Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Karl Marx’

Getting Caught Up with A.F. Branco Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


It’s Our Time

Instead of Time Magazine creating the phony scenario of a crying little girl looking up at Trump on the cover, a Democrat donkey would have been a much better fit.
Trump Time Cover

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco’s New Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

Mad Max

The face of the Democrat party Maxine Waters suggest the way to resist is to incite mob violence against Trump and his supporters.
Maxine Waters Inciting Mob Violence

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 92018.

Beat Down

SCOTUS delivered some heavy blows against tyranny this past week with its rulings. That may explain why the Democrat’s heads are explaining.
2018 SCOTUS Rulings

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco.

Human Shield

Democrats are exploiting children in their war against America, trying to force us to open our borders to ultimately collapse the country.
Democrats Exploit Border Kids

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

Democrats’ ‘Progressive Agenda’ is Outright Communism


waving flagPosted by

URL Of the Original Posting Site: http://godfatherpolitics.com/22451/democrats-progressive-agenda-is-outright-communism/#dtl4wsSBLblhYjRB.

It must be so close they can taste it. 

It’s never been a secret that the Democrat agenda has been quietly driven by the philosophies of Karl Marx and every radical socialist who ever lit a fuse against the United States. With a long line of public figures who have idolized or modeled themselves after Alinsky, Mao, Lenin or Castro, the Democratic Party has been home to the despicably anti-American and their foolishly misguided followers.

Anybody who paid any attention to the party’s politics and had a modicum of historical knowledge could spot the connections. But leftists being leftists, the DP leadership has always tried to pretend otherwise because their hold on many of the low-information voters is all based on perceptions. Which is what makes it remarkable that the Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality, a document put together by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, so clearly patterns itself after Communist Party and Socialist Party doctrine.

Even more remarkable is that de Blasio and others are trying to make this the official Democratic Party platform for the 2016 presidential election. The Democrats are calling the Progressive Agenda their “Contract With America,” which is as frightening as it is insulting.Liberalism a mental disorder 2 Party of Deciet and lies

Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” was a stroke of political brilliance that helped pull together congressional conservatives to pass important legislation and help America get back on track.

The Progressive Agenda is aimed at turning us into something just shy of the Soviet Union.

All the hallmarks are there:

  • hike the minimum wage (c’mon, if it’s such a great idea, why not make it $100 per hour, guys?);
  • national paid family and sick leave;
  • pass laws to make it easier to force workers to unionize;
  • “immigration reform” to organize illegals;
  • refinance student debt;
  • expanding state brainwashing with mandatory pre-kindergarten, after-school and child-care programs;
  • increasing taxes on “the rich”; etc.Cloward Piven

De Blasio, who calls President Obama “too conservative” to lead a Progressive economic policy, said last week at the agenda’s rollout, “It’s time to take that energy and crystallize it into an agenda that will make a difference. We’ll be calling on leaders and candidates to address these issues, to stiffen their backbones, to be clear and to champion these progressive policies.”more evidence

Democrat officials had a variety of silly metaphors about cavalry and “meat on the bones” to use in praise of de Blasio’s manifesto. The most interesting remark, however, came from Rep. Charles Rangel, who talked about “revolution.”

Buzzword alert.

The Revolution, of course, was the crucible in which the United States was formed. But there’s a world of difference between the way the Founding Fathers meant it and the way modern Regressives mean it. 

  • The Founders meant to take back something that never belonged to the King in the first place: our independence.
  • Regressives mean to assert everyone’s dependence on government and take things from the public treasury that never have belonged to them. **Please see related historical record regarding this point**

To facilitate the fattening of their own purses, Progressive leaders will begin by taking away your rights. If you don’t believe that, then you are dangerously naive. Look at history. That’s always how “progressive revolutions” begin.

It’s already started here. Obama was the warmup act. Now we’ve got closet socialist Hillary, open socialist Bernie and B-string socialist Fauxcahontas (aka Elizabeth Warren), all eyeing the Oval Office. And leftists hope their Communist Manifesto, er, Progressive Agenda will pave the way.

Lurking in the background, supporting de Blasio’s agenda, is Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party and founder of the New Party. The openly socialist New Party, Chicago branch, once claimed a young Barack Obama as a member, something his flying monkeys have denied for years. De Blasio was executive director of the New Party’s New York branch.

The basis of his plan was a report by Nobel prize-winning Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz, who also held “teach-ins” at Occupy Wall Street. Stiglitz has accepted funding from billionaire George Soros, the ex-Nazi employee who helped fund Obama’s career and who has hosted fundraisers for Elizabeth Warren and donated to Hillary Clinton’s PAC. Stiglitz also sits on the boards of several Soros organizations, including one whose aim is to remake the global economy.

You start to see how the pieces fit together? Who says there aren’t any real-life conspiracies to destroy America? Oh, right, mostly the people involved in them.

waving flag**Related Historical Context**

Not Yours To Give

Davy Crockett on The Role Of Government

from: The Life of Colonel David Crockett

compiled by: Edward S. Elis (1884)

“Money with [Congressmen] is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

Introductory note by Peter Kershaw:

Davy Crockett served four terms in the U.S. Congress from 1827-1835. In 1835 he joined the Whig Party and ran a failed attempt for the Presidency. Immediately thereafter he departed his native Tennessee for Texas to secure the independence of the “Texicans.” He lost his life at the battle of the Alamo and forever secured his legendary status in history as “king of the wild frontier.” The following story was recounted to Edward Elis by an unnamed Congressman who had served with Colonel Crockett in the U.S. House of Representatives.

…Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me. I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. It seemed to be that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make a speech in support of the bill. He commenced:

“Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House; but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into argument to prove that Congress has no power under the Constitution to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.’

“Mr. Speaker, I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.” He took his seat. Nobody replied.

The bill was put upon its passage, and instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as no doubt it would, but for that speech, it received but a few votes and was lost. Like many others, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move for a reconsideration the next day. Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table. I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what the devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied: “I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen.” I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into the hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.’

“The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.’ “The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them. “So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence.’

“As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: ‘Don’t be in such a hurry my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.’ He replied: “‘I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.’

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those fortunate beings called candidates, and . . . .’

“‘ Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager (decisive argument: a decisive blow or argument)…. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.’

“‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. … But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

 “‘Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.’

“‘Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?’ “Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said: “‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury; and, I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

“‘If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.’

“‘No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in Washington, who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.’ “I have given you,” continued Crockett, “an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:’

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in this district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:’

“‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I have ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’ “The farmer laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than defeating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“‘If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday seek. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’

“‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

 “‘Yes.’

“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.’

“We shook hands and parted that day in gentlemanly friendship and amity.’ “It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met that man. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, incorruptible integrity, and, for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.’

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with. In fact I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifest before.’

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached the home of Mr. Bunce, and under ordinary circumstances should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.’

“I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.’

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him — no, that is not the word — I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.’ “But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand me there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted — at least, they all knew me.’

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: “‘Fellow-citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying: “‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.’

“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but my friend Horatio Bunce is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came upon the stand and said: “‘Fellow-citizens — It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.’

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.’ “Now, sir,’ concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed, and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.’

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a weeks’ pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men — men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased — a debt which could not be paid by money — and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation.’

“Yet not one of those Congressmen responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

OARLogo Picture6

Soviet Intelligence Officer: Liberation Theology was Invented by the KGB


Reported by May 14, 2015

Rightepousness blesses a nation

Ion Mihai Pacepa served as a general in the USSR’s intelligence service before defecting to the United States in the late 70’s. He recently gave an interview to the Catholic News Agency in which he claimed that the Liberation Theology that has been so prevalent in Latin America for the last generation was a disinformation campaign that had its genesis at the highest levels of the Kremlin. 

So what is Liberation Theology? Picture Karl Marx skipping around in priestly robes, sprinkling holy water all willy nilly, while calling for the oppressed poor to honor God by slaughtering those who have a dime more than they do. It’s what you hear out of Obama and HRC and Pelosi when they decide to wax Christianly. Communism in its Sunday-go-to-meetin’ clothes.righteous leadership

Pacepa’s claims are fascinating, if not easily verifiable. Some of the takeaway thoughts from the interview include:

  • Krushchev believed that Liberation Theology would be the vehicle that allowed him to go down in history as the man who successfully exported Communism to Central and South America.
  • The KGB was enamored with the word “liberation,” and that’s how it came to be in the forefront of the National Liberation Army of Columbia (FARC), the National Liberation Army of Bolivia, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)–all of which had their origins in KGB headquarters and whose leaders were all KGB puppets (Fidel Castor, Che Guevera, and Yassar Arrafat, respectively).
  • The ecumenical, international church organizations known back then as the Christian Peace Council and the World Peace Council were pure KGB inventions. The plan for exporting Liberation Theology also involved taking over the World Council of Churches (WCC).

Picture1

As interesting and historically important as I find this to be, it must be said that none of it represents something new under the Sun. It is a common mark of all governmental tyrannies that they have seen religion as a double-edged sword: dangerous to their own dominance on the one hand, but a very useful tool for their purposes on the other.If the Wicked

Most of us are familiar with the stories about Hitler’s attempt, not merely to silence the churches in Germany, but to actually change Christian theology altogether. We are also familiar with the stories of the Nazi practice of sending agents in to church services to monitor the sermons. I have heard recently, from an organization working on behalf of persecuted Christians in North Korea, that the believers there have a darkly humorous saying amongst themselves: “Wherever two or more are gathered in His Name…one of them is a government agent.”Leftist determonation to destroy freedom of religion

Will we see this in America? Hear me out with my answer here. I say, no we won’t, not in any systematic fashion.

And the reason that we won’t is because the federal government in America needs no program, needs to send out no agents, needs to develop no disinformation campaigns…because our churches routinely do what the tyrants are hoping for, with no government prodding at all.If a nation is not guided by God

muslim-obamaA recent survey among Evangelical pastors showed that ninety percent of them know full well that the Bible speaks to every problem we now face in America, including economics, domestic politics, education, foreign policy, etc. But out of those pastors, who represent nine out of every ten, eight of the nine purposely decide not to speak or teach about any of those things. 

Instead, they focus on things like Three Steps to a Great Marriage, or Five Point Strategies for Getting Ahead. Or, on the more “serious” side, they preach the Gospel to the saved week after week, and focus purely on the condition of your trembling little heart before the Lord. For these, the whole point of the Bible is you and Jesus off in your own corner somewhere, sharing warm fuzzies together over the Psalms.

The feds don’t need to invent a subversive theology and smuggle it into your church. They don’t need a disinformation campaign to get your pulpits to tell you to bend over and take whatever the government wants to give you. That theology is being preached voluntarily already, as I show in my book, Resistance to Tyrants: Romans 13 and the Christian Duty to Oppose Wicked Rulers.

You will not hear from these pulpit-puppets about men of faith, like the rogue, bastard, gang-leader Jephthah, who slaughtered the enemies of God, including a king and queen, and counted it a measure of his zeal for the Lord to do so; whose name is eternally enshrined in the Hall of Fame of Faith in Hebrews 11. Mr. Obama would be worried about Jephthah. He’d send agents to watch him. He doesn’t need to send agents to watch your pastor. Strained peas look at your pastor and say, “Dude, congrats. You’ve taken bland to a whole new level.”A nation is strong

They don’t need to scheme to take our inheritance. We’ve sold it already for a mess of pottage in the form of popularity, convenience, big crowds, and bigger paychecks.

Are there faithful pastors still? Sure. One in ten, if the numbers bear out. Which means that for every Christian reading these lines, there is a ninety percent chance that your pastor is one of the useful, duped sheeple the government loves. “Not my guy!” you say. “My guy is great. I love my guy!”a lawless government

Has your guy ever stood in the pulpit and pointed out that both abortion and sodomy ought to be capital crimes? Even more telling, has he ever made any public waves about these things? Has he ever given you Biblical reasons why socialism is wrong? You love your guy, and that’s a good thing. But if the answers are honestly “No” to those questions, the government loves him too. They don’t need to worry about him.

 

How Liberalism Violates All 10 Commandments


Group-protests-Ten-Commandments-620×350

One of my readers, we’ll call him Moses, is the publisher of a mainstream newspaper in California. He wrote me the other day with an insightful observation. Since Moses works in one of the most liberal industries, in one of the most liberal states in the union, I won’t divulge his real name. We don’t want Moses tarred, feathered and banished to Oklahoma with a scarlet “C,” for Christian, emblazoned on his Harris Tweed sport coat. (Note: I have antipathy toward neither Oklahoma – I once lived there – nor Harris Tweed, though I do recommend against wearing Harris Tweed in Oklahoma. Especially in the summer.)

“Matt, think about this,” wrote Moses. “Every one of the Ten Commandments is explicitly violated by a principle of the left.”

And you know what? Slap me with a Red River catfish if Moses ain’t exactly right.

To be sure, as individuals, we’ve all violated many, if not most or all, of the 10 Commandments. In our fallen, sinful state we have an inherent propensity to rebel against God’s perfect and holy will for our lives. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

Thank God for making available a path, narrow as it is, for eternal redemption and salvation through Christ Jesus.

Still, there is a difference between individual sins and a philosophical worldview that embraces those sins as a matter of course. Modern liberalism – “progressivism,” leftism, secularism, pick your poison – is built upon, by and for sin itself. Liberalism’s entire fabric is constructed by precept planks that are soaked through and stained by man’s arrogant rebellion against our Creator God.

In sum, liberalism is folly. It represents man’s futile attempt to disorder God’s natural order. It’s the unholy brainchild of God’s very first enemy, given by that enemy to God’s favored creation, us, with the sole purpose of destroying that creation.

Unfortunately, we’re all too happy to help. Liberalism just formalizes the process, making sin public policy.

Volumes could be penned on the myriad ways in which the central tenets of liberalism violate each of the Ten Commandments. The following is a much truncated analysis:

1. Thou Shalt Have No Gods Before Me.

At worst, liberalism denies the very existence of God in the forms of atheism and secularism, while, at best, it adopts that wonderfully “inclusive” blasphemy called religious pluralism. Pluralism presumes to give the false gods of false religions equal footing and denies Christ as He defined Himself: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Liberal “Christianity” falls under this category. It’s pluralism with a Christian stamp.

Secular humanism, liberalism’s prevailing false religion, denies God altogether and crowns man as king over himself and the measure of all things. “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”

2. Thou Shalt Not Make Graven Images.

We’re talking idolatry here. Liberalism is built on it. First, there’s literal idolatry (the worship of man-made idols, animals or inanimate objects) enjoyed by our New Age friends. And then there’s everything else: pantheistic environmentalism, the idols of “reproductive freedom,” “sexual liberation and equality,” etc.

Essentially, liberalism worships the created over the Creator. Liberalism also worships the sins of the flesh (see Commandments No. 1, 6 and 7).

Leftist State Religion

3. Thou Shalt Not Take the Lord’s Name in Vain.

  • To deny God is to take the Lord’s name in vain.
  • To deny God as He defines Himself is to take the Lord’s name in vain.
  • To misrepresent God, to call other gods God or to deny the deity of Christ is to take the Lord’s name in vain.

Liberalism does this and much more. Many liberals also mock Christ, Christianity and Christians. They revile the exclusive nature of Jesus, His commands and His faithful followers. They hate truth.

4. Remember to Keep Holy the Sabbath.

This one is a bit tricky as it is widely understood to fall under the Jewish ceremonial law, not the moral law – the old covenant, not the new. Christ Himself healed (worked) on the Sabbath. That said, many Christians still view Sunday as the Sabbath and do, indeed, keep it holy. Not all liberals (there are certainly liberal Jews), but liberalism at large denies the Sabbath any significance whatsoever, much less a holy significance.

5. Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother.

Liberalism seeks to supplant parents with “progressive” government. It diminishes parental rights and encourages children to rebel against the antiquated conventions held by mom and dad. It denies that children even need a mother and father and bristles at the “heteronormative” lack of “gender neutrality” inherent within the very words “mother and father.” The sin-centered, counter-biblical notion of “gay marriage” desecrates God’s design for true marriage and family and is intended to undermine these cornerstone institutions.

6. Thou Shalt Not Murder.

  • Abortion,
  • euthanasia,
  • “pro-choice,”
  • reproductive rights,”
  • “death with dignity.”

Need I say more? Sacrosanct is the liberal rite of passage for a feminist mother to slaughter her own child in the womb. Fifty-five million dead babies later, liberals continue to worship at the pagan altar of “choice” (see Commandments No. 1 and 2).

7. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.

This means all sexual immorality as identified in the scriptures, to include

  • marital infidelity,
  • fornication,
  • homosexuality,
  • bestiality,
  • incest,
  • et al.

Liberalism, it seems, embraces all perversions of God’s design for human sexuality. Central to liberalism is moral relativism. When it comes to sex, you can do no wrong because there is no wrong.

8. Thou Shalt Not Steal.

With class warfare as its fuel, liberalism embraces the redistributionist philosophies of Marx and Engels. Liberalism thrives on theft. Like some completely incompetent and inefficient Robin Hood, liberal government steals from the middle class to give to the poor, thereby ensuring that liberal politicians remain in power and everyone else remains miserable.

9. Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.

I give you Saul Alinsky from his Rules for Radicals:

“The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means.”

As we’ve learned from Barack “you can keep your insurance” Obama, that includes lying. Liberals lie. That’s what they do. The ends justify the means. Bearing false witness about detractors of liberalism is par for the course.

10. Thou Shalt Not Covet.

Again, liberalism uses man’s inherent covetousness as the driving force behind all liberal economic policies. Creating a political climate of economic envy and class warfare gives liberal government the cover needed to take wealth from those who produce and redistribute it to those who don’t. Not only does liberalism violate this commandment, liberalism commands its adherents to do the exact opposite. “Thou shalt covet.”

As Satan “masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14), so, too, does liberalism masquerade as good. It’s deceptively packaged in flowery euphemisms and feel-good sound bites that promise “equality,” “tolerance” and libertine notions of “social justice.”

Yet, in reality, liberalism, in both philosophical and practical terms, simply signifies man’s predisposition to “call evil good and good evil.” It’s sin, all dolled up and doled out.

Ronald Reagan once quipped, “I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.”

If the Gipper had lived another couple decades, he might’ve found out.

 
Image credit: americanvision.org
VOTE 02

Karl Marx for President??????????


If this were a joke it would be funny, but this IS Southern California. The sad fact is these people vote and reproduce!

Gives one the idea that America may, truly, be finished.

Obama Supporters Sign Fake Petition Supporting Karl Marx For President in 2016 as the Candidate for the Democrat Party After Being Told “Obama Has Endorsed Him.”  Filmed in San Diego, California.  Featuring Mark Dice.

Click on the image to see this revealing video;

MArx
Mark Dice                           Mark Dice

Mark Dice is a media analyst, political activist, and author who, in an entertaining and educational way, gets people to question our celebrity obsessed culture, and the role the mainstream media and elite secret societies play in shaping our lives.  Check out Mark’s books in paperback on Amazon.com or e-book on Kindle, iBooks, Nook, or Google Play.
Mark frequently stirs up controversy from his commentaries, protests, and boycotts, and has repeatedly been featured in major media outlets around the world.
Several of Mark’s YouTube videos have gone viral, earning him a mention on ABC’s The View, Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor, CNN, Drudge Report, Infowars, TMZ, and other mainstream media outlets.  Mark has also been featured in (or attacked in) the New York Post’s Page Six, Rolling Stone Magazine, USA Today, The New York Daily News, and in major papers in Pakistan and Iran.
Mark Dice appears in several documentary films including Invisible Empire, The 9/11 Chronicles, and has been featured on the History Channel’s Decoded, Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, the Sundance Channel’s Love/Lust: Secret Societies and more.

He enjoys enlightening zombies, as he calls them, (ignorant people) about the mass media’s effect on our culture, pointing out Big Brother’s prying eyes, and exposing elite secret societies along with scumbag politicians and their corrupt political agendas.  You can support Mark’s work by sending a PayPal donation to Donate@MarkDice.com or by using the Donate link on MarkDice.com.

The term “fighting the New World Order” is used by Mark to describe some of his activities, and refers to his and others’ resistance and opposition (The Resistance) to the overall system of political corruption, illegal wars, elite secret societies, mainstream media, Big Brother and privacy issues; as well as various economic and social issues.
Dice and his supporters sometimes refer to being “awake” or “enlightened” and see their knowledge of these topics as part of their own personal Resistance to the corrupt New World Order. This Resistance involves self-improvement, self-sufficiency, personal responsibility and spiritual growth.
Mark Dice is the author of several books on current events, secret societies and conspiracies, including his newest book, Big Brother: The Orwellian Nightmare Come True which is available on Amazon.com, Kindle, Nook, Google Play and iBooks.  While much of Mark’s work confirms the existence and continued operation of the Illuminati today, he is also dedicated to debunking conspiracy theories and hoaxes and separating the facts from the fiction; hence the “Facts & Fiction” subtitle for several of his books.  He has a bachelor’s degree in communication from California State University.
If you have an iPad or Android tablet, then you can get his books in the iBooks or Google Play store for only $6.99 or $7.99.  Or you can get paperback copies from Amazon.com too if you prefer a physical book.  They are not available in stores.  A lot of work and research went into them and they’ll save you countless hours of web surfing or YouTube watching in your search for pieces of the puzzle.     Your support also funds more of Mark’s videos and other operations.  Equipment, software, travel, and the props all cost money, so by purchasing his paperback books and e-books, you are helping The Resistance continue and your help is greatly appreciated.     Be sure to subscribe to Mark’s YouTube channel, and look him up on Facebook, and

Obama: The Disciple of Saul Alinsky Leads America Towards Full Blown Socialism


http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/obama-disciple-saul-alinsky-lead-america-towards-full-blown-socialism/#4Vuck4LGWucQ8l4F.99

Written by Leon Puissegur

In the previous article, we looked at 8 rules that Saul Alinsky laid out in his book Rules for Radicals.  Barack Obama has been following those rules one by one.  However, there are other rules that follow in the book.  One rule, mentioned by Glenn Beck, was rule 12 and that one rule seems to be one of the most workable rules that President Obama has used to the max! That rule is as follows:

Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Saul Alinsky:

  • Identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power
  • Created a blueprint for revolution under the banner of “social change”
  • Two of his most notable modern-day disciples are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Born to Russian-Jewish parents in Chicago in 1909, Saul Alinsky was a Communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the tactics of infiltration — coupled with a measure of confrontation — that have been central to revolutionary political movements in the United States in recent decades. He never joined the Communist Party but instead, as David Horowitz puts it, became an avatar of the post-modern left.

“Alinsky was … convinced that large-scale socialist transformation would require an alliance between the struggling middle class and the poor. The key to radical social change, Alinsky thought, was to turn the wrath of America’s middle class against large corporations.”

In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” — a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted — a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse — to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed.
As Alinsky put it: “A reformation means that the masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values. They don’t know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless. They won’t act for change but won’t strongly oppose those who do. The time is then ripe for revolution.”
“[W]e are concerned,” Alinsky elaborated, “with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which men have the chance to live by the values that give meaning to life. We are talking about a mass power organization which will change the world … This means revolution.”

John Perazzo at Discover the Networks writes in his profile of Alinsky:

But Alinsky’s brand of revolution was not characterized by dramatic, sweeping, overnight transformations of social institutions. As Richard Poe puts it, “Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” He advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform. This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin. As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:

“Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy’s camp.”

Alinsky died in 1972, but his legacy lives on as a staple of leftist method, a veritable blueprint for revolution (which he and his disciples euphemistically refer to as “change”). Two of his most notable modern-day disciples are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
In 1969 Hillary Clinton wrote her 92-page senior thesis on Alinsky’s theories. A great admirer of Alinsky’s blend of ruthless and stealth activist tactics, Hillary personally interviewed the famed author for her project. She concluded her thesis by stating:

“Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been feared — just as Eugene Debs [the five-time Socialist Party candidate for U.S. President] or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths — democracy.”

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama never personally met Saul Alinsky. By the time Alinsky died in 1972, Obama was only 11 years old. But as a young man, he became a master practitioner of Alinsky’s methods. In 1985 a small group of 20-odd churches in Chicago offered Obama a job helping residents of poor, predominantly black, Far South Side neighborhoods. Accepting that opportunity, Obama became Director of the Developing Communities Project, where he worked for the next three years on initiatives that ranged from job training to school reform to hazardous waste cleanup. David Freddoso, author of the 2008 book The Case Against Barack Obama, summarizes Obama’s community-organizing efforts as follows:

“He pursued manifestly worthy goals; protecting people from asbestos in government housing projects is obviously a good thing and a responsibility of the government that built them. But [in every case except one] the proposed solution to every problem on the South Side was a distribution of government funds …”

Three of Obama’s mentors in Chicago were trained at the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation. (The Developing Communities Project itself was an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, whose modus operandi for the creation of “a more just and democratic society” is rooted firmly in the Alinsky method.)

One of Obama’s early mentors in the Alinsky method, Mike Kruglik, would later say the following about Obama:

“He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.”

Here we see just how Obama got his ideas and they just do not work with a nation under a “free enterprise” traditions!

For several years, Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method. Also, beginning in the mid-1980s, Obama worked with ACORN, the Alinskyite grassroots political organization that grew out of George Wiley‘s National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO).

We have shown just what plan Obama has been following for years, including some of his “mentors” of this Socialist ideology that he has put forth without fear because he views himself as King of the Former United States.  If “WE THE PEOPLE” do not vote people into the Senate to change the balance this year, the United States will be no more, and time will only prove this to be true when they begin making more laws against the Constitution and dissolving our rights one at a time.  We’ve laid out their plans; now it is up to us to ensure that freedom prevails and not a kingdom of Obama.

This is Part 2 in a series. Click here to read Part 1.

About Leon Puissegur

Leon Puissegur is a Disabled Vietnam Veteran with 3 children and 9 grandchildren.  He has been married to the same wonderful lady for 43 years. He is an award winning author and has been writing opinion pieces over the years and in just the last few years has written 4 books and a large amount of articles on many sites.  You can purchase his books at Amazon.  Pick up his latest The Oil Man.

 

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/obama-disciple-saul-alinsky-lead-america-towards-full-blown-socialism/#4Vuck4LGWucQ8l4F.99

This Went Unnoticed: President Obama Added “Living Wages” to the Bill of Rights


independentsentinel.com

http://www.independentsentinel.com/this-went-unnoticed-obama-added-living-wages-to-the-bill-of-rights/

December 16, 2013

By

The White House issued a presidential proclamation declaring December 15th Bill of Rights Day. That’s very nice except that he added Karl Marx’ living wages to his interpretation of the Bill of Rights. He can never simply talk about the US Bill of Rights without adding propaganda.

By doing that, Mr. Obama is attempting to change the meaning our Founding Fathers ascribed to the document.

The proclamation is fine until it the third paragraph (emphasis mine):

We learned that our Nation, built on the principles of freedom and equality, could not survive half-slave and half-free. We resolved that our daughters must have the same rights, the same chances, and the same freedom to pursue their dreams as our sons, and that if we are truly created equal, then the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. Americans with disabilities tore down legal and social barriers; disenfranchised farmworkers united to claim their rights to dignity, fairness, and a living wage; civil rights activists marched, bled, and gave their lives to bring the era of segregation to an end. As we celebrate the anniversary of the Bill of Rights, let us reach for a day when we all may enjoy the basic truths of liberty and equality.

Since when did Thomas Jefferson include a living wage in the Bill of Rights? When Mr. Obama mentions farmworkers, Mr. Obama is referring to people primarily here illegally, also not what the Founders had in mind.

There is nothing in here about entitlements which is what a living wage is:

bill of rights

It might do Mr. Obama some good if he thought about what the Founders actually did say. For instance, they said taxation without representation is tyranny.

Obama is propagandizing the Bill of Rights to convince the American people that a guarantee of living wages is part of our Constitution.

The right to work hard and have equal opportunity is guaranteed, not entitlements.

The President Who Has Done the Most Damage



by Dennis Prager
I have been broadcasting for 31 years and writing for longer than that. I do not recall ever saying on radio or in print that a president is doing lasting damage to our country. I did not like the presidencies of Jimmy Carter (the last Democrat I voted for) or Bill Clinton. Nor did I care for the “compassionate conservatism” of George W. Bush. In modern political parlance “compassionate” is a euphemism for ever-expanding government.
But I have never written or broadcast that our country was being seriously damaged by a president. So it is with great sadness that I write that President Barack Obama has done and continues to do major damage to America. The only question is whether this can ever be undone. This is equally true domestically and internationally.
Domestically, his policies have gravely impacted the American economy. He has overseen the weakest recovery from a recession in modern American history. He has mired the country in unprecedented levels of debt: about $6.5 trillion dollars in five years (this after calling his predecessor “unpatriotic” for adding nearly $5 trillion in eight years). He has fashioned a country in which more Americans now receive government aid — means-tested, let alone non-means tested — than work full-time.
He has no method of paying for this debt other than printing more money — thereby surreptitiously taxing everyone through inflation, including the poor he claims to be helping, and cheapening the dollar to the point that some countries are talking another reserve currency — and saddling the next generations with enormous debts. With his 2,500-page Affordable Care Act, he has made it impossible for hundreds of thousands, soon millions, of Americans to keep their individual or employee-sponsored group health insurance; he has stymied American medical innovation with an utterly destructive tax on medical devices; and he has caused hundreds of thousands of workers to lose full-time jobs because of the health care costs imposed by Obamacare on employers.
His Internal Revenue Service used its unparalleled power to stymie political dissent. No one has been held accountable. His ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were murdered by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya. No one has been blamed. The only blame the Obama administration has leveled was on a video maker in California who had nothing to do with the assault.
In this president’s White House, the buck stops nowhere. Among presidents in modern American history, he has also been a uniquely divisive force. It began with his forcing Obamacare through Congress — the only major legislation in American history to be passed with no votes from the opposition party. Though he has had a unique opportunity to do so, he has not only not helped heal racial tensions, he has exacerbated them. His intrusions into the Trayvon Martin affair (“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon”) and into the confrontation between a white police officer and a black Harvard professor (the police “acted stupidly”) were unwarranted, irresponsible, demagogic and, most of all, divisive.
He should have been reassuring black Americans that America is in fact the least racist country in the world — something he should know as well anybody, having been raised only by whites and being the first black elected the leader of a white-majority nation. Instead, he echoed the inflammatory speech of professional race-baiters such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. He has also divided the country by economic class, using classic Marxist language against “the rich” and “corporate profits.” Regarding America in the world, he has been, if possible, even more damaging. The United States is at its weakest, has fewer allies, and has less military and diplomatic influence than at any time since before World War I.
One wonders if there is a remaining ally nation that trusts him. And worse, no American enemy fears him. If you are a free movement (the democratic Iranian and Syrian oppositions) or a free country (Israel), you have little or no reason to believe that you have a steadfast ally in the United States.
Even non-democratic allies no longer trust America. Barack Obama has alienated our most important and longest standing Arab allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Both the anti-Muslim Brotherhood and the anti-Iran Arab states have lost respect for him.And his complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq has left that country with weekly bloodbaths. Virtually nothing Barack Obama has done has left America or the world better since he became president. Nearly everything he has touched has been made worse.
He did, however, promise before the 2008 election that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” That is the one promise he has kept.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: