Uncommon Knowledge: Dennis Prager on Why America Is Still the Best Hope [Video]

Dennis Prager: Americanism is the Best Hope

By Dave Gordon | June 3, 2012 | Breitbart News

Dennis Prager is a popular and respected conservative radio talk show host, broadcasting since 1982 and nationally syndicated since 1999.

In his fifth book, Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph (Broadside Books) Prager maintains that the world must decide between American values and two oppositional alternatives: Islamism and European-style democratic socialism.

The reasons for America’s greatness lie in what he calls the American Trinity, imprinted on US coins: E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty.

Winning Battles, Losing Wars

By Victor Davis Hanson | May 20, 2012 | PJ Media

Can We Still Win Wars?

Given that the United States fields the costliest, most sophisticated, and most lethal military in the history of civilization, that should be a silly question. We have enough conventional and nuclear power to crush any of our enemies many times over. Why then did we seem to bog down in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan? The question is important since recently we do not seem able to translate tactical victories into long-term strategic resolutions. Why is that? What follows are some possible answers.

No—We Really Do Win Wars

Perhaps this is a poorly framed question: the United States does win its wars—if the public understands our implicit, limited strategic goals. In 1950 we wanted to push the North Koreans back across the 38th parallel and succeeded; problems arose when Gen. MacArthur and others redefined the mission as on to the Yalu in order to unite the entire Korean peninsula, a sort of Roman effort to go beyond the Rhine or Danube. Once we redefined our mission in 1951 as one more limited, we clearly won in Korea by preserving the South.

Why Wright Matters: Obama’s on a Mission from God

By Tom Rowan | May 20, 2012 | American Thinker

When Elwood retrieved his brother Jake from Joliet prison, the two went on a pilgrimage to their childhood Catholic orphanage.  Their pitiful orphanage was under siege from Chicago’s infamously oppressive tax regime and was being put out of business.  For inspiration, the brothers were directed to a Chicago Baptist church.  The church was filled with laughter and love, song and dance, and miraculous divine inspiration that set the Blues Brothers on their own mission with a purpose: keep hope alive for Chicago orphans by paying off the corrupt Chicago regime.

The movie rendition of an all-black Baptist church led by the charismatic James Brown preacher, thrilling his flock with high-spirited love and devotion, is what gave The Blues Brothers soul.  This was what America imagined successful, loving black churches in Chicago looked like.  No wonder, then, that Reverend Wright’s scream for God to damn America is so jarring even to this day.

Why do Black Christians vote Obama? [Video]

Why do Black Christians still vote Obama? Obama is pro-homosexual and pro-abortion and against the core biblical values of most African-American families. Barack Obama is at least 50% White, since his mother was 100% White, and Obama’s dad was reportedly about 50% Arab and about 50% Black, making Obama about 25% Arab and 25% Black. Regardless if he was less Arab than Black he still was not 100% Black, which clearly makes Obama less than 50% Black. Yet despite the fact that he is not even Black, more Black Christians still view him as Black and vote for him, regardless of their own core biblical beliefs. But why?

The following are the first 5 of 10 amazingly morally repugnant positions Obama takes regarding the major moral and spiritual issues of the day. Each one flies in the face of deep moral values embraced by most bible believing Christians, Black or otherwise, yet most African-Americans still virtually always blindly vote in lockstep for Barack Obama and continue to support him no matter what he does. The video covers all 10:

Obama Morally Repugnant Reason #1: Barack Obama is pro-homosexual, yet the bible clearly condemns homosexuality. Two of the sins God hates most are homosexuality and pride. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah over such abominable behavior. So short of blatantly blaspheming the Holy Spirit or cursing God, what worse position could a Christian take than to embrace a politician who embraces and supports both of those blatant sins wrapped up in the devilishly deceptive phrase, “Gay Pride”? Here’s the chapter and verse that allows no wiggle room here. It is unequivocal that a Christian should neither engage in nor support such abominable activities. Romans chapter 1, verses 26-28 state:

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.”

So we have a clear choice. We may embrace the mind of Christ or a reprobate mind.

Obama Morally Repugnant Reason #2: Barack Obama is pro-abortion in terms of public policy. Yet abortion is murder. And murder breaks the 6th Commandment of “Thou shalt not commit murder.” Clearly God hates the sin of murder. Deuteronomy 12:31 emphatically states:

“You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.”

Millions of abortions are performed by burning the innocent beloved of God child with saline. There is no difference between burning with fire or saline.

Obama Morally Repugnant Reason #3: Barack Obama is also personally pro-abortion even when it comes to his own family. He has said he doesn’t want his own daughter saddled with a “mistake,” by inference calling his own potential pre-born grandchild a mistake who should be murdered!

Obama Morally Repugnant Reason #4: Barack Obama supports murdering babies even after they are born alive. In fact, Obama was one of the only politicians in the entire nation who cast a diabolical vote in favor of murdering babies who survived abortion attempts and actually were born by “mistake.” As a U.S. Senator he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection law, in order that those already born babies could be murdered “legally.”

Obama Morally Repugnant Reason #5: Obama supports the extermination of Black People. Planned Parenthood, a group that murders more babies than any other entity in the United States. Yet it is public knowledge that the whole abortion industry was started with the stated purpose of exterminating the Black race! Planned Parenthood was founded by a white woman named Margret Sanger who was a contemporary of Adolf Hitler and she hatched “The Negro Project” to exterminate Black people, starting in the womb. That project become quite “successful” and is still running strong today under the name of Planned Parenthood that aborts more Black babies percentagewise than any other race! So is it any surprise that they often strategically position their abortion clinics right in the heart of largely African-American population centers?

For more information visit CleanTV.com.

Related Articles

• Rev. Wright hush money donor named – plus – an Obama Muslim bombshell (wizbangblog.com)
• Obama, Gay Marriage, and the Black Vote (spectator.org)
• We’re Not as Stupid as Barack Obama Thinks (spectator.org)
• President Obama: Gay Marriage Is Not a Black Thing! (americanthinker.com)
• President Obama concludes that it is personally important for him to affirm that he thinks same sex couples should get married (wizbangblog.com)
• Obama: ‘When your name is Barack Obama, it’s always tight’ (theblaze.com)
• Green Is a Color in the Rainbow (spectator.org)
• Obama’s Gay Marriage Endorsement is a Slap in the Face to Black Conservatives (blogher.com)
• Barack Obama: Our first gay-female-Hispanic-Asian-Jewish president (theblaze.com)
• Spinning Same-Sex Marriage (americanthinker.com)
• Pat Buchanan: Obama using ‘coercion’ to impose ‘unnatural’ marriage (rawstory.com)

America’s Courts Have Been Violating the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause for Three Decades

By Jerry A. Kane | May 12, 2012 | Canada Free Press

For thirty years the ACLU and its atheist hordes have been in state and federal courts vigorously marginalizing Christians and uprooting public memorials and symbols of the nation’s Christian heritage. Any cross, crucifix, sculpture, statue, figurine, or carving that could trigger memories of America’s Christian founding has been targeted for eradication from the public sphere.

The Framers wrote the Bill of Rights to restrict the powers of the federal government, which means the First Amendment was intended to protect religion from an intrusive government, and not the government from religion.Even though over two-thirds of the American public believes the First Amendment erects a “wall of separation between church and state,” the truth is the Framers of the Constitution never entertained such a notion. For three decades now, rulings by the courts ordering the removal of Christian symbols from public property have violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment begins with the words, “Congress [i.e. the federal government] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The Framers didn’t want the federal government establishing a “state church” (as England and some European Countries had at the time) or interfering with the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment kept the federal government from interfering with the people’s right to establish their own churches and denominations and worship freely.

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. … Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.”—Thomas Jefferson The suggestion that Christian symbols displayed on public property could amount to a violation of the Establishment Clause would be laughable to the Framers.

The concept of a Judeo/Christian God or nature’s God was embraced by the Founders:

Fifty-two of the 55 Framers of the U.S. Constitution were members of established orthodox churches in the colonies:

Congregationalist-7
Deist-1
Dutch Reformed-2
Episcopalian-26
Lutheran-1
Methodist-2
Presbyterian-11
Quaker-3
Roman Catholic-2

In fact, the Framers enshrined the concept of the Judeo/Christian God and nature’s God in the Declaration of Independence:

When …it becomes necessary for one people to …assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them …

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights …

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America … appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies …

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

At the time the First Amendment was written, several states were dominated by churches, e.g., Connecticut was Congregationalist, Massachusetts was Puritan, Virginia was Baptist, and Pennsylvania was Quaker. The people in those states chose the religion they preferred, and they didn’t want the federal government imposing any particular sect or denomination on their states.

It’s safe to assume that when the Framers wrote the First Amendment, they understood that:

1. God establishes the place of nations in the world.
2. God created man.
3. God endowed man with certain unalienable rights.
4. God is the supreme judge of human conduct.

As Mark Levin writes in Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America,“the Declaration of Independence … is an explicit recognition that our rights derive not from the King of England, not from the judiciary, not from government at all, but from God. … Religion and God are not alien to our system of government, [sic] they’re integral to it.”

If the Framers intended the Establishment Clause to erect a “wall of separation” between the Judeo/Christian God and nature’s God and government, they would have included the “separation of church and state” notion in the First Amendment or would have at least introduced and discussed it at the first Constitutional Convention. But not one of the Framers ever mentioned it. None of the Congressional Records of the discussions and debates of the 90 Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment contains the phrase “separation of church and state.” The phrase is not found in the Constitution, the First Amendment, or in any of the notes from the Convention.

The idea of a “wall of separation” between church and state surfaced in 1947 when the Warren Court lifted the “wall of separation” phrase from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. Jefferson used “wall” as a metaphor to address the Baptists’ concerns about religious freedom, and to clarify for them that the federal government was restricted from interfering with religious practices. Jefferson’s letter explained that the First Amendment put restrictions only on the government, not on the people.

The truth is the current “separation” doctrine is a relatively recent concept and not a long-held constitutional principle. The Warren Court took Jefferson’s “wall of separation” phrase out of context and reinterpreted the First Amendment to restrict people instead of government. And now some 65 years later, 69 percent of the American people believe the First Amendment actually contains the “separation of church and state” phrase.

In his dissenting opinion in the 1985 ruling against silent prayer in public schools, Chief Justice William Rehnquist decried how the Warren Court’s “wall” notion undermined the Framers’ original intent of the First Amendment:

“There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the ‘wall of separation’ that was constitutionalized in Everson. But the greatest injury of the ‘wall’ notion is the mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. [N]o amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• On the “Separation of Church and State” (wizbangblog.com)
• SCOTUS and Religious Freedom’s Slippery Slope (americanthinker.com)
• ObamaCare and Contraceptives: The Free Exercise Zero-Sum Game (americanthinker.com)
• Obama Still Poised to take over Churches and Eliminate First Amendment (canadafreepress.com)
• Does the Roberts Court Have a Pro-Church Bias? How They’re Undermining the Separation of Church and State (alternet.org)
• The Founding Fathers were too stupid to say what they meant… or something (boilingthefrogs.wordpress.com)
• Should Christians Impose Their Moral Standards on Society? (str.typepad.com)
• Missouri Bill Declares All Out War On The Constitution (thinkprogress.org)
• Money in politics? Framers had solution (wnd.com)

Bishop Says Obama on Hitlerian Path

By Cliff Kincaid | April 18, 2012 | Gulag Bound

Comparing Obama to Hitler is something that the liberal/left used to blame on the Tea Party. However, posters and signs showing Obama with a Hitler moustache were inevitably traced to followers of Lyndon LaRouche. They sometimes tried to portray themselves as conservatives, but in reality LaRouche is a former Marxist who ran for president as a Democrat. They like to cause deliberate political confusion.

Now that an educated Catholic Bishop with knowledge of history and a commitment to religious freedom has made the comparison, however, the national media cannot decide on how to respond.

When I saw the headline, “Bishop Compares Obama Policies to Hitler, Stalin,” over an article on Newsmax.com, the conservative website, I thought at first it must be an error or exaggeration. Was a Catholic Bishop actually being this harsh? I have reported on the reaction of the Catholic Church to the Obama Administration’s birth control mandate affecting religious institutions. My local priest called it evil and demonic and has suggested the church will be persecuted and ministers jailed for resisting the federal onslaught. But comparing the President personally to Hitler and Stalin?

The Newsmax headline about the charge concerned a story from LifeSiteNews.com. The Daily Caller titled it: “Illinois Bishop: Obama ‘intent on following a similar path’ as Hitler, Stalin.”

I went to the www.LifeSiteNews.com and the headline over its story was only slightly different: “Obama taking ‘similar path’ as Hitler and Stalin: Illinois bishop.” The question then became—were these stories somehow exaggerating what the Catholic Bishop said?

The Catholic Post ran the full text of the homily of Bishop Daniel R. Jenky at the Mass during the April 14 “A Call to Catholic Men of Faith” in Peoria. The homily is also available on podcast. The headlines did indeed capture the essence of what he said. The Bishop goes by the title “Most Reverend Daniel R. Jenky, C.S.C., D.D.” CSC stands for the Congregation of the Holy Cross, the order that runs Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana. D.D. stands for Doctor of Divinity. He is an educated man. His education includes:

• College: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana
• Novitiate: Holy Cross Fathers’ Novitiate, Bennington, Vermont
• Seminary: Moreau Seminary, Notre Dame, Indiana
• Theology: Moreau Seminary, Notre Dame, Indiana

Taking aim at Obama, Hollywood and the media, the Bishop said:

“For 2,000 years the enemies of Christ have certainly tried their best. But think about it. The Church survived and even flourished during centuries of terrible persecution, during the days of the Roman Empire.

“The Church survived barbarian invasions. The Church survived wave after wave of Jihads. The Church survived the age of revolution. The Church survived Nazism and Communism.

“And in the power of the resurrection, the Church will survive the hatred of Hollywood, the malice of the media, and the mendacious wickedness of the abortion industry.

“The Church will survive the entrenched corruption and sheer incompetence of our Illinois state government, and even the calculated disdain of the President of the United States, his appointed bureaucrats in HHS [Health and Human Services], and of the current majority of the federal Senate.” (Applause)

It turns out that the Bishop was just getting warmed up.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• In support of Bishop Jenky (dailycaller.com)
• Illinois Bishop: Obama ‘intent on following a similar path’ as Hitler, Stalin [AUDIO] (dailycaller.com)
• Illinois bishop under fire for comparing Obama to Hitler, Stalin (dailycaller.com)
• Notre Dame Professors Call For Bishop To Apologize or Resign From Notre Dame Board For Comparing Obama To Hitler (thinkprogress.org)
• Notre Dame faculty demand bishop’s apology (upi.com)
• Catholic Bishop: Obama Following Path of Stalin and Hitler [Video] (inquisitr.com)
• Catholic Bishop Claims Obama Is ‘Following a Similar Path’ To Hitler (thinkprogress.org)
• At Rally, Catholic Bishop Warns Obama Is ‘Following A Similar Path’ To Hitler, Stalin (mediaite.com)
• We’re All Catholics Now (spectator.org)
• Obama Steamrolled by Catholic Church (biggovernment.com)
• Why is the Catholic Church Surprised? (americanthinker.com)
• Obama spokesman hints at concession over church health care mandate (dailycaller.com)
• Bishops Reject Obama’s ‘Accommodation’ (spectator.org)
• New Dem emphasis on social issues pushes churches into 2012 election (dailycaller.com)
• Obama appointee muzzled Army chaplains, forbade reading of Catholic … – Daily Caller (dailycaller.com)
• Religiously Supporting Obama’s Mandate (spectator.org)
• Elevated to Cardinal in Rome, Timothy Dolan Says We Must ‘Call America Back to What Has Made It Great’ (biggovernment.com)
• The ACLU jumps the shark (hotair.com)
• ObamaCare Mandate Is Just the Tip of the Left’s Assault on Religion (biggovernment.com)
• Obama’s fraudulent abortion mandate “accommodation” (michellemalkin.com)
• MSNBC’s Wagner on Catholic Bishops: They Focus On ‘Issues That Don’t Matter,’ Like Abortion, Gay Marriage, Contraception Mandate (newsbusters.org)
• Ron Paul Denounces HHS Mandate (spectator.org)
• George Will: Catholic Bishops Got What They Deserved for Supporting ObamaCare (biggovernment.com)
• ObamaCare Architect: Catholic Institutions Should Provide Birth Control as ‘Moral Imperative’ to Stop Population Growth (biggovernment.com)
• The ObamaCare Mandate Against Freedom of Conscience: It’s Only A Constitutional Crisis Because Liberals Want Government Healthcare (biggovernment.com)
• Weekly Standard: Obamacare vs. the Catholics – NPR (npr.org)
• The Audacity of Obama’s Secularism (spectator.org)
• Nec Laudibus, Nec Timore (thecatholicthing.org)
• Obamacare Awakens Sleeping Giant (gloucestercitynews.net)
• Hugh Hewitt: The Growing Protest Against Obama’s Anti-Catholic Throwdown (hughhewitt.com)
• Shaw: On contraception mandate, bishops’ approach deserves praise (osvdailytake.com)

The Secularization of Martin Luther King, Jr.

By Ken Blackwell | April 26, 2012 | Breitbart

 This month at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, the faithful met to worship the Almighty and discuss the latest battles for religious liberty in an increasingly secular culture.

When the Knights of Columbus’ Supreme Knight Carl Anderson spoke, he made a startling observation about the new Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. monument which has not been widely reported and is quite unique among monuments throughout our nation’s capital. Even though Dr. King was a Baptist minister and his history-altering speeches about civil liberties are saturated with references to natural rights and profound theological constructs, all 14 quotes carefully etched into his stone monument completely eschew references to God!

Mr. Anderson mocked those in authority who were given the difficult task of carefully combing through Rev. King’s archives trying to find a few secular quotations.

In Dr. King’s famous letter from the Birmingham jail, which is full of religious references, he relied on the Catholic natural law tradition by citing Saint Augustine of Hippo, who said in On Free Choice of the Will that “an unjust law is no law at all.” King went on to proclaim he and his peaceful supporters were “in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”

Read he full article here.

Related Articles

• Day in the life: Martin Luther King Jr. Plaza (digitalbullpen.com)
• How Derrick Bell Beat Martin Luther King Jr. (johnmalcolm.me)
• Martin Luther King, Jr. and Jackie Robinson Together at Howard University (ghostsofdc.org)
• FBI sent Martin Luther King Jr. a letter urging him to commit suicide (mytechnologyworld9.blogspot.com)
• RIP Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: 44th Anniversary Of His Death (hellobeautiful.com)
• Lawsuit Brought By Martin Luther King Jr.’s Estate is Dismissed (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
• Could Martin Luther King Jr. Get a Job in Today’s America? (counterpunch.org)
• Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (greetingcarduniverse.com)

Civil Unrest: Liberals Most at Risk

By Erik Rush | April 25, 2012 | WND

Erik Rush is a columnist and author of sociopolitical fare. His latest book is “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession.” In 2007, he was the first to give national attention to the story of Sen. Barack Obama’s ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright, initiating a media feeding frenzy. Erik has appeared on Fox News’ “Hannity and Colmes,” CNN, and is a veteran of numerous radio appearances.

Exclusive: Erik Rush covers Obama ‘brainwashing’ of blacks, college kids

This week, President Obama toured select U.S. colleges touting a need for new student loan programs and extensions for low interest on student loans, as he accused congressional Republicans of wanting to raise student loan interest rates. The latter isn’t true, of course, but I suppose this goes hand-in-hand with the GOP’s desire to pollute air and water, let educationally at-risk children flounder and consign the elderly to a diet of Little Friskies. The campus stops, like so many of the president’s excursions, were sold as “official business.”

This “business” – which many commentators called campaign stops – was thus about as “official” as Sasha and Malia Obama were “senior staffers” on the first lady’s half-million-dollar jaunt to Africa last year. The abject fraudulence of these designations (made by Michelle Obama), as well as it calling child-labor laws into question, is of little concern to the administration.

But all this is par for the course; we know that the Obamas are corrupt, and we know that their arrogance, narcissism, hatred of America and ethnocentricity insists that they are deserving of every taxpayer dollar they squander.

What’s more important about the campus tour is that it is recognized as part of Obama’s strategy of provoking dissatisfaction and discord amongst a component of his base. While it is undeniable that the cost of higher education has become overly burdensome, once again, this has been in part by design, as was the rise in health-care costs: in order to cultivate an atmosphere in which carefully manipulated consumers would accept – or even demand – a government fix.

Obama’s provoking of dissatisfaction has already worked fairly well; although, to be fair, he has had a lot of help. His simpatico for George Zimmerman’s detractors (would-be assassins, really) relating to the Trayvon Martin shooting contributed to an increase in black-on-white crime. Most recently, a mob of approximately 20 blacks beat their white neighbor Matthew Owens nearly to death in Alabama. The violent overtones of the Occupy movement have definitely increased, as well as their activity in general, and – guess what – Occupy leaders have also begun to leverage the Trayvon Martin shooting to mobilize their followers against “the man.”

The common denominator between these factions of the base (college students and blacks, in this instance) is that they are among the most easily manipulated. The brainwashing of blacks is probably Democrats’ single most successful achievement, and college students – well, they’re a captive audience for largely socialist professors.

It is fortunate that conservatives have cyberspace in which to communicate; I shudder to think of the current circumstances if we did not. The knife cuts both ways, however, and activity on the left would be comical if it did not have such harmful potential. It would be difficult to believe if not seen for oneself. Militant homosexual bloggers have been harassing Christian conservatives on social media sites for a few years now, even stalking folks and petitioning employers to fire certain individuals. Now, they are beginning to rile the base with fraudulent accusations of secret social media groups that are dedicated to everything from the opposition of gay unions to murdering homosexuals.

Sadly, the percentage of people who see these things for what they are – textbook Marxist agitating – are probably few and far between.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• When Will Obama Use Marshal Law ? ? (surrivethegarbage.com)
• Civil Unrest Leads Aon to Downgrade 37 Countries on Political Risk Map (stratrisks.com)
• Alarms over Obama coup against Constitution surging (wnd.com)
• Sensible Liberal: Jon Lovitz (vocalminority.typepad.com)
• Liberal tool Sandra Fluke is looking for another handout (twitchy.com)
• Slow Jam The News with Barack Obama: Late Night with Jimmy Fallon (dmvtmz.wordpress.com)
• Obama Pushes Low-Rate Student Loans (mymajicdc.com)
• Opinion: Can Obama rock youth vote? (cnn.com)
• Dictator Obama Threatens To Veto CISPA! Ya Right! (newsworldwide.wordpress.com)

Christianity or Thoughtcrime?

By Cindy Simpson | April 1, 2012 | American Thinker

“Thoughtcrimes” — opinions and ideas that oppose the status quo — were pursued and punished by the Thought Police in the future world described by George Orwell in his novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.  Could politically incorrect thought be declared illegal — a type of “hate” crime against individuals or the State — someday in America?  Since much of Christian thought seems to be considered politically incorrect these days, might it also be declared hate speech?

Although such notions may seem the stuff of futuristic science fiction, just last week, Big Journalism ran a column with the subtitle “Shorter Ann Curry: Your religious beliefs represent hate speech!”  The column by John Nolte described Curry’s recent NBC Today interview with Christian actor Kirk Cameron.

What did Cameron say to deserve Curry’s “attack”?  When, a couple of weeks earlier, the actor was asked his views on gay marriage by CNN’s Piers Morgan, Cameron, within a much longer answer, made these particular statements: “I think that it’s unnatural.  I think that it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of our civilization.”

Morgan immediately shot back that he found Cameron’s views “destructive,” but Curry instead wandered down the lofty road of imagined consequences when she asked Cameron: “Do you feel any responsibility saying words like that, that might encourage people to feel that it’s okay to treat — mistreat gay people?”

Cameron never even used the word “hate,” yet Curry asserted that “many people are suggesting that this is hate speech.”  Then she asked Cameron, “Are you encouraging people to feel hate towards gay people?”

And there you have it.  The futuristic sci-fi plot laid out, in real life, in March of 2012 on NBC:

Christian publicly asserts Christian beliefs; beliefs are politically incorrect speech; speech equals hate; hate encourages mistreatment; encouragement equals crime…

Although Curry didn’t complete the plotline by mentioning the word “crime,” this wasn’t the first time she read from a similar script.  Last September, reporting on the suicide of a gay teen, she fretted: “Do you think our churches, our politicians and other adults who adhere to an anti-gay message enable some of this hate?”

The consequences of the Curry/Cameron exchange were not lost on Nolte:

What Ann Curry did to Kirk Cameron this morning is the first phase of that war [on the Christian Church]: The shaming campaign. On national television she brought the actor on to declare his religious beliefs hate speech that will encourage others to “mistreat gay people.”

We all know what the next step is, and that’s the outlawing of these opinions under the principle that the speaking of such things will cause harm to others.

This, of course, would mean the end to the church — which is the whole idea.

Glenn Beck’s recent program focused on what he also sees as an assault on the church, covering the atheist “Reason Rally” and other events supporting his claim that Christians and God are “under attack.”

GLAAD argues that LGBTs are under attack, and the organization has published an “accountability list” of Christian commentators who use “violent anti-LGBT rhetoric” and express “extreme animus towards the entire LGBT community.”  Prominent Christian activist and founder of Prison Fellowship Chuck Colson wrote this about being included on that list:

Read the full article here.

The Radical Polarization of Law Enforcement

By Patrick Wood, Editor | March 18, 2009 | The August Review

Patriots, Chris­tians and con­cerned cit­i­zens are increas­ingly in the cross hairs of the U.S. intel­li­gence com­mu­nity, and battle lines are being qui­etly drawn that could soon pit our own law enforce­ment and mil­i­tary forces against us.

A Feb­ruary 20 report enti­tled “The Modern Militia Move­ment” was issued by the Mis­souri Infor­ma­tion Analysis Center (MIAC) that paints main­stream patri­otic Amer­i­cans as dan­gerous threats to law enforce­ment and to the country. Oper­ating under the Mis­souri State Highway Patrol, the MIAC is listed as a Fusion Center that was estab­lished in coop­er­a­tion with the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity and the Depart­ment of Justice.

Because authen­ticity of the report was ques­tioned by some, this writer con­tacted Mis­souri state Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Jim Guest (R-King City) who had per­son­ally ver­i­fied that the report had indeed been issued. Rep. Guest is chairman of the Per­sonal Pri­vacy Com­mittee and is a promi­nent leader in the national blow­back against the Real ID Act of 2005 that requires states to issue uni­form driver’s licenses con­taining per­sonal bio­metric data. (See Guest warns against Big Brother, Real ID)

Rep. Guest stated that he was “shocked and out­raged” at the report, which clearly paints him and many other elected state leaders, as a poten­tial threats to law enforcement.

Instead of focusing on actual crim­inal inci­dents of “home-grown” ter­rorism, the MAIC report instead lists issues that it believes are common to the threats it per­ceives. Thus, Amer­i­cans involved with the fol­lowing issues are highly suspect:

– “Ammu­ni­tion Account­ability Act” – requiring each bullet to to be seri­al­ized and reg­is­tered to the purchaser.

– “Antic­i­pa­tion of the eco­nomic col­lapse of the US Gov­ern­ment” – Promi­nent scholars and econ­o­mists are openly debating the bank­ruptcy and insol­vency of the United States government.

– “Pos­sible Con­sti­tu­tional Con­ven­tion (Con Con)” – 32 states have called for a Con­sti­tu­tional Con­ven­tion to force Con­gress and the Exec­u­tive Branch into a bal­anced budget, but con­cerned that if called, Con Con would be taken over by hos­tile inter­ests who would intro­duce Amend­ments that are harmful to national sovereignty.

– “North Amer­ican Union” – MIAC states that “Con­spiracy the­o­rists claim that this union would link Canada, the United States, and Mexico. The NAU would unify its mon­e­tary system and trade the dollar for the AMERO. Asso­ci­ated with this theory is con­cern over a NAFTA Super­highway, which would fast track trade between the three nations. There is addi­tional con­cern that the NAU would open up the border causing secu­rity risks and free move­ment for immigrants.”

– “Uni­versal Ser­vice Program” – “Statements made by Pres­i­dent Elect Obama and his chief of staff have led extrem­ists to fear the cre­ation of a Civilian Defense Force. This theory requires all cit­i­zens between the age of 18 and 25 to be forced to attend three months of manda­tory training.” (This is exactly what Obama and Rahm Emmanuel have repeat­edly stated on national TV, and thus is hardly a theory.)

– “Radio Fre­quency Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion (RFID)” – This includes human implan­ta­tion, but the larger con­cern is uni­versal id cards and per­sonal prop­erty iden­ti­fi­ca­tion that can be read elec­tron­i­cally without the bearer’s knowledge.

Cit­i­zens who are con­cerned about the above issues are then lumped into rad­ical ide­olo­gies such as Chris­tian Iden­tity, White Nation­al­ists (e.g., neo-Nazi, Skin­heads, etc.) and anti-Semites. Tax Resisters and Anti-Immigration advo­cates are thrown into the same category.

The MIAC report then sternly warns law enforce­ment personnel,

“You are the Enemy: The militia sub­scribes to an antigov­ern­ment and NWO mind set, which cre­ates a threat to law enforce­ment offi­cers. They view the mil­i­tary, National Guard, and law enforce­ment as a force that will con­fis­cate their firearms and place them in FEMA con­cen­tra­tion camps.” [Bold emphasis appears in original]

On the last page of the MIAC report, a sec­tion listing Polit­ical Para­pher­nalia (flags and sym­bols) states,

“Militia mem­bers most com­monly asso­ciate with 3rd party polit­ical groups. It is not uncommon for militia mem­bers to dis­play Con­sti­tu­tional Party, Cam­paign for Lib­erty, or Lib­er­tarian mate­rial. These mem­bers are usu­ally sup­porters of former Pres­i­den­tial Can­di­date: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.

Militia mem­bers com­monly dis­play pic­ture, car­toons, bumper stickers that con­tain anti-government rhetoric. Most of this mate­rial will depict the FRS, IRS, FBI, ATF, CIA, UN, Law Enforce­ment, and the ‘New World Order’ in a deroga­tory manor (sic). Addi­tion­ally, Racial, anti-immigration, and anti-abortion, mate­rial may be dis­played by militia members.”

What was the osten­sible gen­esis of all these “threats” to law enforce­ment? The report explains it this way…

“Aca­d­e­mics con­tend that female and minority empow­er­ment in the 1970s and 1960s caused a blow to white male’s sense of empow­er­ment. This, com­bined with a sense of defeat from the Vietnam War, increased levels of immi­gra­tion, and unem­ploy­ment, spawned a para­mil­i­tary cul­ture. This caught on in the 1980′s with injects such as Tom Clancy novels, Solder of For­tune Mag­a­zine, and movies such as Rambo that glo­ri­fied combat. This cul­ture glo­ri­fied white males and por­trayed them as morally upright heroes who were men­tally and phys­i­cally tough.

“It was during this time­frame that many indi­vid­uals and orga­ni­za­tions began to con­coct con­spiracy the­o­ries to explain their mis­for­tunes. These the­o­ries varied but almost always involved a glob­alist dic­ta­tor­ship the”New World Order (NWO), which con­spired to exploit the working class citizens.”

In other words, these “ridicu­lous NWO the­o­ries” were cre­ated by psy­cho­log­ical deviants who were trying to jus­tify their own self-induced misfortunes.

Read the full article here.

Obama’s Secret War-making for the U.N.

By Cliff Kincaid  |   March 21, 2012 | Accuracy in Media

You may not have heard of PSD-10 because it has received no significant coverage from the major media. Yet, President Obama issued “Presidential Study Directive 10” last August 4, 2011, and posted it on the White House website. It amounts to a new and potentially far-reaching exercise of American military power cloaked in humanitarian language and conducted under the auspices of the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.

Under this new “Obama doctrine,” U.S. troops can be deployed to arrest or even terminate individuals wanted by the International Criminal Court, which is based on a treaty that has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate and isn’t even up for Senate consideration.

This “Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities,” another name for PSD-10, declares that “Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.” This is at sharp variance with the traditional role of the U.S. military—self-defense and protection of the homeland. Toward this end, an “Interagency Atrocities Prevention Board” is being formed to develop and implement this new Obama doctrine. However, it is apparent that the doctrine is already going forward.

Members of the public haven’t heard of PSD-10, but they may have heard of a decision Obama made on October 14, 2011, when he informed Congress that he had authorized “a small number of combat equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of Joseph Kony from the battlefield.”

Kony, a Ugandan warlord who runs the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), is better known than most foreigners, since he is the subject of the viral “Kony 2012” video about the more than 30,000 “invisible children” he has allegedly murdered or abducted. His whereabouts are unknown, although it is believed he is no longer in Uganda.

Despite the name of his group, Kony is not a Christian and instead receives backing from the Islamic regime in northern Sudan. Although he poses no direct threat to the United States and has not carried out terrorist attacks on the U.S. or killed any American citizens, the Department of Treasury has designated him as a “global terrorist” under Executive Order 13224, a measure signed into law by President Bush after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In regard to seeking Kony’s “removal,” Obama told Congress, “I have directed this deployment, which is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.”

Obama noted that Congress, in passing the “Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009,” had “expressed support for increased, comprehensive U.S. efforts to help mitigate and eliminate the threat posed by the LRA to civilians and regional stability.” But it did not authorize deployment of combat forces. What’s more, a statement from Obama after signing the law did not give any indication any would be sent.

One of the sponsors of the bill, Rep. Edward Royce (R-CA), has subsequently introduced “Rewards for Justice” legislation (H.R. 4077) that would allow the State Department to offer a reward for the apprehension of Kony.

For his part, Obama is basically deploying the U.S. Armed Forces on behalf of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which indicted Kony for war crimes in 2005 and issued an arrest warrant for him. However, not only has the U.S. Senate not ratified the ICC treaty, Congress has never authorized the use of U.S. troops to carry out the ICC’s edicts. So where does Obama get the power to deploy U.S. troops in this manner?

The question is made more relevant because Obama has such an expansive view of his own executive power to wage war. He claims the power to kill American citizens overseas, on the grounds that they collaborate with foreign terrorist groups, and FBI Director Robert Mueller has told Congress that he is not sure whether the president also has the power to kill American citizens on American soil, inside the United States. Mueller testified, “I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not.”

In the case of Kony, Obama seems to be taking his cue from the ICC. Its prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, appears in the “Kony 2012” video, noting that Kony was the first person ever indicted by the court. The video also celebrates Obama’s decision to use U.S. troops to try to apprehend Kony. It does not take a big exercise in connecting the dots to arrive at the conclusion that Obama is using U.S. troops to carry out the orders of the ICC. But rather than seek ratification of the ICC and then obtain the approval of Congress to apprehend Kony, and perhaps even to kill him, Obama simply issues orders to U.S. troops and bypasses the Congress.

Last October Jake Tapper of ABC News asked Obama about the decision to deploy troops “to help eliminate Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army.” Obama replied:

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Dorian de Wind: The Almost Forgotten US Military Initiative to ‘Stop Kony’ (huffingtonpost.com)
• Two Representatives Introduced a Resolution on Joseph Kony (haleybehre.wordpress.com)
• Catching Joseph Kony: U.S. Forces Assist Effort to Nab a Warlord (usnews.com)
• Kony captures Congress’ attention (politico.com)
• Anti-Kony video campaign draws criticism in Uganda (thegrio.com)
• Kony filmmaker’s ‘beautiful ending’ at odds with Uganda’s ‘dead or alive’ pledge (news.nationalpost.com)
• WORLD: Anti-Kony viral video campaign drawing some criticism in Uganda (thegazette.com)

Church and State Coming Back Together

By Bob Ellis | February 27, 2012 | AmericanClarion.com

Some interesting developments are afoot in the 2012 presidential election…and the Left probably doesn’t like most of them–and those they do like, the probably aren’t happy that anyone noticed.

Leftists have for years gone into black churches and held pep rallies.  It’s one of the countless examples of liberal hypocrisy, i.e. raging hysteria over alleged violations of “separation of church and state” when a Bible-believing church dares take a stand for moral legislation or moral officials…while getting the troops stoked in liberal black churches.

So it was really no surprise to hear (see the video below) that President Barack Obama is stumping for church-going liberal black Americans to support his socialist, race-pandering campaign.  What I DID find remarkable was the openness with which he called on black church-goers to be actively involved in supporting his campaign–including so-called “congregation captains.”

It may surprise you, but as a Bible-believing, Constitution-respecting conservative, I think this is great!  No, I don’t believe Obama’s race-baiting, race-pandering, and promotion of preferences and socialism are great; I think it’s great to see the Left openly engaging in political activity in connection with like-minded churches and church-goers.  Why?

Read full article here.

Related Articles

• Black Churches Aim to Register 1 Million Voters on Easter Sunday
• Rick Santorum Says Separation of Church and State Makes Him Want to Vomit: VIDEO
• Rick Santorum Regrets Saying JFK Speech On Church And State Made Him Want To ‘Throw Up’
• Rick: “I Don’t Believe In An America Where The Separation Between Church And State Is Absolute”

The Ryan Test: Demagoguery Versus Ideas

August 12, 2012 By John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Jonathan S. Tobin | August 11, 2012 | Commentary Magazine As John wrote earlier today, liberals are convinced that Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan to be his running mate offers them a golden opportunity to savage the Republicans about the Wisconsin congressman’s budget plans. Predictably, the New York Times delivered one of the first such salvos in its editorial posted […]

Smoking Obama’s Crack and Yearning for the Mud

August 12, 2012 By John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Vanderleun | August 10, 2012 | American Digest [From 2008. Only the names have been changed because the target has changed.] This downward flight of intellectuals has been going on ever since the Romantic movement began its counter-revolution a couple hundred years ago. No matter how much they flap their lips it’s a fall, not […]