Anthony Bradley (King’s College, NYC) – no relation to the previous post’s Adam Bradley (University of Colorado and Claremont McKenna College) - alerted me to the fact that his Liberating Black Theology: The Bible and the Black Experience (Crossway, 2010) is now available for pre-order at amazon.com. Happily I gave this (original) endorsement for the book:

With irenic tone Bradley reveals the theological justification of racial separation inherent within the victimization philosophy of both 1G and 2G black theology. His analysis demonstrates how the vision of Cone and his intellectual offspring contributes to rather than resolves DuBois’ problem of the twentieth (now twenty-first!) century.

I hope you will get a copy this book, even if Black Liberation Theology does not appear to be a major concern of your immediate ethnic context. For Bradley’s work will provide you with some good tools to understand nominal Christianity in the African American context. Hopefully this will help you reach many religious-but-not-righteous, church-going African Americans with the Gospel.  Congrats to Prof. Bradley on providing the church with this resource. Job well done!

Insiders have revealed the internal diagram of the Obama administration…shown here exclusively for the first time…..
Here we go…it’s time to spin like you’re an Obama cabinet member..or Bill Moyers..or Jesse Jackson..or Jeremiah Wright..or Funky Louie..or Bill Ayers..or a thrower of shoes..or David Letterman..or any celebrity from the A to the D list…let’s GO!…….C’mon Folks Let’s SPIN!

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

This Barack Hussein Obama Recovery.gov lies.

It is unfortunately believed by the uninformed. That is utterly abominable but once again underlines that Obama plants deceit in every corner of his oversight.

Obama lies regarding statistics on numerous Recovery.gov levels. Obama has been asked to fix the site. He refuses to fix the site. He will not attempt to fix that site.

How can this be? Can be tolerated?

The answer is that Muslims are taught to lie for it furthers Islam World Rule. Allah instructs via the Koran to outsmart the enemy. Lying then is an Islamic virtue.

To Christians, lying is a sin. Therefore, Christians in the nation expect people to tell the truth. Of course, Christians know there are liars out there. But when these liars are caught, Christians expect them to be exposed. Sometimes they are penalized or disciplined in some manner.

However, a Marxist Muslim President gets away with lying because the liberal media will not expose him. His own lying team, naturally, will not expose him. And so he twists the honest citizenry once again in the wind.

There are plenty of Dems in Congress who are not Muslims; but since their leader lies, they take on his mantle. And countless get by with it.

Hopefully in the next elections, these liars will be spanked out of Congressional halls. Of course, some more liars will no doubt take some of their places; but let’s pray that enough liars are sent into oblivion that truthful individuals sit in their seats.

Obama lied from years back. Demented Jeremiah Wright preached for twenty years to Obama.

In that cultic mentoring Obama was taught how artfully to lie. Michelle was as well. Now these two sit in the White House, screwing up our Republic.

Obama’s czars and shadow government plot through sessions to refine their lies. Then when they are caught, for instance, in Congressional question-and-answer sessions, at times the query gets the cat out of the bag.

Recovery.gov is symbolic of the prime motive spinning Obama’s lying machine. Like Wright’s cultic warehouse where hate and deceit were a membership requirement, Obama’s lying machine builds on to Wright’s creedal teachings in political environs.

Back to the bottom line regarding Recovery.com: It is laden with lies because it is overseen by a socialist Muslim who honors Islam’s warped ethic that condones lying as a moral good.

From Recovery.gov, one can extrapolate to whatever Obama considers his political mission, schemes that lie, such being a fundamental quotient. That includes his health care plan. Also his stand on abortion. That includes his (mis)management of Afghanistan as well as his projections for job increase, stimulus policy substance, international relations, basic freedoms regarding religion and speech, and so forth.

Obama plans on destroying America through the power of the lie. Of course, history reveals indeed how tremendously powerful the lie is.

The lie is the given in Obama’s religion. It is the absolute in his speeches, his dealing with other nations, and his empty promises laid on America.

In other words, Obama cannot be believed in anything he says. He cannot be believed in anything.

Recovery.gov is an in-your-face example.

If you don’t already know Obama is a socialist, this diagram probably won’t change your mind.  However, it does a good job of illustrating Obama’s social universe.

Mom and Dad were right.  Show me your friends, and I’ll show you your future.

Recently a friend told me they found the new “Prayer” for our President, then showed me Psalm 109:8 : ” Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”  We chuckled, he mentioned that we should definitely not include verse 9 and then the conversation ended.  Neither of us have the desire for any sitting president to undergo calamity, nor do we put much stock in reading current political situations into imprecatory psalms.  Such an approach to Scripture takes away from the focus on God and onto minuscule political issues.

So, chalking this experience up to just another political joke circulating I went on my merry way not knowing that I should have been outraged…or so says Mr. Brian McLaren.

According to his blog McLaren is “disgusted by the latest absurdity from the religious right…”  He’s also “depressed by the lack of courage among Evangelical leaders to speak out strongly against it.”  He follows by challenging evangelical leaders to speak out!

I’ll address his challenge first.  The reason he won’t have many accepting this challenge is because most evangelical leaders (MacArthur, Piper, Mohler, Sproul, Greening, the divinesatisfaction blog…ok…a bit of a stretch there) are spending their time focusing on rightly dividing the Word of Truth, equipping the saints and evangelizing the world to be overly concerned with trivial political humor no matter if it is done in good or bad taste.  I’m pretty sure that this isn’t the first, nor the last time Scripture will be used for political humor.  Perhaps…and this is what I hope though it may not be true yet…the so-called “religious-right” has learned that the way to spread the gospel is not through politics, a lesson McLaren and the “religious left” obviously haven’t learned.

But now let me turn to McLaren’s pious “disgust” with the perpetrators of the afore-mentioned political Bible-humor.  I have sent McLaren an email asking him to share with me if  and when he published his disgust over the condemnatory religious rhetoric spewn forth from the church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.  This to me seems even more serious than the Psalm 109:9 scandal  for  while most of those who perpetuate that “joke” really wish no harm to the president, Rev. Wright’s hate-filled messages are meant to be extremely serious!  Some might say that this isn’t comparing apples to apples.  True, but if you’re not outraged by the Wright “apple”, you have no Christian reason to be disgusted by the Psalm 109:8 orange.

But let’s try to find something a bit similar.  I also asked  McLaren to share with me any comments he may have made about the film about the assassination of President Bush.  This is, after all, the crux of the issue.  For possibly the first time many non-Christians and liberal Christians are looking at the context of the verse and crying that what the joke is really about is the desire for the death of the President.  If he  wasn’t  “disgusted” by the “absurdity” from the liberal left (McLaren’s political bent) he has no Christian reason to be disgusted by the Psalm 109′ers.  After all, the Psalm 109′ers have plausible deniability since they don’t include verse 9.

Another thing strikes me as ironic.  McLaren over the past few years has reinvented just about everything within Scripture, from Hell, Paul, the atonement, Christ, God, innerency, etc.  It’s obvious that literal interpretation is not something he takes much stock in…so why start with Psalm 109?

If Mr. McLaren has in the past shown outrage over the likes of Rev. Wright and the assassination fetish that the left had both in film and comedy over the past 8 years, then  I will gladly grant him his “disgust” over the Psalm 109′ers.  But, I still have to ask…why?  Aren’t there bigger things than politics?  The Bible is going to be misused and abused for every reason under the sun (like supporting candidates who favor the murder of the unborn).  Those who find their satisfaction in the God of the Bible must know what these misuses and abuses are, be  able to correct them, and then move on!

And, those who find their satisfaction in the God of the Bible must know how to laugh at themselves…and sometimes even their  own political ideology.

*edit* McLaren ends his post with “Lord, save us from your followers.”  I might amend that to say, Lord, teach us to follow you instead of our favorite political ideology/candidate.”

Taking aim at the Left's dirty laundry.

Last night, former Alaska Governor, future bestselling author, and perennial thorn in liberals’ sides Sarah Palin sat down with Sean Hannity to discuss everything from the life stories she shares in her new book to the issues of the day, all the while demonstrating why the Left just can’t get her out of their heads.

(Complete Interview: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 above, Part 5, Part 6)

Regardless of whether or not Palin is your preferred 2012 candidate, it’s clear to see which of her traits strike fear into liberal hearts: as a successful career woman with a large family, her very existence demolishes the left-wing smears about the Republican Party and traditional values enslaving women. Her loving care of baby Trig and her frank discussion of discovering he would suffer from Down’s Syndrome is a powerful example of a pro-life leader living her principles. And in a political spectrum dominated by men, a message delivered by a charismatic, attractive woman is going to get results. She has to be made a laughingstock not because she is, but because otherwise people will start looking a little too closely at that man behind the left-wing curtain.

In the video above, Palin demonstrates another quality that not only got under liberals skin, but seems to have been too hot for the McCain campaign to handle: a willingness to go after the Democrats‘ dirty laundry. When Hannity asked about the fallout after she accused Barack Obama of “palling around with terrorists,” Palin said:

I am still perplexed as to why we weren’t fairer to the electorate and discuss those associations and the past voting records and the experiences that one of the candidates had in his career. I think that it was unfortunate. I would remind people that it wasn’t negative campaigning and it wasn’t off-base to call someone out on their associations and on their voting record. Now, what you did, and other common-sense conservatives, what you guys did was try to do the job that a campaign should have done […Rev. Jeremiah Wright] should have been a bigger issue because I think it was indicative of, um, some of the, uh, quote unquote tolerance candidate, in terms of hearing a message and being fed things that are not good for our country […] his associates have been extremely radical, and we see that, then, in some of the appointments that he has made. [Emphasis added.]

For years the Left has promoted (and many Republicans have bought into) the idea that there are some arbitrary rules of political decorum that dictate political speech, and anything beyond, “While I have the greatest respect for my good friend from the great state of Massachusetts, I humbly disagree on…” is intolerable (except, of course, when it’s said by one of their own). Say you’re going to vote a certain way, or take a certain stance, and you’ll (usually) be okay, but Heaven help you if you dare notice unethical, hypocritical, or dangerous conduct on the part of our enlightened progressive betters!

Sarah Palin not only understands that such self-censorship amounts to abandoning a legitimate analysis of our leaders’ character and ideology, but also sees that it isn’t enough to let the same pundits deliver the same messages to the same people; our political leaders must be equally frank with the American people. That might not make the Sarracuda presidential material, but it’s a big step in the right direction.

—–

Hailing from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Calvin Freiburger is a political science major at Hillsdale College. He also blogs at the Hillsdale Forum and his personal website, Calvin Freiburger Online.

Irritatingly we cant avoid former Alaska Governor aka Sarah Palin going Rogue, here’s the few things you need to know in case you dont want to buy the book and certainly dont want to be stuck in those fancy boring DC cocktails conversations.Thanks God, The Post has provided a guide to what she said about major public figures, with a special focus on the 2008 presidential campaign.

On Alec Baldwin

Key mentions: p. 313-314

Actor

Baldwin appeared with Palin on Saturday Night Live. Palin writes that the campaign haggled with producers and writers to come up with appropriate lines for the two, deciding on something poking fun at Baldwin and his actor brother Stephen, after they turned down a line she suggested to poke fun at the actor’s claim that he would leave the country if George W. Bush was elected in 2004.

Baldwin’s Response: According to EW, Baldwin’s rep says the reason that line was turned down was because the actor never made that claim. “‘They nixed the joke because the underlying premise just wasn’t true,’ Baldwin’s rep, Matt Hiltzik, tells EW on behalf of Baldwin. . . . ‘But once Palin knew that, after telling her [it wasn't true], she said, “Well, let’s say it anyway,” like she needed it to be true.’”
Rep for Alec Baldwin and Katie Couric responds to ‘Going Rogue’ »

On Joe Biden

Key mentions: p. 288-289, 296-298

Vice President of the United States

Palin writes that she respected Biden’s experience, but thought he lacked understanding national energy security and “opposed sensible innovations” on the issue. The book says it was adviser Randy Scheunemann’s idea to ask permission to call Biden “Joe” during their debate, as Palin kept accidentally calling him “O’Biden” in debate prep. Palin recalls Biden’s debate “game face,” remarking that he looked “impeccable. . . tall and confident . . [with] distinguished silver hair” before noting that Scheunemann reminded her to think “hair plugs” during the debate.

On Hillary Clinton

Key mentions: p. 287

U.S. Secretary of State

Palin says in the book that she feels Obama got a “free pass” when compared to Hillary. Palin says she and Clinton would disagree on many issues, if they ever sat down for coffee, but that her “hat is off to [Hillary] for her hard work on the campaign trail.”

Clinton’s Response: “I absolutely would look forward to having coffee,” Clinton said from Singapore during an interview aired on Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Obviously we’re going to hear a lot more from her in the upcoming weeks with her book coming out and I would look forward to having a chance to actually get to meet her,” Clinton told ABC’s “This Week.”
Hillary Clinton is open to coffee with Sarah Palin »

On Bill Clinton

Key mentions: p. 82, 286

President of the United States

Palin says she sensed in her meetings with Clinton “an unspoken mutual disappointment with the media’s serial unfairness to some presidential candidates in the 2008 race.”

On Katie Couric

Key mentions: p. 255-256, 271-279

Anchor, CBS Evening News

Palin asserts that aide Nicolle Wallace convinced her to do the interview with Couric explaining the anchor “needed a career boost,” had “low self-esteem” and “wants [Palin] to like her.” Palin attributes some of her stumbles to being “annoyed and frustrated with many of [Couric's] repetitive and biased questions.” She claims CBS sought out the worst moments to advance Couric’s “partisan agenda.” She explains that the reason she didn’t answer the “what do you read” question was because its “condescension irritated me.”

Couric’s Response: Couric’s representative Matt Hiltzik lashed back at Palin’s claims, saying that “the interview speaks for itself.”
Katie Couric’s rep issues response to Sarah Palin’s book »

On David Letterman

Key mentions: p. 351

Late Night Host

Palin recounts her run-in with the late night comedy host as part of a section describing the media focus even after the campaign ended. Of the verbal conflict, Palin writes: “No, I guess I can’t take a joke that suggests it’s funny to humiliate a young girl and pretend that statutory rape. . . is something to laugh about.”

On Cindy McCain

Key mentions: p. 221-222

Palin speaks highly of McCain and her work, and describes her as “one of the most striking women I’ve ever seen,” as well as a version of a 1950s elegant mother.

On John McCain

Key mentions: p. 209-210, 221-222

Senator, Senate

The book doesn’t go into much detail of the relationship between the Palin and the presidential nominee, but she frequently praises McCain, whom she says she had “always admired … for his independent spirit and passion for keeping the homeland safe.” She describes McCain as being “full of inspiring inner joy.” In the closest things to criticism of the Arizona senator, Palin questions McCain’s decision to halt the campaign during economic meltdown (“The VP half of the ticket didn’t know the strategy on that one.”) and also notes that she was kept out of the loop on the campaign’s strategy to pull out of Michigan in October, a decision with which she strongly disagreed. In one of the few exchanges documented, Palin writes of how McCain made the final decision that she would not speak on election night.

McCain’s Response: “I’m just moving on, and I’ve got too many other things to worry about except to say that I’m proud of my campaign.”

McCain mum on Palin’s campaign account »

 

On Barack Obama

Key mentions: p. 227, 278, 307

President of the United States

According to the book, Palin thought Obama was a gifted speaker, but feared “his smooth style would obscure” the fact that he wasn’t saying much. She says the true Obama, the one who associated with William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, was “concealed in centrist campaign-speak,” but has been revealed since taking office. Palin calls Obama extreme on abortion and argues that Obama got a “free pass” in the Democratic primary when compared to Hillary Clinton.

Obama’s Response: Asked whether he plans to read a new book by former GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, Obama said: “You know, I probably won’t.”
Obama says he is seeking ‘end game’ to Afghan conflict »

On Michelle Obama

Key mentions: p. 269

First lady of the United States

Palin describes Michelle Obama’s actions and words during the campaign as emblematic of “the other side’s ‘Blame America First’ impulse.”

On Rick Warren

Key mentions: p. 302

California, Non-denominational

Palin mentions talking to and praying with Warren while in the shower, “in a few inches of water with a shower curtain for a wardrobe.”

On Jeremiah Wright

Key mentions: p. 307

Illinois, Evangelical

Palin is critical of the campaign for telling her to avoid discussing Obama’s connections to Rev. Wright. “I will forever question the campaign for prohibiting discussion of such associations.”

On Joe Wurzelbacher

Key mentions: p. 304-306

“Joe the Plumber”

Palin criticizes the media for its treatment of Wurzelbacher, better known as ‘Joe the Plumber,’ while not pursuing the connections between Obama and Weather Underground radical William Ayers. Palin celebrates Joe the Plumber as a symbolic everyman, and discusses at length the inspiration he provided for other supporters.

     Throughout the Clinton Administartion and even afterwards, President Clinton and Hillary Clinton were constatntly linked to the death, apparent suicide, of one of their longtime advisors, Vince Foster. Mr. Foster allegedly died of a gunshot wound, ruled as suicide.

     Now, years later, and a new Administration, and it seems that Obama is racking up a group of “similar” “disfunctional” colleagues and associates.

     Christopher Kelly, an aide to former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, allegedly died of an overdose of pain killers just after pleading guilty to federal corruption charges.

      This week, Michael Scott, the President of the Chicago Board of Education, committed suicide. Mr. Scott was an integral member of the failed Chicago Olympics bid, and he had real estate holdings that were called into question during the Olympic planning process.

      And, of course, who can forget the choir director of Obama’s church, Trinity, who was murdered in December 2007, just before Obama’s campaign began to get traction.

      Is there a suicide epidemic among the Chicago political mob?

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2009/11/17/suicide-epidemic-hits-chicago-bureaucrats/

go public option,Here i s a copy of the letter I sent (text only) to both my Democratic Senators (Burris and Durbin) let’s see what kind of response this brings. I always get a receipt acknowledgement of the letter/email from Burris but never any comments of explanation. Durbin always sends an explanation, usually after the vote and at times on a different topic than what I wrote about.

I REJECT and OPPOSE any and all forms of government-run health care — from the so-called “public option,” to the unconstitutional individual mandate that would force American citizens to purchase insurance. The Congressional Budget Office stated that “a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of
federal action.”

I also am outraged by the tactics being employed by both House and Senate leaders to push this bill through against the clear will of the American people. Crafting final bills behind closed doors and withholding the actual text of the bills until the very last minute are despicable political tactics.

I will not tolerate such action, and urge you to OPPOSE any and all forms of government-run health care plans that ignore the constitution and force me, or my family to comply!

We are watching your action,

RWD

Obama increased the already massive waste in government by almost $100B in his first nine months.  That is 25% more waste than last year under President Bush.

Labor was tied for the biggest chunk of that waste increase with the Treasury which is run by Tim “Tax Cheat” Geithner.  Each of those wasted $12.3B. 

Interestingly enough, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU, the labor union) raised hundreds of millions of dollars for Barack Obama’s election campaign and its president, Andy Stern, has been to the White House 22 times since Obama has been in office, making Stern the most frequent visitor.

Barack Obama also entertained

• anti-American racist and Obama spiritual leader, Jeremiah Wright
• anti-American racist and leader of the New Black Panther Party, Malik Zulu Shabazz
• anti-American and self-avowed socialist Michael Moore
• child pornographer and molester, black musician, Robert Kelly, a.k.a., R. Kelly
• anti-American, long-time Obama confidant, supporter and terrorist, Bill Ayers

I wonder how much of your money Obama can waste given a full year? 

Perhaps Obama can use some of your money to have R. Kelly use the White House to shoot another sex video involving some more 14 year-old girls or to have Bill Ayers build some bigger bombs to bomb the Pentagon again since his first attempt was not as successful as he would have liked?

The housing bubble that is now deflating and wreaking havoc with the economy was created by several factors, Glenn Beck said on his TV show today.

“The Fed and the politicians” are responsible, he said.

Activist groups were encouraged to agitate by the Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act, which enshrined in law a kind of lending protection racket. Banking regulators were given the power to make trouble for banks that failed to lend enough money to so-called underserved communities. Banks that paid enough — whatever that means — got left alone, but banks that didn’t, got their legs broken.

How much money is enough to satisfy the law? Even the Federal Reserve Board can’t say for sure. From the Fed’s online summary of the Act:

The CRA requires that each depository institution’s record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution’s application for deposit facilities.Neither the CRA nor its implementing regulation gives specific criteria for rating the performance of depository institutions. Rather, the law indicates that the evaluation process should accommodate an institution’s individual circumstances.

One can almost imagine a CRA commissar saying, “It’d be a real shame if something happened to that nice bank of yours.” When in doubt about potential CRA liability, don’t risk committing a crime against diversity: make the loan. Or else.

After CRA came into effect, Saul Alinsky-inspired “community organizer” groups such as ACORN, the Greenlining Institute, and National Council of La Raza got into the shakedown business. They preach the hateful class-warfare rhetoric of their fellow community organizers Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Michael Pfleger.

Even though the left’s pathological preoccupation with economic egalitarianism never takes a vacation, the left isn’t entirely to blame for Wall Street’s current troubles.

The Federal Reserve Board encouraged bad behavior by keeping interest rates artificially low for far too long after the 9/11 attacks. Since money was cheap, bankers went overboard with exotic mortgage products, and investors kept inflating the housing bubble, sending home prices into the stratosphere.

But no one can deny the fateful role that liberal financial activist groups played in making a bad situation much worse.

John Kerry was a man of his long-gone times:  the 1960s.  He admired the Western European social democracies, particularly that of the French, with their cinema, socialism, complexity, six week vacations, and mostly harmless student riots. 

Obama, by contrast, is a man of the multiculturalist branch of leftism, which emerged in the 1980s.  This group sees its heroes in the Sandanistas, Nelson Mandela, Black Panthers, and the Third World generally.  Its heroic events include the L.A. Riots and the expulsion of European “colonists” from places like Rhodesia.  So it’s not terribly surprising that Obama’s abilities as a diplomat have  consisted mostly of egregious displays of subservience to Third Worlders and non-white leaders in general, such as the Emperor of Japan.  Most important, his lopsided Third World focus has begun to create a minor rift with our civilizational forebears in Europe.

For the record, I thought that some of the conservative venom directed against Western Europe and France during the run-up to the Iraq War was ignorant and short-sighted.  I said so at the time.  John Kerry may have been anti-American in many important ways, but at least he remained rooted in Western Civilization for his models of good government. 

Obama is something different and more dangerous.  Obama doesn’t just want good social services and economic equality, which are the things a John Kerry might admire in Sweden.  Rather, it appears that Obama wants to see the white upper classes collectively brought low in dramatic and humiliating fashion.  Why else the repeated refusal to defend his putative people–his fellow Americans–from calumnies and insults and disrespect by foreigners?

Obama will hobble America and reduce its power and prestige not for spite, though that’s part of it, but also as an act of justice, rebalancing the scales relative to the Third World, in which he sees nations of nonwhite people who are chiefly defined by collectively having been oppressed one time or another by the mean white people of both the First and Second Worlds. 

Why else the snubbing of Nicholas Sarkozy and also Dmitri Medvedev?  Why else the obsequious bowing to the Saudi King and Japanese Emperor, while remaining cool to the British and Germans and Poles?  Why else the extreme unease with waging war in Afghanistan after having promised to do so? 

While Obama is a proud and even somewhat narcissistic man, he finds it very difficult and unnatural to stand up for the United States in the face of criticism that channels the rhetoric of multiculturalism and racist oppression.  When this happens, he is completely morally and psychologically disarmed from critics and will accomodate them to an extreme degree rather than assume the role of America’s first citizen.  Whey else his refusals to condemn Al Sharpton, Farrakhan, Professor Gates, or anyone else on the black left of the United States in his entire life, even when they act ridiculously? 

Obama is someone of an uncertain and also a self-chosen identity.  He made this choosing of his blackness completely in spite of his mixed heritage and white relatives.  This deliberate identification of the idealized people of his  idealized absentee father has always made the sting of “selling out” the worst, most painful cross for the “black” Obama to bear.  He’s insecure about his blackness, even after spending so many years at his crazy church, as a community organizer, and in the household of his more authentically African-American wife.  There’s no slaves in his family tree, unless they were owned by other blacks in Kenya.  This insecurity about selling out is equally vital wether the criticism is levided by a Bobby Rush or the Emperor or Japan or Daniel Ortega.  Having become the American President, far from aleviating this insecurity, makes him doubly determined to show everyone that he knows who his people are:   the multihued oppressed everywhere, not the America which is still 75% white, whose wealthiest and most long-established cohort for many years held “his people” in chattel slavery.

The justice that Barack Obama seeks, it is increasingly clear, focuses on the resolution of ”north south conflicts,” or, in other words, whites versus everyone else.  This view of world history was spoken of until now mostly in late night dorm-room bull sessions.  Now it informs the President of the United States.   His foreign policy, in particular its symbolism, is the practical implementation of Jeremiah Wright’s condemnation of  “a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people.” 

Look at his words. Look at his deeds.  Little else but Obama’s racial psychodrama writ large and its associated and distorted concepts of “justice” explain his strange behavior.

I am going to use today’s post to bring you a GREAT column by Ben Stein who is one of MY favorite writers. Ben is the author of BEN’S DIARY in The American Spectator and has contributed to numerous other conservative media outlets.

*WE FIGURED HIM OUT! By Ben Stein*

Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized
medicine bill passed?

**They may have ruined my country and yours.**
**You must as an American FORWARD this to all, or you will wake up one
morning and your freedoms are no longer there. **

From POLITICS DAILY:

Republican Sen. John McCain, who lifted former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin out of obscurity to be his vice presidential partner last year, isn’t saying much about Palin’s new tell-all, blame-all book. But Steve Schmidt, who managed the campaign and is a chief target in the book, doesn’t think much of “Going Rogue.”

Original DVD cover

In the book, written with Lynn Vincent, Palin attacks Schmidt, communications aide Nicolle Wallace, Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson; says Schmidt cursed in front of her 7-year-old daughter, Piper; says she was billed $50,000 for the cost of her own vetting and says she resisted the campaign’s efforts to dress her up with new clothes and a stylist. She also says Schmidt screamed at her after she fell for a hoax in which a prank caller pretended to be French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Schmidt gave his verdict on the book, due in stores Tuesday, in an interview with me: “It’s total fiction,” he said.

Just to address some of the claims: Trevor Potter, the campaign’s counsel, told The Atlantic that the campaign did not bill Palin for vetting. Schmidt told me it’s “not true” that he used an obscenity in front of Piper. As for the $150,000 tab for Palin family clothes and accessories, “Her account talks about the fact that she was resistant to all this stuff. That’s just not true,” one campaign aide told me. This aide’s take: “The book fully reveals her. Dishonest, small and petty.”

…snip…

McCain [...] has told his former aides that he feels bad about what they are going through. The aides themselves are both shocked and not shocked.

“People knew that’s what she was like” but they are nevertheless incredulous that she published a book like this, one of them told me. “It’s like, ‘What’s she so angry about?’ She was picked to be vice president of the United States. She had an exceptional opportunity. Everything is someone else’s fault. There’s no accountability. It’s mean-spirited. But if you look at the record, it is what it is.”

From THE HUFFINGTON POST:

Last month at a conference in Washington D.C., former McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt was asked how he expected to be portrayed in Sarah Palin’s upcoming book.

Not well, he replied. He wasn’t wrong.

…snip…

Clocking in at over 400 pages, “Going Rogue” is, at its heart, one giant complaint about the conduct of John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. At the nexus of Palin’s grievances lies Schmidt, a character cast as out of touch, overly cautious, and vindictive.

The relationship between vice presidential candidate and the campaign manager doesn’t start off on the rocks — but it ends there. And though she claims they were “very comfortable with each other right off the bat,” she also describes Schmidt as “business to the bone.” During her vetting Schmidt plays it cool. When Palin admits “the one skeleton [she'd] kept hidden in [her] closet for the past twenty-two years,” Schmidt “didn’t bat an eye” — though he does “wince” when she mentions God. That oh-so-dark secret, incidentally, is a D-grade Palin received in a college course.

Palin complains of being “told to sit down and shut up” when she “spoke on the trail about Obama’s associations with questionable characters.” She bemoans the campaign’s unwillingness to tackle “Obama’s pastor of twenty years, Jeremiah ‘God Damn America’ Wright.”

…snip…

She even remarks about how Schmidt’s penchant for vulgarity offended her. Writing about the preparation the campaign was conducting for the vice-presidential debates, she recounts the campaign manager declaring that moderator Gwen Ifill is “going to f*** with you?”

…snip…

Eventually the animosity grew quite personal. At one point during the campaign, Schmidt discusses his hopes of getting a nutritionist on the bus. Palin, first assuming that it’s for the entire staff, compliments the idea. Only then, does Schmidt tell her, “No, it’s for you… You gotta get off that Atkins Diet.” Palin, writing up the incident months later, couldn’t help but comment on Schmidt’s “rotund physique.”

…snip…

Regrets, indeed, are everywhere in “Going Rogue”. And blame always seems to fall on someone else. Palin laments the indecisiveness about how to deal with Saturday Night Live’s parodies of her, writing that the campaign simply should have taken her advice and gone on the show earlier.

Her soured relationship with the local press — originally “fine” and even helpful — was also the campaign’s fault. The McCain campaign, complained Palin, wouldn’t allow her to “speak her heart and mind.”

“Just stick with the script,” Schmidt would say. “Ultimately,” she writes, “this hurt the campaign to a degree the ‘experts’ could never grasp.” She gives anecdotes detailing incidents where the McCain campaign directly — sometimes physically — stopped her from reaching out to reporters.

…snip…

Palin makes clear it was the “packaging” the campaign managers wrapped her in — never the package inside — that led to her failed candidacy.

…snip…

The decision to purchase designer clothes for the trail — a major embarrassment for the campaign — is, likewise, ascribed to aide Nicolle Wallace.

…snip…

She gasps over the expensive price of the nylons they provide for her. When describing her speech at the RNC, she snidely adds, “The kids looked great — even in a bunch of borrowed clothes.”

…snip…

The anger between Palin and Schmidt eventually crests right as the prospects for the campaign begin their precipitous decline. In an incident that has been reported previously, Randy Scheuenemann — a McCain foreign policy adviser and Palin loyalist — charges into Schmidt’s office after a series of articles surfaced with anonymous campaign aides whacking the vice presidential candidate.

From THE HUFFINGTON POST:

The Huffington Post has obtained internal McCain campaign emails — addressed to and by the former vice presidential candidate — that directly contradict or cast serious doubt on several of Palin’s assertions. The emails were passed along by a mid-level staffer who called early excerpts of “Going Rogue”, a serious mixing of truth and imagination.”

In one email thread, dated October 14, 2008, Palin says she is “not thrilled” with the idea of going on Saturday Night Live as a way of marginalizing the show’s unflattering impersonations of her.

“Not after seeing clips of what they’ve been playing re: my family,” Palin writes to campaign manager Steve Schmidt, as well as top strategists Rick Davis; and Nicolle Wallace. “I had no idea how gross ‘celebrities’ on that show and in other celebrity venues could get when it comes to family and other aspects of my life that have nothing to do with seeking the vp slot. These folks are whack – didn’t know it was as bad as it is… what’s the upside in giving them any celebrity venue a ratings boost? That’s Todd’s input also,” she concludes, in reference to her husband.

Schmidt would respond minutes later, telling Palin that, “if you don’t want to do it you should not,” while adding that a guest appearance would “get an enormous amount of” attention and help her “to fly above all this.”

…snip…

Palin would ultimately make a guest appearance on Saturday Night Live days later. But in her upcoming book she describes the deliberations about whether or not to go on the show much differently than the emails suggest. In “Going Rogue”, the vice presidential candidate writes that “from the beginning, I liked the idea that John and I might appear on the show.”

…snip…

The SNL episode isn’t the only instance where “Going Rogue” seems to venture away from documented campaign material. On the condition that it could be quoted but not re-published, the McCain staffer also provided the email that Schmidt sent to Palin and her staff after she was prank called by someone pretending to be French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

“Who set this up? Are you kidding me? Did it occur to anyone that the french president wouldn’t be looking to have a conversation with the vicepresidential candidate 3 days before the election,” Schmidt writes. “From this moment forward, no interview occurs without my direct signoff. Nothing. I want to know the exact details of this. I want to know who is responsible.”

In “Going Rogue”, the anecdote is painted in a drastically different setting and context. For starters, Palin writes that Schmidt called her, something that two McCain aides (including the one who provided the email) insist never happened. “He never called screaming at her,” said one of the aides, who was traveling with Palin at the time. “There was no phone call.”

Moreover, in Going Rogue, Palin recalls Schmidt screaming directly at her, so much so that it “blew my hair back.” In actuality, the irritation was directed at the staffers, the aide said.

…snip…

Finally, the McCain aide sends over a third email that shows a late-in-the-campaign Palin grateful for the work done by Schmidt and others and cognizant of her “blundered-up” media appearances. The occasion was a sit-down interview that the vice presidential candidate had done with ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas on October 29, in which it was reported (widely out of context) that Palin was already thinking about running for president in 2012.

“I am very sorry,” Palin writes to Nicolle Wallace, Steve Schmidt, and Rick Davis, with her husband, Todd, cc:ed. “u guys are working double-triple time on this blundered-up stuff that they spin bc of my visits w press – while I apologize I say I love you guys!!!”

From the Anchorage Daily News:

So what’s in the book?

There’s some juicy campaign trail gossip, writes the Associated Press reporter who last week tracked down a copy of “Going Rogue.” In it, she claims that as much as $50,000 of the legal bills she amassed while governor of Alaska came from the vetting the McCain campaign did of her as a vice-presidential candidate.

The book also “describes heart-wrenching anguish about her teen daughter’s [Bristol's] pregnancy playing out before a national audience,” the AP reported.

Yet not a word about Levi Johnston. His name is not even mentioned. A little afraid of the kid, Princess?

There’s also plenty of media bashing, according to an excerpt leaked to the Drudge Report Web site. Palin was barred even from talking to the reporters on her campaign plane, according to the excerpt of her book.

“By the third week in September, a ‘Free Sarah’ campaign was under way and the press at large was growing increasingly critical of the McCain camp’s decision to keep me, my family and friends back home, and my governor’s staff all bottled up,” according to the excerpt on the Drudge Report.

But in the same passage, she snipes about her interview with Katie Couric, saying that a McCain-Palin aide urged her to do the interview because the CBS anchor had “low self-esteem.”

Over the past several days I have posted an article on a local New York site called SI Live. The article was also posted on WordPress on November 12, 2009, and is entitled, “On Nidal Malik Hasan and Barack Obama.”

It discussed the parallels between Nidal Malik Hasan and Barack Hussein Obama. How the military, the CIA and the FBI did not heed the warning signs exhibited by Hasan and allowed him to remain in the military. It further discussed how the American people failed to heed very similar warning signs exhibited by Barack Hussein Obama and voted him president.

The point of the article was that political correctness is and will be the downfall of this country.

This article was deleted, without reason, by SI Live each time it was posted. I guess I missed the part in the User Agreement section where it states that your post will be deleted if it is contrary to “our” views.

SI Live is an independently owned and operated website that is affiliated with The Staten Island Advance. When I contacted the Staten Island Advance, I was put in touch with Frank Cianciotta who could offer no explanation as to why the post may have been deleted. Mr. Cianciotta informed me that SI Live was monitored by an independent party that has the capability of deleting posts deemed offensive. Mr. Cianciotta could not provide the name of the company responsible for monitoring the site, nor any phone number to contact them or SI Live. An email sent to SI Live’s help/feedback department has yet to be answered.

To review the article “On Nidal Malik Hasan and Barack Obama” please see November 12, 2009.
Or visit: http://therightwayforward.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/

To visit SI LIVE go to:
http://www.silive.com/

Rep. Steve King, who is one of the darlings of the far right who hails from the state of Iowa, is on the attack again using all of the old and tired clichés about President Obama, Chicago, the Chicago Machine, gangsters, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers … yadda, yadda, yadda.

Apparently, Rep. King has no new materials and instead resorts to the same tired and weak attacks against President Obama.

KING: Valerie Jarrett is a product of Chicago politics. This is power politics through Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama, son and daughter of Saul Alinsky, linked up with Mayor Daley, the one that actually hired Michelle Obama and put her into that link, which may have well been the link that put Barack Obama into that machine. The Chicago Machine, we know what it is. Someone called it gangster government. In Chicago, you have gangster government and Valerie Jarrett’s been in the middle of that. She’s been brokering power for a long time. And the link she has with William Ayers, and other nefarious characters in Chicago tells us what we’ve got in the White House itself. I mean she’s there. There are a number of links directly to Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, Valerie Jarrett, and they go back to Chicago.

This guy is a nut, who is attacking Chicago to score political points with the far right (which he should already have in his back pocket if this talk is indicative of anything).

If President Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Rahm Emanuel, Michelle Obama and others are a product of Chicago politics then does that make Steve King truly representative of Iowa politics?

I certainly hope not, but there are some Iowans who continue to vote for this clown to represent them in front of the citizens of the United States of America.

Here is one of the comments in response to the article:

Equalness4all wrote:

What concerns me is the lack of civility we have in discourse, political and otherwise. I believe that it is healthy to disagree, and argument is a good thing, but hate speech seems to be the rule rather than the exeception. Don’t like someone, call them a name, assassinate their character, spread viscious gossip about them. These things can always be attributed to having heard it from someone else. It is so much easier to protray everybody else as the bad guy than to stand up and offer something for the good of the cause. Mr. King’s double speak is also fascinating, unfortunately he is not alone in doing this. Just look at the quote above. “There are a number of links to Chicago…and they go back to Chicago.” Huh? Really intelligent banter. People in Iowa deserve better, people in the country deserve better.

The people of Iowa may deserve better, but apparently Steve King represents them well enough that they support him and his divisive talk.

So let’s get this straight.

Nidal Malik Hasan attended Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center, a mosque that several of the 9/11 hijackers attended. The same mosque that was run by Anwar al Awlaki. A hate filled anti-American imam, who has since praised Hasan for his actions.

It has been made known that Hasan has ties to terrorists and made several attempts to contact al-Qaeda.

It has been made known that Hasan has expressed contempt for the United States.

And yet this man was allowed to remain in the United States military and even promoted.

Can anyone say they are truly surprised?

Let me remind you all that once upon a time there was a man named Barack Hussein Obama who ran for president of the United States of America.

During his campaign, it was made known to the American people that Barack Hussein Obama attended a church run by a hate filled anti-American preacher.

It was made known that Barack Hussein Obama had ties to William Ayers, a domestic terrorist as well as Rashid Khalidi.

It was made known that Barack Hussein Obama’s wife expressed contempt for the United States.

And yet, the American people voted this man into office.

What has become of this country? America where are your morals? Where is your common sense?

We need not face any foreign enemies. We will destroy ourselves from within. All in the name of political correctness.

God bless the United States of America.

And God help us.

Back in March of 2008, the New York Times correctly identified what they described as the CORE of Barack Obama’s promise to the American people, and they correctly identified why reasonable people should be skeptical:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Anyone who possessed more reason than their dog or cat, of course, should have known that the answer to the last question would be a resounding “NO!”  If Obama had wanted to be a “unifier,” he wouldn’t have been the most liberal (and radical) member of the U.S. Senate.

And of course, anyone who truly possessed even a shred of bipartisanship wouldn’t have spent 23 seconds in Jeremiah Wright’s demagogic, racist, anti-American, Marxist church, let alone 23 years.

In other words, any reasonably intelligent person should have known that Obama’s core promise as candidate was in actuality a cynical deception from a fundamentally dishonest politician who was cravenly willing to pass off any deceit to get himself elected.

Did Obama even attempt to live up to his core promise?  Not even close.

“Don’t come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis,” he admonished in a speech.

That speech – with that hard core partisan attack – was delivered within less than THREE WEEKS of his taking office.  Obama was claiming that Republicans didn’t even have a right to present their ideas, much less have any of their ideas or contributions considered.  Some attempt at “bipartisanship.”

It nearly immediately became obvious that Obama’s “transcending the ideological wars” was a cynical marketing gimmick offered by people who had no intention of living up to their campaign rhetoric.

Republicans reacted angrily to the president’s change in tone. Mr. Obama and the Democrats were talking eloquently about bipartisanship, they said, without letting the Republicans have any real influence.

“There is a disconnect between the tone of what I’ve been hearing, from the White House and the Democratic leadership, and the substance of what I’ve been hearing,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) said on the Senate floor Friday. “We thought what [bipartisanship] meant is that the president would define an agenda and then we’d sit down together and put forth our best ideas.”

If Republicans such as Lamar Alexander actually thought that way, they were as gullible as the American people who swallowed Obama’s lies much the same way that fish in a pond gobble up obnoxious kids’ spit.  Like those disgusting snot-filled lougies, Obama’s core promise of transcending the partisanship was something that the American people were so hungry for that they rushed to thoughtlessly gobble up even the most disgusting substitute.

Here’s what Obama recently said to Democrats, again as reported by the New York Times:

Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens’s election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

Note to world: Obama is talking about his own citizens.  And his hatred for them drips out like venom.

Not only is this caustic remark in no way close to anything even faintly resembling “bipartisanship,” but it is in fact diving to the bottom of the partisan, idelogical watters where the most loathsome bottom feeders reside.

Obama has demonized George Bush, demonized Wall Street (after having cynically taken more campaign contributions from Wall Street firms than anyone), demonized banks, demonized American citizens for exercising their rights at tea party events, demonized car manufacturers, demonized health insurance companies (whom he demagogued as “filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads” even as HIS administration and party trotted out lie after lie against them), demonized doctors (whom he claimed amputated diabetics’ feet and yanked out childrens’ tonsils just to pad their fees), repeatedly demonized and attempted to undermine Fox News, demonized the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and demonized anyone else who disagreed with his radical agenda.

George Bush never even came close to being such a demagogue.  I frankly don’t believe that even NIXON was such a demagogue.

I have never seen such constant demagogic and demonizing rhetoric – against American citizens and American businesses – from a U.S. president of either political party in my adult lifetime.

That divisive demagoguery, in spite of his many promises to heal the divide and restore bipartisanship, is Obama’s biggest failure.  And his biggest lie.

The American Spectator : The Man Who Despises America.

By Mark Hyman on 11.11.09 @ 6:09AM

The very next paragraph is going to make the nut jobs on the far left excitable beyond belief. I am not referring to all Democrats or even a majority of liberals. I am singling out the “they’ve-lost-all-touch-with-reality” crowd. This includes Media Matters for America led by the admitted hit-and-run, drunk-driving serial liar. The group includes the unshaven, bathrobe-clad unemployed who live in their mother’s basement and are devout followers of MoveOn.Org. It is also the bitter, aging spinster working at the New York Times, the morbidly obese documentary film maker, and cable TV news’ resident drama queen who hosts MSNBC’s Countdown. They are about to simultaneously suffer from brain aneurisms. So without further delay, I’ll say it.

Barack Obama despises America.

When people who voted for Obama in 2008 — including registered Democrats — start speaking in normal conversational voices at dinner parties, neighborhood gatherings and PTA meetings that the over-inflated ego from Chicago has it “in for America,” then it’s clear most reasonable people have reached the same conclusion.

The central conviction of Obama’s ideology is that America is guilty of limitless moral failures and is the chief architect of the world’s ills. Obama has boundless enmity for America, its key institutions, and its longtime allies. Consider these facts.

The 30-years of Obama’s post-adolescent life are radical by any measure. First, he grew up listening to the ramblings of committed Communist Frank Marshall Davis. It had such a profound effect on him that he wrote fondly of Davis in his first book. In fact, that book is replete with statement after statement about how the U.S. is deeply flawed. Most Americans believe in American exceptionalism. Not so with Obama.

Patriotic Americans would not have listened to the bigoted, anti-Semitic, hate-America rants of a fringe religious leader for 20 seconds let alone for 20 years. Yet, Obama who admitted he attended services at Trinity United Church at least twice a month for two decades called Jeremiah Wright his mentor and his moral sounding board.

Nor would most Americans cultivate a close friendship with an admitted domestic terrorist and his wife whose most notable life’s accomplishments were to set off bombs that killed and maimed innocent people.

Joining Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright in organizing attendance at Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s 1995 march on Washington is beyond imaginable. Especially after Farrakhan demonstrated public support for Colonel Muammar Qaddafi during the Libyan Leader’s most bellicose years against the U.S., which included Libyan complicity in numerous terrorist attacks.

Obama’s view of America in national security and foreign affairs is profoundly disappointing to say the least.

Americans overwhelmingly view the men and women who saved Europe and the Far East during World War II as comprising the Greatest Generation. By his comments and actions, President Obama obviously thinks otherwise.

Obama did not honor American greatness on the 60th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift while on his first European trip. Instead, he accused “America [of having] shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward its European allies.

He also denigrated the accomplishments of the American G.I. during World War II in the Pacific theater when he offered a thinly veiled apology for the U.S. having dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those acts brought the war to a swift conclusion, perhaps saving hundreds of thousands of lives when it appeared Japan was prepared to wage an island-by-island battle to the last man.

Obama ordered the release of the so-called CIA “torture memos,” seriously damaging delicate intelligence relations with allied nations and placing at grave risk the safety of U.S. intelligence officers working overseas. The impact of his action handcuffs the ability of U.S. intelligence officials to protect the U.S. and American interests from acts of terrorism.

In a matter of weeks last spring, Obama gave deference to a variety of belligerent leaders while stiff-arming longtime American allies. First, he called for closer relations with Cuba while ignoring that nation’s long list of continuing human rights abuses. Then he warmly welcomed Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez at an Organization of American States summit.

Next, he failed to respond and set the record straight after Nicaragua’s Communist leader Daniel Ortega listed alleged U.S. crimes and atrocities during a nearly one-hour rant at the OAS meeting. It is unsettling that in his own remarks Obama incorrectly claimed the OAS has 36 members rather than the actual 34. Ortega and the hemisphere’s other Socialist leaders claim the OAS would include 36 members if Cuba and an independent Puerto Rico were allowed to join. Mere coincidence or Freudian slip?

Immediately following the OAS embarrassments, Obama ignored a request from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to meet. Obama would repeat this snub six months later before agreeing at the last moment to meet Netanyahu after the Israeli leader was en route the U.S.

In his speech before the Muslim world, Obama made the patently absurd claim of equivalency between the status of displaced Palestinians and the slaughter of millions of Jews during the Holocaust. His claim that 7 million Muslims live in the U.S. is a figure inflated by as much as 700%.

In an earlier speech, Obama claimed that the U.S. is not a Christian nation, which is at odds with the fact that 79% of Americans self-identify as Christians and the nation’s founders were devout Christians.

In less than six months in office, Obama apologized for Guantanamo Bay; for alleged mistakes committed by the CIA; for U.S. policy in the Americas; for America’s history of slavery; for “sacrificing [American] values;” for “hasty decisions” in the war on terror; for “America’s standing in the world;” for American errors in foreign policy; and for U.S. relations with the Muslim world.

He pronounced Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology acceptable and he warned Netanyahu against targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities. Obama’s approach to Iran is eerily similar to that of Jimmy Carter, whose actions contributed to the fall of that nation into the control of Islamic radicals.

This summer, the door to greater individual freedoms in Iran was firmly closed shut when Obama announced the U.S would not meddle in Iran’s election and he offered no encouragement to democracy activists who protested the obviously stolen elections. His silence was deafening when regime security agents savagely attacked and killed countless Iranians who took to the streets.

In contrast to his deference to anti-American leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, and Daniel Ortega, Obama strong-armed Netanyahu on key Israeli matters. In addition to snubbing the Israeli Prime Minister’s requests to meet, Obama demanded an end to Israeli settlements and insisted on the creation of a two-state Palestine solution.

Obama abandoned NATO members Poland and the Czech Republic by canceling the central Europe missile defense plan just as rogue nations North Korea and Iran make advances in nuclear and ballistic missile production. The cancellation was demanded by Moscow authorities who have adopted a more confrontational posture toward the west.

Solidarity with freedom-loving East Germans has been a staple of the American presidency for nearly 50 years. John Kennedy pronounced himself a Berliner. Ronald Reagan demanded Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “Tear down this wall!” Yet, this bricks and mortar icon of first, Soviet totalitarianism, and then, second, the end of Soviet domination did not make the cut as Obama chose not to attend the 20th anniversary of the fall of the wall. In the summer of 2008, Obama altogether skipped mentioning the role of the U.S. — or even the West, for that matter — in bringing down the wall, instead crediting “a world that stands as one.”

Obama’s disagreement with American values and institutions is evident in domestic issues. He has stocked his administration with wild-eyed radicals who believe foreign law trumps the U.S. Constitution (Harold Koh); include an avowed Marxist and “truther” who believes George Bush was complicit in the 9/11 attack and is also an ardent supporter of cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal (Van Jones); and include a devoted admirer of Mao Tse-tung who slaughtered as many as 75 million people (Anita Dunn). (In contrast, George W. Bush’s Attorney-General nominee John Ashcroft was savaged by the news media for being an Evangelical Christian.)

Three weeks after America’s first black president was sworn in, the nation’s first black Attorney-General who was hand-picked by Obama, called America “a nation of cowards” for some perceived race relations shortfall. The understood meaning of Eric Holder’s comments is that white people are still racists. However, the reality is the people most preoccupied with fomenting the racial divide are those who populate the ranks of the Obama Administration.

Obama’s Homeland Secretary designated military veterans as terrorists-in-waiting to be equally as dangerous as other domestic terrorists including pro-lifers and citizens opposed to the flood of illegal aliens.

One of Obama’s very few suggestions to cut into his $1.4 trillion budget deficit was to have servicemen and women pay for their own war injuries. He’s all for providing free health care to illegal aliens but believes wounded warriors should foot their own hospital bills. In fact, the Defense Department is about the only sector of government in which Obama has proposed slashing spending.

Hours after a belligerent “African-American Studies” Harvard professor engaged in behavior unbefitting anyone let alone a professional man, Obama accused the exceedingly tolerant Cambridge police officers as having “acted stupidly” and then digressed into how people of color have been unfairly treated by white America.

Bush was prolific in quietly and privately visiting the military wounded and family of the fallen. In contrast, Obama attempted to make political capital of his one visit to Dover Air Force Base. Obama’s motives were so transparent that families of 17 of the 18 fallen denied permission for Obama to engage in a photo-op alongside the returning caskets.

In May, Obama immediately issued a statement that he was “shocked and outraged by the murder” of a Kansas doctor specializing in partial-birth abortions. He called it a “heinous act of violence.” Attorney-General Holder mobilized U.S. Marshals nationwide to provide protection to abortion clinics.

But Obama remained silent the very next day when two U.S. soldiers were gunned down by a Muslim extremist outside a Little Rock recruiting station. After repeated prodding for a presidential comment, the White House faxed an after-hours statement to select media outlets two days later offering a tepid remark that Obama was “saddened” without even mentioning the soldiers were murdered.

Five months later, another Muslim fanatic gunned down nearly four dozen Americans, killing 13, at the Ft. Hood army base. It was an act that demanded the most serious demeanor of the military’s Commander-in-Chief. Yet, Obama referenced the massacre in the most insincere fashion just seconds after a jocular shout-out to an audience member during a public speaking engagement. It was the equivalent of attending a funeral in swimwear while en route to the beach.

The odd inadvertent comment or occasional verbal faux pas can be explained away as just that. However, Obama has a lifetime of comments and actions including 10 months as president that belie his real attitude toward the U.S. The difference between Obama and his immediate predecessors such as Ronald Reagan, the George Bushes and Bill Clinton who actually revere and honor the greatness of America and its citizens and institutions cannot be overstated.

This is rich. The Messiah and Anointed One, our make-believe president and future Heisman Trophy winner went to Copenhagen and helped Chicago lose the 2016 Olympic Games. And in December he’ll go to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize for trashing America during speeches that he made while on foreign soil. Since he took office, The Messiah and Anointed One has visited Canada, England, France, the Czech Republic, Turkey, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, Ghana and Italy. But there’s a glaring omission in this list. Do you know what it is?

Berlin. Twenty years ago the Berlin Wall fell, symbolizing freedom for tens of millions of Europeans who had lived for decades under the oppression of a Communist regime. As a result of the efforts of a super patriot, one Ronald Wilson Reagan, the Soviet Union imploded. Mikhail Gorbachev, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union oversaw the removal of one of the last remnants of an evil era.  

So, why would the Messiah and Anointed One, our make-believe president and future Heisman Trophy winner choose not to go to Berlin to commemorate such a monumental achievement? I think we all know the reason. This guy would rather consort with the likes of Bill Ayers, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, ACORN and the SEIU. In fact, his agenda is scarily similar to the principles on which the USSR was founded. How would it look for him to go to Berlin and embrace an event that led to the downfall of the very socialism in Europe that he wants to promote here in the United States? Once again, his true colors are showing. Unfortunately they aren’t the colors of our great country. Hopefully this will be one more wake-up call for all Americans to un-elect the Nancy Pelosis and Harry Reids in our Congress who are doing their best to undermine our liberty and freedom. Without them, the current occupant of the White House won’t be able to implement his radical policies and then we can put a True American in the Oval Office on January 20, 2013.

Okay, thatsomb, you’re right: It is a little ridiculous to call Janeane Garofalo and Jeremiah Wright the intellectual champions of the Left.  I admit that this post was titled with my tongue slightly in my cheek; it was more an attempt to take a jab at the Left in general.  Also, if you read the first part of this post, I was clearly saying that the views of these two individual are often mirrored on the Left.

Upon further reflection, however, I think I wasn’t giving myself enough credit.  You said that no Democratic politician listens to Garofalo and Wright.  I must disagree.  There is one Democratic politician, the most powerful of them all, who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church listening to him for twenty years.  Who named Wright his mentor.  Who titled his book, The Audacity of Hope, after a particularly pervasive and political sermon delivered by Wright (this sermon included a phrase such as “white greed,” by the way).

True, Barack Obama left that church and renounced “Reverend” Wright, but he only did so last year when the political pressure became intense.  No one may listen to Janeane Garofalo, but Jeremiah Wright is clearly one of the most influential – if not the single most influential – person in Barack Obama’s life.  And our president most definitely shares many of the political views of his mentor – this is obvious from listening to Obama in his own words.

Furthermore, the point remains that Wright, Garofalo, and the Democratic leadership all share the same general outlook.  Besides our president, who would be second in line for the position of powerful Democrats?  (I’ll leave out Jimmy Carter despite the things he’s said, since he doesn’t make any policy decisions.)  How about Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?  If you recall the things that Pelosi and Reid said in response to the tea parties, they seem to support my thesis here.  Hell, Pelosi and Garofalo could have been trading notes.

“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”

~George Washington

Glenn Beck Show – Nov 9, 2009 – Pt 6 of 6 – Michelle Malkin

Army Knew Ft. Hood Shooter Tried To Contact Al-Qaeda 

This Week with George Stephanopoulos / Gen. George Casey: Ft. Hood Tragedy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ1dijip1os

Political Correctness – A God That Failed?

Jumping to Conclusions: Fort Hood vs Cambridge Police

Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment

 Gun Rights on Trial: Brian Doherty Reacts to D.C. v. Heller

Obama’s Nuance on Gun Control

CNN- Obama To BAN Guns SPREAD THIS FOLKS, PLZ!

Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime

Gun Control is a Myth UK

Obama Will Ban Firearms, Ammo, Gun Shows, Gun Stores, Concealed Carry, shooting, 4×4s, etc.

John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime book interview on CSPAN

Jackie Mason Video Blog on “Gun Control”

NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina

The History of Gun Control – Innocence Lost Part 1 of 6

The History of Gun Control – Innocence Lost Part 2 of 6

The History of Gun Control – Innocence Lost Part 3 of 6

The History of Gun Control – Innocence Lost Part 4 of 6

The History of Gun Control – Innocence Lost Part 5 of 6

The History of Gun Control – Innocence Lost Part 6 of 6

Gun Rights Under Obama – Brian Doherty

Alan Keyes on the Second Amendment and gun rights

Stephen Halbrook with CNN’s Lou Dobbs on Gun Control

Penn and Teller – Gun Control and Columbine

AMERICA WAKE UP!!!

The CIA Predict The Next American Revolution Rebellion by 2014

Archie Bunker on Gun Control

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

~Thomas Jefferson

What do President Obama and Major Nidal Malik Hasan have in common.

Both were deeply influenced by their religious clergy.

For President Obama it was Reverand Jeremiah Wright:

For Major Nidal Malik Hasan it was his Islamic imam Anwar al-Awlaki:

Fort Hood Suspect’s Ties to Terrorists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiqjbE6k03Y

Allah is preparing us for VICTORY! Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki

It’s a War Against Islam by Anwar Al-Awlaki 1/2

It’s a War Against Islam by Anwar Al-Awlaki 2/2

Exclusive: Moazzam Begg Interviews Imam Anwar al-Awlaki

Yes, one should not jump to conclusions.

Nor, should one deny substantial evidence that leads one to the correct conclusion.

Both political correctness and gun control resulted in the deaths at Fort Hood.

The progressive radical socialist Democratic Party lead by President Obama are the leading advocates of both political correctness and gun control.

The deaths and injuries at Fort Hood, Texas can be traced to gun control, political correctness and the ideas preached by religious leaders.

Ideas have consequences including very bad ideas.

Any politician who supports gun control deserves to be defeated, you life may depend upon it.

Background Articles and Videos

BULLSH#T! On Gun Laws Part 1

BULLSH#T! On Gun Laws Part 2

BULLSH#T! On Gun Laws Part 3

Will the FBI Properly Investigate the Fort Hood shooter’s Alleged al Qaeda Ties?

Fort Hood’s 9/11

By RALPH PETERS

“…On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting “Allahu Akbar!” committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.

When the terrorist posts anti-American hate-speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as “Palestinian” in a Muslim spouse-matching program, and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit — well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an “Islamist terrorist.”

But the president won’t. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there’s no such thing as “Islamist terrorism” in ObamaWorld. …”

http://sroblog.com/2009/11/06/ralph-peters-fort-hoods-911-new-york-post/

Political Correctness

“…Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term denoting language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social offense in gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, handicap, and age-related contexts. In current usage, the terms are almost exclusively pejorative, connoting “intolerant” and “intolerance” ^[1][2] whilst the usage politically incorrect, denotes an implicitly positive self-description. Examples include the conservative Politically Incorrect Guides published by the Regnery editorial house, ^[3] and the television talk show Politically Incorrect. Thus, “politically incorrect” denotes language, ideas, and behavior, unconstrained by orthodoxy and the fear of giving offense. …”

“…In Marxism–Leninism

In Marxist–Leninist and Trotskyist vocabulary, correct was the common term denoting the “appropriate party line” and the ideologic/ “correct line”.^[6] Likewise in the People’s Republic of China, as part of Mao’s declarations on the correct handling of “non-antagonistic contradictions”.^[1][7][8][9] The Liberian stateswoman Ruth Perry traces the term from Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book (1964).

In left-wing rhetoric

Even before the term PC appeared, the Left mocked its own language usage in the pamphlet Lifeitselfmanship or How to Become a Precisely-Because Man (1956), by Jessica Mitford, about “L and non-L” (Left and non-Left) English, mocking the Communist clichés used by her comrades when talking about fighting the class struggle. The pamphlet’s title refers to the Stephen Potter book series including the title Lifemanship, and replies to Noblesse Oblige, by Nancy Mitford, about the perceptible class distinctions in British English usage, that popularised the phrases “U and non-U English” (Upper class and non-Upper class).^[10][11]

In the 1960s, the radical Left adopted the term, initially seriously, then ironically, in self-criticism of dogmatic attitudes. In the 1990s, because of the term’s association with radical left-wing politics and Communist censorship, the US Right applied it to discredit the Old Left and the New Left.^[1] By 1970, New Left proponents had adopted the term political correctness.^[1] In the essay The Black Woman, Toni Cade Bambara says: “. . . a man cannot be politically correct and a [male] chauvinist too” — a usage that widened the definition’s scope to include the politics of gender and identity to the politics of ideological orthodoxy in governing. The New Left thus re-appropriated the term political correctness as satirical self-criticism; per Debra Shultz: “Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives . . . used their term politically correct ironically, as a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts”.^[1][2][12] Hence, it is a popular English usage in the underground comic book Merton of the Movement, by Bobby London, while ideologically sound an alternative term, followed a like lexical path, appearing in Bart Dickon’s satirical comic strips.^[1][13] Moreover, Ellen Willis says: “ . . . in the early ’80s, when feminists used the term political correctness, it was used to refer sarcastically to the anti-pornography movement’s efforts to define a ‘feminist sexuality’ ”.^[14]

Current usage

Widespread use of the term “politically correct” and its derivatives began when it was adopted as a pejorative term by the political right in the 1990s, in the context of the Culture Wars. Writing in the New York Times in 1990,^[15] Richard Bernstein noted “The term “politically correct,” with its suggestion of Stalinist orthodoxy, is spoken more with irony and disapproval than with reverence. But across the country the term p.c., as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities.” Bernstein referred to a meeting of the Western Humanities Conference in Berkeley, California, on ” ‘Political Correctness’ and Cultural Studies,” which examined “what effect the pressure to conform to currently fashionable ideas is having on scholarship”. Bernstein also referred to “p.c.p” for “politically correct people”, a term which did not take root in popular discussion.

Within a few years, this previously obscure term featured regularly in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against curriculum expansion and progressive teaching methods in US high schools and universities.^[16] In 1991, addressing a graduating class of the University of Michigan, U.S. President George H. W. Bush spoke against “ . . . a movement [that would] declare certain topics ‘off-limits’, certain expressions ‘off-limits’, even certain gestures ‘off-limits’ ” in allusion to liberal Political Correctness.^[17] The most common usage here is as a pejorative term to refer to excessive deference to particular sensibilities at the expense of other considerations. The converse term “politically incorrect” came into use as an implicit term of self-praise, indicating that the user was not afraid to give offense.

The central uses of the term relate to issues of race and gender, and encompass both the language in which issues are discussed and the viewpoints that are expressed. Proponents of the view that black people are less intelligent, on average, than white people, or that women are less intelligent than men, state that criticism of these views is based on political correctness.^[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Fort Hood shooting: Texas army killer linked to September 11 terrorists

By Philip Sherwell and Alex Spillius

“…Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother’s funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations. 

Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday’s horrific shooting spree.

As investigators look at Hasan’s motives and mindset, his attendance at the mosque could be an important piece of the jigsaw. Al-Awlaki moved to Dar al-Hijrah as imam in January, 2001, from the west coast, and three months later the September 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour began attending his services. A third hijacker attended his services in California.

Hasan was praying at Dar al-Hijrah at about the same time, and the FBI will now want to investigate whether he met the two terrorists.

Charles Allen, a former under-secretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, has described al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, as an “al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader to three of the September 11 hijackers… who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html

Anwar al-Awlaki

“…Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled Aulaqi) is a Muslim author and public figure, originally trained as a Civil Engineer and is associated with Iman University, Yemen

His parents are from Yemen, where he lived for eleven years and received the early part of his Islamic education. Awlaki has served as an Imam in Colorado, California, and most recently in the Washington, D.C. area where he headed the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Centre and was also the Muslim Chaplain at George Washington University^[1]. He began serving formally as the imam of the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in January 2001; it was shortly after this that his sermons were attended by three of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers and Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan.^[2]

He holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Colorado State University, an M.A. in Education Leadership from San Diego State University and was working on a Doctorate degree in Human Resource Development at George Washington University.

On 31 August 2006, Awlaki was detained for questioning by the Yemeni authorities due to what he claimed was a “secret police investigation” over “tribal issues.” On 12 December 2007, Awlaki was released by the Yemeni authorities and was reunited with his family.

23 August 2009, Awlaki was banned by local authorities in Kensington and Chelsea, London, from speaking via videolink to a fundraiser for Guantanamo detainees.^[3]

Anwar al-Awlaki currently resides in Yemen, and is associated with Iman University.

Al-Awlaki has been accused by numerous official and unofficial sources with charges of Islamic fundamentalism and support for terrorism. He is often noted for targeting young U.S.-based Muslims with his lectures. The East London Mosque provoked outrage within the United Kingdom after hosting a video-teleconference by al-Awlaki, with former Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve expressing concern over al-Awlaki’s involvement.^[4]

Al-Awlaki’s “44 Ways to Support Jihad”^[5] has been seen as a pro Al-Qaeda document that incites English speaking Muslims.^[6]

Connections to 9/11

9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi began attending the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in April 2001, three months after al-Awlaki began working as the mosque’s imam.^[7] Former under-secretary of intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, Charles E. Allen, has said that al-Awlaki is an “al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader to three of the September 11 hijackers… who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen.”^[8]

9/11 hijackers Khalid al Midhar and Nawaf al Hazmi came into contact with al Awlaki at the Rabat mosque in San Diego, though The 9/11 Commission Report notes that “We do not know how or when Hazmi and Midhar first met” him. According to The 9/11 Commission Report, the two “may even have met or at least talked to him the same day they first moved to San Diego.” Al Midhar and al Hazmi “reportedly respected al Awlaki as a religious figure and developed a close relationship with him.” The Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11 labels al Awlaki “their spiritual advisor” and asserts that there were reports of “closed-door meetings” involving the three. In January 2001, al Awlaki moved to Virginia and became the imam at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, VA, a mosque with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In April 2001, al Hamzi and fellow hijacker Hani Hanjour showed up at Dar al Hijrah. The 9/11 Commission Report asserts that al Hazmi’s “appearance may not have been coincidental. We have unable to learn enough about al Awlaki’s relationship with Hazmi and Midhar to reach a conclusion.”

Connection to Nidal Malik Hasan

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who committed the 2009 Fort Hood shooting that killed 13 of his fellow US Army soldiers, including a pregnant female soldier, was influenced by the lectures of Anwar al-Awlaki, and believed that Islam and the United States of America were enemies, according to muslim friends who knew him. Hasan attended at least one lecture by Awlaki. ^[9] According to a fellow Muslim officer, Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he spoke of his “deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings.^[10]

According to the Associated Press in a story dated November 8, 2009, the family of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist who killed 13 and wounded 29 at the Texas military base, held his mother’s funeral at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va., on May 31, 2001, according to her obituary in the Roanoke Times newspaper. At the time, Anwar al-Awalki was an imam, or spiritual leader, at the Washington-area mosque. Awlaki told the FBI in 2001 that, before he moved to Virginia in early 2001, he met with 9/11 hijacker Nawaf al-Hazmi several times in San Diego. Al-Hazmi was at the time living with Khalid al-Mihdhar, another hijacker. Al-Hazmi and another hijacker, Hani Hanjour, attended the Dar al Hijrah mosque in Virginia in early April 2001. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Democide

“…Democide is a term coined by political scientist R. J. Rummel for “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.” Rummel created the term as an extended concept to include forms of government murder that are not covered by the legal definition of genocide, and it has found currency among other scholars.^[1][2][3]

According to Rummel, genocide has three different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership. The legal meaning of genocide refers to the international treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This also includes nonlethal acts that in the end eliminate the group, such as preventing births or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. A generalized meaning of genocide is similar to the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political opponents or otherwise intentional murder. In order to avoid confusion over which meaning is intended, Rummel created the term democide for the third meaning.^[4]

Rummel defines democide as “The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”. For example, government-sponsored killings for political reasons would be considered democide. Democide can also include deaths arising from “intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life”; this brings into account many deaths arising through various neglects and abuses, such as forced mass starvation. Rummel explicitly excludes battle deaths in his definition. Capital punishment, actions taken against armed civilians during mob action or riot, and the deaths of noncombatants killed during attacks on military targets so long as the primary target is military, are not considered democide.^[5]

He has further stated: “I use the civil definition of murder, where someone can be guilty of murder if they are responsible in a reckless and wanton way for the loss of life, as in incarcerating people in camps where they may soon die of malnutrition, unattended disease, and forced labor, or deporting them into wastelands where they may die rapidly from exposure and disease.”

Some examples of democide cited by Rummel include the Great Purges carried out by Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union (despite those people were executed), the deaths from the colonial policy in the Congo Free State, and Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward resulting in a famine which killed millions of people. According to Rummel, these were not cases of genocide, because those who were killed were not selected on the basis of their race, but were killed in large numbers as a result of government policies. Famine is classified by Rummel as democide if it fits the definition above.

For instance, Rummel only recently classified Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward as democide. He believed that Mao’s policies were largely responsible for the famine, but he was misled about it, and finally when he found out, he stopped it and changed his policies. Thus, according to Rummel, is not an intentional famine and thus not a democide. However, contradictory claims from Jung Chang and John Halliday’s controversial Mao: the Unknown Story allege that Mao knew about the famine from the beginning but didn’t care, and eventually Mao had to be stopped by a meeting of 7,000 top Communist Party members. Based on the book’s claims, Rummel now views the famine as intentional and a democide.^{[citation needed]}

^…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

Obama linked to gun control efforts
By: Kenneth P. Vogel

“…Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.

But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.

The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”

Obama’s eight years on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which paid him more than $70,000 in directors fees, do not in any way conflict with his campaign-trail support for the rights of gun owners, Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, asserted in a statement issued to Politico this week. …”

“…Of the $219 million in grants approved from 1997 through 2002 — the years of Obama’s tenure for which the foundation has posted its annual reports online — the environment received $57 million, followed by education ($56 million), employment ($41 million), gun violence ($21 million), money and politics ($17 million) and culture ($6.5 million).”

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=66551746-3048-5C12-00921D2BE9528C54

The Joyce Foundation

http://www.joycefdn.org/

The Joyce Foundation

“…The Joyce Foundation is a charitable foundation based in Chicago in the United States and operating principally in the Great Lakes region.

The Foundation primarily funds organizations in the Great Lakes region (specifically the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin).

“…Programs

• Education: Focuses on public schools in Chicago, Cleveland, and Milwaukee; concentrates on teacher quality, early childhood education, and “innovations,” primarily charter schools, small schools, and similar initiatives.
• Employment: Focuses on workforce development, education, and job training for low-income workers.
• Environment: Concentrates on environmental issues affecting the Great Lakes region, especially water and energy issues.
• Gun violence: Funds research and advocacy to reduce gun ownership, deaths and injuries. This includes support of anti-gun groups^[1].
• Money and politics: Supports research and advocacy around such issues as campaign finance and ethics reform.
• Culture: Supports arts organizations, primarily in Chicago; its Joyce Awards also supports arts groups in other Midwest cities.  …”

“…Gun violence prevention and gun control

Since 2003, the Joyce Foundation has paid grants totaling over $12 million to gun control organizations^[10][1]. The largest single grantee has been the Violence Policy Center, which received $4,154,970^[10] between 1996 and 2006, and calls for an outright ban on handguns, semi-automatic and other firearms, and substantial restrictions on gun owners.^[13] The Joyce Foundation’s position on gun control has led to frequent opposition and criticism from gun rights groups, particularly the National Rifle Association, which calls the Joyce Foundation an activist foundation whose “shadowy web of huge donations” leads “straight to puppet strings that control the agenda of gun ban groups”.^[14]

Funding patterns

Joyce Foundation funding^[10] in several areas related to gun control is available in the form of a mind map. Click on the picture to view it in full size.

The Joyce Foundation funds policy-related research in its program areas.

In 2005, the Joyce Foundation paid grants in the amount of $8,385,304 in its Environment program, $7,888,380 in its Education program, $6,302,775 in its Employment program, $3,056,117 in its Gun Violence Program, $2,818,105 in its Money and Politics program, and $1,427,350 in its Culture program. Source: The Joyce Foundation 2005 Annual Report, Page 45

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Foundation

The Joyce Foundation

http://www.barackbook.com/Profiles/TheJoyceFoundation.htm

Fort Hood: Death by gun control

“…Yesterday at Fort Hood, disgruntled Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 12 soldiers and wounded 31 others before being shot and captured.

“…Old media attempted to associate this mass murder with the one that happened to civilians in 1991:

Obama on Gun Control

Obama infringes the constitution

Harold Koh, another anti-gun Obama nominee

Anwar al-Awlaki – Understanding The Quran

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Is That How You Talk To Your Mother? Emanuel and Obama Want To Repeal The Second Amendment And Take American People’s Guns Used To Defend Their Homes and Family? The Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award Goes To Emanuel and Obama! 

Lock and Load: The Radical Socialists–Are Going After Your Guns!–Update–Holder Wants Assault Weapons Ban Permanent!

Reportedly written by Sherry Hackett, the widow of Buddy Hackett.

“WE NOTICED”

President Obama:

Today I read of your administration’s plan to re-define September 11 as a National Service Day. Sir, it’s time we had a talk………

During your campaign, Americans watched as you made mockery of our tradition of standing and crossing your heart when the Pledge of Allegiance was spoken. You, out of four people on the stage, were the only one not honoring our tradition.

YES, “We noticed.”

During one of your many speeches, Americans heard you say that you intended to visit all 57 states. We all know that Islam, not America has 57 states.

YES, “We noticed.”

When President Bush leaned over at Ground Zero and gently placed a flower on the memorial, while you nonchalantly tossed your flower onto the pile without leaning over.

YES, “We noticed.”

Every time you apologized to other countries for America’s position on an issue we have wondered why you don’t share our pride in this great country. When you have heard foreign leaders berate our country and our beliefs, you have not defended us. In fact, you insulted the British Crown beyond belief.

YES, “We noticed.”

When your pastor of 20 years, “God-damned America” and said that 9/11 was “America’s chickens coming home to roost” and you denied having heard recriminations of that nature, we wondered how that could be. You later disassociated yourself from that church and Pastor Wright because it was politically expedient to do so.

YES, “We noticed.”

When you announced that you would transform America, we wondered why. With all her faults, America is the greatest country on earth. Sir, KEEP THIS IN MIND, “if not for America and the people who built her, you wouldn’t be sitting in the White House now.” Prior to your election to the highest office in this Country, you were a senator from Illinois and from what we can glean from the records available, not a very remarkable one.

YES, “We noticed.”

All through your campaign and even now, you have surrounded yourself with individuals who are basically unqualified for the positions for which you appointed them. Worse than that, the majority of them are people who, like you, bear no special allegiance, respect, or affection for this country and her traditions.

YES, “We noticed.”

You are 9 months into your term and every morning millions of Americans wake up to a new horror heaped on us by you. You seek to saddle working Americans with a health care/insurance reform package that, along with cap and trade , will bankrupt this nation.

YES, “We noticed.”

We seek, by protesting, to let our representatives know that we are not in favor of these crippling expenditures and we are labeled “un-American”, “racist”, “mob”. We wonder how we are supposed to let you know how frustrated we are. You have attempted to make our protests seem isolated and insignificant. Until your appointment, Americans had the right to speak out.

YES, “We noticed.”

On September 11, 2001 there were no Republicans or Democrats, only Americans. And we all grieved together and helped each other in whatever way we could. The attack on 9/11 was carried out because we are Americans.

YES, “We noticed.”

There were many of us who prayed that as a black president you could help unite this nation. In six months you have done more to destroy this nation than the attack on 9/11. You have failed us.

YES, “We noticed.”

September 11 is a day of remembrance for all Americans. You propose to make 9/11 a “National Service Day”. While we know that you don’t share our reverence for 9/11, we pray that history will report your proposal as what it is…a disgrace.

YES, “We noticed.”

You have made a mockery of our Constitution and the office that you hold. You have embarrassed and slighted us in foreign visits and policy.

YES, “We noticed.”

We have noticed all these things. We will deal with you. When Americans come together again, it will be to remove you from office.

Take notice.

Psa 118:8-9 NIV  It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.  (9)  It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes.