Obama,Homosexuality,and Same Sex Marriage

Jeffrey Kuhner

President Obama has made it official: He now supports same-sex marriage. It is his latest onslaught on traditional America. Mr. Obama has made history. He is our first commander in chief to openly embrace legalizing homosexual and lesbian unions. He has crossed a cultural watershed, paving the way for the eventual triumph of the homosexual agenda. Rather than being a victory for “civil rights” or “marital equality,” Mr. Obama’s decision puts America on the path to moral disintegration. We are one step closer to becoming like secular, post-Christian Europe.

For years, Mr. Obama claimed his position was “evolving.” Facing re-election and under growing pressure from liberal interest groups, especially the powerful homosexual lobby, he finally capitulated. His decision was not based on principle, but cynical politics. Mr. Obama needs the gay and lesbian vote to win in November. Immediately upon his announcement Wednesday, Hollywood donors opened their checkbooks. Millions were pumped into the Obama campaign coffers; the liberal base has been energized, and the cultural left is hailing Mr. Obama as the Martin Luther King of our time. The president believes it is an electoral masterstroke.

Instead, he has made a big mistake. Same-sex marriage is opposed by most Americans. On Tuesday, North Carolina became the 31st state to vote for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The referendum was not even close: More than 60 percent of voters supported Amendment One. The liberal media, such as the New York Times, consistently portray anti-gay-marriage advocates as bigots.

This is nonsense. Most Americans are neither intolerant nor bigoted. Rather, they understand that marriage is the basic institution of society. For thousands of years in the West, it has had a privileged role. Marriage solidifies the bonds between a man and a woman, laying the foundation for raising children in stable families. It is the glue that binds a functioning, viable social order. Marriage is the natural unit that enables society to perpetuate itself from one generation to the next. This is not hate; it’s common sense. Rest of the article here – http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/10/obamas-homosexual-america-833943949/

Dr. Albert Mohler -

Evolution’s End? President Obama Calls for Same-Sex Marriage

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Is President Obama’s “evolution” on same sex marriage finally complete? His call for the legalization of same-sex marriage yesterday is an historic and tragic milestone. An incumbent President of the United States has now called for a transformation of civilization’s central institution. And yet, no observer of this President could be surprised. The arrival of this announcement was only a matter of time.

The White House confirmed this within hours of the President’s announcement. As The New York Times reported on May 10, “Advisers say now that Mr. Obama had intended since early this year to define his position sometime before Democrats nominate him for re-election in September.”

Previous news reports indicated that the 2012 platform for the Democratic Party would likely include a call for same-sex marriage. The pressure was on the White House, with the President caught in an awkward and embarrassing situation in which major figures on both sides of the controversy believed that his public position did not reflect his true convictions. Rest of the article – http://www.albertmohler.com/

 

 

Obama declares support for gay marriage

By Rick Klein | ABC OTUS News – Wed, May 9, 2012

President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.
In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this place, based on conversations with his own staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and conversations with his wife and own daughters.
“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Roberts, in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday. Excerpts of the interview will air tonight on ABC’s “World News with Diane Sawyer.”
The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.

“It’s interesting, some of this is also generational,” the president continued. “You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same sex equality or, you know, believe in equality. They are much more comfortable with it. You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.”
Roberts asked the president if First Lady Michelle Obama was involved in this decision. Obama said she was, and he talked specifically about his own faith in responding.

“This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and hopefully the better I’ll be as president.”
Previously, Obama has moved in the direction of supporting same-sex marriage but has consistently stopped short of outright backing it. Instead, he’s voiced support for civil unions for gay and lesbian couples that provide the rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples, though not defined as “marriage.” At the same time, the president has opposed efforts to ban gay marriage at the state level, saying that he did not favor attempts to strip rights away from gay and lesbian couples.
The president’s position became a flashpoint this week, when Vice President Joe Biden pronounced himself “absolutely comfortable” with allowing same-sex couples to wed.
Obama aides insisted there was no daylight between the positions held by the president and his vice president when it comes to legal rights, but as other prominent Democrats also weighed in in favor of gay marriage, the disconnect became difficult for the White House to explain away.

Rest of story here – http://news.yahoo.com/obama-announces-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.htm

From Weasel Zippers – http://weaselzippers.us/2012/05/11/sources-robin-roberts-feared-obama-interview-would-out-her-as-a-lesbian/

Last night, Politico published a breakdown of how ABC’s Robin Roberts scored the President Obama gay marriage interview yesterday and, through several producers and media analysts, offered up these non-media-related credentials: Black. Christian. 50-year-old. Sports fan. Female.

The only part the report omitted was the near-open secret that Roberts is a lesbian. A source close to ABC executives told us that although the interview is, at this point, the biggest of her professional career, Roberts wasn’t overly enthusiastic about the scoop because she thought it would bring her own sexuality to the forefront.

“Most of the discussions [among TV people] today about why Robin got the interview have to do with her being gay,” a source told Gawker. “Not that she’s black, or friends of the Obamas.”

“Obviously they picked her because she’s black and gay,” said another industry insider familiar with the selection.

Plus, her mother was in town to visit her in New York, sources say. Watershed interview with POTUS or not, Roberts didn’t want to stand up mom.

Keep reading (link goes to Gawker)…

 

Nice job by Kevin DeYoung -

Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/05/10/why-christians-should-continue-to-oppose-gay-marriage/

Yesterday, to no one’s surprise, President Obama revealed in an interview that after some “evolution” he has “concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” This after the Vice-President came out last Sunday strongly in favor of gay marriage. Not coincidentally, the New York Times ran an article on Tuesday (an election day with a marriage amendment on one ballot) about how popular and not controversial gay television characters have become. In other words, everyone else has grown up so why don’t you? It can seem like the whole world is having a gay old time, with conservative Christians the only ones refusing to party.

The temptation, then, is for Christians go silent and give up the marriage fight: “It’s no use staying in this battle,” we think to ourselves. “We don’t have to change our personal position. We’ll keep speaking the truth and upholding the Bible in our churches, but getting worked up over gay marriage in the public square is counter productive. It’s a waste of time. It makes us look bad. It ruins our witness. And we’ve already lost. Time to throw in the towel.” I understand that temptation. It is an easier way. But I do not think it is the right way, the God glorifying way, or the way of love.

Here are five reasons Christians should continue to publicly and winsomely oppose bestowing the term and institution of marriage upon same-sex couples:

1. Every time the issue of gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people, the people have voted to uphold traditional marriage. Even in California. In fact, the amendment passed in North Carolina on Tuesday by a wider margin (61-39) than a similar measure passed six years ago in Virginia (57-42). The amendment passed in North Carolina, a swing state Obama carried in 2008, by 22 percentage points. We should not think that gay marriage in all the land is a foregone conclusion. To date 30 states have constitutionally defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

2. The promotion and legal recognition of homosexual unions is not in the interest of the common good. That may sound benighted, if not bigoted. But we must say it in love: codifying the indistinguishability of gender will not make for the “peace of the city.” It rubs against the grain of the universe, and when you rub against the grain of divine design you’re bound to get splinters. Or worse. The society which says sex is up to your own definition and the family unit is utterly fungible is not a society that serves its children, its women, or its own long term well being.

Vanderbilt University as an Example of Narrow Minded Intolerance

Vanderbilt University has given academic and religious freedom a bad name in recent days. By pushing the politically correct envelope to the extreme,they have redefined tolerance in a way that would make a Marxist proud.

 

From Dr. Albert Mohler -

Vanderbilt University’s Assault on Religious Organizations

Monday, April 2, 2012

Like most of America’s historic private universities, Vanderbilt University was founded by Christian believers for the purpose of inculcating Christian beliefs in its students. Vanderbilt was founded in the 1870s by Methodists and later funded largely by New York’s Vanderbilt family. Within a remarkably short period of years, Vanderbilt had forfeited its conservative Methodist roots in order to identify with the emerging secular consensus in American higher education.

As Notre Dame’s James Tunstead Burtchaell explained, Vanderbilt serves as a case study in the secularization of American higher education — a process Burtchaell described as the “disengagement of colleges and universities from their Christian churches.” Just a few decades after its founding, Vanderbilt had transformed itself into a secular university, embarrassed by its Christian founding. As Burtchaell made clear, this was not due to demands for secularization from outside the university. It was accomplished under the direction of liberal Protestants who desperately wanted to identify with the secular elites.

Well, if that was Vanderbilt’s goal, the university has been stunningly successful. It is unlikely that many of Vanderbilt’s students and faculty know anything of the university’s Christian history. If they do, it would be cause for further embarrassment, mixed with relief that the university is now safely in liberal and secular hands. (Rest of the story – http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/04/02/secularism-with-the-gloves-off-vanderbilt-universitys-assault-on-religious-organizations/)

 

 

An update on the Vandy situation -

 

Christians at Vanderbilt University aren’t taking the ongoing affront to their religious freedom lightly. As The Blaze has reported, students and faculty, alike, have been speaking out — sometimes in creative ways — to get their message out to the masses.

Today, religious groups at the university will come together to distribute 4,000 MP4 players at locations across the campus. The video consoles will include a seven-minute clip that explains the religious debate unfolding at Vanderbilt.

A press release sent by Pieter Valk, a junior Chemistry major at the school and an opponent of the university’s newly-enforced non-discrimination policy (which requires religious groups to allow non-believing individuals to become leaders), describes the initiative:

The video [which will be made available later today] highlights how the administration has changed its nondiscrimination policy at least twice in recent months and how it selectively enforces its newest policy against religious groups while allowing fraternities and sororities to discriminate on any basis in selecting leaders and members.

Meanwhile, the students are also delivering the message-carrying MP4 players to the members of Vanderbilt’s Board of Trustees, who will be meeting on campus at the end of this week. The represented groups hope that this appeal from students will prompt the board to restore Vanderbilt’s longstanding policy of allowing religious students the opportunity to preserve their communities of faith that are so important to them during their time at the university. (Rest of the story here – http://www.theblaze.com/stories/christians-at-vanderbilt-will-distribute-4000-mp4-players-on-campus-with-religious-freedom-protest-message/)

Teacher Unions,Pedophiles,and a Sorry Education System

Teachers unions and American education- A bad combination.

NYC: Teachers Union Forces City To Reinstate 14 Teachers Accused of Sexual Misconduct Involving Students…http://weaselzippers.us/

Reason #983,374 unions have no place in modern-day America.

NEW YORK — What are parents to do when their child comes home from school with stories about “this creepy guy in my class” — and it turns out to be the teacher?

That’s a very real concern for parents with children in New York City public schools, where 14 teachers of highly dubious character have been reinstated to the classroom — and two others have been given “desk duty” — thanks to appeals by their powerful teachers union, the United Federation of Teachers.

NYDailyNews.com reports that 16 teachers “kept their jobs after being brought up on egregious charges, some sexual, some involving excessive personal familiarity with students.”

A few examples:

Gym and health teacher Willie Laraque was charged with bending a male student over a desk, leaning in to him and saying, “I’ll show you what is gay.” The Daily News reports Laraque is back in the classroom after paying a $10,000 fine.

Norman Siegel, a high school teacher, was accused of pressing his genitalia against a female student’s leg. Siegel only received a 45-day unpaid suspension, “although the arbitrator found that the girl’s charge was likely true” and that Siegel “was previously accused of a similar offense,” the Daily News writes.

There’s also a case involving Edward Cascio, a gym teacher who accepted pornographic pictures from a student — of another student. Cascio was back at work after serving his three-month suspension.

Keep reading…

And who is running the New York teachers union ? Hmmm…Could it be Randi Weingarten the new “girlfriend” of the now infamous Hilary Rosen ?

If the invitation is still to be believed — and there have been many, many amendments to the official guest list — former RIAA chief and current PR strategist-slash-CNN talking head Hilary Rosen will be at the Democratic National Committee LGBT Leadership Council fundraiser on Thursday. We’re assuming she’ll attend with newly announced girlfriend Randi Weingarten, who might be attending only because she’ll have a chance to troll the room looking for job prospects.

UPDATE: Rosen writes in to Queerty saying she will not be attending the DNC fundraiser after all. Her name, however, is being circulated on an invitation to Nancy Pelosi’s Wednesday evening reception (Rosen is listed as a “host”) and among the “confirmed guests” for Thursday’s fundraiser.

Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/americas-new-lesbian-power-couple-will-attend-dnc-fundraiser-20090622/#ixzz1s8VzW4sV

 

Another article from Weasle Zippers-

Nation’s Second-Largest Teachers’ Union Hires Militant Communist And 9/11 Truther…

Via Independent Sentinel:

The AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS (AFT) is a national union headquartered in Washington, D.C., and is affiliated with the Socialist, thuggish American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). The AFT joined with the NEA to form an NEAFT Partnership in 2001. AFL-CIO affiliation is optional for them since that was always a sticking point. The AFT and NEA collaboration was charted to strengthen the organizations’ abilities to buy politicians’ votes and to negotiate favorable

Hiring radicals at the AFT is nothing new. Albert Shanker, the AFT leader who died in 1997, was an avowed Socialist all his life.contracts in the twenty-first century.

Now the AFT has hired a Socialist, Shaun Richman, who is also a Truther and Osama bin Laden apologist. [Sorry, but I think that he needs psychological help with that mindset.] Shaun Richman, the new deputy director of organizing for the AFT, gained his experience organizing for the Socialist Party USA.

Keep reading…

And where does America rank among the other nations ?

 

Ed. Clarification: HuffPost Education originally reported that the United States was ranked 14th by the OECD. That figure is the nation’s ranking in reading skills, not the overall ranking of the country.

The United States has fallen to “average” in international education rankings released by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, according to the AFP.

America has received scores around 500 on a scale that goes up to 1,000: 487 in math, 500 in reading and 502 in science.

The AFP reports, – rest of the story- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/us-falls-in-world-education-rankings_n_793185.html

Of course the Secretary of Education called for a greater “investment”- sorry Arnie it’s not about the money.

Obama and Marxism: The Influence of Saul Alinsky

I would be remiss not to mention the influence of Saul Alinsky on President Obama. Alinsky can be categorized as a neo-Marxist. The following excerpt is taken from Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals. Check out Crossroads for all kinds of useful info. http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

 

Home

Quotes and Excerpts from

Rules for Radicals

By Saul Alinsky – 1971

Hillary Clinton’s 1969 Political Science Thesis (“There is Only the Fight”) refers to an earlier version of Alinsky’s training manual. “In 1946,” she wrote, “Alinsky’s first book, Reveille for Radicals, was published.”

 

Background information

“Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.” –Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky

Obama helped fund ‘Alinsky Academy’: “The Woods Fund, a nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002, provided startup funding and later capital to the Midwest Academy…. Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization…. ‘Midwest describes itself as ‘one of the nation’s oldest and best-known schools for community organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change.’… Midwest teaches Alinsky tactics of community organizing.”

Hillary, Obama and the Cult of Alinsky: “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties…. Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.

Obama is also an Alinskyite…. Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project…. Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer.” (By Richard Poe, 11-27-07)

Opening page – Dedication

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”


Prologue

“The Revolutionary force today has two targets, moral as well as material. Its young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, ‘Burn the system down!‘ They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world. It is to this point that I have written this book.”


1. The Purpose

In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace…. “Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.’ This means revolution.” p.3

“Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing.” p.6

“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.” p.10

“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing…. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations….” pp.10-11

Notes on Saul Alinsky and Neo-Marxism:

Alinsky’s tactics were based, not on Stalin’s revolutionary violence, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, Gramsci’s transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.

Like Alinsky, Mikhail Gorbachev followed Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins’s wrath by suggesting that Lenin’s revolutionary plan wouldn’t work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish. Malachi Martin gave us a progress report:

“By 1985, the influence of traditional Christian philosophy in the West was weak and negligible…. Gramsci’s master strategy was now feasible. Humanly speaking, it was no longer too tall an order to strip large majorities of men and women in the West of those last vestiges that remained to them of Christianity’s transcendent God.”

2. Of Means and Ends [Forget moral or ethical considerations]

“The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. … The real arena is corrupt and bloody.” p.24

“The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means… The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be….” pp.25-26

“The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means….” p.29

“The seventh rule… is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics….” p.34

“The tenth rule… is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.… It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time… Who, and how many will support the action?… If weapons are needed, then are appropriate d weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly…” p.36

Notes: Apparently, Michelle Obama referred to these words during her Democratic National Convention speech:

“She said, ‘Barack stood up that day,’ talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, ‘and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about ‘The world as it is‘ and ‘The world as it should be…’ And, ‘All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do – that we have an obligation to, fight for the world as it should be.”

Do you wonder who — or whose values — should determine what “the world… should be?”

Rest of the article here – http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

 

Obama and Hillary Clinton were both influenced by Alinsky. Here is an excerpt from an interesting article that shows the Obama/ Alinsky connection -

Most know by now that Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on The Alinsky Model. It is entitled, “THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT . . .” An Analysis of the Alinsky Model and you can read it here. Obama’s link to Alinsky is not as direct as that of Ms. Clinton, but it is, if anything, a much stronger connection than Hillary’s. In Horowitz’ Discover the Networks article on Saul Alinsky author John

Hillary Clinton

Perazzo says,

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Rest of the article – http://www.alinskydefeater.com/Blog/2012/02/main-stream-media-tries-to-cover-up-obamas-ties-to-radical-saul-alinsky/#more-1604

 

 

To understand Alinsky,Hillary Clinton, and Obama,one must realize that politics is about power.

Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
Alinsky is the Sun-Tzu for today’s radicals,
his book a manual for their political war. As early
as its dedicatory page, Alinsky provides revealing
insight into the radical mind by praising Lucifer as
the first rebel: “Lest we forget, an over-the-shoulder
acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all
our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to
know where mythology leaves off and history begins
- or which is which), the first radical known to man
who rebelled against the establishment and did it so
effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -
Lucifer.”
Thus Alinsky begins his text by telling readers
exactly what a radical is. He is not a reformer of the
system but its would-be destroyer. In his own mind
the radical is building his own kingdom, which to him
is a kingdom of heaven on earth. Since a kingdom
of heaven built by human beings is a fantasy – an
impossible dream – the radical’s only real world
efforts are those which are aimed at subverting the
society he lives in. He is a nihilist.

Read the rest – http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/articles/rules%20for%20revolution%20(2).pdf

 

 

The raised fist (also known as the clenched fist) is a salute most often used by left-wing activists, such as: Marxists, anarchists, socialists, communists, pacifists, feminists, trade unionists, and black nationalists. The raised fist is usually regarded as an expression of solidarity, strength, or defiance. It dates back to the salute of Rotfrontkämpferbund, a red front paramilitary organization of the Communist Party of Germany before WWII.

 

Liberation Theology with a Marxist slant is all about building the kingdom on earth. This kingdom is anti-God,it is built by utilizing lies,blackmail, subterfuge,intimidation,and force, if necessary.Morality is set on it’s head with the legitimization of abortion and homosexuality. The clenched fist of rebellion leads to the judgment of the Lord.

As the Lord states in the Bible “Those who hate Me love death.”

Has President Obama Been Influenced by Marxists ?

I was speaking with a lady the other day about Obama being a Marxist. She was indignant and said that Obama is a Christian. As I (and others) have pointed out, he attended Jeremiah Wright’s church,which is a Black Liberation Theology church,not the normal evangelical or pentecostal church one would think of . Here are a few of the people who have influenced Obama.

One of his earliest mentors was Frank Marshall Davis -

From AIM- http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor

In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama’s life as a
“secret smoker” and how he “went to great lengths to conceal the habit.” But
what about Obama’s secret political life? It turns out that Obama’s childhood
mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.

In his books, Obama admits attending “socialist conferences” and coming into
contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a
“hard-core academic Marxist,” which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004
U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.

However,through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Therecord shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where,at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son,with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and gettingadvice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father,refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union.( For more documentation – http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/)

Mr. Davis was not only a Communist,but a sexual pervert. Here is an excerpt from the London Telegraph – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/2601914/Frank-Marshall-Davis-alleged-Communist-was-early-influence-on-Barack-Obama.html

 

It has also been established that Mr Davis, who divorced in 1970, was the author of a hard-core pornographic autobiography published in San Diego in 1968 by Greenleaf Classics under the pseudonym Bob Greene.

In a surviving portion of an autobiographical manuscript, Mr Davis confirms that he was the author of Sex Rebel: Black after a reader had noticed the “similarities in style and phraseology” between the pornographic work and his poetry.

“I could not then truthfully deny that this book, which came out in 1968 as a Greenleaf Classic, was mine.” In the introduction to Sex Rebel, Mr Davis (writing as Greene) explains that although he has “changed names and identities…all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences”.

He stated that “under certain circumstances I am bisexual” and that he was “ a voyeur and an exhibitionist” who was “occasionally mildly interested in sado-masochism”, adding: “I have often wished I had two penises to enjoy simultaneously the double – but different – sensations of oral and genital copulation.”

The book, which closely tracks Mr Davis’s life in Chicago and Hawaii and the fact that his first wife was black and his second white, describes in lurid detail a series of shockingly sordid sexual encounters, often involving group sex.

One chapter concerns the seduction by Mr Davis and his first wife of a 13-year-old girl called Anne. Mr Davis wrote that it was the girl who had suggested he had sex with her. “I’m not one to go in for Lolitas. Usually I’d rather not bed a babe under 20.

“But there are exceptions. I didn’t want to disappoint the trusting child. At her still-impressionistic age, a rejection might be traumatic, could even cripple her sexually for life.”

He then described how he and his wife would have sex with the girl. “Anne came up many times the next several weeks, her aunt thinking she was in good hands. Actually she was.

“She obtained a course in practical sex from experienced and considerate practitioners rather than from ignorant insensitive neophytes….I think we did her a favour, although the pleasure was mutual.”

On other occasions, Mr Davis would cruise in Hawaii parks looking for couples or female tourists to have sex with. He derived sexual gratification from bondage, simulated rape and being flogged and urinated on.

He boasted that “the number of white babes interested in at least one meeting with a Negro male has been far more than I can handle” and wished “America were as civilised as, say, Scandinavia”. He concluded: “I regret none of my experiences or unusual appetites; for me they are normal.”

According to Mrs Weatherly-Williams, Mr Davis lost touch with Mr Dunham some time in the 1980s. John Edgar Tidwell, who wrote the introduction to Davis’s memoir and edited a collection of his work, said that there was no mention of Mr Dunham or Mr Obama in any of Mr Davis’s papers.

 

Bill Ayers –

 

 

The former Weather Underground radical was a terrorist,and then became an activist and “academic”. His ties to Obama go far deeper than Obama is willing to admit.http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/09/23/barack-obama-bill-ayers-stanley-kurtz-makes-connection

A month earlier, a profile of Ayers in Chicago Magazine included a picture of Ayers stomping on the American flag. Marcia Froelke Coburn wrote the accompanying article: “Talk to him for any length of time and some rhetoric of the past slips into the conversation. ‘I think there will be another mass political movement,’ he predicts, ‘because I believe that the kind of injustice that is built into our world will not go quietly into the night.’”
In the mid-1990s, Obama was hired to be the chairman of Ayers’ “brainchild,” the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Here are the key excerpts from Kurtz’s op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal; the entire must-read article can be found here.

Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.
The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama’s first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers’s home.
The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” and “not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis.” Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I’ve recently spent days looking through them….
The CAC’s agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers’s educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland’s ghetto….
CAC translated Mr. Ayers’s radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with “external partners,” which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).
Mr. Obama once conducted “leadership training” seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama’s early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC’s in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement….
Mr. Ayers’s defenders claim that he has redeemed himself with public-spirited education work. That claim is hard to swallow if you understand that he views his education work as an effort to stoke resistance to an oppressive American system. He likes to stress that he learned of his first teaching job while in jail for a draft-board sit-in. For Mr. Ayers, teaching and his 1960s radicalism are two sides of the same coin….
The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming “guilt by association.” Yet the issue here isn’t guilt by association; it’s guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/09/23/barack-obama-bill-ayers-stanley-kurtz-makes-connection#ixzz1oI2IfRuo

Obama’s pastor for 20 years was Jeremiah Wright. He teaches Liberation Theology/Marxism.

In an article in the socialist Monthly Review, “Journalism, Democracy, and Class Struggle,” McChesney declared, “Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism.”

In the video, which captures Wright’s appearance at a September 17, 2009, anniversary celebration of Monthly Review, Wright said that while the “corporate media” provide a “binary lens” of the world, in such terms as “communist versus Christian,” Monthly Review offers what it calls “no-nonsense Marxism.”

He added: “You dispel all the negative images we have been programmed to conjure up with just the mention of that word socialism or Marxism.”

He called America “land of the greed and home of the slave.”

…he went into more detail about his own personal and political philosophy. He said that “My work with liberation theology, with Latin American theologians, with the Black Theology Project and with the Cuban Council of Churches taught me 30 years ago the importance of Marx and the Marxist analysis of the social realities of the vulnerable and the oppressed who were trying desperately to break free of the political economics undergirded by this country that were choking them and cutting off any hope of a possible future where all of the people would benefit.”

He said that his “exposure to the FMLN in El Salvador, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and my presence at the 15th Jamahiriya in Libya taught me what I have read in the pages of the Monthly Review which is, as Joshua Stanton says, though we need not always agree with one another we must do the work necessary to at least understand one another.” For more – http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/02/figures-obamas-marxist-mentor-jeremiah-wright-is-linked-to-gaddafi/

 

What about Obama’s closest political advisor,David Axelrod ? This is fresh off the press from a very credible source,please check it out -

http://theothermccain.com/2012/03/04/david-axelrods-red-roots-obama-advisers-communist-ties-exposed/

The cover story of the March print edition of The American Spectator is not yet online and, if you are not yet a subscriber to the magazine, I urge you to rush out to the nearest Barnes & Noble or wherever else you can buy a copy, because it’s definitely worth the $5.95 newstand price.

Presidential historian Paul Kengor has dug up some fascinating facts about the background of David Axelrod, showing President Obama’s top political strategist to have deep ties to the American Communist Party (CPUSA) and other leftist individuals and organizations.

For example, Axelrod’s mother, Myril Bennett Axelrod, worked for the left-wing New York newspaper,PM. Although it lasted less than a decade (1940-48), PM became notorious because of its penetration by Stalinists and others who promoted the Communist Party line on issues both foreign and domestic. Kengor points out that PM‘s famed Washington correspondent, I.F. Stone, was subsequently identified as a Soviet agent both in the so-called “Venona” documents and also by a former top KGB official, Oleg Kalugin.

It is unclear where Axelrod’s mother fit in the orbit of Communists, Soviet sympathizers and other “progressives” who worked at PM, Kengor says, because despite “scouring reel upon reel of microfiche” copies of the newspaper, he was “unable to find a single article with Myril’s byline.” Nevertheless, her association with the paper locates her politics on the far-left fringe of the American politic spectrum in the 1940s, which would seem important to understanding her son’s later activities.

While a student at the University of Chicago in the early 1970s, David Axelrod began working as a political reporter for the Hyde Park Herald, which Kengor says brought Axelrod to the attention of Don Rose and David Canter. Both of these men were associated with the Communist Party and other far-left organizations.

Kengor explains that David Canter’s father, Harry Canter, was “an instructor at the Abraham Lincoln School, an infamous Chicago-based [CPUSA] front that instructed pupils in the teachings of Marx and Lenin.” David Canter followed in his Communist father’s footsteps, so that a 1970 congressional investigation report, “Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications,” lists David Canter 25 times. His Chicago-based publishing company was believed to be partly subsidized by Soviet funds and in the 1960s, Kengor writes, “David Canter and Don Rose joined forces to start a [Chicago-area] community newspaper called Hyde Park-Kenwood Voices.”

This Canter-Rose publication “was on the far left,” Kengor writes. Hyde Park-Kenwood Voices editorialized for the abolition of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), whose investigations had exposed the pro-Soviet subversive activities of both David Canter and his father Harry. At a time when U.S. troops were fighting communism in Vietnam, Hyde Park-Kenwood Voices also published “pro-Hanoi screeds by [Students for a Democratic Society] members based in Chicago,” Kengor writes.

Don Rose was associated with SDS (the left-wing campus organization from which Bill Ayers’s terrorist splinter group Weather Underground spun off in 1969) and was also a member of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, commonly known by the slang term “the Mobe.”

Rose and Canter played a critical role as “mentors” to young David Alexrod, Kengor explains, citing numerous sources including David Canter’s son Marc Canter for the fact that it was a letter of recommendation from Don Rose that helped Axelrod land a job as a reporter for the Chicago Tribune. By 1987, all three of these men — Don Rose, David Canter and David Axelrod, who had left journalism to become a paid political adviser — were part of the campaign to re-elect Harold Washington as Chicago’s mayor.

Kengor’s American Spectator article is important because Axelrod’s background — like Obama’s associations with such left-wing figures as Frank Marshall Davis and Bill Ayers — shows how ideas, policies and rhetoric originating in Marxist-Leninist doctrine and anti-American propaganda have been “mainstreamed” into Democratic Party politics. Rest of the story -

http://theothermccain.com/2012/03/04/david-axelrods-red-roots-obama-advisers-communist-ties-exposed/

 

As you may have noticed,the Democratic Party is not the same party that your grandparents voted for. A lot of this may be old news to many of you,but it is amazing how many people don’t know about this,or understand the implications of having a radical as President. Four more years of Obama,Pelosi,and Reid and this is what we will be looking at -

 

 

Obama my work here is done poster

 

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air.
Margaret Thatcher

 The United States has an opportunity to support Israel and their plans to deal with Iran’s nuclear facilities. Will Obama have the wisdom and courage to take a stand against a rogue nation that has promised to annihilate Israel ? Putin has been re-elected,so one has to realize that Iran will be further emboldened in implementing their plan of destruction.

 

Obama “Firmly Believes” Diplomacy Will Stop Iran From Building Nuclear Weapons…

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/03/04/obama-firmly-believes-diplomacy-will-stop-iran-from-building-nuclear-weapons/

 

Via Free Beacon:

President Barack Obama still believes that “an opportunity remains for diplomacy” with the Iranian regime, which continues to enrich uranium and refuses to answer basic questions about its disputed nuclear program.

“I firmly believe that an opportunity remains for diplomacy — backed by pressure — to succeed,” Obama told more than 13,000 attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual conference. “The United States and Israel both assess that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, and we are exceedingly vigilant in monitoring their program.”

Economic sanctions are beginning to wear the regime down, Obama said, noting that there is still time for Iran to join the international “community of nations.”

“Sanctions are continuing to increase, and this July — thanks to our diplomatic coordination — a European ban on Iranian oil imports will take hold,” Obama said. “Faced with these increasingly dire consequences, Iran’s leaders still have the opportunity to make the right decision. They can choose a path that brings them back into the community of nations, or they can continue down a dead end.”

Keep reading…

 

 

 

Modern History Sourcebook:http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1938PEACE.html
Neville Chamberlain:
“Peace in Our Time”, 1938


The following is the wording of the statement that Neville Chamberlain waved when he stepped off the plane after the conference in Berlin had ended on 30 September, 1938.

“We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for two countries and for Europe.

“We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.

“We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe.”

Chamberlain read this statement to a cheering crowd in front of 10 Downing St. and said;
“My good friends this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time.”

Excerpted from “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

 

(CBS/AP) MOSCOW – Vladimir Putin scored a decisive victory in Russia’s presidential election Sunday to return to the Kremlin and extend his hold on power for six more years. His eyes brimming with tears, he defiantly proclaimed to a sea of supporters that they had triumphed over opponents intent on “destroying Russia’s statehood and usurping power.”

Putin’s win was never in doubt as many across the vast country still see him as a guarantor of stability and the defender of a strong Russia against a hostile world, an image he has carefully cultivated during 12 years in power.

CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips reports there were widespread accounts of vote-rigging.

“There was ballot box stuffing. There were all sorts of manipulation of the election commissions at the local level. So it was not a good report card,” election observer Spencer Oliver told CBS News.

The accounts of extensive vote-rigging looked set to strengthen the resolve of opposition forces, whose unprecedented protests in recent months have posed the first serious challenge to Putin’s heavy-handed rule. Another huge demonstration was set for Monday evening in central Moscow. Rest of the article here – http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57390300/tearful-putin-thanks-supporters-after-win/

 

From Joel C. Rosenberg’s blog -

“At the White House on Monday, President Obama will seek to persuade the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to postpone whatever plans he may have to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities in the coming months,” notes an important new article by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic. “Obama will argue that under his leadership, the United States “has Israel’s back,” and that he will order the U.S. military to destroy Iran’s nuclear program if economic sanctions fail to compel Tehran to shelve its nuclear ambitions.” Goldberg’s article has triggered a series of other similar articles in the mainstream media, confirming the coming pressure by Obama against Israel. “President Obama plans to caution Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu next week against attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities in the coming months, urging patience while international economic sanctions take full effect,” reports the Washington Post. “Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu on Monday begins a critical week in his effort to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions and preserve the trust of the United States’ closest Middle East ally. Israeli leaders have made clear they think time is running out to stop Iran from achieving the ability to build a nuclear weapon….‘We’re trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel,’ said an administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.”http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/

Sheriff Joe’s Report,Some Final Words From Andrew Breitbart,and the Results of a Key Senate Vote

WorldNet Dailey is has an article detailing Sherriff Joe Arpaio’s report on President Obama’s birth certificate. I have not spent a lot of time researching this issue,but am not surprised by the Sheriff’s findings.There are many questions surrounding Barack Obama’s past that have not been satisfactorily answered.

Here is an excerpt from the article,to read the entire thing follow the link -

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joes-posse-probable-cause-obama-certificate-a-fraud/

“Officers of the Hawaii Department of Health and various elected Hawaiian public officials may have intentionally obscured 1961 birth records and procedures to avoid having to release to public inspection and to the examination of court-authorized forensic examiners any original Obama 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may or may not have,” Zullo said.

The investigators say the evidence contained in the computer-generated PDF file released by the White House as well as important deficiencies in the Hawaii process of certifying the long-form birth certificate establish probable cause that a forgery has been committed.

The investigation was launched after 250 members of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party, presented a signed petition to Arpaio in August 2011 asking him to undertake the investigation.

The Tea Party members petitioned under the premise that if a forged birth certificate was used to place Barack Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised.

Arpaio believes a congressional investigation might be warranted and has asked that any information relevant to the investigation held by other law enforcement agencies be forwarded to his office.

The Cold Case Posse advised Arpaio that they believe forgers committed two crimes. First, they say it appears the White House fraudulently created a forgery that it characterized as an officially produced governmental birth record. Second, the White House fraudulently presented to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery represented as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.

“A continuing investigation is needed to identify the identity of the person or persons involved in creating the alleged birth certificate forgery and to determine who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized the forgery,” Arpaio said.

Andrew Breitbart died today. He was an outspoken conservative who pulled no punches. The following is taken from one of the last speeches he made.

…This is my war cry for 2012. You need to join me in my war against the institutional left.
This is not your mother’s Democratic Party… duh! John Podesta and George Soros? This is not your mother’s Democratic Party You know whose party it is? …I have a thesis about who we’re fighting against on the hard left… [In college] I had no idea these [left-wing academics] people were actually serious about the malarkey they were teaching. The post-structuralist, politically correct garbage.
Unfortunately in 2004, the radical Left [executed] a coup d’etat of the Democratic Party. And basically kicked a person — that four years was called ‘the standard-bearer of decency in the Democratic Party’. And that person was Joe Lieberman.
That was the end of the Democratic Party. And in 2010, the DLC went under.
There’s no such thing as a moderate Democrat. And so what do we get now, in Barack Obama?In this election we’re going to vet him I’ve got videos, by the way, and in this election we’re going to vet him. I’ve got videos. This election we’re going to vet him. From his college days, to show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what ‘hope and change’ was sold in 2008.

The videos are going to come out. The narrative is going to come out: that Barack Obama met a bunch of silver pony-tails [left wing academics] back in the 1980s, like Bill [Ayers] and Bernadine Dohrn who said “one day, we’re going to have the presidency.’
And the rest of us slept while they plotted and they plotted and they plotted. And they oversaw hundreds of millions of dollars in the Annenberg Challenge, from real capitalists, who gave it to their children and their children’s children [who] then became communists. We’ve got to work on that…
Barack Obama is a radical and we should not be afraid to say it. And Barack Obama was launched from Bill and Bernadine’s salon… it became self-evident to me that [Obama enjoyed] many a meal there… And don’t tell me, ABC, CBS and NBC that I can’t posit that theory, because it is a self-evident truth. Just like it was a self-evident truth that he was with Jeremiah Wright. And just as it was a self-evident truth that when he was at Harvard, he was advocating for the worst of the worst to join the faculty. Radicals. Radicals at “Beirut on the Charles”.
And that who’s in the White House. And that’s who’s outside right now [the Occupy movement] telling you that you don’t have a right to be here. They would squelch your free speech just as easily as they do at Harvard, Vassar, Yale, Wesleyan – they’re a bunch of totalitarian freaks.

Rest of the speech here – http://directorblue.blogspot.com/

51 United States Senators showed their contempt for the Constitution today – a yes vote is a vote for an out of control Federal Government.

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 1, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The U.S. Senate this morning voted down an amendment that would allow employers to opt out of paying for health care coverage of procedures that violate their religious beliefs.

Sen. Roy Blunt

The amendment, offered by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-MO, rolled back Barack Obama’s invasive Health and Human Services mandate that employers insure contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs with no co-pay. While the health care reform law exempts churches, it would force religious institutions such as hospitals and universities to underwrite products that violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

The Blunt Amendment would not compel an employer to fund any procedure to which it had a “moral objection.” It failed 51-48.

“Today, 51 senators, led by Sen. Harry Reid, sacrificed the Constitutional right of religious liberty on the altar of the Obama administration’s radical big-government agenda,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said in a statement e-mailed to LifeSiteNews.com. “They turned a deaf ear to the very real religious and moral objections of millions of Americans and the First Amendment rights of all.”

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told LifeSiteNews.com he was “outraged” by the vote. “Make no mistake, the Senate vote was not about contraception but about the right of people of faith to be able to live out the values of their faith free from government coercion.” (Rest of the article here- http://www.lifesitenews.com)

 

 

Grouped by Home State

Alabama:
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay

Alaska:
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay

Arizona:
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay

Arkansas:
Boozman (R-AR), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea

California:
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

Colorado:
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea

Connecticut:
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea

Delaware:
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Yea

Florida:
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Nay

Georgia:
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay

Hawaii:
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea

Idaho:
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Risch (R-ID), Nay

Illinois:
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Not Voting

Indiana:
Coats (R-IN), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay

Iowa:
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea

Kansas:
Moran (R-KS), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay

Kentucky:
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Paul (R-KY), Nay

Louisiana:
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay

Maine:
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Yea

Maryland:
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea

Massachusetts:
Brown (R-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea

Michigan:
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea

Minnesota:
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea

Mississippi:
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Nay

Missouri:
Blunt (R-MO), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

Montana:
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea

Nebraska:
Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Nay

Nevada:
Heller (R-NV), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea

New Hampshire:
Ayotte (R-NH), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea

New Jersey:
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea

New Mexico:
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea

New York:
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea

North Carolina:
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Yea

North Dakota:
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Hoeven (R-ND), Nay

Ohio:
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Portman (R-OH), Nay

Oklahoma:
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay

Oregon:
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Pennsylvania:
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Toomey (R-PA), Nay

Rhode Island:
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea

South Carolina:
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay

South Dakota:
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay

Tennessee:
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay

Texas:
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay

Utah:
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Lee (R-UT), Nay

Vermont:
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea

Virginia:
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea

Washington:
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea

West Virginia:
Manchin (D-WV), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea

Wisconsin:
Johnson (R-WI), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea

Wyoming:
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay

Holder and Obama:Giving New Meaning to the First Amendment

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – - that’s all.”
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)

 

“Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form.― Karl Marx

The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he said was, “Why is a raven like a writing-desk?”
“Come, we shall have some fun now!” thought Alice. “I’m glad they’ve begun asking riddles. — I believe I can guess that,” she added aloud.
“Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?” said the March Hare.
“Exactly so,” said Alice.
“Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on.
“I do,” Alice hastily replied; “at least–at least I mean what I say–that’s the same thing, you know.”
“Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hatter. “You might just as well say that ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see’!”
“You might just as well say,” added the March Hare, “that ‘I like what I get’ is the same thing as ‘I get what I like’!”
“You might just as well say,” added the Dormouse, who seemed to be talking in his sleep, “that ‘I breathe when I sleep’ is the same thing as ‘I sleep when I breathe’!”
(Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Chapter 7)http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/books/alice-in-wonderland-quotes.

 

The Mad Hatter of law enforcement- Mr. Eric Holder- you can’t make this stuff up -

http://weaselzippers.us/Holder: First Amendment Allows Government To Force Catholic Organizations To Buy Insurance That Covers Abortion, Contraception…

This First Amendment? – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

(CNSNews.com) – The Justice Department will defend against any legal challenge to the new Obama administration mandate to force employers to provide abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception, even if it goes against their conscience, Attorney General Eric Holder told a House subcommittee Tuesday.

The Department of Health and Human Services rule, part of Obamacare, violates the freedom of conscience for Catholics and other religious groups that expressed their objections to the mandate, opponents say. Already there is litigation asserting that the rule violates the First Amendment’s guarantee to free exercise of religion.

“I think I would respectfully disagree in the sense that I don’t think the rule that HHS promulgated was one that ran counter to the religious prohibitions that are contained in the First Amendment,” Holder said.

Keep reading…

 

Here is a follow up article on Obama’s infanticide votes-guess what,he didn’t tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth about his support for abortion and infanticide.

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com

Obama’s Infanticide Votes

By Patrick Brennan

February 29, 2012 4:00 A.M.

In last Wednesday’s debate, when the Republican candidates were asked about their positions on birth control, Newt Gingrich parried with one of his usual tactics, a fusillade against the mainstream media. He told CNN’s John King, “You did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. If we’re going to have a debate about who is the extremist on these issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion.”

Two points of Gingrich’s barrage warrant assessment. First, did Barack Obama, as a state senator, vote “in favor of legalizing infanticide,” by voting “to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion”? And second, has no one in the elite media ever discussed his record on the issue? Yes; and no, but essentially yes.

Gingrich’s assertion rests on then–State Senator Obama’s opposition, in 2001, 2002, and 2003, to successive versions of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, an Illinois bill that was meant to provide protection for babies born alive after attempted abortions. The bill gave them protection as legal persons and required physicians to provide them with care, rather than allowing doctors to deal with them as they would, literally, with medical waste. In 2008, Obama’s campaign repeatedly claimed that he opposed the bill because it was unnecessary, since Illinois law already provided protection for infants born alive. However, as Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out on NRO at the time, this extended only to babies whom physicians deemed to have “sustainable survivability.” Thus infants who were not expected to survive could be killed or left unattended to die. Obama, Ponnuru wrote, “did not want the gap filled.” (The National Right to Life Committee has a report on Obama, Illinois’s legal loophole, and its horrific consequences here.)

Obama maintained at the time, with support from Planned Parenthood of Illinois, that the bill wasn’t really about protecting infants’ lives or mitigating their suffering, but was in fact a backdoor attempt to restrict abortion. The argument (which is constitutionally dubious, anyway) goes that, by providing legal protection and “recognition as a human person” for a pre-viable infant, the law could be used to threaten Roe v. Wade. Thus, at the time of Obama’s votes, and then during the course of the 2008 campaign, Obama claimed that he would have supported a law like the 2002 federal born-alive statute, which stated explicitly that it could not be used to dispute the legal status of fetuses prior to their birth.

In committee in 2003, however, Obama voted against a version of the Illinois bill that contained the same protection included in the federal bill (which passed 98–0 in the U.S. Senate). Thus, Obama’s tenuous constitutional argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Rest of the article- http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292204/obama-s-infanticide-votes-patrick-brennan

Remember in November: The Most Pro-Abortion President Ever Needs to Go

Rush: Obama’s infanticide vote ‘most shocking, underreported, significant story I can ever remember’

BY BEN JOHNSON

PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, February 24, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The nation’s number one talk show host drew attention to Barack Obama’s history of supporting infanticide on Friday’s show.

Discussing this week’s CNN debate in Mesa, Arizona, Rush Limbaugh told his listeners said the president’s vote against the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001, 2002, and 2003 amounted to “the most shocking and underreported significant story I can ever remember.”

Rush Limbaugh

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich raised the issue of Obama’s support for infanticide after CNN debate moderator John King asked the presidential hopefuls a question about birth control.

The question met with loud audience disapproval, as it was widely interpreted as intended to embarrass Rick Santorum.

Gingrich, who replied first, objected that in 2008, “not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide.”

“If we’re going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion,” Gingrich said. “It is not the Republicans.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/rush-obamas-infanticide-vote-most-shocking-underreported-significant-story

 

Since many liberal media outlets doubt the veracity of Obama’s infantacide vote here is some more info -

From Kelly Pickett at the Washington Times – http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/feb/24/picket-obamas-bad-moves-infanticide-come-back-haun/

 

Since former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich pointed out in the Republican presidential debate on Wednesday that President Barack Obama supported infanticide, the media has been in an uproar. Many outlets are wondering where such an accusation could possibly come from.

Unfortunately, during the last presidential campaign cycle, too many outlets were too busy fawning over then presidential candidate Barack Obama and doing political hit jobs on GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin to bother to ask Mr. Obama about reports regarding his votes and remarks within the Illinois State Senate concerning the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Additionally, Mr. Obama has done a good job in distorting his position in this area.

First, many Republicans and conservatives alike are referring to a 2003 health and human services committee vote within the Illinois State Senate. Former Washington Times columnist Amanda Carpenter covered this story in great detail in her Town Hall column in 2008: (emphasis is mine)

“We have a smoking gun committee report,” said National Right to Life Committee Legislative Counsel Susan Muskett.

Muskett’s “smoking gun” is a 2003 Health and Human Services Committee report recorded by Republican committee staff. It documents a unanimous 10-0 vote by the 2003 Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired at the time, to amend BAIPA to include the exact same language that was added to the federal version to protect Roe v. Wade. The committee report also shows a subsequent “final action” vote to determine if the bill should advance out of committee or be killed. The bill was defeated 6-4. Chairman Obama voted in the majority.

This means that, in essence, Obama voted to successfully amend the bill in a way that Obama has said would have enabled him to support it—before he voted against it. It also puts Obama further to the left of NARAL Pro-Choice America. According to a statement released by the abortion-rights lobby in the run-up to the U.S. Senate’s BAIPA vote in 2002, “NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act … floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

Rest of the story here – http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/feb/24/picket-obamas-bad-moves-infanticide-come-back-haun/

Still not convinced ? From the one and only Andrew C. McCarthy -

 

When Obama Voted For Infanticide

By Andrew C. McCarthy

February 9, 2012 5:20 P.M.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290707/when-obama-voted-infanticide-andrew-c-mccarthy

Peter has beaten me to the punch. What I personally find most offensive about the HHS mandate is the shock with which it has been met. Why? This is who Barack Obama is. There is no reason to be surprised by this. He is not being pulled to extremes by his base — he is the one doing the pulling.

Obama’s abortion extremism is such that, as a state legislator, he opposed protection for — I’ll use his words here — “that fetus, or child — however way you want to say describe it” when, contrary to the wishes of the women involved and their abortionists, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.” Babies were inconveniently being born alive, self-styled health-care providers carted them off to utility rooms where they would be left to die. That is infanticide, plain and simple. In Illinois, people tried to stop this barbarism by supporting “born alive” legislation. Barack Obama fought them all the way.

That is not a secret. The Obamedia, of course, refused to cover it while they were running down Sarah Palin’s third-grade report card. The clueless John McCain failed to bring any attention to it. But it was far from unknown. I wrote about it in August 2008, and I was far from alone — at least among conservatives. My column was called, “Why Obama Really Voted For Infanticide: More important to protect abortion doctors than ‘that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it’”:

There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.

They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.

No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”

Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life.

But not Barack Obama. As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past.

The record, however, doesn’t lie.

Infanticide is a bracing word. But in this context, it’s the only word that fits. Obama heard the testimony of a nurse, Jill Stanek. She recounted how she’d spent 45 minutes holding a living baby left to die.

The child had lacked the good grace to expire as planned in an induced-labor abortion — one in which an abortionist artificially induces labor with the expectation that the underdeveloped “fetus, or child — however you want to describe it” will not survive the delivery.

Stanek encountered another nurse carrying the child to a “soiled utility room” where it would be left to die. It wasn’t that unusual. The induced-labor method was used for late-term abortions. Many of the babies were strong enough to survive the delivery. At least for a time.

So something had to be done with them. They couldn’t be left out in the open, struggling in the presence of fellow human beings. After all, those fellow human beings — health-care providers— would then be forced to confront the inconvenient question of why they were standing idly by. That would hold a mirror up to the whole grisly business.

Better the utility room. Alone, out of sight and out of mind. Next case.

Stanek’s account enraged the public and shamed into silence most of the country’s staunchest pro-abortion activists. Most, not all. Not Barack Obama.

My friend Hadley Arkes ingeniously argued that legislatures, including Congress, should take up “Born Alive” legislation: laws making explicit what decency already made undeniable: that from the moment of birth — from the moment one is expelled or extracted alive from the birth canal — a human being is entitled to all the protections the law accords to living persons.

Such laws were enacted by overwhelming margins. In the United States Congress, even such pro-abortion activists as Sen. Barbara Boxer went along.

But not Barack Obama. In the Illinois senate, he opposed Born-Alive tooth and nail.

The shocking extremism of that position — giving infanticide the nod over compassion and life — is profoundly embarrassing to him now. So he has lied about what he did. He has offered various conflicting explanations . .

Rest of the article – http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290707/when-obama-voted-infanticide-andrew-c-mccarthy

A brief history lesson from the life of Nero,who among other debaucheries raped one of the Vestal Virgins. Nero was intent on upsetting the moral order of the Roman Empire and was quite inventive (demonized) in his many outrageous activities.

The symbolic meaning of Nero’s rape of the vestal virgin Rubria was not lost to Suetonius’ original readers, even those of the early second century of the common era. The Six Vestal Virgins were young women of noble families who dedicated themselves to guarding the Sacred Heart in the temple of Jupiter. These women submitted themselves to regular vaginal examination. If it were determined that a maid had allowed herself to be violated, even, as in the case of Rubria, if the act had been forced upon her, raped, she was bound and hurled alive from the Tarpeian Rock to the Forum some four-hundred feet below.
The Sacred Hearth itself represented, among other things, traditional Roman morality, which was very different from the moral standard developing during Nero’s day. In sexual terms; it meant chastity for unmarried women, fidelity in wedlock, and the sanctity of the family, a series of strong imperatives that held death better than dishonor. Nero’s rape of the vestal virgin, besides the fact that it sentenced her to die, symbolized an assault against the entire moral order. It was a sacrilege, a willful trespass against all things holy, and signaled the commencement of a reign of depravity.

Rest of the article – http://sexandhistory.blogspot.com/2008/07/life-of-nero-sex-and-fall-of-roman.html – Well worth the read.

Santorum Calls Out Obama,The Left and the Transformation of Society,and Obama as Caesar:Power Play

Three points on this whole contraceptive,sterilization mandate.

  • No employer should be forced to provide health insurance by the government.
  • No employer should be told what it has to provide in the health insurance that they choose to provide for their employees.
  • No religiously based employer should be forced to provide medical procedures for that to which they are morally opposed to.

Three points regarding President Obama’s so-called Christianity.

  • Obama was a member of Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years ,and “came to Christ “during that time.
  • Wright has been and is a proponent of Black Liberation Theology
  • Obama’s policies reflect a Marxist Liberation Theology mindset(redistribution of wealth)

“By their fruits you shall know them”

The question is which Christ does he believe in ? Why does he always take Scriptures out of context ? Why is he such a radical when it comes to abortion and the homosexual agenda’ ?The answer is to be found in the twisted version of Christianity that he was taught and that he accepted during his stay at Wright’s church.

 

Good for Rick Santorum –

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Rick Santorum said he was not questioning President Obama’s Christian values today when he said the “president’s agenda” is based on a “different theology” and instead Obama is “imposing his values” on Americans.

“He is now forcing people to do things that he believes that they have the right, that they should do. The Catholic church has a theology that says this is wrong, and he’s saying no I’ve got a different, I’ve got a different — you may want to call it a theology, you may want to call it secular values, whatever you want to call it, it’s a different moral values. And the president of the United States is exercising his values and trumping the values of the church,” Santorum said, referring to the decision by the Obama administration to require all institutions that provide health insurance, including Catholic churches and hospitals, to cover birth control and emergency contraception.

“If you don’t want to call it a theology, I’m fine, you can have them let me know what they want to call it,” Santorum said at a press conference after a speech to the Ohio Christian Alliance.

At a tea party rally in Columbus this morning, Santorum said the “president’s agenda” is “not about you. It’s not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your job.”

“It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology,” Santorum said. “Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology.”

Obama deputy press secretary Ben LaBolt called the comments the “latest low in a Republican primary campaign that has been fueled by distortions, ugliness, searing pessimism and negativity — a stark contrast with the president, who is focused every day on creating jobs and restoring economic security for the middle class.”

Santorum was asked about LaBolt calling it the “latest low” and he became increasingly angry as he answered, saying the “president has reached a new low in this country’s history of oppressing religious freedom that we have never seen before.”

“But it is a different set of moral values that they are imposing on people who have a constitutional right to have their own values within the church,” Santorum told reporters. “It is a new low. … If he doesn’t want to call his imposition of his values a theology that’s fine, but it is an imposition of his values over a church who has very clear theological reasons for opposing what the Obama administration is forcing on them.” Rest of the article-

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/santorum-obama-hits-new-low-of-oppressing-religious-freedom/

 

Perhaps Daniel Greenfield’s best column ever – http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

Guns, Butter, Jobs and Birth Control

The old totalitarian paradigm was guns or butter. The Soviet Union could provide its people with the basic food groups or it could run a military race to conquer as much of the world as possible. As a totalitarian ideology, it naturally chose the latter.

The modern incarnation of the hammer and sickle, the liberals who took it slow, working from within the system instead of seizing the reins and executing anyone who got in the way, isn’t big on guns. The Clinton and Obama administrations both inflicted massive cuts on the military because it was extraneous to their domestic goals. They didn’t want guns, but they didn’t want butter either. They wanted a third thing.
The Obama Administration is about as interested in creating jobs as the denizens of the Kremlin were in making sure that every Russian family had plenty of milk and butter on the table. Totalitarian ideologies don’t care about individual welfare and they certainly are not interested in individual empowerment. An improved economy would weaken the left, it would undermine its central program of promoting fear and dependence on a social safety net and a rights infrastructure administered by them.
The left is not very good at discussing the economy. Ask its leaders to apportion blame for economic problems and they are right there with denunciations of the banks, corporations and a thousand other factors. But ask it how to repair an economy and after some mumbling the answer is usually to fund a bunch of its pet projects that have nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with its social agenda.
The left’s goal is to transform society, not to empower individuals to make their own choices. That is why an arena like birth control is its natural territory. A society with state subsidized birth control has a low birth rate, low marriage rate, high demand for social subsidies and a high demand for immigrants to compensate for the low birth rate and pay for the social subsidies. Now whether or not you think such a society is a good thing, it is the kind of society that the left wants. Rest of the article here – http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

 

 

Michael Novak from NRO – Very good article about the whole contraceptive debate,as well as a

great line –“ Caesar says that only houses of worship and their ministers count as “church” — so now we see the symbolic meaning behind Obama’s use of the columns of ancient pagan temples at his nomination in 2008. He was dreaming of Caesar. And now he is Caesar, lusting for power over what belongs to Caesar, but also over what belongs to God.”

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291299/obamarsquos-deceptive-hidden-premises-michael-novak

The most evil thing about the Obama administration’s recent violation of the separation of church and state is its deceptiveness. With his order requiring inclusion of contraception and abortifacient drugs in insurance coverage, the president is smuggling the hidden premises of NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other supporters of abortion into U.S. law, and doing so untruthfully.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) instruction attacking religious institutions such as hospitals, universities, and programs for the poor rests on four hidden premises.

Advertisement

(1) The first deception is that the president has issued a “contraception mandate.” It is not that; it is a presidential power grab. No state or other jurisdiction is trying to ban contraception. Neither the Catholic Church nor any other religious body is trying to ban contraception. The means of contraception are even more widely available than in drugstores; one can pick up condoms in restrooms, even in restaurants. The reason for this deception is to make opponents appear to be doing something they are not. They are not banning contraception. It is dishonest to focus on contraception instead of on the real issue, the attempt to extend presidential power into areas constitutionally forbidden to it.

The genius of this deception is its explicit attack on the Catholic Church. This tactic was aided by the Church’s long and well-known moral disapproval of contraception, as an artificial barrier between a man’s and a woman’s complete self-giving. Yet the Church does not try to ban contraception even among its own congregants, only to teach that it is morally wrong, because it reveals a self-absorbed form of love.

In this way, by distorting Church doctrine, the president and his enablers in the press masked his power grab of forcing conscientious objectors to pay for contraception. The press also masked his violation of the Constitution in defining which religious bodies are religious, according to his ideas. Beginning with George Stephanopoulos, most of the press has been a delighted accomplice in misdescribing the issue.

(2) The second deception is that sterilization, contraception, abortifacients — and by logical extension, at the proper hour, abortion — are not matters of private choice, but matters of women’s health. This definition is then expanded into an enforceable right to women’s health. This supposed right is then expanded into a duty upon others to pay for the private choices and values systems of some women. In other words, this is naked coercion in its most deceptive form, and an illicit and twisted use of rights talk.

Pregnancy is a disease? The destruction of an individual human being within, boy or girl, is a matter of women’s health?

(3) The third hidden premise is that President Obama has the power to make laws respecting the self-understanding of churches. Caesar says that only houses of worship and their ministers count as “church” — so now we see the symbolic meaning behind Obama’s use of the columns of ancient pagan temples at his nomination in 2008. He was dreaming of Caesar. And now he is Caesar, lusting for power over what belongs to Caesar, but also over what belongs to God. Rest of the article -http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291299/obamarsquos-deceptive-hidden-premises-michael-novak