Showing posts with label Liberal vs Conservative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal vs Conservative. Show all posts

Thursday, February 4, 2010

President Obama Lectures Christians On ‘Civility’

By TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty

I have been here in Washington for awhile and I have seen many National Prayer Breakfasts come and go. This morning, I closed my eyes and listened to President Obama’s address and heard what amounted to a lecture on how America needs to be more “civil.” But when I opened my eyes, I expected to be in some high school gymnasium in one of the primary states like Iowa or New Hampshire, a typical contrived campaign event.

These days Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric is running on empty as the American people have had a chance to shine a light on and examine his promise of change and transparency in government. We now have a President and government which is deliberately opaque not transparent. And things have changed but not for the better.

Now that Americans have had some time to ask questions of and examine Mr. Obama a little more closely, his polling numbers have gone subterranean (we should start drilling for oil that far down). And now that his numbers have tanked, Mr. Obama reminds us to treat him “civilly.” This from someone who has Rahm “I Thought Mother Was An Adjective” Emmanuel as his chief of staff and Rev. Jeremiah “I Never Met a Man I Didn’t Hate” Wright as his pastor.

President Obama argues for “civility” even as he pushes abortion and homosexuality with all of the muscle available to the federal government. While other Presidents have talked about appointing the “best and the brightest” to key posts, Mr. Obama offers us the “most extreme and least talented.”

Bottom line – the President talked about “civility” and then launched into a long finger-pointing diatribe against most Americans who do not share his support for homosexuality, abortion, big government, and out-of-control spending. And how do you talk about intolerance without mentioning Islam?

Read more >>

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

“F.....g Retarded” or “F…..g Stupid”? Absolutely!

Satire by John W. Lillpop

Rahm Emanuel may very well qualify as the dumbest, most trashy-mouthed scalawag to have ever served as Chief-of-Staff to any American president in this nation’s 234 year history.

Nonetheless, the man does have a way with words, especially when it comes to describing liberals.

As reported at the Washington Post, in part, (1):

“White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has apologized for referring to liberals as "retarded" during a strategy session last summer.

"F---ing retarded," the Journal reported Emanuel as saying during the meeting. A report last August recounted Emanuel as having said "f---ing stupid" at the meeting with liberal Democrats.”

There is no need to waste time trying to determine whether Emanuel actually called liberals retarded or stupid. Fact is, most liberals are retarded AND stupid, which is why they are liberals!

Give Emanuel credit for having the good sense and decency to apologize to the Special Olympics, rather than to liberals.

Nonetheless, Emanuel’s faux pas exposes a larger, much more distressing concern about hypocrites within the Obama administration:

Namely, just about a year ago, President Obama likened his bowling skills to the Special Olympics, an obvious slam at the physically disabled. Now, Obama's Chief-of-Staff joins his boss in beating up on the innocent and defenseless.

Just why do President Obama and his minions take such delight in ridiculing the least able and most cursed among us?

A bit of free counsel for Obama-mites: Never refer to Special Olympics children as liberals..that would really be offensive!

(1) http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/02/emanuel-apologizes-for-retarde.html?hpid=news-col-blog

Read more >>

Worth Reconsidering

President Obama is reassessing his decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) in New York City.  A couple of related ideas also need to be reconsidered.

by Thomas E. Brewton

The colossal cost of holding a KSM trial in New York City is evidently the primary motivation for moving the trial elsewhere.

More worthy of reassessment is the liberal-progressive idea that terrorists should be dealt with as if they were ordinary criminals entitled to Miranda rights and the host of additional constitutional protections that go with ordinary criminal trials.

Worthy of reassessment, as well, is the administration’s repeated assurances that KSM will be found guilty and will be executed.  This gives the appearance of a show trial in which the conviction is rigged beforehand.  One wonders why Obama is willing to create this appearance, given his craven urges to kow-tow to overseas public opinion.

The answer perhaps may lie in liberal-progressives’ readiness to support any measure by a collectivist, socialistic government - in the proposed KSM trial and in the 1930s Moscow show trials - in the belief that liberal-progressives are pure of heart and can commit no wrong. 

After all, Obama, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, David Axelrod, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are endangering our homeland security and the nation’s economic survival in service to the grand designs of social justice and socialistic perfection of future generations.  At any rate, that was the liberal-progressive justification here in the United States for Stalin’s murdering tens of millions of people during the 1930s, 40s, and 50s.

Add to the rationale John Dewey’s pragmatic dogma that Darwinian evolution has made “value judgments” about right and wrong passé.  Under Dewey’s pragmatism, the only thing that counts is getting what you wish to have, which, by the way, also explains Nancy Pelosi’s determination to cram socialized health care down the throats of a revolted public.

Read more >>

Prophets are not God’s PR men – Evangelism is not cheerleading

Rev Michael Bresciani

Andy Warhol may have been slightly off when he said everyone is allowed their fifteen minutes of fame. Sometimes they are allowed a few years or even decades to ride a wave of popularity but even at that another dawn always breaks.

If the Christian right has seen its day since the height of the Reagan years then where is it today?  Falwell is gone, Dr. James Kennedy is gone, Dobson is retired and John Hagee said he would not endorse another candidate ever after being shunned by McCain. Osteen says he won’t use words like sin and hell in his messages and Warren is busy trying to bring the world together by getting everyone to engage in dialogue. Catholics are still embroiled in doctrinal difference on things like transubstantiation versus consubstantiation. The emergent church is telling people it’s all good, so let it all pass and it will work out in time. False prophets are sending out their usual mixed messages that always end with don’t worry be happy.

In this generation the church is passing through three phases that seem to directly correspond to the three years of Christ’s public ministry. Christ’s first years are widely known as the year of inauguration. The second year is often called the year of popularity where crowds happily thronged him to hear his words or witness a healing or some other miracle. Finally the year of opposition or resistance came into play and ended with the religious constabulary successfully engaging the political powers to put him to death.

The evangelism of Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Rex Humbard and others was followed by the Jesus movement and the Moral Majority and the Christian right all the way up through the Reagan years. This was the church’s year or several years of inauguration for this generation. As this period played out it became extremely important to be ‘born again’ and long before Osteen’s motivational be all you can be kind of teaching emerged Chuck Colson’s book ‘Born Again’ topped all the reader charts. The Christian right was for the first time actually sought out by some political candidates for coveted endorsements. This brought in Americas brief years of the church’s popularity.

Even as political correctness, tolerance and diversity begin their tour de force in western culture the church is experiencing decline, resistance and opposition, go figure. Not all is lost because even as it begins God is fulfilling his promise to meet the year or time of resistance with an adequate response. That response is the spirit and purpose of prophecy. The prophet Amos said it best, “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7)

Since nearly one quarter of the Bible has to do with the second coming of Christ any prophet worth his salt today will be found engaging in the proliferation of these all important eschatological (second coming) warnings coupled with a call to readiness and repentance.

Only a cursory look at what is being touted as prophecy in our churches today would be enough to make a grown man shudder. In what seems more like keyword studies than prophecy people are standing up to proclaim good times, fair weather and more goodies for all. This is usually followed by an offer of a CD or video that will detail the rest of the prophecy for only $19.95 plus shipping and handling.

When a call to extended prayer, aiding the poor or proclaiming the gospel is declared in a prophecy this is a sure sign that even though this is a great message it is not prophetic. Such things are already included in scripture as doctrines, commandments and admonishers but are hardly prophecies.

In the Old Testament the term “Thus saith the Lord” is used 472 times and each time it is followed by a message to the nation of Israel or the nations that surround Israel. The prophecies were almost never spoken in the temple and were rarely meant exclusively for the ears of the religious constabulary. The message was for the people and the nation.

Prophecies were rarely what might be seen by today’s standards a positive message. They were filled with warnings to repent for the shedding of innocent blood, moral decay and idolatry. They were always laced with God’s affirmation of his love and mercy which only proved his patriarchal care for the creatures he has made.

They were stern warnings that promised either a steady decline or a sudden cessation of a nation’s power and place if not heeded. They were messages so far removed from what is being heard in today’s church that for some it is hard to believe that the same God is speaking.

The New Testament is no different. The few prophets who spoke there also had only dire things to proclaim and who would dare say that the book of Revelation is a picture of happier times to come? So what is this stuff being blabbed in our churches today?

While it is true that only Pentecostal or Charismatic churches actually allow the practice of Holy Spirit generated prophetic utterance, prophecy as we know it is not confined to that alone. All homiletical or sermonic material passed across the pulpits and lecterns of both evangelical and Catholic churches can be considered prophetical in nature. It’s a message and it either comes from God or it doesn’t.

The primary purpose of all prophecy is to lead people to the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Only there can salvation be found and it is there we find that Christ is no mere religious icon or leader but he is the substitute given by God for us. He took the judgment of our sin on himself so we will not have to.

The secondary purpose of prophecy is to warn the nations of Gods plan for all people. This is the hard part because it creates confrontation. Perhaps the church is tender and licking its wounds in this day of resistance and thus chooses to keep all prophecy in house where it is warm safe and cozy. Whatever the reasons may be they are yet open to debate but the product is begging for scrutiny.

When “Thus saith the Lord” is repeatedly followed by the proclamation of untold blessings and good times ahead it not only does not correspond to the socio-economic times of today but it falls short of the true nature of prophecy as it has been for centuries of God speaking to man. It is falsehood and lies at times and wishful thinking at other times but it is not in sync with the scriptures, the times or the Spirit of truth.

The acid test for all prophecy is whether it corresponds to the prior revelation. In simple terms if it defies what is already in scripture it is not true. But that means not only specific scripture but the preponderance and nature of all scripture. That means if God has spoken to nations in times past then he is still doing that today. Prophecy is not an interchurch phenomenon for the tickling of the ears among the redeemed alone.

With this in mind it is easy to see why being the ‘best you’ must be tempered with “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” (Isa 64:6)

Engaging the world in dialogue may seem like a grand idea but it is anything but proclaiming the Gospel which by the way is not just another good idea, it is a command. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Mt 28:19-20)

And prophecies about how well the church is doing are flying in the face of the previous scriptural prophecy that in the last days the church will be at its worst and will need to take a hard look at itself. “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first” (2Th 2:3a)

The churches that are faithfully carrying on and serving the Lord according to scripture are not defying the rule but rather they are the exception that is making the rule. Thank God for them, pray for the rest!

http://www.americanprophet.org has since 2005 featured the articles of Rev Michael Bresciani along with news and reviews that have earned this site the title of The Website for Insight  Millions have read his timely reports and articles in online journals and print publications across the nation and the globe.

Keywords:

Prophecies,Osteen,Warren,Catholic,Dobson,Colson,Dr. Kennedy,Hagee,Humbard,Graham,evangelism,Oral Roberts,repentance,insight,McCain

Read more >>

The Super Bowl Kerfuffle

By J. Matt Barber

"If you don't like it just turn off the TV!" goes the liberal mantra as all form of sexual perversion, obscenity and violence slinks unannounced into our living rooms. But when the message is perceived to undercut some carefully crafted left-wing narrative? Well, then not so much.

Fire-breathing feminists, liberal-media automatons and other "progressive" pro-aborts are anything if not predictable. They've once again concocted controversy where – to the emotionally stable among us – there is none.

The latest target of their cultish ire is Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback and all-around-great-guy, Tim Tebow. A crusty glut of anti-birth femi-ninnies (so cute when they're mad), representing an ever-dwindling number of pro-abortion fundamentalists, have drawn a bead on Tebow for the crime of, well, existing.

Additionally charged with "speaking while Christian," Tebow has knotted many ninny knickers by agreeing to participate, along with his mother Pam, in a Super Bowl ad commissioned by the Christian group, Focus on the Family.

As the mainstream media tells it, the ad will, in about 30 seconds, apparently set the "women's movement" back 40 years. It's additionally presumed (nobody's seen it or even read the script mind you) to both horrify and offend the entire nation.

So what have these dastardly Dobson devils done? Leaks indicate that the spot will share the story – inspirational by any objective standard – of how Pam Tebow "chose" to carry baby Tim to term despite a doctor's recommendation that she have an abortion. That's it. No "abortion is murder" tag line (it is). No "down with Planned Parenthood" pitch (yes, please). Simply: "Hi, I'm Pam. I chose to have my baby and not abort him. He won the Heisman. Neat, huh?"

Well, you'd think Roe v. Wade had just been overturned (it will be) and that every bra-burning broad in Berkeley faced time in the pokey. The usual suspects – a shrill gaggle of leftist "women's groups" – got the vapors, hit the fainting couch and demanded in their enduring "take-the-trash-out!" tone that CBS censor the Tebows and pull the spot.

Erin Mattson, vice president of The National Organization for Women (NOW) told ABC News that Tim's story was "really quite offensive. … This ad is hate masquerading as love!" she barked (Tim wasn't dismembered alive and scraped in pieces from his mother's womb, you see. That would've been peachy).

The New York-based Women's Media Center launched a censorship petition drive (since dwarfed by pro-family efforts) framing the ad as an "attack on choice."

You get the picture.

OK – so much pablum, so little time: "Attack on choice?" "Hate masquerading as love?" Does patchouli oil cause brain damage? Give liberals a fish; they'll eat for a day. Give them hemp; they'll smoke half, weave a rope and then hang themselves with it.

It's remarkable that these people are so invested in a culture of death – so blindly devoted to goddess "choice" – that they've lost all sense of how foolish they appear to others. Rather than taking the time to walk through an introspective analysis, they involuntarily lash-out.

They fail to ask: "In what possible way is it an ‘attack on choice' for a woman to share the tale of how – when given two clearly defined options – she ‘chose' life over abortion?" That's choice defined. It just happens to be – from an angry, oft-hurting, always twisted perspective – the wrong choice.

They fail to ask: "In what possible way is it ‘hate masquerading as love' for a woman to share the tale of how – when given two clearly defined options – she ‘chose' life over abortion?" That's love defined; more still, while risking self so the child within might live. (Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends. John 15:12).

So if not logic, then what?

Fear.

Fear of truth. Fear that others will be touched by truth. Fear of exposure. Fear that it's all slipping away. Fear for a legacy lost. Fear that maybe they're wrong. Fear that maybe their choice was wrong. Fear of history's judgment. Fear of God's judgment. Just fear.

But they needn't fear.

This is about life. The Tebows' story is about life. And the giver of life is the giver of love. And the giver of love – who is both the bread of life and perfect love – gives us this: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear …"

Don't fear. Choose love. Choose life.

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War” and serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel.

Read more >>

Friday, January 29, 2010

Leftwingers Outraged by Being Associated with Leftwingers

by Humberto Fontova

Nazis (and by implication all “right- wingers,” past and present) were inherently wicked.  Their agenda was evil from A to Z, their methods along with their goals.

Communists (and by implication left-wingers) at least mean well. Oh, they might get a tad overzealous at times (killing more people than the Nazis and the Bubonic Plague combined, as documented in the Black Book of Communism, for instance) but at least their hearts were in the right place. Even Barry Goldwater might get it. “Extremism in the defense of socialism is no vice!”

In a one hour special titled “Revolutionary Holocaust; Live Free or Die” run on January 22nd Glenn Beck mounted a full-frontal attack against the above notion—and left it a smoking cinder.  First off, by sourcing Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, Beck swept aside a premise that often handicaps conservatives from the get-go: the premise that Nazis belong on the right.  Bombarded by relentless documentation to the contrary, this liberal bromide quickly blew up, and the program proceeded to report on the notoriously under-reported Communist holocaust.

As a participant in the program, I’ll go on the record and report that the care given by the producers to proper documentation for all Communist crimes and Communist quotes amounted to a fetish. This care, of course, accounts for the program’s devastating effectiveness—and thus the anguished reaction by liberals. 

 “The Liberal cannot strike wholeheartedly at the communist for fear of wounding himself in the process," wrote James Burnham in his classic Suicide of the West. This little gem did much to explain the theme in the opening lines of this article. But so vividly did Revolutionary Holocaust document  Communist  butcheries—from Stalin’s to Mao’s to Fidel Castro and Che Guevara’s--  that now some liberals are trying to weasel  away from  their years of alibis and rationalizations for the mass-murder.    

The Glenn Beck special is now catching heat from “mainstream” liberal sources who claim no “mainstream” media or academic sources in fact herald the Communist icons as claimed on the special    To this end an article in Politico quotes Clemson professor and Harvard PHD, Steven Marks: "No one in their right mind is going to defend Stalin or Mao or Che Guevara,"

Oh?

Exhibit A:  Time Magazine honors Che Guevara among "The 100 Most Important People of the Century." Not satisfied with such a paltry accolade they list him in the "Heroes and Icons" section, alongside Anne Frank, Andrei Sakharov, Rosa Parks and Mother Theresa. .

Exhibit B: “Innocent people were not executed in significant numbers, (by Che and Castro.)  Che presented a Christlike image, with his mortuary gaze it is as if Guevara looks upon his killers and forgives them." (Jorge Castaneda. Global Distinguished Professor of Politics and Latin American Studies. Visiting professor at Princeton and Berkeley,columnist for The Los Angeles Times, and Newsweek.)

Exhibit C:  the cover of this very month’s GQ magazine (not exactly a “fringe” publication) features Che Guevara iconography on a smiling Johnny Depp.

Exhibit D:  During last year’s presidential campaign, Obama campaign offices prominently displayed Che Guevara posters

(Note: Che Guevara’s butcheries and Stalinist schemes were all orders from above, namely from his Stalinist boss, Fidel Castro, who appointed Guevara as his regime’s chief hangman.)

Exhibit E: “Fidel Castro is very shy and sensitive, a man I regard as a friend."  Democratic Senator and Presidential Candidate, George Mc Govern:

 * “Viva Fidel! Viva Che!” bellowed while arm in arm with Fidel Castro himself. (Democratic Presidential candidate, Jesse Jackson.) 

* “Fidel Castro first and foremost is and always has been a committed egalitarian. He wanted a system that provided the basic needs to all -- enough to eat, health care, adequate housing and education. Cuba has superb systems of health care and universal education” (Democratic President James Earl Carter)

* “Fidel Castro is Cuba’s Elvis!” (former ABC anchorman Dan Rather)

* “Fidel Castro is an absolutely fascinating figure!” (NBC’s Andrea Mitchell)

* “Fidel Castro is one helluva guy!” (Ted Turner)

* “Fidel Castro has done good things for Cuba.” (Colin Powell)

Time and space restraints do not allow a listing of  accolades to Castro/Stalinism from Hollywood folks.

The Toast of Manhattan!" crowed Time magazine about Fidel Castro's reception by Manhattan's Beautiful People on his visit to address the U.N. General assembly in 1996, upon the U.N.'s 50th anniversary celebrations.

"The Hottest Ticket in Manhattan!" read a Newsweek story that week, referring to the social swirl that engulfed Castro. After Fidel's whooping, hollering, foot-stomping ovation in the General Assembly, he was fêted by New York's best and brightest, hobnobbing with dozens of Manhattan's glitterati, pundits and power brokers.

First, there was dinner at the Council on Foreign Relations. After holding court there for a rapt David Rockefeller, along with Robert McNamara, Dwayne Andreas and Random House's Harold Evans, Castro flashed over to Mort Zuckerman's Fifth Avenue pad, where a throng of Beltway glitterati, including a breathless Mike Wallace, Peter Jennings, Tina Brown, Bernard Shaw and Barbara Walters, all jostled for a brief tryst, cooing and gurgling to Castro's every comment.

All clamored for autographs and photo ops. Diane Sawyer was so overcome in the mass killer's presence that she rushed up, broke into that toothy smile of hers, wrapped her arms around Castro and smooched him warmly on the cheek.

"You people are the cream of the crop!" beamed the mass-murdererr to the smiling throng that surrounded him.

"Hear, hear!" chirped the delighted guests while tinkling their wine glasses in appreciation and glee.

But the mass-murderer had barely scratched the surface of his fan club. According to the U.S. Cuba Trade and Economic Council, on that visit Castro received 250 dinner invitations from Manhattan celebrities and power brokers.

Read more >>

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Democrats’ Political Suicide Pact

By J. Matt Barber

The president recently told Diane Sawyer: “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” Excise the self-aggrandizing “really good” twaddle and it would seem ol’ Windy City Barry’s well on his way.

In the wake of Democrats’ historic Massachusetts smack-down, I’ve been anxious to see whether Obama would dig in his jackbooted heels and forge ahead with his wildly unpopular socialist agenda; or if he’d play nice with others and tack center (à la Bill Clinton in ‘94).

Wednesday night, during his first State of the Union address, we got our answer.

I’ll leave the in-depth analysis to others, but here’s the recap: Obama was Charlie Gibson and America was Sarah Palin. He looked down his nose, through the teleprompter, at the American people and in the most “me-centric” way imaginable, said: “Electric trains are wicked-cool. America sucks. Capitalism sucks. The Supreme Court sucks. It’s Bush’s fault. Oh, yea – the jobs thing. I’ll start my spending-freeze diet tomorrow. Give Perez Hilton a machine gun. Bama knows best. I’ll never quit. It’s Bush’s fault. Hopey-changey. Peace-out.” 

I have mixed feelings. The not-ready-for-prime-time amalgamation of jaw-dropping hubris and chuckle-out-loud incompetence this man continues to display bodes well for conservatives. The creepy political suicide pact he, Pelosi and Reid have apparently entered into – if fulfilled – almost certainly ensures an electoral bloodbath in 2010. It could cripple the Democratic Party for decades to come.

On the down side, if Obama and his fellow “progressive” extremists in Congress actually implement any of these radical policy initiatives, it could cripple the entire country for decades to come. If Obama loses, Democrats lose. If Obama wins, we all lose. Either way, Dems are in a pickle. 

While recently trying to reassure his very anxious colleagues that all’s well in O’Ba-La-Land, the president advised Democrats that the difference between 1994 and 2010 is that, now, “you’ve got me.” On Wednesday night he reminded them that, despite America’s wholesale rejection of ObamaCare specifically, and his larger socialist agenda generally, Democrats “still have the largest majority in decades.” He defiantly admonished: “Don’t run for the Hills,” concluding, “I have never been more hopeful.”

Now, as we all know, optimism is “always seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.” Narcissism, on the other hand, is laboring under the pathological delusion that you are the light at the end of the tunnel. 

In 1994, after Bill Clinton over-optimistically interpreted his uninspiring presidential victory as a cart blanche mandate to “remake” America into Europe, voters responded by sweeping Republicans into leadership for the first time in 40 years.

Now – as revealed Wednesday night – we learn that, this time around, Obama has over-narcissistically interpreted his uninspiring presidential victory as a cart blanche mandate to “remake” America into Europe.

To borrow from Yogi Berra: It’s déjà vu all over again.

Notes, Elaine Donnelly with the Center for Military Readiness: “Dan Balz in a November 14, 1994, Washington Post article titled ‘Health Plan Was Albatross for Democrats: Big Government Label Hurt Party, Poll Finds. Greenburg found that 54% of 1,250 voters surveyed named the Health Care Task Force issue [HillaryCare] as the number one reason they cast a ‘vote of dissatisfaction’ in the leadership of Clinton and the Democrats controlling Congress in 1993. 

“Greenberg also identified a second issue, called ‘cultural liberalism,’ which was cited by 51% of respondents and symbolized by Bill Clinton’s failed 1993 campaign for homosexuals in the military.”

So, in 1994, voters took Clinton and Democrats to the woodshed for 1) trying to “Mark McGwire” the federal government through imposition of socialized healthcare, and 2) for pushing hard-left social policies to include misusing and abusing the military as a petri dish for San Francisco-style social experimentation.

Obama? Same script, different decade.

As Einstein (or was it Ben Franklin?) observed: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” So, is our president insane, daft, an obstinate left-wing ideologue or all three? You be the judge.  

One thing’s for certain. Wednesday night kicked-off the 2010 campaign season. Wonder how many Democrats will – as did Deeds, Corzine and Coakley – ring the Oval Office for help.

Kind of like having Jack Kevorkian lend a hand with your medication, I suppose. 

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War” and serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel.

Read more >>

What is TEApublicanism?

By Tim Dunkin

Conservatives in America find themselves at a cusp in our history. Just one short year ago, it seemed that all was lost. A new President was installed into office - one who we knew, even if 53% of the voters didn’t, would destroy the liberty and prosperity remaining in America. To top it off, the opposition Party had been decimated in two straight elections, largely because it wasn’t opposing the march of big government, and was in no condition to advance the cause of conservatism at all. Yet, we now find ourselves on a whole different playing field. The incontinence and haste of our narcissistic, juvenile President and his Congress have ignited a public backlash against virtually all aspects of their agenda. The American electorate is suddenly finding their inner conservative once again, and the Republican Party has been the beneficiary (somewhat undeservedly) of the electorate’s turn of mind. The Tea Party movement, and the Town Hall takeovers from last fall have helped to crystallize the public’s opposition to the Democrat agenda, and have also served to channel their disgust into productive directions for conservatism.

As I’ve pointed out previously, the Tea Party movement is nothing new, but is the renovation of authentic conservative (regardless of Party or lack thereof) activism. In it, we see conservatives and other liberty-lovers of all stripes standing up, getting organized, and telling the tone-deaf, elitist political establishment in Washington that they’re mad, and they’re not going to take it anymore. This reinvigorated conservative activism helped Doug Hoffman in NY-23 to come out of nowhere and nearly put him into office, in the process relegating the leftist establishment Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava to third party status (and frankly, I think that if the voters knew last November what they know now, Hoffman would have won it hands down). Tea Partiers helped to mold the coalition that put Scott Brown into office, sending Obama and Co. a strong repudiation. Conservative activists have helped the conservative Marco Rubio take the lead in the GOP primary in Florida over the Stimulus-loving friend of Obama, Charlie Crist. All across the country, conservatives are getting involved and shaking up the political landscape like a volcano.

Another point I’ve made in previous articles is that conservatives need to stick together – and that means conservatives both outside and inside the Republican Party. That is where TEApublicanism comes in, a term which I used in my previous article, but did not define. Allow me to do so here.

TEApublicanism is a term that, to my knowledge at least, was first coined on Free Republic by FReeper SeattleBruce. In a nutshell, TEApublicanism is a practical approach to conservative activism that rejects two things: Third Partyism and establishment Republican business as usual.

As readers of my previous articles may have noted, I have roundly rubbished the notion that conservatives should go third party. I think the idea is pure foolishness. There’s nothing that helps to sap the drive and momentum of a movement like splitting it up among a gadzillion different little groups. This is what third partyism does. It takes our efforts, and divides them, introducing acrimony and destroying our ability to work together for the common goal of advancing conservatism. Let me say that I understand the frustration of those who want conservatives to take the third party route, and who want us to break with the Republican Party once and for all. I will address this in a moment. However, the GOP has the resources, the organization, and the membership that conservatives need to harness to have a practical chance of impacting our electoral and political systems. Why spend years building an organization from the ground up, when one is already established nationwide? And why spend years trying to woo the 56% of American conservatives who are also registered Republicans away from their party, only to try to induce them to join your particular third party, which is just one of dozens of conservative third parties (literally) floating around out there? A much better route is for conservatives to get involved with the Republican Party at the grassroots level, and use it to advance our agenda.

Now, this does not mean, however, that I am asking conservatives who are independents, members of third parties, libertarian-leaning, etc. to subordinate themselves to a Republican Party that is dominated by the likes of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the RINOs who have made the GOP what she was in 2006 and 2008. I’m not asking them to join a group, only to see it remain the very thing that drove them to leave it in the first place.

Instead, TEApublicanism calls on conservatives to come together in the GOP, making the first order of business to be the destruction of the RINO establishment power structure, and its replacement with a party leadership and organization that is reflective of the values of the conservative majority. In short, TEApublicanism calls for conservatives to band together and to take on and defeat the McCain-Graham-Romney axis of evil.

There are two ways for this to be done.

First is for conservatives to get involved at the local level. Work within your county’s Party apparatus to capture it for conservatism, and then work your way up. Flood your county conventions if you have to, and bring along some folks who know how to use the parliamentary procedures that are used to run these conventions. When conservatives get hold of the county apparati, then they get to determine who the leadership is at the state level, and from there the national level. The establishment RINOs and the cigar-smoking, back-slapping smoke-filled back room types who dominate so much of the Republican Party’s power structure are only there because conservatives have failed to get involved and “upfilter” their numbers and influence into the higher reaches of the Party. Granted, we should expect that the RINOs and insiders will put up a fight – but we can beat them if we all get organized, on the same page, and use our conservative numbers to our advantage.

Second, conservatives need to do everything they can to dry up the ability of the RINOs and establishment types to exercise influence and power. I have long advocated that conservatives refrain from donating money to official Republican organs like the RNC, RSCC, the RCCC, and so forth. Give money directly to the candidate instead. The money donated to these organs by well-meaning but hoodwinked Republicans is often used against conservatives. Observe what happened in NY-23, where the RNC gave Dede Scozzafava nearly a million dollars, and this after it came to light just how bad and left-wing of a candidate she was. Observe also that individual conservatives at the grassroots level were able to deliver several money bombs to Hoffman’s campaign that made him competitive and nearly won the race for him. Likewise, in the race for the Massachusetts Senate seat, the RSCC did little to help Brown win – it only belatedly came out on election night, as reported by Ace at Ace of Spades HQ, that Party had quietly slid half a million to Brown’s campaign under the table. Of course, Brown was bringing in million dollar plus money bombs every day for the last two weeks of the campaign - from grassroots conservatives and Tea Partiers who enabled him to defeat Martha Coakley. Clearly, until the GOP establishment gets its act together (and that’ll coincide with the time when conservatives successfully take it over), the only feasibly option for committed conservative activists is to support candidates directly.

Another way to dry up the influence and power of RINOs is to remove them from elective office. We conservatives can work to do this by supporting conservative Republican primary opponents against known RINOs who are up for office, and by supporting conservative Republicans in the primaries to determine who will run against Democrat officeholders. I am blessed to have one such conservative Republican running in my district (North Carolina’s 4th district) to challenge the disgustingly left-wing David Price, who currently “represents” this district. In contested primaries between a RINO and a real conservative, we can work for the conservative’s campaign and band together to money bomb his or her coffers. We can support, for instance, Marco Rubio against Charlie “Chargin’ RINO” Crist in the Florida GOP senatorial primary. We can support J.D. Hayworth’s effort to take down John McCain, who has been one of the most consistently anti-conservative, pro-establishment, pro-amnesty, anti-free speech “Republicans” in the Senate. Find out who the conservatives are in your elections, and support them against the RINOs. Take away the offices that these RINOs hold, and you remove a lot of their influence and credibility. After all, if John McCain can’t even hold his own Senate seat against a conservative challenger like Hayworth backed by grassroots conservatives in Arizona and across the country, why would anyone think that his model for the Republican Party – which involves bringing it even further left and compromising with the Democrats even more – holds any water?

In short, TEApublicanism is an effort to unite lovers of liberty and smaller government, be they Republicans, independents, third partyists, libertarians, conservative Democrats, or anyone else who is with us, into a single movement that has the organizational advantages of the Republican Party, while also having the ideological advantages of the Tea Party movement. It’s a win-win situation, really. Conservative Republicans get their Party back, and conservative non-Republicans get a Republican Party that they can actually vote for without feeling dirty. Together, we can keep up the momentum that we are seeing to date, and rebuild the winning Reagan coalition.

Read more >>

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Have Liberals Lost Faith in The Anointed One?

Aaron Goldstein

It was only a year ago that Barack Obama held liberals spellbound. His every word was taken as the gospel truth to power. But when Obama couldn’t convince Massachusetts voters to support Martha Coakley in last week’s election he managed to leave liberals in a dizzy spell. Obama wasn’t the Anointed One after all and out came the slings and arrows.

Consider what New York Times columnist and fellow Nobel laureate Paul Krugman wrote about Obama in a column titled, “He Wasn’t The One We’ve Been Waiting For”:

But I have to say, I'm pretty closed to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in. (1)

This is far cry from the Krugman who wrote of Obama days after the 2008 election, “Can Barack Obama really usher in a new era of progressive policies? Yes, he can.” (2)

Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic expressed similar feelings of dismay in a piece titled, “Where’s the Obama I Voted For?”:

But the frustration with the administration was palpable among Democrats today. Members of Congress and their staffs were asking the same questions I was: What does the president want? How badly does he want it? A lot of the legislators ended up running for the exits. And while lack of a clear party line from the White House surely wasn't the reason for Democratic panic on Wednesday--the political anger behind the Massachusetts election is real enough--it doesn't appear to have made that panic less likely, either. (3)

Then there was the spectacle of Obama apologist Chris Matthews and Obamacare critic Howard Dean calling each other crazy on Hardball the night following Scott Brown’s election. (4) But the confrontation between Matthews and Dean is tame compared to what reportedly transpired between Matthews’ MSNBC colleague Ed Schultz and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs following Gibbs’ appearance on Schultz’s radio program last Thursday. Schultz told an audience in Minneapolis over the weekend that he and Gibbs got into a heated exchange after the program went off the air over health care. Schultz disclosed that he told Gibbs he was “full of sh*t” while Gibbs replied with an f-bomb. He went to say that he told Gibbs that President Obama was “losing his base.”(5)

One must wonder if Obama campaign manager David Plouffe being brought back into the fold was a consequence of the “conversation” between Schultz and Gibbs. Yet bringing in Plouffe has hardly assured liberals. Howard Fineman of Newsweek believes Plouffe could come into conflict with key White House personnel such as Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. He writes:

But one reason why Obama ran such a stunningly effective presidential campaign is that that the internal supply lines were short and the lines of authority were clear. This new setup is anything but. (6)

The fact Beau Biden won’t run for his father’s old seat is also an indication that Plouffe’s presence doesn’t inspire confidence in Democrats. If the son of the Vice-President of the United States can’t be reassured then who can be? It would seem that Delaware’s Senate seat belongs to the people as well.

Of course, it is entirely possible that this loss of faith in President Obama might be temporary. If a crisis were to come along and Obama were to handle the matter deftly it could help him to win back some of his base. Then again Obama has handled the response to the earthquake in Haiti quite well. Yet you would never know it with the way liberals have erupted over the past week. The tremors will certainly begin anew in November if Democrats lose both Houses of Congress.

Should that happen how long will it be before President Obama faces a challenge in the 2012 Democratic primaries? If someone were to challenge him it would almost certainly spell the beginning of the end of his Presidency. Howard Dean has led the charge from the Left against the loss of the public option and would surely love an opportunity to redeem his scream from the 2004 Democratic primaries. Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold (of McCain-Feingold fame) is another potential challenger who has been critical of President Obama’s decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan.

Then there’s Hillary Rodham Clinton. In 2008, liberal activists looked upon her as if she were a Republican. While she probably wouldn’t get a great deal of support from that wing of the Democratic Party she would attract plenty of moderates. However, it could be argued that her health care proposals went further than Obama’s and she could run to his left on that issue. (7) But regardless of whether she is to Obama’s left or the right, can you really see Hillary staying in the White House if it begins to resemble The Titanic? Have Hillary’s presidential ambitions been completely excised?

Now President Obama would in all likelihood be able to stave off a primary challenge. But so were Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. Fat lot of good it did them in the general election. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were re-elected in no small measure because they did not have to face a primary challenger.

But as angry as liberals have been at President Obama this week it is well worth remembering the old adage that a week in politics is a lifetime. President Obama does have the luxury of having time on his side. On the other hand a lot of these angry liberals have long memories and might not easily forgive President Obama his transgressions. Or as liberal comedian Dick Gregory put it, “Hell hath no fury like a liberal scorned.”

- 30 -

  1. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/he-wasnt-the-one-weve-been-waiting-for/
  2. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2
  3. http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/the-day-after
  4. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/01/20/post-coakley-lib-crack-matthews-dean-call-each-other-crazy
  5. http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/24/schultz-gibbs-exchange/
  6. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/01/25/why-plouffe-s-return-might-be-a-problem.aspx
  7. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296997,00.html
Read more >>

What's Really Going On In Haiti?

By Chuck Baldwin

People of goodwill everywhere are rightly sympathetic to the plight of hundreds of thousands of innocent Haitians in the aftermath of the terrible earthquake that rocked the island country. Private donations and volunteer efforts are pouring into Haiti from all over the globe--especially from the United States. This is a good thing, right? So, why I am troubled?
 
Simply put, I cannot remember such an all-out "relief effort" by our nation's military and government forces following a natural disaster anywhere--ever! Not even New Orleans, Louisiana, and surrounding Gulf Coast communities here in the homeland received the kind of attention from Washington, D.C., that Haiti is receiving.
 
According to Agence France-Press (AFP), "The US military is ramping up its mission in quake-hit Haiti, with 20,000 US troops expected to operate on ground and offshore by Sunday [January 24], the US commander overseeing the region said."
 
No doubt, this would include ships and personnel from the USS Carl Vinson carrier group. Cost to US taxpayers to send an entire carrier group--along with more than 20,000 (so far) military personnel--to Haiti already numbers in the multiplied millions of dollars. It is also almost certain that there will be no quick exit from the island nation. There never is. In other words, our military presence (dare I say occupation?) in Haiti will doubtless last for years. At least, that's the way Latin American and European countries see it. And they are probably right.
 
Suffice it to say that the United States military is now completely in charge in Haiti.
 
At this point, it would be very enlightening for everyone to read Walter Williams' column dated January 20, 2010, entitled "Haiti's Avoidable Death Toll."
 
See Walter's column at:
 
 
In short, Williams notes that the high death toll in Haiti is directly related to the inferior political/economic philosophies of the Haitian government. There is no economic liberty, which has relegated it to being one of the world's poorest nations, with no opportunity to build the kind of homes and businesses that can withstand natural disasters. Williams is right when he says, "President Barack Obama called the quake 'especially cruel and incomprehensible.' He would be closer to the truth if he had said that the Haitian political and economic climate that make Haitians helpless in the face of natural disasters are 'especially cruel and incomprehensible.'"
 
Williams also observes, "Corruption is rampant" in Haiti. Crime is, likewise, ubiquitous in Haiti, with little real law enforcement. Private property rights are nonexistent. Like many (if not most) third world countries, people live in tyranny and bondage to insensitive, power-mad strongmen who use up the country's resources for their own selfish purposes.
 
Tyranny always impoverishes people; freedom enriches them.
 
Williams rightly concludes, "Haiti's disaster demands immediate Western assistance but it's only the Haitian people who can relieve themselves of the deeper tragedy of self-inflicted poverty." Amen.
 
All of that said, however, there are still several things bugging me about the Haiti story.
 
For one thing, why was an earthquake of this magnitude not felt beyond Port-au-Prince? (The only reports saying tremors were felt out of Haiti belong to US-controlled sources.) All of the testimonies that I have read from people living in the adjoining country of the Dominican Republic (which shares the same island with Haiti) that were quoted by French, British, or Spanish outlets universally say they felt nothing. If the foreign press is reporting the story accurately, the devastation was almost exclusively contained in and around Port-au-Prince. That is very strange to me. Even most of the roads reportedly remained open after the quake.
 
Another oddity is the fact that this earthquake did not produce a tsunami.
 
It is being called "miraculous" that an earthquake measuring 7.0 on the Richter Scale did not produce a colossal tsunami, which would have affected everyone in the region.
 
Furthermore, does the French government know something that we don't--but should? According to a report of the Global Analysis International Intelligence (GAII), "Not coincidentally, Agence France-Press (AFP), which of course is closely affiliated with French intelligence, filed a report on 14th January which contained the following concluding sentence:
 
"'On Wednesday, Obama ordered a "swift, coordinated and aggressive effort to save lives" in Haiti following the murderous quake, as a massive US aid mission swung into action, using troops, naval forces, aircraft and rescue teams.'
 
"FACT: An 'act of God,' or natural calamity, is NOT a 'murderous quake.'
 
"The use of the word MURDEROUS here implies that someone is doing the MURDERING."
 
GAII further speculates that the earthquake may have been the work of US Black Ops, which "flattened the French embassy and many of its officials, imploded the United Nations' own establishments in the Haitian capital, and no doubt obliterated evidence of US Government and rogue official drug-running complicity . . . channeled through the Haitian capital for many years."
 
See the intelligence report at:
 
 
Intelligence reports are also circulating about the possible disruption of liens and seizures of trillions of dollars by the international community relative to past crimes committed by former Presidents George Bush I and II, and Bill Clinton, which were being channeled through Haiti's Central Bank.
 
If any of this is even remotely true, it is certainly more than convenient that the Haitian capital was destroyed.
 
This particular part of the story is a real sore spot with me. And I know if I broach this topic, many readers (especially my Christian brethren who live under the delusion that the Bush family can do no wrong) will refuse to believe anything I report and will even take their anger and umbrage out on me. So be it.
 
I am personally convinced that certain members of the Bush and Clinton families have been involved in the international smuggling of illicit drugs for decades. I have spoken in confidence with those who were in positions to know, and they have emphatically told me that both then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and then-President George H.W. Bush were complicit in CIA-assisted drug running out of Mena, Arkansas. (You don't think I would say this if I did not have absolute confidence in the integrity and credibility of these sources, do you? Plus, why would they tell me this at potential great harm to themselves, if it were not true? And, no, I cannot divulge their names, for obvious reasons.) And there is absolutely no reason to believe that similar operations are not ongoing. In my opinion, it would be utterly naïve to think otherwise.
 
After all, it has been often reported that the CIA used Army Special Forces troops to facilitate the smuggling of drugs out of Indochina during the Vietnam War, has it not? Yes, it has. That rogue elements within the US government would use war--or even earthquakes--as cover and facilitation for illegal drug smuggling or money laundering would not surprise me one bit.
 
I realize it is extremely difficult for many Americans to contemplate that members of their own federal government could be evil enough to be involved in anything such as is implied above. According to the thinking of many Americans, evil people only live in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or North Korea.
 
And, of course, that is exactly what government propagandists want us to believe.
 
The truth is, no country or people has a monopoly on sin. As the prophet Jeremiah was inspired to say, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) The Apostle Paul agreed. He told the Philippians, "We . . . have no confidence in the flesh." (Philippians 3:3)
 
Thomas Jefferson said virtually the same thing when he said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
 
This is why Jefferson and the rest of America's founders insisted that we should be diligent to hold our civil magistrates accountable to the limits and protections of the US Constitution. They well understood the sentiments so wisely expressed by Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
 
Christians, of all people, should understand this.
 
So, why are so many of us so quick to believe everything our government and their toadies in the national media are telling us? Are we so naïve as to believe that unregenerate politicians in Washington, D.C., are incapable of the same evil acts of barbarity and savagery that might be found in other parts of the world? Are sinners less sinful because they happened to receive their fallen nature from American bloodlines?
 
Am I saying that Black Ops personnel manufactured the earthquake in Haiti--and killed tens of thousands of people in the process--for the purpose of hiding or facilitating illegal activity? No, I am not. How in the world would I know it, even if it were true?
 
What I am saying is that, once again, for me, there are many things that do not add up regarding what is going on in Haiti. The way the earthquake behaved; the lack of related seismic and tsunamic activity usually associated with earthquakes of this magnitude; the unprecedented involvement of US military forces being used for "relief efforts" even as commanders are desperate to fill combat theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan; the occupation of another independent nation, which occurred at lightning speed; the vast sums of US taxpayer dollars being expended; the devastation done to key Haitian governmental and banking institutions--which were known to be conduits for international financial disbursements--with virtually no devastation experienced anywhere else; and intelligence reports of surreptitious activity circulating all over Europe and Latin America all add up to one big question, What's really going on in Haiti?
 
 

 

Read more >>

Does "Prostidude" Have a Future in Nevada Politics?

Satire by John W. Lillpop
 
From the great state of Nevada, the birthplace and residence of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, comes a strange story about a young man who has officially become America’s first legal Gigolo.
 
As reported, in part, at apnews.myway.com, “A brothel in a Nevada desert town has hired the state's first male prostitute, a muscular college dropout who abandoned a brief stint as a porn actor in Los Angeles to become the only legal gigolo in the United States.
 
“The Shady Lady Ranch successfully won state and county approval to clear the way for the "prostidude," as Nevada's newest sex worker is already being called. After a slow first week on the job, his first appointments are scheduled for this weekend.
 
The male prostitute - known as "Markus" - has quickly become the center of attention in Nevada's brothel industry.
 
"Markus, 25, described himself as a well-read college dropout and former U.S. Marine from Alabama. He said he drove to Los Angeles to become a porn actor and left after filming two scenes, the first about a month ago. He said he ended up in a homeless shelter near Santa Monica, Calif., after being unable to find another job.”
 
Markus needs to know that if the gig in Beatty, Nevada does not pan out, there is another state-wide opening that might be a perfect match for his people skills.
 
That would be the seat in the U.S. Senate currently occupied by Democrat Harry Reid. Reid is up for election this November and is particularly vulnerable given his low approval rating and key role in Obama’s attempt to bull doze America into oblivion.
 
Asked if he has any interest in politics, Markus said, “I am the type of guy who needs to go home after a day at the office with a sense of pride about what I have accomplished. Being a US Senator requires immoral and corrupt behavior not consistent with my spiritual self and objectives. Besides, being a male prostitute is a nobler calling that pays more!”
 
Well said, Markus!
 
By the way, does the Shady Lady Ranch have any openings for a 70s-something Marxist who lives in Nevada and may need to find work in early November?
Read more >>

Monday, January 25, 2010

Theism and Belief

by Mike Adams
 
Help! The People for the American Way are after me! A Marxist professor at my university recently wrote a letter to the far left organization asking for help to stop me from ridiculing her in my nationally published column. She adheres to the belief that many liberals have today: liberals have a right to say stupid things in public settings without being ridiculed in a public setting.
 
This all leads to my belief that I’ve been wrongly defining liberalism for years. I think a new definition of the liberal is in order: A liberal is someone who only wants to be free from the consequences of freedom.
 
This tendency to seek freedom from the consequences of one’s free choices is seen in a lot of areas of liberal policy making. Here are some of the more obvious areas:
Abortion: Liberals support abortion not because they anticipate needing an abortion in the wake of an incident of rape or incest. They overwhelmingly want to escape the natural consequences (pregnancy) of a freely chosen decision to engage in sex outside of marriage.
 
Social Security: Saving money is difficult and it requires a lot of patience and a general willingness to delay gratification. Social security is nice for those who never get around to investing and saving money on their own. When the government does it for you, it insulates you, in part, from the consequences of your bad financial decisions.
 
National Health Care: A lot of people complain that you shouldn’t lose your health insurance just because you lose your job. What they really mean is that they don’t like their job and they only keep it because it provides a decent medical plan. One of the unanticipated consequences of the kind of single-payer national health insurance plan that Obama supports – and lies about not supporting – would be an increase in unemployment among able bodied individuals.
 
Separation of Church and State: Our Founders thought it would be a bad idea to have a national religion. But since the Warren Court era political liberals have been using this notion of a “wall of separation” to exclude from the public square all kinds of constitutionally protected religious speech. In reality, liberals don’t want a “wall” they want a partition – something they can take down and put back up in order to attack religion while banning close scrutiny of their ideas.
I see this all the time in higher education. Liberals teach courses in the Old Testament and harshly criticize the Judeo-Christian tradition as steeped in racism and patriarchal oppression. They teach courses in the New Testament, which try to paint the Apostle Paul as a great defender of both the patriarchy and the institution of slavery. One of the professors on my campus teaches that Paul was a paranoid schizophrenic and, hence, cannot be trusted on any subject whatsoever.
 
Ultimately, these folks hope that they can convert people away from antiquated religions like Judaism and Christianity and towards newer, hipper religions like multi-culturalism and diversity.
 
Some are not honest about what they are doing. For example, Bart Ehrman of UNC-Chapel Hill says that he is a “happy agnostic.” But that is silly. No college professor (of religion, no less) would say “I don’t know whether there is a God and, by the way, I am blissful about my ignorance.”
 
Bart Ehrman writes wildly biased books attacking Christianity because the self-proclaimed agnostic actually wants to convert people to atheism. Other professors in the UNC system seem to be a little more honest about what they are trying to do.
 
A course called "Atheism and Unbelief" is now taught by Professor Herbert Berg here at UNC-Wilmington. His course uses the following 7 textbooks:
1) "The God Delusion," by Dawkins
2) "Varieties of Unbelief," by Gaskin
3) "Atheism: Philosophical Justification," by Martin
4) "Eight Theories of Religion," by Pals
5) "Atheism: Very Short Introduction," by Baggini
6) "Letter to a Christian Nation," by Harris
7) "God is not Great," by Hitchens
There can be little doubt about what professor Berg is doing here. He is using several highly inflammatory and completely unscholarly books to attack religious belief in general and Christianity in particular. And he’s doing so in order to convert people towards a worldview of atheism and unbelief.
 
But this is not the way it should be. Our school in recent years has banned the Christmas tree and then banned the phrase “Good Friday” from the university calendar. We even have professors who have banned “A.D.” and “B.C.” from use in term papers. And we even have one department chair who wants to ban a professor from calling himself a Christian in emails to his students!
 
What kind of education are we providing when professors are teaching courses aimed at indoctrination into atheism? And what are we to do about it?
 
I’ll tell you what I intend to do about it: I intend to start my own course called “Theism and Belief.” It will be geared towards converting students to my own religion of Christianity. And it will only use Christian-friendly books like “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” by Geisler and Turek and “Mere Christianity” by Lewis.
 
The problem right now is not that atheists at my school are often using the classroom to convert people into their own religion of unbelief. Misery has always loved company.
 
The real problem is that many of these atheists have made a free choice to attack traditional Christian beliefs and simultaneously wish to erect a “partition of separation” to keep Christians from defending themselves.
 
That will all end when I decide to teach my course in “Theism and Belief.” I think a free and open marketplace of ideas really is the American way. And I can hardly wait to hear the reaction from my friends at People for the American Way!
Read more >>

Throwing off the Yoke of the Nanny State

By Doug Patton
 
A profound quote from a blogger identifying himself only as “Mike M.,” on a website known as Missourah.com, crossed my desk the other day. With regard to the recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, striking down key portions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill passed into law a few years ago, the writer wrote: “Certainly, the spectre of corporate money buying candidates and influencing our political system is an unwholesome one. But the solution is not limiting campaign donations. It is limiting the power of government, so that the money spent in the system has less impact on our lives, and power is truly returned to ‘the little guy’ that politicians love to pay lip service to.”
 
The writer has hit upon a truth abandoned long ago by Democrats and increasingly ignored by Republicans as well. Somewhere along the way, our politicians developed the idea that regardless of the growth of the private sector or the condition of the economy, the growth of government is a given. In fact, when times are toughest, and hard-working, taxpaying Americans are struggling to make ends meet in their own personal budgets — this is when paternalistic bureaucrats try to save us with higher taxes, more regulations and programs that generally provide little benefit but perpetuate the growth of yet more government.
 
In a misguided attempt at campaign finance reform, Senators John McCain, R-AZ, and Russ Feingold, D-WI, cosponsored the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act, a bill that many have since called an incumbent protection act. It banned corporations and unions from “electioneering communications” within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. With a wink and a nod toward the Supreme Court, President George Bush signed this bad legislation in 2002. In a 5-4 decision written by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, the High Court has finally ruled that corporations are entitled to the same right individuals have to spend money on political speech for or against a candidate.
 
Ronald Reagan famously said, “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.” Smaller government is still at the crux of modern conservative thought largely because of the Gipper’s leadership. And yet, due to greedy, overreaching members of Congress — primarily Democrats — government continued to grow during the 1980s and deficit spending ballooned. The 1994 GOP sweep of Congress, the lingering effects of Reagan’s across-the-board tax cuts, the dot.com explosion, and the growth of investment by baby boomers combined to create a budget surplus through the Clinton years — despite his ill-advised tax increases.
 
However, in the last decade — with special emphasis on this last year — government growth has been frightening. Everyone pays lip service to the concept of big corporations holding sway in the halls of Congress, when the reality is that power hungry politicians don’t want to have to restrain themselves.
 
It is somewhat akin to the Islamic edict that women must cover themselves from head to toe so as not to be a stumbling block to men. There is nothing in the Koran that instructs men to show restraint, only that women shouldn’t show an ankle or a wrist for fear of tempting a man. Following this logic, Muslim men are basically admitting, “Yeah, we have no self-control, and we don’t really want to develop it, either, so instead of keeping our lust to ourselves, we will put the onus of responsibility on the objects of our lust and blame them if we feel some overwhelming need to commit rape!”
 
Likewise, progressives like John McCain and Russ Feingold, by their support of this legislation, are saying, “We want as much power as possible, and we don’t want outside influences informing the electorate of our plans, so anyone with the capital to mount a serious offense against our policies should be silenced so we can get back to creating the nanny state.”
 
As The Wall Street Journal correctly opined on the issue, “In a season of marauding government, the Constitution rides to the rescue one more time.” Perhaps if we were to dust it off more often, the Constitution might tell us that the expansion of government is much more insidious than the expansion of free speech.
 
 
Read more >>

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Exclusive! Identity of Famous Hens And Their Keeper Revealed!

Final Hearing Before City Council Tuesday--MilesTones
 
by Rev. Austin Miles
 
     Two Brentwood hens have become world famous over a back yard dispute regarding their presence. An angry neighbor seems intent on putting a pox upon the chickens, accusing them off smelling bad, spreading bird flu, and pooping in her yard (located next door behind a high fence). Not only that, the neighbor charges, the eggs they lay will attract wild animals which could endanger her cat. Serious charges indeed. This has the hens setting on the edge of their nests as they approach the final hearing of their fate at the Brentwood City Council Meeting this Tuesday, January 26th. A big crowd is expected.
 
     The two hens, until now, have remained annonymous. But [with] the Great Chicken Trial of Brentwood gaining intense interest around the world, they agreed to a personal interview with MilesTones, letting their names be known and posing for pictures in order to let their side of the story be told, which is a proper procedure in a democratic society.
 
     The identity of the hens will now be revealed for the first time.; Henny is a hen of solid virtue which is logical since she is a Plymouth Rock. Penny is a Rhode Island Red, which is a breed not a political view. They are neither right wingers or left wingers. They are neutral. Henny and Penny live a simple life and feel totally American.
 
     The young woman who owns the hens, Kimberly Kennedy, is considered the first Chicken Whisperer in history. She can communicate with hens, and was present for the interview. Ms. Kennedy testifies that Henny and Penny work hard, are up early and go right to work producing organic eggs which helps support their family. So they are not free-loaders or a drain on the taxpayers.
 
     "They are law abiding chickens," their keeper said earnestly, "they stay to themselves and are friendly even though they don't talk much except when they have laid an egg that they are proud to annnounce to their family. They strive for excellence. Their hero is Rocky of the "Chicken Run" movie. One scene shows Rocky shot out of a cannon, which proves that chickens are creatures of high caliber." Ms. Kennedy translates the hen's responses to questions, and has sworn that the translations she gave were accurate.
 
MilesTones: What is that sign about Jesus on your window?
Henny: Buc buc brrrrr. Translation: We are Christian Chickens. Our ancestors were converted by St. Francis of Assisi.
MilesTones: What do you think about neighbors complaining about you?
Penny: Buc brrrr. Translation: Eggsasperating!
MilesTones: What do you say to the accusation that you smell bad?
Henny: Brrr buc. Translation: It stinks!
MilesTones: What words do you hate to hear?
Henny and Penny:  Buc buc buc buc brrrrr, brrrrrr...Translation: Hearing someone call another person a dumb cluck or a bird brain.
                               That sterotypes us and is very hurtful....dont get us started on that...
MilesTones: Ok...Ok..I see this is a very tender spot with you. Will you both be present at the hearing next Tuesday?
Henny and Penny: Buc brrrrrr, buc buc brrrr brrrr brrr (repeated several times). Translation: We have formally asked to be present. Hopefully Mayor Bob Taylor will permit us to be there. We are orderly and no trouble. We just want to observe. We have confidence that Mayor Bob is FOR the birds since he honored all birds by wearing that turkey suit for an event this past Thanksgiving. And too. he understand that every year the president himself pardons turkeys who are destined to be Thanksgiving dinner.We believe that The Mayor will act presidential in this hearing.
 
    At this point the interview had to end because it was raining cats and dogs outside. It is advisable to come early for the City Council Meeting on Tuesday January 26th in order to get a seat. We still await Mayor Bob Taylor's permission for Henny and Penny to attend the conclusion of The Great Chicken Trial of Brentwood.The photo below was taken during the exclusive personal interview.  
Rev. Austin Miles listens to Henny (R) responding to a question as Penny (L) checks the notes for accuracy.
Read more >>

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Still Think You Earned a B+, Mr. President?

By John W. Lillpop

Getting out of bed on the first anniversary of his inauguration as America’s 44th president will be particularly galling for President Obama this morning.

There was a political blood bath overnight in Massachusetts which, like it or night, was a referendum on Obama and his far-left policies. This was no vast right-wing conspiracy or the work of Nazis, Astroturf clowns, or right wing extremists.

This was the ultra-blue state of Massachusetts sending Obama an unmistakable message, loud and clear: The American people do not want nor need your brand of far-left radicalism.

Let us be clear: This is still America, a capitalist, free-market representative democracy. We intend to keep it that way!

You were hired, Mr. President, to steer the good ship America clear of hazards and some very hard times. No one expected you to replace the vessel of American life and culture with your own Marxist agenda.

Change with a small C, rather than CHANGE! was what most Americans envisioned. A course adjustment, rather than a radical turn left, was the only mandate approved by the people in November, 2008.

The big question on the morning after: Will this president and his liberal conspirators pay heed to the people’s message or will they defiantly buck prevailing currents in a futile attempt to rekindle the fires of Obamamania, long since extinguished in town hall meets and Tea Parties from coast-to-coast?

Of course, health care will be impacted, as will cap and trade and other foolish excesses on the Obama agenda.

But what about amnesty for 12-20 million invading criminals that Obama would like to add to the rolls of Democrat Party voters?

With America’s economy still in the doldrums and 15 million Americans out of work, just how eager will liberals be to advance an amnesty that would reward illegal aliens for breaking and entering into America?

Will the "Browning of Massachusetts" on Tuesday force liberals to see common sense on this issue?

If not, let me be the first to issue the following challenge: When it comes to granting amnesty to illegal aliens at the expense of American jobs, BRING IT ON, Mr. President!

Read more >>

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

NY Gov.'s New Budget Consists Of $1 Billion In New Taxes

Paterson: Budget Has $1 Bil In New Taxes

Under Plan, NYC Aid Would Be Slashed By $800 Million; New Soda And Cigarette Tax Proposals Already Angering Masses

By Marcia Kramer

Governor David Paterson said Tuesday that the days of profligate spending in Albany are over and that starting immediately lawmakers must participate in an "age of accountability."

That said, the governor's new budget has $1 billion in new taxes and nearly $800 million in cuts for New York City.

The words certainly sounded good.

"Our revenues have crumbled and our budget has crashed and we can no longer afford this spending addiction that we have had for so long," Paterson said.

And with those words Paterson announced a new $134 billion budget that will please no one except the numbers-crunchers.

School aid will be slashed by $1 billion. Health care will be slashed by another billion. Aid to NYC is about to get harpooned.

"The mistakes of the past have lead us to the breaking point," Paterson said.

But in addition to the severe belt tightening, the governor said he would need to raise $1 billion in new taxes and fees -- some politically controversial.

* A $1 increase in the cigarette tax, raising the state tax to $3.75.

* A new soda tax that will cost consumers 1-cent per ounce -- a 16-ounce bottle will cost 16 cents more, a 64-ounce bottle 64 cents more.

* The governor also plans to legalize and sanction cage fighting.

* And allow wine to be sold in grocery stores.

* And introduce 50 speed cameras on highways to catch unsuspecting motorists with fines of up to $100.

New Yorkers have mixed feelings about the cigarette and soda taxes.

"Yikes," was all Patricia Richardson of Mount Vernon could muster.

"Sodas I can't agree with. I think that's disgusting. I think we should tax cigarettes but not soda."

Still, the governor could have difficulty getting the Legislature to go along and not give in to special interests like hospitals and school advocates.

"The state is facing this huge budget gap. They've got to do something except the Legislature is dysfunctional. They don't care. There's really no conception of the public interest here. It's narrow personal interests and it's narrow institutional interests," said Baruch College pundit Doug Muzzio.

Still up in the air is whether the Legislature will save the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's free student fares.

The governor put some money into the budget for it but the MTA said it needs nearly $200 million more.

Read more >>

Will Massachusetts Ever Be The Same Again?

Aaron Goldstein

When 2010 rang in residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts could be certain of three things. The sun would rise in the east, there would be snow on the ground and a Democrat would be elected to succeed Ted Kennedy in the Senate.

In retrospect one cannot blame the Democrats for believing the Special Senate election in Massachusetts was for "Ted Kennedy’s seat." After all, when Edward Moore Kennedy was sworn into office Scott Brown was but a 3-year-old. One could make the case that Democrats looked upon Massachusetts voters as children to be seen but not heard. Well, tonight Massachusetts voters were heard by an entire nation. Say hello to Senator-elect Scott Brown, R MA and say goodbye to Obamacare (unless Harry Reid sees fit to ram it through before swearing Brown into office.)

So how did this all happen over the course of less than a month? How was it that Scott Brown lawn signs were showing up in The People’s Republic of Cambridge? When a colleague told me of this sight it was at that point I thought Brown could win. If Democrats can’t hold onto Cantabrigians then who can they count on?

Well, it’s quite simple really. The more people saw of Scott Brown the more they liked him. The more the people saw of Martha Coakley the more they didn’t like her. Throw in a lackluster performance by President Obama during a campaign stop for her over the weekend and you have a perfect storm where the winds of change have blown back in his face.

Brown began on a clever note when he reminded Massachusetts voters that President Kennedy was a tax cutter at heart. Of course, Brown is hardly the first Republican in favor of a tax cut. This tax cutter resonated with people because he wears regular clothes, drives an old pick up truck and also genuinely enjoys talking with people as well as listening to them. People might not agree with Brown’s position on the War in Afghanistan but as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserve there are Massachusetts liberals who respect his stance. Brown also had a magic number 41. He turned this election into a referendum on Obamacare.

And then there was Martha. What didn’t she do wrong? If Paul McCartney was advising Coakley he might say, "Martha my dear. Hold your hand out, you silly girl. See what you’ve done." Martha Coakley could write a book titled, "How Not to Win an Election Campaign." The table of contents might look something like this:

Introduction The Campaign Has Been Won, Time For a Well-Deserved Vacation

Chapter One Getting Those Taxes Up

Chapter Two How to Handle Pesky Reporters

Chapter Three How to Make Terrorists Disappear From Afghanistan

Chapter Four Employment Opportunities for Catholics Outside The Health Care Field

Chapter Five How to Convince People Your Opponent Likes Rape

Chapter Six Remedial Spelling

Chapter Seven How to Avoid Contact with Voters in Cold Weather

Chapter Eight Boston Sports Legends & Landmarks 101

Chapter Nine How to Apply for a Presidential Bailout

Chapter Ten I Have a Scheme: Politicizing Martin Luther King Day

Chapter Eleven How to Accuse Your Opponent of Voter Fraud Before the Polling Booths Have Opened

Epilogue It Wasn’t My Fault: How to Blame Washington Before the Polls Have Closed

Coakley and her supporters seemed to go out of their way not to win friends and influence people. A couple of days ago about half a block from my apartment I was stopped by a Coakley volunteer who asked me if I was going to vote. When I informed her that I would be supporting Brown she demanded to know why. I retorted, "Where would you like me to begin?" This woman had nothing positive to say about Coakley and instead spent most of her time equating Brown with George W. Bush. She even went as far as to say that Brown was supported by the birther movement. I told her that she would catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Yet this young woman’s approach can hardly come as a surprise when John Kerry baselessly accuses Brown supporters of "bullying and threats" or when Keith Olbermann accuses Brown of being an "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees." The whole Coakley campaign and their apologists in the left-wing media reeked of desperation.

Such desperation serves to embolden conservatives and independent thinkers while demoralizing honorable liberals. My roommate is a Democrat who did not support Coakley during the primary but nonetheless voted for her today. But there was no joy in his heart. Brown voters, on the other hand, (me included) couldn’t wait to get up in the morning and sprint to the polling booth.

It is significant that Brown was elected nearly a year to the day that President Obama took the oath of office to much celebration and fanfare. Over the past 365 days, that celebration and fanfare has waned. It isn’t as easy as Obama thought it would be. Much of his agenda in infeasible and impractical but if he has his way we will still pay for it. The election of Brown is a message for Obama to stop and hit the reset button. He would be wise to do so.

Will Massachusetts ever be the same? It is certainly a different day and a different year. Yet one can make the case that it is Ted Kennedy’s seat in which Brown will now sit. After all, he is serving out the rest of what would have been the remainder of his term. Brown must go before the voters again in November 2012. Democrats won’t be caught off guard then. But Scott Brown made the Bay State sit up and take notice once. Who can say that the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts aren’t prepared for an encore?

Read more >>