Newt says that Obamacare is going to have big problems over this scandal because of its heavy reliance on the IRS. He said Obama will have to force people in the IRS to testify before Congress and fire who he can over this scandal in order to clearly back away from it. Because, as he reminds us, this is an administration that won’t profile terrorists, but they will profile patriots? He says it’s almost madness.
By Luke Hamilton http://clashdaily.com/2013/04/equality-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/
Tolerance. Diversity. Poverty. The Rainbow. Leftists are exceptional at taking concepts, stripping out the entrails, stuffing it like a sausage with their own utopian brain-farts, and then beating us over the head with it until the concept loses all vestige of original meaning. It’s like that game you used to play as a kid on road trips where you’d repeat the same word over and over until it sounded unrecognizable to your own ears and everyone else in the car was ready to give you a wood shampoo.
They demonstrate Tolerance and Diversity by chastising and ostracizing anyone who disagrees with them. They agitate for more wealth confiscation from the rich so that Americans on welfare don’t have to choose between keeping their cable and getting a new cell phone. A new cell phone, by the way, manufactured in Chinese factories where the working conditions are deemed so terrible that people are committing suicide in order to bring attention to the plight of their fellow workers, in other words made by folks who are actually poor(1).
How pervasive is American poverty when 92% of poor households (as described by the Census Bureau) have a microwave? 31% have 2 or more automobiles. Nearly 2/3rds of them have cable TV or satellite and 1/3rd have LCD televisions.
This is poverty? Our poor would be considered wealthy in half the countries around the world. On a side note, why do we only compare ourselves to the rest of the world in hand-picked situations? If we have to hear about how much better Costa Rica is because of their eco-tourism and commitment to green initiatives, why don’t we talk about the fact that their GDP is ranked #82 in the world, behind countries like Myanmar and Sudan?
Let’s not forget the most popular banner under which the Left marches today: the Rainbow. Its original purpose was to serve as a covenantal reminder between mankind and God that He would never send torrential rains to wipe out the entire human population, as He nearly did during Noah’s time. In a twist of biting irony, the rainbow now serves as a battle standard for the very forces which led to the flooding of the earth in the first place. One can almost see the former residents of Sodom and Gomorrah gleefully marching in today’s Pride Parades under the banner signifying God’s eternal forbearance.
But why stop there? Why not continue the adoption of ironic symbols, so as to stick the thumb further into God’s eye? Forget the Ground Zero Mosque, we should build the Ground Zero Tower of Babel.
Let’s design mobiles for infant cribs. Instead of falling asleep to gently rotating stars and a moon, your baby can drift off to slumber while sleepily watching plush cut-outs of fire and brimstone circling above her head, signifying how proud and tolerant Dad and Dad are.
How about an awards show, called The Salties where salt-pillar trophies are given to the members of the Christian community who made the most difference on behalf of the LGBTQWFNXAIR community over the past year. It sure would be a nice way to say thank you to the hapless Christians who know better than God and can’t be troubled to turn their Bibles to Romans 1.
But there are few concepts which have suffered a worse drubbing than Equality. It is almost Orwellian how gruesomely the Left has twisted the concept of Equality. No one has described it more aptly than LBJ: “[F]reedom is not enough… [T]he next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights is not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result… To this end, equal opportunity is essential, but not enough.” – President Lyndon B Johnson, Howard University 1965
Apparently, the Founding Fathers were slack-jawed idjits. “Equality as a right is so-so”, is what he’s saying. But what he’d really like to see is equality as a result and a fact. So what he and his fellow Progressives have been doing ever since is trying to reverse-engineer our society to arrive at the desired result. This is their playbook. They pick a goal and then twist the existing framework to try to artificially manufacture their desired goal.
They did this with our housing market by punishing banks which refused to lend to sub-prime borrowers. Why? Because that’s how they planned to reach their goal of increasing home ownership amongst the poor. They did this with our currency when they created the Federal Reserve system, which allows them to tinker with interest rates and money supply to achieve their ideological goals. Time and again, they have refused to let natural forces operate and have forced us to suffer through the inevitable course corrections.
There is no way to achieve “equality is a fact” or a “result” without abandoning equality to get there. And what good is achieving something you have to violate to obtain? The first mistake is expecting Leftists to adhere to the laws of logic. The second is expecting them to see beyond their myopic, Machiavellian machinations. In their brilliance, our Founding Fathers realized that no man-made government could achieve equality of results and so they crafted a system that recognized the equal value of each American citizen and offered them an equal opportunity at success and happiness.
The American Dream is not wealth, success, and happiness. Many are born with that in this country or exert little effort to obtain it. No, the American Dream is found in the space between that equal opportunity and achieved success. It is the ability to make the journey, not the destination itself.
(1) The author is well aware that there are Americans who are desperately poor and is sensitive to their plight. He also understands that the number of truly poor Americans is dwarfed by the number of Americans who are perfectly capable of working and perfectly comfortable not working. These are the people who soak up available tax revenues which should be going to those who are truly in need.
Let me get this straight;
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.
The State of the Union Address last night needed to be preceeded with the following warning; “Caution. You are about to hear from our far Left President who specializes in symbolism over substance. Do not expect any details, facts or provable statements. Expect to be overwhelmed with emotionalism for lack of genuine ideas.”
That is exactly what we got. President Obama delivered a speech full of nice ideas, but short on how to pay for them. Lots of blame assigned to the Republicans, and heavy on emotionalism (“They deserve a vote”). All in all I was not surprised at the content of the speech.
In order to know that we are all reading the same sheet of music, let’s make sure we all understand some of the “SYMBOLISMS” the President used, which is consistent with everyone else on the far Left;
The rest is more of the same.
28 January 2013 / 12 Comments
A nation should be concerned when it seems its leader has tired of the grueling work of democracy.
One of the most remarkable and frightening aspects of President Barack Obama’s inaugural address was his dismissal of his opposition – presumably the House Republican caucus – as “absolutists” who are without “principle.”
They are mucking up Obama’s agenda, and he won’t have it.
“For now decisions are upon us and we cannot afford delay,” Obama said. “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect.”
Absolutism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is a form of despotism – “government by an absolute ruler or authority.” That the president of the United States is accusing his democratically-elected opponents of acting in a tyrannical fashion is a remarkable development with potentially profound implications.
Once the president’s opponents have been defined in the American mind as despotically inclined, unsusceptible to reason, and unwilling to play by the normal rules of politics, it is only natural that extreme measures are permitted in response.
This White House has already shown a propensity toward ruling by executive fiat – whether by executive action that effectively enacts rejected legislation, by refusing to enforce existing law, or by crafting rules for legislation to grant vast new powers to bureaucrats.
Once it has de-legitimized the opposition, the White House can claim it is left with no choice but to accelerate and expand its use of executive power. What else can they do, the president and his operatives will argue, when faced with the insanity of the Republicans?
The press, which avidly buys into the notion that much of the House Republican caucus is beyond reason, will lend a sympathetic ear to Obama as he struggles with the forces of darkness.
That reporters have been tapped to assist with Obama’s incipient GOP demonization campaign was made clear this week by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who in the handful of days since the inaugural, has already repeated the “absolutism” charge twice.
Read More: http://www.politico.com/
SECOND
ARGUMENT TWO: THE SHOTGUN
Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland,
Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school. For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,
“We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.” All of TonyMartin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply.
Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA;THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION. “…It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..” –Samuel AdamsThis is a good video clip on guns by a Black woman. Also this is what you get when you research the 2nd AMENDMENT.
The aftermath of Sandy defies description.
I have prayed, and I hope you have been too, for the victims of this historic storm. Such devastation boggles the mind and the cost of recovery will be staggering, especially because we’re broke as a nation.
However, Americans have always rallied behind our fellow citizens who are suffering and in need. We will respond again. Already all the forces of good and caring are at work meeting needs and bring comfort. No, I am not including the government.
I have no doubt that needs will be met, rebuilding will happen and “normal” will one day be reestablished. However, I am extremely concerned about a disaster no one is talking about, and “normal” may never be realized again has a result of that disaster. I am referring to the Presidential Election coming up next Tuesday. The storm has opened wider that opportunity for Leftist voting shenanigans.
With all the arguments over Voter Registration, Voter I.D. and Voter Fraud, this natural disaster has provided and added opportunity to make the corrupt more powerful. Consider the national debate;
For conservatives in California elections are becoming a farce. For over 50 years the Left files lawsuits if measures don’t go their way. The courts are so corrupt and Left, that most of the time the Left wins. More and more I hear people say, “Why vote when the Democrats go to court and get the election overturned.” And here the Left is the one always screaming about voter repression. California leads the nation in voter repression because the Left always wins in court when we do not vote their way.
For my house and me, we will vote. We refuse to give up. The drums of revolutionary war are getting louder every day. Will we see a revolution in our day? I’m not sure anymore. I am not armed, and that worries me.
Hopefully God is hearing our prayers asking Him to forgive our sins and heal our land. However, our nation has reached levels of inequity that dwarfs Biblical Israel. They were rightly judged for their turn from God. America deserves the same. Is there a remnant of believers big enough for God to withhold His hand? I don’t know. I am praying He heals instead of punishes. What are you praying for?
I am having a hard time understanding any person who cannot admit, “I am wrong.” Evidently, Fonzie is not the only one who cannot articulate those humbling words. Part of the human experience is learning from our mistakes, failures and ineptness. No one can expect to grow as a human being without acknowledging that what they did, how they did it and the thought processes that produced the action where wrong. You end up with that old proverb, “Doing the same thing over and over without getting the desired results is insanity.”
President Obama stepped in it when during the debate making a big deal about when he admitted it was terrorism that struck the Benghazi, Libya embassy this last September 11. The only explanation any honest observer could give in his remark to check the manuscript is that he was hoping enough people would see his perspective about his last comments saying that no act of terror would go unanswered. And yes, there have been a few, like Katie Couric. For the rest of us “non Kool-Aid drinking” Americans saw the obvious the first time, especially after two weeks of dodging the question, and send out his propaganda chorus to say it was a spontaneous attack from a demonstration fueled by an internet video.
Is it a psychological problem when people can’t simple say, I was wrong”? Is it a vanity thing to not owned up to the truth? Is it failing of an individual’s character, or value system, that prevents them from humbling themselves like regular humans and just say, “I did that wrong”? I know I am not smart enough to speculate about the answer.
Something else I heard during the debate and have heard others say something similar. It has been obvious to several observers that President Obama has conducted the Office of the President under a set of Collectivist/Socialist theories. Although these theories have proven failures for over 200 years, still there are those that think they can get it right. They are not evil people (I believe that President Obama has been demonized which is wrong to do. No one deserves that).
President Obama several times, “I feel that….”, “I believe that……” as well as other like phrasing. That indicates to me a man with well-meaning motivations TRYING philosophies that are counter to the Founders of our country, and the Representative Republic they designed for us. I do not know the man’s heart, and unlike God, I cannot see his spirit or know his intentions. I know God has commanded that we do not judge one another. Unfortunately, those of us on the Right have stooped to that level, and we have been, and are, wrong. I have repented, and I hope we all do the same.
According to all the reports I have heard today many people who supported President Obama in 2008 have already switched their support. You know that has become serious when the New York Times prints articles pointing out your flaws, thinking, and conduct. Even one of the most liberal of all Senators, Diane Feinstein has come out criticizing the President and the Whitehouse.
If in fact that is the case and President Obama has tried to perfect the philosophies, ideologies and theories of Collectivism/Socialism, than that helps me understand why he is so reluctant to own up to being wrong. I know that I will continue to pray for President Obama as I have for all Presidents I have lived under. I pray you are all doing the same.
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.
Today is: October 11, 2012 | 2:09 PM
By: Ann Coulter
10/10/2012 06:04 PM
Liberal racism sightings have become like a lunatic’s version of “Where’s Waldo?” Kevin Baker of Harper’s magazine says Romney’s referring to his “five boys” in last week’s debate was how he “slyly found a way” to call Obama a “boy.” Says Baker: “How the right’s hard-core racists must have howled at that!”MSNBC’s Chris Matthews says the word “apartment” is racist because black people live in apartments. He also says the word “Chicago” is racist because — despite its well-known reputation as the home of Al Capone and the Daley machine — a lot of black people live there, too. (And don’t get him started on “Chicago apartments”!)As we go to press, Matthews is working on an exciting new hypothesis that peanut butter is racist.Meanwhile, my new favorite actress, Stacey Dash, sends an inoffensive little tweet supporting Mitt Romney and is buried in tweets calling her “an indoor slave” and a “jiggaboo,” who was “slutting (herself) to the white man.” (And those were just the tweets from the Obama 2012 Re-election Campaign!)
Could we get an expert opinion from Chris Matthews or Kevin Baker about whether any of that is racist?
It’s a strange thing with liberals. They spend so much time fawning over black nonentities — like Maya Angelou, Eugene Robinson, Barack and Michelle Obama, and Rachel Maddow’s very, very, very special black guest Melissa Harris-Perry — that, every once in awhile, they seem to erupt in racist bile to restore their mental equilibrium.
After President George W. Bush appointed Condoleezza Rice the first black female secretary of state, she was maligned in racist cartoons portraying her as Aunt Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from “Gone With the Wind,” a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist cliches.
Kevin Baker didn’t notice any of that because he was working on his theory that referring to your sons is racist.
When Michael Steele ran for senator from Maryland, he was depicted in blackface and with huge red lips by liberal blogger Steve Gilliard. Sen. Charles Schumer’s Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dug up a copy of Steele’s credit report — something done to no other Republican candidate.
Is that more or less racist than Romney mentioning his sons? More or less racist than the word “apartment”?
Mia Love, a black Republican running for Congress in Utah had her Wikipedia page hacked with racist bile, heavy on the N-word. Her campaign headquarters has been bombarded with racist graffiti and slimy mailings with pictures of Klansman next to photos of her family.
Some would say that’s even more racist than Romney talking about his sons.
On less evidence than the birthers have, liberals slandered both Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain with the racist stereotype of black men as sexual predators.
As the preceding short list suggests, liberals usually limit their racist slime to conservative blacks. But not always.
In 2008, Bill Clinton said of Obama “a few years ago this guy would have been carrying our bags.” Democratic Sen. Harry Reid praised Obama for not speaking in a “Negro dialect.” Joe Biden complimented Obama for being “clean” and “articulate.”
Did I mention that Kevin Baker thinks that Romney referring to his “five boys” is racist?
Two years ago, liberal newsman Dan Rather said the criticism of Obama was that he “couldn’t sell watermelons if you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.” (I immediately called for Rather’s firing for that, and then remembered that he didn’t have a job.)
Last week, Rather won the 2012 Edward R. Murrow Award for Lifetime Achievement from Washington State University. That’s not a joke — or at least not my joke.
Meanwhile, evidence of alleged Republican racism invariably consists of tenuous connections and apocryphal signals normally associated with schizophrenics and sufferers of “Thrilled Leg Syndrome.”
Since February 2008, the primary evidence of racism has been failure to fully support Obama’s election, policies or re-election. As Slate magazine’s Jacob Weisberg put it during the last presidential campaign, only if Obama were elected president would children in America be able to “grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives.”
I wish I had a nickel for every kid who’s come up to me in an airport and said, “What I wouldn’t give to be able to think of prejudice as a non-factor in my life …”
Curiously, liberals weren’t concerned about what children in America would think if Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination had been defeated. No, only electing the most liberal person ever to seek the presidency on a major party ticket would prove that the country could “put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.”
The left’s racial demagoguery worked: In 2008, Obama received a larger proportion of the white vote than any Democrat running for president in nearly 40 years. (Though he tied Clinton’s 1996 white vote record.)
And look how well that turned out! We haven’t heard another peep about racism since then.
To read more about what a smashing success the left’s utterly self-serving racial bullying has been, read my new book, “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery From the Seventies to Obama.”
I heard someone refer to the Political Left as “The Militant Party”. At first I thought that was unfair, however, after giving it much thought I have come to agree. The synonyms for Militant are;
Let’s review the recent past of the Democrat Party and the actions of their members;
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.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?
The Main Stream Media is all a tweeter about a video of Mitt Romney talking to people at a private fund raiser. In fact, every thing he said is true, but the press has him hating everything and everybody.
FACT: Starting with President Johnson the Democratic Party has successfully created a DEPENDENT UNDERCLASS of people consisting of certain racial groups, people in poverty, and their heirs. So successful has their efforts been, that now 47% of the American people depend on the United States government for part or all of their subsistence. They also do not pay any Federal Income Taxes. These people have developed a number of different labels identifying them as being a part of this Dependent Underclass. Recently a new label has been created; “Bitter Clingers”. I’m sure that does not require any expounding.
FACT: Unless all this spending on Entitlements Spending is brought under control, our country will be bankrupt. For those of you who have done such studies, you know that at the point of a nations bankrupt monetary system is when a dictator steps up, proclaiming he has the solution, and all the freedoms we’ve enjoyed, and taken for granted will be gone. There is abundant evidence proving President Obama has been deliberately driving our country to that point.
FACT: Anyone who will not own up to responsibility for disaster cannot be trusted to fix that disaster and lead the way to prosperity.
FACT: Those that do NOT Believe in personal prosperity, corporate prosperity and rewarding individual achievement cannot be trusted to lead a nation into financial independence.
FACT: You cannot trust a President who issues illegal Executive Orders when he doesn’t get his way through Congress. Such conduct is DICTATOR in origin, and practice.
FACT: You cannot trust an individual to lead when all their life they have not had ANY LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE. A Majority of American hired such a man. How’s it working for you?
FACT: You cannot continue to write bad checks knowingly to be NSF and hope the situation will get better. At some point you have to stop, eliminate all the excess, and get your financial house in order.
FACT: Blaming failure on someone else gets old. At some point, those that gave you a vote will go away and look for another leader.
FACT: The American People ARE NOT as stupid as you think President Obama and the DNC.
FACT: We have to vote them OUT.
By Matt Barber / 10 September 2012 / 42 Comments
But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven. (Matthew 10:33)
Are you a believer? I’m not asking if you’re a Democrat, a Republican or an independent. I’m asking if you believe in God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God of the living, not the dead. The great “I Am.”
If so, here’s something to seriously consider in the voting booth on Nov. 6. In its official 2012 version, the Democratic Party finally scrubbed all recognition of God from its party platform. This was intentional. It was by design. No one should have been surprised. It was a long time coming.
In just the last decade or so, extremist elements within the Democratic establishment have lodged a successful secular-socialist coup. The alarming consequences of this “progressive” triumph have become manifest throughout the pages of the DNC’s 2012 platform. They were also on display at the recent Democratic convention.
Slippery was the slope into Democrats’ anti-theist primordial bog. In 2004, there were seven mentions of God in the platform. In 2008, there was but one.
And in 2012?
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.
– The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation – http://blog.heritage.org –
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.
– The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation – http://blog.heritage.org –
Posted By Julia Shaw On September 6, 2012 @ 12:15 pm In Featured,First Principles | 2 Comments
The city of Charlotte’s convention motto this week is “We make it possible [1].” And who is this “we”?
Here’s the host committee’s answer: [2] “Government is the only thing that we all belong to. We have different churches, different clubs, but we’re together as a part of our city, or our county, or our state, and our nation.”
What a dreary outlook. Government as our most important association. Every other association in our lives—family, church, Boy Scouts—separates us. Only government unites us.
Intentionally or not, the line echoes President Obama’s off-the-prompter remarks during a speech in Roanoke, Virginia, in July.
“[L]ook, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own,” the President said [3]. “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Commentators have bent over backward to cover for these comments by insisting the President couldn’t have meant what he said. They’ve said that, taken in context, his remarks amount to a statement that individual business owners didn’t build the “roads, bridges, infrastructure, education, emergency services and law and order” that make it possible to run a business. Yet no one is arguing for eliminating roads and bridges.
But here’s what is being argued, both by Obama and again by the host committee: Government makes things happen—it’s the mother’s milk of human flourishing.
The perfect case in point is the “Julia” campaign, which traces a fictional woman’s life and ascribes all good things in it to federal—specifically Obama Administration—initiatives. In this world, Julia’s good life wasn’t built by her, or her parents, or her community, but by the government.
The audacity of this argument is rare. It was first advanced by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, drawing on the work of Herbert Croly. TR’s frankness aside, progressives usually prefer to advance their ideology under the cloak of non-ideological pragmatism—liberals say they’re just doing “what works.”
But the tagline and the video combined with President Obama’s comment—“We make it possible” because “you didn’t build that”—reveal how limitless the progressive vision of government is.
If we’re really incapable of ruling ourselves, then we need government to bless and subsidize every decision we make and provide us with meaning in our lives. But if we are indeed self-governing citizens, then we grant government limited power to perform certain tasks clearly articulated in our founding documents, tasks that we as citizens and members of civil society cannot perform.
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/06/we-all-belong-to-the-government/
URLs in this post:
[1] We make it possible: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/08/21/3468884/the-dnc-means-big-business.html
[2] host committee’s answer:: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLa9Te8Blw&feature=youtu.be
[3] the President said: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
If I were a stranger to American history and politics, I would have come away from this weeks speeches with the impression that the Democrats were a group of Freedom Fighters battling dictators, demonic leaders and tormentors who hated women, children, education, the military, freedom, healthcare, poor people, anyone trying to lift themselves up a level in the society hierarchy, rappers of the financial districts and haters of everything and everyone. According to what I heard, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are liars and incapable of telling the truth. According to what I heard the Republican Party want to go backwards to some undetermined era where women had no vote, no health care, no right to her own body, no access to contraceptives and children have to go to schools that are broken down and inadequate.
I also got the impression that all Republicans are so awful that they deserved to be mocked. According to what I heard Republicans have no workable ideas, and have only caused trouble, financial ruin and disasters that the Democrats have to fix. I walked away with the idea that the Republicans could only be conquered by force even if that meant war. I heard every speaker describe a political party that owned all the good answers to life, and without them, the world as we know it would fall apart. Then I heard a commentator actually say that the DNC proved they were the only ones that cared about America’s military.
According to the leader of this DNC, he was hindered by this enemy called Republicans and was unable to fulfill the promises he made about fixing all the Republicans disasters. He claimed he need more time and everyone would have to fight to see to it that he was given that chance. I learned that only he, President Obama, and his Vice President, Joe Bidden, are the only ones possessing the intellect, reason, experience and foresight to finish fixing the malaise created by those horrible Republicans.
The people I was with explained to me that the man who offered up a prayer was a cleric of high importance. He was a Cardinal of a sect known as Catholics, who, among so many other things, have stated publicly that they hate the killing of babies, especially while they are in their mother’s womb. I thought, only monsters would deliberately kill babies. They must be Republicans. Anyway, these people were perplexed that he would honor the DNC with his presence and pray for them because the monsters that kill babies are the DNC, not those pesky Republicans. I’m confused. You American have a strange way to govern your people.
Well, it’s over. I’m told that now these two groups will go out and yell about each other, making all sorts of claims about one another. I am more confused. Why aren’t the electorate more knowledgeable about the issues facing their great nation to be able to decide who is telling the truth? Why are the American people so ignorant about their own national history, issues, reasonable solutions and who is holding to the truth?
Why is there so much hate? Where are the peacemakers? Where are the statesman that can bring peace to the entire electorate? Why all the yelling? What aren’t all the people in prayer, or have they given up on the God they claim to serve? Questions, nothing but questions.
Listening to EX-President Clinton tonight produced many memories and thoughts;
I am actually frightened by this election. After EX- President Clinton spoke and he and President Obama walked off stage hugging one another, I turned to e wife and said, “Wouldn’t it be something if they fired Bidden and replaced him with Bill Clinton?” Her response was, “They would win by a landslide.” I couldn’t disagree.
I cannot find too many around me that are as serious about this election as I am. Apathy has settled over most of America and the Democrats are counting on that to continue. How about you?
While many people make take the title of this article and say they have always been (and I would agree with their practice), the Democrat National Convention plans to drop not only an acknowledgement of Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel, but also any reference to God from their party platform. I suppose they can do that, since they have already acknowledged the false god of Islam prior to the DNC this week.Politico makes the comparison between the party platform of 2008 and 20012:
2008: Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.
2012: President Obama and the Democratic Party maintain an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security. A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States not simply because we share strategic interests, but also because we share common values. For this reason, despite budgetary constraints, the President has worked with Congress to increase security assistance to Israel every single year since taking office, providing nearly $10 billion in the past three years. The administration has also worked to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region. And we have deepened defense cooperation — including funding the Iron Dome system — to help Israel address its most pressing threats, including the growing danger posed by rockets and missiles emanating from the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. The President’s consistent support for Israel’s right to defend itself and his steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize Israel on the world stage are further evidence of our enduring commitment to Israel’s security.
It is precisely because of this commitment that President Obama and the Democratic Party seek peace between Israelis and Palestinians. A just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian accord, producing two states for two peoples, would contribute to regional stability and help sustain Israel’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state. At the same time, the President has made clear that there will be no lasting peace unless Israel’s security concerns are met. President Obama will continue to press Arab states to reach out to Israel. We will continue to support Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, which have been pillars of peace and stability in the region for many years. And even as the President and the Democratic Party continue to encourage all parties to be resolute in the pursuit of peace, we will insist that any Palestinian partner must recognize Israel’s right to exist, reject violence, and adhere to existing agreements.
Elsewhere in the region, President Obama is committed to maintaining robust security cooperation with Gulf Cooperation Council states and our other partners aimed at deterring aggression, checking Iran’s destabilizing activities, ensuring the free flow of commerce essential to the global economy, and building a regional security architecture (?) to counter terrorism, proliferation, ballistic missiles, piracy, and other common threats.
While I am no dispensationalist, I do acknowledge a nation’s right to declare their own capitol, and as such, the nations of the world should acknowledge that particular city as that nation’s capitol. The Democrat party does not have the right to determine what city is the capitol of Israel. Only Israel can do that. But it seems the DNC is siding with some of their esteemed colleagues in the Muslim Brotherhood and the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA) on this issue. It makes sense seeing that they have both welcomed the Muslim Brotherhood and BIMA with their Jumah prayers prior to the DNC in Charlotte.
CBN also reports that references to God have also been stricken from the platform. David Brody writes,
Guess what? God’s name has been removed from the Democratic National Committee platform.
This is the paragraph that was in the 2008 platform:
“We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”
Now the words “God-given” have been removed. The paragraph has been restructured to say this:
“We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth – the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”
While DNC’s platform does contain a section about “faith,” it never addresses what or who that faith is in. That section reads:
“Faith has always been a central part of the American story, and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history. We know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. Faith- based organizations (not identified) will always be critical allies in meeting the challenges that face our nation and our world – from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking. People of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and the world, and we believe in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible. We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country.”
So we can now say that the Democrat party has officially declared itself “Godless.”
Has anyone ever been interested in President Obama’s ideological past? What were Obama’s beliefs while he was at Occidental? Several interviews by Dr. John Drew during the 2008 campaign cycle gave some insight, but few were interested at that time in what Obama really believed when he attended Occidental College. (See “Meeting Young Obama” and “Even Republicans Rejected Info About Obama’s Past” at www.americanthinker.com/john_drew/). Dr. Drew wrote, “Meeting Obama”, about Obama and his ideology about taking the United States over and making it fail so the, “revolution” could in his article “Meeting Young Obama” on February 24, 2011. He clearly remembers what Obama stated, in his own words, “Like it was yesterday”. Obama espoused without hesitation, “There’s going to be a revolution,” saying, “we need to be organized and grow the movement.” This is disturbing due to the fact what our nation is going through right now drives it to the edge of failure; just what the young Obama stated he wanted to accomplish in 1980: the end of capitalism in the United States.Obama has in the last three years been declaring, the people with money are the problem with the United States. This reflects back to his Marxist/Socialist training while he was at Occidental College. Obama discussed this ideology with young John Drew during a Christmas break when Drew visited his then girlfriend, Caroline Boss. It was during his visit that he met Obama face to Face. Dr. Drew stated the man Obama had shown up with was an individual by the name of; Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, a 21-year-old Pakistani student Obama hung around with along with Chandoo’s girl friend, Margot Mifflin. All of them were fervent with their ideas of Marxist and Socialist ideology. Dr. Drew gave context to his recollections with the observation he had also read other stories about how Obama had dreamed of working to bring the downfall of Capitalism. Today it looks like Obama is working very hard to obtain those 1980 dreams.
In the below interview, Dr. Drew will, of course, refer to Dr. John Drew and LP will refer to the author of this piece, Louis Puissegur.
Dr. Drew began; “I know Stanley Kurtz’s book, Radical in Chief , that Obama has ties with the Midwest Acadamy, kind of like the Socialist training ground for America. I think that most Americans don’t understand that Obama
has a longstanding tie to Marxism, that is even longer then his ties to Reverend Right.”LP; “That’s right, he(Obama), didn’t go to Reverend Wright until after he was married.”
Dr. Drew; “Right, I mean, the way I look at it, Barack Obama was probably at least a Communist sympathizer when he came out of high school, he was definitely a Marxist revolutionary when I met him in 1980. It doesn’t look like he
changed a bit, he started hanging out with Bill Ayers.”LP; “You saw him just before Obama went to Pakistan.”
Dr.Drew; “Exactly, the last time I saw Obama was June 1981, we had a graduation party for Occidental College. I guess he left from there and went on this tour in Indonesia, and somehow got into Pakistan, I guess you were not allowed to do that on a United States passport at that time.”
LP; “How long did you have an association with Obama?”
Dr. Drew; “It is kind of complex, the actual time I spent with Obama was sort of brief and limited, but he was part of my social sphere in the sense I knew his roommate at the time, Chandoo, and Obama was a member of the Democratic Socialist Alliance at Occidental and my girlfriend, Caroline Boss was the co-president of that organization.”
LP; “Democratic Socialist Alliance?”
Dr. Drew; “Yes, that was the Marxist student association on campus, Caroline hung up a huge banner of Karl Marx where the students met at the Occidental College Quad. She and I were pretty intense Marxists we had been involved in about a two-year relationship and she was the one who introduced me to Barack Obama, she knew him better then I did. I wouldn’t be saying he was a Marxist/Socialist revolutionary if it was just based with my face to face talk with him, my comments are based on knowing Chandoo, having known Caroline and the Marxist Professors and that whole culture.”
LP; “Another words, the people he was associated with were deep into the Marxist/Socialist ideology?”
Dr. Drew; “Oh yes, I had considered myself as the enemy of the American government at that time.”
LP: “At that particular time? And what made you change?”
Dr. Drew; “Well, the first thing that happened was kind of spiritual change, I just started having the religious experience, I realized that there was something out there which I now call a higher power. That was very inconsistent with Marxist ideology. Because Marxist taught that stuff like that was just the opium of the people, but to me it was very real, so very real. Then my Doctoral research ended up just confirming a lot of Marxist theory which comes to explain how welfare programs and how Capitalism deals with child labor and things like that. My research pulled me out of Marxism fundamentally but what started it was the spiritual change.”
LP; “How many actual face to face meetings did you have with Obama?”
Dr. Drew; “I never had face to face after Christmas and in Partolo Valley California which is near Stanford. I basically spent the day with him, Chandoo, and Caroline Boss, I was visiting Boss from Cornell where I was studying. I graduated ahead of them but I had come back for the trip to be with Caroline. We hung out with Obama and Chandoo for that day and went out to lunch then we ended up arguing pretty late in the evening about Marxist and politics. Whether or not there would be a revolution, a Communist style revolution in the United States. The key takeaway there is that I may have been one of the first people in the world to confront Barack Obama’s kind of silly belief, Marxist idea that there was going to be an inevitable Communist revolution coming to the United States. I feel in my heart that I had persuaded him that that wasn’t in the cards and it wasn’t going to happen and at the end of that time he believed me. I think a bunch of us, Marxist Communist style people were turned off by a Communist style revolution I think that Obama would have heard that from someone else eventually, but from his reaction, I think I was the first person that he could identify as an ally, and a friend and supporter who sincerely believes that there would never be a Communist style revolution. That debate I think helped Obama intellectually, but it helped seal the end of my romantic relationship with Marxist.”
LP; “Obama was a student there the whole time?”
Dr. Drew; “Yes he was a student at Occidental College and he was taking classes from Roger Boesche, who was a political theorist on campus. Roger was definitely a Socialist. Most of the students followed him as a Marxist revolutionary, but he was kind of precise with that and did not see himself as a Marxist. I would say that 100% of the students considered him to be a Marxist/Socialist.”
LP; “Obama had to have some sort of girlfriends, or was he kind of all alone.”
Dr. Drew; “I think this is very unusual but I can say that I saw Barack Obama about 3 or 4 other times on campus and off campus at parties. As God as my witness, I can say that I never saw Barack Obama with a young woman. I never saw any romantic connections with a young woman or even any socializing with a young woman that had a romantic nature.”
LP; “So he was pretty much by himself all the time?”
Dr. Drew; “I am just a small piece of the puzzle, but if I had ever seen him with a girl, I would be happy to say that, but I did not notice that. If anything I thought that the young Obama was kind of the feminine and he seemed to have a very strong emotional tie to Hasan Chandoo.”
LP; “Now did Chandoo have a girlfriend?”
Dr. Drew; “Yes, Chandoo did have a girlfriend, her name was Margot Mifflin. It was kind of interesting that Chandoo had a girlfriend, Margot Mifflin, who is still in the news today, she is a professor at I think NYU. Caroline Boss had a boyfriend, me, and I am in the news about Barack Obama, but there is not a single girl out there that says she was Obama’s girlfriend.”
LP; “I seem to recall an article you wrote about Obama riding in a big fancy car with Chandoo.”
Dr. Drew; “Yes, Chandoo was very wealthy and he drove a very expensive, very nice luxury car. It was ten times better then the normal Occidental student would drive. One of my theories is that Barack Obama had a good time at Occidental College because of the financial generosity of Chandoo. That was one of the places that Obama learned that rich people would give him money just because he was a nice handsome ideologically consistent person.”
LP: “Do you know or did any one say he had a Visa when he was going to Occidental?”
Dr. Drew; “That I don’t have any knowledge of I don’t I called him Barry, but I don’t remember if he was introduced as Barry Soetoro or Barry Obama. I just remember I called him Barry and I don’t know anything about his citizen
status.”LP; “How long did he hang around with Chandoo?”
Dr. Drew; “Chandoo is a life long friend of Barack Obama. Chandoo attended Obama’s marriage to Michelle, I think that was 1992 or 1993 or something like that. Chandoo was at their marriage and he was also at a recent Ramadan Dinner at the White House. He is one of those $600,000 bundlers for Obama. Chandoo has been a part of Obama’s life at least since 1980.”
LP; “So Chandoo is a bundler for Obama too?”
Dr. Drew; “Yes, Chandoo would go out and raise contributions from people then put all those checks in a bundle, then deliver it over to the campaign headquarters.”
LP:” Is Chandoo a US Citizen or is he a Pakistani?”
Dr. Drew; “He is living in New York, in America.”
LP: “About how many hours had you spent with Obama?”
Dr. Drew; “I would say that altogether it was about 10 to 12 hours.”
LP; “During that time did Obama display the Marxist ideology?”
Dr. Drew; “We were confiding in each other the way people fight with each other people with major historical struggles in communicating, very down to earth, very honest. Like I said, I am ashamed of my Socialist/Marxist past, I have a conversion story which explains how I became a Christian, Constitutional Conservative. Barack Obama has no conversion story. There is a story about how he stopped being a Marxist, if anything his career, life shows an alarming consistency in his ideological extremism.”
LP; “Do you see the same Marxist ideology now with Barack Obama?”
Dr. Drew; “Yes, especially when he talks about the people holding on to their guns and religion because of economic stress. That is a Marxist idea. Everything he says about it being a good idea to spread the wealth around; that is Marxist/Socialist concepts. Some of the statements Obama makes about things inevitably get better, I think that is a Marxist ideological remnants.”
LP; “I noticed in one of your articles you said it would never happen but Obama said yes it will.”
Dr. Drew; “Yes, I remember that very clearly, even some 20 years later because he thought I was nuts. He thought that I was going against everything he had been taught at Occidental College. I persuaded him, I told Obama there has never been a revolution in Italy, France, Germany, why would you expect one here in America? I said revolutions only occur in backwards raring economies, like China, Vietnam or Russia, not in America.”
LP; “How did he accept your idea?”
Dr. Drew; “I think he believed that the economic stresses would pile up worse and worse and after the stresses built up they would just build up to a breaking point where a new group would take over the country. That would be a large group of workers, students, young people, those who were enlightened by Marxist/Socialist ideology would end up running things.”
LP: “Did Obama ever mention Cloward/Pivens?”
Dr. Drew; “No never did, but he might have bumped into her when he was at Columbia because she taught at Columbia. Part of my research disconcerns the Piven and Cloward teachings that welfare programs rise in reaction to violence and rioting from the lower class. I was able to show that that was not true in America. I perceive Obama as being an out and out liar; hiding his real views from the American people. I think those views are deeply objectionable to most people and I am shocked that more media attention hasn’t been focused on vetting Obama and getting down to brass tacks about how he really is.” (see additional information at end.(1))
LP: “Did Obama ever throw money around when he was with Chandoo?”
Dr. Drew; “He hung with Chandoo, but the impression I had with Obama was that they were both very wealthy. I thought that Barack Obama was a descendent from royalty from the way he carries himself. It did turn out that he did spend his summers on the grounds of the palace of the sultan of Jakarta in Indonesia. According to David Remnick,(“The Bridge, Alfred A. Knopf, 2010, page 104”), that is where Obama would spend his summers. So he actually did grow up on the grounds of an Indonesian Palace. Through his step-father, Lolo Soertoro, he actually had ties to the royal family.” (See addition below(2).)
Now with all this stated by Dr. Drew, one has to ask, has Barack Obama moved away from his Marxist, Radical, Socialist Ideology? Has Barack Obama, the man holding the highest office in the United States “hidden” his true agenda, the one he so proudly proclaimed while at Occidental College? One must now consider: just what are the President’s motives behind producing continued debt upon the United States? Is this meant to further what Dr. Drew so clearly remembers: End Capitalism?
These questions should have been asked in 2008. They must be answered in truth today as the American people continue daily to struggle with the Marxist/Socialist ideals foist upon them by Barack Hussein Obama dedicated to them, ideals which have yet to succeed in all of human history. Some pundits state this is a propaganda used historically by Marxist and Socialist regimes, using the single word “forward” as their base. Has Obama finally given America a true reflection of his days as a revolutionary radical Marxist/Socialist?
(1.) My take on Piven and Cloward is included in my published doctoral dissertation in this book, The American Welfare System: Origins, Structure, and Effects. I demonstrated that there was no relationship between street violence or riots and the later rise of the Progressive Era Mothers’ Pensions movement.”
(2.) Information about how Obama’s mother lived on the grounds of the palace of the Sultan of Yogakarta is available in David Remnick’s book, The Bridge, on pages 84-88.
Editor’s Note: This is part one in a series.
By: John Hayward
4/9/2012 09:17 AM
No sooner had the absolutely horrifying unemployment report for March been released than we received an update on the status of engineer Darin Wedel, who became one of America’s most famous job seekers two months ago.
At that time, Wedel’s wife Jennifer found herself in one of President Obama’s gimmicky “online chat” events, and asked the President why the government is passing out so many visas for foreign workers when large numbers of Americans with excellent job skills are unemployed. Darin Wedel was a semiconductor engineer at Texas Instruments, but lost his job three years ago.
The President expressed surprise that such a fine resume couldn’t bring offers of employment in the high-tech wonderland of Obamanomics, where “industry leaders” just can’t find enough people to grab all the lucrative jobs tumbling from their overflowing cornucopias. The exchange, as recounted by the Nashua Telegraph, went like this:
Obama said industry leaders have told him that the U.S. doesn’t have enough of certain kinds of high-tech engineers to meet its needs. Wedel interrupted him to say that his answer didn’t match what her husband is seeing in the real world.
“If you send me your husband’s resume, I’d be interested in finding out exactly what’s happening right there,” Obama told her. “The word we’re getting is somebody in that high-tech field, that kind of engineer, should be able to find something right away. And the H-1B should be reserved only for those companies who say they cannot find somebody in that particular field.”
The President reminded Mrs. Wedel to send that resume along to the White House at the end of the video chat, so the perplexing mystery of how this one poor fellow can’t find a job – after Barack Obama declared “job creation” to be his “top priority” at least 17 times over the past three years! – might be solved.
She did indeed send the resume along, and the phones began ringing off the hook. The White House stepped forward to take credit for this latest example of “recovery” magic:
White House spokesman Jay Carney fielded questions about Wedel and her husband’s resume during a recent briefing.
“The exchange reflected the president’s sincere interest and concern in the experiences of folks out in the country and how they’re dealing with what remains a very tough economy, even as we continue the recovery that we’ve been engaged in now for 10 months, that there are a lot of folks out there who are looking for work,” he said.
This White House statement, and the feel-good follow-up stories about the Wedel phone ringing off the hook, silenced dark muttering from far-left websites, which had begun wondering if Jennifer Wedel – a self-professed “good Republican” who admitted she did not vote for Hope and Change in 2008 – might be some kind of sinister GOP plant, inserted into the President’s video chat to sandbag him with a perfectly reasonable question. It helped enormously that Wedel went on to say that “I haven’t seen anybody who would have been a good replacement” for President Obama, and would “probably vote him back in.”
Not surprisingly, the Wedels also began hearing from desperate job-seekers who wondered if they might hope to to attract the notice of Good King Barack, and gain the favor of the royal court:
Wedel said she hopes that her conversation with the president will help not just her family but countless unemployed workers across the country as well.
“We’re just one person,” she said. “In my e-mail inbox, I’m getting flooded with notes from people in our exact situation, from all over the United States.
“I wish we could get everyone a job who needs one.”
Well, none of those wishes were granted. According to the March unemployment report, the American workforce continues to collapse under Obama’s policies, shedding enough workers to nudge the “official” U-3 unemployment rate down by .10 percent… even though job creation was literally half what was posted in February, and far below the level needed to keep pace with population growth. Even the more supportive pro-Obama media organizations had to wince, while they scrambled to keep the real news out of the headlines.
And as for Darin Wedel, well, he still doesn’t have a job. The brief flurry of interest artificially created when the White House stepped in and decreed that job offers should rain down upon one house in Texas has subsided, as reported by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
More than two months after President Barack Obama asked for Darin Wedel’s resume, the phone is quiet, e-mails are no longer flooding in and the long-sought-after job interviews — which had begun to be scheduled — have petered out.
“Not even recruiting companies are calling anymore,” said Jennifer Wedel, the Fort Worth mother of two who chatted online this year with Obama about her out-of-work husband.
It sounds like Mrs. Wedel might be re-thinking her decision to vote President Obama back into office this November:
“I did feel we got our hopes up a little,” Jennifer Wedel said last week. “I mean, he’s the POTUS. But it seems not even the leader of our country can get [Darin] a job.”
[…] After Darin Wedel was laid off, Jennifer Wedel went to work at an insurance agency, hoping to help support the family while her husband looked for a job.
Now, more than two months after her chat with the president, she has changed her approach. She is turning to social media to try to find a higher-paying job for herself to better support her family.
“We are doing fine,” she said. “Unless reform comes to the H-1B program, I’m afraid we are in a place where ‘our’ family roles are changed.
“This is our permanent job [situation] now. It’s unfortunate, but we will overcome,” she said. “We didn’t do the interview with the president to get a job. We did it to get a voice for so many Americans who, like my husband, are in the very same situation.”
The “optics” of this story are absolutely horrible for the White House, but it was actually horrible from the moment it began. The idea that Americans should have to beg the royal court for indulgences – which the court then demonstrates it cannot provide! – is nauseating, and it’s not a new aspect of the Obama presidency. In the very first weeks of his Administration, he was at a town hall meeting in Florida when a homeless woman asked him for a house, and lo! A house was soon offered, after the President hugged her.
The President loves to govern by anecdote, peppering his speeches with references to all the letters of supplication he receives from the New Poor (formerly known as “the middle class”) All of these people’s lives will supposedly be shattered if the Obama agenda is opposed. The childish absurdity of basing the decisions of a titanic mega-government on a handful of personal appeals never occurs to him, or to the media, which congratulates him on his political skill in “personalizing” huge social “crises.” That’s how the last shreds of cold, hard reason are steamed out of our discussion of the most bankrupt government in history.
It’s Obamanomics in a nutshell: if you’re lucky enough to find your way into his carefully controlled town hall meetings, or you’ve got the right political connections, you can do okay… until things get so bad that His Majesty can no longer wave his hand and cause bounty to be showered upon selected peasants. Fortunately, Obama can count on the media to downplay this story, instead of treating it as a powerful symbolic moment in a failed presidency, as they would if he were a Republican.
After mandating that cars get 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, Barack Obama has signed an executive order in which he will now be “accelerating investment in industrial energy efficiency.” This new measure is determined to help manufacturers expand their use of combined heat and power (CHP) facilities, which then generate thermal and generating power in one process.
According to the EO, the new policy reads:
The industrial sector accounts for over 30 percent of all energy consumed in the United States, and, for many manufacturers, energy costs affect overall competitiveness. While our manufacturing facilities have made progress in becoming more energy efficient over the past several decades, there is an opportunity to accelerate and expand these efforts with investments to reduce energy use through more efficient manufacturing processes and facilities and the expanded use of combined heat and power (CHP). Instead of burning fuel in an on site boiler to produce thermal energy and also purchasing electricity from the grid, a manufacturing facility can use a CHP system to provide both types of energy in one energy efficient step. Accelerating these investments in our Nation’s factories can improve the competitiveness of United States manufacturing, lower energy costs, free up future capital for businesses to invest, reduce air pollution, and create jobs.
Despite these benefits, independent studies have pointed to under-investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP as a result of numerous barriers. The Federal Government has limited but important authorities to overcome these barriers, and our efforts to support investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP should involve coordinated engagement with a broad set of stakeholders, including States, manufacturers, utilities, and others. By working with all stakeholders to address these barriers, we have an opportunity to save industrial users tens of billions of dollars in energy costs over the next decade.
There is no one size fits all solution for our manufacturers, so it is imperative that we support these investments through a variety of approaches, including encouraging private sector investment by setting goals and highlighting the benefits of investment, improving coordination at the Federal level, partnering with and supporting States, and identifying investment models beneficial to the multiple stakeholders involved.
To formalize and support the close interagency coordination that is required to accelerate greater investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP, this order directs certain executive departments and agencies to convene national and regional stakeholders to identify, develop, and encourage the adoption of investment models and State best practice policies for industrial energy efficiency and CHP; provide technical assistance to States and manufacturers to encourage investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP; provide public information on the benefits of investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP; and use existing Federal authorities, programs, and policies to support investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP.
The addition of the new capacity would save energy users $10 billion a year compared to their existing energy sources and would also result in $40-80 billion in new capital investment in manufacturing.
The order directs the Departments of Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency, in coordination with a number of White House advisory groups, to coordinate their policies to encourage investment in industrial efficiency.
The order also directs the federal agencies to help states to use CHP to achieve their national ambient air quality standards, and provide incentives through their regulations to help boost the technology.
The White House says that these increased investments, or we should call them what they really are, tax dollars, would improve the industrial sector’s competitiveness and lower energy costs and reduce emissions. However, we all recall that Barack Obama told us exactly what his energy plan would do, and it had nothing to do with reducing costs.
How will this new EO be carried out? According to the order:
(a) coordinate and strongly encourage efforts to achieve a national goal of deploying 40 gigawatts of new, cost effective industrial CHP in the United States by the end of 2020;
(b) convene stakeholders, through a series of public workshops, to develop and encourage the use of best practice State policies and investment models that address the multiple barriers to investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP;
(c) utilize their respective relevant authorities and resources to encourage investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP.
(d) support and encourage efforts to accelerate investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP
More regulations means higher prices, not lower ones. Barack Obama either purposefully knows this or is completely ignorant of economics. I think he knows exactly what he’s doing here and though he claims it will save energy consumers all this money, he told us in the beginning exactly what his policies would do to consumers’ energy prices…..they would skyrocket.
A recent poll conducted among 1500 adults confirms what we have long suspected: even Evangelical Christians support statism. The polling group—Public Religion Research Institute—determined that social issues, like abortion, are proving to be less important to Evangelical voters when compared with economic issues like unemployment. Apparently the economy trumps infanticide even among those who have been historically pro-life.
What is particularly disturbing about this poll is that the Evangelical churches in America are supposed to be the very ones who understand where and how financial hope should be distributed. Far from being an anonymous government check in the mailbox, real financial help comes in the form of a recognized face or faces at the front door, ready and willing to strive and help the individual in need. The apostle made it clear: “The one who doesn’t work, doesn’t eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). However, this same man also gave the admonition to “do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith” (Galatians 6:10). Christians should be relying on fellow Christians, not federal bureaucrats, to come to their aid in time of need.
As a deacon at my own church, I can assure you that this very thing happens from time to time. Members of the church occasionally come to us, seeking financial help during difficult periods. Sadly though, many of these same people only think to come to us when it is entirely too late: the shelves have been bare for weeks, the car has been repossessed, and the house is already in foreclosure. We have a fairly steady supply of funds coming in to the church for these “times of benevolence,” but most members only use it as a “last resort.” They tend to believe that coming to the deacons and elders for help is the ultimate form of humiliation and destitution, when, in reality, it should be their “first resort.” I know for a fact that many Evangelical churches are actually looking for opportunities to give away money and food because the members of the church are too proud to take a “handout.” This is not only a tragedy; it is a waste of time and resources. It is, in actuality, poor stewardship.
Evangelical Christians should be the ones leading the charge into the economic mess of America. Although few Evangelicals actually tithe 10 percent to their local church, there is often plenty of money residing in the benevolence coffers because even Evangelicals look to the government rather than the church when the bankbook and the pantry become thin. They have willingly handed the church’s God-ordained role as the guardian of the poor and widows and orphans over to the federal government, all the while complaining that the government is involved in too many things that it ought not be. Hello pot, meet kettle. It is this sort of hypocrisy that the Democrats are counting on to be able to skim a significant portion off the conservative Evangelical vote next year. They really don’t even care if you lie about how you voted after the fact. They don’t need your allegiance, just your vote.
Another term you have heard the Political Left use is “Collective”, or one of its derivatives. You can expect they will continue to use this term because it reflects their committed ideology, philosophy and bases for how they want to run the country.
Here is what they hope you will not find out for yourself;
Collectivism: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture), and stresses the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups (such as an “in-group”, in what specific context it is defined). Collectivists usually focus on community, society, or nation. It is used, and has been used, as an element in many different and diverse types of government and political, economic and educational philosophies throughout history including democracy, totalitarian nationalism, monarchy, socialism, and communism. In modern times, collectivism is sometimes thought to be synonymous with socialism or specifically Leninism, though collectivism more accurately simply means “group oriented” or “group orientation”. Most societies contain elements of both individualism and collectivism.
Collectivism can be divided into horizontal collectivism and vertical collectivism. Horizontal collectivism stresses collective decision-making among relatively equal individuals, and is thus usually based on decentralization. Vertical collectivism is based on hierarchical structures of power and moral and cultural conformity, and is therefore based on centralization. Monarchy is an example of a system that makes use of vertical collectivism. [1]
In political economy, horizontal-collectivism is often associated with the economic theories of socialism, which call for some form of co-operative or collective ownership of the means of production and collective decision-making or worker’s self-management within economic enterprises.[2]
|
Politics
According to Moyra Grant, in political philosophy “collectivism” refers to any philosophy or system that puts any kind of group (such as a class, nation, race, society, state, etc.) before the individual.[5] According to Encyclopædia Britannica, “collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism. The least collectivist of these is social democracy, which seeks to reduce the perceived injustices of unrestrained capitalism by government regulation, redistribution of income, and varying degrees of planning and public ownership. In Communist systems collectivist economics are carried to their furthest extreme, with a minimum of private ownership and a maximum of planned economy.”[6]
However, political collectivism is not necessarily associated with support for states, governments, or other hierarchical institutions. There are variants of anarchism, such as collectivist anarchism and anarcho-communism, which are collectivist. Collectivist anarchists, particularly Mikhail Bakunin, were among the earliest critics of authoritarian communism. They agree with communists that the means of production should be expropriated from private owners and converted to common property,[7] but they advocate the ownership of this property to be vested by a loose group of decentralized communes rather than to be held in common by all of society. Nevertheless, unlike anarcho-communists, collectivist anarchists supported a wage system and markets in non-capital goods.[citation needed] Thus, Bakunin’s “Collectivist Anarchism”, notwithstanding the title, is seen as a blend of individualism and collectivism.[8]
Anarcho-communism is a more comprehensive form of collectivism which advocates not only the collectivization of the means of production but of the products of labor as well.[9] According to anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin, “And as long as dwelling-houses, fields, and factories belong to isolated owners, men will have to pay them, in one way or another, for being allowed to work in the fields or factories, or for living in the houses. The owners will accept to be paid by the workers in gold, in paper-money, or in cheques exchangeable for all sorts of commodities. But how can we defend labour-notes, this new form of wagedom, when we admit that houses, fields, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or the nation?”[10]
Economics
Leroy-Beaulieu says that that Albert Schäffle gave the first definition to the phrase “collectvisim”. Collectvism, for them both, is a kind of communism in which quotas are set on quality in addition to those set on quantity. (( Collectivism. 1908.))
Generally speaking, economic collectivism can refer to two distinct concepts: that property (usually in reference to productive property) be owned by all of society in common, or that possessions be owned by collective groups that use the property. The first concept is related to Communism, communalism and some forms of socialism, while the latter concept is related to forms of socialism based on independent cooperative organizations such as Syndicalism, Guild socialism, libertarian socialism and market socialism. Additionally, capitalist systems that largely consist of either cooperative or corporate ownership structures, with ownership being vested in collective entities of legal owners rather than the producers/users of the property, can be characterized as being collectivist to some degree.
Collectivism in the field of economics holds that some things should be owned by all of society and used for the benefit of all rather than being owned by just individuals or private parties. Central to this view is the concept of the commons, as opposed to private property. Early economic systems such as communalism and tribal societies practiced this form of collectivism. Collectivism can also apply to public ownership over the means of production, while others argue[who?] that all valued commodities, like environmental or consumer goods, should be regarded as public goods and placed under public ownership. In health care, collective action by trade unions and other professional bodies throughout Europe in the early twentieth century established mutual sickness funds and contracts with doctors and hospitals enabling workers to be assured of access to health care and sometimes sick pay collectively funded by all the members of the trade union or profession.
Collectivism in economics may or may not involve a state as a manager and steward of collective property. For instance, company property in corporations is usually managed by specialized managers, despite being owned in some cases by hundreds of shareholders. Anarcho-communists, who argue for the immediate abolition of the state, wish to place all goods under communal access without a state or manager. They argue that since the value of labor cannot truly be measured, individuals should be free to produce and consume to their own self-determined needs. In 1876, at the Florence Conference of the Italian Federation of the International, where the principles of anarcho-communism were first laid out, it was stated:
The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity.[citation needed]
Anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin believed that a lack of collectivization of goods would be a dis-service to individuals.[11]
Typology
Collectivism can be typified as “horizontal collectivism”, wherein equality is emphasized and people engage in sharing and cooperation, or “vertical collectivism”, wherein hierarchy is emphasized and people submit to authorities to the point of self-sacrifice.[12] Horizontal collectivism is based on the assumption that each individual is more or less equal, while vertical collectivism assumes that individuals are fundamentally different from each other.[13] Social anarchist Alexander Berkman, who was a horizontal collectivist, argued that equality does not imply a lack of unique individuality, but an equal amount of freedom and equal opportunity to develop one’s own skills and talents, equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. Far from leveling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse, and only the repression of this free diversity results in leveling, in uniformity and sameness. Free opportunity and acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations. . . . Life in freedom, in anarchy will do more than liberate man merely from his present political and economic bondage. That will be only the first step, the preliminary to a truly human existence.[14]
Indeed, horizontal collectivists argue that the idea of individuals sacrificing themselves for the “group” or “greater good” is nonsensical, arguing that groups are made up of individuals (including oneself) and are not a cohesive, monolithic entity separate from the self. But most social anarchists do not see themselves as collectivists or individualists, viewing both as illusory ideologies based on fiction .[15]
Horizontal collectivists tend to favour democratic decision-making, while vertical collectivists believe in a strict chain of command. Horizontal collectivism stresses common goals, interdependence and sociability. Vertical collectivism stresses the integrity of the in-group (e.g. the family or the nation), expects individuals to sacrifice themselves for the in-group if necessary, and promotes competition between different in-groups.[13]
Our nation is totally open to anyone and to anything, that is, unless, of course, you’re a Christian. And if that’s the case, then you’re likely to get more sympathy from a badger with minimal sleep than you will from the liberal left who are hard at work making your life hard.
The liberal, hypocritical, tolerant thought police of the 21st century are about as easy going with Christianity as Ike Turner was with Tina every time she botched a song.
The sport of the Left is Christian-suppression, and man, are they getting good at it. Check it out:
· Liberal, hypocritical, social de-constructors have effectively removed Christianity from our public schools and universities. They have completely deleted the truth concerning the massive role the Christian faith played in our Founding Fathers formulating this great land. And God help you if you, Christian teacher or student, attempt to re-introduce it.
· Liberal, hypocritical Hollywood-en heads routinely show Christians in television and film as cross-eyed morons who are repressed and offensive, buckle-shoed, GED killjoys sporting a 70-plus-pound Bible with a minus-70 IQ.
· Liberal, hypocritical activist judges, tanked up on triple espresso no-foam lattes and Maureen Dowd’s latest tweet, zealously misinterpret and misapply the Constitution to rid from American government and public life, any semblance of Christian thought. They do this with masturbatory preening glee, congratulating themselves for being Titans of religious freedom … protectors of their envisioned nuevo nation.
Hey, ludicrous Left: what’s up with your Christophobia? Why so intolerant, Ms. Tolerance? What are you afraid of? Are you afraid we’re going to bring dignity back to this country? Are you afraid righteousness is once again going to be re-introduced into our land, before you licentiously sink it?
Are you afraid of absolute truth being tabled into the public arena and ruining your randy relativism? Are you afraid of personal accountability and responsibility? Are you afraid that the moral law is going to wreck your amoral life?
Is that it? Is that why you’re working overtime to shut Christianity out of the public arena? Will Christianity ruin your narcissistic fantasy starring you as the center of the universe?
Listen, concerned Christian; even though the times are going to get rougher than Joan Rivers’ morning breath before they get any better in the United States of Liberal Acrimony, we must not acquiesce. It’s time, ecclesiastically and politically, to fight the tolerance movement’s intolerance of our faith, which was the faith of our Founding Fathers and the faith that has sustained our nation’s state of blessedness.
As Christians, we must preserve our rights and freedoms and not allow the Left to shove their Liberal crap down our collective throat. This means we are going to have to get off our collective butts and intellectually fight against the intolerance of Christianity by the “tolerant” liberal and hypocritical Left.
It’s hard for men to speak out on the issue of abortion and rape. First, men do not get pregnant, and second, men rarely get raped by women, although it does happen. Rape is not about sex. It’s about power and domination.
So when Todd Akin used the phrase “illegitimate rape,” it sounded chauvinistic. Is there any other kind of rape? Isn’t all rape “illegitimate”? By definition, rape is illegitimate.
I believe the reason so many men like Sean Hannity and Mitt Romney threw Akin under the bus so quickly is that there was no way they were going to win an argument with an already biased pro-Obama media and the pro-abortion attack machine that’s always on the march.
“Though I’ve previously written that the comment [by Congressman Akin] was a faux pas and unnecessarily uttered, I’d like to address the underlying implications of such a statement, which was very similar to Ron Paul’s phraseology about an ‘honest rape’ when he too was asked about abortion in the case of rape. Are legislators really to blame for implying that there are false claims of rape? Is there a history of illegitimate rape claims, particularly as it relates to this issue of pregnancy and rape? Do some women fabricate these claims? If so, who is to blame for any tendency in our society to question the veracity of rape victims’ accounts? Skeptical lawmakers, judges, juries, media, and the public, or the women who have cried wolf?
Remember that Rebecca is a victim and product of rape. When she was in law school she was beaten up by her “boyfriend” that left her with a broken jaw, loose teeth, and a crushed upper jaw. This experience led her into family law. She continues:
“As a young attorney, I was idealistic and naïve – absolutely indignant that any judge or Friend of the Court referee would dare question the claims of a victim of domestic violence. After all, she finally had the courage to leave the abusive situation after having been threatened, abused and terrorized. How on Earth could a judge or Friend of the Court referee doubt her account and refuse to grant, or dismiss, a Personal Protection Order? I thought that these people must be uncaring women-haters, showing deference only to men. Maybe they were even abusers themselves?!”
It was through experience that she learned that some of her clients lied about their claims of domestic violence so they could get the upper hand in a divorce or child custody dispute. “Finally, the reality struck me,” she writes. “These judges are skeptical because there are women who cry wolf. That’s when I began seeing the judges in a new light, and my resentment grew toward the women who lied. I saw the reality that my clients who really were abused had a difficult time with the court system because of these other women who were ruining it for the real victims.”
Because she needed extensive reconstructive dental work done, she had been referred to a free service of the Give Back A Smile Program. Because it was free and offered to people of domestic violence, she had to prove she was a “legitimate victim,” that she wasn’t a fraud. The scrutiny was not because the people involved in the program were not sensitive to the issue of rape; it was “the result of women who have cried wolf.”
Do women lie about being rape? Not all of them, and it’s the liars that make it bad for real victims. Rebecca Kiessling mentions “the Duke LaCrosse team false rape claim case.” But there’s an even more famous case that served as the basis of the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion case — the testimony of Norma McCorvey — Jane Roe. It was her claim of rape that set the case in motion. This is her testimony on January 21, 1998, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
“My name is Norma McCorvey. I’m sorry to admit that I’m the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade. The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court didn’t happen the way I said it did, pure and simple. I lied! Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffey needed an extreme case to make their client look pitiable. Rape seemed to be the ticket. What made rape even worse? A gang rape! It all started out as a little lie, but my little lie grew and became more horrible with each telling.”
The death of tens of millions of pre-born babies is the result of the pro-abortion community lying about rape. Rebecca Kiessling sums it up nicely:
“So the next time you hear anyone complaining about Todd Akin’s ‘legitimate rape’ remark, I want you to remember that abortion rights activists are the women who cried wolf. They are the ones who are squarely responsible for the skepticism we see today regarding women who claim to be pregnant by rape, and they’ve set an example for other women to lie about it too. For those on the left who criticize Akin, I can assuredly call you out as hypocrites.
Let’s petition to get Rebecca Kiessling to speak at the Republican National Convention. Every American should hear her story.
WHEN – he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done, people said it didn’t matter.WHEN – he appointed cabinet members and several advisers who were tax cheats and socialists, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he appointed a Science Czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he appointed Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar who believes in “Explicit Consent,” harvesting human organs without family consent and allowing animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual and organizer of a group called Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network as Safe School Czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he appointed Mark Lloyd as Diversity Czar who believes in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth, who supports Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – Valerie Jarrett, an avowed Socialist, was selected as Obama’s Senior White House Advisor, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he appointed Carol Browner, a well known socialist as Global Warming Czar working on Cap and Trade as the nation’s largest tax, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as Green Energy Czar, who since had to resign when this was made known, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – Tom Daschle, Obama’s pick for Health and Human Services Secretary could not be confirmed because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – as President of the United States, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – his actions concerning the Middle East seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel, our long time ally, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops early-on when the Field Commanders said they were necessary to win, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions, and individuals that got him elected, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc., people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government, people said it didn’t matter.
Rejoice! This will conclude the articles of parts of the history of the start of our Nation. There is much that I did not report, miracles of God; great prayers by some of the Founding Fathers and others. I wish to end with some words from some of those early men. You will see that two of them became fearful of the same things that concern a lot of us today. All underlining and bold prints are mine, Benny Broussard (my dad)
On June 29, 1788, George Washington sent a letter to General Benjamin Lincoln, his deputy in the War, who had accepted British General Cornwallis sword at the surrender at Yorktown
“No Country upon Earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings…Much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to, so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass. The Great Governor of the Universe has led us too long and too far….to forsake us in the midst of it….We may, now and then, get bewildered; but I hope and trust that there is good sense and virtue enough left to recover the right path.”
On March 11, 1792, from Philadelphia, President George Washington wrote a letter to John Armstrong:
“I am sure that never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our Revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them.
In 1781, Thomas Jefferson made this statement in ‘Query XVlll’ of his ‘Notes on the State of Virginia’. Excerpts of these statements are engraved on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C.
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
On June 12, 1823, in a letter to Justice William Johnson regarding the meaning to the Constitution., Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
David Josiah Brewer (1837-1910) a Justice of the United State Supreme Court, gave the court’s opinion in the 1892 case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, (143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226): (I, Benny, selected only the portion that encompasses “Christian nation in the case of Vidal v. Girard’s Executors) “……this is a Christian nation….We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.”
John Jay (1745-1829) was the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, having been appointed by President George Washington. He was a Founding Father, a member of the First and Second Continental Congresses and served as the President of the Continental Congress. On October 12, 1816, John Jay admonished:
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) 28th President of the United States. On July 4, 1913, in a message delivered at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, declared: “Here is the nation God has builded by our hands. What shall we do with it?”
Dear readers, very soon we will be choosing a person to be our President for the next four years. Now is the time to pray diligently that we will vote wisely. Here are my personal thoughts;
The ball is in your court, our court, our children’s court. To whom do we pass the ball? Which candidate will govern more like our Founding Fathers? Which one will be far from it?
Dr. David Barton is more of a historian than a Biblical speaker, but very famous for his knowledge of historical facts as well as Biblical truths.
Dr. David Barton – on Obama. “Respect the Office? Yes. Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say.
I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama. Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama! I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.
I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President!
Why am I doing this? It is because:
Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama’s, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right!
For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!
I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!
PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!
Majority rules in America, and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his “goals for America …” I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country! Any more compromise is more defeat!
I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America!
GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country!”
(To my readers, please note the date of 1777 in the previous article and this one below. In difference that the battle for independence was raging, check this next article to see what was going on ‘back home’…….Benny)
Continental Congress, September 11, 1777, approved and recommended to the people that 20,000 copies of The Holy Bible be imported from other sources. This was in response to the shortage of Bibles in America caused by the Revolutionary War interrupting trade with England. The Chaplain of Congress, Patrick Allison, brought the matter to the attention of Congress, who assigned it to a special Congressional Committee, which reported:
“The use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great that your committee refers the above to the consideration of Congress, and if Congress shall not think it expedient to order the importation of types and paper, the Committee recommends that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the States of the Union.”
Whereupon it was resolved accordingly to direct said Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 copies of the Bible.
Continental Congress November 1, 1777, issued The First National Proclamation of Thanksgiving to all colonies, as a result of their victory at Saratoga. (This was a long, but good, Proclamation. Below is only part of it….Benny)
“…..That with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their Divine Benefactor; and that together with their sincere acknowledgements and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest, supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance;’
“….That it may please Him, to prosper the trade and manufactures of the people, and the labour of the husbandman; that our land may yet yield its increase; to take school and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety, under His nurturing hand, and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth ‘”in righteous, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost”.”
In 1775, John Peter Muhlenberg, who was a pastor like his father, Henry, preached a message on Ecclesiastes 3:1, “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven.” He closed his message by saying:
“In the language of the Holy Writ, there is a time for all things. There is a time to preach and a time to fight.”
He then threw off his robes to reveal the uniform of an officer in the Revolutionary Army. That afternoon, at the head of 300 men, he marched off to join General Washington’s troops.
By: Ann Coulter
8/15/2012 05:11 PM
My smash best seller “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America” has just come out in paperback — and not a moment too soon! Democrats always become especially mob-like during presidential election campaigns.
The “root cause” of the Democrats’ wild allegations against Republicans, their fear of change, their slogans and insane metaphors, are all explained by mass psychology, diagnosed more than a century ago by the French psychologist Gustave Le Bon, on whose work much of my own book is based.
Le Bon’s 1896 book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” was carefully read by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in order to learn how to incite mobs. Our liberals could have been Le Bon’s study subjects.
With the country drowning in debt and Medicare and Social Security on high-speed bullet trains to bankruptcy, the entire Democratic Party refuses to acknowledge mathematical facts. Instead, they incite the Democratic mob to hate Republicans by accusing them of wanting to kill old people.
According to a 2009 report — before Obama added another $5 trillion to the national debt — Obama’s own treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, stated that in less than 10 years, spending on major entitlement programs, plus interest payments on the national debt, would consume 92 cents of every dollar in federal revenue.
That means no money for an army, a navy, rockets, national parks, food inspectors, air traffic controllers, highways, and so on. Basically, the entire federal budget will be required just to pay for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — and the cost of borrowing money to pay for these programs.
When Social Security was enacted in 1935, the average lifespan was 61.7 years. Today, it’s almost 79 and rising. But liberals believe the age at which people can begin collecting Social Security must never, ever be changed, even to save Social Security itself.
Mobs, according to Le Bon, have a “fetish-like respect” for tradition, except moral traditions because crowds are too impulsive to be moral. That’s why liberals say our Constitution is a “living, breathing” document that sprouts rights to gay marriage and abortion, but the age at which Social Security and Medicare benefits kick in is written in stone.
Le Bon says that it is lucky “for the progress of civilization that the power of crowds only began to exist when the great discoveries of science and industry had already been effected.” If “democracies possessed the power they wield today at the time of the invention of mechanical looms or of the introduction of steam-power and of railways, the realization of these inventions would have been impossible.”
Liberals exhibit this exact groupthink fear of science not only toward light bulbs and nuclear power, but also toward medical inventions. Thus, when a majority of the country objected to Obamacare on the grounds that — among many other reasons — a government takeover of health care would destroy medical innovation, liberals stared in blank incomprehension.
They believe every drug, every diagnosis, every therapy, every cure that will ever be invented, has already been invented. Their job is to spread all the existing cures, while demonizing and stymieing pharmaceutical companies that make money by inventing new drugs.
Democrats haven’t the slightest concern about who will formulate new remedies because they are enraged at profit making and suspicious of scientific advancement.
Apart from cures that will never be invented, liberal elites will be mostly untouched by the rotten medical care to which they are consigning the rest of us. Note how Democrats’ friends, such as government unions, immediately received waivers from Obamacare. Rich or connected liberals, such as George Soros, Warren Buffett, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, will always have access to the best doctors, just as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez do.
It is similar to the way that Democrats, who refuse to pass school choice, always seem to bypass the disastrous public schools for their own children, who end up at Sidwell Friends or St. Albans.
Democrats don’t worry about how bankrupting Social Security and destroying the job market hurts black people, bitter divorcees and young people, because they can always demagogue these one-party Democratic voters simply by repeating that Republicans are racist, hate women and aren’t cool like Obama.
The truth is irrelevant; only slogans and fear mongering delight mobs.
The rest of us are forced to live in a lawless universe of no new pharmaceuticals, foreign doctors, gay marriage, girl soldiers, a health care system run by the post office, and bankrupt Social Security and Medicare systems, because liberals can’t enjoy their wealth unless other people are living in squalor.
The country will have the economy of Uganda, but Democrats will be in total control.
According to a recognized Political Left spokesperson, the Romney/Ryan campaign is misrepresenting Obama Care. The Romney/Ryan campaign has stated that Presidents Obama’s plan takes half a trillion dollars out of Medicare to help pay for Obama Care. According to the apologist on Fox this morning, that half trillion dollars, in part, comes from the “massive fraud and over payments to hospitals under the current Medicare System. “WHAT DID YOU SAY?”
Typical of all other interviewers, that answer went unchallenged. The next question should have been, “When did the President Obama administration solve this problem saving Medicare for a few more years?” Isn’t that what you want to know? If they have solved the problem, then why keep that silent?
If they have solved the problem, doesn’t the money put in Medicare from taxpayers income checks belong in Medicare and not put somewhere else? The administration claims they are concerned about ending Medicare as we know it, and blame the Romney/Ryan campaign of proposing just that. Yet, by taking funds from Medicare, funded by all American tax payers, and using it for its unintended purpose, aren’t they ending Medicare for everyone in 2024?
The Romney/Ryan campaign’s proposal DOES NOT END MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT! Those 55 and older are no effected at all. For the younger American taxpayer, they will be given the choice of going on Medicare, or taking that same amount of money and acquiring a better policy. For those American taxpayers that can afford to pay more, they will be able to get the quality of coverage they want. Al others will be covered as written as established.
This morning a homosexual activist walked into a Christian Lobbyist office and began shooting. If not for the security man, the gunman would have killed or injured untold others. As it is, only the security man gave his life to save the others by was shot in the arm and then disarmed the gunman. The gunman is quoted as asking the security man not to kill him because the reason for his being there and shooting up the place was not “about you. It’s about what these people stand for.”
I told you that the Professional Pot Stirrers were keeping the pot of hate so stirred that this kind of thing would happen. It is only the beginning. It will happen much more as the hateful rhetoric of the Political Left gets more shrill, more hateful, more distorted and more demonized. They want this kind of violence so they can blame it on the Right, especially those that disagree with their stands. The Political Party that proclaims it is the “Tolerant Party”, practices INTOLERANCE with anyone that does not share their point of view. Chick-fil-A anyone?
How sad that we have allowed our Society to fall so far that we have these circumstances. Express your God endowed, Constitutional Right, opinion in a public setting and you are labeled a HATER or some other label the Left has determined fits anyone expressing differing convictions. Hate breeds hate. Add to that dynamic the Professional Pot Stirrers efforts at bring the pot to boiling over, and riots and violence is the result.
Let us work harder that ever in history to get the truth out there and get every America Loving Patriot the get off their apathy and vote to rid ourselves of these Collectivist, Socialist, Extreme Left Wing cancers.
Help Eliminate Self Appointed Pot Stirrers
Home / 2012 Election /
By Clash Daily / 12 August 2012 / 35 Comments
by Matt Barber
With the exception of one column previously penned, I pray this becomes my most widely read to date.
The secular left has mastered use of the Internet to further its extremist goals. In fact, President Obama’s web-based “Organizing for America” propaganda machine may have given him the 2008 election.
Let’s beat them at their own game.
To that end, I have a strange request. I’m asking each God-fearing, freedom-loving American who reads this column to forward it, post it, tweet it, print it out and give it to every pastor, priest or cleric you know. If you don’t know any, give it to someone who does.
Why? I agree with Barack Obama that November 2012 represents the most important election of our lifetimes – perhaps our history. Of course, that’s where my agreement with Mr. Obama both begins and abruptly ends.
Here’s the operable question: Do we want America “fundamentally transformed” to mirror the secular-socialist ideals of the radical leftist currently “occupying” the White House?
In Barack Obama’s America, individual freedom is trampled beneath jackboots as a matter of course. It’s already happening at an unprecedented rate.
One need only look to the HHS mandate forcing Christian groups – both Catholic and Protestant – to violate, under penalty of law, biblical prohibitions against abortion homicide.
Or consider recent attempts by multiple elected officials, all Democrats, to shutdown Chick-fil-A – a private, Christian-owned business – simply because its leadership holds the biblical view of marriage.
Is this George Washington’s America, or Joseph Stalin’s Russia?
It’s definitely not your father’s USA.
Instead, wouldn’t we prefer the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers? A constitutional republic wherein individual liberty – whether economic, First Amendment or Second Amendment-related – is sacrosanct and off limits?
Pastors, you’re it. You’re our front line of defense. It’s up to you to rally the troops. Now begins the second American Revolution and, as with the first, it’s on you – men of the cloth – to take the lead.
That is, if you hope to remain free to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Speaking of chicken: In recent years there’s been an epidemic of cultural inaction exhibited by far too many ministers of the gospel. It’s fear-based. “Oh, I don’t talk about political issues,” they say. “You know, ‘separation of Church and State’ and all that.”
Baloney.
If this is you – and only you and our Lord know for sure – you’ve been deceived by the enemies of God. You’ve chosen the easy way out – the path of least resistance. This is something Christ, whom all Christians are called to emulate, never did – not once.
So, respectfully, man-up, Padre! Be the “salt and light of the world,” as Christ so admonished.
But you don’t have to go it alone. There are detailed, easily digestible tools available. Civil-rights firm Liberty Counsel, for instance, is distributing more than 100,000 copies of “Silence is Not an Option,” a concise, though comprehensive, DVD and printed material collection informing pastors and churches about what is permissible regarding political activity (Please, get it for your church at LC.org or by calling 1-800-671-1776).
“The church must be empowered to confront the assaults on our culture, our faith, and our freedom,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. ”I don’t want any pastor, church leader or lay person to say, ‘What more could I have done to protect life and liberty?’”
“Silencing people of faith in the public square has always been the goal of those who realize the influence that pastors, churches and people of faith have on elections. I want pastors to remove the muzzle and replace it with a megaphone,” he said. “Pastors and churches have a lot of freedom to address biblical and moral issues, to educate people about the candidates, and to encourage people to vote. Not one church has ever lost its tax-exemption for endorsing or opposing candidates or for supporting or opposing local, state or federal laws.”
Did you get that? Despite hundreds of thousands of threatening letters sent by hard-left groups like the ACLU and Barry Lynn’s Americans United, not a single church has lost tax-exemption for socio-political activity – zip, zero, nada. Not even for endorsing candidates from the pulpit.
Indeed, if these anti-Christian bullies had been around two-and-a-half centuries ago, and our forefathers had paid them any mind, we may never have had the first American Revolution.
Don’t let them halt the second.
We’re on the precipice of the abyss, and, pastors, I think you know it. But know this too: There’s a whole lot relating to both culture and politics you can both say and do, and very little – if anything – you can’t.
Churches can educate about political, moral and biblical issues. These kinds of issues – whether abortion, marriage, feeding the poor or any community issue – are never off limits from the pastor’s pulpit, even if politicians are also talking about them. “Silence is Not an Option” systematically addresses the misrepresentations used to muzzle America’s pastors and Christian leaders.
Leading up to Ronald Reagan’s landslide presidential victory in 1980, Rev. Jerry Falwell captured the crux of the church’s apathy problem: “What is wrong in America today?” he asked. “We preachers – and there are 340,000 of us who pastor churches – we hold the nation in our hand. And I say this to every preacher: We are going to stand accountable before God if we do not stand up and be counted.”
Dr. Falwell’s words ring no less true today.
Imagine the benefit to our culture if thousands of churches across America registered millions of Christians to vote. How about pledge-drives wherein pastors ask tens-of-millions of Christians to simply commit to voting biblical values?
The possibilities are limitless.
Proverbs 4:18 reminds us: “The path of the righteous is like the morning sun, shining ever brighter till the full light of day.”
Shine bright, salt and light. Don’t be choked into dark silence.
Because silence is not an option.
It can’t be.
Matt Barber(@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)
If you watch nothing else today… please watch this short illustration lesson.Click below to view the video.
(If you said yes to any of the above, you are in danger of being singled out as an enemy of modern American society. You are at risk. If you checked two or more update your passport. If you checked three or more you don’t want to know)
This is a new America. It is not the country I was born in. It is not the country it was four years ago. Almost none of the currently accepted principles of life, mores, or ethics, are the ones that built the country. This is tragic.
This once great nation that had its roots firmly embedded in a biblical worldview is now rejecting the same at all levels. In order to enjoy the full benefits and respect of being an American, people must now, not tolerate, but embrace evil. They must openly accept homosexuality, abortion, pornography, and blasphemy. It’s “un-American” to do otherwise. You will suffer in some form if you don’t raise your PC quotient. From God’s point of view to succumb to this cultural pressure is sin[i].
Not only does our society think we should embrace the bad (pronounced “evil”) things, we must also not verbalize support for anything traditional. This includes marriage between a man and a woman, heterosexual lifestyle, not killing our babies, and holding off on sex until married (Now that’s a prehistoric idea).
It’s pretty scary to think that Dan Cathy, COO of Chick-fil-A fell under vicious attack simply because he believes the Bible and God’s definition of marriage. He basically stated that he feared for America, that we deserved God’s judgment, and that he supported traditional marriage.
This apparently is a crime against humanity according to many. Mr. Cathy’s sentiments were enough to start a war of the words and the worldviews. We are still engaged over the furor that these remarks brought out from the far left. It also launched an overwhelming response from the right, especially Christians.
The Chick-fil-a battle may turn out to be one of those “shots heard around the world.” It is already leading to other battle lines being drawn and the intensification of the rhetoric. It is unbelievable that mayors of some major cities, like San Francisco, would condemn a private company because its COO holds traditional beliefs.
Wednesday, August 1st was Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. Governor Mike Huckabee had proposed a special day to support Chick-fil-A and it quickly mushroomed into a national effort. Over 200,000 had signed the pledge on Facebook to participate on the 1st. The number of people who signed on was quite large in spite of the fact that the signup page mysteriously disappeared for twelve hours. Then, suddenly, “Poof” it reappeared.
When August 1st arrived the nation wide support of Chick-fil-A was no less than incredible. Preliminary reports are that the company broke all sales records that day. Here in Ellijay, Georgia, where I live, the cars were lined up around the block and you could barely get in the door. This continued all day. It is noteworthy that some other fast food franchises, such as some of the individually owned Wendy’s, joined in support of Chick-fil-A at least until corporate told them to stop.
Dan Cathy has stirred the pot even though I don’t think that was on his mind at all when he made his comments. People on all sides of the issues are now heavily engaged in this war of the worldviews and this is a good thing. At least people are getting involved, but it can explode into violence or chaos. This would not be good for anyone.
We, I truly believe, are in danger of God’s judgment. Why shouldn’t He judge us? As a culture can we really claim that we are good? Do we honor Him or His Word? No.
I agree with Dan Cathy when he said, “…that we are a prideful and arrogant nation for having the audacity to think we can redefine marriage from something other than that between a man and a woman, and may God have mercy on us all.
[i] Sin, n. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary. 1. The voluntary departure of a moral agent from a known rule of rectitude or duty, prescribed by God; any voluntary transgression of the divine law, or violation of a divine command; a wicked act; iniquity. Sin is either a positive act in which a known divine law is violated, or it is the voluntary neglect to obey a positive divine command, or a rule of duty clearly implied in such command. Sin comprehends not action only, but neglect of known duty, all evil thoughts purposes, words and desires, whatever is contrary to God’s commands or law. 1 John 3. Matt. 15. James 4. Sinner neither enjoy the pleasures of nor the peace of piety. Among divines, sin is original or actual. Actual sin, above defined, is the act of a moral agent in violating a known rule of duty. Original sin, as generally understood, is native depravity of heart to the divine will, that corruption of nature of deterioration of the moral character of man, which is supposed to be the effect of Adam’s apostasy; and which manifests itself in moral agents by positive act of disobedience to the divine will, or by the voluntary neglect to comply with the express commands of God, which require that we should love God with all the heart and soul and strength and mind, and our neighbor as ourselves. This native depravity or alienation of affections from God and his law, is supposed to be what the apostle calls the carnal mind or mindedness, which is enmity against God, and is therefore denominated sin or sinfulness. Unpardonable sin, or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, is supposed to be a malicious and obstinate rejection of Christ and the gospel plan of salvation, or a contemptuous resistance made to the influences and convictions of the Holy Spirit. Matt.12.
I am perplexed with the mixture of the news today. The Left claiming they didn’t say what we heard them say, but actually what they said is not what they meant. Unfortunately, that has been the standard operating procedure for many years. They say something, get the feedback and then claim they are misquoted, misunderstood (because we are not bright enough to understand them) or taken out of context. Then they over talk anyone who tries to interview them about what they said, refusing to answer any direct questions. Of course, the Left has been interviewing that way all along, except on CNN and MSNBC.
What kind of thinking, and what kind of mindset, makes a group of people like the Left deliberately, with detailed planning, demonize anyone who disagrees with them? What goes on in a mind that would demonize a woman who uses a horse therapeutically treating the MS she is suffering to keep it under control? How dark are the recesses of the thinking are those that never own up to the things they say, especially when they use their distorted lies to hurt and destroy people who oppose them? How can any thinking person associate themselves with a group of people who claim to be the party of tolerance, when they are so intolerant of anyone who does not walk in lockstep with their ideology?
Have you noticed how the Left has surrounded itself with the minority groups of people who they have determined needs their helping hands? Groups like the Homosexual Lobby, Abortion Advocates, Anti-Death Penalty Lobby, the Poor Lobby and the Illegal Alien Lobby. They complain about the lobbyist of the Right, when they have far more lobbyist with self-appointed “Pot Stirring” leaders/antagonist. Each is marched out when they want to use them to beat the Right over the head with phony guilt, and then put them away for another day.
All I’m left with is more questions. They are a people who abuse and misuse the truth, calculates attacks on people designed to demonize them instead of just disagreeing with them. They deliberately, with great calculated planning, lie about anything, disavow anything they said, when it is determined not elevate them. They refuse to answer any question directly by an interviewer and will over-talk everyone to make sure their “talking-points” are broadcasted. This is an unscrupulous people with no conscious, no regrets, no honor and no regard for any other way of thought.
Does that sound familiar? How about the U.S.S.R., and any other like thinking governments?
“I know you think you understand what you think I said, but what I said is not what I meant.”
That sounds like the explanation President Obama has given about his, “You didn’t build that” statement. Of course, those of us who actually do think for ourselves know he meant it when he said it, and still does. He was hit with enough negative feedback, even from his own party that he has tried to “walk-back” his “Speaking-Without-Teleprompters” speech. Interesting what you hear when politicians go off script.
Only those dependent on the Democratic Party for their subsistence will support such ridiculous attempts at trying to hide his real commitments to Socialistic-Collectivism ideology and rule. All other Americans can see his duplicity.
Have you also noticed how his own party is backing away from him? Senator Diane Feinstein said she knows that the leaks about national security came from the White House. She never said whom, but evidently got spanked, based on her “walk-back” today. You get the feeling that President Obama’s reelection team is getting very nervous. I hope that they are seeing that most Americans are not buying their lies anymore.
One example of the Left running away from him is his attacks on Romney about Bain Capital. A growing number of Congress People and Senators are asking them to back off from the attack on capitalism and self-made wealth. Perhaps they have heard from their past contributors who are refusing to give to their reelection campaigns.
If I could make any suggestions to the Romney Campaign it would be to stop attacking President Obama, treat him like he does not exist. Instead focus on ANSWER, ANSWER, ANSWER, SOLUTION, SOLUTION, SOLUTION. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?
All the commentaries, all the pundit debates and all the “talking-Heads” spin has finally been unmasked to reveal the Left for what they are; Extreme Leftist Collectivist Socialist.
What we have said for a long time now has been exposed when President Obama went “off monitor”. Using his best “Black-Gospel-Preacher” style, while being stirred on by his audience of screaming followers, he didn’t stick to the script, spoke from the heart, and said;
That is NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they prayerfully created our government and wrote the Constitution;
According to the perspective of the “Obama Gang”, the original intent and design of the government does not matter. They want to recreate the United States of America in their Collective Socialist mindsets and the hell with freedom they do not approve. Listening to them as they try to explain their positions tells you how stupid and incapable THEY THINK the citizens of the United States of America are. They are convinced they are smarter that everyone outside of their Collective and therefore, can do what they want, lie to you about their actions, and force you to obey.
Their demonic hunger for power has corrupted every aspect of the Left. If they continue to win every election, they will have the insurmountable control of all aspects of government and the supporting organizations as well. They will have taken over the nation without firing a shot, redesign the government that has nothing to do with the original Constitution, and we will have a Socialist pretend democracy like Western Europe.
Everyone I listen to agrees that this election is the most important of our nation’s history. We must continue to unmask the Left and let everyone see how horrible The Left really is. I do not know that it will take another revolution. I do wonder how many patriots we do have that are willing to give their lives to regain the freedom our Founding Fathers fought to give us, in the event we do need to fight another revolution?
Have you noticed the arrogance meter has reached it’s critical mass and the Left is actually speaking so truth as “arrogance pot” overflows. Yesterday, President Obama said, complete with video coverage, what he considered a failing in his first term of office. The economy, unemployment and record spending were not at the top of the list. His confession was that he was not a better story-teller to the American people. “STORY-TELLER?” Along with his conviction that he is the Messiah, King and smartest man on the planet, he now thinks he can talk away the many failings of His Presidency by telling better stories.
His “Talking-Points Choir” has been out today claiming he was referring the President not explaining his programs better and how he believes they will benefit the American people. This is a running theme of the Left saying that we are not smart enough to understand the proposals and just have to wait until we see how it benefits us after it is in law, and affecting our lives.
Either they are convinced that we are the most ignorant people in the world, or as I said, the “arrogance-pot” has overflowed.
In 2008, Candidate Obama exclaimed that when your opponent has no plan or answers of their own, they resort to making you seem to be someone to run away from, instead of explaining why you should run to them. Now they are accusing Mitt Romney of being a felon with Bain Capital, cheating and doing something criminal because of off shore bank accounts (notice the man who advertised the advantages of off shore banking to his customers while he was the head of a major bank, is now advising the President). Once again the Left has pulled out it’s well used play book of making accusations without ever being able to prove the accusations. (See Ann Coulter’s latest column on “Fast and Furious is not a D.C. law firm” http://www.humanevents.com/author/ann-coulter/ )
Once again, I will say that we have to use whatever means available to us to make the Left prove their “claims, accusations or surveys quoted”. Until their feet are held to the fire, they will continue to go along deliberately lying to the American people, and in almost half of the nation, get away with their felonious conduct.
I am among a growing number of people who are getting real tired of the Left spewing lies as the quote their daily required talking-points. No matter what the question, the Lefty Puppet will say what they are programmed. Of course the answer has nothing to do with the subject at hand, the question being asked or any form of sense. The Talking Points have to be repeated ad nauseam, no matter what.
Case in point: SCOTUS (Chief Justice Roberts) pulls the mask off the monster and identifies Obama-Care as a tax. That day, the Left ran around all the talk shows celebrating that SCOTUS found the Affordable Health Care Act constitutional, when in fact SCOTUS did not. However, the next day, and up to this point, they determined that all the American people, not just their mind numbed robots, forgot at the tax celebration, and now insist it is a penalty for not buying health insurance. No matter who is asking any questions about the ruling, the answers are the same canned pomposity. When challenged, they over talk the interviewer and continue their diatribe.
Next point: The new focus for the Left is Mitt Romney’s finances. The running theme is, “He is an evil rich guy who does not understand you, care for you and will take everything you have and give it to his buddies.” Of course they side step any discussion of Senator Kerry, Kennedy and other super rich Democrats such as George Soros. You also notice there is never mentioning how the Democrats never want to talk about how they vote themselves exclusions to any tax law they pass? Yes, the Republicans are just as guilty of the exclusions.
The hypocrisy is rampant in Washington. Right or left. We need to get back to the real issues; the economy, jobs, close our borders and repeal Obama-care. Mitt Romney needs to get busy focusing in on how he proposes to fix things, dictate the national conversation around that, and forget all this mud-slinging.
I received several emails recently that gave me the idea for the following political ads.
And here as some political tee shirts you might like;
Enjoy.
The rhetoric of the Left during the President Reagan years is back. Today the Left fills the news airwaves with new, “Talking Points”. During the Reaganomics years, the primary talking points of the Left used the term, “trickle down economics.” Of course, the Left was wrong, because Reaganomics gave us great economic growth and stability through the President Clinton years. Now, the new slogans used include the terms, “No more trickledown economics, but Middle Out economics.” This is supposed to refer to economics that originate with the middle class and moving out into the marketplace benefiting everyone.
You really do not need an economic degree to see that does not work. The Left whines about billionaires and millionaires getting the tax breaks from what conservatives propose. What they fail to mention, is that the group of people conservatives want to protect and empower are the Small Business people, and the Self-Employed. These two groups of business people are responsible for a large majority of the business world in America. These are also the group affected the most with tax increases, regulations, and OBAMACARE. The Top 1% of income earners has the least amount of effect on the economy, and yet pays a large sum of the taxes collected every year.
The Left’s professional pundits and “Pot Stirrers” want their voting base to concentrate on anyone that generates wealth. According to them, such people are evil and want to keep the poor oppressed. However, their argument fails with the Independents who are the swing vote. They know that such an argument is ridicules and not worth a second thought. That begs the question, why do they keep up the same old attack, arguments and talking points? I believe they only want to “Stir the Pot” of their voter base hoping they will be motivated to get out and vote on Election Day.
The reality of the Free Market Economy is simple. Let the market drive itself, get out the way with overt regulations, and allow the market to correct itself and weed out the greedy, the Swindler, and the fraud. More people are hired, creating more taxpayers, producing more revenue into the Federal and State coffers. That enables American business to do what they do best, and the economy takes care of itself. Creating government jobs and “stimulating” the economy has never had long-term effects.
The Left has a serious problem ever admitting they are wrong and have made bad decisions. They have equally hard time admitting that any of their plans have failed and caused great national harm. For example; The Left will never admit that their strangle hold on American business has been the reason American business, especially manufacturing, has been moved to other countries. Any of these business people will tell you that staying here would have meant bankruptcy and the business closure. It is not because of greed, it is because of survival. In reality, the Left is directly responsible for driving American jobs away and into the economies of other countries. Remember the definition of insanity?
The faster we get these socialist loving people out of our government the sooner our country can recover, if it’s not too late.
Once again, I find myself asking, “What did you say?” All the apologist for the Attorney General and President Obama are out with the same talking points claiming that the Republicans are being mean hearted people who are restricting the vote of the poor, trying to get Eric Holder fired, and want President Obama to lose the next election because all Republicans and conservatives are racist. That’s right, RACIST.
They claim we are racist because we don’t like what he has, and has NOT done, as President. We are unhappy with the way our economy has tanked, how many people who are out of work and how our returning military personnel can’t work, that was promised them when they went away the first time under President Bush. How did that slip our minds? They also claim we are one a “fishing expedition” about “Fast and Furious” and Carney announced that the AG’s office gave up all the documents long ago, and that the AG was the one that stopped the operation ONCE HE FOUND OUT ABOUT IT. “What did you say?”
If in fact they had turned the documents over, than wouldn’t Attorney General Holder say so during one of his 11 appearances before Congress? Wouldn’t their press partners have blasted the airwaves with shouts of “FOUL” if in fact they could proof Carney’s statement? And how about the arrogant stance of our Ms. Pelosi who said outright that all this is racist, and that she could have had Carl Rove arrested. “What did you say?” On top of that, their puppet pundits were sent out with talking points claiming that the operation of “Fast and Furious” was started with the Bush administration. “What did you say?”
Is anyone listening? If in fact, “Fast and Furious” started with the Bush administration, than that would be even more reason for the Left to rush out those documents furthering their staunch position that “it’s all Bushes fault.” Here are they? Where is their proof? Is anyone ever going to ask them to PROVE THEIR RIDICULOUS STATEMENTS? While they’re at it, where is their proof that conservatives want to restrict the vote of any native-born, or naturalized American? Asking voters to show some ID before voting to make sure they have the legal right to vote in an American election, is not unreasonable. Of course, unless you’re a far Left person who is fighting to keep their voting base intact, legal or not.
How about some answers and proof? We’re waiting!
“Once again Mr. Holder, we only look this stupid. Turning over a single piece of paper summarizing the 14,000 documents in connection to the Fast and Furious investigation you are withholding is NOT actually complying with the subpoena. Please refer to President Obama’s words he spoke as a Senator with regard another investigation in 2007.”
“Mr. Carney, stop insulting the intelligence of the majority of the America people. No, the DOJ did NOT turn over 7,000 plus documents to the Congress. They turned over SUMMARIES.”
“Mr. Carney, turning documents over to an investigator is NOT the same as turning them over to Congress. Plus, the smirk on your face when you speak is a “neon-sign” that you are not telling the whole truth.”
I am fed up with all this game playing. I am tired of the Left blaming the Right for the exact same conduct the Left has done all their existence. Gone are the days of Statesmen (generic in origin and meaning for those Political Correct readers) who really worked hard at finding compromise so a bill could get passed. Today, the Left’s definition of compromise, reaching across the aisle or finding a concession, is to agree 100% with everything the Left says, wants and puts in writing. Anything else they label as playing politics, “the party of ‘NO’” or failing to cooperating with the President. Of course, when the Left acts like that they accuse the Right of being mean and call conservatives “haters.”
Are there enough independent thinking Americans left that can see through all this garbage and get off their apathy, vote their conscious and get these Socialist thinking people out of power?
More bad news today for the economy today. No matter how the Left tries to spin the news, the facts keep getting in the way. Therefore, they have pulled out their old-faithful weapons of discussion warfare;
Those the Left have sent out to the talk shows are well prepared to push the talking points no matter the question. A great example is what happened on Fox News Sunday. Mike Wallace tried to get a speak writer for President Obama to agree that President Obama needed to appoint a Special Prosecutor in the “fast and Furious” case like President Bush did with the Valerie Plame case. He was out right rude with Mike and refused to answer the question and went right back to his talking points.
The Left has reached the point that they are going to stand by their rhetoric no matter the facts, no matter the reaction of the electorate and no matter the truth. All they are really doing is proving more and more that they cannot be trusted in anything they say.
I have known several “pot stirrers” in my life. People who get great joy out of watching people enraged because their “buttons” were pushed. One such man I know does this just to see what kind of reaction he is going to get. Sometimes for fun, other times from a motivation of extreme dislike for the person. He never considers what will happen if the pot he’s stirring overflows.
Recently the news has been filled with story’s of people, especially young people, who have been so harassed (their pot stirred) that when their pot overflows, death is the result. They either take their own life, or the life, or life’s, of others. Spouses pots overflowing and people get hurt, and sometimes those pots overflow over the children. I know you grieve like I do when you hear those reports. How often is the “pot-stirrer” arrested, tried and convicted?
When it comes to the professional “pot stirrers” I am convinced their stirring is with a deliberate conscious knowing what will happen when the pot overflows. I am also convinced that they stir that pot just to get the desired result. They know that pot so well, have seasoned it just so, filled it with just to right ingredients and set the flame exactly where they want it to get the result they’ve deliberately planned. Yes, they know exactly what will happen when the pot over flows. That is what they wanted from the beginning of putting that pot on the fire.
Over the years there have been people who have stepped in and removed the pot from the fire, thus removing the results of the overflow. Hatred was replaced by peace, understanding replaced discontent and fear was replaced with faith. Where are the Peacemakers of our time? Who will step forward and remove the smoldering pots from the fires?
When you consider the many pots boiling now, finding a Peacemaker with the courage to approach those pots is one thing, but to have the strength of character to actually remove the pots will need incredible faith in God. One thing is for sure, that person will not be someone who talks the issue to death, which is what we have now. All the talk has produced is more wood on the fires, more stirring of the pots, a higher boil of the ingredients and pushing the contents to a quicker overflow.
I know that there is only one way to produce that Peacemaker. God must raise that person up. The Bible does teach us that the Anti-Christ will be such a person. I don’t plan to be here if that’s who it will be. I’ll be with Jesus. However, I will still pray that God raises up His Peacemaker before Jesus return. I’d sure like to see peace in my time. How about you?
We live in a world that thrives on talk radio, cable news channels with opinion contributors, and news outlets that try to compete with all of them. We’ve become a society consumed with “TALK, TALK, TALK”. The “TALK” is getting stronger, mean, slanderous, angry and inciting. Because words have power, and carefully crafted in the hands of manipulators, cause good people to do ugly things with the intentions to shut up the opposition, and forcing their ideology on everyone else. We’ve seen this in the past where riots have been the results and destruction, mayhem and death are birthed from such conduct. Of course, the people who skillfully incite such anti-social chaos stay in the background and are never called to answer for the horror they’ve created.
One of the reasons for such failing on our part is that we really do not know who we really are, what we really stand for, what is socially correct behavior, and more than anything else, we have become passive listeners, instead of “roll-up-your-sleeves” people of action. We need to turn to a great teacher who can change our passiveness into people of action. Number one teacher for me is the Bible. James, who was a half-brother of Jesus, raised in the same house with Jesus, and knew Him in ways only a brother can experience. After Jesus death, resurrection and ascension , he wrote the general church a letter bearing his own name. In the first chapter he wrote that we need to be DOERS of the Word, NOT HEARERS ONLY. According to James (by the Spirit of God) being a HEARER ONLY is to deceive yourself. He goes on to say that such people look at themselves in the mirror and immediately forget what they look like. Any conduct of this kind of life can never produce great outcomes (fruit), and according to Jesus those that bear no fruit prove they are NOT His disciples (John 15).
In our spiritual life being a HEARER ONLY produces negative results, the same conduct cannot produce good results in the world around us. This answers multiple questions about politically active people of faith. All he talk in the world has not had much of a result. Our society and government is getting more and more destructive, morally corrupt and freedom as we’ve known it is eroding in massive chunks. Talkers are NOT the answer. Being DOERS are.
Look at the political left;
No, I do not want to duplicate their conduct. I do want to posses their commitment of putting FEET to what I know to be true. During the Reagan years we were more DOERS than we are today. I remember the headlines saying, “The Giant is Awake”, referring to the Evangelical Church in America.
Knowing yourself requires an honest assessment of your character, your personal spiritual relationship with God, and your state of humility in righteousness and holiness. This process is never finished and needs constant evaluation. That process must also be carried over into our social life. We are commanded to be Salt and Light. Anything less is sin.
What Did You Say? 
Written
on August 7, 2012