C4

Tea Party Nation Tells Us That Obamacare is Like Rape

This weekend, Tea Party Nation president Judson Philips emailed to the group’s members an article by TPN writer Darwin Rockantansky that compares the Affordable Care Act to rape.

Rockantansky starts off his article by musing about “Law & Order: SVU” villains who claim that their victims “enjoy” rape. This, he says, is just like Affordable Care Act proponents defending the ACA to their relatives at Thanksgiving dinner. “Their message is truly quite simple,” he writes. “Lie back and quit fighting and eventually you will enjoy the experience.”

He adds: “But I will encourage you to think about your own families and extended families and decide for yourself if there is a point at which this rape experience could possibly become enjoyable;  rape of our free will, rape of our religious convictions, rape of free markets, rape of our Constitution, a brutal rape of the American Dream and personal freedoms.”

There is one particular group of these programs called: “Law And Order: SVU”. And in this series there are a few episodes that I simply cannot watch because they expose the deepest darkest side of human nature and despite their disclaimer that no real persons are reflected, most people recognize that there are far too many real world parallels for comfort.

And in some of these episodes, there are gifted actors that portray fictional characters whose defense when charged with rape runs along these lines:

  •  “She seduced me.”
  •  “She wanted it.”
  •  “She enjoyed it.”

Really?

At what point does rape become a pleasurable experience for the victim?

And whom among us are not revolted and angered by such nonsense?

And whom among us are willing to believe that if we “Just lay back and don’t fight it you will inevitably enjoy it.”?

And the “IT” that I am referring to here is “Obamacare”.

The Obama Regime is encouraging people to become the evangelists for Obamacare in their own family and social groups over Thanks Giving dinner. Their message is truly quite simple: Lie back and quit fighting and eventually you will enjoy the experience.

I won’t belabor you with the horrendously offensive aspects of this Socialist doctrine. Nor can I predict the level of socially unacceptable behavior that might erupt should some fool attempt to do that in my home much less over Thanks Giving dinner (ALL of which I personally prepare from scratch ).

But I will encourage you to think about your own families and extended families and decide for yourself if there is a point at which this rape experience could possibly become enjoyable;  rape of our free will, rape of our religious convictions, rape of free markets, rape of our Constitution, a brutal rape of the American Dream and personal freedoms.
 

Erik Rush: People Who Criticize Me Belong In Jail

In a blog post published Friday, Erik Rush demands that journalists, Obama administration officials, and anyone who criticizes Erik Rush be jailed for treason. In a post entitled, “Obama is a dangerous, psychopathic dictator – Period,” Rush alleges that all of these groups are treasonous because they refuse to expose President Obama’s secret plot to nuke America and kill 300 million people.

He starts off his argument by citing a clearly sarcastic remark by Bill Ayers to argue that Ayers was the real author of President Obama’s book Dreams From My Father.

“[T]hose in government and in the press who have failed to reveal Obama for what he is – considering his actions, the evidence of history, and the damning evidence against Obama which is readily available – richly deserve to share in whatever penalties are meted out to traitors and their enablers,” Rush writes. “I will continue to do this despite the risks and pathetic Alinskyite Marxist ridicule of those whom I pray one day occupy prison cells on the same block as the man representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama.”

Admittedly, misrepresenting a ghost written book is analogous to jaywalking when compared to orchestrating an EMP attack on one’s own country and murdering millions in order to coalesce political power and bring about the hundred year-long wet dream of American Marxists, but it is nevertheless a good place to start for those Americans who have yet to become aware of this creature’s duplicity and incomprehensibly malevolent designs.

In relating those designs to the American people (as opposed to continuing to act as collaborators in his crimes), the shady origins of Dreams might also be a good place for the press to start. They might then move on to the entirely synthetic story of his past, which contains so many inconsistencies and changes in the narrative itself that Obama ought not have been electable as dog catcher. Who says they have to lead with Obama’s birth certificate having been proven to be a fraudulent device?

As this counterfeit American president continues to attempt to defray suspicion and conceal his treason and lies, I intend to continue to expound upon that treason and those lies. I will also continue to assert that those in government and in the press who have failed to reveal Obama for what he is – considering his actions, the evidence of history, and the damning evidence against Obama which is readily available – richly deserve to share in whatever penalties are meted out to traitors and their enablers. I will continue to do this despite the risks and pathetic Alinskyite Marxist ridicule of those whom I pray one day occupy prison cells on the same block as the man representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama.

Peterson: Obama & Oprah Winfrey Incite 'Blacks To Attack Whites'

Conservative Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson knows who to blame for the “knockout game,” the latest fictional crime wave to catch the imagination of the right-wing media. President Obama and Oprah Winfrey, writes Peterson, are “encouraging these blacks to attack whites” and inflaming “black thugs [to] attack unsuspecting whites.”

In a WorldNetDaily column on Friday, Peterson writes that Obama and Winfrey use “racial demagoguery” and “race baiting” to “encourage division and hatred between races,” and are therefore to blame for the much-hyped “knockout game.”

OBAMA, OPRAH, MEDIA TO BLAME FOR BLACK MOBS

Did you ever imagine that, in America, groups of black thugs would attack unsuspecting whites? Did you ever think the first black president and Oprah Winfrey would encourage division and hatred between races?

In today’s America, that’s the unfortunate reality.

In what many tamely call the “knockout game,” black teenagers target whites to attack them without provocation. The aim is to knock the victim unconscious with one blow. Man, woman, young or old – it doesn’t matter – these thugs do not care.



Hatred for whites is reinforced and encouraged in black movies, hate-filled rap music and by black leaders: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, Barack Obama and even Oprah Winfrey.

Oprah recently stated that white opposition to Barack Obama was rooted in racism and that older whites “just have to die” for racism to diminish.

Oprah has made billions of dollars thanks to white people who watch her shows and buy products she endorses. For her to smear millions of whites as “racist” without proof is despicable.

Her race baiting is akin to Obama accusing the white Cambridge, Mass., police officers of “acting stupidly.” Or when Obama weighed in after the Trayvon Martin shooting and said to highlight the racial factor: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Shameful!

This type of racial demagoguery coming from influential blacks fuels anger toward whites and the judicial system – this is what is encouraging these blacks to attack whites.

WND: 'Jesus Christ Is Weeping In Heaven' Over Pope Francis's Remarks On Unfettered Capitalism

Right-wing commentators continue to attack Pope Francis for his recent indictment of consumerism and unfettered capitalism, and WorldNetDaily is cheering them on.

In a cartoon by Mike Lester published in WND on Thursday, Francis spray paints over the line “Teach a man to fish” — which is not actually a Bible verse but is commonly misrepresented as one — and replaces it with “Give a man a fish.”

Jonathan Moseley of the Northern Virginia Tea Party also took to the conservative news outlet yesterday to maintain that Jesus is crying over the Pope’s “socialist philosophy”:

One truth shines out from the Bible: Jesus spoke to the individual, never to government or government policy. Jesus was a capitalist, preaching personal responsibility, not a socialist.

Pope Francis condemned capitalism. Some argue that Francis’ Spanish-language Apostolic Exhortation was mistranslated. But Francis is not among those disputing that translation. Moreover, corrected translations are no better.

Francis argues for dependence upon government to redistribute wealth. And con artists in the U.S. are seizing on the opportunity to spread the misery of socialism. Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin this week called Pope Francis on his mangling of economics. Then author Reza Aslan struck back in the Washington Post, claiming that Jesus was a socialist.



Worst of all, this controversy encourages misery, poverty and the destruction of human lives. Jesus Christ is weeping in heaven hearing Christians espouse a socialist philosophy that has created suffering and poverty around the world. It is impossible to love one’s neighbor as yourself without fighting against socialism, meaning government meddling in private lives.

Geller Attacks New York Times For Reporting On Cancer Rate Among Jewish Women

After attacking Pope Francis, anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller is now going after the New York Times for reporting that the high rate of breast cancer among Israeli women has led to calls for a “national screening campaign to test women for cancer-causing genetic mutations common among Jews.”

“Jews of Ashkenazi, or central and eastern European, backgrounds, who make up about half the Jews in Israel and the vast majority of those in the United States, are much more likely to carry mutations that increase the risks for both breast and ovarian cancers, according to the National Cancer Institute,” the Times reported.

But according to Geller, such reporting means the Times is sending the message that “Jews = cancer.”

She is also angry that the Times featured a photo of a Jewish woman with a tattoo because “tattoos are a violation of Jewish law,” she wrote in WorldNetDaily yesterday.

THE CANCEROUS NEW YORK TIMES

On the first night of Chanukah, the New York Times indulged in its grotesque penchant for its special brand of subtle, sophisticated Jew-hatred, on the front page – of course.

Not only did the New York Times publish a nipple on the front page (a first) next to a tattooed Jewish star, but the article is all about the cancerous Jews. Front page stuff, don’t you know? All the Jews that are fit to libel in print:

While poor countries struggle to provide even basic cancer care to women, wealthier societies like Israel and the United States are increasingly using sophisticated technologies to identify those at greatest risk in an effort to thwart the disease before it gets started. [emphasis hers]

Front page. It’s really vile – disgusting. A tattooed (tattoos are a violation of Jewish law) Jewish star above a nipple as the image for the “Jews’ genetic predisposition to cancer.” Jews = cancer. Jews were tattooed and naked when they were killed in concentration camps. The Times must be taking its talking points from Iran.



The New York Times exposed a “highly classified Pentagon order” authorizing Special Operations forces to hunt al-Qaida leaders in mountains of Pakistan. The New York Times exposed SWIFT (which put military and civilians at great risk of jihad). SWIFT was a legal secret program that gave the government access to a massive database of international financial transactions, using “broad subpoenas to collect the financial records from an international system.”

But it has no reservations about submitting to the bloody demands of Shariah and spreading Jew-hatred on its front page. The New York Times has surrendered to savagery.

Keyes: Gay Marriage Is 'A Social Weapon Of Mass Destruction'

In a Renew America column Saturday, Alan Keyes attacked Wyoming Senate candidate Liz Cheney for not denouncing marriage equality strongly enough, claiming that her opposition is so weak that it will only help the gay rights movement. Keyes, like Cheney, has an openly gay family member: He disowned his daughter after she came out of the closet.

During his 2004 campaign for Senate against then-state senator Barack Obama, Keyes derided Liz Cheney’s openly gay sister Mary as a “selfish hedonist”; at the time, Liz said she would not “dignify [the remark] with a comment.”

Keyes insists that gays and lesbians do not have the right to marry because marriage is based on procreation. He slams marriage equality as a “capital injustice” as well as “a social weapon of mass destruction aimed at dissolving the existential foundation of human society, while bringing down the ideas of higher law and natural right that are the hallmarks, in particular, of the American way of life.”

Procreation is self-evidently one of those obligations. When individuals voluntarily choose to follow their natural inclination to fulfill this obligation, they do what is right, not just for themselves or their offspring, but for the species as a whole. Certain special qualities of human nature result in a capacity for self-conscious individual choice. Accordingly, for individuals who deliberately take responsibility for the consequences of procreation, what they do is not just an attribute of their species as a whole. It is their personal belonging, engendered in consequence of their personal decision to conform their way of living to the requirements of survival for the species as a whole.

But this decision is not just an invisible inner determination of their intangible will. It is expressed concretely, through the voluntarily use of their primordial natural possession: the individual physical body, insofar as it informs and is responsive to their will. The traceable connection between their will, their physical actions, and the new instance of human life that results, gives this belonging a concrete certainty that becomes the implicit paradigm for all the severable forms of human property that are grounded in natural right.

The institution of marriage is thus rooted in the natural belonging that arises in connection with accepting the obligation to perpetuate the species. The claims of natural right connected with marriage are logically connected with voluntarily fulfilling this obligation. To be sure, a variety of customs, traditions, and religious disciplines have overlaid this natural right with all kinds of conventional and legal trappings.

...

But what natural obligation is involved in homosexual relations? Even if, for argument's sake, one accepts the absurd view that the human individual's natural desire for sensual pleasure constitutes a law of nature, humanly speaking, by what reasoning could we reach the conclusion that this imperative of individual pleasure is equal or superior to the natural obligation of procreation? The latter serves and preserves helpless individual humans in their infancy. It also cultivates a capacity for self-sacrifice that contributes to the preservation of the species in innumerable ways, like providing the emotional touchstone of respect for the requirements of human social life. All of this tends to preserve humanity, in the moral as well as physical sense, from extinction.

To be sure, individual human beings who identify themselves as homosexuals may wish to take advantage of opportunities like adoption, available in today's society, to indulge the experience of "parenting." But to harness the force of law, so that this indulgence is poised to usurp the name and rights of the natural family; to abuse the respect for law in order to denigrate the choice that accepts, as a natural obligation, the God-ordained vocation of procreation; and withal to pervert the enforcement of law in order to persecute those who oppose this capital injustice – all this is worse than folly and sly selfishness. It is the deployment of a social weapon of mass destruction aimed at dissolving the existential foundation of human society, while bringing down the ideas of higher law and natural right that are the hallmarks, in particular, of the American way of life.

Too bad Liz Cheney and other such GOP candidates, who seem so determined to exploit conservative voters for political gain, only do so as a matter of personal sentiment and self-justification. Their pose would be more credible if they took the time to digest and articulate the powerful arguments that reasonably justify the decent, thoroughly American common sense of the people they are offering to represent. After all, isn't this one of the services a truly capable representative is supposed to provide?

Sekulow Admits He Has No Problem With The DC Circuit Nominees He Opposes

On the 700 Club today, Pat Robertson got to talking with the American Center for Law and Justice’s Jay Sekulow about President Obama’s three nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court. Although Robertson was concerned that there might be a “feminist”among them, Sekulow said he had no problem with the nominees themselves and instead repeated the GOP’s flimsy argument that President Obama’s nominating people to judicial vacancies constitutes “court-packing.”

Sekulow went out of his way to sing the praises of one of the three nominees, Patricia Millett, whom he called “a very bright lawyer,” but said the nominees’ qualifications are “not the question. The question is are these judges needed?”

Sekulow – like many of his allies in the Senate GOP – might want to check his own record before claiming that President Obama’s filling the D.C. Circuit’s vacant 9th, 10th, and 11th seats amounts to “court packing.” Under President Bush, Sekulow advocated for nominees to the very same seats: He boasted about “working aggressively” to confirm Janice Rogers Brown to the court’s 10th seat in 2005, supported Thomas Griffith’s nomination to the court’s 11th seat the same year, and demanded a vote on Brett Kavanaugh to the 10th seat in 2006.

Despite Sekulow’s vague claim that “There’s a real question as to the workload of these courts that are at an all-time low in the last ten or fifteen years,” the George W. Bush nominee who now runs the official body that recommends adding and subtracting federal judgeships has said the D.C. Circuit’s workload has remained “relatively steady” over that time.

Sekulow may also remember that he lobbied in 2005 to change the Senate’s filibuster rules in response to Senate Democrats’ blocking of a handful of extreme Bush nominees, saying that judicial nominees are “entitled...under the Constitution” to an up-or-down Senate vote.

Although he’s happy to rail against President Obama’s temerity in nominating qualified, unobjectionable judges to judicial vacancies, Sekulow signaled to Robertson that he would expect a Republican president to do the same, but to fill the vacancies with out-of-the-mainstream judges.

“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” he said of the Senate’s recent rules change. “And it means what’s going to happen here is when the Republicans are back in control -- which will happen one day, in the Senate, in the White House – look out on who’s going to be appointed. There should be no holds barred on these judicial appointments.”

 

Robertson: Muslim Neighbor Invited Demonic Presence Into Your Home

On today’s 700 Club, Pat Robertson defended a viewer who told him that she asked a neighbor who was staying with her to leave her house after finding out he was a Muslim. “Kimberly” said that after she took in a neighbor who was kicked out of his house by his father, she “felt an evil presence while cooking in my kitchen” and “heard him praying to Allah in my home.” She asked Robertson if she undermined Jesus’ teaching that “just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me” by asking the neighbor to leave.

The televangelist agreed that while she shouldn’t just limit her charity to other Christians, “that doesn’t mean you have to bring an unclean spirit into your home.”

“If somebody in truth is worshiping some sort of a demonic presence then that will pervade your home and no you don’t offer hospitality to something like that,” Robertson said today on the 700 Club, while admitting that he doesn’t understand the circumstances. “You don’t have to offer hospitality to a coven of witches, for example.”

Watch:

Peter LaBarbera Wants To Stop The Gays From Ruining Thanksgiving!

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality head Peter LaBarbera wishes you a very happy Thanksgiving, even though gay rights advocates want to ruin it by saying that they’re thankful for the gains in the movement for LGBT equality.

“Now homosexuality advocates (and others) have taken this regrettable phenomenon a step further: using Thanksgiving as an opportunity to be ‘thankful for’ developments that are decidedly ungodly – e.g., the advance of out-and-proud homosexualism,” LaBarbera laments. “How insidious is the ‘Progressive’ Left’s radical redefinition of everything noble – patriotism, liberty, equality, and now even God Himself – to advance their destructive agendas?”

As secularism and – dare I say – godlessness deepen in these United States, many are leaving God out of Thanksgiving Day. Language always follows the heart: have you noticed the habit that has crept in of being thankful for this and that – without being thankful to God?

Now homosexuality advocates (and others) have taken this regrettable phenomenon a step further: using Thanksgiving as an opportunity to be “thankful for” developments that are decidedly ungodly – e.g., the advance of out-and-proud homosexualism, including “same-sex marriage,” in the United States.

I came upon this homosexual website article timed for Thanksgiving about homosexuals being thankful for various “gay rights” achievements, including more lesbians on TV We know as Christians and Bible-respecting Jews that Our Heavenly Father is not smiling on that



And so, we have come full circle: citizens of a nation founded “under God” use our annual day of gratitude — conceived to humbly give thanks to God — to celebrate sin. How insidious is the “Progressive” Left’s radical redefinition of everything noble – patriotism, liberty, equality, and now even God Himself – to advance their destructive agendas?

Last week, while AFTAH protested outside at the University of Illinois-Chicago, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) – in addition to sullying Abe Lincoln’s good name — quoted the Bible (the “love” passage in 1 Corinthians 13) to celebrate his signing of a homosexual “marriage” bill into law [watch the ceremony HERE]. Folks, this political profanity. To paraphrase another Democrat who sold his soul to the “Gay” Lobby — Barack Obama — God is definitely NOT in the mix when it comes to recasting “marriage” to accommodate sexual perversion.



So have a great Thanksgiving, watch some football, enjoy your feast – but take at least a moment, even privately in your heart, to thank the Lord your God for all your blessings – including living in a nation that has been blessed abundantly by Him. And repent of your sins, just as we as a nation must repent and return to honoring our motto of being under God if we are to achieve greatness again, and avoid His divine judgment upon us.

Alex Jones: 'We Are Living In The Hunger Games'

Alex Jones hailed The Hunger Games yesterday for exposing “the deepest dream of the New World Order” that shows the looming “end of humanity, the end of freedom.” Jones dedicated a segment of his show to explaining that “we are living in The Hunger Games” thanks to Agenda 21, a nonbinding United Nations blueprint on sustainable development: “We are already living in this and this is Agenda 21.”

“This is all coming true, this is all happening, this is actually the Agenda 21 exact plan,” Jones said. “This woman [Suzanne Collins] who wrote it is either a total patriot and aware of what’s going on and super smart, or she’s a total operative. We’ve tried to contact her many times, obviously.”

Jones warned that President Obama is on the brink of becoming a dictator as “all over the country the military is rolling out, preparing for war, not with Al Qaeda but with the Tea Party, with gun owners, with veterans, with Christians,” and that the UN’s New World Order troops will look a lot like the Capitol’s vicious Peacekeepers in The Hunger Games.

But Jones also fears that liberals will try to steal The Hunger Games trilogy from conservatives: “They have created the crisis, this is socialism we’re seeing with fascism on top, now their answer will be more of this. They’re saying they hope to cause a leftist revolution with this film and others, so that’s why it looks like it’s anti-establishment because the establishment is so sophisticated that they have to steal our energy.”

Is Mark Driscoll A Serial Plagiarist?

Mark Driscoll, a right-wing megachurch pastor best known for his chauvinistic, bullying, anti-gay and domineering preaching style, is facing charges of plagiarism from his fellow conservatives. When talk show host Janet Mefferd confronted him about the plagiarism claims in an interview last week, Driscoll was offended that Mefferd dared to ask him such questions and told her that she was “grumpy,” “rude” and “not very Christ-like.”

He patted himself on the back for being “gracious and humble” through it all, adding that he couldn’t appropriately answer Mefferd’s questions because he had a cold and was doing her a favor by appearing on her show. Driscoll’s publisher similarly claimed that it was not Driscoll who was at fault but Mefferd for taking a “belligerent tone” with him, and supporters eagerly piled on.

Christian blogs have noted that Driscoll himself preached against plagiarism as a “Satanic issue.”

Mefferd responded to the criticism yesterday on her show and posted material [PDF] from two Driscoll publications that clearly lift from other books.

She writes on her blog:

On Nov. 21, I conducted an interview with Mars Hill Church Pastor Mark Driscoll. During the course of the interview, I questioned Pastor Driscoll about two sections of his book, “A Call to Resurgence,” which neglected to contain any quotes, detailed footnotes or attribution for his reproduction of another scholar’s thoughts and insights. The passages in question are on pages 38-47 and pages 185-189 of Pastor Driscoll’s book. Those pages of material all borrow from the original material of Dr. Peter Jones, cited here in his books, “Gospel Truth and Pagan Lies” and “One or Two: Seeing a World of Difference.”

Today, we also revealed that Pastor Driscoll has lifted material from another source — word for word — in another of his books, “Trial: 8 Witnesses From 1&2 Peter.” This was a book published in 2009 by Mars Hill Church. On pages 7 and 8, Driscoll lifts and publishes, under his own name, an entire section from “1 Peter,” New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, Ed. D. A. Carson, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994),p. 1370.



Since many listeners have asked for the evidence of our claims, we have compiled 27 pages of material for public investigation. It is our hope that people will examine the evidence and determine whether or not these charges of plagiarism are true.

TPN Author: Jefferson 'Demanded Total Repeal' of Slavery, Just Like Ted Cruz Is Doing For Obamacare

In an article emailed to Tea Party Nation members on Monday, Lloyd Marcus, an activist, songwriter, and self-described “(black) Unhyphenated American” sings the praises of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, whom he compares to Martin Luther King, Jr., Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and accuses Cruz’s “establishment” critics of being no better than Don Corleone.

Marcus’ most colorful analogy is between Cruz and Jefferson, whom Marcus insists “demanded total repeal” of slavery, just like Cruz is demanding the repeal of Obamacare. “Like Jefferson standing firm on repealing slavery, Sen. Cruz has stood firm on the total repeal of Obamacare,” Marcus writes. He must be reading David Barton.

Marcus goes on to compare Cruz’s crusade to the Continental Army’s fight to “resist the mighty British.”

From what I recall of my childhood, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s civil rights movement was not universally embraced in the black community. Some blacks were frightened by his actions and angry at the “crazy” colored man for stirring up trouble. “He is making things worse for Negros!” MLK became an American icon.

Considering that slavery was the norm, founding father Thomas Jefferson calling slavery a “moral depravity” and the greatest threat to the survival of our new nation was a “crazy” thing to say.

Talk about history repeating itself, attempts were made to seduce Jefferson with “fixes” for slavery. If slavery could be made kinder and gentler, that would nullify the need to repeal it. Jefferson did not fall for their trap. He demanded total repeal. The Obama Administration is attempting to bamboozle Republicans with “fixes” for Obamacare. Like Jefferson standing firm on repealing slavery, Sen. Cruz has stood firm on the total repeal of Obamacare.

It was pretty “crazy” for Gen. George Washington and his rag-tag Continental Army to resist the mighty British. In the winter snow at Valley Forge, Washington and his troops had no heat, not enough food, medicine or doctors; 2,500 troops died from the severe conditions and another 2,500 went home. Only 6,000 cold starving soldiers stayed to fight.

Though suffering many defeats and retreats, Washington and his men ultimately won America's war for independence.

Every great idea and movement began with a visionary leader besieged by naysayers accusing them of being crazy, stupid or arrogant; annoyed at them for even trying. “Who do you think you are?”

As do eagles, great leaders typically fly alone.

Freshman Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz is an eagle.

A “Wanted Politically Dead or Alive” bounty is out on Cruz's head for daring to go against the establishment. Like Don Michael Corleone told his brother Fredo to never go against the family before having him murdered, freshman Sen. Cruz was expected to know never go against the Washington DC establishment. Republicans, Democrats and the media would love to see Sen. Cruz politically sleeping with the fishes.

VDARE Defends Golden Dawn

The violent, extreme right Golden Dawn, a Greek political party implicated in organized crime, has found an ally in VDARE’s Nicholas Stix, who claims that “Golden Dawn is simply resisting this genocidal process.” He lauds Golden Dawn for “resisting the extermination of the Greek people” in the face of “mass non-white, Third World immigration.”

“And if they want to survive, other Western nations will, one way or another, have to make the same choice – no matter what names they are called,” Stix writes.

However, one thing I do not doubt about the party: It does seek to run all aliens out of the country.

Let’s not beat around the bush. Golden Dawn are a brutal lot. But it is a party in a revolutionary situation, confronted with mass non-white, Third World immigration into the West. In Greece, an incredible two million immigrants, most of them recently-arrived, illegal, non-white, and Muslim, are leeching off and dispossessing the mere 10.8 million white, 98 percent Orthodox Christian, Greeks. [The CIA World Factbook, last checked on November 22, 2013.]

Greece is one of the main entry points for illegal immigration from Africa and Asia, most of it from across the Turkish frontier. Back in 2010, up to 350 immigrants were crossing the border every day, accounting for about 90 per cent of all illegal immigrants coming into Europe. [Uncontrolled immigration is fuelling Greece's violent street politics. The EU needs to sit up and take notice by Colin Freeman, Telegraph, last updated: September 30th, 2013.]

Some Greek businessmen support the invaders, based on the usual short-sighted Slave Power-type greed. But the most powerful force behind the invasion is the European Union. The EU is actively pushing policies that will result in genocide against all indigenous, European peoples.



Golden Dawn is simply resisting this genocidal process and filling a political vacuum.



Peter Brimelow coined the phrase “Hitler’s revenge” in his 1995 book Alien Nation to describe how Western nations, repulsed by Nazism, have reacted by abolishing their own identities, so in the end, Hitler is actually achieving his goal of destroying his enemies.

When government refuses to perform its core functions such as protecting the borders and enforcing the laws, the nation has a choice. Citizens can either step in to do the job, or the nation will perish.

Golden Dawn is resisting Hitler’s revenge. It’s resisting the extermination of the Greek people.

And if they want to survive, other Western nations will, one way or another, have to make the same choice – no matter what names they are called.

Geller: When Did Pope Francis 'Become An Imam'?

In case you needed more proof that right-wing activists have qualms about Pope Francis, Pamela Geller attacked the new pope on her Islamophobic blog yesterday over his call for “affection and respect” toward Muslims. Geller writes that the pope’s new document, Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel), is a “disgrace” and that Francis “sanctions savagery.”

“When did he become an imam?” Geller asked.

POPE FRANCIS SANCTIONS SAVAGERY

At a time when Christianity worldwide is under siege by Islamic jihadists, the leader of the Catholic Church claims that the quran teaches non-violence. As Christians across the Muslim world live in abject terror and fear kidnapping, rape and slaughter to the bloodcurdling cries of "Allahu akbar," the pope gives papal sanction to the savage.

APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION EVANGELII GAUDIUM OF THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY, CONSECRATED PERSONS AND THE LAY FAITHFUL ON THE PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL IN TODAY’S WORLDVatican.va November 24, 2013:

253. In order to sustain dialogue with Islam, suitable training is essential for all involved, not only so that they can be solidly and joyfully grounded in their own identity, but so that they can also acknowledge the values of others, appreciate the concerns underlying their demands and shed light on shared beliefs. We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants to our countries in the same way that we hope and ask to be received and respected in countries of Islamic tradition. I ask and I humbly entreat those countries to grant Christians freedom to worship and to practice their faith, in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries! Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.

How does he know that? When did he become an imam?

"So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks..." quran 47:4 "And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows." quran 8:60

"Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed." quran 9:111

Nothing will be gained by this refusal to face reality. Christians will still be slaughtered in the name of Islam and jihad all over the Muslim world. And now the Pope has forbidden Catholics to speak honestly about what is happening and why. It's a disgrace.

Karl Rove’s IRS Problem

Thanks to some tax-return digging, ProPublica found this week that the Karl Rove-connected Crossroads GPS actually spent at least $11 million more on political activities last year than they told the IRS. ProPublica’s Kim Barker reported:

New tax documents, made public last Tuesday, indicate that at least $11.2 million of the grant money given to the group Americans for Tax Reform was spent on political activities expressly advocating for or against candidates. This means Crossroads spent at least $85.7 million on political activities in 2012, not the $74.5 million reported to the Internal Revenue Service.

But what’s an extra $11 million spent on political activities, right?  Wrong. Tax-exempt 501(c)(4) social welfare groups are limited in the amount of political spending they can do while maintaining their exempt status. And these developments about Crossroads GPS only underscore the need for more robust government oversight of political spending. 

Unfortunately, this is an effort that has been made much more difficult in the wake of recent Supreme Court rulings. As Michael Keegan noted in May, the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision opened the door to an explosion of spending by c(4) groups like Crossroads GPS because it allowed  them to run political ads as long as they weren’t using the majority of their money for electoral work.

Moreover, dark money groups sometimes attempt to underreport the political spending that they do undertake, which has not been helped by the IRS’s past reluctance to issue “bright lines” around what must be counted as political spending.

But that may change soon. The Treasury Department and the IRS are expected to issue guidance today specifying what “candidate-related political activity” entails and how much of it 501(c)(4) social welfare groups are allowed to do.

PFAW

Garrow & Rush: Obama Should Be Tried And Executed Over Mythical EMP Plot

Did you know that the Iranian nuclear deal was really a way for President Obama to distract the world from his thwarted plot to nuke America? Well, you do now!

Conservative activist Jim Garrow appeared yesterday on Full Contact with Erik Rush, where he presented his theory that the Geneva talks weren’t, as some have claimed, about distracting Americans from Obamacare but were actually the latest trick of the “Barnum and Bailey huckster in the White House” to keep the lid on an aborted nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack.

Garrow and Rush, a Fox News regular, have both insisted that Obama almost nuked America until three anonymous members of the military [brass] blocked his deadly plan, which Garrow claims was meant to help George Soros make money by betting against the US dollar.

“People were looking and started looking at this whole notion that there could have been this EMP event being planned,” Garrow said. “300 million people would have died within a year if it hadn’t been for those three individuals who took a bullet, basically a career bullet, a career-ending bullet, and maybe a life-ending bullet, we’ll have to see, we will have to safeguard them by getting the details out there.”

The two also praised Paul Vallely, a former general who spoke at Larry Klayman’s rally in favor of a “Second American Revolution” against President Obama.

Garrow said that Obama should be removed from office, tried for treason and “either put up against a wall and shot or hung” over the EMP plot. He also envisioned a sheriff with military support trying to arrest Obama for treason, noting that “whether it would be legal or lawful to do it would be answered after the bullets were fired.”

Garrow: This call for the removal of the president is highly appropriate; in fact it is appropriate given what the alternative would be. If in fact this man is doing the things that he is being reported to be doing, he needs to be removed, he needs to be in fact tried for treason and of course the finality of that is a man gets either put up against a wall and shot or hung. Treason is not to be stood for — ever — and that’s what we have right now in the White House. Paul [Vallely] isn’t talking about the nuclear side of it but I know they are letting me do that and take bullets.

Rush: Aside from the fact that as I mentioned before you came one, Obama remains the consummate BS artist and actor. Despite all of that, I’m sure that he knows what the alternative is should he fail, should we succeed, should these things come out and be widely known and if he were to be removed I’m sure that he knows that the penalties for such actions that he has taken do fall within those unpleasant realms of execution and all of that unpleasant stuff. I think it is very noteworthy that General Vallely has come out and said that impeachment is not the way to go, he’s talking about making the President’s position so untenable that those in Congress right up to the Speaker and the Senate Minority Leader and all of those folks, action has to be taken and making things essentially not work, they won’t be able to get anything done for all of the political upheaval. He is talking about peaceful demonstrations.

Garrow: He’s also talking about the removal of Mr. Obama and to remove him has all sorts of ramifications and implications. How do you remove him? Frankly, we have sheriffs in the country who by law have the right to arrest people. They’re the guys, if someone was going to go in and arrest the president, it would be probably a sheriff along with military to back him up because you still got the Secret Service, you still got people who are there to protect the President, and they have to be contended with. Whether it would be legal or lawful to do it would be answered after the bullets were fired.

FRC Attacks Judicial Nominee For Saying There Should Be Women On The Supreme Court

The Family Research Council’s attempts to paint President Obama’s female nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals as “radical feminists” aren’t going so well.

First, the FRC attacked Nina Pillard for quoting something the late Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote about the importance of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Now, the FRC seems to think it’s found a winning argument against Patricia Millett, the other woman in the slate of three D.C. Circuit nominees: She thinks there should be women on the Supreme Court.

In his daily email on Friday, FRC’s Tony Perkins wrote:

As it stands right now, the D.C. Circuit is evenly divided between Democrat and Republican appointed judges -- but that's about to change. Using the nuclear option, the Senate moved forward with reconsidering Patricia Millett, the first of three previously blocked nominees the President will be employing to pack the court in his favor. Millett has shown an activist tendency in how she views the court, believing it's more important it look a certain way than judge a certain way.

When President Bush nominated Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Millett bemoaned that O'Connor wasn't being replaced by another woman, as if gender impacts who's most qualified to apply the Constitution to the facts in a case or that our highest court should be seen as a representative body. She sees the redefinition of marriage turning on her own definition of fairness and not the law.

FRC seems to have picked up this line of attack from a talking points document put together by the right-wing Judicial Action Group, which claims that Millett's comment in a 2009 interview that “there was a lot of upset over the failure to put a woman on to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor” shows that she would have a poor "judicial temperament.”

Yes, this is actually the argument that FRC is using against an accomplished woman’s judicial nomination in 2013.

Here’s what Millett actually said, in a 2009 interview about whom President Obama might choose to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. At the time, there was just one woman on the court and Millett stressed that there were “many qualified women” who would make President Obama’s short-list, even if gender was not considered:

There was a lot of upset over the failure to put a woman on to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and…it would be extraordinary to have no women on the Supreme Court in this day and age. But even to only have one is, I think, a sorry statement about the appointment process thus far, and where it’s gotten in the last eight years.

So, I think the pressure to have a Supreme Court that looks in many ways – and gender is just one way – that is reflective of the public it serves, would require that a woman gets serious consideration. And there’s no doubt that there are many, many qualified women who – entirely apart from their gender, if nobody even considers about their gender –would be short-listed for the Supreme Court in any event, so it makes that easy.

By the way, in case you were wondering about FRC’s claim that Millett “sees the redefinition of marriage turning on her own definition of fairness and not the law,” that also comes from JAG's talking points. JAG points to an interview Millett gave previewing the Supreme Court’s hearing of the DOMA case, in which she referred to the question before the Court – whether DOMA’s unequal treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex marriage’s violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause – as the “fundamental fairness question before the Court.” That is, she was accurately describing the issue the Court was asked to consider; she never implies that the issue is “turning on her own definition of fairness and not the law.”

Larry Pratt: 'If We Have Gun Control In This Country, Then We Will Know We Are Under God's Judgment'

It turns out that Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt has a David Barton-esque sideline of combing through the Bible to find evidence that God is against gun laws.

At a prayer breakfast in Tulsa earlier this month – which was also attended by Pratt ally Sen. Ted Cruz’s father, Rafael – Pratt went through his argument that the Bible is against gun control. We’ll spare you the bulk Pratt’s biblical scholarship, most of which can be found in this convoluted essay, and  leave you with the conclusion.

“I would submit that if we have gun control in this country, then we will know we are under God’s judgment,” Pratt told the audience.

One way to know whether God’s judgment is upon us, Pratt contended, is to look at whether people are walking around armed. “We should be praying that we will all be able to go around armed, because that will be one outward indicator that we have God’s blessing,” Pratt said. “If we’re walking around like they are in New York City and San Francisco, we’re under his judgment.”

Pratt seems to get a little confused when he attempts to back up this theory with a story from the Book of Samuel about the Israelites going into battle against the Philistines armed with only two swords. He, of course, inserts an anachronistic gun into the Old Testament tale: “That must have been one nasty battle to have gone into battle with only two guys with a gun, everybody else empty-handed.”

Pat Robertson Back To Bragging About His Leg Presses

Today on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson shared with viewers his fitness “secret.” The octogenarian televangelist boasted of regularly doing thirty 1,000 lbs. leg presses as part of his exercise routine: “A few years ago I did some pretty heavy stuffy, I used to, my leg presses, warm up with 500 lbs. and I went up from there, I did 30 reps of 1,000 lbs.”

Back in 2006, Robertson said he could leg press 2,000 lbs. The New York Times wrote at the time: “According to a related news release and photographs on the network's Web site (www.cbn.com), Mr. Robertson has leg-pressed 2,000 pounds, even though (as many online commentators have pointed out) he is 76 years old and the current world record is 1,335 pounds.”

GNC eventually pulled its Robertson-branded protein smoothie, “Pat’s Diet Shake,” but not before the episode raised questions about, as the Virginian-Pilot put it, “the fuzzy line between his tax-exempt operations and his profit-making ventures.” Slate’s Mike DeBonis commented at the time:

Let's get Pat Robertson's bonkers claims out of the way right now. As CBS Sportsline's Clay Travis reported earlier this week, there's no way the 76-year-old Robertson broke the leg press record—by more than 600 pounds—of a former Florida State quarterback.



Even when doing (what he claims to be) 1,000 pounds, Robertson's form is wack. First, he helps his legs by pushing on his knees with his arms. That's a no-no. He also achieves nowhere near the recommended full range of motion, which is to bring the knees to at least a 90-degree angle. And if he's going to double the weight, where's it going to fit? Neither Andrew Sullivan nor I have seen a machine capable of holding 20 plates of 100 pounds each.

Most telling is that Robertson has two staffers loading the machine for him. A big knock against the leg press is that it's inefficient. Most leg press machines are constructed as either a sled angled at 45 degrees or a lever. (There are some that use cables, too.) In all cases, some of the weight gets borne by the machine. You may be loading 400 pounds, but your muscles are feeling only 200. In other words, eight plates on the machine are only four plates worth of effective weight. And by the time you're finished loading and unloading, you could have done an extra set or two of squats.

Land: Single Moms Selfish, Should Always Put Kids Up For Adoption

In a Christian Post column his week, Southern Baptist leader Richard Land argues that single women are unqualified to raise their children and should always give their kids up for adoption as “the best option for everyone concerned.”

“Keeping the baby is almost never preferable to allowing a baby to be adopted into a solid, faithful Christian home,” Land writes. Although Land notes that there are “more than 100,000 children in foster care in America alone,” he cites the Judgment of Solomon to suggest that single mothers are being selfish by not putting their kids up for adoption.

Currently there are more than 100,000 children in foster care in America alone, with many times more across the globe, awaiting permanent adoption into loving "forever" families.



Adoption is not only the best answer for the heartache and loneliness of foster children and those in orphanages both here and around the world, but it is also the best answer in almost every case where a mother finds herself with a "problem" pregnancy. Such pregnancies can arise from numerous circumstances, but most commonly they are a "problem" because the father is not married to the mother. Currently, almost all such single mothers choose either to abort or keep their babies (only 1 percent of such pregnancies currently end in adoption). Last year, 53 percent of babies born to women under thirty were born to single mothers. And yet, though adoption is seldom chosen in response to such pregnancies, it is virtually always the best option for everyone concerned.

Killing your "problem" or "unwanted" pregnancy through abortion is never an acceptable option (unless the child is a direct and immediate threat to the mother's continued physical life.) In an abortion, the baby always dies, and we lose that child's unique and never to be known God-given gifts and contributions to the world. Further, an abortion is much more traumatic physically to a mother's future reproductive life than carrying a baby to term would be. There are also often lingering psychological issues for the mother as well.

Keeping the baby is almost never preferable to allowing a baby to be adopted into a solid, faithful Christian home. A single mother who keeps her baby is quite often denying that baby the father that God wants for that baby, and every baby, to have. Furthermore, in most circumstances, keeping the baby circumscribes and forecloses both the mother's and the baby's economic futures in tragic and unfortunate ways.

If the mother is doing what is best for her baby (one of the defining marks of maternal love), she will part with her baby so that it will have the future God intended for him or her to have. The Old Testament story of the two harlots who both had babies and one died in the night comes to mind (1Kings 3). Both women claimed the surviving baby was their child and wanted the king to give the baby to them. King Solomon decided to have the baby divided in two and each be given half. Immediately, the real mother told the king to give the baby to the other woman in order to save the child's life. In other words, she was thinking of the child's best interest, not her own.

Adoption allows the mother to give her child both a mother and a father who will love and cherish the child.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious