If you want to know what the future holds for America, read the following essay.  It’s a blueprint that history has established for how once free nations are beguiled into Socialism and then destruction.

America was never meant or intended to be a democracy - we were intended to be the most fragile form of government; a Republic.  It was the only kind of government that could preserve and sustain the kind of liberty we were gifted as a nation.  Freedom cannot endure in a Democracy and freedom is killed outright in in a Socialist one.

But Americans have been brainwashed into discarding responsibility for hand outs and entitlements. America is far down the road to Socialism and the calls to empower government even larger are deafening. The campaigns for president are nothing but pandering propaganda to institute Socialism.  Obama is being worshipped as a messiah by the media and the masses as some kind of political god in the flesh.  This is a dangerous mindset that ultimately leads to massive bloodshed in revolutions that take republics to horrific dictatorships.

You’re being lied to America - by the very politicians who promise to be your saviors.  Read this essay, it’s the closest thing you have to a real crystal ball if America does not do an abrupt about-face and returns to the roots of our true history and heritage.

THE SAD ROAD TO SOCLIALISM
What happens When Private Property is No Longer a Right
by John Loeffler

“But if the government undertakes to control and to raise wages, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to care for all who may be in want, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to support all unemployed workers, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to lend interest-free money to all borrowers, and cannot do it; if …. ‘The state considers that its purpose is to enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people’ — and if the government cannot do all of these things, what then? Is it not certain that after every government failure — which, alas! is more than probable — there will be an equally inevitable revolution?”-Frederic Bastiat, “The Law,” June, 1850 

It’s been more than 150 years since Frederic Bastiat wrote his treatise, The Law, a small work, challenging the ravages of failing socialism thrust upon France as a result of the French revolution.

In that unique pamphlet, Bastiat points out that when the law of any country supports the moral belief systems of a people, defends the rights of said people and their property, the law is perceived as being moral; a defense against evil and those who flaunt it as being immoral. Payment of taxes and civic obligations are perceived as a virtue and those who flout this as criminals. 

However, when the law becomes a source of plunder or pits itself in opposition to the morals of the people, the people perceive the law to be immoral and widely despise it. Indeed, in those times, flouting the law is extolled as virtue.

Another book by contemporary author Hernando Desoto, The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, points out much the same thing, that the security of ownership of private property guaranteed by law for the lower and middle classes has been the essential ingredient resulting in the prosperity enjoyed by many western countries. Without this security, where the state becomes an impediment to commerce or property ownership, the people are forced to operate their economies outside of law, which is once again perceived as evil, rather than a force for good.

In essence, when a government goes from being a protector of private property to a plunderer of it, it places itself on a course of chaos, economic ruin and its own ultimate self-destruction. 

The Three Steps of Socialism

Socialism is the mechanism which transforms government from its noble role as a protector into a predator and, since the citizens of our fine country seem determined to plow through socialism to its bitter end, we should examine the territory through which these three sad steps lead. The core result of socialism is the destruction of private property and wealth.

The events described in this piece are a composite of the ravages of socialism experienced in other countries. While each country does experience all the events portrayed, all socialist countries follow the same miserable path. The U.S. doesn’t have to go down this path, but it seems determines to do so.

We’re Off to See the Wizard

One of the great dangers of any government by the people is that sooner or later their politicians discover they can vote largess from the public trust. Their first experiment at this bold new adventure invariably revolves around social programs enacted in the name of morality and the public good or even solving some current crisis. Who could oppose that? “After all,” it will be argued, “don’t you care about people, or the welfare of the country, or the environment?”

The lure of this argument has been absolutely irresistible from the Roman Empire to the French and Bolshevik revolutions to Socialist Parties (D) and (R) in the USA today. 

Step One - The Moral Argument: A Promise of Something for Nothing

The moral argument that we can finally solve poverty, pain, sickness, and hunger with “free” money seems just to good to be true. It usually is but it sells to the public. To fund these allegedly moral programs, the assets of the gentle citizens must be quietly taxed in the name of the public good.

Only a few wise and isolated voices warn that this baby dragon they have just hatched will grow up to be a fire-breathing monster. But not to fear, the wise voices are generally shouted down by the gentle politicians, who fiercely demonize protestors as selfish “whabbledygots” blocking the road to the perfect society. After all, how could something so noble do anything bad to the country?

At first the rich are the only ones asked to pay more of their “fair share.” In the U.S. income tax originally only affected upper-bracket individuals. In this early stage, few complain and everyone seems happy, except for those nagging voices still warning of dire consequences ahead; the ones the gentle legislators wish would just shut up. Other than that they have little to fear because the gentle legislators appear to be heroes placing our feet firmly on the road to utopia. Soon they promise all the have-nots will have and those who do have, will have just a little less. After all, as we said, it’s just their “fair share.”

Ah but time rumbles onward, and the number of people dependent upon these programs swells along with the number of “free” government programs. Free things do sell, and that’s what politicians want to do: sell their programs.

As the programs swell, they become unwieldy, requiring large bloated bureaucracies to administer them to ward off the inevitable fraud and corruption, consuming an ever greater part of the tax booty and servicing less to the originally intended recipients. In order to control the chaos of a large group of people cueing up to get something for nothing, large volumes of laws and regulations have to be written to control who gets what and where and when and who the givers and who the takers are. Now, the bureaucrats who administer these programs are also dependent on them for their livelihoods. This entrenches the program and assures its progression to Stage Two.

The Magic Dragon Isn’t Cute Anymore

Somewhere along the line, the gentle legislators discover that their baby dragon has grown and it’s snarling at them a lot. It wants much food. They’re not controlling it; it’s controlling them. However, in order to retain their prestigious position, ever-increasing sources must be found to feed their growing rapacious raptor. 

The food source (tax burden) shifts rapidly downward into the middle class, as the gentle politicians coo that only the rich are being soaked. Concomitant with the increase of taxation, the miracle of hidden taxation through monetary inflation is discovered as central banks print more and more money to allow the good times to continue over and above what direct taxation will allow.

This process of monetary inflation results in debasement of the currency, causing the citizens to work harder and harder and run faster and faster to keep up with the loss of their currency’s value and the concomitant rise of prices. It’s slow at first but accelerates along an insidious exponential path. Ultimately it destroys everything the middle class works for.

Additional reptilian food sources called “revenue streams” are created. More fees, fines, “mitigation payments” and permits are required to do almost anything, driving the cost of doing everything upwards. Coupled with this is a bewildering array of regulation and laws making the business of life more and more difficult to accomplish. Big businesses can absorb this but the middle class ultimately buckles under the strain. The dragon is never satisfied.

Stage 2: Silent War Between Government and Its Citizens

At some point, the unwashed masses suspect their politicians aren’t really gentle any more much less benevolent. This is where a silent war between government and people erupts. It’s a blurry transition through never-never land when the politicians still claim to be gentle but the people sense that they have gone from being protectors of the public good and private property to a plunderers of it; from morality to immorality. 

The “Bastiat” transition doesn’t take place all at once but, one by one, members of the working class realize they’re toiling like mad and getting no where. What they do make is confiscated in taxes or destroyed in inflation. They have little left over and their life’s savings are being destroyed while the politicians tell them all is just fine, creating cognitive dissonance between the hardship workers experience and the good times the politicians promise.

But those friends of the dragon on the dole still insist the dragon’s intentions are moral, even if its methods are not. As tax rates push ever higher into confiscatory ranges, self-preservation kicks in and the people take defensive action against what they no longer perceive as moral duty but legally-sanctioned plunder. They do this at the same time they pretend the gentle politicians are correct even though they know better.

The rich catch on and move their assets offshore and sometimes themselves out of the reach of the dragon; they expatriate. They have the means to structure their finances in such as way as preserve wealth. Besides, the politicians are frequently among this class so they aren’t about to let the dragon loose on themselves.

Unfortunately, the middle class doesn’t have this option, so it fights the dragon by engaging in evasive maneuvers. Citizens cheat on taxes, and seek to conceal taxable assets. Whenever possible transactions are shielded from the ever-prying eyes of the hungry dragon.

As the ravages of taxation and inflation eat out the middle class’s substance, a vibrant underground economy springs up, utilizing barter, cash, foreign currencies, precious metals or other means to conceal taxable activity. Regulatory laws are flouted as people try to “see what they can get away with.” Often times this underground economy has an organized crime component vis a vis the former Soviet Union.

The second half of Stage Two of the war kicks into gear as the dragon responds to the rising opposition and imposes a growing panoply of laws and regulations with increasing fines, penalties and prison sentences. To block the rampant flouting of law, the dragon wants to monitor everything the citizens do in order to assure that plunder shall be paid, all in the name of the rule of law, public order and morality. Civil rights break down, all in the name of morality and public security.

Every once in a while the beleaguered middle class pleads with the gentle politicians to fix the problem, unaware that it was the gentle politicians, who created it all in the first place. But politicians are more than happy to be seen as dragon slayers, and create a series of scapegoats for the problem, transferring blame for the mess and enacting a new series of programs to supposedly fix the problem. In reality, they just delay the pain, put the dragon on steroids and making the problem far worse.

The war is not without casualties. As it becomes ever more difficult for small businesses to function in the poisoned atmosphere of taxes, fees, fines, regulations and prosecutions, more of the middle class throws up its hands and goes elsewhere or becomes part of the the dependent poor. Small business goes out of business or operates illegally. As inflation devours life savings, people are wiped out. Retirees have a difficult time getting on as their lifetime achievements are destroyed. Most of the middle class slides inexorably down the slope into poverty.

There is a moral consequence as scandals erupt in the politico and monied classes. Disrespect of law is common. In the free-for-all, everyone is in it for himself and no one can afford to obey the law. Jails swell with those unfortunate enough to get caught. As more complex laws are steadily passed, finally all citizens become law-breakers. 

This enables the dragon to seek pretexts for seizing the assets of citizens. Businesses are nationalized. Wage and price controls are instituted. Property ownership is forcibly transferred from those who oppose the dragon to those who support it. Retirement plans are brought under the “protection” of government and their owners left with government-issued IOUs. Assets are seized on the mere allegation of criminal activity. Indeed, law enforcement agencies encourage their members to plunder. They even make arrangements with organized crime at times. The list of plunder-and-defend possibilities is astounding.

In an effort to stem the hemorrhage, the middle class starts throwing out the rascal politicians, only to elect another group of rascals. This has little effect, since the dragon is now a self-existing monster that doesn’t require gentle politicians. By this stage it’s clear: Small and middle class businesses, ranchers and farmers all know who the enemy is: the dragon. There is no illusion that the politicians are gentle or acting in their best interests.

As the security of property ownership declines, investments flee and the economic environment becomes unstable, no one wants to invest where earnings will be heavily taxed, or even the possibility of direct confiscation on the allegation of having violated a plethora of unknowable, unobservable laws. Doing business is just too dangerous. 

As doing business becomes dangerous, investments die, jobs go out of existence, increasing the pain of the working lower and middle classes. Small business is always the primary creator of employment and it is the most abused. In the end, the rich are never soaked, the middle class is destroyed and the poor discover that there is no free lunch.

Stage Three: Dies Irae: A Day of Wrath and Mourning

Ultimately the dragon cannot keep its promises. This last stage is where events turn nasty and chaotic. It is a dangerous time. It is a time no country should ever wish to reach.

Politicians are perceived as ravenous wolves. Blame and finger-pointing frenzies among politicians erupt to deflect responsibility for the chaos they have caused as they attempt to hold onto their privileged status.

Faith in government dissolves along with faith in the currency. Widespread flouting of law is common and tax payments quit. If it gets bad enough, crime flourishes, both organized and random. The domestic economy collapses into a depression and the currency just collapses.

By this time there are several violently outraged groups of people: the first group consists of those who have been dependent on the dragon for their free programs, and once the dragon reneges on its promises to provide these, they are outraged at the violation of their imagined rights to a free lunch. This group can include pensioners who paid the dragon money but discover the dragon spent it all before they retired.

The second group is the middle class, who have been beaten to death to feed the dragon and his cronies. They have lost all their livelihood and property. This is the point where many revolutions occur. Sometimes the revolutions are non-bloody and occur only at the voting booths; sometimes they are bloody and violent. It is a dangerous time because the chaos caused by the breakdown of economic and political order coupled with the collapse of morality often requires brute force to restore order, and brute force is the fertile ground for dictators and the destruction of rights.

One of the great ironies of history is that those who started the mess and benefitted greatly from it are rarely ever called to pay for the crimes and carnage they caused. 

Finally the dragon dies.

Conclusion

No country trapped in socialism goes through all the events described above, which is a composite of past histories. It can turn itself at any time providing it is prepared to discipline itself the undergo the pain required to get off the public dole, much like coming off an addiction. Few societies ever want to face that, so they condemn themselves to all three stages. And the longer they wait to enact the necessary changes, the worse the pain becomes.

From currency, to energy to property rights, issues today are clouded with so much static and partisan bickering that the average person has little real comprehension of what is happening. Frequently Democrats and Republicans blame each other when often they’re both responsible and fiddle while Rome burns.

America is truly at an economic and moral crossroad, having already started into Stage Two of the sad road to socialism. Whether or not we plow through all three stages remains to be seen. It takes great moral courage to prevent this but politicians tend to be neither moral or courageous.

Thus it is up to what actions are moral, legal and necessary to see us, our families and friends safely through the tempest. But as a ray of hope, it is here where Americans in times past have always shown themselves most noble.

Can being forced to wear yellow stars and crosses be far behind?

While I am not a Catholic, I view this condemnation of the Catholic Church as the first shot across the bow in the escalation towards government ostracization and criminalization of ALL people of the Christian faith, Protestant OR Catholic.

I find it simply amazing that a government body that has no moral outrage or courage to condemn Jihadist Islam for their acts of barbarism and instead defends them, finds within themselves the authority to officially condemn Catholics with a vitriol that Islamists are strangely immune from.

The hedonists on the Left have taken their own secularist and hedonistic jihad against the devout of faith to a whole new level; government condemnation of an entire denomination of faith for their rejection of a lifestyle that they believe is sinful.  Coupled with the insane push to criminalize any criticism of Homosexuality and the ridiculous lawsuit against the publishers of the bible for ‘hate crime discrimination against Gays’ for printing what God says in the scriptures.

It will continue to go downhill from here because we’ve seen before where this kind of thing always leads.

Camps, for reeducation or death.

Somehow, Christians in America have overlooked and forgotten the fact Jesus said we would be hated of all nations for His Name’s sake.  Mainly I would imagine for standing on His Word and refusing to capitulate to the pimps of sin.

Major U.S. city officially condemns Catholic Church
Instructs members to defy ‘Holy Office of Inquisition’ 

A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church’s moral teachings on homosexuality as “insulting to all San Franciscans,” “hateful,” “defamatory,” “insensitive” and “ignorant” will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution’s prohibition of government hostility toward religion.

Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a “foreign country” meddling with and attempting to “negatively influence (San Francisco’s) existing and established customs.”

It said of the church’s teaching on homosexuality, “Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors.”

As WND reported, Resolution 168-08 was an official response to the Catholic Church’s ban on adoption placements into homosexual couple households, issued by Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican.

The board’s resolution urged the city’s local archbishop and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy the Vatican’s instructions, concluding with a spiteful reminder that the church authority that issued the ban was known 100 years ago as “The Holy Office of the Inquisition.”

The resolution also took a shot at Levada, the former archbishop of San Francisco, saying, “Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear.”

The anti-Catholic diatribe had been challenged in U.S. District Court on similar grounds, but District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the city, saying, in essence, the church started it.

She wrote in her decision, “The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement” for instructing Catholicpoliticians on how to vote. This court does not find that our case law requires political bodies to remain silent in the face of provocation.”

She ruled that the city’s proclamation was not entangling the government in church affairs, since the resolution was a non-binding, non-regulatory announcement.

Since no law was enacted, she ruled, city officials – even in their official capacity as representatives of the government – can say what they want.

“It is merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders,” she wrote.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is appealing the District Court decision on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco, disagrees with Patel’s decision.

“Sadly, the ruling itself clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church,” he said in a statement. “The judge in her written decision held that the Church ‘provoked the debate’ by publicly expressing its moral teaching, and that by passing the resolution the City responded ‘responsibly’ to all of the ‘terrible’ things the Church was saying.”

Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case tomorrow morning in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith,” he said.

“In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of the government to attack the Catholic Church. Their egregious abuse of power has now the backing of a lower federal court. … Unfortunately, all too often we see a double standard being applied in Establishment Clause cases,” Muise said.

Thomas More attorneys argued in the District Court case that the “anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message” that Catholics are “outsiders, not full members of the political community.”

The cultural, and now political, straight-arm to adherents of the Christian faith in San Francisco has been increasingly public in the last two years. Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution was passed, the San Francisco Board issued a similar resolution against a mostly evangelical group.

Following a gathering of 25,000 teens at San Francisco’s AT&T Park as part of Ron Luce’s Teen Mania “Battle Cry for a Generation” rally against the sexualization of America’s youth culture by advertisers and media, the board spoke out formally again.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the “act of provocation” by what it termed an “anti-gay,” “anti-choice” organization that aimed to “negatively influence the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city.”

Openly homosexual California Assemblyman Mark Leno told protesters of the teen rally that though such religious people may be few, “they’re loud, they’re obnoxious, they’re disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco.”

The Chronicle also reported a San Francisco protester against the evangelical youth rally carried a sign that may sum up the sentiment: “I moved here to get away from people like you.”

The Thomas More Law Center hopes the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide in the case of Resolution 1680-08 that even if a large portion of the community is at odds with a religion’s views on homosexuality, the government cannot be used as a weapon to condemn religious faith.

Currently, as WND has reported, Colorado and Michigan are tackling the question of whether the Bible itself can be vilified as “hate speech” for it’s condemnation of homosexuality, and Canada has developed human rights commissions, which have decided people cannot express opposition to homosexuality without fear of government reprisal.

For a guy whose disciples say can CHANGE water into environmentally responsible wine, and can walk on oil and gas instead of putting it into a tank to save the planet, and heal the rising oceans and give jobs to the homeless - there is little of an actual record that exists to showcase that Obama stands for anything he promises, much less prove he is capable of doing so once he achieves High Office.

Even his campaign commercials are full of lies about his accomplishments.

Just what exactly is America about to annoint here?  A president, a messiah or an empty suit that is really nothing that he portrays himself as?

Do I give Barrack Hussein The Obama credit and suggest that his motives with such an empty record are perhaps more sinister than we dare even think about? This guy has wanted to rule since he was a kid in Indonesia - America needs to be very afraid of this false messiah.

Obama’s Inexperience Tough to Ignore

A close look at Barack Obama’s career reveals it has been even more mediocre than generally recognized.

Before being elected to the Illinois state Senate, Obama worked as a community organizer and a lawyer in Chicago.

 

In his memoir, Obama says being a community organizer taught him how to motivate the powerless and work the government to help them. His chief example is an effort to remove asbestos from Altgeld Gardens, an all-black public housing project on Chicago’s South Side.

But those who were involved in the effort say Obama played a minor role in working the problem and never accomplished his goal. A pre-existing group at Altgeld Gardens and a local newspaper, the Chicago Reporter, were working on the problem before Obama came on the scene, yet Obama does not mention them in his book, “Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.”

“Just because someone writes it, doesn’t make it true,” says Altgeld resident Hazel Johnson, who had been pushing for a cleanup of the cancer-producing substance years before Obama showed up.

Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Ill., says it was Johnson’s work, along with asbestos testing by the Chicago Reporter, that got Chicago officials interested in the issue. Rush, who launched an inquiry into the situation when he was a member of the Chicago City Council, says he is “offended” that Obama did not mention Johnson in his account.

“Was [Obama] involved in stuff? Absolutely,” says Robert Ginsburg, an activist who worked with Johnson and Obama on the problem. “But there was stuff happening before him, and after him.”

After three years working as an organizer, Obama could say he helped obtain grants for a jobs program and got asbestos removed from some pipes in the project. But as the Los Angeles Times has noted, the “large-scale change that was needed at the 1,998-unit project was beyond his reach.” To this day, most of the asbestos remains in the apartments.

Fruitless though his efforts were, Obama devoted more than 100 pages to his experiences at Altgeld Gardens and surrounding areas. Michelle Obama has said his work as a community organizer helped him decide “how he would impact the world,” assisting people to improve their lives. Yet, in a revealing passage in his book, Obama wrote, “When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly.”

Instead, he said, “I’d pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds. Change in the congress, compliant and corrupt. Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed. Change won’t come from the top, I would say. Change will come from a mobilized grass roots.”

Thus, Obama admitted that he accomplished little but that he was able to cover that up with fancy talk about change.

After going to Harvard Law School, Obama returned to Chicago, where he briefly headed a voter registration drive and then became a lawyer. While Obama’s campaign has touted him as a civil rights lawyer, “Over the nine years that Obama’s law license was active in Illinois, he never handled a trial and mostly worked in teams of lawyers who drew up briefs and contracts in a variety of cases,” according to David Mendell’s “Obama: From Promise To Power.”

A review of the cases Obama worked on during his brief legal career “shows he played the strong, silent type in court, introducing himself and his client, then stepping aside to let other lawyers do the talking,” the Chicago Sun-Times has reported.

“A search of all the cases in Cook County Circuit Court in which Obama made an appearance since he graduated from Harvard in 1991 shows: zero,” the article said.

Instead, his practice was “confined mainly to federal court in Chicago, where he made formal appearances in only five district court cases and another five in cases before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — a total of 10 cases in his legal career,” the paper said.

If Obama had virtually no impact as either a community organizer or as a lawyer, he was even more invisible in the state Senate and later in the U.S. Senate.

In both bodies, Obama had a reputation for voting “present,” thus avoiding controversial decisions that could be used against him later. In the U.S. Senate, he has missed more than one in five votes.

Only one of the measures Obama has sponsored as a U.S. senator was enacted: a bill to “promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.”

Contrary to Obama’s portrayal of himself as a unifier, on every bipartisan effort in the Senate to forge compromises on tough issues, Obama has been missing in action.

In sum, it would be difficult to imagine a more mediocre record. Most candidates for dog catcher have contributed more to society. Yet with the help of adoring reporters, Obama has managed to parlay extraordinary speaking and political skills into a presidential campaign built on sand.

The idea that America might entrust its security and future to someone who has never demonstrated an ability to get anything of significance done is scary.

I listened with amusement to the cardinals carrying the holy rhetoric for Lord Messiah Obama’s campaign, feigning outrage over the depiction of a cartoon of Obama in Muslim garb knocking fists with his wife Michelle in 60’s Black Panther radical garb with an American flag burning in the fireplace while a portrait of Osama Bin Laden graces the wall of the Oval Office.

The cartoon graced the cover of the decidedly liberal rag The New Yorker, and was an apparent attempt to paint what they assume middle America thinks of his lordship, Obama and thus insulate him from such criticisms.  Of course as some political analysts have observed, they underestimated the self-absorption the messiah Obama has of himself.

The cartoon has now become another official issue that we the little people of this nation that needs “changing” may not utter or engage in among the rest of the things that Obama has forbidden us to discuss.  Among them are:

We cannot talk about his big ears because that made him nervous. 

We can’t mention his middle name.

We can’t talk about his mother.

We can’t talk about his father.

We can’t talk about his grandmother. Only he can in the context of a “typical white person.”

We can’t talk about his wife.

We can’t talk about his preacher or his anti-American terrorist friends of which he has had long relationships.

We can’t talk about his voting record.

We can’t talk about his religion.

We can’t talk about his appeasement of rogue regimes and terror-sponsoring states.

We can’t talk about color; we can’t talk about lack of color.

We can’t talk about race. We can’t talk about his schooling in Indonesia. 

We can’t talk about his lack of experience.

We Can’t talk about his income or any sweetheart real estate deals he has received.

We can’t talk about his flag pin.

We can’t call him a liberal.

Now we can’t even draw political cartoons about him.

Hmmmmm….I can’t seem to recall, but wasn’t there a particular bunch of religious fanatics that went berserk and rioted in Europe and Denmark and burned down consulates and stuff around the world over cartoons they did not like?

Ah yes, those wacky Presbyterians.

In lord Obama’s coming kingdom, you may curse the nation from the pulpit, but to demean his holiness in any way, including political satire is sacrilege.

We Have Restored The Soveriegn

By Rev. Peter Marshall

From the new edition of The Light and The Glory - 2008 

In Philadelphia an almost fantasy-like refusal to accept the reality of what had already taken place seems to have held the colonial representatives firmly in its thrall. So strong was it that they spent much time carefully drafting a conciliatory appeal addressed directly to King George who, when it was presented to him, disdained to even look at it.

The situation was reminiscent of the Israelites in the wilderness, convincing one another that they had been better off in Egypt, and growing daily more certain that the only thing to do was to go back. For out in the wilderness they were forced to face the unknown and to put their entire trust in God. There was no one else to trust! Forgotten was all memory of the slave pits and the grinding, hopeless existence they knew, before the Lord God of Hosts delivered them. All they could remember now was that their bellies had been full, and they had known where their next meal was coming from, even if it was only stale crusts.

It may well have been the unknown – of having to trust in God, because there was nowhere else to turn – that was causing many delegates to Congress in 1776 to turn their thoughts back to a less perilous time of  the 1740’s, or fifties, or sixties.

There were, however, a few realists in Congress who were not trying to escape into fantasy – men like John and Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry and the others from Virginia. At least, John Adams, often the most persevering of the realists, had the benefit of having a wife with an extraordinary awareness of exactly what was at stake. As Abigail wrote to him on June 18:

“I feel no anxiety at the large armament designed against us. The remarkable interpositions of heaven in our favor cannot be too gratefully acknowledged. He who fed the Israelites in the wilderness, who clothes the lilies of the field and who feeds the young ravens when they cry, will not forsake a people engaged in so righteous a cause, if we remember His loving kindness.”

Adams and the other realists saw clearly that events had progressed beyond the point of no return, and that to go back now would be to go back under England’s terms – under a far-from-benevolent dictatorship. For despite the support of eloquent and high-minded Members of Parliament, the prevailing sentiment there reflected the King’s own intransigence (as well it might, since George III’s personal patronage had bought the majority of the seats). In the Kings eyes, the only way to deal with rebellion was to crush it. To show even the slightest mercy was to invite a recurrence in the future.

Nevertheless, great Parliamentarians like Pitt, Burke, and Fox, in speaking out for the cause of America, reached heights of oratory seldom heard since the days of Rome.

Of those in sympathy with the American cause, the most impressive address came not from the House of Lords, but from the House of Commons. There, Mr. George Johnstone spoke in terms so ringing that he might have been standing alongside Samuel Adams or Patrick Henry.

     “To a mind who loves to contemplate the glorious spirit of freedom, no spectacle can be more affecting than the action on Bunker Hill. To see an irregular peasantry commanded by a physician (he was referring to Patriot leader Dr. Joseph Warren, killed as one of the last defenders), inferior in number, opposed by every circumstance of cannon and bombs that could terrify timid minds, calmly waiting the attack of the gallant Howe leading on the best troops in the world, with an excellent train of artillery, and twice repulsing those very troops who had often chased the chosen battalions of France, and at last retiring for want of ammunition, but in so respectable a manner that they were not even pursued—who can reflect on such scenes and not adore the constitution of government which could breed such men! Who is there that can dismiss all doubts on the justice of the cause which can inspire such conscious rectitude?

     The conduct of the people of New England for wisdom, courage, temperance, fortitude and all those qualities that can command the admiration of noble minds, is not surpassed in the history of any nation under the sun. Instead of wreaking our vengeance against that colony, their heroism alone should plead their forgiveness.^”

Neither the King, nor any of his Ministers, nor any of his bought Members of Parliament, had ears to hear.  That same day, George III publicly announced his decision to crush the rebellion by force of arms, including the use of mercenaries. When the ensuing debate was finally over, the House of Lords voted in favor of the King’s address, 76 to 33, and Commons voted 278 to 108 in favor. England declared war.

Even so, seven months later, as the first week of June, 1776, drew to a close, the majority of men in Congress in Philadelphia were hoping against hope that some eleventh-hour formula for reconciliation might be found. They were aware of what it would mean, and how much it might personally cost them, if they were to cast their votes with those few who were now calling for an open declaration of independence. Such a move would close the door forever to any possibility of rapprochement with the Crown. Down on their necks would come the full military might on land and sea of the greatest power on earth. Even if they were truly united, they could not hope to stand up to such a force for long.

All their debates over the past weeks had indicated how utterly separated and individualistic these Thirteen Colonies actually still were. It would take a miracle of God to bring them into unity. . . .  Dare they commit the Colonies they represented to such peril?

Though none of the delegates openly spoke of their personal jeopardy, it was surely on the mind of more than a few.  The men who signed such a declaration would, in the quite probable event of America’s defeat, be held personally responsible. And throughout the British Empire, the penalty for instigating rebellion against the Crown was death. As Ben Franklin put it wryly, “Gentlemen, we must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we will all be hanged separately.”

The yearning to be free and stay free was gaining momentum. On May 10, town meetings all over Massachusetts had unanimously voted in favor of independence. On May 15, the Virginia Convention voted for independence. And on June 7, documented evidence arrived of the treaties which George III had made with the German princes, purchasing the use of their mercenaries in America. In the face of that, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia formally proposed that Congress make a declaration of independence, stating that these united Colonies are, and of a right ought to be, free and independent states. John Adams immediately seconded the proposal. After a day’s debate, Congress adjourned for three weeks to let the doubtful representatives of the middle Colonies go home to sound out the will of their constituents.

In the meantime, Franklin, Adams, Sherman of Connecticut, Livingston of New York, and young Jefferson of Virginia hurried to draw up a draft of the proposed declaration.

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal. . . . We, therefore, the representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States. . . . And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Jefferson did most of the final composing, borrowing heavily from the popular phraseology of the day – except for the two phrases, “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions” and “with a Firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence.” Congress insisted upon including these phrases, over Jefferson’s vehement objection, for he was a confirmed “enlightened rationalist,” soon to become privately a Unitarian.

So resentful was Jefferson at their tampering with his prose, that he sent copies of his original draft to his personal friends, that they might better appreciate his unedited effort.

June 28: The convention of Maryland voted for independence. Word reached Philadelphia that New Jersey had dismissed her old delegates and was sending new ones, who were instructed to vote for independence.

July 1: Congress entered what John Adams called “the greatest debate of all.” Dickinson of Pennsylvania spoke eloquently and at length against independence. When he had finished, there was a long and thoughtful silence. Adams kept hoping that someone “less obnoxious” than himself, who was “believed to be the author of all the mischief,” would rise to answer. But none did, and so, with great reluctance, Adams rose. And he spoke with such quiet power and conviction that not a man present remained unmoved, especially as he reached his conclusion:

“Before God, I believe the hour has come. My judgment approves this measure, and my whole heart is in it. All that I have, and all that I am, and all that I hope in this life, I am now ready here to stake upon it. And I leave off as I began, that live or die, survive or perish, I am for the Declaration. It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God it shall be my dying sentiment, Independence now, and Independence for ever!^”

No one spoke. Just then, the door swung open and in strode a mud-spattered figure with two others behind him. It was Dr. John Witherspoon, at the head of the New Jersey delegation. Apologizing for being late, he said that although he had not heard the debate, he had not lacked sources of information on the various issues. “Gentlemen, New Jersey is ready to vote for independence. In our judgment, the country is not only ripe for independence, but we are in danger of becoming rotten for the want of it, if we delay any longer.”

The Congress proceeded to the vote, and nine of the thirteen Colonies voted with New Jersey that day: Pennsylvania and South Carolina votedno, and New York abstained. Delaware was split, one delegate to one.

Since Congress was, in effect, only acting as a committee on behalf of the whole country, they had agreed that any decision on the Declaration would have to be unanimous. It was decided that debate would resume the next morning, to be followed by another vote. In the meantime, to resolve the Delaware deadlock, which could well decide the outcome, an express rider was dispatched to Dover, which would become the capital of Delaware, to fetch their third delegate, Caesar Rodney.

A Patriot of deep conviction, Rodney had been summoned home on urgent business. But now the express rider arrived at his farm at two in the morning, bearing word that debate would resume in less than seven hours, after which the final vote would be taken. Quickly getting dressed and saddling his best horse, Rodney galloped off into the pitch-black, stormy night. It was eighty-nine miles to Philadelphia, over stretches of road which were difficult under the best of conditions, and this night the conditions could hardly have been worse. Streams which were normally fordable with ease had become swollen torrents, and the rain had turned one portion of the road into a quagmire so deep that Rodney had to dismount and lead his horse through it, to avoid its being crippled.

Unable to obtain a fresh change of horses until dawn, Rodney nevertheless arrived at the State House by 1:00 p.m. just as the final vote was being taken. Half-carried into the assembly room, he was barely able to speak: “As I believe the voice of my constituents and of all sensible and honest men is in favor of independence, my own judgment concurs with them. I vote for independence.”

Few knew the circumstances surrounding Rodney’s vote. Caesar Rodney had cancer of the face, so advanced that he had taken to wearing a scarf around his neck to hide the disfigurement of his jaw. He had been planning a trip to England, because he had heard of a doctor in London, who might be able to help him. But he, and every man in that room, was well aware that if they declared independence Britain would immediately declare war on America and invade the Colonies. Caesar Rodney knew that he might never see England before he died of cancer. Nonetheless, without a moment’s hesitation, he voted “aye” for independence.

The last line of the document he had just voted to approve says: “With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we pledge to one another our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

With his vote Rodney had literally pledged his life – and gave us the Declaration. Had he voted “Nay,” Delaware’s vote would have been “Nay,” for the other two delegates had once again split their vote. Lacking a unanimous vote, the issue would have been tabled.

As it was, the vote was unanimous – twelve to none, with New York abstaining. The Thirteen Colonies had just become the United States of America.

In the silence that followed the announcement of the vote, the afternoon sun cast its soft rays through the tall windows – on a brass candlestick standing on a green felt table-covering, a carved eagle over the door, a pair of steel-rimmed spectacles lying on a polished desk.

The magnitude of what they had done began to weigh upon them, and they realized that they and their countrymen were no longer Englishmen, but citizens of a fledging nation barely a few minutes old. Many stared out the window. Some had tears in their eyes. A few, like Witherspoon, bowed their heads and closed their eyes in prayer.

Two days later, as President of the Continental Congress, John Hancock would legalize the Declaration by placing his famous signature on it. Now, he broke the silence: “Gentlemen, the price on my head has just been doubled!”

A month after the vote was taken, delegates who wished to sign the Declaration of Independence began gathering in Philadelphia on August 1. That evening, Samuel Adams spoke to those who had arrived, and put into sharp spiritual focus what they had accomplished: “We have this day restored the Sovereign, to Whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and. . . from the rising to the setting sun, may his Kingdom come.”

By Jim O’Brien

Today is the 4th of July, the day that America celebrates Independence.

Frank Buckles is 107 years old and still going strong. A farmer from Charleston, West Virginia, he is the last surviving doughboy of WWI. He was just 15 years old when he entered the army and was dispatched to England on the Carpathia. By the time WWII came along he was employed by a shipping company. He was on a business trip to the Philippines when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. He was taken captive as a prisoner of war and lived a tortured life for 39 months.

His mind is still sharp. An affable man, fighting has not only been a part of his life but the rest of his family as well. He remembers his great great grandfather talking about serving in the Revolutionary war.

America began with a fight. I guess some could call it an avoidable war but freedom would not have occurred without it, not only for us but other countries as well. When the French Revolution occurred, the Declaration of Independence was read aloud from the street corners throughout France. It has been used as a model of inspiration for people everywhere ever since.

It was a fight to defend basic rights; the right of self-determination, the right of private ownership, the right to hold leaders accountable, and the right to justice to name a few. Freedom is not a universal value and it does not come without a fight.

Some people believe that man has no right to self-defense whatever the circumstances. The Bible is often used to support that concept in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary.

The Bible has a lot to say about fighting. And generally it isn’t what the timid or faint of heart expect.

When God gave His law to Moses, He commanded that a near relative should avenge murder (Num 35:19). The accused was allowed to flee to a city of refuge for trial. But the relative could take vengeance if the accused did not go directly to the city or if he left before the death of the High Priest. If he did the near kinsman of the victim was allowed to take the life of the offender. The reason the near kinsman was required to take revenge was that he was the inheritor of the victim‚s property. He had a vested interest to protect his family.

God seems to understand man’s timidity in the face of a fight. In fact, when Israel was fleeing Egypt God intentionally took them a circuitous route to avoid facing the Philistines. He knew the fear of war would cause them to turn and run (Exodus 13:17).

Jesus expected that truth would stir up trouble. He said he did not come to bring peace but a sword (Matt. 10:34). If a man thinks that becoming Christian means a life without fighting, he is mistaken.

And He expects us to prepare for opposition. In fact, when Jesus gave instructions to his disciples at the last Passover service he would observe with them he gave instructions for them to sell, if necessary, a second garment and buy a sword (Luke 22:36). His disciples responded that among the assembled group there were two swords at the time.

Later when He was take prisoner by a servant of the high priest, one of the disciples took out a sword and cut off a soldier’s ear. It is doubtful the disciple was aiming for the ear.

It is fascinating that people who read the Bible overlook these many references. It is filled with military references. The Patriarchs were often military leaders. Even the prophet Gideon, when God’s Spirit came upon him, went to war. Paul talked of fighting the good fight. It is a common theme throughout scripture.

But why does God focus so many scriptures on this subject?

One may as well ask, Why do men enslave others? Why do they build walls around countries guarded by sentries? Why do they cross an ocean to destroy the financial center of free people who seek peace? The answer is as clear as it is simple. There is something that hates freedom. It is a spirit that desires worship under threat of force.

Men who worship God do so from choice. Only men with a heart of freedom can make such a choice.

It has ever been and shall always be.

When our country was founded one of the books that turned the hearts of the patriots to resist the tyranny of oppressive government was “Common Sense” written by Thomas Paine. He reasoned that freedom could only exist without the burden of kings or powerful churches.

It is amazing that Paine referenced churches with oppressive government. What is important for a nation is equally important for a congregation. One of the founding tenets of this nation was freedom of religion. That meant freedom from another man’s religion.

It is an incredible thought that men had to die so that [y]our congregation can exist. We are free to worship God as we understand Him because someone was willing to fight.

Congregations, like nations, have the right as well as the responsibility to defend against oppressive church governments, heresy, disrespect by unruly attendees and abusive leaders. The willingness to stand against such threats is part of the heritage received and the legacy to pass on.

A Necessary Observance

Mark Alexander

If our nation’s Founders could visit us on this, our 232nd Independence Day, what would they make of us? What would they declare of us?

A hint can be discerned in a letter from John Adams to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776, as the Declaration of Independence had just been approved. “It ought to be commemorated,” said the man who would become our second president, “as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Day’s Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.”

Americans have maintained the “Pomp and Parade” for more than two centuries now, and the “Bonfires and Illuminations” are commonplace, but how often do we recognize Independence Day as “the Day of Deliverance?” How often do we honor it with “solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty”? How often do we contemplate the cost of our freedom, “the Toil and Blood and Treasure?”

Our Founders believed that independence was more than a choice; they viewed our break from royal rule as necessary.

Consider the first statement of the Declaration: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

The signatories were emphatic that separation from the crown was not only an objective, but an obligation: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.” In conclusion, the Founders wrote, “We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation…”

Their cause, of course, was not anti-government. Rather they objected to the misgovernment of the king, saying, “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Furthermore, the Americans had been patient, petitioning their British rulers for redress for over a decade. Armed hostilities had commenced on April 19, 1775, at the battles of Lexington and Concord, and the colonists faced the full power of the British Empire in their quest for American independence.

One year before taking that step for nationhood, on July 5, 1775, the Continental Congress adopted the Olive Branch Petition, beseeching the British king for a peaceful resolution of the American colonies’ grievances. A day later, that same Congress resolved the “Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking Up Arms.”

King George III refused to read the peace petition and assembled his armies. On July 2, 1776, Richard Henry Lee’s proposal for a formal declaration of separation passed, and the document was ordered printed on July 4.

The war-weary among us today might ask, was independence really necessary?

To pose the question at the outset of the Revolutionary War was to answer it. Representatives of the colonial Americans realized that, in voicing this query, they already possessed proof that they, not the King of England, were legitimate instruments of self-government for their countrymen. How could circumstances be otherwise when the king offered no remedy for his subjects’ complaints, no guarantee their rights would be respected, and no means for them to govern themselves in their new lands?

The founders knew, however, that power could not be its own justification. They recognized that only an appeal to overarching laws, binding the king as much as his subjects, was legitimate. And abuse of authority demonstrated disqualification of any governor, whether a monarch or a purported representative.

We would do well to apply this insight to the political debates of today.

Indeed, two competing philosophies of government at odds during the American Revolution have reappeared, with the anti-republican form seen in those politicians who would seek to gain favor by manipulating language and misrepresenting their positions. Royalists, on the other hand, believed that the king was divinely ordained to rule over the people and was therefore above the law. This view is manifest currently in government officials—especially our elected officers—who believe they may properly command the citizenry to whatever they please, to whichever they purport to be for the good of the people.

As Thomas Jefferson observed, “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.” Yet the prevailing philosophy of government proposes exactly this—that directions from Washington as to how we must conduct ourselves, in matters large and small, will lead inexorably to scarcity and will inevitably erode our freedom.

Our system of government today is not so different from the monarchy we escaped, except that a swarm of bureaucrats have taken up the throne.

A necessity thus presents itself to us as well: We must reconnect with the timeless principles that inspired our Founding Fathers; those same principles that long ago gave birth to a good, great and God-blessed nation.

“[W]hat do we mean by the American Revolution?” reflected John Adams. “Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations… This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.”

Let us celebrate this Independence Day 2008 in a manner that Adams himself might recognize—with “solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty,” and with a rededication to the principles of our necessary American Revolution. And as always, in the words of George Washington, “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

 

Vindicators of the Declaration

Our nation was born on the shoulders of an army, whose exertions and principled patriotism gave the famous parchment its life.

This is not a surprise to me since one of these Obama-supporters on this very blog said that when they succeed in the revolution they are bringing to America, people like me will be executed.

If it truly is war they want, they have no clue what they are asking for.

Or maybe they do, since so many of them coddle Jihad terrorists and consider them allies in their struggle.

 

Obama site urges: ‘Revolution’ against U.S. ‘oppressive’ regime
Marxists, socialists, communists form group to plot on official campaign blog

By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

 

JERUSALEM – Marxists, socialists and communists have created a safe space online to congregate, exchange ideas – including a stated revolution against the U.S. “oppressive” regime – and support their favored presidential candidate.

Their meeting spot? Sen. Barack Obama’s official campaign website, which allows registered users to form groups and post content in online “community” blogs.

One popular community group on the Illinois senator’s official MyObama website calls itself“Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama.”

“This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx’s writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat,” states the groups charter.

“We support Barack Obama because he knows what is best for the people!” exclaims the group’s online creed.

And on Obama’s site, the declared Marxist, communist and socialist bloggers rant against such varied targets as Republicans, capitalism and the Fox News Channel. According to author profiles, the bloggers range from registered voters to underage high school students who state they are looking to foment revolt.

 

 

In a posting titled “The Nature of the Proletariat,” one group member calls for revolution against the U.S. “oppressive” regime.

According to Marxist doctrine, the proletariat is the only class that can overpower and vanquish the oppressive bourgeoisie. … In America, the ‘peasantry’ is not scattered from each other but rather seem (sic) to be isolated in certain high-population areas. This then leaves the Petty-Bourgeoisie. Are they a possible force of a Revolution? I believe so. Not because I think that they could on there own, but because of the fact that they seemed to have assimilated with the Proletariat.The middle class is now made up of the laborers who must face the grueling task of providing the bourgeoisie with power and capital. This assimilation only proves that the Revolution is inevitable.

“Eventually, the bourgeoisie controlled government will fail to keep the ever growing masses at bay, and the Revolution will occur,” adds the posting.

The user argues Obama will help advance the “revolution,” which he says can be a physical revolt or massive governmental reform:

“The Neo-proleatarian is now the bearer of the Revolution. That’s why I support Obama. He helps destroy the paradigm of bourgeoisie government, which is best for the Proletariat. In the end, this will only hasten the Revolution even if the Revolution must come as a massive government reform.”

Another posting by a registered group member calling himself “The Chalk Graffiti Terrorist” argues on Obama’s site against the “evils” of capitalism.

“We can’t just accept the evil side of capitalism. The nature of capitalism is to maximize profits, and this is often done by minimizing expenditure—in short, cutting costs. And cutting costs means less benefits, less pay, and poorer conditions for the workers. But capitalism has more evil in it than that. The profit motive drives the destruction of our environment, it has caused the current foreclosure crisis, and it exploits and basically enslaves those poor not protected by legitimate representative government.”

One group member urges Obama site readers to support the FairTax bill, which calls for the abolishment of the IRS and for the income tax to be replaced with a national consumption tax. The bill has some support across the U.S. political spectrum, including with some Republicans.

“This bill was created to try and rectify the problems that have emerged from the Federal Income Tax and the IRS’s existence. It would repeal the 16th Amedment and put in its place a national sales tax for the United States Government to collect revenue.”

It was not immediately clear whether Obama’s website staff approves new groups registered on his site. His campaign did not return WND e-mail and phone requests for comment. While the website carries a disclaimer that it does not monitor all blog posts, the site doesn’t state whether staff approve new groups.

According to the MyObama site, there were 18,911 registered community groups as of yesterday, including such groups as “Atheists for Obama,” “Jedi Knights for Obama,” “Muslims for Obama” and “‘The Secret’ Believers for Obama.”

Obama spokesmen previously have stated the campaign cannot monitor all content posted on blogs, but it promptly removes content brought to its attention that is deemed inappropriate or hateful.

Yesterday WND reported a blog posting on Obama’s official campaign site urged Americans to take action to secure the release of imprisoned terrorist fundraiser Sami Al-Arian, comparing the controversial former professor to Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.

The posting, which has been removed since publication of the story, is just a sampling of a large volume of racist, anti-Semitic and pro-Palestinian rhetoric published on the user-friendly MyObama community blog pages.

One recently removed posting claims Jews control the media. Another referred to Jews as “puppet masters” and “war criminals.” Yet another posting, titled “The Israeli connection to 9/11,” claimed Israeli intelligence was involved in the mega-attack and planted “false flags” to blame Arab countries.

Other MyObama posts have warned of “Judeofacists and their Neocon comrades” who “already destroyed America” and declare the “entire Congress should be overthrown by revolution for having sold America to the Israelis.”

A popular topic on Obama’s site apparently is the so-called Israel Lobby.

An Obama site search under the key words “Israel lobby” brings up a large number of pages with titles such as “Bush uses Nazi history against Obama to pander to the Jewish lobby” and “The Israel Lobby: bad for the world.”

 

In one recently removed posting, titled, “How the Jewish Lobby works,” the page read, “No lobby is feared more” and claimed Jews “run the Federal Reserve Bank,US Homeland Security, and the US State Department.”

The leftist mantra that “all paths lead to salvation” is an insidious tool that the Secular Left and the Socialists are using as a wedge to separate Americans from their liberty, and Christians from their faith. That separation is necessary in order to conquer a once free people.

The “Judge-Not, See-No-Evil” feel-good doctrine dominating Churchianity in America has manifested itself from grassroots Socialism in the pews to the political platform of Presidential contender Barrack Hussein Obama, who on March 26 at a campaign stump in North Carolina suggested that Jesus Christ is not the only path to heaven.

What is shocking is not that Obama suggested this heresy, but that many so-called Christians in America agree with him.   I suppose this zeitgeist permeating the lukewarm biblically watered-down and politically-charged Churchianity that masquerades as a legitimate religious faith in America is to be expected.  After all, many mainline churches now approve of everything from abortion to Homosexual Marriage in their council rulings and positions.  The Secular Left has seized on this opportunity to create a new Christian faith that is fused with a Socialist ideology and a hard Left political identity.

The fact American Churchianity will not eschew or identify sin explains not only how biblically illiterate American Christians are with the bible, but how void of understanding what Jesus Himself said about what it would mean to be a Disciple.

Americans are notorious inventors and it is clear that a crowning achievement of the American Left is the invention of a whole new Jesus to fit within a Marxist worldview.

Technically this is old news, but since Obama is one step away from the presidency, it’s not a bad idea to review this guy’s dismissal of and outright disgust and loathing of Christians in America.

He’s clever and insidious enough not to come out and plainly say that he detests and considers Biblical Christians to be the spawn of Satan, but all one has to do is read his books, review his statements and those of his former spiritual Advisor, to get a pretty clear picture of what he really thinks about ardent biblical Christians.

Last year he revealed on Meet The Press that Democrats do not like Christians and that they will need to “talk” with Christians if they wanted to win elections.  It’s apparent that what he meant was to jump on the Christian Left bandwagon, where Christian Socialism would be the bridge between his political Marxism and that of religious duty to appeal to biblical followers.  

We should not be deceived.  Obama surrounds himself with individuals that have clear disdain for both Whites and Evangelical Christians.  From the fiery Hate Whitey sermons from his former Pastor of twenty years Jeremiah Wright, the lauding of nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakahn, to his military advisor Merrill McPeak who has no problem equating Evangelicals to Hamas and Hezbollah, it is proper for us to deeply consider Obama’s associations, and the cleverly couched ‘explanations’ of his statements about Christians.

What Christians MUST consider, is that Obama INSISTS and DECLARES that he is a converted Christian, yet continuously supports policies and ideas that are anathema to both the Christian faith, and America itself. Abortion being just one of many, many conflicts that do not square with any Christian tenets.

Obama does not think that one has to go through Christ to get to the Kingdom of Heaven, that one can take any path he chooses to get there.  Considering just these facts, can Obama be trusted with the keys to the White House and safeguarding the very liberties that allow you to worship God the Way Jesus leads you?

Or will Obama, once in office, make official policies to declare your biblical faith a hijacker of “True Christianity” and charge you with “Hate crimes” for refusing to bow the knee to any faith but Christ’s?

History is repleat with men like Obama, who telegraphed their real intentions behind all the fancy rhetortic, and led millions to slaughter once secured in office.

Obama: America is ‘no longer Christian’ 
Democrat says nation also for Muslims, nonbelievers

Obama did clarify his statement about the “Christian Right.”

“My intention was to contrast the heated partisan rhetoric of a distinct minority of Christian leaders with the vast majority of Evangelical Christians – conservatives included – who believe that hate has no place in our politics.

“When you have pastors and television pundits who appear to explicitly coordinate with one political party; when you’re implying that your fellow Americans are traitors, terrorist sympathizers or akin to the devil himself; then I think you’re attempting to hijack the faith of those who follow you for your own personal or political ends,” wrote Obama.

The Illinois senator’s speech declaring the U.S. “no longer Christian” was met with little fanfare. But it has been getting some recent play.

A television commercial that aired in South Dakota by a group calling itself the Coalition Against Anti-Christian Rhetoric juxtaposes the audio of Obama’s “no longer Christian” statement over images of the presidential candidate dressed in Somali garb and a picture of Obama with his hands rested below his waist while other politicians place their hands over their hearts during the Pledge of Allegiance.

“It’s time for people to take a stand against Barack Hussein Obama,” declares the voiceover on the commercial.

The Gateway Pundit blog took notice of Obama’s speech about the U.S. being a nation also for Muslims and non-believers.

“This won’t play well in the Bible Belt,” commented the blog in a recent posting.

Obama’s campaign has long utilized faith as a central theme. The candidate’s Christianity and his former membership in the controversial Trinity United Church of Christ have been much scrutinized.

His comment about the “Christian Right” echoed similar statements made by Merrill A. McPeak, Obama’s military adviser and national campaign co-chairman.

As WND reported, in a 2003 interview with The Oregonian newspaper, McPeak seemed to compare evangelical Christians to the terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

The Oregonian interviewer asked McPeak whether “there’s an element within Hamas, Hezbollah, that doesn’t want Israel to exist at all and always will be there?”

McPeak responded by comparing the two terror groups to “radical” Oregonians.

“There’s an element in Oregon, you know, that’s always goi