Fitna: The Truth Of Jihadist Islam’s Goal to Conquer The World

This is the video of the film the Jihadists worldwide are having a total fit over because it showcases the truth of Jihadism and how the Quran inspired barbarism.

I do not know how long this link will last, because like the cowards in Europe, the Multiculturalists, Apologists and appeasers of Jihadists in America are pressuring Google, LiveLeak and Youtube to pull the film the moment it appears.

Jihadists call the film an “insult to Islam”.

Well, if showing the truth about Islam’s actions is an insult – what does Islam expect us to call their acts of barbarism – justice??

Sword-At-The-Ready is doing it;s part to disseminate this film by posting it here for our readers to watch and judge the film themselves.

LiveLeak unfortunately has pulled the Dutch film over the death threats it’s staff is receiving worldwide. They said:

Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.
This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.

Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.

We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.

I guess “Give me liberty, or give me death” is passe?

“We pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” is a silly notion by dead white racists?

Or is it as always these days, that it is expected of us to be ‘tolerant’ of those ideas that seek to destroy us for the sake of the empty promise of peace with barbarians?

“In the end the price was too high” is going to be engraved on the tombstone of the West and America.

This is what Jihadist Islam seeks: death, destruction, slavery and global rulership.

No wonder Iran wants nukes so badly.

Death Of A Nation Gives Rise To A New Tyranny

Excellent essay by our friend John Galt follows. Having abandoned our foundational principles and intents, the consequences of crisis always has the suffering masses grasping whatever promises of salvation come, leading to a birth of something far worse that what they have suffered.

BIRTH OF A NATION

By John Galt

March 31, 2008

I. Intent

The Founding Fathers had a vision where individuals were allowed to use their God given freedoms to use their own creativity, their own belief systems, and their own talents to work within a Capitalist system based on the principle of freedom. This freedom extended to all aspects to each and every citizen of American life as long as it did not impair or impede on other individuals or the greater good of this nation. These freedoms and the vision our Founding Fathers had for us are now coming to a close. The abdication of the ideal known as “personal responsibility” and the application of morality in everyone’s decision making process have been delivered a fatal blow first struck some ninety-five years ago. The creation of the Federal Reserve Banking system at the behest of political idealists who wished to manage the social fabric of society as opposed to their Constitutionally mandated responsibilities were just the beginning. The series of legislative initiatives undertaken from 1910 to 1940 to complete reshape our nation under the guise of “Progressivism” was slow to come about, but it was not until this decade and the final crisis of our foolish endeavors in societal management that we shall realize the implications of that generation’s actions. Their intent was to create a system of macro economic management by government which allowed the banking system to function outside of the legal parameters of the Constitution while profiting the few and penalizing the majority for any mistakes that were made. As decades of erroneous decisions have piled up and multiplied exponentially the proverbial bill is now past due. How appropriate that a nation founded in the idealism of personal responsibility and freedom shall now depart from that path and begin a final curtain call which entails the incorporation of a vile system of Marxist theory in combination with the perversion of religion to justify the revision of our society and the behavior of it’s citizens.

II. Taxation Without Representation

In the 1770’s part our nation’s foundation was laid with the purpose of eliminating tyrannical leaders who impose their will without the voice of the people. The taxation of citizens to serve a “crown” was considered a barbaric relic of medieval times as serfdom was no longer accepted by “modern” society. Alas, if only old Ben Franklin could see us now. The average schmuck has been quite content for decades to accept taxation without realizing they are being taxed as it has been given the false perception of the “cost of a free society” and other such rot. Although my personal principles are somewhat Libertarian in nature, this does not mean I am advocating naked women running up and down the streets as whores like Amsterdam promotes, nor the elimination of some of the Constitutionally mandated operations of government and it’s interaction with the private citizen. Obviously it costs money to maintain the national defense, a sound judicial system and to secure a safe, consistent and fair flow of commerce. Yet the responsibilities assumed have now spread to every aspect of our lives, including and up to the examination of the sexual behavior of flies as well as the willingness or ability of each citizen to educate their children in a manner (or religious principle) that they see fit. Alas, to become a “nanny state” costs considerably more than just the income tax structure we have in place now. So what is our poor government to do?

After the 1916 income tax solution opened the door, the U.S. government and it’s minions started looking for other taxation solutions to insure that the American people were married to their ideals through the concept of entitlements. That solution did not really take hold until the Great Depression created a nation of sheep willing to accept whatever solutions were provided to insure that the average citizen always had a roof over their head, a meal, a job, a car, a Playstation III, a vacation in Cancun, etc., etc. As the real levels of taxation on corporations (who just pass it on to the customer) and citizens skyrocketed via income taxes, fees, etc. the stress on government has become so great that running a debt on an annualized basis became commonplace and once the banksters and the government figured out that the U.S. was “too big to fail” and that the average citizen would rather be fat, dumb and happy rather than worry about the consequences of their actions, the game was on.

The spending on everything and anything was acceptable and by manipulating the accounting regulations the Congress and Senate could cut deals, make huge profits for themselves via the lobbying system, and create a dependency class that could be further expanded as long as the banksters played along by assuring the public that the integrity of our markets would never be unscathed and unending sources of profit and liquidity would be available as long as everyone played along and didn’t bother to look behind the curtain. Unfortunately for the elitists, people began to peek and worse, people began to worry as the liabilities of this nation were at a staggering $20,000,000,000,000 plus in 2000 and has more than doubled to a blow-one’s-brains-out-if-you-think-about-it-too-much $53,000,000,000,000 plus now. To maintain the ability to service this debt load, much less meet the underlying obligations, the impossible task of maintaining a seven to ten percent annual GDP (oh no, GNP wasn’t good enough, it didn’t track consumer spending enough) was thrust upon the markets and with the help of our friendly neighborhood central bankster, went to work to achieve it. Add in the smoke and mirror arrangement constructed by the Federal Reserve and you can see how this is not going to have a happy ending.

So who is taxing the American citizenry that does not have the authority to do so you may ask? That requires a quick and dirty analysis of our currency and the $53 trillion (it’s too much work to type all those zeroes more than once) in debt and liabilities we now are beholden to. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, our dollar has experienced a depreciation of about 97% from its original value. We have changed the constitutionally mandated method of issuing currency in this nation without an amendment as intended by our founding fathers. Doubt that? Well here are the exact words from our Constitution:

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

We have witnessed the abdication of personal responsibility in favor or servitude to the state. In this writer’s opinion, it would be fair to the currency depreciation a somewhat inflationary tax levied upon our society as well as a moral hazard. But now look at the level of debt and obligations and start thinking about that from the big picture perspective. The only way to pay off or maintain the spending levels and debt we have incurred is to monetize the debt and at a rapid pace before the rest of the world does the job of peeking behind the curtain which the American citizens refuse to do for whatever reason. Bad news Sparky; the rest of the world has taken that peek and figured out a few things:

1. The Federal Reserve has never been audited

2. The Federal Reserve has no legal liability to the customers it serves, a.k.a. the American Public

3. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation using policy to generate or promote monetary growth via it’s Treasury proxy. These policies often impact the consumer by destroying savings and increasing the inflation tax.

4. The Federal Reserve serves only the investors who own that bank, not the nation.

Where as many nations have a central banking system directly accountable to legislative branch or powers restricted to the protection of the integrity of their currencies, the Federal Reserve has assumed the role of an un-elected oligarchy, which will ultimately destroy our freedoms and our nation. They are imposing an inflation tax and increasing the rate of destruction of our currency without the authority of the Constitution behind them and worse, at the expense of our citizenry to pay for decades of ignorant bliss as the party went on unimpeded. Now the bill is due and the tax rate is about to be increased dramatically as the casino on Wall Street has made so many bad bets, it requires the house to bail the players out or risk the destruction of the entire world’s financial system. This is not minor threat, but worse, it enables a far more devious threat to emerge.

III. 1914

So what do we have to look forward to? To get some idea, let’s take a look back into history. When Europe erupted into war in 1914, ironically enough due to an act of Islamic terrorism, the United States was caught in the middle as a neutral observer. The Federal Reserve was not a functioning entity, thanks to political delays, when the war started but the U.S. Treasury and its idealistic President were ready. Instead of allowing foreigners to sell off their holdings in the American markets, the solution was simple:

Close them.

That was a dangerous game but thanks to the currency provisions of the Alrdich-Vreeland Act the domestic banking system was able to avoid a repeat of 1907 and the currency crunch and uncertainty that would ensue from having our financial markets closed. This same approach could easily be employed again today. If there is a notable or sudden liquidation of our Treasury paper or equities by foreign powers along with a sudden flight of capital from our banks the easiest solution is not to just have the Federal Reserve purchase the paper, as that would require an unrealistic sudden increase in the money supply. The gradualist approach to monetization would have to be tossed out the window causing a larger problem at a sooner point in time. That alternative is unacceptable but still on the table but could appropriately be called the “nuclear option” as it would be the hyperinflationary trigger. The short term option is obvious and it is the 1914 option. That would enable the U.S. government to save face and still maintain some faith in the stability of our economy while stopping a deflationary outflow of capital that would cause an immediate collapse of our economy. Closing the markets in the name of free market capitalism (ironic isn’t it?) is the only logical solution and whatever excuse is offered as “cover” for such an action may sound drastic, but for a short term cessation of bleeding, the only reasonable course of action. How does such an action lead to a change in our nation and just what are the consequences? Read on my friends, as this is where a new nation is born.

IV. DEATH OF A NATION

To create a new ideal, the old one must die. The concept of America must die. There are and always have been tinkering old fools who have felt that they could “adjust” or redesign America better than the founding fathers. The aristocracy of old was greatly displeased with the balance struck in the United States Constitution but this balance served the purpose of allowing their class to excel in their goals while giving the average person to succeed without the yoke of government being worn about their necks. As the participants of and investors in the modern Fiatocracy see their empire begin to flounder, the plans to revise and redesign this nation are right there in front of us, but thanks to the conspiracy theory principle, it is dismissed as unrealistic and absurd. Despite the fact that grown men dressing up in robes and burning humans in effigy in the mouth of a burning owl has been well documented and confirmed, that does not seem to strike the sheeple as critical to our future. Yet as this writer types this, these same individuals have ownership in the Federal Reserve, ownership of some of our largest financial and corporate institutions, or meet now behind closed doors to discuss the “rumored but documented” NAFTA superhighway as they are able to work in the open without scrutiny and without the authority allegedly given to the citizens of this nation in the Constitution. This is not a good sign and indicates that our nation is well on its way to passing into history as a memory.

The ability to create any new ideals or “modifications” as they shall be called, to our current system requires a breaking point, or death of the nation. There are two methods to achieve this goal and either might be acceptable but one is obviously much more practical. The first method is simply to involve a nation in an idealistic but costly war which slaughters millions of it’s citizens thus reducing the economic needs and re-balancing the supply demand curve in favor of the profiteers and political class where the numbers are much more manageable. This method is of course costly and if carried to extreme in this modern society, the physical damage to actual attacks on the homeland could put the power elite into the same risk strata as the citizens they wish to enslave. The second and most obvious solution is to bankrupt the people, not just the nation. Eliminate the financial capacity of a citizenry to survive and you own them. In the days of yore, the monarchy would simply offer an opportunity to survive by allowing the serfs to live on the land in exchange for the offerings a large percentage of the crops leaving the serfs just enough to survive. This virtual enslavement allowed one class to survive while another prospers. And this lesson in population and economic management has never been lost on the elites in society.

V. BIRTH OF A NATION

With the plan currently being enacted, the question becomes “What kind of nation will we look like in 20 years?” I fear we could become as drastic a head case as the 1970’s Soviet Union or worse a perpetual model of France combined with the ethnic problems of the Balkans. The withdrawal of the needle from the arm of America via the long-term extraction of capital infusion from foreign powers will leave our standard of living flailing at best and careening into levels unseen in this nation in over one hundred and fifty years if we are lucky. The inability of our society to pay its debt off at all levels and work towards self-sufficiency will create the grand political opportunity that only arrives in history maybe once every two or three centuries. This political opportunity or “third way” as it so often promoted will unfortunately allow the elitists to explode on to the scene denigrating the primitive nature and thought processes of our founding fathers and in the desperation of the moment, the citizenry will bleat right into an automatic acceptance of the changes as a “savior” of their society and the classes of people unable to cope with cyclical economic change. The new Socialism will neither call itself that nor ever openly use the terminology of the works of Marx or Lenin. The test case for this ideology is well under way in the form of Communist China attempting a mix of corporatism, communism and fascism while maintaining the illusion of free market capitalism. The theory that has been promoted over and over again by multinationals and our socialist infested State Department is that “free market capitalism promotes democracy” but in Communist China, it promotes enslavement. There are no free elections there nor truly free markets. There is no desire to allow open competition for the development of and expansion of goods and services without some degree of state control. The profits are guaranteed to insure a large percentage of funds to be allocated to increasing the ability of the military class to expand and dominate the region and the society as a whole. In the case of the United States, the military dominance is unquestioned, but the thumb of the political class does not have the reach of the Central Committee in Beijing yet. By allowing the crisis to worsen or better yet, accelerating the impacts of such a crash, much like what was accomplished in the 1930’s under FDR, the birth of a new nation can be completed under the demands of the very people who are to be enslaved. With so much of our population now dependent on government largesse, this process will be frighteningly easy to achieve.

VI. OH AUGUSTUS, WHERE ART THOU?

There is but one hope and believe it or not it is in the mirror. Go look at it. And pray hard for a miracle. In Roman times after the period of the Civil Wars, there was a desire that such a great empire, militarily over-extended and rooted in democratic principles would end their infighting and bring stability back to their people at home. The citizens hoped a return to a virtuous democratic society would win out over the old ways. When Emperor Augustus took power in 31 BC, it enabled a period of relative stability and economic growth to ensue. The Empire of Rome became unified, formidable and expansive once again without the drag of the Republic’s pesky democratic principles. Unfortunately it created a new fascistic monarchy, which demonstrated its brutality and ability to dominate its citizenry and neighbors on a regular basis. It is this writer’s fear that while history may not repeat; the duplication of human foolishness will allow this to occur again. We must, as a society, pray that as the Third Way takes hold over our society that someone will take a stand against the elimination of the U.S. Constitution and the ideals of Jefferson and Hamilton. That someone will have to be a person of considerable power on the inside and willing to wear the Judas label and betray the new elite when and if they make their move. Let us hope this is a man or woman of principle and does not have a sale price like much of our society. Let us pray this happens before the title “Imperator” becomes part of our lexicon, much like the phrase novus ordo has already been accepted, denied and ignored by the masses. The consequences of failing to stop this “new order” from taking hold, as seen in history, will be fatal.

None Dare Call It Congressional High Treason

These bozos would selll us out to Bin Laden himself if it would ensure they won elections.

Sadaam Paid For Anti-War Congressmen’s Trip To Pre-Invasion Iraq

Saddam And The Three Stooges

Three congressmen were caught traveling to praise prewar Iraq on Saddam Hussein’s dime in 2002. Others have made pilgrimages to pay tribute to Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. This is getting out of control.

As the U.S. prepared for war in October 2002, Washington state’s Jim McDermott flew to Iraq on a Saddam-praising junket with fellow Democrats Mike Thompson of California and David Bonior of Michigan. Rather than support the U.S., they condemned U.N. sanctions, vouched for Saddam’s probity and publicly declared America’s democratically elected president a liar.
None of it had anything to do with the congressmen’s claimed concern for Iraqi children, but it did undermine the U.S. alliance-building effort. And by coincidence, it was exactly what Saddam wanted.

Now we learn the junket was just as it seemed at the time — a Saddam-paid propaganda production, starring three U.S. dupes. The congressmen say they had no idea, but they should have known and must be aware that people will seek to manipulate politicians.

In this case, however, Bush derangement syndrome seemed to trump all judgment in freelance diplomacy, and the result was a sellout of our interests.
So was another trip taken to the Andes last year by another Democratic threesome — Reps. Bill Delahunt and James McGovern of Massachusetts and George Miller of California. With at least two of them in hock to Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez for supplying cheap heating oil to their districts, the trio decided to meddle in Colombia, a democracy Chavez seeks to overthrow.

Claiming they were just interested in the humanitarian release of American hostages, they flew to Bogota and Caracas and initiated contact with Chavez’s best terrorists — Colombia’s Marxist FARC. Secret correspondence from the computer of dead FARC warlord Raul Reyes suggests that the real aim of the trip was to muscle Colombian President Alvaro Uribe into restoring Chavez as a mediator between Colombia and the FARC. That would have enabled Chavez to expand his cash and political influence into Colombia.

The junket followed other favors that McGovern and Delahunt did for Chavez. Both were influential, for example, in slashing Colombian military aid by 30% in 2008, and now both intend to vote down Colombia’s free trade pact.

Such stoogery isn’t helped by the bad example set by congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi. It was the speaker of the House, remember, who took two senators on a pilgrimage to Syria a year ago, at a time of high tensions with Iran, making tyrants there very happy. These activities have little to do with the duties of congressmen to their respective districts or states. They’re also inherently secretive, leaving the citizens in the dark about the funding and the favors. Worst of all, they manage to sell out American interests for the price of undermining the president, as if there were no national interests beyond politics.

The State Department and White House have no authority to stop such shenanigans, so it’s up to Congress to start making its actions more accountable and the media to make them more transparent on the spot.

Appeasing Islam

While this fella is a self-described Atheist, and he and I would vehemently disagree about our fundamental beliefs, what he has to say about Islam here is quite true.

Not only of the cowardly multicultural appeasers in Europe, but also here in America.

It is both serious, and seriously funny.

Hillary WASN’T LYING! Bosnia gunfire footage discovered..

France Says NIE Report Bogus; Has Evidence Iran Seeking Nukes

As America turns harder to the Left, we are beset with stupidity, foolishness, outrageous lies, scandals, and endless political folly to our own detriment.

We are become like the Melba toast European Socialists and strive to be more like them. Even today, presumptive Liberal Republican nominee John McCain has suggested that America “listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies”. I don’t know what could be more stupid. If we listened” to these “democratic allies” Mr. McDufus – we would NOT be in Iraq OR Afghanistan taking the war to the Jihadists. We would be cowering with one appeasement policy after another while we are turned into a Muslim state from within as it is in Europe.

America has obviously lost it’s gonads as well as it’s brains and McCain might as well be John Kerry, Clinton or Obama, because they all state the same imbecillic nonsense in once capacity or another.

Meanwhile, the country Americans love to denounce; France – has suddenly jumped into the realm of common sense that America has abandoned, in order to state what many of us already knew the day the bogus NIE report was released by the CIA last December.

The French newspaper “Le Monde” says that it has documentation that Iran is still seeking to possess nuclear weapons and that last December’s NIW report that stated that Iran abandoned that quest – is bogus, and that it was a politically motivated report that did not give a true picture of the present nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Duh. Those of us in America with a brain left already figured that out the day the bogus report was released.

They say the documents detail discussions between top Iranian officials about their ongoing nuclear program.

The article is translated through Babelfish:

THE WORLD

At the time the Security Council of UNO recently adopted a third series of sanctions intended to force Iran to stop his nuclear program, (Le Monde) had access to documents attesting that Teheran continued a military nuclear program after 2003, as opposed to what a report/ratio of the national direction of the American information affirmed, published on December 3, 2007.

February 25, the assistant general manager of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Finn Olli Heinonen, had presented evidence of the existence of this Iranian nuclear military program. A letter addressed during 2004 Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, to vice-president of the Organization of the atomic energy of Iran (AEOI), by engineer Mahdi Khaniki, one of the principal interlocutors of the IAEA and former ambassador of Iran in Syria, confirms its charges.

This document draws up an inventory of fixtures of the relations between Teheran and the inspectors of the agency of Vienna. Mahdi Khaniki recalls in particular that the inspectors of the IAEA – who act under the direction of Mr. Heinonen – required to see the contracts relating to the acquisition of spare parts entering the development of the centrifugal machines. Assembled in “cascade”, these centrifugal machines make it possible to enrich uranium, possibly until obtaining a military quality.

“At a meeting which proceeded on January 31, 2004 in the presence of Dr. Rohani (Hassan Rohani, principal negotiator of the Iranian nuclear program until the end of 2005), this one decided that these contracts were to be prepared formedlies to the wishes of the AEOI, so that they are ready to be provided with the IAEA.” “It is necessary to note, adds it, that the representative of the ministry for defense and assistance to the mées rearforces indicated at this meeting that the contracts had been written for a presentation (with the IAEA).”

“But, Mahdi Khaniki continues, of the parts of these contracts, which I myself saw with the ministry for defense, were crossed out black lines and the quantities did not appear; it thus seems that these contracts will cause more questions than those which should (normally) be presented at Agency (IAEA).” And to conclude: “Naturally, I asked as a preliminary to engineer Mohamadi to prepare the number necessary of contracts (corrected) and I hope that it already did it.”

For the specialists in the Iranian file, this letter represents an obvious proof of the implication of the Iranian ministry for defense in the nuclear file. What consolidates the suspicions on the military character of this program, while attesting efforts of the Iranians to dissimulate nature of it.

According to sources’ close to a service of information, this mail lies within the scope of the “Project 13”, whose heading is “project for the disappearance of the threats”.

Given what Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric has been in the past, is “project for the disappearance of the threats” in reference to his call for the annihilation of Israel and the punishment of America? The intents of Iran are clearly made, and I’m amazed at the deliberate level of ignorance we wish to place on this problem as the shouts grow louder against any kind of military action against Iran.

This project would have vocation to mislead the inspectors of the IAEA. The Research center in physics (PHRC) of Lavizan Shian was thus renamed “AMAD”, and its “departments” became “projects”, in order to scramble the tracks. In the second time, probably in 2006, name “AMAD” was also removed. Since, it is more made mention only of the “Center” to indicate the management of the military nuclear program.

The American services of information collected, in mid-December 2006, a conversation between two not identified civils servant held with the ministry for defense in Teheran and making state of divergences between persons in charge for the AEOI and the ministry for defense. One of the two interlocutors refers to the “Center” and underlines: “the AEOI was occupied of its interests, and its policy was at 180 degrees of ours. Currently, as for the CTBTO (Organization of the treaty of complete prohibition of the nuclear tests), I think that the ministry of defense must have the last word, parce that they (leaders of the AEOI) know that with the end of the account we intend to lead tests.” The doubt remains on the nature of these “tests”, but this reference reinforces the suspicions.

The information made public by Olli Heinonen, in February, in Vienna, contradicts a part of the conclusions of the report of the American services in December 2007. To explain this inconsistency, certain French diplomats evoke a “major dysfunction” within the American administration.

Other sources advance that, during 2007, the American services of information, as well as the Pentagon, worried about the climate sabre-rattler which reigned then in Washington, and about the risk to see president George Bush opening a new military face against Iran. The purpose of the report/ratio of December would then have been to cross short to the temptation of the American executive to resort to the force.

In other words, the purpose of the NIE report that was celebrated by every Democrat and mainstream media source in America, was to short circuit and circumvent any attack and war plans that were on the boards at the White House and Pentagon to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat.

I would call that treason, but Americans no longer like that word, unless someone dares question Global Warming – then it’s treason. But to undermine the country in favor of those who are sworn to our destruction – is today called patriotism by those that have racist pastors asking for God to damn the country or claim they were shot at by snipers in Bosnia.

Even the Treason Rag of Record, the New York Times is finding that it has to tapdance backwards on their celebration fo the NIE report they so loudly cheered and toasted.

NY Times Backpedaling on Iran NIE

March 7, 2008 – by Craig Karpel

The other day a friend who’s a distinguished journalist emailed me, “How about the New York Times’ FURIOUS backpedaling on the National Intelligence Estimate? They could have done the same analysis when it was released!”

At the gathering of ambassadors and arms-control experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Vienna headquarters, newly obtained and declassified documents were revealed that are “not consistent with any application other than the development of a nuclear weapon.”

“France’s ambassador, François-Xavier Deniau,” the Times reported, “said questions raised by the Vienna meeting had opened a ‘new chapter’ in the West’s effort to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear arms.” The Times explained:

This confrontation is different from the long-running American-led campaign. Gone are the veiled threats of military action from the White House. The wind largely went out of that effort in December, when American intelligence officials surprised Western allies — and angered Bush administration hawks — with a report saying Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Ah, so this confrontation was different, because the French, with their savoir faire, their joi de vivre, their déja vu all over again, were at last convinced that Iran — which has a space program whose covert goal is to put into orbit satellites capable of dropping nuclear weapons on any city on earth, such as Paris — must be subjected to a higher level of inaction, such as the toothless additional sanctions the Security Council authorized this week.

…But the NIE says Iran put an end to its secret nuclear weapons program, no?

Well, no.

Virtually all commentators have either misunderstood or misrepresented the NIE’s “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.”

The NIE goes on to say, “We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”

So “Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program” doesn’t mean “Tehran ended its nuclear weapons program.” It means the program was suspended.

It inconceivable to me that the word “halted” wasn’t deliberately chosen as an alternative — misleading because of its ambiguity — to the unmistakably clear word that should have been used. The intelligence official(s) who signed off on using “halted” instead of “suspended” in that life-and-death sentence should be found and fired.

Moderate confidence — I wish I had that much confidence in our intelligence agencies.

….The Times has found itself in a position where it needs to account for having neglected to report last December that — as to the intelligence community’s assessment of when our most virulent and implacable enemy will be able to make nuclear weapons — between the 2005 NIE and the 2007 NIE “basically nothing had changed.” Is the paper of record now pleading myopia?

It will probably utilize the Hillary Clinton Method: “Those are what our memories of it are” defense and say they ‘mis-spoke’.

Or…they can employ the Obama Defense and simply deny their assertions were ever made to the contrary, and then throw their reporters under the bus to join Obama’s grandmother.

But actions speak louder than words, and France is acting on the belief that Iran is on the verge of nuclear weapons that it will use on it’s enemies. This has resulted in Tehran getting angry and issuing a warning to French President Sarkozy.

I think that speaks to the truth of Iran’s ready-to-premiere nuclear weapons ability.

The Post Racial “Black Power” Candidate

Gotta love Mark Steyn. In the midst of all the sharp wit – there’s wisdom.

But a new question is going to have to be asked, just how divided by Hate America/Hate Whites theology are we? If a foreign power decided to invade and take us over, whose side are people like Obama and his fellow congregants going to take?

Certainly not ours, and yet America is on the verge of electing this guy to the presidency?

We might as well vote for Osama Bin Laden’s son to the White House, at least we would know from whence his true ideology and allegience springs instead of being buffaloed by Obama’s.

Post ‘Post-Racial Candidate’
Things get out-of-his-tree flown-the-coop nuts on the campaign trail.

By Mark Steyn

‘I’m sure,” said Barack Obama in that sonorous baritone that makes his drive-thru order for a Big Mac, fries, and strawberry shake sound profound, “many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.”

Well, yes. But not many of us have heard remarks from our pastors, priests, or rabbis that are stark, staring, out-of-his-tree flown-the-coop nuts. Unlike Bill Clinton, whose legions of “spiritual advisers” at the height of his Monica troubles outnumbered the U.S. diplomatic corps, Senator Obama has had just one spiritual adviser his entire adult life: the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, two-decade pastor to the president presumptive. The Reverend Wright believes that AIDs was created by the government of the United States — and not as a cure for the common cold that went tragically awry and had to be covered up by Karl Rove, but for the explicit purpose of killing millions of its own citizens. The government has never come clean about this, but the Reverend Wright knows the truth. “The government lied,” he told his flock, “about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

Does he really believe this? If so, he’s crazy, and no sane person would sit through his gibberish, certainly not for 20 years.

Or is he just saying it? In which case, he’s profoundly wicked. If you understand that AIDs is spread by sexual promiscuity and drug use, you’ll know that it’s within your power to protect yourself from the disease. If you’re told that it’s just whitey’s latest cunning plot to stick it to you, well, hey, it’s out of your hands, nothing to do with you or your behavior.

Before the speech, Slate’s Mickey Kaus advised Senator Obama to give us a Sister Souljah moment: “There are plenty of potential Souljahs still around: Race preferences. Out-of-wedlock births,” he wrote. “But most of all the victim mentality that tells African Americans (in the fashion of Rev. Wright’s most infamous sermons) that the important forces shaping their lives are the evil actions of others, of other races.” Indeed. It makes no difference to white folks when a black pastor inflicts kook genocide theories on his congregation: The victims are those in his audience who make the mistake of believing him. The Reverend Wright has a hugely popular church with over 8,000 members, and Senator Obama assures us that his pastor does good work by “reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDs.” But maybe he wouldn’t have to quite so much “reaching out” to do and maybe there wouldn’t be quite so many black Americans “suffering from HIV/AIDs” if the likes of Wright weren’t peddling lunatic conspiracy theories to his own community.

Nonetheless, last week, Barack Obama told America: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.”

What is the plain meaning of that sentence? That the paranoid racist ravings of Jeremiah Wright are now part of the established cultural discourse in African-American life and thus must command our respect? Let us take the senator at his word when he says he chanced not to be present on AIDs Conspiracy Sunday, or God Damn America Sunday, or U.S. of KKKA Sunday, or the Post-9/11 America-Had-It-Coming Memorial Service. A conventional pol would have said he was shocked, shocked to discover Afrocentric black liberation theology going on at his church. But Obama did something far more audacious: Instead of distancing himself from his pastor, he attempted to close the gap between Wright and the rest of the country, arguing, in effect, that the guy is not just his crazy uncle but America’s, too.

To do this, he promoted a false equivalence. “I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother,” he continued. “A woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street.” Well, according to the way he tells it in his book, it was one specific black man on her bus, and he wasn’t merely “passing by.” When the British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan dumped some of his closest cabinet colleagues to extricate himself from a political crisis, the Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe responded: “Greater love hath no man than to lay down his friends for his life.” In Philadelphia, Senator Obama topped that: Greater love hath no man than to lay down his gran’ma for his life. In the days that followed, Obama’s interviewers seemed grateful for the introduction of a less complicated villain: Unlike the Reverend Wright, she doesn’t want God to damn America for being no better than al-Qaeda, but on the other hand she did once express her apprehension about a black man on the bus. It’s surely only a matter of days before Keith Olbermann on MSNBC names her his “Worst Person In The World.” Asked about the sin of racism beating within Gran’ma’s breast, Obama said on TV that “she’s a typical white person.”

Which doesn’t sound like the sort of thing the supposed “post-racial” candidate ought to be saying, but let that pass. How “typically white” is Obama’s grandmother? She is the woman who raised him — that’s to say, she brought up a black grandchild and loved him unconditionally. Burning deep down inside, she may nurse a secret desire to be Simon Legree or Bull Connor, but it doesn’t seem very likely. She does then, in her own flawed way, represent a post-racial America. But what of her equivalent (as Obama’s speech had it)? Is Jeremiah Wright a “typical black person”? One would hope not. A century and a half after the Civil War, two generations after the Civil Rights Act, the Reverend Wright promotes victimization theses more insane than anything promulgated at the height of slavery or the Jim Crow era. You can understand why Obama is so anxious to meet with President Ahmadinejad, a man who denies the last Holocaust even as he plans the next one. Such a summit would be easy listening after the more robust sermons of Jeremiah Wright.

But America is not Ahmadinejad’s Iran. Free societies live in truth, not in the fever swamps of Jeremiah Wright. The pastor is a fraud, a crock, a mountebank — for, if this truly were a country whose government invented a virus to kill black people, why would they leave him walking around to expose the truth? It is Barack Obama’s choice to entrust his daughters to the spiritual care of such a man for their entire lives, but in Philadelphia the senator attempted to universalize his peculiar judgment — to claim that, given America’s history, it would be unreasonable to expect black men of Jeremiah Wright’s generation not to peddle hateful and damaging lunacies. Isn’t that — what’s the word? — racist? So much for the post-racial candidate.

Obama: How To Talk To White People

Given his speech yesterday, his own autobiography reveals his own racial predjudice and his willingness to toss his white parentage under the racial bus for his crusade of Black Socialist Nationalism.

OBAMA ON HOW TO TALK TO WHITE PEOPLE

Judith Apter Klinghoffer

In the good, old tradition of revolutionaries, Obama hides in plain print. So, before listening to his speech, it’s worth while to note the following passages from his autobiography:

On p. 94-95 he describes an effective tactic to deal with White people:

It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved – such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn’t seem angry all the time.

Indeed, when he was a community organizer (age 22 prior to going to law school) he happily cooperated with Rafiq, a former gangster turned Nation of Islam. He even believed that Black Nationalism was a good therapy for Blacks. That was also the reason he supported Wright(p. 190-200. For he shares Michelle’s sentiments of alienation, came to believe that race should trump everything and it should be anti-white:

. . . :all the black people who, it turned out, shared with me a voice that whispered inside them – “You don’t really belong here.”
In a sense, then, Rafiq was right when he insisted that, deep down, all blacks were potential Nationalists. The anger was there, bottled up and often turned inward. And . . . I wondered whether, for now at least, Rafiq wasn’t also right in preferring that that anger be redirected; whether a black politics that suppressed rage towards white generally, or one that failed to elevate race loyally above all else, was a politics inadequate to the task.

It was a painful thought to consider, as painful now as it has been years ago. it contradicted the morality my mother had taught me, a morality of subtle distinctions- between individuals of goodwill and those who wished me ill, between active malice and ignorance of indifference. I has a personal stake in that moral framework; I’d discovered that I couldn’t escape it if I tried. And yet perhaps it was a framework that blacks in this country could no longer afford; perhaps it weakened black resolve, encouraged confusion within the ranks. Desperate times called for desperate measures, and for many blacks, times were chronically desperate. If nationalism could create a strong and effective insularity, deliver on its promise of self respect, then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, of the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence.

If nationalism could deliver. As it turned out, questions of effectiveness, and not sentiment, cause most of my quarrels with Rafiq.

In other words, Barack was willing to sacrifice his mother and his grandparents on the alter of black nationalism. His sentiments were in lime with those of Rafiq, the Nation of Islam activist. That is the reason he chose a black nationalist church run by “Reverend Wright” who explained to him (p.284):

“Life’s not safe for a black man in this country, Barack. Never has been. Probably never will be.”

Sorry, guys, but there is nothing post racial about Barack. He has merely learned that it is advantegous to convince whites that he is.

While Obama Speaks Like A Lamb, His Ideas Are From The Dragon

Barrack Hussein Obama has a decidedly unscriptural and politically-motivated view of the Bible, God’s Word, which he bends and cherry-picks to sate whatever appetite of political convenience he wishes to expound upon. In the days following the firestorm over the Black Separatist church sermons from Pastor Jeremiah Wright that Obama has has joined himself as a member of for 20 years, it serves us well to examine just what exactly Obama does believe in terms of his Christianity.

While he gave a speech today, once again trying to distance himself from the anti-American racist comments of his pastor of 20 years, he did nothing more than to give another flowery speech filled with emotional rhetoric and smooth typical Democratic talking points that are favorite class and racial warfare keywords used to exploit those issues. While distancing himself in word from the outspoken racism of pastor Jeremiah Wright, his speech today does nothing but continue to exploit the issue of racial divides.

Obama said today that race is stuck in a “stalemate”, suggesting that America was founded as imperfect but can be made perfect, by him. He excuses the racial hatred of his pastor and fellow Black racists by telling us that “The anger is real; it is powerful” and that we must “understand its roots” and that if we do not, it will “only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races”. So on one hand he tells us he wants to denounce the racist liturgies and ministry of his pastor that he was a member of for the last 20 years, and in the same breath, expects everyone to “understand the roots” of the hatred that Pastor Wright expounded on. So he denounces what his pastor said and stands for, but also excuses the hatred at the same exact moment.

Obama wants his cake, and expects us to let him eat it too.

He has not gone into the details of what his actual religious views are. He claims to be a devout Christian, but regardless of what Barrack Hussein Obama claims – we need to be circumspect of a man who chose to be part of a congregation that has as it’s motto and mission “Unashamedly Black, Unapologetically Christian”.

In a speech at the Call to Renewal’s Building a Covenant for a New America conference in Washington last June, Obama gives a grand view of the bible comporting with a Socialistic-Left application of politics and government charity. I’m only going to post the excerpts that inspire me to comment, but the entire speech can be found at Obama’s website.

…I’d like to talk about the connection between religion and politics and perhaps offer some thoughts about how we can sort through some of the often bitter arguments that we’ve been seeing over the last several years.

I do so because, as you all know, we can affirm the importance of poverty in the Bible; and we can raise up and pass out this Covenant for a New America. We can talk to the press, and we can discuss the religious call to address poverty and environmental stewardship all we want, but it won’t have an impact unless we tackle head-on the mutual suspicion that sometimes exists between religious America and secular America.

If Barrack Hussein Obama properly understood the scriptures, he would know that poverty is not as important to God as sin is. Indeed the fact that poverty may exists BECAUSE of sin, is a fact that must never crossed his mind, or he ignores. The personal responsibility to feed the poor and clothe them is an INDIVIDUAL responsibility, a congregational responsibility – not a governmental one.

I want to give you an example that I think illustrates this fact. As some of you know, during the 2004 U.S. Senate General Election I ran against a gentleman named Alan Keyes. Mr. Keyes is well-versed in the Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson style of rhetoric that often labels progressives as both immoral and godless.

And why is it that you suppose he was motivated to say such a thing Mr. Obama? Mr. Keyes views abortion and homosexuality as biblically-defined sins and you support both practices, even so far as to permit third trimester and live birth abortions.

Should I say that a literalist reading of the Bible was folly? Should I say that Mr. Keyes, who is a Roman Catholic, should ignore the teachings of the Pope? …I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can’t impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois.

Barrack Hussein Obama, you cannot call yourself a Christian, and think that literal interpretation of the scriptures is folly. For if that be the case, should we deny the Resurrection of Christ since the literal raising of the dead is a scientific impossibility? What part of the bible can be discarded and ignored according to “your faith” Mr. Obama, and which ones are to be accepted? Just the red letter parts? Just the portions that you can twist into a justification for government socialism?

But Mr. Keyes’s implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me.

.

Yes, it’s called your conscience and the fact Mr. Keyes’ words pricked your heart with a sense of guilt.

Now, my dilemma was by no means unique. In a way, it reflected the broader debate we’ve been having in this country for the last thirty years over the role of religion in politics.

Your party and your ideology has been working overtime those thirty years to remove any and all semblence of God in politics and society from free public exercise. You yourself say that there should be a ‘separation of church from state’.

Indeed, the single biggest “gap” in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don’t.

You think?

Wouldn’t be because those in church still believe in God’s Commandments and Christian principles as a way of life now would it? A way of life your party and ideology has sought to demagogue, while your party celebrates sin, debauchery and abominations now would it?

Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church…

Excuse you Mr. Obama – but you yourself talked about Evangelical Christians on Meet The Press November 11, 2007 and said of them; “we’ve got to be able to get beyond our comfort zones and just talk to people we don’t like.”

You were referencing Evangelical Christians as “people we don’t like”. Yet you accuse Evangelical Christians of exploiting the fact that your party does indeed disrespect their values and their church. So is this attempt of yours trying to ‘exploit’ this gap yourself, makes you a hypocrite.

…I think it’s time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

Once again Mr. Obama – you have it wrong. As much as you Socialists and Marxists wish to paint us as a ‘pluralistic’ or ‘progressive’ democracy – we are NOT a Democracy.

We are a Republic. Or we were, before people of your political ideology insisted we became a Mobocracy with a Socialist mindset.

And if it weren’t for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn – not just to work with the church, but to be in the church.

What in the world is this ‘Historically “black” Church”? Only Divisive Separatists who pretend they are Christian, can identify themselves by race. Obviously you never read the words of the Apostle Paul in Colossians 3:11, and again in Galatians 3:28 that plainly state:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

It is obvious listening to the words of your pastor of 20 years, and reading his words, that he does not share that scriptural belief. And since he does not share that belief, since you were of his fold for two decades – can we not properly assume YOU do not share Paul’s plain truth in those chapters?

Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities.

And the White congregations, the Asian congregations, the latino congregations do not?

Even so, you confuse deliberately, the role of the individual and the church to do those things, by empowering the government to do them instead – as this ‘agent of change’ you speak about.

But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.

His Truth is not a truth that hates this nation, or affords Himself the time to sit and listen to hate against people of color and wealth status for 20 years and think himself a true Christian.

…And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they’re at – to communicate our hopes and values in a way that’s relevant to their own – then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.

So to translate, what you mean is that you need to communicate a Socialist/Liberal ideology in a way that masquerades as Christianity. That as Liberals, you understand that the Conservative religious nature of Americans is not one to continually denounce – but subvert.

To appear as a lamb, while actually speaking like a dragon, yes?

…those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.

Which is exactly what you are doing here.

In other words, if we don’t reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.

You mean the people you said “you don’t like” on Meet The Press last November?

What you stand for is contrary to both scripture and most religious traditions in this country.

More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical – if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.

Truly insidious Barrack Hussein Obama!

So instead of simply eschewing and removing any vestige or mention of God in public, you are advocating that you simply co-opt it – use the buzz words and catch phrases with religious imagery and terminology to come as wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Do you not think that Christ’s own will hear their own Master’s voice instead of yours masquerading as His? Do you honestly think Christians are shallow enough to be taken by key phrases and catch words to embrace a morality of political ideas anathema to the bible and to our foundational principles?

Our fear of getting “preachy” may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.

The fear is there because there is a conscience that did not wish to be seen as hypocritical, so removing religion and God was the most convenient way to push unbiblical morality on a people as a just and moral choice. But now, with you, you are willing to be bold – and outrightly misconstrue the scriptures and God, to speak as one to gain their confidence, and teach them doctrines totally alien to God’s Way.

After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness

No. Wrong. Those problems are rooted in sin and the indifference and callousness to sin that you “progressives” truly preach. Many Americans, are uninsured and unemployed, and they are not rooted in societal indifference or callousness. They might be rooted in job performance, market conditions, income level, living standards, family situation – time and circumstances happen to ALL MEN Mr. Obama. Not everything untoward that happens is the result of societal indifference and racial callousness.

Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds.

Totally backwards, and a bastardization of Christ’s Gospel, and the Foundations of this Republic. Government, should have no policy in engineering and administering social charity. That is the individual, the congregational, and the community’s policy to be acted upon and lived.

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities…

An infringement on the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

..but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we’ve got a moral problem. There’s a hole in that young man’s heart – a hole that the government alone cannot fix.

No you blithering idiot. The government HAS NO ROLE to fix men’s hearts. That is the job of an individual Christian, his church and the community he lives in. Given the kind of hate rantings that took place at your church, is it any wonder that heart-holes are wide open to hatred and anger? The same kind of anger you tell us today that we must “understand” the roots of?? The moral problem began when the gang banger decided to pick up a gun to do murder in the first place. Not that he shot into a crowd. Perhaps if this man was taught religion in his home, morals and standards in school, with a liberty to pray as he was led without the threat of penalty from government to prohibit that free exercise – the gun would never be used in anger or over sin.

I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation’s CEOs could bring about quicker results than a battalion of lawyers.

So you would use the government to enact that transformation of conscience in CEO’s minds as they do discriminatory anti-discrimination laws? How large of a tyrant do you wish to be? How long have you wanted to be king again?

I think that we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys.

How many multiple millions of dollars are ALREADY spent each month while test scores fall and the drop out rate increases?? More money is not the answer, yea I say it is part of the PROBLEM! The more money taken in for education – the dumber our children seem to get. How about less money thrown at giant bureaucracies and simple basic teaching restored with STANDARDS of high achievement expected, rather than boiling everything down to the lowest common denominator?

I also think that we should give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished.

You interfere in the sacred role of parents here. Who are you to promote the very tools that CONDONE promiscuous and pre-marital sex? Did Jesus suddenly revoke the sacredness of marriage?

But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman’s sense of self, a young man’s sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.

Train them in the way to be what? Sexually promiscuous but safe? How about teaching chastity, abstinence and purity – which are BIBLICAL and CHRISTIAN virtues. Giving a condom to a teen is NOT the Gospel of Christ on preventing pregnancy. Being monogamous, faithful and patient are.

I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology – that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith.

Thanks for demonstrating that very thing Mr. Obama. It would be dangerous indeed if every “progressive” out there suddenly sounded like they ‘got religion’. It might reveal your sham to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes.

As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap — off rhythm — to the choir. We don’t need that.

Heck no. You want everone walking in lockstep!

In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality.

Without religion, there is no morality.
Only the rule and morality of men, who decide what is, and what is not moral.
Like killing babies, or having sex before and outside of marriage.

How many panderings to Atheists, Secularists and the like will you make? How about militant Muslims – do they have morality? Wll you support THEIR morality of sawing off the heads of bound and helpless civilians with a steak knife or fly hijacked planes into buildings?

Oh, that’s right – your pastor said we deserved 9-11 because those were “Chickens…coming home to roost”

…Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

So you contradict yourself.

Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country.

There is nothing moral, and nothing of value from government imposed Socialism. It is pure tyranny, wrapped in a blanket of compassion to fool the unsuspecting.

We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of “thou” and not just “I,” resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.

You are not talking about ‘renewal’ – you are talking about remaking this nation into something it was never intended to be. You’re talking about co-opting and creating a leftist Secular Gospel masquerading as Christianity, to sucker in the masses to supporting your Marxist revolution.

Religious thinkers and activists like our good friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality.

Red Letter Christians erroneously think Jesus was a Socialist, and that by extension, we are supposed to transform this nation into a Soviet utopia. If Christians are so concerned about budget cuts, let them care directly for those such tax benefits are supposed to relieve. Wallis and Compolo more than prove that Christianity is simply a political tool for you to forward the Leftist agenda.

When you’ve got an estate tax debate that proposes a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don’t need and weren’t even asking for it, you know that we need an injection of morality in our political debate.

“Trillions” of dollars for social programs that have no business BEING government social and entitlement programs in the first place. Jesus’ instructions were for INDIVIDUALS to care for the poor and needy ourselves – not to empower a giant behemoth government to do it for us. Yet somehow, you ‘progressives’ – you Marxists deliberately attempt to equate charity with a government-run program that becomes a towering trillion dollar behemoth of waste, ruin and inefficiency. You are using Christianity to promote class warfare and hatred, by deciding who should and should not be entitled to a tax rebate of our own money!

Across the country, individual churches like my own and your own are sponsoring day care programs, building senior centers, helping ex-offenders reclaim their lives, and rebuilding our gulf coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

And let that continue, for individuals and churches have done a far superior job in those realms than by ANY and ALL the government programs out there. I was there. I was part of it. I lived and experienced it.
Government should have no role in such things.

So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will?

Lead by example.

It’s going to take more work, a lot more work than we’ve done so far.

Code words for tax increases?The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.

How about the ground rules of liberty? Like get the government off our back, leave us alone to pray and worship in peace, to freely exercise our faith, our speech and our rights without some giant government bureaucracy looking over our shoulders and prohibiting us?
Your platform and ideology stands for slavery to the government.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Except that you “progressives” have made it so ANY and EVERY expression of Christian faith and principle is to be excluded from any public exercise. What preserves our liberty SIR, is the religious tradition of this nation. For the principles of Christianity afford anyone to exercise, or not to exercise their faith – and to promote the kind of society, justice provides. A separation of church from state, ensures that true justice – of which our laws and rights are built upon – is tossed to the wind for the doctrines of men. A separation YOU AGREE WITH!

Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

A nation that cannot agree on foundational principles, must of itself – be uprooted and cast aside for new principles to be established whomever becomes a majority – be they Muslim ones, Hindu ones or things alien to our very existence. If we are no longer a Judeo-Christian nation as we were founded – then the liberties enshrined in that foundation will be assuredly cast aside for the tyranny of men.

The kind of tyranny you obviously see as solutions to our problems.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s?

Oh please, go back to history class. We had many divisive sects of Christian denominations at our founding – and they were willing to stand on the common bridge of understanding to forge our future. You essentially tell us in smooth words to toss the baby with the bathwater. The Colonists cried aloud “No King but Jesus” for a reason. From Catholics to Congregationalists to Lutherans to Presbyterians – they all stood as Sons of Liberty, on that which united them in common purpose.
You talk about uniting, but do nothing but accentuate the divisions and justify the hatreds and class envy and warfare with smooth words that have women fainting in your presence.

Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination?

Excuse you – but slavery was NEVER okay with God – and neither was DIVORCE. God allowed both, because of the hardness of our hearts, and the hard labor of sin that plagues us. It was never God’s intention for us to be slaves. Either to sin, or own one another – but we chose that for ourselves and we thus reap the consequences. So He made provision for it, because we refused to heed, but this was never God’s intention for us from the beginning.
As a Christian nation, we came to see that as sin, – and spilled large amounts of blood to rectify that sin.

How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?

Excuse you Barrack. Perhaps your Muslim upbringing robbed you of proper biblical context. Israel was a theocracy under God in a covenant THEY signed to. Death by stoning for sin was a necessity in that covenant. They were learning the physical example that sin brings death. Without salvation – they die in their sins. Have you not read Paul’s admonition that “A little leaven leavens the whole lump”? (Gal. 5:9) God instituted laws designed to protect the whole of the physical nation from crime and predators.

Should unrepentant criminals walk free in your morality Mr. Obama? Free to rape, kill and abuse and then if caught, be supported for life by the very society he sinned against?

The Messiah was promised that the death penalty we all earn for sin, can be forgiven. He was not yet given in Ancient Israel. But even in the presence of Jesus Himself – a woman charged with adultery was told to ‘go and sin no more’, lest she be caught again in the act and be stoned as proscribed by law.
We do not hear you saying, go and sin no more. We hear you excusing the sins, and telling us that the moral choice is to let sin abound.

Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.

I daresay, you have not been reading yours. Or your interpretation is as twisted as any I’ve read.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.

Where is that written in the Constitution?? If the whole people are no longer in agreement on morality, then it is an impossibility to translate anything into a universal value unless it is sin. For what is morality outside of scripture but the devices and ideas of mere men?

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do.

Well, right there, you disqualify yourself as any kind of Christian we should take seriously or consider. You come in the name of yourself and your own perverted standards rather than letting yourself be transformed by the Word of God.

It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible.

God has no compromise with sin. He makes no exception for it. Interesting you admonish us to.

Even those who claim the Bible’s inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages – the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ’s divinity – are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.

Most Christians do not take the Word of God as a buffet table where we can pick and choose for ourselves what we like while discarding the rest.

No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack.

Like your pastor of 20 years did?

They don’t want faith used to belittle or to divide.

Like the church you attended for two decades taught?

They’re tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that’s not how they think about faith in their own lives.

Funny that you never grew tired of hearing 20 years of White America Bashing Screed, even though now you say what your pastor Wright preached is not what you think.
Sorry Mr. Obama – you make yourself appear as an angel of light, and you are nothing of the kind when we stop to closely examine what you say outside of the clever and emoting rhetoric.

Obama Dances The Spin Dance To The Lies That Bind

After watching and reading Barrack Hussein Obama’s attempt Friday evening to calm the uproar over his pastor’s extremist anti-American/anti-white racism and his association with the Tony Rezko and William Ayers scandals, I’m convinced Obama is a better dancer around the truth than even Bill Clinton was.

In fact, Obama makes himself the Fred Astaire of bullpuckey. Obama’s dance, spin and twirl around questions of his judgment about the kind of company he keeps over the last two decades was truly breathtaking. It must be a political resume enhancer in this day and age to be able to lie with incredible skill and aplomb, for the people marvel at the ability to boldly lie with grace, and in that ability – Obama has shown he shines.

However, I was not fooled by Barrack’s sleight-of-foot.

Obama is an amazing liar. Smooth, misdirecting and redefining with incredible ease with little stumbling. He has raised spin to an new art form of mastery – one that puts the Clinton’s to utter shame and makes the former president look like an amateur “The-Dog-Ate-My-Homework” dufus.

Let’s take a look at Obama’s Spin Dance on Friday after the story about his Afro-centric pastor gained legs in the mainstream media. Amidst all the twirling spin and graceful sidesteps, there are glowing gaps of truth left wide open for us to discover.

Obama began his spin performance with a letter he wrote to the Huffington Post Friday afternoon.

He begins with a statement that will become his signature move of the evening by a strong footstomp of fact:

“The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring”

This became a foundational talking point that both Obama and his Apologists made sure was underscored. Fine. Hooray. He’s retiring. But it doesn’t really matter what Wright’s after-the-fact retirement is. The fact remains that Obama chose to be an intimate part of his congregation for two decades.

Then Obama employs the typical footwork of distancing himself from the firestorm controversy with these distinctive dance moves:

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

While the footwork is admirable here, he cannot outdance the fact that these comments by his pastor are not rare or new. In fact Wright has a decades-long history of combining his politics with his sermons. Obama even wrote about them in his book “Dreams from my father”. It is what inspired Obama to become a member. If Obama vehemently disagrees with these views, how is it he attended this separatist congregation for so long? Even as far as being married by and having his children baptised by this man and supporting it financially?

Somehow we are to believe Obama repudiates any statement that “disparages our great country or serves to divide us” when he attended a church by choice with a slogan of: “Unashamedly Black. Unapologetically Christian”? I cannot imagine what nuclear firestorm the Democrats and the media would have had if Mitt Romney was discovered to have attended even ONE service in a church with a slogan: “Unashamedly White. Unapologetically Mormon”.

Somehow though, Obama wants us to believe he eschews what ‘divides us’ when he attends and supports a church that preaches division and disparages whites and this country for 20 years?

Barrack Hussein Obama then attempts to just boldly deny he even knew of this ideology of his pastor:

”The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments.”

We cannot buy into this lie. While the technique of side-sliding is a bold one here, the fact remains that Wright preached some of the most outlandish comments played by the media this week from a 2003 Christmas sermon. Then there is the fact Wright himself WROTE articles in his magazine and had them published in his church bulletins. He had put many of his offensive political diatribes on DVD, including one “The Best of Pastor Wright” that contained many of these political rants we have been seeing clips of.

Does Obama really think we will buy his excuse that in 20 years of Wright’s Hate America, Hate Whitey liturgies – that he never knew where his pastor stood on these issues he says he opposes?? What a miracle for Obama to miss EVERY sermon, study and article Wright wrote that identifies his extremist views in the like manner we have been reading and hearing excerpts from.

No. And we shouldn’t. For this is one of Obama’s most glaring lies of the evening, one that he repeats on Fox News, and on CNN with Anderson Cooper, thinking that we will be so stunned by his denials, we will simply accept his statement at face value.

Well, we can’t.

As was pointed out almost immediately after his denouncement letter was posted on the Huffinton Post, on January 7th, 2008, journalist Ronald Kessler wrote the following, posted at Newsmax.com:

“Just before Obama’s nationally televised campaign kickoff rally last Feb. 10, the candidate [Obama] disinvited Wright from giving the public invocation. Wright explained: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli” to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, “a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”

According to Wright, Obama then told him, “’You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.’” But privately, Obama and his family prayed with Wright just before the presidential announcement.”

According to Wright, Obama attended sermons containing “rough content”, and knew that Wright’s sermons might be considered objectionable to voters.

So right there we can know – Obama lied.

It’s either that or his former pastor Jeremiah Wright lied about what Obama said.

But why would Mr. Wright have to lie about what Obama said he knew? He was after all, in fact, DISinvited to give the invocation at Obama’s presidential annoucement, which means there had to be a reason for the retraction of the invite.

Let’s be plain, Obama lied. Boldfaced. To the media Friday night.

Obama said he was never present when these ‘political’ and ‘social gospel’ messages were being ranted about by pastor Wright. He said so again later on with Anderson Cooper on CNN. Boldfaced. Straight into the camera when asked specifically whether or not he ever heard these sermons by Wright.

Obama said no, he never heard Wright talk like he had in those sermons.

Yet Jim Davis from a Newsmax story on August 9 of last year reported that Obama WAS IN ATTENDANCE at a sermon at Wright’s Trinity United where he launched into a litany of Hate White America rantings:

Wright’s strong sentiments were echoed in the Sunday morning service attended by NewsMax.

Wright laced into America’s establishment, blaming the “white arrogance” of America’s Caucasian majority for the woes of the world, especially the oppression suffered by blacks. To underscore the point he refers to the country as the “United States of White America.” Many in the congregation, including Obama, nodded in apparent agreement as these statements were made.

So, according to what Newsmax reported, what Barrack Hussein Obama said Friday night, makes him a liar.

Or he has Alzheimers.

Or, as is permissible in Islam, LIES to confuse the infidels.

It is incredulous in itself to think that we can take Obama’s denial of ever knowing about his pastor’s extremism as truth. His own church’s magazine the Trumpet, or the church bulletins are littered with essays by Wright proclaiming “This racist United States of America”.

Barrack Hussein Obama wants us, you and me to believe he never heard the sermons, watched the DVDs or read the literature from his own church.

It is clear that Obama’s former spiritual advisor hates America and Obama’s wife has said she has only been proud of America once; when it voted for her husband. It does not take a genius to figure out the connection between the kind of hate his pastor preached and what Michelle Obama meant behind the words she spoke. It also gives us pause to ask; exactly what kind of CHANGE and HOPE is Obama really talking about, and for whom?

Obama dances the mezmerizing dance of obfuscation and spin. On Saturday in Indiana he “calls for unity” and evokes RFK to attempt a deflection for the audience, and while they admire his incredible spinning, he’s hoping no one will notice he is dancing to different music altogether while reprising a line from his 2004 Democratic Convention speech:

“there’s no black America, white America, or Asian America or Latino America. There’s the United States of America.”

He says this now, yet sat in a Wright sermon and nodded his head in agreement when his former pastor and spiritual mentor disparaged this country as “…the United States of White America.”

But the skill of a dancer is not just in employing a single technique to perfection, but combining several to make the signature his very own, and it is here that Obama has shown he can just about outdance anyone. After preaching about unity, remembering RFK and MLK, Obama then launches from defense to offense and in perfect subtle aplomb, suggests those pointing out his flaws in judgment, are the dividers; the ugly ones:

But I noticed over the last several weeks that the forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again. And I’m not here to cast blame or point fingers because everybody, you know, senses that there’s been this shift. You know, that you’ve been seeing in the reporting. You’ve been seeing some of the commentaries of supporters on all sides.

Okay, so Obama sat in this divisive “Unashamedly Black” congregation for two decades and has the audacity to suggest that the forces of division are “raising their ugly heads” in the last several weeks? What about the last twenty years in YOUR chosen congregation Barrack?? Or are the forces of division being when those outside your congregation point out your incredible lack of judgment?

But while we use this moment to ponder, Obama, like a politcal Michael Jackson is up with a Moonwalk maneuver to shift attention by tossing the top hat of blame on the audience:

And it just reminds me that we’ve got a tragic history when it comes to race in this country. We’ve got a lot of pent-up anger and bitterness and misunderstanding. But what I continue to believe in is that this country wants to move beyond these kinds of divisions. That this country wants something different.

Really Mr. Obama?

Did you come to that revelation AFTER you left a twenty-year Seminary on Hating White America?

But while some are noticing the fact Obama is not keeping up with the beat forthrightly, the fact really is that the music he is dancing to is music he refuses to face.

Obama has horrible judgment in the kinds of associations he has, and his ability to dance around these very questionable characters and circumstances is beginning to reveal his amateurish political saavy. For all that incredible smoothness, he employs simple acrobatics with the truth to create an illusion.

From his ties to the former leader of the violent left-wing activist group the Weather Underground, to his ties with indicted Chicago financier Tony Rezko, Obama can dance hypnotically and make everyone almost forget he is dancing to the wrong music.

You’re a good dancer Barrack, but we’ve learned after Clinton how to spot the faults in the midst of an astoundingly smooth oratory.

Your past and your chosen associates, not to mention your platform – underscores the music that you are not fit for the Presidency.