Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘ideology’

More From The “Thousand Words” Files


waving flag anyone who supports abortion atheism Bills-Speech defaced defend the rights of conscious fascism fetus for everyone frank-m-davis-5901 freedom of speech fund Hypocrisy lion body parts my 23rd abortion Rush-FB1 Safe-Six Side-Deal-600-LI ticking Vid-Kid-590-cdn Why I stopped performing abortions In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Democrats label lazy welfare recipients as ‘working families’


CALIFORNIA VOTER ALERT
A guide to the 2014 California propositions

Welfare is often unpopular with the voters who fund it through their taxes. So California politicians and academics who support it are now redefining welfare recipients as “workers” even if they do almost no work, and as members of “working families” if they live in the same household as someone who does a tiny bit of work. By doing this, they hope to brand critics of welfare as “anti-worker.”

Fifty-six percent of welfare recipients are in “working families,” according to a misleading recent report by the University of California at Berkeley’s left-wing Center for Labor Research and Education. But the report reached that false conclusion by defining even very lazy people as “workers”: “We define working families as those that have at least one family member who works 27 or more weeks per year and 10 or more hours per week.”

But working just ten hours a week for only about half the weeks in the year doesn’t make you a typical worker, or show industriousness. As Breitbart notes, “If someone is only working ten hours a week, there is probably time to find a second job, rather than rely on government assistance.” The Center that put out this ridiculous “study” is funded not just by taxpayers, but also by government employee unions like AFSCME whose members are hired to administer such welfare programs.Liberalism a mental disorder 2

That slanted “study” coincides with a recent push by California’s governor to expand welfare for so-called “workers” who actually do very little work. The Associated Press reported that Gov. Jerry Brown (D) is

proposing a $380 million earned income tax credit” for “as many as 825,000 families and up to 2 million Californians. “It’s just a straight deliverance of funding to people who are working very hard and are earning very little money, so in that sense I think it does a lot of good things,” Brown said of the tax credit. The average tax credit would be $460 a year with a maximum credit of $2,653 for families with three or more children, to complement the federal tax credit program. It would be available to individuals with incomes of less than $6,580, or up to $13,870 for families with three or more dependents.Picture11

For an individual to have an income of less than $6,580 at the California minimum wage of $9 per hour (and thus qualify for this welfare), he would have to work no more than 731 hours per year, or 14 hours per week. That’s not “working very hard,” Governor Brown. The Associated Press story, which reads like a press release for the governor’s proposed budget, never even questions his strange claim about this being hard work. The AP wrongly calls this huge, record-setting budget “a cautious approach to spending” even though it does nothing about California’s massive unfunded pension problems, and is balanced only due to tax increases that are supposedly temporary but that most California Democrats now want to make permanent, such as those in Proposition 30.Picture7

As the Los Angeles Daily Newspoints out:

In 2013, California’s public-employee pension systems—including those for police, firefighters and teachers—were carrying an estimated aggregate of $198 billion in unfunded liability. That’s 31 times the unfunded liability 10 years earlier.Picture8

Governor Brown has largely turned a blind eye to pension-spiking by CALPERS that will explode California pension costs by billions of dollars, half-heartedly objecting to only one of the “ninety-nine categories used” in its “scheme.”

As profligate and irresponsible as his budget is, it could have been even worse: Jerry Brown is a model of responsibility and common sense compared to California’s money-wasting left-wing legislature and its big-spending Democratic leadership (the state legislature is two-thirds Democrat and only one-third Republican). The AP quotes Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) demanding yet more “investments” (the trendy euphemism for government spending) and promising that “we can and will do more” to increase such spending.  State legislative leaders have sought to expand Medicaid and other government healthcare programs to cover illegal immigrants at a cost of at least $1.3 billion annually, which Brown has not yet fully endorsed, although his budget does earmark the more modest sum of “$62 million to begin enrolling low-income immigrants in Medi-Cal, California’s version of Medicaid, on the assumption that President Barack Obama will prevail in a court battle over his executive order.”burke

The relabeling of welfare recipients as “workers” even when they do little work echoes the approach of the progressive ideological guru George Lakoff, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, who advocates reframing the political debate in deceptive ways. As The Atlantic noted:

Lakoff offers no new policy ideas. Instead he suggests that the Democrats reposition the ones they already have, and spruce up some unpopular terminology while they’re at it. He advocates referring to ‘trial lawyers’ as ‘public-protection attorneys,’ replacing ‘taxes’ with ‘membership fees,’ and generally couching the entire Democratic message in palatable—even deceptive—language in order to simplify large ideas and disguise them behind innocent but powerful-sounding phrases.more evidence

The Associated Press sometimes follows the deceptive Lakoff ideological approach when it comes to government spending, labeling spending on education and social programs as an “investment” even when the money spent will not be recouped later through higher tax revenue, making the reference to “investment” misleading.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Hans Bader

Hans BaderHans Bader is Counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington. After studying economics and history at the University of Virginia and law at Harvard, he practiced civil-rights, international-trade, and constitutional law. Hans also writes for CNS News and has appeared on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal.”
OARLogo Picture6

5 questions to ask a liberal progressive


http://allenbwest.com/2014/06/five-questions-ask-liberal-progressive/#MwMGe9uRbEErSrpu.99

Written by Allen West on June 19, 2014

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Greetings from our nation’s Capitol where I am to speak this afternoon at the Faith and Trigger the VoteFreedom Coalition. And as always, I enjoyed a nice early morning 5-mile run from the bat cave over to the D.C. mall — doggone it is more humid up here than South Florida.

As I was pounding the pavement, I came up with a list of questions I’d like to pose to a liberal progressive. Well, for every mile it seems I came up with one — glad I didn’t try running 8 miles this morning!

 

 

Here you go:

1. If former President George W. Bush was un-American for adding $4 trillion to the national debt, then what is President Barack Hussein Obama who is on his way to adding $8 trillion — and still has two more years to go? Yep, under Obama the national debt has risen from $10.67 trillion to almost $17.5 trillion.

2. If as Obama states, “we leave no man behind,” then what of Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi, Pastor Saeed Abedini and Kenneth Bae — not to mention still-imprisoned Meriam Yahia Ibrahim – who had her chains removed after giving birth to her daughter, Maya? (And by the way, she is still under a death sentence under Sharia law for marrying a Christian). Nah, those folks don’t help Obama’s political agenda and certainly aren’t as important as recognizing illegal immigrant children “dreamers” at the White House.

3. When the average price of gasoline hit $2.50 a gallon, liberals and their media accomplices went apoplectic (you may have to define that word to a liberal friend) on George W. Bush. Why so silent now, when it’s $3.67?

4. If the late and former President Richard Nixon resigned over a bad case of “breaking and entering” (and the liberal media made a big hoopla over that), what does it take for Barack Hussein Obama to consider the same? Or does the color of skin trump content of character in America now? By the way, I’m planning on my computer crashing next year around tax return time.

5. If it is racist to disagree with the proven failed policies of Barry Soetoro, oops, I mean Barack Hussein Obama, then Truth The New Hate Speechwhat is it when liberal progressives disrespect, dismiss, denigrate, demean, disparage, discredit and seek to destroy black conservative Republicans? Funny, all those “D” words come from the Democrat party. Don’t believe me, just look for the responses to this post from liberal progressives (so predictable).

Now, just so you’re aware, be careful when asking these questions to be outside the range of spittle and frothing of the mouth. As well, stand clear so as not to be struck by a liberal progressives wild arm-flinging tantrums as they throw themselves on the floor in a mad rage. These are the telltale symptoms of liberals exposed to the truth — similar to exposing vampires to light. But know that this reaction affirms you are right on the issues and confirms the liberal progressive inability to intellectually respond.

Never Argue Group
Article collective closing

American Gestapo?


Cleta Mitchell to Newsmax: IRS Scandal Reaches to White House

Tuesday, 14 May 2013 01:08 PM

By Melanie Batley and Kathleen Walter  http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/irs-obama-tea-party/2013/05/14/id/504419?s=al&promo_code=137DF-1

 

IRS-Target-590-LICleta Mitchell, one of Washington’s most respected elections attorneys, told Newsmax she has tangible proof that high-ranking IRS officials in Washington were fully aware of the agency’s campaign to target conservative groups for heightened scrutiny, despite their denials.

And she thinks the president knew about the practice, too. If proven, she said, it could be an impeachable offense.

Mitchell, in an interview with Newsmax TV on Tuesday, said she was told by a Cincinnati IRS agent that applications by two of her conservative clients were being processed by — and would ultimately be approved or denied in — Washington.

She said she also is aware of nearly 100 other conservative groups that were being targeted by Washington.

“There were nearly 100 groups across the country that got the very egregious set of letters from the IRS that were almost identical and they came from offices all over the country so I know of at least 85 to 90, maybe more, organizations,” said Mitchell, who represents six groups which say they have been targeted, including the King Street Patriots and True the Vote.

“If they had the name ‘tea party’ or they had the word ‘patriots’ or if their mission was smaller government or study the Constitution, believe it or not, that would cause the IRS to say, ‘Oh, we better investigate these groups.'”

View video; http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/irs-obama-tea-party/2013/05/14/id/504419?s=al&promo_code=137DF-1#ooid=JtMGxtYjrUf3-diAyxhdltjMeeu_tejc

She added she had two clients whose group’s purpose was to lobby against Obamacare, both of which received extra IRS scrutiny. And of the clients who have gone public with their claims, they received “incredible scrutiny, voluminous requests for information, documents, almost like having been audited before they even are an exempt organization.”

In the case of one such client, she and her family subsequently became targets for audits to their personal and business tax returns, and were even visited by three different government agencies. She also knows of other groups who had surprise visits from the FBI after they applied for IRS status.

Mitchell said she doesn’t believe the president or the White House was uninvolved in the IRS activities, as the administration has claimed.

“I’ve thought for some time that this is politically motivated and that’s the reason it was happening. And, as I said, I’ve been doing this for more than 20 years and I’ve never seen anything like this until 2009, 2010. And the only thing that changed was we had a different administration,” she said.

“We know the White House used the Department of Health and Human Services to try to silence critics about Obamacare. So if we know they used HHS, why wouldn’t they also use the IRS or other federal agencies to try to silence political critics?”

Mitchell credits Congress for investigating the matter but says they have had limited effectiveness because she believes the IRS has lied even to lawmakers during hearings last year.

“They’ve been very helpful but the fact is, the IRS has lied and covered up, even to the members of Congress,” she said. “The problem is they’ve had hearings — the IRS commissioner basically lied to Congress last year when he appeared before Congress and they asked him about this targeting conservative groups and he said it wasn’t true. Well, no, we find out yes, it was true.”

She added, “They may try to say it was low-level people. It was not low-level people. They weren’t in Cincinnati. It was being directed out of Washington, and I have them on record saying that.”

Mitchell said the IRS practices are in violation of federal law.

She said it’s “a criminal offense to misuse information submitted by a taxpayer or an entity, anybody who submits anything to the IRS. The IRS agents are limited in what they can do with it, the scope of what they can say and do with it. So, clearly, the federal law has been broken.”

Asked whether it would be an impeachable offense if it emerged that the president or his officials were behind the IRS’ practices, Mitchell said, “Well, it certainly was for Richard Nixon 40 years ago this week.”

She added, “Isn’t that ironic? The House of Representatives passed articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon 40 years ago this week on May 18, and one of those was misuse of the IRS to go after political enemies.”

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

 

Why is This Important? Read on for the answer


Ariel Castro, Cleveland Kidnapper, Is a Registered Democrat

By / 9 May 2013 / 147 Comments  http://clashdaily.com/2013/05/ariel-castro-cleveland-kidnapper-is-a-registered-democrat/

Screen Shot 2013-05-09 at 3.34.55 PMAccording to voter registration records, Ariel Castro, the Cleveland kidnapper, is a registered Democrat.  He was also the alleged leader among the three Castro brothers, who were arrested this week, and the owner of the house at 2207 Seymour Ave., where the three abducted local women had been kept in captivity for over a decade.

Why is this important?  Whenever a crime or a scandal captures national attention, the pattern in the mainstream media is to either identify the culprit as a Republican or hold silence — in which case we can rest assured that the culprit is a Democrat.

When the identity or the party affiliation is yet unknown, the pattern is to speculate publicly about the possibility of the criminal being a conservative, Christian, white, Republican, and a Tea Party member — and never that he could be a Hispanic Democrat voter playing bass in a meringue band.

In today’s divisive climate, the identity of a perpetrator is always a political issue, especially when a crime is committed by men against women.  According to the Daily News, “What the neighbors saw was terrifying and dehumanizing: Naked women on dog leashes, crawling in the dirt. A lady clutching an infant and pounding on a window for help.”

If any of the brothers were a Republican, this news would have been trumpeted by the mainstream media as tangible proof of the Republican War on Women — a narrative invented by Democrat strategists and maintained by the media in a successful effort to defeat Republican candidates in the 2012 election cycle.

Read more: americanthinker.com

Is This Man The Mastermind Behind The Benghazi Cover Up?


by

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/is-this-man-the-mastermind-behind-the-benghazi-cover-up/

 

National Security Council speechwriter B

I wrote yesterday about how the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) knew that the attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 was a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda operatives. We know the Obama White House put out the story for nearly a week that it was just Muslims upset over a benign YouTube video. In spite of knowing what was going on and having the ability to intervene, the Obama administration did nothing to stop or assist Americans who they knew were being attacked by Al-Qaeda. Instead, they chose to cover it up and intimidate witnesses. Stephen F. Hayes has an excellent piece at the Weekly Standard titled The Benghazi Talking Points, in which he fingers the man he believes is the main person behind the Benghazi cover-up, Ben Rhodes.

Of course, one would immediately have to wonder about those who would be around a man who has vowed to stand with the Muslims instead of America. If you recall, Barack Obama made a speech in Cairo, Egypt to an audience which included the Muslim Brotherhood, in which he distorted the Qur’an to put it in a good light and then attempted to make out like Islam had made great contributions to both America and the world. That speech was written by Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy speechwriter and now a part of a his National Security Council.

 

Hayes writes in his article about the talking points that were first put out to officials. He writes:

The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.

hayestp.img_assist_custom-497x1400

There is little information about what happened at that meeting of the Deputies Committee. But according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above). Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests. 

Ed Lasky writes concerning Rhodes, “Ben Rhodes should be called to account for trying to divert blame away from Islamic terrorists and the Obama team members whose feckless negligence led to the Benghazi massacre.”

“I have previously written about Ben Rhodes and his role in the Obama White House,” writes Lasky. “It is shameful that this ‘kid’ (he is all of 35) has been given any responsibility at all in our government. In ‘Does it bother anyone that this person is the Deputy National Security Adviser?’ I noted his problematic background for someone given so much power by Obama. But then again he does specialize in fiction-writing. He earned a master’s degree in fiction-writing from New York University just a few years ago . He did not have a degree in government, diplomacy, national security; nor has he served in the CIA, or the military. He was toiling away not that long ago on a novel called ‘The Oasis of Love” about a mega church in Houston, a dog track, and a failed romance. ”

Lasky concludes that Ben Rhodes is the man that attempted to whitewash Islamists and the Obama administration, not only in the Cairo speech, but in the talking points promoted by the Obama White House in the days following the attack on Benghazi that left four Americans dead.

I guess we’ll wait and see if he is even called as a witness this by the House in this week’s hearings.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/is-this-man-the-mastermind-behind-the-benghazi-cover-up/#ixzz2SeesW6VP

 

 

Tyranny Continues to Grow


CA Governor Signs Law Allowing Confiscation of Firearms

On May 1, California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation that allows law enforcement to confiscate handguns and assault rifles from Californians who bought the weapons legally but have since had a disqualifying “criminal conviction or serious mental illness.”

Legislators believe up to 20,000 Californians will fall under this law, which could mean up to 40,000 weapons need to be confiscated. The legislation “allocates $24 million in surplus funds” to hire “dozens of special agents” to help recover the weapons.

Since California keeps a database of gun owners, they know where every gun is–or where it’s supposed to be–and they’ll use that database to locate them.

Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said the money California has spent to maintain a “tracking program” on firearms has paid off and is now giving the lawmakers “the opportunity to confiscate [these guns].”

No word on when the confiscation will begin.

The Persecution of the Church Grows Stronger


Pentagon: Religious Proselytizing is Not Permitted

Pentagon: Religious Proselytizing is Not Permitted

By Todd Starnes

Religious liberty groups have grave concerns after they learned the Pentagon is vetting its guide on religious tolerance with a group that compared Christian evangelism to “rape” and advocated that military personnel who proselytize should be court martialed.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is calling on the Air Force to enforce a regulation that they believe calls for the court martial of any service member caught proselytizing.

President Mikey Weinstein and others from his organization met privately with Pentagon officials on April 23. He said U.S. troops who proselytize are guilty of sedition and treason and should be punished – by the hundreds if necessary – to stave off what he called a “tidal wave of fundamentalists.”

“Someone needs to be punished for this,” Weinstein told Fox News. “Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.”

boykin

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Fox News he was stunned that the Pentagon would be taking counsel and advice from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

“Why would military leadership be meeting with one of the most rabid atheists in America to discuss religious freedom in the military,” Perkins said. “That’s like consulting with China on how to improve human rights.”

The FRC has launched a petition drive urging Defense Sec. Chuck Hagel to protect the religious freedom of troops “and not to proceed with the purge of religion within the ranks called for by anti-Christian activists.”

Pentagon officials met with Weinstein and his group were to discuss a policy called “Air Force Culture, Air Force Standards,” published on Aug. 7, 2012.

Section 2.11 requires “government neutrality regarding religion.”

“Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual’s free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion,” the regulation states.

Military leaders were admonished not to use their position to “promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.”

Weinstein said it’s time for the Air Force to enforce the regulation – with zeal.

“If a member of the military is proselytizing in a manner that violates the law, well then of course they can be prosecuted,” he said. “We would love to see hundreds of prosecutions to stop this outrage of fundamentalist religious persecution.”

He compared the act of proselytizing to rape.

“It is a version of being spiritually raped and you are being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators,” he told Fox News.

He said there is a time and a place for those in uniform to share their faith – but he took issues with fundamentalism that he says is causing widespread problems in the military.

“When those people are in uniform and they believe there is no time, place or manner in which they can be restricted from proselytizing, they are creating tyranny, oppression, degradation, humiliation and horrible, horrible pain upon members of the military,” he said.

Perkins said the military regulations have “Weinstein’s fingerprints all over it.”

“It threatens to treat service members caught witnessing as enemies of the state,” he said, referring to a Washington Post article highlighting Weinstein’s meeting with Pentagon officials. “Non-compliance, the Pentagon suggests, even from ordained chaplains could result in court-martialing on a case-by-case basis.”

The Pentagon confirmed to Fox News that Christian evangelism is against regulations.

“Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense, LCDR Nate Christensen said in a written statement. He declined to say if any chaplains or service members had been prosecuted for such an offense.

“Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis and it would be inappropriate to speculate on the outcome in specific cases,” he said.

Ron Crews, the executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, warns that the Air Force policy would “significantly impact the religious liberties of Air Force personnel.”

“Saying that a service member cannot speak of his faith is like telling a service member he cannot talk about his spouse or children,” Crews said. “I do not think the Air Force wants to ban personnel from protected religious speech, and I certainly hope that it is willing to listen to the numerous individuals and groups who protect military religious liberty without demonizing service members.”

In an interview with the Washington Post, Weinstein called proselytizing a “national security threat.”

“And what the Pentagon needs to understand is that it is sedition and treason,” he told the newspaper. “It should be punished.”

Perkins said it was troubling the Obama Administration would place so much trust in someone like Weinstein.

“Unfortunately, it appears our military is on a forced march away from the very freedoms they are sworn to protect,” he said. “This language from Weinstein that Christians who share their faith or offer comfort to others from their faith in Jesus Christ is “sedition and treason” is a treasonous statement in and of itself.”

But Weinstein said they count thousands of Protestants among their ranks – and said they are simply going after fundamentalists.

“As soon as we find a fundamentalist Muslim, atheist, Jewish person or anybody else, we will be happy to fight them – but so far they have been few and far between,” he said.

Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, an executive vice president with the Family Research Council, told Fox News that he’s deeply concerned by what he call a pattern of attacks on Christianity within the military.

“Mickey Weinstein has a very visceral hated of Christianity and those who are Christians,” he said. “He’d like to see it eliminated from the military entirely.”

If the Air Force policy is implemented, Boykin said Christians who speak of their faith “could now be prosecuted as enemies of the state.”

“This has the potential to destroy military recruiting across the services as Americans realize that their faith will be suppressed by joining the military,” Boykin said.

In the meantime, Weinstein and his group said they will continue to push for the Pentagon to fully implement its ban on proselytizing.

“There is a time, place and manner in which proselytizing is not only allowed, but it’s something we support among our Christian clients,” Weinstein said. “However, you can’t scream fire in a crowded theater and you can’t scream Jesus in a crowded theater at certain times, places, and in certain manners.”

Sarah Palin and Mark Levin say you need to get Todd’s new book – “Dispatches From Bitter America.” Click here to get your copy!

 

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil . . .” – Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)


PLEASE take the time to read the entire article I’ve published below. This man says what I have been wanting to say but lack the articulation he has. – Jerry Broussard

How to Take Back the Country, Step One. . .

Written on Sunday, April 28, 2013 by

index

 

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil . . . – Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

Four is five, and five is four.

In my column, The Line, I explained the underlying core issue dividing our country and why it’s time to draw the line. If you’ve stepped across and joined me on this side of the line, welcome to the breed of Lt. Col. Travis. This column will lay out one of the greatest weapons we can use to win the ideological war. This article is a little lengthy and requires some concentration, but if you cozy up with a drink and some time, you’ll be glad you did.

A couple of weeks ago I was talking with a good friend about the state of the country. He quoted Isaiah 5:20 and said, “I always wondered how a person could call ‘evil good, and good evil,’ but it’s obvious, it’s happening now.” He was right. It’s happening now, and we’re allowing it.

The power of words is remarkable. As a former stage hypnotist, current speechwriter, and law student I well understand the effect certain words have on the mind. One or two words can change the entire perception of a sentence, and therefore, a thought.

This is what happened to our country. Over the years, one or two words, here and there, created a dramatic shift in the populous toward the liberal agenda. Ironically, no one has brought it to light. From my expertise in words, I believe that if conservative pundits and leaders will adopt the tactic that I explain below, and aggressively use it in their media interactions, we will see the populous shift back to supporting constitutional principles.

First, how it’s happening.

To understand how society has been manipulated by words, let’s take a look at the infamous math riddle George Orwell made famous. In his book, 1984, Orwell explained the slogan “2+2 = 5” as a dogma that the Party presented as truth. The reason for this was because the actual fact that two and two equaled four was politically inexpedient. Since the logic explaining why 2+2 = 5 is bent, the conclusion stood only because the Party said so. The result was indubitable deference to the Party: whatever it said, was the controlled truth.

The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?” – George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

Interestingly, 2+2 can, through theory, mathematically equal 5. This gives a spooky awe to Orwell’s proposition. I’ve seen several different theorems that explain how two and two can make five but, in my opinion, two are especially intriguing. The trickiest theorem essentially states that upon starting with the truthful proposition that 20 = 20 (x = x), we can follow a logical sequence of “if thens” to finally prove that 4 = 5 (x = y).

Read the following slowly and do the math with me. Understanding this will prove both necessary and important when I explain how the left has used the tactic.

Instead of going through the full theorem, I’ll sum it up this way. To deduce from 20 = 20 that 4 = 5, you must use square roots. If one takes the equation 4 – 4.5, solves it and then squares it (-.5 x -.5) you’ll get .25; which is the exact same answer as 5 – 4.5 solved and squared (.5 x .5 = .25). So, if the square of the first equation, 4 – 4.5, equals the square of the second, 5 – 4.5, then the two equations are equal to each other. If they equal each other, then we may skip squaring each side and just work with their original forms. So, we have 4 – 4.5 = 5 – 4.5. We then solve each side to get -.5 = .5. Now add 4.5 to each side and, bam! The truth that 20 = 20 has now been deduced to show that it is the exact same as 4 = 5 (or 2+2 = 5) (new truth).

Of course, the presentation is much more convoluted than that, but those who are brushed up will spot the flaw. The problem is that, while the squaring the two equations creates the same result (.25 = .25), a negative number is not the same as a positive number. In other words, -.5 is not the same as .5, even though they both square up to equal .25. It’s all in the “if then” presentation. It’s a matter of the conclusion versus logic.

The second theorem goes through similar steps, but in the end its flaw is that it requires dividing by 0. The novice mathematician doing mental math performs the function despite the error and arrives at the controlled conclusion. The problem is that it’s mathematically impossible to divide any number by zero.

Now, welcome back. So, what does all this fuzzy math have to do with the left’s words? Well, if 4 can be 5, then of course it’s possible for good to be evil, and evil to be good. Fuzzy math teaches us “doublespeak.”

Although the term “doublespeak” is not explicitly used in 1984, most attribute its origins to George Orwell. The basic concept is to deliberately disguise, distort, or reverse the meaning of words. In mathematical terms, the target word (x) is assigned a new definition (y). But the definition has a flaw (like dividing by zero or presenting a negative to be equal to a positive). However, with the right presentment, the flaw can be overlooked and I can make good become evil and visa versa. Soon enough the majority of the population believes the new truth, even those on the right.

Let’s turn to some examples. Since the Gosnell trial hasn’t been respectively covered, let’s use that topic.

Somewhere along the line, we accepted the labels of “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” How ridiculous. Where is the word “abortion”? After all, that is the beginning point (20 = 20). The left justifies their it by claiming their label means they support “a woman’s right to choose.” Choose what exactly? To own an AR-15? To support cutting entitlements and scaling back government? Ending affirmative action? Freeing the market from burdensome regulations? Supporting traditional marriage as the only definition of marriage? No, the left vilifies all of these. They support a woman’s choice to have an abortion. Period. So, let’s call it what it is. They are not “pro-choice,” they are “pro-abortion.”

Start saying “pro-abortion” on a regular basis and watch what happens! Since the word “abortion” doesn’t feel very good, I suspect you will see an immediate back-pedal. “No, no, no. We aren’t ‘pro-abortion,’ we just support a woman’s right to choose, for herself, to have an abortion.” Illogical. The pro-abortionist tries to equate positives and negatives. One cannot support a person’s right to choose an abortion without necessarily supporting the practice itself. Their argument is the same as me supporting a woman’s choice to kill her neighbor. “I’m not ‘pro-neighbor-killing myself, but I support a woman’s choice to do it.”

Oh, but neighbor killing isn’t the same as abortion because the neighbor is alive? Now we’re dividing by zero. Is the living cell in the womb not just as alive as the living cell in the neighbor?

Oh? The cell is alive, but the fetus isn’t viable? Nonsense. The 6-moth old baby, the 6-day old newborn, and even the 6-year old child are just as dependent on their mother for survival as the 6-day old zygote.

And deeper we go, exposing how pro-abortionists divide by zero to make abortion equal “supporting a woman’s choice.” This is how four has become five . . . how evil has become good. Words and their presentation.

No. “Pro-choice” is pro-abortion. And pro-abortion is pro-dismembering fetuses. Hmmmm, maybe we should start using the latter term?

Feel the power of words? And that is just one example.

Try “affirmative action.” Break down its logic and you get the actual fact: race preference or race favoring. (Believe me, I’ve studied the line of affirmative action cases. You’d be amazed at the preference systems colleges have tried to give non-Caucasians.)

“Gun control” is doublespeak for gun taking through regulation. The faulty premise here is that the left claims “gun control” bills do not come out and call for an actual gun confiscation. This is their presentation: “No one is taking away your guns.” But they mask the negative integer. The regulations are actually so strict that it becomes nearly impossible to obtain or keep your guns and ammo. It is, at the very core, confiscation via regulation. (Regulatory takings are unconstitutional under Supreme Court case law. See also my column, The Emporer’s Pen and the Extent of His Power for more on this.)

“Entitlements” is doublespeak for dependence.

“An act of terror” is doublespeak for terrorist attack, or more bluntly, and as is the case in most situations, Islamic terrorist attack.

“Assault rifle.” Laughable. I would argue that every rifle can “assault,” since that word is only a noun and never an adjective. This is doublespeak for semi-automatic rifle.

And of course, “political correctness” is doublespeak for, well, doublespeak.

The list goes on, but the point is this, the left has successfully made evil good by using faulty premises and great presentation. The left is controlling the narrative because the right has rolled over and accepted doublespeak simply because the left has said so. Sadly, I can think of only one political leader who has ever challenged the flaw on the air. Everyone else is deathly afraid of being called “racist,” “sexist,” or whatever (do we need to break down the logic on those words too?).

It’s time to fight back with words.

I call on every patriot, pundit, and conservative who has a voice and a far-reaching medium to quit accepting the left’s manipulative doublespeak and start using truthspeak. Remember, one or two words can change the entire perception of a sentence, and therefore, a thought. Truthspeak resets the public’s perception and thoughts back to the original truth. This is why the left tries to eviscerate leaders like Allen West. Truthspeak is the left’s primary enemy, and he’s the only one I can think of off the top of my head who publicly speaks it.

Therefore, my fellow Americans, let us declare in our dialogues and monologues, our posts and our tweets, speeches and interviews that two and two do not equal five simply because it feels better to say. Good feelings were never the predicate of truth. Two and two make four, but only for as long as we guard its underlying logic. No more passive defensiveness. Go on the offensive! A Spade is not an upside down heart, so why accept the flaw and call it one? Call a spade a spade! Flood their minds with truth and watch the public support for the left buckle and fall.

Mark. My. Words.

That choice is yours to make. That choice—the dedication to one’s highest potential—is made by accepting the fact that the noblest act you have ever performed is the act of your mind in the process of grasping that two and two make four.” – John Galt

Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/how-to-take-back-the-country-step-one/#ixzz2RosAtYlw

 

 

Mother Jones: ‘Right-Wing Extremism’ Killed More Since 9/11 Than Islamic Terror


by Ben Shapiro 25 Apr 2013 http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/04/25/mother-jones-right-wing

On Wednesday, Mother Jones ran an article making a shocking claim: more Americans have been killed by conservative terrorists than by Islamic terrorists since September 11, 2001. “While America has been fixated on the threat of Islamic terrorism for more than a decade, all but a few domestic terror plots have failed,” the article explained. “Between September 11, 2001, and the end of 2012, there were no successful bomb plots by jihadist terrorists in the United States …. [R]ight-wing extremists killed 29 people during those 11 years.”

But is it true?

The Mother Jones piece is based on a study by the New America Foundation and Syracuse University’s Maxwell School. But that study routinely labels non-right-wing murderers right-wingers, and labels basic crimes involving murder “terrorist attacks.”

Here is their complete list of “rightwing terrorist attacks,” with number of killed in parentheses:

  • Christopher and Wade Lay (1): In May 2004, Christopher and Wade Lay shot and murdered a security guard during a bank robbery. The son-and-father criminal team said they wanted to steal the money to buy arms to fight the government thanks to federal action at Waco in 1993 and Ruby Ridge in 1992. This is conspiratorial nonsense, not right-wing extremism. It is also murder, not terrorism, in the technical definition – it was not violence aimed at civilians to achieve a political purpose.
  • Jim David Adkisson (2): Adkisson shot up a church in Knoxville, Tennessee  in 2008 after he was unable to get a job, opening fire on children performing a musical. In a four-page letter outside the church, Adkisson “repeatedly included disgust for what he perceived to be the liberals in our country,” according to local authorities. He had also recently lost his public benefits, and his wife was a former member of the church. Local authorities stated, “That might have been a trigger.” The motivation is at best split politically.
  • Keith Luke (2): A white supremacist broke into an apartment, raped a woman, and shot two more people in 2009. He planned to attack a Jewish synagogue. His motive: killing “nonwhite people.” That is not right-wing. That is white supremacist. But the left always lumps in neo-Nazi types with the right, despite the fact that the Nazi movement was left-wing in orientation.
  • Scott Roeder (1): Roeder assassinated Dr. George Tiller, an abortionist, thanks to his own anti-abortion motives in 2009. Again, this is an assassination, not a terrorist attack.
  • James Von Brunn (1): Von Brunn shot a security guard at the US Holocaust Memorial in Washington, D.C. in June 2009. He was a white supremacist and Holocaust denier. He was not a right-winger.
  • Robert Andrew Poplawski (3): Poplawski got into a fight with his mother over a dog urinating in their home in 2009. He opened fire on Pittsburgh police officers, killing three. He was an anti-Semite and feared a gun ban by Barack Obama. Again, this was not a terrorist attack.
  • Joshua Cartwright (2): Cartwright started a fight with his wife over the location of his Clearasil in 2009. His rampage didn’t stop until after he had killed two sheriff’s deputies. Because Cartwright was described by his wife as conspiratorial and anti-Obama, this was labeled a right-wing terrorist attack. It wasn’t a terrorist attack, and it evidences no motivation based on politics.
  • ShawnaForde, Jason Eugene Bush, Albert Robert Gaxiola (2):
  • Raymond Franklin Peake (1): Peake, a prison guard, shot a lawyer to death at a gun range so he could steal his gun for use to overthrow the US government in 2010. Again, this was a robbery, not a terrorist attack, and there is no evidence Peake was a right-winger.
  • Andrew Joseph Stack (1): In 2009, Stack flew his small plane into the IRS building in Austin Texas, killing an IRS agent. Stack’s suicide note contained rage at the IRS. His suicide note was openly communist: “The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.” He railed in that note against George W. Bush.
  • David “Joey” Pedersen and Holly Ann Grigsby (4): The white supremacist couple killed four people in the Pacific Northwest in 2011 because they were minority or had Jewish names. They wanted to target Jewish organizations. There is no evidence they were right-wing.
  • Wade Michael Page (5): Page opened fire at a Sikh mosque in 2012. He was brewing in the culture of Nazi hate music. There is no evidence Page was right-wing.
  • Brian Lyn Smith (2): Smith and his friend Kyle David Joekel were involved in the shooting of two sheriff’s deputies in Louisiana in 2012. Both were members of the sovereign citizens movement. This is the only attack on the list that could legitimately be considered a “right-wing extremist terrorist attack.”
  • Isaac Aguigui, Anthony Peden, Christopher Salmon, Heather Salmon (2): These four killed a former Army compatriot, and formed an anarchist militia group. They allegedly wanted to poison Washington State’s apple crop and blow up a dam. Aguigui was a page at the Republican National Convention in 2008. The killing was a murder, not a terrorist attack.

Realistically speaking, then, there were a grand total of 2 killings over the last 12 years by “right-wing extremists.”

The study lists just four Islamic terrorist attacks in that period:

  • Hesham Mohamed Hadayet (2): He shot two at the El-Al counter at Los Angeles International Airport in 2002.
  • Naveed Afzal Haq (1): He shot up the Jewish Federation building in Seattle, Washington in 2006.
  • Nidal Malik Hasan (13): The perpetrator of the Fort Hood terrorist attack.
  • Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (1): He shot up a Little Rock recruitment office in 2009.

The list does not include the Beltway snipers (11 killed, including a 2002 shooting of a Tucson man); Mohammed Ali Alayed, who slashed a Jewish friend’s throat after reportedly undergoing a religious revival; Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who used his SUV to attack students (9 injured) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in revenge for “the deaths of Muslims worldwide”; the list goes on. The list also does not include honor killings (the equivalent to the George Tiller assassination), or random murders involving Muslims (the equivalent of half the items on the “rightwing terrorist attacks” list.

Naturally, the study does not bother to list left-wing terrorists.

The attempt by the left, including Mother Jones, to minimize the threat of Islamic terror inside the United States and to maximize the threat of “right-wing extremism” is all too obvious. By using the label “right-wing extremism” to apply to everything from neo-Nazis to anarchists, the left seeks to smear the right, the same way it smeared the right with the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.

The truth remains that the Islamist threat in the United States is very real – and that only the dedication of law enforcement has stopped substantially more Islamist attacks. After the Boston Marathon bombings that killed three and wounded well over 170, only a truly philosophically perverse publication would claim that right-wingers are actually more of a threat to public safety than Islamists.

Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).

It’s Time


By Jerry Broussard

1 Peter 4:12-19; 12 Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. 14 If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. 15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. 16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. 17 For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And,

“If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”  

19 So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good. (NIV)

 

I am reluctant to start this observation with a litany of the ills of America and our society. Yet, based on recent voter turnouts, such a review is necessary;

  • Our Federal government has reached the “out-of-control” point with spending and debt. We are months, may be weeks, away from declaring bankruptcy. Some believe that the Obama administration is doing this deliberately in order to change our nation into a Western Europe Socialist nation.
  • The manufactured tensions deliberately created between rich and poor continue to rise to the boiling point. The self-appointed “Professional Pot Stirrers” are working overtime to bring about an all-out war between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. Adding to the flame is the Obama administration’s economic policies creating more and more people on the government dole, ensuring the Leftist voting base.
  • The manufactured tensions between the races (by the same source afore mentioned) is also reaching volatile levels.
  • Taking advantage of the chaos are the various terrorist groups knowing they have a sympathetic Obama administration that will not call “terrorism” what it is; Terrorism. President Obama has stated he does not want to “rush to judgment” on terrorist like the Boston bombers.
  • Unemployment continues to be a discussion instead of solution. Partisan politician’s think it more important to hang onto their stupid ideology instead of opening up the market place and let it heal itself.
  • Education continues its downward spiral as liberal theology continues its influence in how children are educated. These philosophers constant complaint is that we are not spending enough money on education and yet test scores continue to rank at the bottom of the world’s results.
  • Our society seems to be in an all-out sprint to become as corrupt as Sodom and Gomorrah. Leading the way are the homosexual activist demand for equal recognition in marriage, when all they really want is to shut the church up from teaching the truth about their abhorrent chosen lifestyle. By their side are the social-engineers recreating our nation into their own image.
  • There are so many more, but let us sum up this list with the motivation for this writing; The Evangelical Church in America seems to spending most of its time “Playing-Church”, than being the church.

The Apostle Peter wrote to the church in the last days of his life. Both letters are so rich with revelation truth, but for this discussion, let us focus on the scripture already introduced. It is time for judgment to begin with the House of God.

One of the admonitions we have from Jesus is found in Mark 9:50; “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.” When Jesus gave this admonishment, salt was primarily used as a preservative for meat. They did not have refrigeration to keep meat from spoiling so they would pack it in salt. Salt slows down the “putrefaction” process. Therefore Jesus’ admonition is for His Church, His followers, to be SALT inside the church as well as within society. If the church is walking in obedience of Jesus’ Word, being DOERS of the Word, not HEARERS ONLY (James 1:22-25), than His Church becomes a preservative in society, slowing down the putrefaction process. As it is, our society stinks, and the fault lies at the front door of the Church.

I am quick to point out that there are churches that are “BEING THE CHURCH”. Unfortunately, they are a small minority. God will always have His remnant, and that remnant is alive and well in America. I am talking about the rest of the churches that seem to be more interested in “Great-God-Entertainment” (what they claim to be worship time), than in being Salt and Light in their community. Here are some examples;

  • If we really have committed Evangelical Christians, than explain to me why we can only get 30 to 40% out to vote. Voting is one of the many ways to be SALT. Allowing the enemies of Jesus’ Church to reign speeds up the putrefaction process. Although it is not scripture, yet the proverb is important to heed; ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ (English philosopher Edmund Burke); i.e., For Jesus’ Church to stop being Salt and Light.
  • In the late 70’s someone did a study and found that if (at that time) all the Evangelical churches would take four people in and take care of their needs, there would be NO ONE LEFT ON THE WELFARE ROLES.
    • Galatians 2:10 sums up the constant focus of the early church; Take care of the poor.
    • Remember Jesus’ description of Judgment Day recorded in Matthew 25:25-46? The sheep and the goats both observed the same needs of their society. The only difference between the sheep and the goats is that the sheep DO The Work of Jesus’ Church while the goats did nothing.
    • Government took control of education because Jesus’ Church allowed it to happen. The original schools of education, SET UP BY CONGRESS, was done on Sundays, thus we had Sunday school. That became weekly classes as teachers were trained, and children were taught the basics of reading, writing, math, history, government, the Constitution (along with the Federalist Papers), and scriptural truth learning how to be Christian citizens. I doubt if any college graduate today could pass a Sixth Grade Final given in those days in order to be admitted into High School.
    • Entertainment, the Arts, Science and more were all created and developed by committed Christians as God gifted them. Jesus’ Church has allowed the secular world to take them over and used as a force against Jesus’ Church.

I could go on and on, however, I hope you are getting the point.

What I have found to be true over the last 40 plus years of study is that there are two different Christianity’s at work in our world today. There is Christianity the religion, and the original Christianity that is Jesus’ Church; Christianity the RELATIONSHIP.

  • Christianity the Religion: Every bit as cold, dark, full of bondage as any other man made religion. This Christianity the political Left loves to berate. It has all the trappings of the real church, but as often rebuked by God, its motivations are all wrong. Its just religion. Not much different from idol worship and bigoted toward anyone who is not their denominational flavor.
  • Christianity the Relationship is just that; a personal relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus’ Church consist of individual believers who have openly admitted they are sinners in need of a Savior, repent of their sins, accepted Jesus as their PERSONAL Lord and Savior, and made Jesus the absolute Lord of their lives. Jesus’ Church are the DOERS, those who do not care about the persecution, but have laid down their lives to speak up and fight for what is right, just, “and of good report”. They are feeding the poor, clothing the naked, visiting the sick, in prison, involved in the community, and VOTING –VOTING – VOTING.

During one of God’s rebukes of His nation Israel, He is quoted as saying in Judges 10:14; “Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen. Let them save you when you are in trouble!” (NIV) That rebuke is as applicable today as when God gave it back in Israel’s early development. They turned their back on God and His Word and went the way of the world. In today’s vernacular God said, “You created your gods (religion, lifestyle choices, politicians, political climate, economical disasters, strife between peoples and groups, schools that have failed, generations that have never heard the Gospel, terrorist gaining control of entire nations, unemployment, more poor today than ever in American history and so much more. Now, turn to those gods you have created and see if they can save you.”

Over the last 100 years, American society has proven what it can do. Disaster is the result. No matter how government tries to fix things, they only make them worse and more of our rights removed. We are getting further away from what our founders created because of hours of prayer, debate and the leading of God’s Holy Spirit.

I believe that judgment has begun with Jesus’ Church. In all of history, there has never been a time when we have been in need of revival than we are today. It is time for the Church to be the Church again. I am calling for all those of you who are Relationship Christians to join me in prayer, and then putting legs to those prayers and let us fight to get out country back.

Any takers?

 

PLASE, PLEASE READ THIS AND WATCH THE VIDEO. PLEASE, IT IS THAT IMPORTANT


by

Still Think Islam Is A Religion Of Peace? – You Won’t After Seeing This

david wood

While many in the media, including Fox News, CNN, the Washington Post and others, including politicians like Barack Hussein Obama and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) continue to promote the lie that Islam is a “peaceful religion,” Freedom Outpost is allowing David Wood of “Answering Muslims” to respond to their claims from the Qur’an, in context, to demonstrate the lie that is being perpetrated on the American people the Islam is a religion of peace. Many of my own friends think Islam is harmless, but the reality of the Koran’s teaching tells us something very different. If you have any doubts that Islam is not a peaceful religion, this short video clip should convince any thinking person to reconsider an evaluation of Islam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-SoXs-0_rHY

 Here’s one of David’s tweets to WhyIslam following the Boston Marathon bombing. David is calling into question the out right lying and deceptive practices of those in Islam in only revealing what they want to and then twisting even what they reveal to further their cause of jihad.

Wood puts in context the verse often cited by politicians and media pundits to affirm Islam is peaceful. They claim:

Qur’an 5:32 – For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

This is cited “to the children of Israel,” not to Muslims. In fact, it is taken from the Mishnah Sanhedrin, which reads, “Adam was created alone to teach you that if anyone destroys one life, Scripture reckons it as if he had destroyed a whole world; conversely, if anyone preserves on life, Scripture reckons it as if he had preserved a whole world.”

However, Muslims like Rep. Keith Ellison does not want to expose what is commanded of Muslims. He calls for context. So, Wood gives him context and here is what is in the very next verse, which is not about Israel, but about Muslims.

Qur’an 5:33 – The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.

You see my friends Islam quotes out of context the verse and applies something meant for Israel to themselves, but they never tell you what they are commanded to do and why.

Thank you David Wood for making this point! Absolutely brilliant!

H/T FreedomFighterRadio

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/04/still-think-islam-is-a-religion-of-peace-you-wont-after-seeing-this/#ixzz2R9bi1Dgd

 

Two sets of Statistic Studies that are very important and eye opening.


A recent “Investor’s Business Daily” article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

             U.S.                    65%

             England              46%   

             Canada              42%  

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:   

             U.S.                     93%   

             England              15%   

            Canada               43%  

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:   

             U.S.                     90%   

             England              15%    

             Canada               43%  

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:   

             U.S.                     77%   

             England               40%   

             Canada               43%   

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:   

             U.S.                   71   

             England             14   

             Canada              18  

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in “excellent health”:   

             U.S.                    12%   

            England               2%   

             Canada               6%  

And now for the last statistic:  

            National Health Insurance?   

             U.S .                 NO  (until ObamaCare goes into effect)

             England            YES   

             Canada             YES   

            Check this last set of statistics!!   

The percentage of each past president’s cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You do know that the private business sector is a real-life business, not a Government job. Here are the percentages.  

            T. Roosevelt………………. 38%   

            Taft…………………………… 40%  

             Wilson ……………………… 52%  

            Harding……………………… 49%   

            Coolidge……………………. 48%   

            Hoover……………………… 42%   

            F. Roosevelt………………. 50%   

            Truman……………………… 50%  

            Eisenhower……………. …. 57%  

            Kennedy……………………. 30%  

            Johnson…………………….. 47%  

            Nixon………………………… 53%  

            Ford………………………….. 42%  

            Carter……………………….. 32%   

             Reagan……………………… 56%  

            GH Bush……………………. 51%   

            Clinton ……………………… 39%  

            GW Bush…………………… 55%   

            Obama……….. ………. 8%  

This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration:

Only 8% of them have ever worked in private business! That’s right!  Only eight percent—the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents!  And these people are trying to tell our big Corporations how to run their business?   

How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he’s never worked for one?  Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it’s the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers?  They’ve spent most of their time in academia, Government and/or non-profit jobs or as “community organizers.”  They should have been in an employment line.   

Pass this on because we’ll NEVER see these facts in the main stream media.

The Persecution Has Begun


CNN Analyst Suggests ‘Right-Wing Extremists’ Could Be Behind Boston Bombing

By Matt Hadro |

[UPDATE BELOW] CNN’s national security analyst Peter Bergen twice suggested that “right-wing extremists” could be behind Monday’s Boston Marathon bombings. Yet over an hour later, CNN reported that Boston Police were not holding anyone in custody as a suspect for the attack.

Appearing on CNN’s live coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing with host Jake Tapper, Bergen was asked to explain if the bombing could have been an act of terror. Bergen answered in the affirmative, and proceeded to name possible suspects depending on the type of explosive used. [Transcript below. Audio here. Video below the break.]

Who were Bergen’s suspects? Al Qaeda and “right-wing extremists.”

[UPDATE: 4/15/13 5:04 p.m. EDT] Peter Bergen again tossed out the idea that a “right-wing extremist group” could have carried out the bombings.

“I think the actual – the constituency inside the bomb will make a big difference about how we identify the person who did this,” he explained at the end of CNN’s 4 p.m. ET hour of live coverage. The perpetrators “could be a right-wing extremist group,” Bergen insisted, if the matter inside the bomb was not hydrogen peroxide, which he said is a “signature” of an al Qaeda attack.

CNN
THE LEAD
4/15/13
[4:19 p.m. EDT]

JAKE TAPPER: Peter, does this – obviously we don’t want to speculate. We don’t know what this was. But is there reason for people who deal in counter-terrorism to think that this is an act of terrorism? Or suspect it strongly, at least?

PETER BERGEN: Sure. Although I’m reminded of Oklahoma City which was a bombing, which was initially treated as a gas explosion. So first reports are often erroneous. But the fact that there were two explosions – two bombings – one of the things I’d be looking at is once the device, if it is a device, is found, what kind of explosives were used? For instance, if it was hydrogen peroxide, this is a signature of al-Qaeda. If it was more conventional explosives, which are much harder to get a hold of now, that might be some other kind of right-wing extremists. We’ve seen a number of failed bombing attempts by al-Qaeda using bombs, (Unintelligible) and for instance, the Manhattan subway in 2009, Faisal Shahzad in 2010, the attempt to bring down Northwest Flight 253 over Detroit in 2009. But we’ve also seen other extremist groups, right-wing groups, for instance, trying to attack the Martin Luther King parade in Oregon in 2010.

(…)

[4:59]

TAPPER: And Peter, what are you waiting to hear for – hear about in these coming hours?

BERGEN: I think the actual – the constituency inside the bomb will make a big difference about how we identify the person who did this. Or the persons who did this. Because if it’s hydrogen peroxide, that puts (Unintelligible). If it’s something else –

TAPPER: Could be a different –

BERGEN: – could be a right-wing extremist group. Or some other group.

About the Author

Matt Hadro is a News Analyst at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Matt Hadro on Twitter.

A Note From Me – Jerry Broussard

The Army’s training course identifying possible terrorist as Evangelical Christians has raised it’s ugly head with Peter Bergen’s comments. Be aware. It is only going to get worse.

Remember Jesus’ words; Matt 24:9-13; 9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold,
NIV

John 15:18-25; 18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’
NIV

More Evidence of the Prophesied Persecution of The Church


Gestapo 2013? Colorado State Police and Homeland Security Target Christians

By / http://clashdaily.com/2013/04/gestapo-2013-colorado-state-police-and-homeland-security-target-christians/

Screen Shot 2013-04-10 at 9.29.25 AMI recently received a letter from one of law enforcement’s finest.  He had attended a seminar in which he was told to be on the lookout for Christians.  The letter was written by an attendee, Ron Trowbridge, Undersheriff in Prowers County, Colorado.  I would like to thank Sheriff Trowbridge for the letter and the 25 years he has spent protecting the public in his county.  Fear of reprisals from either the Colorado State Police and Homeland Security, fail to stop this patriot from exposing what our law officers are being subjected to.

Because of his bravery, we are able to get an inside look on how nefarious forces within our government are attempting to indoctrinate our law officers.  As this letter proves, our officers cannot be intimidated. Nor can they be turned on the people they serve.  The people of Prowers County are very lucky to have him.
Without further delay, here is the letter unedited and complete in it’s original form:

From: rtrowbridge@prowerscounty.net To: forknown@hotmail.com Subject: CSP Training Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:30:22 -0600

On April 1, 2013 I attended training in La Junta, Colorado hosted by the Colorado State Patrol (CSP).  The training was from 12:00 pm to 4:00 pm and covered two topics, Sovereign Citizens, and Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs.  I was pretty familiar with motorcycle gangs but since we often deal with the so-called sovereign citizen groups I was interested to see what they had to say.  The group consisted of police officers, deputies, and CSP troopers.  There were about 20 people in attendance.

Trooper Joe Kluczynski taught a 2-hour section on sovereign citizens.  Kluczynski spent most of his two hours focusing on how, in his view and apparently the view of Homeland Security, people turn to the sovereign citizen movement.  Kluczynski started off by saying there are probably some sovereign citizens in this room and gave a generalized list of those groups that have sovereign citizen views.  Among those groups, Kluczynski had listed, were those who believe America was founded on godly principles, Christians who take the Bible literally, and “fundamentalists”.  Kluczynski did not explain what he meant by “fundamentalists” but from the context it was clear he was referring again to those who took the Bible literally or “too seriously.”

While Kluczynski emphasized that sovereign citizens have a right to their beliefs, he was clearly teaching that the groups he had listed should be watched by law enforcement and should be treated with caution because of their potential to assault law enforcement.  Kluczynski explained why he believed these groups were dangerous saying they were angry over the election of a black president.  When someone in the group suggested the failing economy was probably much more to blame, Kluczynski intimated that those who are not going along with the changes in America will need to be controlled by law enforcement.  Kluczynski even later questioned some of the troopers present if they were willing and prepared to confiscate “illegal” weapons if ordered to.

Kluczynski’s assignment with the CSP was an Analyst for the Colorado Information Analysis Center, (CIAC).  CIAC is funded by Homeland Security funds and run by the CSP.  Kluczynski said he gets his information from the Department of Homeland Security.  Kluczynski said he was leaving the CSP at the end of that week (March 29, 2013) to begin his new career with Homeland Security.  I thought he was perfect for the job.

Ron Trowbridge
Undersheriff
Prowers County Sheriff’s Office

Read more: redstatements.co

Why Violate The Language to Engineer Our Society


Equality: “I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means…”

By http://clashdaily.com/2013/04/equality-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/

inigo-montoya-650-75 (1)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.

Backstabbing Schumer Negotiates “Immigrant Prevailing Wage” To Solve His Immigration Failures


by 

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?

Coulter: The Left’s Continuing War on Women


Coulter: The Left's Continuing War on Women

By: Ann Coulter
3/27/2013 09:00 PM

RESIZE: AAA

Print147

The New York Times caused a sensation with its kazillion-word, March 17 article by Michael Luo on the failures of state courts to get guns out of the hands of men in domestic violence situations.

The main purpose of the article was to tweak America’s oldest civil rights organization, the National Rifle Association, for opposing some of the more rash anti-gun proposals being considered by state legislatures, such as allowing courts to take away a person’s firearms on the basis of a temporary restraining order.

It’s a new position for liberals to oppose the rights of the accused. Usually the Times is demanding that even convicted criminals be given voting rights, light sentences, sex-change operations and vegan meals in prison.

Another recent Times article about communities trying to keep sex offenders out of their neighborhoods quoted a liberal saying: “It’s counterproductive to public safety, because when you have nothing to lose, you are much more likely to commit a crime than when you are rebuilding your life.”

But that was about convicted child molesters. This is about guns, so all new rules apply.

As is usually the case when liberals start proposing gun restrictions, they assume only men will be disarmed by laws taking guns from those subjected to temporary restraining orders. But such orders aren’t particularly difficult to get. It doesn’t occur to liberals that an abusive man could also get one against his wife, whether or not his accusations are true.

Rather than helping victims of domestic abuse, this — and other Times’ proposals on guns — only ensures that more women will get killed. A gun in the hand of an abused woman changes the power dynamic far more than keeping a gun out of the hands of her abuser, who generally can murder his wife in any number of ways.

The vast majority of rapists, for example, don’t even bother using a gun because — as renowned criminologist Gary Kleck notes — they typically have a “substantial power advantage over the victim,” making the use of a weapon redundant.

As the Times eventually admits around paragraph 400: “In fairness, it was not always clear that such an order (taking guns from the accused wife abuser) would have prevented the deaths.”

No kidding. In one case the Times cites, Robert Wigg ripped a door off its hinges and heaved it at his wife, Deborah, after having thrown her to the floor by her hair.

Deborah Wigg moved out, got a protective order and filed for divorce. But doors were not an impediment to Robert Wigg. He showed up at her new house and, in short order, broke down the door and murdered her.

He happened to have used a gun, but he might as well have used his fists. Or an illegal gun, had the court taken away his legal guns. Or another door.

As her husband was breaking in, Deborah called her parents and 911. Her neighbors called 911, too. But the police didn’t arrive in time. Even her parents got to the house before the cops did, only to find their daughter murdered.

The protective order didn’t help Deborah Wigg; the police couldn’t help; her neighbors and parents couldn’t help. Only if she’d had a gun and knew how to use it — after carefully disregarding everything Joe Biden has said on the subject — might she have been able to save her own life.

Numerous studies, including one by the National Institute of Justice, show that crime victims who resist a criminal with a gun are less likely to be injured than those who do not resist at all or who resist without a gun. That’s true even when the assailant is armed.

Liberals’ advice to rape and domestic abuse victims is: Lie back and enjoy it. The Times’ advice is: Get a protective order. The NRA’s advice is: Blow the dirtbag’s head off. Or, for the delicate: Resist with a gun, the only effective means to stop an attack.

Apparently a lot of abused women prefer not to lie back and take it. Looking at data from Detroit, Houston and Miami, Margo Wilson and Martin Daly found that the vast majority of wives who killed their husbands were not even indicted, much less convicted, because it was found they were acting in self-defense.

But the Times doesn’t want abused women to have a fighting chance. Instead, it keeps pushing gun control policies that not only won’t stop violent men from murdering their wives, but will disarm their intended victims.

More Outragious Actions of the Extreme Left


WND

Dem Party official makes students ‘stomp on Jesus’

‘Gee, I wonder if the instructor would dare do this with the name of Muhammed’

Deandre Poole

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

Department of Homeland Security Refuses to Answer Congress Questions Regarding Ammunition Purchases


Congressmen Demand DHS Explain 1.6 Billion Bullets Purchase

dhs ammoCongressman Leonard Lance (R-NJ) has come out and demanded that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano explain why the Department of Homeland Security has been engaging in huge amounts of purchases of ammunition over the past year. Rep. Lance has called on Congress to get involved in ascertaining DHS’ stockpiling of ammunition which is enough to wage a 20 year plus war, which has most certainly caused a shortage in the public market.

“I think Congress should ask the Department about both of those issues and I would like a full explanation as to why that has been done and I have every confidence that the oversight committee ….should ask those questions,” said Lance.

“Congress has a responsibility to ask Secretary Napolitano as to exactly why these purchases have occurred,” added the New Jersey congressman.

Lance said the he was “concerned” and that he wanted to make sure that Americans continued to live in a country that was based upon freedom and individual rights. He also hoped that DHS would step forward and answer the question candidly.

Congressman Lance is not the only representative in Washington asking ‘Big Sis’ why she is purchasing large amounts of ammunition. We Are Change’s Luke Rudkowski interviewed Congressman Timothy Huelscamp (R-KS) at the 2013 CPAC on his decision to vote against the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and also asked they also discussed Obama’s Disposition Matrix and the large ammunition purchases made by the DHS.

When asked why DHS needs the type of armament that they do against the American people, the Kansas congressman said, “The have no answer for the question. They refuse to answer that. I’ve got a list of questions of various agencies about multiple things. Far from being the most transparent administration in the world, they are the most closed natured, opaque and they refuse to let us know what’s going on there. So I don’t have answers for that. Multiple members of Congress are asking those questions.”

“When it comes down to it, during the budget process, during the appropriations process, are we willing to hold DHS’ feet to the fire?” he asked. “We’re going to find out if we get an answer. I say we don’t fund them till we get an answer.”

The conversation pointed out the complaints about sequestration and added in addition to the billions of round purchased there are also $50 million new uniforms on order from the DHS.

Recently Forbes called for a “National Conversation” in light of DHS’ ammo spending spree. Ralph Benko writes, “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,” he continues, “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?” Benko asks. “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.”

As you recall, former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin was criticized for posting on her Facebook page, “We’re going to default eventually and that’s why the feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.” In the wake of that, last week the Democratic Governors Association (DGA), a lobbying organization which represents governors affiliated with the Democratic Party, started an ad campaign calling on Americans to sign a petition demanding Sarah Palin be denounced for “extremist” rhetoric.

DHS solicited in February for 240,000 rounds of ammunition and recently DHS put in a solicitation for 7,000 “personal defense weapons” that shoot 5.56 NATO ammunition that have “fire select” capability along with high capacity 30 round magazines. Remember these are for “homeland” use, not foreign.

Back in December DHS solicited for 250 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition. In September, DHS solicited for nearly 200 million rounds of sniper ammunition. In August 750 million rounds of high power ammunition were also solicited and in March DHS solicited 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets.

Additional government agencies have also solicited for large amounts of ammunition. While it is expected that law enforcement at the Federal level would purchase ammunition, it is the large purchases in a short amount of time from an Marxist regime and a Federal department charged with “homeland security” to be purchasing this much and many of the rounds are hollow points.

DHS, via a February Associate Press article claimed that they were merely purchasing in bulk to save money and that these purchases were merely for training purposes, something I was also told last year by one reader who claims to have been in law enforcement. However, a former Marine, Richard Mason, told reporters at WHPTV, that he has his doubts.

The House just got through passing a Continuing Resolution which fully funds the implementation of Obamacare. I’m thinking it might be time against for Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) to bring on another filibuster to make the American people aware of the lack of transparency on the Obama administration’s part in acquiring these billions of rounds to be used in the service of homeland security. I’ll stand with Rand again. Will you?

See two accompanied videos:

  1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NHsGEy-vfLk
  2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbfjxjpKoR8&feature=player_embedded

Another “Brain-Child” of the Liberal Left


Elizabeth Warren: Hike Minimum Wage to $22 an Hour

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) wondered out loud why the nation’s minimum wage isn’t at $22 an hour, during a Senate Committee hearing on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions last week.
“If we started in 1960, and we said that, as productivity goes up — that is, as workers are producing more — then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And, if that were the case, the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour. So, my question, Mr. Dube, is what happened to the other $14.75?”
President Obama called for an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $9 in his State of the Union address.

Are You Smarter Than A Sixth Grader?


Dianne Feinstein: Assault Weapons Like Child Pornography

feinstein gunThe 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.

Amen!


New Pope: Same-Sex Marriage ‘A Machination of the Father of Lies’

By Breitbart News 13 Mar 2013

New Pope Francis I is an ardent opponent of same-sex marriage, in coincidence with traditional Catholic belief. In 2010, he wrote, “Let’s not be naïve, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

The media remains aghast at the fact that Francis I is a Catholic. They should get used to it.

Really? More Emotional Blackmail?


Let me get this straight;

  • Jack Lew, part of the Obama White House, came up with the idea of sequestration and President Obama thought it was a great idea, and supported it so much, that he got it passed;
  • President Obama is quoted as saying that with this law, he could force the Republicans to vote for legislation he know the Republicans would not like because they would not want the cuts to defense to happen;
  • He made sure that the cuts would be determined by the President, not the Congress (meaning that all the emotional blackmail is based on his own thinking, not any real plan or proposal);
  • Now he is claiming that IT IS THE REPUBLICANS THAT WANT FIRST RESPONDERS NOT TO GET PAID, MILITARY PERSONNEL NOT GET PAID, POOR CHILDREN NOT FED, AND EVERY BUNNY RABBIT SLAUGHTERED AT SUN DOWN (oops, that last one just slipped out, although it is consistent will all his ridiculous claims).
  • And so on, and so on, and so on.

Can anyone explain to me the psychology of a person who inspired the idea, backed the idea, promoted the idea, got the idea accepted and put into the law, and now blames those that oppose him as the culprits behind it all? Please help me understand.

Symbolism Over Substance


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;

  • “Balanced Approach”: $10 dollars in tax for every $1 we spend.
  • “Compromise with the Republicans”: They need to agree with 100% of everything we say, want and desire. Any exceptions and thee become horrible monsters who want to take food away from poor children, make everyone drink dirt water, return to the days of slavery, make women go into dark alleys to have abortions by coat hangers and generally destroy America as we know it. In summary, ay disagreement with the Left is equal to being Terrorist.
  • “Investment”: SPEND, SPEND, SPEND what we do not have. Continue to borrow money until we are in ruin so President Obama, can become Chancellor Obama under Marshall Law so he can disarm Americans, throw out the Constitution and create a new nation in his image and ideals of Collectivism/Socialism.
  • “Fair Income Reform”: Redistribution of wealth.
  • Comprehensive Immigration Reform”: Let in all people who will vote Democrat and restrict all others. Notice they never address the people who have come here LEGALLY, and obeyed al our laws to become AMERICAN citizens.
  • “GUN CONTROL”: Means, “Citizen Control”. Every time any government disarms the citizenry, executes total control over their lives. The Second Amendment has only one foundational meaning; An armed citizenry is a protection from the rise of tyranny. Having the same or equal weapons to the military means, the citizens can truly maintain a fight for freedom.

The rest is more of the same.

“The Tree of Freedom has to often be watered with the blood of Patriots in order to keep it alive and growing.” I’m ready, how about you?

More Evidence Of President Obama’s Socialist Ideology


January 26, 2013

By Greg Campbell
TPNN Contributor

Noble Peace Prize nominee and humanitarian Dr. Jim Garrow is not known for outrageous accusations. Dedicated to his humanitarian work, he has not ventured into the spotlight for a moment other than to write a book about the trouble of China’s one-child policy. That has changed as he has recently divulged information he says he received from a former senior military leader in the Obama Administration.

Garrow announced,

“I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new ‘litmus test’ in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. ‘The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.’ Those who will not are being removed.”

Dr. Jim Garrow has spent the last 16 years rescuing baby girls from the harsh realities and near-certain death of China’s one-child-per-couple rule. From his efforts to raise awareness of the problem and his willingness to facilitate the adoption of these infants, it is estimated that he has saved 40,000 babies and has been considered for a Nobel Peace Prize. While he has not released who his source is, Garrow has maintained a pretty low profile and seems to not be associated with any fringe ideologies.

It is a bold accusation, but one that fits into a bigger picture. As America becomes, arguably, more and more polarized, states have discussed secession and state and county officials all across the country have publicly claimed that they will refuse to enforce executive orders that violate the Second Amendment.

Whether one agrees that America should be so polarized or not, the fact remains that this revelation comes at a time when America is deeply divided on a variety of issues ranging from gun rights to the basic question of how to solve any one of our fiscal crises. With such deep divides, the issue of secession has been discussed and people all across the country have expressed worry at a looming federal presence.

Added to the volatile mix of ideologies is the recent executive orders that were aimed at enacting gun control measures and the near-constant threat of outright bans on many firearms. Such speculation has fueled dissent and discussion amongst mainstream Americans as to how far the government ought to be allowed to go.

The Washington Free Beacon recently reported that the head of Central Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis is being dismissed by President Obama and will leave his post in March. While unwilling to divulge the source, Garrow stated, “The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.”

If what Garrow says is true, than this is sure to rouse anger and distrust from conservatives across the country who have accused the president of exceeding his authority on numerous occasions and have voiced concern over sweeping policies that are of dubious legalities. If Obama is preparing to stock his inner-circle with only those that will follow his orders beyond what should rightfully be expected from soldiers who have sworn to protect this nation, than America may see a turbulent four years.

The true irony of Obama’s presidency is that while reports such as the aforementioned have surfaced and as drone attacks continue across the globe and families mourn the loved ones lost as a result of the Justice Department’s flood of weapons to Mexican cartels, President Obama actually received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.

Interpreting President Obama’s Inaugual Address


The President Obama Inaugural Address

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 by Dennis Prager

To understand leftism, the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years, you have to understand how the left thinks. The 2013 inaugural address of President Barack Obama provides one such opportunity.

–“What makes us exceptional — what makes us American — is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'”

What American does not resonate to a president reaffirming this magnificent statement from our Declaration of Independence?

But here’s the intellectual sleight of hand: “What makes us exceptional — what makes us American” is indeed the belief that rights come from God.

But this seminal idea is not mentioned again in the entire inaugural address. This was most unfortunate. An inaugural address that would concentrate on the decreasing significance of God in American life — one of the left’s proudest accomplishments — would address what may well be the single most important development in the last half-century of American life.

–“We learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.”

If there is one word that most excites progressives, it is “new.” (“Old” turns the left off: Judeo-Christian religions and the Constitution are two such examples.) The fact is that Americans did not make “themselves anew” after the Civil War. What they did was finally affirm what was old — the Founders’ belief that “all men are created equal.”

So why did the president say this? Because what he and the left want to do is to make America anew — by making it a left-wing country.

–“Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce, schools and colleges to train our workers.”

The president used the word “together” four times in his speech. In no instance, did it make sense. What he meant each time is government. In the mind of the left, together and government are one.

Moreover, the point is meaningless. We determined that “a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce”? Isn’t that utterly self-evident? Isn’t it as meaningless as saying that “together, we determined that jets are faster than propeller planes?

–“Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.”

Again, “together” — meaning the government.

And, again, this is an intellectual sleight of hand in order to make his case for more government. The free market “only thrives” when individuals have the freedom to take risks. Too large a government and too many rules choke the free market. Look at Europe and every other society with too many rules governing the marketplace.

–“Preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.”

This is pure leftism: Individual freedom will be preserved by an ever-expanding state.

The whole American experiment in individual freedom has been predicated on as small a government as possible.

–“No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need … or build the roads and networks and research labs …

Who, pray tell, has ever said that a single person can train all teachers, build the roads, etc.? The point he is making, once again, is that only the government can do all these things.

–“The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.”

This is either a non-sequitur or a falsehood. Huge government programs do not increase risk taking, and, yes, they often do make “a nation of takers.” Again, look at Europe. If such programs encouraged entrepreneurial risk-taking, European countries would have the most such risk-takers in the Western world. Instead, Europe has indeed become a continent of takers.

–“We will respond to the threat of climate change … Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.”

“The overwhelming judgment of science.” Just as the left has changed global warming to “climate change,” the president has now changed scientists to “science.” To differ with the environmentalist left on the sources of whatever global warming there is, or whether to impede the economic growth of the Western democracies in the name of reducing carbon emissions is now to deny “science” itself, not merely to differ with some scientists.

Moreover, all three claims of the president are false.

As the Danish environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, who believes that there is global warming and that that it is caused primarily by carbon emissions, wrote about the president’s claims:

On fires: “Analysis of wildfires around the world shows that since 1950 their numbers have decreased globally by 15 percent” (italics in original).

On drought: “The world has not seen a general increase in drought. A study published in Nature in November shows globally that ‘there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.'”

On storms: “Hurricane activity is at a low not encountered since the 1970s. The U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century.”

–“That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God.”

Finally God is mentioned — on behalf of solar panels and windmills! The god of the left is the god of environmentalism.

–“We the people still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.”

The president’s favorite American — the Straw Man. Who exactly believes in “perpetual war?” Perhaps the president confuses perpetual strength with perpetual war.

Had he not been a leftist, he could have said: “We the people still believe that enduring security and lasting peace require perpetual American strength.”

–“But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war.”

Whatever peace we have won has been won as a result of war and/or being militarily prepared for war. But acknowledging that would mean abandoning leftist doctrine.

–“We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully — not because we are na?ve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.”

“Not because we are na?ve?” The entire sentence is an ode to the left’s naivet? regarding evil.

–“Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.”

The president didn’t say what would create more security in children than anything else — a father in their lives. Why didn’t he? Because the left doesn’t talk about the need for fathers. Such talk is deemed sexist, anti-women, anti-single mothers and anti-same-sex marriage.

But the left does talk utopian. In what universe are children “always safe from harm?” The answer is in the utopian imagination of the left, which then passes law after law and uproots centuries of values in order to create their utopia.

–“Being true to our founding documents … does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way.”

That’s more left-wing ideology: Liberty means what you want it mean. As does marriage, art, family, truth and good and evil.

–“We cannot … substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.”

No conservative could agree more with that. They are, after all, two of the most prominent features of left-wing political life.

–“Let us … carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.”

The president began his address citing Creator-given rights, but never mentioned either the Creator or Creator-given rights in what followed. So, too, he ended his address with a call to freedom that had nothing to do with anything he said preceding it. The address was about climate change, same-sex marriage, equal pay for women, and mostly, expanding the power of the state – not freedom.

The speech was not inspiring. But it did have one important value: It illuminated how the left thinks.

President Obama Wants ‘Second Bill of Rights’


Bret BART

Sunstein: President Obama Wants ‘Second Bill of Rights’

Mere hours after Breitbart News published an excerpt from an interview with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in which he speculated that President Barack Obama would “prefer a different kind of constitution,” one with a Bill of Rights based on the South African model, former Obama administration regulatory czar Cass Sunstein published an op-ed making a similar argument: that the president wants a “second Bill of Rights” alongside the existing one.

Sunstein located the source of Obama’s inspiration in Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union address, rather than the South African constitution–though the American academics whose writings inspired South Africa’s ambitious Bill of Rights could well have taken Roosevelt’s proposals as their foundation.

Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights–not a list of constitutional amendments, but policy goals–was as follows:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Sunstein points out Roosevelt was not a socialist–and yet many of the “rights” he proposed were inspired by socialist policies. The Soviet constitution of 1936, too, included the right to work, among other guarantees.

In addition, Sunstein argues that Obama has made progress on least one of these rights: the right to health care, through the highly controversial Obamacare–whose costs will begin to be felt this year in earnest.

The analogy is not perfect: one “right” on which Roosevelt would not have agreed with Obama, for example, is the “right” of public sector workers to bargain collectively and to strike, which Roosevelt opposed.

Regardless, both conservatives and liberals may agree: Obama is aiming at achieving a new set of socioeconomic rights, whether through law or through policy. It is the dream of progressives and liberals for the better part of a century–a dream that has resisted the reality that these “rights” are not justiciable; that they degrade the value of other, fundamental, rights; and they create more policy problems than they solve.

“Absolutism”


28 January 2013 / 12 Comments

images-2

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/

Going Back to the Basics of the Second Amendment


The rhetoric of the Right and Left has clouded the basics of the Second Amendment. The emotional hysteria by the Left has further enhanced their determination to disarm citizens so they can begin more of their socialist controls. Those on the Right are making assertions that cannot be supported with fact and all sides have misrepresented various details of crime and guns.

Let us see if we can clear the fog and look at this issue without the emotions, accusations and mischaracterizations of the political and media establishments. I will use the actual Constitution and Bill of Rights, along with the actual historical facts of the formation of the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html)

The call for a bill of rights had been the anti-Federalists’ most powerful weapon. Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, “What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances.” The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect “those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist.” Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights, Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis.

A bill of rights had been barely mentioned in the Philadelphia convention, most delegates holding that the fundamental rights of individuals had been secured in the state constitutions. James Wilson maintained that a bill of rights was superfluous because all power not expressly delegated to thenew government was reserved to the people. It was clear, however, that in this argument the anti-Federalists held the upper hand. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new government, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was “what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.”

By the fall of 1788 Madison had been convinced that not only was a bill of rights necessary to ensure acceptance of the Constitution but that it would have positive effects. He wrote, on October 17, that such “fundamental maxims of free Government” would be “a good ground for an appeal to the sense of community” against potential oppression and would “counteract the impulses of interest and passion.”

Madison’s support of the bill of rights was of critical significance. One of the new representatives from Virginia to the First Federal Congress, as established by the new Constitution, he worked tirelessly to persuade the House to enact amendments. Defusing the anti-Federalists’ objections to the Constitution, Madison was able to shepherd through 17 amendments in the early months of the Congress, a list that was later trimmed to 12 in the Senate. On October 2, 1789, President Washington sent to each of the states a copy of the 12 amendments adopted by the Congress in September. By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified the 10 amendments now so familiar to Americans as the “Bill of Rights.”

Benjamin Franklin told a French correspondent in 1788 that the formation of the new government had been like a game of dice, with many players of diverse prejudices and interests unable to make any uncontested moves. Madison wrote to Jefferson that the welding of these clashing interests was “a task more difficult than can be well conceived by those who were not concerned in the execution of it.” When the delegates left Philadelphia after the convention, few, if any, were convinced that the Constitution they had approved outlined the ideal form of government for the country. But late in his life James Madison scrawled out another letter, one never addressed. In it he declared that no government can be perfect, and “that which is the least imperfect is therefore the best government.”

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

 

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

A lot of reading, however, your advantage is having no one telling you what it says. You are an intelligent person and understand it for yourself.

The creation of the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, or the formation of a militia. It does not address the right of an individual to defend themselves, although it covers that in part. The real foundation is protecting the citizens of the United States of America against a tyrannical government controlling every aspect of their lives. It removes the ability to restrict the munitions needed for such a resistance (how much a clip can hold – in order to protect yourself you need the same capacity of your ammo clip to hold the same of those attacking you; federal, criminal, and now terrorist). It simply says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This was the concern of those (Federalist)  that wanted assurance that they would be able to protect themselves against a government taking over their lives.

Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt (FDR) introduced Socialism into our country. The political Left has seized upon that and throughout the last 100 years has made every effort to more us into a complete European style Socialist country. The primary step to seize control is to disarm the citizenry. Once disarmed, they cannot resist the domination of the government because they have no ability to resist. Disarming tax paying citizens puts them at the mercy of those that have no regard for life and property, or the pride of working for a living. 100% of the time when you disarm citizens’ crime increases dramatically.

All you have to do is look at our present Federal Government conduct. We have a President who studied Marxist/Socialist/Collectivist governments in all his schooling, and argued for the same. He has surrounded himself with people who have confessed being Socialist in their ideology. His misuse of Presidential Executive Orders further proves his conviction of being a KING, not a LIMITED PRESIDENT as outlined in our Constitution.

He and the Entire political Left are determined to disarm America although they know they will never be able to disarm the criminal element in our society. I have shared with you the experiences of Australia and England. They want their firearms back. They are warning America against what they are experiencing. When you hear the rhetoric of the Left in coming days remember the warnings of the citizens of Australia and England.

Whenever you meet force with force, you have a better percentage of survival. Education and training is critical and must be enforced with regard to owning any form of firearms. We must also have laws that deal with helping, and securing, those that are mentally challenged. The entertainment industry must take responsibility for what they glorify in film and video entertainment. We need to revive respect for life and liberty and the moral fiber that built this great nation.

Anger and shrill debate is never the answer. Restoring the peace and the original intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be our only resolve. Anyone want to join me?

Is An Executive Order a Law that Must be Obeyed?


Is An Executive Order a Law that Must be Obeyed?

King-Obama_croppedThere’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.

FBI and Andrew Breitbart Vindicated by New ‘Occupy’ Explosives Arrests


Bret BART

Two prominent Occupy Wall Street movement activists have been arrested by the New York Police Department for allegedly possessing a cache of weapons and explosive material in New York City’s Greenwich Village.

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.

MORE Evidence of President Obama’s Socialistic Ideals and Determination to Take this Country Socialist


by

Indefinite Military Detention Of US Citizens To Be Signed Into Law By Obama

obama-signing-executive-orderWe’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.

The Fall of the Right


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?

THANKS A LOT SANDY


The aftermath of Sandy defies description.

  • Three feet of Snow in West Virginia;
  • Several inches of sand covering everything several miles inland in New Jersey;
  • The front of a building in New York City completely blown off;
  • A wind-blown fire wiping out 80 homes;
  • Millions of people without power, safe drinking water and uncertain sewers;
  • Transportation interrupted, especially flights.

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;

  • The Left opposes Voter I.D. because they curry the favor of people who are here illegally. I.D.s exposes the fraud.
  • In Florida, over 50,000 people that are on the voting registration rolls are deceased. How many do you think will rise from the dead and vote?
  • The introduction of early voting has given the Left more time to encourage fraud by multiple votes from some people.
  • The Left has already manipulated the Military Vote into nonexistence because they know the Military votes predominately Republican.
  • California has already announced they will not be counting the mailed in ballots, as they did in 2008, because they claim it won’t make a difference in the outcome.
  • The U.N. has been invited again to “observe” our voting because the U.N. has been told that Republicans repress the vote in certain areas prohibiting poor and elderly people from voting.
  • With the power off, some areas will have to go to paper ballots opening the doors for screams of voting irregularity should the Left loose. Yes, it has been reported that the lawsuits have already been drawn up and ready for filing should Mitt Romney win. You’ve also heard how the Left has already arranged riots in strategic areas should Mitt Romney win. That will open the door for Marshall Law to be established, and the election deemed null and void.
  • Like in California, the Registrar of Voters has admitted that many citizens are registered in multiple cities and can’t do anything about that person from voting in each location.
  • There is no way to determine the number of illegal votes in the States that have not passed Voter I.D. laws.
  • Like I said, opened doors more even more voting shenanigans, especially should the election be extended because of Sandy’s destruction.

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?

Sequestration


 

Help Me Understand


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.

Benghazi, Libya Debacle


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.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire


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.

Got Racism?


Ann Coulter Letter

Got racism?

Got racism?

Actress Stacey Dash

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.”

The Militant Party


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;

  • Confrontational
  • Aggressive
  • Radical
  • Revolutionary
  • Combative
  • Rebellious
  • Belligerent
  • Bellicose: ready or inclined to quarrel, fight, or go to war.

Let’s review the recent past of the Democrat Party and the actions of their members;

  • Today it was revealed that a young black actress Tweeted that she wanted people to vote for Mitt Romney. The Left pounced on her calling names like “Turn-coat”. Several Tweets came back to her threatening her life. Here is another example of the Left wanting Free Speech ONLY if it agrees with THEIR speech.
  • Mitt Romney is declared the winner of the last debate, even by the Main Stream Media machine. Instead of admitting the President may have had a bad night, they sent out their “Talking-Head-Chorus” proclaiming Mitt Romney a liar. However, not one of them can articulate what he lied about.
  • Contrast the difference between the Occupied Movement and the Tea Party. Can anyone point to a time when the Tea Party ever;
    • Burned a Police Car?
    • Set fire to anything?
    • Broke any windows?
    • Defecated on a Police Car or urinated in public?
    • Set up tents on private property?
    • Took over an area and demanded that local people feed them?
    • Raped anyone?
    • Assaulted anyone?
    • Trashed any area?
    • Leave an area they demonstrated in cleaner than they found it?
    • Throw rocks at Police and cause a total disruption of local business, community travel, or normal conducting of activity?
  • The rhetoric coming from the White House and the Democrat Party for years has been;
    • Social warfare
    • Racial warfare
    • Economic warfare
    • Religious warfare
      • Their “Talking-Head-Chorus” has been so good at keeping the racial strife pot stirring over the years with no determination to put out the fire and encourage healing. All they do is stir the pot higher and higher. I believe they want the pot to boil over producing violence and a race, social, economic and religious war in America.
  • Any disagreement with what they say, or opinions they hold dear or policy difference is met with character assassinations. Can anyone remember back a few years ago with it was Senator Clinton screaming into a microphone her displeasure with the inference that she and her colleagues were accused of being unpatriotic because they didn’t agree with the Bush Administration’s policies?
  • Notice the times when they are questioned about their decision process over events like “Fast and Furious”, “Libyan Embassy Attack” or details about President Obama’s past you are called a racist, hater and any other demonizing label they come with?
  • Listen to the rhetoric of the Professional Pot Stirrers associated with the Left. All of their words are filled with anger, rage, malice and hatred. Only one conclusion can be made; they want to stir up anger, rage, malice and hatred. That produces more separation of the American people and cause groups pitting them against each other, instead of producing harmony, acceptance and true tolerance.
  • They claim to be the “Tolerant” party, unless you disagree with them in any way. Violent intolerance is the reality of the party.

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?

Possible? Probable?

Column: Christian companies can’t bow to sinful mandate


By David Green

When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn’t much bigger than most people’s living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God’s word. From there, Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation’s largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.

We’re Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I’ve always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God’s laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that’s what we’ve tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week’s biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God’s grace that Hobby Lobby has endured and he has blessed us and our employees. We’ve not only added jobs in a weak economy, we’ve raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.

But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government healthcare mandate says that our family business must provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions. Which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million per day in government fines.

Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that’s raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It’s not right.

I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it’s the same for everybody. But that’s not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won’t exempt them for reasons of religious belief. So, Hobby Lobby — and my family — are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don’t like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.

My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult. The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that’s a choice no American — and no American business — should have to make.

David Green is the CEO and founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Clever Disarming of the Constituents


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?

“Told You So”


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.

U.S. Ambassador Stephens


Here is our American Ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, diplomat, father, husband, and American Citizen, being dragged through the streets of Benghazi, and your President does NOTHING! . . . except go to Las Vegas for a fund raiser, plus two more today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To most Americans this is an act of war. To our president it’s just another act of violence like Fort Hood. He and the Secretary of State have already apologized and will soon send them another $6.3 Billion in foreign aid. This is as sad as it gets.

It Is Not About A Video


I have been patient. I listened to both sides as well as the non-partisan reports coming from dozens of hot spots all over the Mid East, India, Pakistan, Africa, Indonesia, The Asia’s, and even Australia. Not one time has any reporter say they heard any of the rioters proclaim they were rioting because of some video. What they are all reporting is the chants, “Obama. We are all Osama’s.” I watched the movie trailer and the video. That chant was NOT in there. Could it be that the Obama administration has spun another lie about the reality of the situation?

Could it be that these “wing-nuts”, looking for any excuse to riot and burn things up, are actually angry at the Obama administration constant reference to Obama “killing” Osama bin Laden?  (Actually he wasn’t the one that did the killing, he sent trained Navy Seals in to do the job, but to hear Vice President Biden and all the other talking heads, President Obama did it himself).

Could the campaign slogan of the left, “Osama is dead and GM is alive” have anything to do with the anger expressed by Osama bin Laden‘s followers? Could they be a little licked off a Joe and company “Spiking the old football” with that anthem to re-elect President Obama?

Could it be that they finally realize that the “Apology Tour” President Obama made after being elected in ’08, was just a bunch of pander, like he does with every one else?

Is it possible that the Obama Administration knew this would happen, say nothing to warn anyone, hoping this explosion of hatred would detract from his miserable economic policies, foreign affairs policies and all the other failures his administration in responsible for?

Here is one of the most important question thus far. How soon will the riots reach the United States? Just before the election? Or sooner? They are planning this you know. Burning up the rest of the World is only the beginning. Their focus is on the United States. Are are the ultimate prize.

What did you say you’re praying about?

Libya commemorates 9/11


Editor’s Choice: http://www.humanevents.com/

Libya commemorates 9/11

By: Ann Coulter
9/12/2012 05:36 PM

When President Obama intervened in Libya last year, he claimed that “it’s in our national interest to act” to remove a tyrant who — in response to Bush’s invasion of Iraq — had just given up his weapons of mass destruction and pledged to be America’s BFF. Apparently Gadhafi neglected to also tell Obama, “I’ve got your back.”

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.

The Godless Democrats.


 

 

By / 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?

None.

Zip, zero, nada.

Godless.

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.”

Yikes.

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.

“Hope?”

Not so much.

“Change?”

Well, now maybe we’re on to something.

Obama calls Romney ‘new’ to foreign policy, recalling ’08 criticism


Published September 10, 2012: www.FoxNews.com

A little more than four years ago, Hillary Clinton suggested then-Democratic primary opponent Barack Obama was so naïve on the world stage he’d need a “foreign policy instruction manual” should he win office.

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.

George Washington Gives Model of Presidential Leadership


– The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation – http://blog.heritage.org

George Washington Gives Model of Presidential Leadership

Posted By Rich Tucker On September 6, 2012 @ 10:48 am In First Principles |

The old joke about baseball in the District of Columbia was that Washington is “first in war, first in peace, and last in the league.” This slyly played off the age-old description of George Washington himself: “First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen.”

This year’s Nationals are running away with their division, so the joke finally feels dated. But George Washington himself remains a timeless hero who still deserves the full devotion of the American people.

First in war? “Through force of character and brilliant political leadership,” writes Heritage’s Matthew Spalding, “Washington transformed an underfunded militia into a capable force that, although never able to take the British army head-on, outwitted and defeated the mightiest military power in the world.” Spalding’s essay about Washington [2] has just been reissued as part of The Heritage Foundation’s series on people who’ve shaped American political thought [3].

First in peace? “As our first President, Washington set the precedents that define what it means to be a constitutional executive. He was a strong, energetic President but always aware of the limits on his office; he deferred to authority when appropriate but aggressively defended his prerogatives when necessary.”

First in the hearts of his countrymen? True then: “The vast powers of the presidency, as one delegate to the Constitutional Convention wrote, would not have been made as great ‘had not many of the members cast their eyes towards General Washington as president; and shaped their ideas of the powers to be given to a president, by their opinions of his virtue.’”

True now, as another presidential election approaches: “We take for granted the peaceful transferal of power from one President to another, but it was Washington’s relinquishing of power in favor of the rule of law—a first in the annals of modern history—that made those transitions possible.”

George Washington twice voluntarily surrendered power to return to a peaceful life on his Mount Vernon estate. The ruler he helped vanquish, King George III, called him “the greatest character of the age.” The capital city he gave his name to is renowned as the defender of freedom and opportunity.

As John Adams put it, Washington’s example “will teach wisdom and virtue to magistrates, citizens, and men, not only in the present age, but in future generations, as long as our history shall be read.”

More than a century after Washington died, Woodrow Wilson [4] attempted to refound the United States on progressive principles. His experiment is still going on today. That explains why Washington remains so crucial: His guiding principles came from the written Constitution and Declaration of Independence, not some unwritten, “living” constitution.

Let us learn the first President’s lessons and move toward a more Washingtonian governance.


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/george-washington-gives-model-of-presidential-leadership/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/rotunda-capitol-7-1-11.jpg

[2] Spalding’s essay about Washington: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/american-statesman-the-enduring-relevance-of-george-washington

[3] American political thought: http://www.heritage.org/issues/political-thought

[4] Woodrow Wilson: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/07/woodrow-wilson

Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.

 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: