwhile, Senator Diane Feinstein, with the support of President Obama, is attempting to ban 100 capacity magazine clips. Doing a little apples-to-oranges comparison, here, 1.6 billion rounds is … 16 million times more objectionable.
Mr. Obama has a long history of disdain toward gun ownership. According to Prof. John Lott, in Debacle, a book he co-authored with iconic conservative strategist Grover Norquist,
“When I was first introduced to Obama (when both worked at the University of Chicago Law School, where Lott was famous for his analysis of firearms possession), he said, ‘Oh, you’re the gun guy.’
I responded: ‘Yes, I guess so.’
’I don’t believe that people should own guns,’ Obama replied.
I then replied that it might be fun to have lunch and talk about that statement some time.
He simply grimaced and turned away. …
Unlike other liberal academics who usually enjoyed discussing opposing ideas, Obama showed disdain.”
Mr. Obama? Where’s the disdain now? Cancelling, or at minimum, drastically scaling back — by 90% or even 99%, the DHS order for ammo, and its receipt and deployment of armored personnel carriers, would be a “fourfer.”
If Obama doesn’t show any leadership on this matter it’s an opportunity for Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, to summon Secretary Napolitano over for a little national conversation. Madame Secretary? Buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammo and deploying armored personnel carriers runs contrary, in every way, to what “homeland security” really means. Discuss.
The State of the Union Address last night needed to be preceeded with the following warning; “Caution. You are about to hear from our far Left President who specializes in symbolism over substance. Do not expect any details, facts or provable statements. Expect to be overwhelmed with emotionalism for lack of genuine ideas.”
That is exactly what we got. President Obama delivered a speech full of nice ideas, but short on how to pay for them. Lots of blame assigned to the Republicans, and heavy on emotionalism (“They deserve a vote”). All in all I was not surprised at the content of the speech.
In order to know that we are all reading the same sheet of music, let’s make sure we all understand some of the “SYMBOLISMS” the President used, which is consistent with everyone else on the far Left;
The rest is more of the same.
28 January 2013 / 12 Comments
A nation should be concerned when it seems its leader has tired of the grueling work of democracy.
One of the most remarkable and frightening aspects of President Barack Obama’s inaugural address was his dismissal of his opposition – presumably the House Republican caucus – as “absolutists” who are without “principle.”
They are mucking up Obama’s agenda, and he won’t have it.
“For now decisions are upon us and we cannot afford delay,” Obama said. “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect.”
Absolutism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is a form of despotism – “government by an absolute ruler or authority.” That the president of the United States is accusing his democratically-elected opponents of acting in a tyrannical fashion is a remarkable development with potentially profound implications.
Once the president’s opponents have been defined in the American mind as despotically inclined, unsusceptible to reason, and unwilling to play by the normal rules of politics, it is only natural that extreme measures are permitted in response.
This White House has already shown a propensity toward ruling by executive fiat – whether by executive action that effectively enacts rejected legislation, by refusing to enforce existing law, or by crafting rules for legislation to grant vast new powers to bureaucrats.
Once it has de-legitimized the opposition, the White House can claim it is left with no choice but to accelerate and expand its use of executive power. What else can they do, the president and his operatives will argue, when faced with the insanity of the Republicans?
The press, which avidly buys into the notion that much of the House Republican caucus is beyond reason, will lend a sympathetic ear to Obama as he struggles with the forces of darkness.
That reporters have been tapped to assist with Obama’s incipient GOP demonization campaign was made clear this week by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who in the handful of days since the inaugural, has already repeated the “absolutism” charge twice.
Read More: http://www.politico.com/
There’s talk that President Obama will ignore Congress and issue Executive Orders to implement new gun regulations over against the clear reading of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Is an Executive Order a law? Will we be obligated to obey it?
Executive Orders have a long history. Republicans and Democrats have issued them. Only a few of them have been overturned by the courts.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats do much about Executive Orders they don’t like since both parties issue them. This is how the Washington game is played.
Republicans and Democrats like Executive Orders on difficult issues because it stops the legislative process that they’ll have to participate in and eventually vote yes or no. They can always tell the voters back home, “Well, I would have voted against that if the President hadn’t issued an Executive Order. Golly gee willikers, now my hands are tied.” Right.
An Executive Order is only valid if it’s done within the jurisdictional authority of the President’s constitutional authority. To rule against the Second Amendment is not a presidential prerogative. If it is, then the President could turn his attention to the First Amendment and issue an order that newspapers can no longer criticize him. Conservative talk radio would die a quick death if the President issued an Executive Order saying that the freedom of speech had to be limited in several ways, one of which was negative political speech, especially about him.
Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that President Obama would like to do all these things. He’s mad with power. He has a vendetta against America.
Chris Matthews of MSNBC made a statement about how President Obama should have been treated by presidential challenger Mitt Romney in their second debate. It was the fact that Gov. Romney actually challenged the President that led Matthews to go Gestapo on Romney:
“I don’t think [Mitt Romney] understands the Constitution of the United States… He’s the president of the United States. You don’t say, ‘you’ll get your chance.’”
Yes you do. President Obama is an elected official. He’s not a king. The king battle was fought a long time ago at Runnymede in 1215.
If the President and other anti-Second Amendment advocates want to limit our freedoms, then they can go through the amendment process. An Executive Order is the chicken’s way out. It’s also unconstitutional.
The Democrats know this. That’s why they’re sending out Vice President Biden to soften the rhetoric:
“The president is going to act. There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”
Did you see it? “Legislative action that we believe is required.” In terms of the Separation of Powers, the President does not have the constitutional authority to legislate. Of course, that hasn’t stopped him or any other president.
Biden went on to say that “this is a moral issue and that ‘it’s critically important that we act.’” Morally, the President can’t ignore an Amendment to the Constitution. How is banning guns for everyone the moral thing to do when only a tiny fraction use guns illegally? How will banning guns to stop immoral people from using whatever they can find to do harm?
Timothy McVeigh used kerosene and fertilizer to kill 169 people. Abortion doctors use medical instruments to kill pre-born babies? A man was poisoned with cyanide before he could cash in his $1 million dollar lottery ticket.
The Occupiers, Morgan Gliedman, 27, and Aaron Greene, 31, were visited by New York City police due to a warrant for Gliedman’s arrest relating to alleged credit card theft. Once in the couple’s apartment, police claim they found the explosive materials and how-to manuals on terrorism.
According to the New York Post:
A detective discovered a plastic container with seven grams of a white chemical powder called HMTD, which is so powerful, cops evacuated several nearby buildings.
Police also found a flare launcher, which is a commercial replica of a grenade launcher; a modified 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun; ammo; and nine high-capacity rifle magazines, the sources said.
Cops also allegedly uncovered papers about creating homemade booby traps, improvised submachine guns, and various handwritten notebooks containing chemical formulas.
The arrests come at a critical time due to recent allegations by the left against the FBI for having apparently infiltrated the revolutionary Occupy movement. A recent document release from the FBI revealed multiple large scale investigations into the movement had occurred, prompting a revival of the left’s decades-long attack on the FBI for having investigated radical movements.
Supporters of the FBI’s efforts have pointed out that the Occupy movement, though many participants may be well-intentioned, involved some individuals and groups with checkered histories and revolutionary aims.
The Occupy movement was heralded by mainstream media outlets as heroic and altruistic, but right-of-center critics, such as Andrew Breitbart, began to point out the movement was little more than a rebranded gathering of extremist far-left groups.
Breitbart released a series of internal Occupy emails that revealed the “new movement” was months in the making, with professional organizers such as Lisa Fithian behind the coordination. Breitbart also pointed out the similarities between Communist doctrine of the “bourgeoisie vs the proletariat” and the Occupy movement’s “1% vs the 99%” argument. Breitbart’s efforts eventually culminated in one of his final projects before his passing, the Citizens United documentary Occupy Unmasked.
One major thesis of the film was that the Occupy movement was created to move the national discussion off of deficits and debt, and onto the false dichotomy of the “rich vs the poor,” so that the Democratic Party could win in the coming 2012 presidential election and other left-of-center groups could retain power in the US political process.
As a result of Breitbart’s efforts, right-of-center grassroots media began investigating and infiltrating the Occupy movement’s camps and researching their organizers and backers. As rapes, other crimes, terrorist ties, and involvement with hostile foreign nations were discovered by independent grassroots efforts, law enforcement began to take justifiable interest in the self-proclaimed “revolutionary movement.”
Recent document releases from the FBI reveal they did indeed take interest and infiltrate the Occupy movement. Left-of-center media outlets and activists have begun to complain and claim the FBI either violated civil rights by infiltrating them or otherwise wasted resources by having done so. Some, such as the UK Guardian, have gone as far as claiming “the FBI dismantled a political movement.”
Clearly, the FBI acted on its responsibility to protect the constitutionally guaranteed rights of Americans by monitoring the Occupy movement, as evidenced by the recent arrests and previous thwarted bomb plots.
The Occupy movement was not dismantled by the FBI or other law enforcement agencies. Rather, the Occupy movement was exposed by right-of-center grassroots citizen journalists exposing the dark secrets US mainstream media refused to share with the public.
Media outlets like Andrew Breitbart’s magnified the voices of the grassroots, and law enforcement appropriately acted on the data that had been presented to the public.
We’ve been trying to keep you aware of what has been taking place with the talks concerning the 2103 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). We’ve covered the Fenistein amendment, which effectively did nothing, except to empower Congrees to authroize the military at their whim to violate people’s 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights. But now the talks are all done and the legislation is headed for Barack Obama’s desk to be signed into law soon, just as it was nearly one year ago today, including provision to use the military to indefinitely detain US citizens.
Previously, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) voted for the Feinstein amendment to the NDAA. But then there came the hashing out of language in the bill and Paul blasted Senator John McCain (R-AZ) for stripping away the amendment.
“We had protection in this bill. We passed an amendment that specifically said if you were an American citizen or here legally in the country, you would get a trial by jury,” Paul said. “It’s been removed because they want the ability to hold American citizens without trial in our country. This is so fundamentally wrong and goes against everything we stand for as a country that it can’t go unnoticed.”
The problem with Paul’s assertion is that there was no protection for anyone, whether they are a citizen of the US, a permanent resident or a visitor. Rights that are supposed to be protected under the Constitution be damned! Neither the NDAA, nor the amendment proposed protected one person who is on American Soil.
Paul called the NDAA an “abomination.” It is that, but so was the Feinstein amendment and even more so because it was deceptive at its core.
The Senate easily passed NDAA 2013 by a vote of 81-14. The next stop is Obama’s desk.
Once again the Left is promoting the same trap that has devastated the United States and conservatives. I am absolutely stunned that any conservative would fall for it again, but appears the Republicans are on the way down. The Left will have more ammunition to hurl at the Right, continue to march toward bankruptcy, so the Left can claim Marshall law, throw out the Constitution and install a Marxist/Collectivism/Socialist government.
What am I referring too; The deal the Left is proposing again to raise taxes now with the promise to lower spending later on next year.
History: During Reagan’s second term the Left came to him with the same proposal. It went public with the proposal. He went ahead and signed the tax increase, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT HAD THE PROMISE FROM THE LEFT TO REDUCE SPENDING IN THE NEXT CONGRESSIONAL SESSION. REALITY? THE SPENDING CUTS NEVER HAPPENED AND TO THIS DAY THE LEFT USES THAT AS A WEAPON AGAINST THE RIGHT BE SAYING, “Well remember, President Reagan raised taxes.
The DELIBERATE deception was used again with he next Republican President, George H.W. Bush. After his pledge to not raise taxes (“Read my lips, no new taxes“), in a deliberate move to discredit the President and to overcome his immense popularity over the Gulf War success, the Left presented the same proposal; Sign this bill to raise taxes and we will give you a bill in the next Congressional session to cut spending. President H.W. Bush fell for it and it cost him reelection and gave us President Bill Clinton.
Now they are going for it again. Why aren’t the Republicans screaming this over every microphone shoved in their face? Why aren’t they exposing the deliberate, calculated deception of the Left? Why are they being so nice about this? I am disgusted with them all. None of them are truly interested in representing the WORKING people of the United States.
Our recourse? Nothing really other than to continue to speak out and write letters. We do have the mid terms coming up and if the Republicans cave in again, we can kiss the Congress goodbye and then the Left will have unfettered power to rush us into a Constitutional Convention where what we have enjoyed for over 200 years will go away, and that without firing a single shot.
How about you? Will you keep up the fight? Are the freedoms granted by the Constitution worth fighting for? Well?
The aftermath of Sandy defies description.
I have prayed, and I hope you have been too, for the victims of this historic storm. Such devastation boggles the mind and the cost of recovery will be staggering, especially because we’re broke as a nation.
However, Americans have always rallied behind our fellow citizens who are suffering and in need. We will respond again. Already all the forces of good and caring are at work meeting needs and bring comfort. No, I am not including the government.
I have no doubt that needs will be met, rebuilding will happen and “normal” will one day be reestablished. However, I am extremely concerned about a disaster no one is talking about, and “normal” may never be realized again has a result of that disaster. I am referring to the Presidential Election coming up next Tuesday. The storm has opened wider that opportunity for Leftist voting shenanigans.
With all the arguments over Voter Registration, Voter I.D. and Voter Fraud, this natural disaster has provided and added opportunity to make the corrupt more powerful. Consider the national debate;
For conservatives in California elections are becoming a farce. For over 50 years the Left files lawsuits if measures don’t go their way. The courts are so corrupt and Left, that most of the time the Left wins. More and more I hear people say, “Why vote when the Democrats go to court and get the election overturned.” And here the Left is the one always screaming about voter repression. California leads the nation in voter repression because the Left always wins in court when we do not vote their way.
For my house and me, we will vote. We refuse to give up. The drums of revolutionary war are getting louder every day. Will we see a revolution in our day? I’m not sure anymore. I am not armed, and that worries me.
Hopefully God is hearing our prayers asking Him to forgive our sins and heal our land. However, our nation has reached levels of inequity that dwarfs Biblical Israel. They were rightly judged for their turn from God. America deserves the same. Is there a remnant of believers big enough for God to withhold His hand? I don’t know. I am praying He heals instead of punishes. What are you praying for?
I am having a hard time understanding any person who cannot admit, “I am wrong.” Evidently, Fonzie is not the only one who cannot articulate those humbling words. Part of the human experience is learning from our mistakes, failures and ineptness. No one can expect to grow as a human being without acknowledging that what they did, how they did it and the thought processes that produced the action where wrong. You end up with that old proverb, “Doing the same thing over and over without getting the desired results is insanity.”
President Obama stepped in it when during the debate making a big deal about when he admitted it was terrorism that struck the Benghazi, Libya embassy this last September 11. The only explanation any honest observer could give in his remark to check the manuscript is that he was hoping enough people would see his perspective about his last comments saying that no act of terror would go unanswered. And yes, there have been a few, like Katie Couric. For the rest of us “non Kool-Aid drinking” Americans saw the obvious the first time, especially after two weeks of dodging the question, and send out his propaganda chorus to say it was a spontaneous attack from a demonstration fueled by an internet video.
Is it a psychological problem when people can’t simple say, I was wrong”? Is it a vanity thing to not owned up to the truth? Is it failing of an individual’s character, or value system, that prevents them from humbling themselves like regular humans and just say, “I did that wrong”? I know I am not smart enough to speculate about the answer.
Something else I heard during the debate and have heard others say something similar. It has been obvious to several observers that President Obama has conducted the Office of the President under a set of Collectivist/Socialist theories. Although these theories have proven failures for over 200 years, still there are those that think they can get it right. They are not evil people (I believe that President Obama has been demonized which is wrong to do. No one deserves that).
President Obama several times, “I feel that….”, “I believe that……” as well as other like phrasing. That indicates to me a man with well-meaning motivations TRYING philosophies that are counter to the Founders of our country, and the Representative Republic they designed for us. I do not know the man’s heart, and unlike God, I cannot see his spirit or know his intentions. I know God has commanded that we do not judge one another. Unfortunately, those of us on the Right have stooped to that level, and we have been, and are, wrong. I have repented, and I hope we all do the same.
According to all the reports I have heard today many people who supported President Obama in 2008 have already switched their support. You know that has become serious when the New York Times prints articles pointing out your flaws, thinking, and conduct. Even one of the most liberal of all Senators, Diane Feinstein has come out criticizing the President and the Whitehouse.
If in fact that is the case and President Obama has tried to perfect the philosophies, ideologies and theories of Collectivism/Socialism, than that helps me understand why he is so reluctant to own up to being wrong. I know that I will continue to pray for President Obama as I have for all Presidents I have lived under. I pray you are all doing the same.
It has been clear for several days that the Obama administration had plans to throw Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton under the bus. Much to my surprise is the breaking story that she took the responsibility for the murder. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/hillary-clinton-takes-responsibility-consulate-security-lapses/story?id=17487223#.UH3HGq7hctg
I want to be very fair here. I spent over 40 years in the corporate world and I witnessed many bad to disastrous events happen. While the tendency is to blame the head of the department or company, the reality is that those managers to know every detail of every employee at every moment. That is what reports and meetings are designed to accomplish. At Ms. Clinton’s level, the amount of security personnel is relegated to a department. If during a briefing of that subject Ms. Clinton wants those numbers adjusted, then action is taken.
I believe that if the White House had owned up to the situation, announced an investigation; the American people would have been satisfied momentarily. For the White House to blatantly lie about the situation, form a story about riots and a bad video, is without excuse. Add to that the ongoing lie upon lie about the situation, only for it to come out in the hearing that the State Department knew all along that it was a deliberate, well-planned, military style attack on the Embassy, made their surreptitious decisions even worse. Then to attack the Romney Campaign for their comments makes a mockery of the Office of the President.
I agree with Laura Ingraham when she said on FOC News Sunday that if this had been a Republican President, the MSM (Main Stream Media) would be all over the story and camped out at every site to get answers. Where are they now?
I admire Secretary of State Clinton taking responsibility. At least someone in the Obama administration has the courage of her convictions.
Unless you live under a rock, you have heard the accusations of the Left saying Mitt Romney lied at the last debate and that is why he won the debate. Although the President had every opportunity to point out any lies, he chose to be “polite”. Did you notice how Mitt Romney pointed out the Presidents misrepresentations of Mitt’s plan, but with all proper respect due the office of the President? Until today, no one on the Left could articulate what Mitt Romney lied about.
Now, one of the Presidents spokespersons is proclaiming Mitt Romney lied about his 5 Trillion Dollar tax cut. This same women said after she first heard Mitt Romney’s explanation about the tax cut that it was conceivable. Today she claims she never said that, even when presented with video evidence. According to her, the Romney/Ryan team is not honest, and of course, they use the word LIAR very liberally.
Let us put this to rest. Nonpartisan economic analyst has said, the Romney Plan is plausible as represented. Enough said.
Now, on another, yet connect, subject, the Congressional hearings on the Benghazi Embassy attack was heard yesterday. I took the time to watch it on C-Span. On the witness panel were several “Whistle Blowers” detailing the facts that what the White House ordered to be told the public through U.N. Ambassador Wright was in fact, deliberate lies (there is that word again). For a week they covered up what they knew from the very moment of the attack was a lie, because the woman responsible for declining the requests for more security people watched the entire attack in real-time via video from Benghazi. THEY KNOW IMMEDIATELY THAT IT WAS A PLANNED, MILITARY STYLE, COORDINATED DELIBERATE ATTACK, and had nothing to do with a demonstration or a video.
It was noteworthy that more than half the committee members were missing. Also noteworthy is that while the Republicans asked the correct probing questions, the Democrat representatives (only three or four) made statements referring to President Regan’s time and all the foreign attacks we suffered under his presidency. They referred to other bad behavior to cover over the Benghazi attack.
Additionally noteworthy was an exchange between a Republican and Democrat colleagues. The Republican representative accused Ambassador Wright of deliberately lying to the American people in her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows. Immediately the Democrat representative got highly indignant and exclaimed how improper it was to call the ambassador a liar. Really. It did happen. No, I didn’t hear any snickering, but the expressions on everyone’s face said it all.
Typical of the Left. They find it acceptable to demonize their opponents and call them liars, yet it is unacceptable for the Right to do the same. They continue to prove that not anything they say can be trusted. The so-called “Tolerant” Party is in fact very INTOLERANT of anyone who opposes them. Their self-righteous dogma continues to lower their Moral Standards Bar. Any further drop and the bar will become a threshold.
By: Ann Coulter
10/10/2012 06:04 PM
Liberal racism sightings have become like a lunatic’s version of “Where’s Waldo?” Kevin Baker of Harper’s magazine says Romney’s referring to his “five boys” in last week’s debate was how he “slyly found a way” to call Obama a “boy.” Says Baker: “How the right’s hard-core racists must have howled at that!”MSNBC’s Chris Matthews says the word “apartment” is racist because black people live in apartments. He also says the word “Chicago” is racist because — despite its well-known reputation as the home of Al Capone and the Daley machine — a lot of black people live there, too. (And don’t get him started on “Chicago apartments”!)As we go to press, Matthews is working on an exciting new hypothesis that peanut butter is racist.Meanwhile, my new favorite actress, Stacey Dash, sends an inoffensive little tweet supporting Mitt Romney and is buried in tweets calling her “an indoor slave” and a “jiggaboo,” who was “slutting (herself) to the white man.” (And those were just the tweets from the Obama 2012 Re-election Campaign!)
Could we get an expert opinion from Chris Matthews or Kevin Baker about whether any of that is racist?
It’s a strange thing with liberals. They spend so much time fawning over black nonentities — like Maya Angelou, Eugene Robinson, Barack and Michelle Obama, and Rachel Maddow’s very, very, very special black guest Melissa Harris-Perry — that, every once in awhile, they seem to erupt in racist bile to restore their mental equilibrium.
After President George W. Bush appointed Condoleezza Rice the first black female secretary of state, she was maligned in racist cartoons portraying her as Aunt Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from “Gone With the Wind,” a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist cliches.
Kevin Baker didn’t notice any of that because he was working on his theory that referring to your sons is racist.
When Michael Steele ran for senator from Maryland, he was depicted in blackface and with huge red lips by liberal blogger Steve Gilliard. Sen. Charles Schumer’s Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dug up a copy of Steele’s credit report — something done to no other Republican candidate.
Is that more or less racist than Romney mentioning his sons? More or less racist than the word “apartment”?
Mia Love, a black Republican running for Congress in Utah had her Wikipedia page hacked with racist bile, heavy on the N-word. Her campaign headquarters has been bombarded with racist graffiti and slimy mailings with pictures of Klansman next to photos of her family.
Some would say that’s even more racist than Romney talking about his sons.
On less evidence than the birthers have, liberals slandered both Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain with the racist stereotype of black men as sexual predators.
As the preceding short list suggests, liberals usually limit their racist slime to conservative blacks. But not always.
In 2008, Bill Clinton said of Obama “a few years ago this guy would have been carrying our bags.” Democratic Sen. Harry Reid praised Obama for not speaking in a “Negro dialect.” Joe Biden complimented Obama for being “clean” and “articulate.”
Did I mention that Kevin Baker thinks that Romney referring to his “five boys” is racist?
Two years ago, liberal newsman Dan Rather said the criticism of Obama was that he “couldn’t sell watermelons if you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.” (I immediately called for Rather’s firing for that, and then remembered that he didn’t have a job.)
Last week, Rather won the 2012 Edward R. Murrow Award for Lifetime Achievement from Washington State University. That’s not a joke — or at least not my joke.
Meanwhile, evidence of alleged Republican racism invariably consists of tenuous connections and apocryphal signals normally associated with schizophrenics and sufferers of “Thrilled Leg Syndrome.”
Since February 2008, the primary evidence of racism has been failure to fully support Obama’s election, policies or re-election. As Slate magazine’s Jacob Weisberg put it during the last presidential campaign, only if Obama were elected president would children in America be able to “grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives.”
I wish I had a nickel for every kid who’s come up to me in an airport and said, “What I wouldn’t give to be able to think of prejudice as a non-factor in my life …”
Curiously, liberals weren’t concerned about what children in America would think if Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination had been defeated. No, only electing the most liberal person ever to seek the presidency on a major party ticket would prove that the country could “put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.”
The left’s racial demagoguery worked: In 2008, Obama received a larger proportion of the white vote than any Democrat running for president in nearly 40 years. (Though he tied Clinton’s 1996 white vote record.)
And look how well that turned out! We haven’t heard another peep about racism since then.
To read more about what a smashing success the left’s utterly self-serving racial bullying has been, read my new book, “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery From the Seventies to Obama.”
I heard someone refer to the Political Left as “The Militant Party”. At first I thought that was unfair, however, after giving it much thought I have come to agree. The synonyms for Militant are;
Let’s review the recent past of the Democrat Party and the actions of their members;
What would happen if they succeeded in their efforts to cause a race, economic, class war to break out? Do you think they would admit any connection to it or would they sell their followers that Republicans/Conservatives caused the war? Do you think President Obama would declare Marshall Law and name himself as the Ultimate Leader of the New Social American Nation?
I was discussing current events with my dad on Sunday and the subject of the political Left’s clever development of their Dependent Underclass came up. They started out with President Johnson’s “Poor”, and have added the illegal aliens, Hispanics in general, the Welfare Roles, students that have been programmed by the radical Leftist Professors occupying most of the teaching positions in America’s colleges and those that are just plan ignorant of politics (see Howard Stern’s latest on the street interviews). They make up around 40% of the population and can generally be expected to vote Democrat no matter who is running.
I was reminded of some interviews of attendees of the DNC saying that they welcome everyone into the DNC, EXCEPT, Evangelicals, “gun-toting hicks from the South”, anyone with the NRA, anyone with the “Tea Party”, and “those hate filled, intolerant conservatives.” When asked if they approved of guns and think our nation needs tougher gun laws, they answer was always a resounding, “YES!”
That is when my dad made the observation that the DNC has made gun ownership so onerous that they have successfully disarmed their own party. So, if the suppositions are correct, and President Obama makes himself to be Dictator Obama, they have half the population already disarmed and unable to defend themselves against a government turned hostile.
Now, ask again about why gun sales are not only up across America, but in some places, record-setting sales.
The suppositions are beginning to sound more and more plausible. What do you think?
The Main Stream Media is all a tweeter about a video of Mitt Romney talking to people at a private fund raiser. In fact, every thing he said is true, but the press has him hating everything and everybody.
FACT: Starting with President Johnson the Democratic Party has successfully created a DEPENDENT UNDERCLASS of people consisting of certain racial groups, people in poverty, and their heirs. So successful has their efforts been, that now 47% of the American people depend on the United States government for part or all of their subsistence. They also do not pay any Federal Income Taxes. These people have developed a number of different labels identifying them as being a part of this Dependent Underclass. Recently a new label has been created; “Bitter Clingers”. I’m sure that does not require any expounding.
FACT: Unless all this spending on Entitlements Spending is brought under control, our country will be bankrupt. For those of you who have done such studies, you know that at the point of a nations bankrupt monetary system is when a dictator steps up, proclaiming he has the solution, and all the freedoms we’ve enjoyed, and taken for granted will be gone. There is abundant evidence proving President Obama has been deliberately driving our country to that point.
FACT: Anyone who will not own up to responsibility for disaster cannot be trusted to fix that disaster and lead the way to prosperity.
FACT: Those that do NOT Believe in personal prosperity, corporate prosperity and rewarding individual achievement cannot be trusted to lead a nation into financial independence.
FACT: You cannot trust a President who issues illegal Executive Orders when he doesn’t get his way through Congress. Such conduct is DICTATOR in origin, and practice.
FACT: You cannot trust an individual to lead when all their life they have not had ANY LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE. A Majority of American hired such a man. How’s it working for you?
FACT: You cannot continue to write bad checks knowingly to be NSF and hope the situation will get better. At some point you have to stop, eliminate all the excess, and get your financial house in order.
FACT: Blaming failure on someone else gets old. At some point, those that gave you a vote will go away and look for another leader.
FACT: The American People ARE NOT as stupid as you think President Obama and the DNC.
FACT: We have to vote them OUT.
By: Ann Coulter
9/12/2012 05:36 PM
Obama said: “We must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms … our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for the governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.”
The Libyan mob was the equivalent of our founding fathers! (If you overlook the part about it being a murderous Islamic mob.)
Meanwhile, Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, said: “The people we are fighting for in Libya, the backbone of that movement, are former mujahedeen from around the world.” We are “enabling people who may not be formally aligned with al-Qaida but who want the same things to grasp ever closer to power.”
Scheuer said the media had taken “a few English-speaking Arabs who are pro-democracy and a few Facebook pages out of the Middle East and extrapolated that to a region-wide love of secular democracy,” adding, “It is as insane a situation as I’ve ever encountered in my life.”
No wonder Obama’s running for re-election on his foreign policy expertise!
Among Republicans, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum all called for aggressive action against Gadhafi, including enforcement of a no-fly zone.
Santorum cited Reagan’s 1986 bombing of Libya (after Gadhafi had killed American servicemen in Berlin), saying, “If you want to be Reaganesque, it seems the path is pretty clear.”
Gingrich took all sides, first demanding: “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.”
Then, two weeks later, he said: “I would not have intervened.”
Only Mitt Romney and Haley Barbour resisted calling for aggressive action against Gadhafi, with Romney merely criticizing Obama’s deer-in-the-headlights response, and Barbour stating more directly, “I don’t think it’s our mission to make Libya look like Luxembourg.” No offense, he said, “but it is not ever going to look like what we’d like.”
The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman exulted that the Arab peoples “have come up with their own answer to violent extremism and the abusive regimes we’ve been propping up. … It’s called democracy.”
The Washington Post’s David Ignatius praised Obama’s major shift in strategy in seeing the Libyan uprising as a “positive development” and refusing to provide aid to the embattled dictator. “My own instinct,” he said, “is that Obama is right.”
French liberal blowhard Bernard-Henri Levy announced that “Libya will go down in history as the anti-Iraq. Iraq was a democracy parachuted in by a foreign power in a country which hadn’t asked for it. Libya was a rebellion which demanded help from an international coalition.”
The Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette editorialized: “Most of the world is rejoicing because of the historic success in Libya. We’re glad it was accomplished by Libya’s people, not by a U.S. invasion ordered by right-wing American politicians.”
I note that the American ambassador in Iraq has not been murdered and his corpse dragged through the streets. I also recall that, a few years ago, when Muslims around the globe erupted in rioting over some Dutch cartoons, one Muslim country remained utterly pacific: George W. Bush’s Iraq.
Apparently U.S. invasions ordered by right-wing American politicians are the only ones that work in the Middle East. Fake uprisings orchestrated by Muslim fanatics are less propitious.
Learn your history, Americans. The American Revolution was not the revolt of a mob. It was a carefully thought-out plan for a republic, based on ideas painstakingly argued by serious men in the process of creating what would become the freest, most prosperous nation in world history.
The much-ballyhooed “Arab Spring,” with mobs of men gang-raping American reporters, firing guns in the air and murdering their erstwhile dictators, is more akin to the pointless bloodletting of the French Revolution.
That godless antithesis to the founding of America is the primogenitor of the horrors of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler’s Nazi Party, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s slaughter and America’s periodic mob uprisings, from Shays’ Rebellion to today’s union thugs in Madison, Wis., and Occupy Wall Street.
Americans did win freedom and greater individual rights with their revolution. By contrast, the French Revolution resulted in bestial savagery, a slaughter of all the revolution’s leaders, followed by Napoleon’s dictatorship, followed by another monarchy, and then finally something resembling an actual republic 80 years later.
Violent mob uprisings have never led to a functioning democratic republic.
By Matt Barber / 10 September 2012 / 42 Comments
But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven. (Matthew 10:33)
Are you a believer? I’m not asking if you’re a Democrat, a Republican or an independent. I’m asking if you believe in God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God of the living, not the dead. The great “I Am.”
If so, here’s something to seriously consider in the voting booth on Nov. 6. In its official 2012 version, the Democratic Party finally scrubbed all recognition of God from its party platform. This was intentional. It was by design. No one should have been surprised. It was a long time coming.
In just the last decade or so, extremist elements within the Democratic establishment have lodged a successful secular-socialist coup. The alarming consequences of this “progressive” triumph have become manifest throughout the pages of the DNC’s 2012 platform. They were also on display at the recent Democratic convention.
Slippery was the slope into Democrats’ anti-theist primordial bog. In 2004, there were seven mentions of God in the platform. In 2008, there was but one.
And in 2012?
Zip, zero, nada.
That is, until some in leadership realized that political fallout was reaching, well, biblical proportions. On Wednesday, in a highly contentious and unprecedented move, the DNC held a special session where, to a volley of stadium-shaking boos, Democratic leaders narrowly passed a resolution to put “God” back in the platform.
It was transparent as anything political can be. It was done out of fear, not love; necessity, not respect; incredulity, not fidelity. Nonetheless, Democrats, like everyone, should be grateful that God is more faithful to them than they were to Him.
Still, what’s equally revealing is what replaced God. The term “government” is referenced repeatedly – 55 times, in fact. Nearly each reference is premised on the dubious claim that big government can, and will, cure all of humanity’s ills. The DNC even played a promotional video proclaiming: “The government is the only thing we all belong to.”
True, the 2012 Republican Party platform also mentions government, but in the context of limiting its size and scope – of protecting individual liberty from the authoritarian monstrosity envisaged by Obama and the DNC. As Ronald Reagan observed: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
The Republican platform also acknowledges God. Twelve times, in fact. And each acknowledgement falls within the framework of “our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage.” This heritage is something the Democratic Party both stubbornly denies and viscerally abhors.
Shortly after the DNC released its secularist platform, I tweeted: “Well, Democrats are officially ‘godless’ …” Zack Ford, a “progressive” blogger with www.ThinkProgress.org, captured, I think, the general consensus among Democratic movers-and-shakers. He tartly replied: “Good!”
Another of my Twitter followers, @redandright, answered: “In all fairness to the DNC, I think He [God] requested it.”
She may be on to something.
How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob, and your dwelling places, O Israel! … Blessed is the one who blesses you, and cursed is the one who curses you! (Numbers 24:5, 9)
No anti-God platform would be complete without taking White-Out™ to all things pro-Israel. Jews, take note: Democrats’ 2012 platform also “yanked” all previous pro-Israel language, even refusing to acknowledge Jerusalem as her capital.
This, too, should come as little surprise. Throughout his presidency, Barack Obama has shown overt hostility toward Israel – something no other president in American history has done. Instead, Obama has unapologetically sided with the Palestinian Authority, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamo-fascist radicals, all of whom seek Israel’s total annihilation.
Even so, after widespread Judeo-Christian outrage, language referencing Israel was once again restored.
Another too-little-too-late act of desperation? Perhaps. As Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the God-deniers favorite comrades-in-nothingness, once said: “I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.”
And then there’s Democrats’ sacred cow: abortion. Welcome to today’s Democratic Party, where the women are “sexually liberated” and their offspring gravely imperiled.
Indeed, it was genuinely sad to see such a parade of angry, hurting women take the DNC stage to command, with perverse pride, some phantom “constitutional right” to snuff-out their very own young (Bet she would’ve looked like you, mom).
Their party platform is no better. It “unequivocally” demands unfettered abortion on demand, at taxpayer expense, through the ninth month – “regardless of ability to pay.”
By contrast, the Republican platform aligns with the actual Constitution, stating: “[T]he unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”
To be sure, it would have been helpful if the DNC had included, in its Glossary of Terms: “Reproductive Freedom: noun 1) ‘Sexual liberation’ without consequence (i.e., hook-up, cover-up, pay-up and shut-up.)”
I know. I’ve declared “war on women.” But we conservatives believe that sexual relativism comes at a cost – one we refuse to subsidize. I prefer to call it a “war for responsibility.”
Speaking of the “war on women,” wasn’t it rich? The DNC featured, as its heavy hitter, Bill Clinton – former Preezy of the Sleazy, serial sexual-harasser and, likely, so very much more.
They also had an emotional tribute to late Sen. Teddy “splash-’N-dash” Kennedy. I wonder if Mary Jo’s folks got free admission. Hypocrisy, thy initials are D-N-C.
But at least the Democratic platform is “pro-education,” right?
Well, for the record, being “pro-education” means teaching little Billy to read, not which eyeliner matches his skirt. (Yes, this godless manifesto went there too.)
Democrats signed-off on every demand of radical “LGBT” pressure groups. They even put their official stamp of approval on “same-sex marriage,” a postmodern novelty rejected in 32 of 32 states wherein “we the people” have spoken.
No, this ain’t your father’s Democratic Party. In fact, as the DNC goes godless, I suspect quite a few God-fearing Democrats are contemplating a break with tradition.
Not so much.
Well, now maybe we’re on to something.
Fast forward to the 2012 Democratic National Convention. Obama, now the president, accepted his party’s nomination for a second term by touting his experience as a steady leader in the face of overseas crises and mocked his Republican challenger as “new to foreign policy.”
How times have changed.
But the president’s new tactic — to incorporate into his campaign message the sense that he is the tested leader, and that Mitt Romney is a newbie — could be a risky one. For starters, it recalls the very criticism against Obama, like the above line from Clinton, when he first ran.
“Obama had probably less foreign policy experience (when he first ran for president) than Romney has,” said Steffen Schmidt, political science professor at Iowa State University.
Schmidt also noted that Romney is hardly alone among non-incumbent candidates in not having a tremendous foreign policy background. “The truth of the matter is, presidents learn on the job,” he said.
Obama, in an official sense, may have had a bit more foreign policy experience when he first ran than Romney does today.
Obama, as a first-term senator, was a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And he took several foreign trips. He traveled in 2005 with Republican Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar to Russia and Eastern Europe to visit nuclear and biological weapons facilities. The following year, Obama traveled to the Middle East. Obama, the senator, made another foreign trip to several African countries in late 2006 as well.
Obama, though, downplayed the value of that experience during his 2008 primary run. “Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world,” he said in April 2008, according to an account from the time in The New York Times. “This I know. When Sen. Clinton brags, ‘I’ve met leaders from 80 countries,’ I know what those trips are like. I’ve been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There’s a group of children who do a native dance. You meet with the C.I.A. station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. … And then, you go.”
Obama instead had stressed his time living abroad, as well as a visit to Pakistan back in the 1980s.
Romney, though, also lived abroad — in France as a Mormon missionary — in the 1960s. And both Romney and Obama, as presidential candidates, conducted high-profile overseas tours to bolster their campaigns.
Obama’s, which included an address to a massive crowd in Berlin, was likely better received. Romney stumbled on his summertime tour abroad, most notably when he suggested Britain might not be ready for the 2012 Olympic Games.
Obama seized on that gaffe during his nomination address last Thursday in Charlotte, N.C.
“My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy,” Obama said. “But from all that we’ve seen and heard, they want to take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so dearly. After all, you don’t call Russia our No. 1 enemy — not Al Qaeda — Russia, unless you’re still stuck in a Cold War mind warp.
“You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can’t visit the Olympics without insulting our closest ally,” Obama said.
Obama went on to say: “You know, I recognize that times have changed since I first spoke to this convention. The times have changed, and so have I. I’m no longer just a candidate. I’m the president.”
Schmidt said Obama may be trying to inject more foreign policy into the mix, not just to deflect from other issues but to defend his administration against a GOP talking point that the president is “leading from behind” on the world stage.
Indeed, the Romney campaign released a memo over the weekend that highlighted the president’s “manifold failures on foreign policy and national security.” While Obama touts the successful takedown of Usama bin Laden and the official end of the Iraq war under his watch, Republican claims he has done little to slow what they see as Iran’s march toward a nuclear weapon.
Sen. John McCain, the Republican Party’s 2008 nominee, critiqued both Obama and Romney on the foreign policy front in an interview with the Associated Press over the weekend. In the interview, McCain said national security was largely missing from the GOP convention.
“It’s the job of presidents and candidates to lead and articulate their vision for America’s role in the world. The world is a more dangerous place than it’s been since the end of the Cold War, and so I think the president should lead and I think candidates for the presidency should lead and talk about it, and I’m disappointed that there hasn’t been more,” McCain said. He was most critical of the current administration, on issues like Iran and Syria.
– The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation – http://blog.heritage.org –
Posted By Julia Shaw On September 6, 2012 @ 12:15 pm In Featured,First Principles | 2 Comments
The city of Charlotte’s convention motto this week is “We make it possible .” And who is this “we”?
Here’s the host committee’s answer:  “Government is the only thing that we all belong to. We have different churches, different clubs, but we’re together as a part of our city, or our county, or our state, and our nation.”
What a dreary outlook. Government as our most important association. Every other association in our lives—family, church, Boy Scouts—separates us. Only government unites us.
Intentionally or not, the line echoes President Obama’s off-the-prompter remarks during a speech in Roanoke, Virginia, in July.
“[L]ook, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own,” the President said . “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Commentators have bent over backward to cover for these comments by insisting the President couldn’t have meant what he said. They’ve said that, taken in context, his remarks amount to a statement that individual business owners didn’t build the “roads, bridges, infrastructure, education, emergency services and law and order” that make it possible to run a business. Yet no one is arguing for eliminating roads and bridges.
But here’s what is being argued, both by Obama and again by the host committee: Government makes things happen—it’s the mother’s milk of human flourishing.
The perfect case in point is the “Julia” campaign, which traces a fictional woman’s life and ascribes all good things in it to federal—specifically Obama Administration—initiatives. In this world, Julia’s good life wasn’t built by her, or her parents, or her community, but by the government.
The audacity of this argument is rare. It was first advanced by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, drawing on the work of Herbert Croly. TR’s frankness aside, progressives usually prefer to advance their ideology under the cloak of non-ideological pragmatism—liberals say they’re just doing “what works.”
But the tagline and the video combined with President Obama’s comment—“We make it possible” because “you didn’t build that”—reveal how limitless the progressive vision of government is.
If we’re really incapable of ruling ourselves, then we need government to bless and subsidize every decision we make and provide us with meaning in our lives. But if we are indeed self-governing citizens, then we grant government limited power to perform certain tasks clearly articulated in our founding documents, tasks that we as citizens and members of civil society cannot perform.
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/06/we-all-belong-to-the-government/
URLs in this post:
 We make it possible: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/08/21/3468884/the-dnc-means-big-business.html
 host committee’s answer:: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLa9Te8Blw&feature=youtu.be
 the President said: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
If I were a stranger to American history and politics, I would have come away from this weeks speeches with the impression that the Democrats were a group of Freedom Fighters battling dictators, demonic leaders and tormentors who hated women, children, education, the military, freedom, healthcare, poor people, anyone trying to lift themselves up a level in the society hierarchy, rappers of the financial districts and haters of everything and everyone. According to what I heard, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are liars and incapable of telling the truth. According to what I heard the Republican Party want to go backwards to some undetermined era where women had no vote, no health care, no right to her own body, no access to contraceptives and children have to go to schools that are broken down and inadequate.
I also got the impression that all Republicans are so awful that they deserved to be mocked. According to what I heard Republicans have no workable ideas, and have only caused trouble, financial ruin and disasters that the Democrats have to fix. I walked away with the idea that the Republicans could only be conquered by force even if that meant war. I heard every speaker describe a political party that owned all the good answers to life, and without them, the world as we know it would fall apart. Then I heard a commentator actually say that the DNC proved they were the only ones that cared about America’s military.
According to the leader of this DNC, he was hindered by this enemy called Republicans and was unable to fulfill the promises he made about fixing all the Republicans disasters. He claimed he need more time and everyone would have to fight to see to it that he was given that chance. I learned that only he, President Obama, and his Vice President, Joe Bidden, are the only ones possessing the intellect, reason, experience and foresight to finish fixing the malaise created by those horrible Republicans.
The people I was with explained to me that the man who offered up a prayer was a cleric of high importance. He was a Cardinal of a sect known as Catholics, who, among so many other things, have stated publicly that they hate the killing of babies, especially while they are in their mother’s womb. I thought, only monsters would deliberately kill babies. They must be Republicans. Anyway, these people were perplexed that he would honor the DNC with his presence and pray for them because the monsters that kill babies are the DNC, not those pesky Republicans. I’m confused. You American have a strange way to govern your people.
Well, it’s over. I’m told that now these two groups will go out and yell about each other, making all sorts of claims about one another. I am more confused. Why aren’t the electorate more knowledgeable about the issues facing their great nation to be able to decide who is telling the truth? Why are the American people so ignorant about their own national history, issues, reasonable solutions and who is holding to the truth?
Why is there so much hate? Where are the peacemakers? Where are the statesman that can bring peace to the entire electorate? Why all the yelling? What aren’t all the people in prayer, or have they given up on the God they claim to serve? Questions, nothing but questions.
Listening to EX-President Clinton tonight produced many memories and thoughts;
I am actually frightened by this election. After EX- President Clinton spoke and he and President Obama walked off stage hugging one another, I turned to e wife and said, “Wouldn’t it be something if they fired Bidden and replaced him with Bill Clinton?” Her response was, “They would win by a landslide.” I couldn’t disagree.
I cannot find too many around me that are as serious about this election as I am. Apathy has settled over most of America and the Democrats are counting on that to continue. How about you?
Politico makes the comparison between the party platform of 2008 and 20012:
2008: Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.
2012: President Obama and the Democratic Party maintain an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security. A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States not simply because we share strategic interests, but also because we share common values. For this reason, despite budgetary constraints, the President has worked with Congress to increase security assistance to Israel every single year since taking office, providing nearly $10 billion in the past three years. The administration has also worked to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region. And we have deepened defense cooperation — including funding the Iron Dome system — to help Israel address its most pressing threats, including the growing danger posed by rockets and missiles emanating from the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. The President’s consistent support for Israel’s right to defend itself and his steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize Israel on the world stage are further evidence of our enduring commitment to Israel’s security.
It is precisely because of this commitment that President Obama and the Democratic Party seek peace between Israelis and Palestinians. A just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian accord, producing two states for two peoples, would contribute to regional stability and help sustain Israel’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state. At the same time, the President has made clear that there will be no lasting peace unless Israel’s security concerns are met. President Obama will continue to press Arab states to reach out to Israel. We will continue to support Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, which have been pillars of peace and stability in the region for many years. And even as the President and the Democratic Party continue to encourage all parties to be resolute in the pursuit of peace, we will insist that any Palestinian partner must recognize Israel’s right to exist, reject violence, and adhere to existing agreements.
Elsewhere in the region, President Obama is committed to maintaining robust security cooperation with Gulf Cooperation Council states and our other partners aimed at deterring aggression, checking Iran’s destabilizing activities, ensuring the free flow of commerce essential to the global economy, and building a regional security architecture (?) to counter terrorism, proliferation, ballistic missiles, piracy, and other common threats.
While I am no dispensationalist, I do acknowledge a nation’s right to declare their own capitol, and as such, the nations of the world should acknowledge that particular city as that nation’s capitol. The Democrat party does not have the right to determine what city is the capitol of Israel. Only Israel can do that. But it seems the DNC is siding with some of their esteemed colleagues in the Muslim Brotherhood and the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA) on this issue. It makes sense seeing that they have both welcomed the Muslim Brotherhood and BIMA with their Jumah prayers prior to the DNC in Charlotte.
CBN also reports that references to God have also been stricken from the platform. David Brody writes,
Guess what? God’s name has been removed from the Democratic National Committee platform.
This is the paragraph that was in the 2008 platform:
“We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”
Now the words “God-given” have been removed. The paragraph has been restructured to say this:
“We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth – the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”
While DNC’s platform does contain a section about “faith,” it never addresses what or who that faith is in. That section reads:
“Faith has always been a central part of the American story, and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history. We know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. Faith- based organizations (not identified) will always be critical allies in meeting the challenges that face our nation and our world – from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking. People of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and the world, and we believe in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible. We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country.”
So we can now say that the Democrat party has officially declared itself “Godless.”
Obama has in the last three years been declaring, the people with money are the problem with the United States. This reflects back to his Marxist/Socialist training while he was at Occidental College. Obama discussed this ideology with young John Drew during a Christmas break when Drew visited his then girlfriend, Caroline Boss. It was during his visit that he met Obama face to Face. Dr. Drew stated the man Obama had shown up with was an individual by the name of; Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, a 21-year-old Pakistani student Obama hung around with along with Chandoo’s girl friend, Margot Mifflin. All of them were fervent with their ideas of Marxist and Socialist ideology. Dr. Drew gave context to his recollections with the observation he had also read other stories about how Obama had dreamed of working to bring the downfall of Capitalism. Today it looks like Obama is working very hard to obtain those 1980 dreams.
In the below interview, Dr. Drew will, of course, refer to Dr. John Drew and LP will refer to the author of this piece, Louis Puissegur.
Dr. Drew began; “I know Stanley Kurtz’s book, Radical in Chief , that Obama has ties with the Midwest Acadamy, kind of like the Socialist training ground for America. I think that most Americans don’t understand that Obama
has a longstanding tie to Marxism, that is even longer then his ties to Reverend Right.”
LP; “That’s right, he(Obama), didn’t go to Reverend Wright until after he was married.”
Dr. Drew; “Right, I mean, the way I look at it, Barack Obama was probably at least a Communist sympathizer when he came out of high school, he was definitely a Marxist revolutionary when I met him in 1980. It doesn’t look like he
changed a bit, he started hanging out with Bill Ayers.”
LP; “You saw him just before Obama went to Pakistan.”
Dr.Drew; “Exactly, the last time I saw Obama was June 1981, we had a graduation party for Occidental College. I guess he left from there and went on this tour in Indonesia, and somehow got into Pakistan, I guess you were not allowed to do that on a United States passport at that time.”
LP; “How long did you have an association with Obama?”
Dr. Drew; “It is kind of complex, the actual time I spent with Obama was sort of brief and limited, but he was part of my social sphere in the sense I knew his roommate at the time, Chandoo, and Obama was a member of the Democratic Socialist Alliance at Occidental and my girlfriend, Caroline Boss was the co-president of that organization.”
LP; “Democratic Socialist Alliance?”
Dr. Drew; “Yes, that was the Marxist student association on campus, Caroline hung up a huge banner of Karl Marx where the students met at the Occidental College Quad. She and I were pretty intense Marxists we had been involved in about a two-year relationship and she was the one who introduced me to Barack Obama, she knew him better then I did. I wouldn’t be saying he was a Marxist/Socialist revolutionary if it was just based with my face to face talk with him, my comments are based on knowing Chandoo, having known Caroline and the Marxist Professors and that whole culture.”
LP; “Another words, the people he was associated with were deep into the Marxist/Socialist ideology?”
Dr. Drew; “Oh yes, I had considered myself as the enemy of the American government at that time.”
LP: “At that particular time? And what made you change?”
Dr. Drew; “Well, the first thing that happened was kind of spiritual change, I just started having the religious experience, I realized that there was something out there which I now call a higher power. That was very inconsistent with Marxist ideology. Because Marxist taught that stuff like that was just the opium of the people, but to me it was very real, so very real. Then my Doctoral research ended up just confirming a lot of Marxist theory which comes to explain how welfare programs and how Capitalism deals with child labor and things like that. My research pulled me out of Marxism fundamentally but what started it was the spiritual change.”
LP; “How many actual face to face meetings did you have with Obama?”
Dr. Drew; “I never had face to face after Christmas and in Partolo Valley California which is near Stanford. I basically spent the day with him, Chandoo, and Caroline Boss, I was visiting Boss from Cornell where I was studying. I graduated ahead of them but I had come back for the trip to be with Caroline. We hung out with Obama and Chandoo for that day and went out to lunch then we ended up arguing pretty late in the evening about Marxist and politics. Whether or not there would be a revolution, a Communist style revolution in the United States. The key takeaway there is that I may have been one of the first people in the world to confront Barack Obama’s kind of silly belief, Marxist idea that there was going to be an inevitable Communist revolution coming to the United States. I feel in my heart that I had persuaded him that that wasn’t in the cards and it wasn’t going to happen and at the end of that time he believed me. I think a bunch of us, Marxist Communist style people were turned off by a Communist style revolution I think that Obama would have heard that from someone else eventually, but from his reaction, I think I was the first person that he could identify as an ally, and a friend and supporter who sincerely believes that there would never be a Communist style revolution. That debate I think helped Obama intellectually, but it helped seal the end of my romantic relationship with Marxist.”
LP; “Obama was a student there the whole time?”
Dr. Drew; “Yes he was a student at Occidental College and he was taking classes from Roger Boesche, who was a political theorist on campus. Roger was definitely a Socialist. Most of the students followed him as a Marxist revolutionary, but he was kind of precise with that and did not see himself as a Marxist. I would say that 100% of the students considered him to be a Marxist/Socialist.”
LP; “Obama had to have some sort of girlfriends, or was he kind of all alone.”
Dr. Drew; “I think this is very unusual but I can say that I saw Barack Obama about 3 or 4 other times on campus and off campus at parties. As God as my witness, I can say that I never saw Barack Obama with a young woman. I never saw any romantic connections with a young woman or even any socializing with a young woman that had a romantic nature.”
LP; “So he was pretty much by himself all the time?”
Dr. Drew; “I am just a small piece of the puzzle, but if I had ever seen him with a girl, I would be happy to say that, but I did not notice that. If anything I thought that the young Obama was kind of the feminine and he seemed to have a very strong emotional tie to Hasan Chandoo.”
LP; “Now did Chandoo have a girlfriend?”
Dr. Drew; “Yes, Chandoo did have a girlfriend, her name was Margot Mifflin. It was kind of interesting that Chandoo had a girlfriend, Margot Mifflin, who is still in the news today, she is a professor at I think NYU. Caroline Boss had a boyfriend, me, and I am in the news about Barack Obama, but there is not a single girl out there that says she was Obama’s girlfriend.”
LP; “I seem to recall an article you wrote about Obama riding in a big fancy car with Chandoo.”
Dr. Drew; “Yes, Chandoo was very wealthy and he drove a very expensive, very nice luxury car. It was ten times better then the normal Occidental student would drive. One of my theories is that Barack Obama had a good time at Occidental College because of the financial generosity of Chandoo. That was one of the places that Obama learned that rich people would give him money just because he was a nice handsome ideologically consistent person.”
LP: “Do you know or did any one say he had a Visa when he was going to Occidental?”
Dr. Drew; “That I don’t have any knowledge of I don’t I called him Barry, but I don’t remember if he was introduced as Barry Soetoro or Barry Obama. I just remember I called him Barry and I don’t know anything about his citizen
LP; “How long did he hang around with Chandoo?”
Dr. Drew; “Chandoo is a life long friend of Barack Obama. Chandoo attended Obama’s marriage to Michelle, I think that was 1992 or 1993 or something like that. Chandoo was at their marriage and he was also at a recent Ramadan Dinner at the White House. He is one of those $600,000 bundlers for Obama. Chandoo has been a part of Obama’s life at least since 1980.”
LP; “So Chandoo is a bundler for Obama too?”
Dr. Drew; “Yes, Chandoo would go out and raise contributions from people then put all those checks in a bundle, then deliver it over to the campaign headquarters.”
LP:” Is Chandoo a US Citizen or is he a Pakistani?”
Dr. Drew; “He is living in New York, in America.”
LP: “About how many hours had you spent with Obama?”
Dr. Drew; “I would say that altogether it was about 10 to 12 hours.”
LP; “During that time did Obama display the Marxist ideology?”
Dr. Drew; “We were confiding in each other the way people fight with each other people with major historical struggles in communicating, very down to earth, very honest. Like I said, I am ashamed of my Socialist/Marxist past, I have a conversion story which explains how I became a Christian, Constitutional Conservative. Barack Obama has no conversion story. There is a story about how he stopped being a Marxist, if anything his career, life shows an alarming consistency in his ideological extremism.”
LP; “Do you see the same Marxist ideology now with Barack Obama?”
Dr. Drew; “Yes, especially when he talks about the people holding on to their guns and religion because of economic stress. That is a Marxist idea. Everything he says about it being a good idea to spread the wealth around; that is Marxist/Socialist concepts. Some of the statements Obama makes about things inevitably get better, I think that is a Marxist ideological remnants.”
LP; “I noticed in one of your articles you said it would never happen but Obama said yes it will.”
Dr. Drew; “Yes, I remember that very clearly, even some 20 years later because he thought I was nuts. He thought that I was going against everything he had been taught at Occidental College. I persuaded him, I told Obama there has never been a revolution in Italy, France, Germany, why would you expect one here in America? I said revolutions only occur in backwards raring economies, like China, Vietnam or Russia, not in America.”
LP; “How did he accept your idea?”
Dr. Drew; “I think he believed that the economic stresses would pile up worse and worse and after the stresses built up they would just build up to a breaking point where a new group would take over the country. That would be a large group of workers, students, young people, those who were enlightened by Marxist/Socialist ideology would end up running things.”
LP: “Did Obama ever mention Cloward/Pivens?”
Dr. Drew; “No never did, but he might have bumped into her when he was at Columbia because she taught at Columbia. Part of my research disconcerns the Piven and Cloward teachings that welfare programs rise in reaction to violence and rioting from the lower class. I was able to show that that was not true in America. I perceive Obama as being an out and out liar; hiding his real views from the American people. I think those views are deeply objectionable to most people and I am shocked that more media attention hasn’t been focused on vetting Obama and getting down to brass tacks about how he really is.” (see additional information at end.(1))
LP: “Did Obama ever throw money around when he was with Chandoo?”
Dr. Drew; “He hung with Chandoo, but the impression I had with Obama was that they were both very wealthy. I thought that Barack Obama was a descendent from royalty from the way he carries himself. It did turn out that he did spend his summers on the grounds of the palace of the sultan of Jakarta in Indonesia. According to David Remnick,(“The Bridge, Alfred A. Knopf, 2010, page 104”), that is where Obama would spend his summers. So he actually did grow up on the grounds of an Indonesian Palace. Through his step-father, Lolo Soertoro, he actually had ties to the royal family.” (See addition below(2).)
Now with all this stated by Dr. Drew, one has to ask, has Barack Obama moved away from his Marxist, Radical, Socialist Ideology? Has Barack Obama, the man holding the highest office in the United States “hidden” his true agenda, the one he so proudly proclaimed while at Occidental College? One must now consider: just what are the President’s motives behind producing continued debt upon the United States? Is this meant to further what Dr. Drew so clearly remembers: End Capitalism?
These questions should have been asked in 2008. They must be answered in truth today as the American people continue daily to struggle with the Marxist/Socialist ideals foist upon them by Barack Hussein Obama dedicated to them, ideals which have yet to succeed in all of human history. Some pundits state this is a propaganda used historically by Marxist and Socialist regimes, using the single word “forward” as their base. Has Obama finally given America a true reflection of his days as a revolutionary radical Marxist/Socialist?
(1.) My take on Piven and Cloward is included in my published doctoral dissertation in this book, The American Welfare System: Origins, Structure, and Effects. I demonstrated that there was no relationship between street violence or riots and the later rise of the Progressive Era Mothers’ Pensions movement.”
(2.) Information about how Obama’s mother lived on the grounds of the palace of the Sultan of Yogakarta is available in David Remnick’s book, The Bridge, on pages 84-88.
Editor’s Note: This is part one in a series.
By: John Hayward
4/9/2012 09:17 AM
No sooner had the absolutely horrifying unemployment report for March been released than we received an update on the status of engineer Darin Wedel, who became one of America’s most famous job seekers two months ago.
At that time, Wedel’s wife Jennifer found herself in one of President Obama’s gimmicky “online chat” events, and asked the President why the government is passing out so many visas for foreign workers when large numbers of Americans with excellent job skills are unemployed. Darin Wedel was a semiconductor engineer at Texas Instruments, but lost his job three years ago.
The President expressed surprise that such a fine resume couldn’t bring offers of employment in the high-tech wonderland of Obamanomics, where “industry leaders” just can’t find enough people to grab all the lucrative jobs tumbling from their overflowing cornucopias. The exchange, as recounted by the Nashua Telegraph, went like this:
Obama said industry leaders have told him that the U.S. doesn’t have enough of certain kinds of high-tech engineers to meet its needs. Wedel interrupted him to say that his answer didn’t match what her husband is seeing in the real world.
“If you send me your husband’s resume, I’d be interested in finding out exactly what’s happening right there,” Obama told her. “The word we’re getting is somebody in that high-tech field, that kind of engineer, should be able to find something right away. And the H-1B should be reserved only for those companies who say they cannot find somebody in that particular field.”
The President reminded Mrs. Wedel to send that resume along to the White House at the end of the video chat, so the perplexing mystery of how this one poor fellow can’t find a job – after Barack Obama declared “job creation” to be his “top priority” at least 17 times over the past three years! – might be solved.
She did indeed send the resume along, and the phones began ringing off the hook. The White House stepped forward to take credit for this latest example of “recovery” magic:
White House spokesman Jay Carney fielded questions about Wedel and her husband’s resume during a recent briefing.
“The exchange reflected the president’s sincere interest and concern in the experiences of folks out in the country and how they’re dealing with what remains a very tough economy, even as we continue the recovery that we’ve been engaged in now for 10 months, that there are a lot of folks out there who are looking for work,” he said.
This White House statement, and the feel-good follow-up stories about the Wedel phone ringing off the hook, silenced dark muttering from far-left websites, which had begun wondering if Jennifer Wedel – a self-professed “good Republican” who admitted she did not vote for Hope and Change in 2008 – might be some kind of sinister GOP plant, inserted into the President’s video chat to sandbag him with a perfectly reasonable question. It helped enormously that Wedel went on to say that “I haven’t seen anybody who would have been a good replacement” for President Obama, and would “probably vote him back in.”
Not surprisingly, the Wedels also began hearing from desperate job-seekers who wondered if they might hope to to attract the notice of Good King Barack, and gain the favor of the royal court:
Wedel said she hopes that her conversation with the president will help not just her family but countless unemployed workers across the country as well.
“We’re just one person,” she said. “In my e-mail inbox, I’m getting flooded with notes from people in our exact situation, from all over the United States.
“I wish we could get everyone a job who needs one.”
Well, none of those wishes were granted. According to the March unemployment report, the American workforce continues to collapse under Obama’s policies, shedding enough workers to nudge the “official” U-3 unemployment rate down by .10 percent… even though job creation was literally half what was posted in February, and far below the level needed to keep pace with population growth. Even the more supportive pro-Obama media organizations had to wince, while they scrambled to keep the real news out of the headlines.
And as for Darin Wedel, well, he still doesn’t have a job. The brief flurry of interest artificially created when the White House stepped in and decreed that job offers should rain down upon one house in Texas has subsided, as reported by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
More than two months after President Barack Obama asked for Darin Wedel’s resume, the phone is quiet, e-mails are no longer flooding in and the long-sought-after job interviews — which had begun to be scheduled — have petered out.
“Not even recruiting companies are calling anymore,” said Jennifer Wedel, the Fort Worth mother of two who chatted online this year with Obama about her out-of-work husband.
It sounds like Mrs. Wedel might be re-thinking her decision to vote President Obama back into office this November:
“I did feel we got our hopes up a little,” Jennifer Wedel said last week. “I mean, he’s the POTUS. But it seems not even the leader of our country can get [Darin] a job.”
[…] After Darin Wedel was laid off, Jennifer Wedel went to work at an insurance agency, hoping to help support the family while her husband looked for a job.
Now, more than two months after her chat with the president, she has changed her approach. She is turning to social media to try to find a higher-paying job for herself to better support her family.
“We are doing fine,” she said. “Unless reform comes to the H-1B program, I’m afraid we are in a place where ‘our’ family roles are changed.
“This is our permanent job [situation] now. It’s unfortunate, but we will overcome,” she said. “We didn’t do the interview with the president to get a job. We did it to get a voice for so many Americans who, like my husband, are in the very same situation.”
The “optics” of this story are absolutely horrible for the White House, but it was actually horrible from the moment it began. The idea that Americans should have to beg the royal court for indulgences – which the court then demonstrates it cannot provide! – is nauseating, and it’s not a new aspect of the Obama presidency. In the very first weeks of his Administration, he was at a town hall meeting in Florida when a homeless woman asked him for a house, and lo! A house was soon offered, after the President hugged her.
The President loves to govern by anecdote, peppering his speeches with references to all the letters of supplication he receives from the New Poor (formerly known as “the middle class”) All of these people’s lives will supposedly be shattered if the Obama agenda is opposed. The childish absurdity of basing the decisions of a titanic mega-government on a handful of personal appeals never occurs to him, or to the media, which congratulates him on his political skill in “personalizing” huge social “crises.” That’s how the last shreds of cold, hard reason are steamed out of our discussion of the most bankrupt government in history.
It’s Obamanomics in a nutshell: if you’re lucky enough to find your way into his carefully controlled town hall meetings, or you’ve got the right political connections, you can do okay… until things get so bad that His Majesty can no longer wave his hand and cause bounty to be showered upon selected peasants. Fortunately, Obama can count on the media to downplay this story, instead of treating it as a powerful symbolic moment in a failed presidency, as they would if he were a Republican.
After mandating that cars get 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, Barack Obama has signed an executive order in which he will now be “accelerating investment in industrial energy efficiency.” This new measure is determined to help manufacturers expand their use of combined heat and power (CHP) facilities, which then generate thermal and generating power in one process.
According to the EO, the new policy reads:
The industrial sector accounts for over 30 percent of all energy consumed in the United States, and, for many manufacturers, energy costs affect overall competitiveness. While our manufacturing facilities have made progress in becoming more energy efficient over the past several decades, there is an opportunity to accelerate and expand these efforts with investments to reduce energy use through more efficient manufacturing processes and facilities and the expanded use of combined heat and power (CHP). Instead of burning fuel in an on site boiler to produce thermal energy and also purchasing electricity from the grid, a manufacturing facility can use a CHP system to provide both types of energy in one energy efficient step. Accelerating these investments in our Nation’s factories can improve the competitiveness of United States manufacturing, lower energy costs, free up future capital for businesses to invest, reduce air pollution, and create jobs.
Despite these benefits, independent studies have pointed to under-investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP as a result of numerous barriers. The Federal Government has limited but important authorities to overcome these barriers, and our efforts to support investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP should involve coordinated engagement with a broad set of stakeholders, including States, manufacturers, utilities, and others. By working with all stakeholders to address these barriers, we have an opportunity to save industrial users tens of billions of dollars in energy costs over the next decade.
There is no one size fits all solution for our manufacturers, so it is imperative that we support these investments through a variety of approaches, including encouraging private sector investment by setting goals and highlighting the benefits of investment, improving coordination at the Federal level, partnering with and supporting States, and identifying investment models beneficial to the multiple stakeholders involved.
To formalize and support the close interagency coordination that is required to accelerate greater investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP, this order directs certain executive departments and agencies to convene national and regional stakeholders to identify, develop, and encourage the adoption of investment models and State best practice policies for industrial energy efficiency and CHP; provide technical assistance to States and manufacturers to encourage investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP; provide public information on the benefits of investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP; and use existing Federal authorities, programs, and policies to support investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP.
The addition of the new capacity would save energy users $10 billion a year compared to their existing energy sources and would also result in $40-80 billion in new capital investment in manufacturing.
The order directs the Departments of Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency, in coordination with a number of White House advisory groups, to coordinate their policies to encourage investment in industrial efficiency.
The order also directs the federal agencies to help states to use CHP to achieve their national ambient air quality standards, and provide incentives through their regulations to help boost the technology.
The White House says that these increased investments, or we should call them what they really are, tax dollars, would improve the industrial sector’s competitiveness and lower energy costs and reduce emissions. However, we all recall that Barack Obama told us exactly what his energy plan would do, and it had nothing to do with reducing costs.
How will this new EO be carried out? According to the order:
(a) coordinate and strongly encourage efforts to achieve a national goal of deploying 40 gigawatts of new, cost effective industrial CHP in the United States by the end of 2020;
(b) convene stakeholders, through a series of public workshops, to develop and encourage the use of best practice State policies and investment models that address the multiple barriers to investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP;
(c) utilize their respective relevant authorities and resources to encourage investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP.
(d) support and encourage efforts to accelerate investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP
More regulations means higher prices, not lower ones. Barack Obama either purposefully knows this or is completely ignorant of economics. I think he knows exactly what he’s doing here and though he claims it will save energy consumers all this money, he told us in the beginning exactly what his policies would do to consumers’ energy prices…..they would skyrocket.
A recent poll conducted among 1500 adults confirms what we have long suspected: even Evangelical Christians support statism. The polling group—Public Religion Research Institute—determined that social issues, like abortion, are proving to be less important to Evangelical voters when compared with economic issues like unemployment. Apparently the economy trumps infanticide even among those who have been historically pro-life.
What is particularly disturbing about this poll is that the Evangelical churches in America are supposed to be the very ones who understand where and how financial hope should be distributed. Far from being an anonymous government check in the mailbox, real financial help comes in the form of a recognized face or faces at the front door, ready and willing to strive and help the individual in need. The apostle made it clear: “The one who doesn’t work, doesn’t eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). However, this same man also gave the admonition to “do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith” (Galatians 6:10). Christians should be relying on fellow Christians, not federal bureaucrats, to come to their aid in time of need.
As a deacon at my own church, I can assure you that this very thing happens from time to time. Members of the church occasionally come to us, seeking financial help during difficult periods. Sadly though, many of these same people only think to come to us when it is entirely too late: the shelves have been bare for weeks, the car has been repossessed, and the house is already in foreclosure. We have a fairly steady supply of funds coming in to the church for these “times of benevolence,” but most members only use it as a “last resort.” They tend to believe that coming to the deacons and elders for help is the ultimate form of humiliation and destitution, when, in reality, it should be their “first resort.” I know for a fact that many Evangelical churches are actually looking for opportunities to give away money and food because the members of the church are too proud to take a “handout.” This is not only a tragedy; it is a waste of time and resources. It is, in actuality, poor stewardship.
Evangelical Christians should be the ones leading the charge into the economic mess of America. Although few Evangelicals actually tithe 10 percent to their local church, there is often plenty of money residing in the benevolence coffers because even Evangelicals look to the government rather than the church when the bankbook and the pantry become thin. They have willingly handed the church’s God-ordained role as the guardian of the poor and widows and orphans over to the federal government, all the while complaining that the government is involved in too many things that it ought not be. Hello pot, meet kettle. It is this sort of hypocrisy that the Democrats are counting on to be able to skim a significant portion off the conservative Evangelical vote next year. They really don’t even care if you lie about how you voted after the fact. They don’t need your allegiance, just your vote.
Another term you have heard the Political Left use is “Collective”, or one of its derivatives. You can expect they will continue to use this term because it reflects their committed ideology, philosophy and bases for how they want to run the country.
Here is what they hope you will not find out for yourself;
Collectivism: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture), and stresses the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups (such as an “in-group”, in what specific context it is defined). Collectivists usually focus on community, society, or nation. It is used, and has been used, as an element in many different and diverse types of government and political, economic and educational philosophies throughout history including democracy, totalitarian nationalism, monarchy, socialism, and communism. In modern times, collectivism is sometimes thought to be synonymous with socialism or specifically Leninism, though collectivism more accurately simply means “group oriented” or “group orientation”. Most societies contain elements of both individualism and collectivism.
Collectivism can be divided into horizontal collectivism and vertical collectivism. Horizontal collectivism stresses collective decision-making among relatively equal individuals, and is thus usually based on decentralization. Vertical collectivism is based on hierarchical structures of power and moral and cultural conformity, and is therefore based on centralization. Monarchy is an example of a system that makes use of vertical collectivism. 
In political economy, horizontal-collectivism is often associated with the economic theories of socialism, which call for some form of co-operative or collective ownership of the means of production and collective decision-making or worker’s self-management within economic enterprises.
According to Moyra Grant, in political philosophy “collectivism” refers to any philosophy or system that puts any kind of group (such as a class, nation, race, society, state, etc.) before the individual. According to Encyclopædia Britannica, “collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism. The least collectivist of these is social democracy, which seeks to reduce the perceived injustices of unrestrained capitalism by government regulation, redistribution of income, and varying degrees of planning and public ownership. In Communist systems collectivist economics are carried to their furthest extreme, with a minimum of private ownership and a maximum of planned economy.”
However, political collectivism is not necessarily associated with support for states, governments, or other hierarchical institutions. There are variants of anarchism, such as collectivist anarchism and anarcho-communism, which are collectivist. Collectivist anarchists, particularly Mikhail Bakunin, were among the earliest critics of authoritarian communism. They agree with communists that the means of production should be expropriated from private owners and converted to common property, but they advocate the ownership of this property to be vested by a loose group of decentralized communes rather than to be held in common by all of society. Nevertheless, unlike anarcho-communists, collectivist anarchists supported a wage system and markets in non-capital goods. Thus, Bakunin’s “Collectivist Anarchism”, notwithstanding the title, is seen as a blend of individualism and collectivism.
Anarcho-communism is a more comprehensive form of collectivism which advocates not only the collectivization of the means of production but of the products of labor as well. According to anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin, “And as long as dwelling-houses, fields, and factories belong to isolated owners, men will have to pay them, in one way or another, for being allowed to work in the fields or factories, or for living in the houses. The owners will accept to be paid by the workers in gold, in paper-money, or in cheques exchangeable for all sorts of commodities. But how can we defend labour-notes, this new form of wagedom, when we admit that houses, fields, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or the nation?”
Leroy-Beaulieu says that that Albert Schäffle gave the first definition to the phrase “collectvisim”. Collectvism, for them both, is a kind of communism in which quotas are set on quality in addition to those set on quantity. (( Collectivism. 1908.))
Generally speaking, economic collectivism can refer to two distinct concepts: that property (usually in reference to productive property) be owned by all of society in common, or that possessions be owned by collective groups that use the property. The first concept is related to Communism, communalism and some forms of socialism, while the latter concept is related to forms of socialism based on independent cooperative organizations such as Syndicalism, Guild socialism, libertarian socialism and market socialism. Additionally, capitalist systems that largely consist of either cooperative or corporate ownership structures, with ownership being vested in collective entities of legal owners rather than the producers/users of the property, can be characterized as being collectivist to some degree.
Collectivism in the field of economics holds that some things should be owned by all of society and used for the benefit of all rather than being owned by just individuals or private parties. Central to this view is the concept of the commons, as opposed to private property. Early economic systems such as communalism and tribal societies practiced this form of collectivism. Collectivism can also apply to public ownership over the means of production, while others argue[who?] that all valued commodities, like environmental or consumer goods, should be regarded as public goods and placed under public ownership. In health care, collective action by trade unions and other professional bodies throughout Europe in the early twentieth century established mutual sickness funds and contracts with doctors and hospitals enabling workers to be assured of access to health care and sometimes sick pay collectively funded by all the members of the trade union or profession.
Collectivism in economics may or may not involve a state as a manager and steward of collective property. For instance, company property in corporations is usually managed by specialized managers, despite being owned in some cases by hundreds of shareholders. Anarcho-communists, who argue for the immediate abolition of the state, wish to place all goods under communal access without a state or manager. They argue that since the value of labor cannot truly be measured, individuals should be free to produce and consume to their own self-determined needs. In 1876, at the Florence Conference of the Italian Federation of the International, where the principles of anarcho-communism were first laid out, it was stated:
The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity.
Anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin believed that a lack of collectivization of goods would be a dis-service to individuals.
Collectivism can be typified as “horizontal collectivism”, wherein equality is emphasized and people engage in sharing and cooperation, or “vertical collectivism”, wherein hierarchy is emphasized and people submit to authorities to the point of self-sacrifice. Horizontal collectivism is based on the assumption that each individual is more or less equal, while vertical collectivism assumes that individuals are fundamentally different from each other. Social anarchist Alexander Berkman, who was a horizontal collectivist, argued that equality does not imply a lack of unique individuality, but an equal amount of freedom and equal opportunity to develop one’s own skills and talents, equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. Far from leveling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse, and only the repression of this free diversity results in leveling, in uniformity and sameness. Free opportunity and acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations. . . . Life in freedom, in anarchy will do more than liberate man merely from his present political and economic bondage. That will be only the first step, the preliminary to a truly human existence.
Indeed, horizontal collectivists argue that the idea of individuals sacrificing themselves for the “group” or “greater good” is nonsensical, arguing that groups are made up of individuals (including oneself) and are not a cohesive, monolithic entity separate from the self. But most social anarchists do not see themselves as collectivists or individualists, viewing both as illusory ideologies based on fiction .
Horizontal collectivists tend to favour democratic decision-making, while vertical collectivists believe in a strict chain of command. Horizontal collectivism stresses common goals, interdependence and sociability. Vertical collectivism stresses the integrity of the in-group (e.g. the family or the nation), expects individuals to sacrifice themselves for the in-group if necessary, and promotes competition between different in-groups.
Our nation is totally open to anyone and to anything, that is, unless, of course, you’re a Christian. And if that’s the case, then you’re likely to get more sympathy from a badger with minimal sleep than you will from the liberal left who are hard at work making your life hard.
The liberal, hypocritical, tolerant thought police of the 21st century are about as easy going with Christianity as Ike Turner was with Tina every time she botched a song.
The sport of the Left is Christian-suppression, and man, are they getting good at it. Check it out:
· Liberal, hypocritical, social de-constructors have effectively removed Christianity from our public schools and universities. They have completely deleted the truth concerning the massive role the Christian faith played in our Founding Fathers formulating this great land. And God help you if you, Christian teacher or student, attempt to re-introduce it.
· Liberal, hypocritical Hollywood-en heads routinely show Christians in television and film as cross-eyed morons who are repressed and offensive, buckle-shoed, GED killjoys sporting a 70-plus-pound Bible with a minus-70 IQ.
· Liberal, hypocritical activist judges, tanked up on triple espresso no-foam lattes and Maureen Dowd’s latest tweet, zealously misinterpret and misapply the Constitution to rid from American government and public life, any semblance of Christian thought. They do this with masturbatory preening glee, congratulating themselves for being Titans of religious freedom … protectors of their envisioned nuevo nation.
Hey, ludicrous Left: what’s up with your Christophobia? Why so intolerant, Ms. Tolerance? What are you afraid of? Are you afraid we’re going to bring dignity back to this country? Are you afraid righteousness is once again going to be re-introduced into our land, before you licentiously sink it?
Are you afraid of absolute truth being tabled into the public arena and ruining your randy relativism? Are you afraid of personal accountability and responsibility? Are you afraid that the moral law is going to wreck your amoral life?
Is that it? Is that why you’re working overtime to shut Christianity out of the public arena? Will Christianity ruin your narcissistic fantasy starring you as the center of the universe?
Listen, concerned Christian; even though the times are going to get rougher than Joan Rivers’ morning breath before they get any better in the United States of Liberal Acrimony, we must not acquiesce. It’s time, ecclesiastically and politically, to fight the tolerance movement’s intolerance of our faith, which was the faith of our Founding Fathers and the faith that has sustained our nation’s state of blessedness.
As Christians, we must preserve our rights and freedoms and not allow the Left to shove their Liberal crap down our collective throat. This means we are going to have to get off our collective butts and intellectually fight against the intolerance of Christianity by the “tolerant” liberal and hypocritical Left.
It’s hard for men to speak out on the issue of abortion and rape. First, men do not get pregnant, and second, men rarely get raped by women, although it does happen. Rape is not about sex. It’s about power and domination.
So when Todd Akin used the phrase “illegitimate rape,” it sounded chauvinistic. Is there any other kind of rape? Isn’t all rape “illegitimate”? By definition, rape is illegitimate.
I believe the reason so many men like Sean Hannity and Mitt Romney threw Akin under the bus so quickly is that there was no way they were going to win an argument with an already biased pro-Obama media and the pro-abortion attack machine that’s always on the march.
“Though I’ve previously written that the comment [by Congressman Akin] was a faux pas and unnecessarily uttered, I’d like to address the underlying implications of such a statement, which was very similar to Ron Paul’s phraseology about an ‘honest rape’ when he too was asked about abortion in the case of rape. Are legislators really to blame for implying that there are false claims of rape? Is there a history of illegitimate rape claims, particularly as it relates to this issue of pregnancy and rape? Do some women fabricate these claims? If so, who is to blame for any tendency in our society to question the veracity of rape victims’ accounts? Skeptical lawmakers, judges, juries, media, and the public, or the women who have cried wolf?
Remember that Rebecca is a victim and product of rape. When she was in law school she was beaten up by her “boyfriend” that left her with a broken jaw, loose teeth, and a crushed upper jaw. This experience led her into family law. She continues:
“As a young attorney, I was idealistic and naïve – absolutely indignant that any judge or Friend of the Court referee would dare question the claims of a victim of domestic violence. After all, she finally had the courage to leave the abusive situation after having been threatened, abused and terrorized. How on Earth could a judge or Friend of the Court referee doubt her account and refuse to grant, or dismiss, a Personal Protection Order? I thought that these people must be uncaring women-haters, showing deference only to men. Maybe they were even abusers themselves?!”
It was through experience that she learned that some of her clients lied about their claims of domestic violence so they could get the upper hand in a divorce or child custody dispute. “Finally, the reality struck me,” she writes. “These judges are skeptical because there are women who cry wolf. That’s when I began seeing the judges in a new light, and my resentment grew toward the women who lied. I saw the reality that my clients who really were abused had a difficult time with the court system because of these other women who were ruining it for the real victims.”
Because she needed extensive reconstructive dental work done, she had been referred to a free service of the Give Back A Smile Program. Because it was free and offered to people of domestic violence, she had to prove she was a “legitimate victim,” that she wasn’t a fraud. The scrutiny was not because the people involved in the program were not sensitive to the issue of rape; it was “the result of women who have cried wolf.”
Do women lie about being rape? Not all of them, and it’s the liars that make it bad for real victims. Rebecca Kiessling mentions “the Duke LaCrosse team false rape claim case.” But there’s an even more famous case that served as the basis of the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion case — the testimony of Norma McCorvey — Jane Roe. It was her claim of rape that set the case in motion. This is her testimony on January 21, 1998, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
“My name is Norma McCorvey. I’m sorry to admit that I’m the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade. The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court didn’t happen the way I said it did, pure and simple. I lied! Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffey needed an extreme case to make their client look pitiable. Rape seemed to be the ticket. What made rape even worse? A gang rape! It all started out as a little lie, but my little lie grew and became more horrible with each telling.”
The death of tens of millions of pre-born babies is the result of the pro-abortion community lying about rape. Rebecca Kiessling sums it up nicely:
“So the next time you hear anyone complaining about Todd Akin’s ‘legitimate rape’ remark, I want you to remember that abortion rights activists are the women who cried wolf. They are the ones who are squarely responsible for the skepticism we see today regarding women who claim to be pregnant by rape, and they’ve set an example for other women to lie about it too. For those on the left who criticize Akin, I can assuredly call you out as hypocrites.
Let’s petition to get Rebecca Kiessling to speak at the Republican National Convention. Every American should hear her story.
WHEN – he appointed cabinet members and several advisers who were tax cheats and socialists, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he appointed a Science Czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he appointed Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar who believes in “Explicit Consent,” harvesting human organs without family consent and allowing animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual and organizer of a group called Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network as Safe School Czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he appointed Mark Lloyd as Diversity Czar who believes in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth, who supports Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – Valerie Jarrett, an avowed Socialist, was selected as Obama’s Senior White House Advisor, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he appointed Carol Browner, a well known socialist as Global Warming Czar working on Cap and Trade as the nation’s largest tax, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as Green Energy Czar, who since had to resign when this was made known, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – Tom Daschle, Obama’s pick for Health and Human Services Secretary could not be confirmed because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – as President of the United States, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – his actions concerning the Middle East seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel, our long time ally, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops early-on when the Field Commanders said they were necessary to win, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions, and individuals that got him elected, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc., people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government, people said it didn’t matter.
Dr. David Barton is more of a historian than a Biblical speaker, but very famous for his knowledge of historical facts as well as Biblical truths.
Dr. David Barton – on Obama. “Respect the Office? Yes. Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say.
I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama. Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama! I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.
I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President!
Why am I doing this? It is because:
Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama’s, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right!
For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!
I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!
PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!
Majority rules in America, and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his “goals for America …” I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country! Any more compromise is more defeat!
I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America!
GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country!”
By: Ann Coulter
8/15/2012 05:11 PM
My smash best seller “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America” has just come out in paperback — and not a moment too soon! Democrats always become especially mob-like during presidential election campaigns.
The “root cause” of the Democrats’ wild allegations against Republicans, their fear of change, their slogans and insane metaphors, are all explained by mass psychology, diagnosed more than a century ago by the French psychologist Gustave Le Bon, on whose work much of my own book is based.
Le Bon’s 1896 book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” was carefully read by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in order to learn how to incite mobs. Our liberals could have been Le Bon’s study subjects.
With the country drowning in debt and Medicare and Social Security on high-speed bullet trains to bankruptcy, the entire Democratic Party refuses to acknowledge mathematical facts. Instead, they incite the Democratic mob to hate Republicans by accusing them of wanting to kill old people.
According to a 2009 report — before Obama added another $5 trillion to the national debt — Obama’s own treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, stated that in less than 10 years, spending on major entitlement programs, plus interest payments on the national debt, would consume 92 cents of every dollar in federal revenue.
That means no money for an army, a navy, rockets, national parks, food inspectors, air traffic controllers, highways, and so on. Basically, the entire federal budget will be required just to pay for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — and the cost of borrowing money to pay for these programs.
When Social Security was enacted in 1935, the average lifespan was 61.7 years. Today, it’s almost 79 and rising. But liberals believe the age at which people can begin collecting Social Security must never, ever be changed, even to save Social Security itself.
Mobs, according to Le Bon, have a “fetish-like respect” for tradition, except moral traditions because crowds are too impulsive to be moral. That’s why liberals say our Constitution is a “living, breathing” document that sprouts rights to gay marriage and abortion, but the age at which Social Security and Medicare benefits kick in is written in stone.
Le Bon says that it is lucky “for the progress of civilization that the power of crowds only began to exist when the great discoveries of science and industry had already been effected.” If “democracies possessed the power they wield today at the time of the invention of mechanical looms or of the introduction of steam-power and of railways, the realization of these inventions would have been impossible.”
Liberals exhibit this exact groupthink fear of science not only toward light bulbs and nuclear power, but also toward medical inventions. Thus, when a majority of the country objected to Obamacare on the grounds that — among many other reasons — a government takeover of health care would destroy medical innovation, liberals stared in blank incomprehension.
They believe every drug, every diagnosis, every therapy, every cure that will ever be invented, has already been invented. Their job is to spread all the existing cures, while demonizing and stymieing pharmaceutical companies that make money by inventing new drugs.
Democrats haven’t the slightest concern about who will formulate new remedies because they are enraged at profit making and suspicious of scientific advancement.
Apart from cures that will never be invented, liberal elites will be mostly untouched by the rotten medical care to which they are consigning the rest of us. Note how Democrats’ friends, such as government unions, immediately received waivers from Obamacare. Rich or connected liberals, such as George Soros, Warren Buffett, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, will always have access to the best doctors, just as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez do.
It is similar to the way that Democrats, who refuse to pass school choice, always seem to bypass the disastrous public schools for their own children, who end up at Sidwell Friends or St. Albans.
Democrats don’t worry about how bankrupting Social Security and destroying the job market hurts black people, bitter divorcees and young people, because they can always demagogue these one-party Democratic voters simply by repeating that Republicans are racist, hate women and aren’t cool like Obama.
The truth is irrelevant; only slogans and fear mongering delight mobs.
The rest of us are forced to live in a lawless universe of no new pharmaceuticals, foreign doctors, gay marriage, girl soldiers, a health care system run by the post office, and bankrupt Social Security and Medicare systems, because liberals can’t enjoy their wealth unless other people are living in squalor.
The country will have the economy of Uganda, but Democrats will be in total control.
According to a recognized Political Left spokesperson, the Romney/Ryan campaign is misrepresenting Obama Care. The Romney/Ryan campaign has stated that Presidents Obama’s plan takes half a trillion dollars out of Medicare to help pay for Obama Care. According to the apologist on Fox this morning, that half trillion dollars, in part, comes from the “massive fraud and over payments to hospitals under the current Medicare System. “WHAT DID YOU SAY?”
Typical of all other interviewers, that answer went unchallenged. The next question should have been, “When did the President Obama administration solve this problem saving Medicare for a few more years?” Isn’t that what you want to know? If they have solved the problem, then why keep that silent?
If they have solved the problem, doesn’t the money put in Medicare from taxpayers income checks belong in Medicare and not put somewhere else? The administration claims they are concerned about ending Medicare as we know it, and blame the Romney/Ryan campaign of proposing just that. Yet, by taking funds from Medicare, funded by all American tax payers, and using it for its unintended purpose, aren’t they ending Medicare for everyone in 2024?
The Romney/Ryan campaign’s proposal DOES NOT END MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT! Those 55 and older are no effected at all. For the younger American taxpayer, they will be given the choice of going on Medicare, or taking that same amount of money and acquiring a better policy. For those American taxpayers that can afford to pay more, they will be able to get the quality of coverage they want. Al others will be covered as written as established.
This morning a homosexual activist walked into a Christian Lobbyist office and began shooting. If not for the security man, the gunman would have killed or injured untold others. As it is, only the security man
gave his life to save the others by was shot in the arm and then disarmed the gunman. The gunman is quoted as asking the security man not to kill him because the reason for his being there and shooting up the place was not “about you. It’s about what these people stand for.”
I told you that the Professional Pot Stirrers were keeping the pot of hate so stirred that this kind of thing would happen. It is only the beginning. It will happen much more as the hateful rhetoric of the Political Left gets more shrill, more hateful, more distorted and more demonized. They want this kind of violence so they can blame it on the Right, especially those that disagree with their stands. The Political Party that proclaims it is the “Tolerant Party”, practices INTOLERANCE with anyone that does not share their point of view. Chick-fil-A anyone?
How sad that we have allowed our Society to fall so far that we have these circumstances. Express your God endowed, Constitutional Right, opinion in a public setting and you are labeled a HATER or some other label the Left has determined fits anyone expressing differing convictions. Hate breeds hate. Add to that dynamic the Professional Pot Stirrers efforts at bring the pot to boiling over, and riots and violence is the result.
Let us work harder that ever in history to get the truth out there and get every America Loving Patriot the get off their apathy and vote to rid ourselves of these Collectivist, Socialist, Extreme Left Wing cancers.
Home / 2012 Election /
By Clash Daily / 12 August 2012 / 35 Comments
by Matt Barber
With the exception of one column previously penned, I pray this becomes my most widely read to date.
The secular left has mastered use of the Internet to further its extremist goals. In fact, President Obama’s web-based “Organizing for America” propaganda machine may have given him the 2008 election.
Let’s beat them at their own game.
To that end, I have a strange request. I’m asking each God-fearing, freedom-loving American who reads this column to forward it, post it, tweet it, print it out and give it to every pastor, priest or cleric you know. If you don’t know any, give it to someone who does.
Why? I agree with Barack Obama that November 2012 represents the most important election of our lifetimes – perhaps our history. Of course, that’s where my agreement with Mr. Obama both begins and abruptly ends.
Here’s the operable question: Do we want America “fundamentally transformed” to mirror the secular-socialist ideals of the radical leftist currently “occupying” the White House?
In Barack Obama’s America, individual freedom is trampled beneath jackboots as a matter of course. It’s already happening at an unprecedented rate.
One need only look to the HHS mandate forcing Christian groups – both Catholic and Protestant – to violate, under penalty of law, biblical prohibitions against abortion homicide.
Or consider recent attempts by multiple elected officials, all Democrats, to shutdown Chick-fil-A – a private, Christian-owned business – simply because its leadership holds the biblical view of marriage.
Is this George Washington’s America, or Joseph Stalin’s Russia?
It’s definitely not your father’s USA.
Instead, wouldn’t we prefer the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers? A constitutional republic wherein individual liberty – whether economic, First Amendment or Second Amendment-related – is sacrosanct and off limits?
Pastors, you’re it. You’re our front line of defense. It’s up to you to rally the troops. Now begins the second American Revolution and, as with the first, it’s on you – men of the cloth – to take the lead.
That is, if you hope to remain free to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Speaking of chicken: In recent years there’s been an epidemic of cultural inaction exhibited by far too many ministers of the gospel. It’s fear-based. “Oh, I don’t talk about political issues,” they say. “You know, ‘separation of Church and State’ and all that.”
If this is you – and only you and our Lord know for sure – you’ve been deceived by the enemies of God. You’ve chosen the easy way out – the path of least resistance. This is something Christ, whom all Christians are called to emulate, never did – not once.
So, respectfully, man-up, Padre! Be the “salt and light of the world,” as Christ so admonished.
But you don’t have to go it alone. There are detailed, easily digestible tools available. Civil-rights firm Liberty Counsel, for instance, is distributing more than 100,000 copies of “Silence is Not an Option,” a concise, though comprehensive, DVD and printed material collection informing pastors and churches about what is permissible regarding political activity (Please, get it for your church at LC.org or by calling 1-800-671-1776).
“The church must be empowered to confront the assaults on our culture, our faith, and our freedom,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. ”I don’t want any pastor, church leader or lay person to say, ‘What more could I have done to protect life and liberty?’”
“Silencing people of faith in the public square has always been the goal of those who realize the influence that pastors, churches and people of faith have on elections. I want pastors to remove the muzzle and replace it with a megaphone,” he said. “Pastors and churches have a lot of freedom to address biblical and moral issues, to educate people about the candidates, and to encourage people to vote. Not one church has ever lost its tax-exemption for endorsing or opposing candidates or for supporting or opposing local, state or federal laws.”
Did you get that? Despite hundreds of thousands of threatening letters sent by hard-left groups like the ACLU and Barry Lynn’s Americans United, not a single church has lost tax-exemption for socio-political activity – zip, zero, nada. Not even for endorsing candidates from the pulpit.
Indeed, if these anti-Christian bullies had been around two-and-a-half centuries ago, and our forefathers had paid them any mind, we may never have had the first American Revolution.
Don’t let them halt the second.
We’re on the precipice of the abyss, and, pastors, I think you know it. But know this too: There’s a whole lot relating to both culture and politics you can both say and do, and very little – if anything – you can’t.
Churches can educate about political, moral and biblical issues. These kinds of issues – whether abortion, marriage, feeding the poor or any community issue – are never off limits from the pastor’s pulpit, even if politicians are also talking about them. “Silence is Not an Option” systematically addresses the misrepresentations used to muzzle America’s pastors and Christian leaders.
Leading up to Ronald Reagan’s landslide presidential victory in 1980, Rev. Jerry Falwell captured the crux of the church’s apathy problem: “What is wrong in America today?” he asked. “We preachers – and there are 340,000 of us who pastor churches – we hold the nation in our hand. And I say this to every preacher: We are going to stand accountable before God if we do not stand up and be counted.”
Dr. Falwell’s words ring no less true today.
Imagine the benefit to our culture if thousands of churches across America registered millions of Christians to vote. How about pledge-drives wherein pastors ask tens-of-millions of Christians to simply commit to voting biblical values?
The possibilities are limitless.
Proverbs 4:18 reminds us: “The path of the righteous is like the morning sun, shining ever brighter till the full light of day.”
Shine bright, salt and light. Don’t be choked into dark silence.
Because silence is not an option.
It can’t be.
Matt Barber(@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)
You must be logged in to post a comment.