C4

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.

Lopez: Gay Marriage Leads To Human Trafficking

Appearing on Sandy Rios In The Morning today, anti-gay activist/gay erotic novelist Robert Oscar Lopez criticized marriage equality advocates for their role in passing a same-sex marriage law in Hawaii, which he said is uniquely offensive because it reminds Hawaii’s large Asian-American community of post-war human trafficking.

“Look what they did in Hawaii, that’s a state where over sixty percent of the population is Asian-American; they’re the people who came from South Korea, from Japan, from the Philippines, countries that have a very, very controversial history with adoption,” Lopez said. “And the predominantly white Human Rights Campaign went to Hawaii and ripped apart that state, you heard the testimony, they took a state and they just ripped at their heart.”

Lopez explained that married same-sex couples “end up buying children overseas,” which “echoes what happened in the past with the world wars in Korea and Vietnam where children were bought and sold because of couples that maybe thought they were doing the right thing but sometimes were also collaborating with human trafficking.”

Religious Right Piles On To Defend Proponent Of Russia Anti-Gay Laws

A couple of weeks ago, the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society -- an Illinois-based group that through its World Congress of Families helped promote Russia’s new anti-gay laws -- was forced to relocate a Capitol Hill symposium on “family policy lessons from foreign lands” when Sen. Mark Kirk learned what it was up to and pulled the plug on its meeting room.

The group got a last-minute helping hand from House Speaker John Boehner , but the symposium’s speakers – World Congress of Families (WCF) founder Allan Carlson, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute president Austin Ruse, and Concerned Women For America senior fellow/WCF board member Janice Shaw Crouse – still spent much of the event bashing Kirk over the scheduling snafu .

Now, Religious Right groups including the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, and the American Family Association are coming to WCF’s defense.

The National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown – who WCF arranged to testify before the Russian parliament in favor of its broad ban on adoption by gay people – told the American Family Association’s One News Now that Kirk decided to “discriminate against a group that stands for traditional marriage” and that by doing so he was “undermining the party platform” because “it’s part of the Republican Party platform to stand up for traditional marriage.”

The Family Research Council piled on with a press release accusing the senator of “true discrimination” and “silencing anyone who doesn’t adhere to a politically correct view of sexuality.”

"Holding a different view of marriage and sexuality is not discriminatory - especially when all the social science research demonstrates the benefits of the natural family,” added FRC’s Tony Perkins.

Meanwhile, the Illinois Family Institute, the state affiliate of the American Family Association, published an article accusing Sen. Kirk of wanting to “normalize sexual deviance while trampling the conscience rights of untold numbers of people” and followed it up with an email urging its members to call Kirk’s office and express their displeasure.

Despite what all three groups said, the Howard Center and the World Congress of Families don’t merely hold “a different view of marriage and sexuality.” WCF actively works to push oppressive anti-gay laws throughout the world, including actively working toward Russia’s ban on pro-gay-rights speech. Indeed, the speakers at the Capitol Hill symposium enthusiastically defended Russia's anti-gay laws and denyied that the laws actually harm gay people.

It maybe shouldn’t come as a surprise that three of the largest anti-gay groups in the US have jumped to the defense of WCF: Brown has close ties with WCF and has signed fundraising emails for the group, and FRC and AFA are both official “partners” of the organization.

WND: Frank Marshall Davis Sexually Molested Obama As A Child

WorldNetDaily’s Mychal Massie, who has suggested that President Obama is the Antichrist and a Satanic pawn, contends in a column today that the president is a lying, communist monster because he was sexually molested as a child…by Frank Marshall Davis.

Right-wing conspiracy theorists regularly claim that Davis, a labor rights activist, indoctrinated Obama as part of a Manchurian Candidate scheme, or is even Obama’s real father.

In the column, Massie chides Obama’s parents for being “the most dysfunctional, hate-filled, delusional, ersatz couple for parents a child could have short of being an offspring of a parentage between Idi Amin and Emma Goldman.” He then argues that the president’s grandparents are responsible for the supposed sexual abuse: “His grandparents forced him into a mentorship with Frank Marshall Davis who was a rabid communist and pedophile, and although it hasn’t been proven, if as I and others suspect, that led to young Obama being sexually molested.”

Massie admits he has absolutely no evidence to prove Davis molested Obama, but this is WorldNetDaily after all.

According to Massie, Obama’s parents and grandparents helped turn him into “a hardcore neo-Leninist, a hybrid communist.” But at the same time he hates them because they let him be molested. Yet he is still pursuing their communist goals. It’s complicated.

“He knows that he is the equivalent of an empty suit who found he could prostitute his skin color for free rides,” Massie writes. “But like most of his kind, when they find themselves in positions of prominence they realize they are frauds and the secret haunts them.”

I’m going to ask what seems like a rhetorical question, but it is a legitimate question that deserves to be examined in encouraging articles of impeachment for Obama.

The question is: “Exactly what kind of person is Obama?” At first blush, the simple answer would be that he is the worst kind of human being – the kind who is willing to lie and betray without remorse as long as his lies and betrayal get him what he wants. He is a shell of a human being, consumed by the hauntings of his socio-inadequate childhood and the most dysfunctional, hate-filled, delusional, ersatz couple for parents a child could have short of being an offspring of a parentage between Idi Amin and Emma Goldman.

In my syndicated opinion piece “Darth Democrat” (Nov. 16, 2004), I wrote, “Obama embraces the darkest interests of the uber-liberal socialist.” Specific to that point is the question of why Obama came into office committed to the idea that “his” government should take over one-sixth of the national economy in the form of Obamacare. Where did the idea come from, and why was it such a fixation for him?

Once again, the simple answer would be that government-controlled health care is a hallmark of socialism. While there is a galaxy of empirical evidence that Obama is a hardcore neo-Leninist (i.e., a hybrid of Marx, Mao, Stalin and Lenin) who has since long ago shed his Fabianism, I believe there is still more.



I have written extensively in my “The Daily Rant” (TDR) blog that Obama suffers from emotional instability that makes him a threat to our national security and drives him to attempt elevating his self-esteem.

He knows that he is the equivalent of an empty suit who found he could prostitute his skin color for free rides. But like most of his kind, when they find themselves in positions of prominence they realize they are frauds and the secret haunts them. Add the dysfunctional parentage and family setting he grew up within, and we understand that he lies as a means to make a damaged person puff himself up to be what he isn’t. Lying has become his first language because his true opinion of himself is one he cannot stomach.

His grandparents forced him into a mentorship with Frank Marshall Davis who was a rabid communist and pedophile, and although it hasn’t been proven, if as I and others suspect, that led to young Obama being sexually molested. The feelings of worthlessness that would understandably bring about combined with a sense of betrayal by his grandparents (who brought Davis into his life) and feelings of abandonment by his biological parents, which allowed for the betrayal by his grandparents, which led to more feelings of abandonment, anger, and worthlessness. This resulted in an unstable and volatile person unfit for office.

Pursuant to my “why” question per his entering office committed to socializing health care – he is a hardcore neo-Leninist, a hybrid communist. What else could we have expected?

Venker: 'Mad Men' Is A Thing Of The Past, And Women Only Have Themselves To Blame

Suzanne Venker, Phyllis Schalfly’s niece and an anti-feminist crusader in her own right, joined the pickup geniuses from “The Art of Charm Podcast” last week to provide an introduction to anti-feminism for lovelorn men.

Venker lamented that feminism is “messing with people’s lives” by egging on women to get “degree upon degree upon degree” who “may be 30 before they’re getting out and even starting their career.”

Which prompted Venker’s interviewer to ask her about Mad Men: “That’s one of the reasons that show’s so fascinating, because guys are watching and saying ‘Was it ever really like this? And where along the lines did these things change? We, as men, definitely look at women way differently than our fathers looked at our mothers.”

Venker shared this nostalgia for a time when women faced limited career options and institutionalized sexism. Women are perceived in “a totally different way” now, Venker responded. “And it’s not a better way. It’s a worse way. And who did that? The men didn’t do that, the women did that, because they followed their leaders.”

Tea Party Nation Exposes 'The Gay Food Nazis' Once And For All

On Saturday, Tea Party Nation emailed readers a TPN blog post, “The Gay Food Nazis,” which argues that progressives are “hypocrites” for supporting portion control and gay rights. Timothy Birdnow, who blamed the Sandy Hook shooting on teachers and called for school to hire George Zimmerman, attacked Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon for his decision to recognize married same-sex couples for tax purposes.

“If controlling the kinds of food and portion sizes that children are allowed is a state-sanctioned function, than shouldn't controlling homosexual imagery and experience be likewise?” Birdnow asks, using an argument also floated by David Barton. “Shouldn’t we be trying to put homosexuality back into the closet to prevent children with genetic tendencies from suffering temptation?”

He writes that “two men or two women can no more be married than can a man and his goldfish,” warning that “the current ‘gay fad’” is part of “the advancement of socialism” and leads to “greater government control.”

Birdnow’s article is nothing new from TPN, which regularly pushes out virulently anti-gay commentaries.

This sort of dissembling is endemic of the "gay marriage" debate (which is itself a term rank with dishonesty; two men or two women can no more be married than can a man and his goldfish, the two being biologically incapable of reproducing in either case. The promotion of homosexual behavior by the Progressives in our society is now reaching a crescendo and the first casualty in this titanic struggle for the right to fornicate in an largely painful and unhygienic fashion and receive societal approval has been the truth.



So Jay Nixon has attempted to backdoor gay marriage (no pun intended) in the State of Missouri.



Homosexuality is but one leg in the dream world of the Left, a world where breeding is not considered a right but a very special privilege. The Left seeks to divorce sex from reproduction, to make sex a simple physical act, a feeding of a hunger. That is why Sandra Fluke can demand free contraception without batting an eye; sex has little to do with creating families or binding yourself permanently to one person, the person who will ultimately help you raise your children. Homosexuality is the ultimate rebellion against this "Bourgeois morality". The Progressives have a powerful incentive to promote being gay.



The Left, seeking a "new man", one freed from the restraints imposed by Christian morality and Nature's God, have risen in rebellion against the entire order of society, against Natural Law, against Divine Revelation. Sex is the bayonet of that revolution.

That last is important because what the current "gay fad" is intended to do is to break this passing along of received wisdom from our forbearers. The Left wants to make a "New Man" and to do that the chain of "contagion" of old ideas and beliefs must be broken. Children must be raised by the State or at least have the State be the primary influence over their intellectual and moral development. Common Core is one of the tools now being implemented to accomplish this, and that is being promoted in both the public schools (the original source for Leftist indoctrination) and the private ones as well.



Strange how aggressive this government - led by committed leftists - is toward dietary problems while at the same time promoting homosexuality. And they HAVE promoted it; they have regularized it in the military, have refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court, etc.

If there is a societal interest in reducing obesity, is there not an equal societal interest in reducing homosexuality?



If controlling the kinds of food and portion sizes that children are allowed is a state-sanctioned function, than shouldn't controlling homosexual imagery and experience be likewise? Shouldn't we be trying to put homosexuality back into the closet to prevent children with genetic tendencies from suffering temptation? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The difference in approach is astonishing.



So both obesity and homosexuality may have a biological component and both are bad for the public health. So why are we treating these two behavioral issues differently? If society must discourage obesity, should it not equally discourage homosexuality?

That is the opposite of what is happening. We are celebrating being gay while condemning being overweight. The left's hypocrisy is astonishing.

But that is because the two both serve real purposes to the advancement of socialism. In the case of food the prevention of obesity allows government to grow obese itself, to metastasize as it tells the individual and the family what they can or cannot eat while there would be no similar benefit from the prohibition of homosexuality. The promotion of homosexuality offers many benefits that the Left finds attractive. It damages the family, opening the door to greater government control. It promotes a platform to assault traditional values and particularly Christianity. It creates a solid voting block that favors Democrats.

Rios: CAIR Is 'Joined At The Hip With Al Qaeda And The Terrorists'

Last week, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) joined the McCarthyite group Citizens For National Security (CFNS) at a forum highlighting the supposed security threat posed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its “seditious and subversive” activities. The day after the briefing, anti-Muslim activist Deborah Weiss spoke to Sandy Rios of the American Family Association to promote a CFNS’s new report on CAIR.

Rios kicked off the interview by accusing CAIR — which she mistakenly called the Council for American Immigration Relations — of working with Al Qaeda and advocating terrorism. Later, Weiss warned that CAIR will “Islamize the whole country.”

Rios: There aren’t just hidden cells in the United States, there are open, out, proponents of terrorism who couch themselves as some sort of a civil rights group. One of the leading groups in this country that’s joined at the hip with Al Qaeda and the terrorists is the Council for American Immigration Relations.



Weiss: Their main goals are to shut people up for a myriad of reasons. One of which is it’s against their religion to ‘defame’ Islam but the second reason is if you shut people up then they don’t really know what’s going on in the world on terror and there other goal is to Islamize the workplace and indeed to Islamize the whole country.

Rios: So it is all about propaganda for the terrorist cause and for turning America into a Muslim state. Of course they don’t state that but that is exactly what they are doing.

Ironically, Weiss spent the interview attacking CAIR for criticizing TV shows and boycotting businesses…something the AFA does on a regular basis.

WorldNetDaily also ran a flattering report on the CFNS press conference this weekend. According to the report, Wolf seemed to suggest that CAIR may have ties to the terrorist organization Al-Shabaab, while CFNS co-founder Peter Leitner warned of CAIR “psy-ops.”

CAIR is the operational part of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. As such, and as part of Hamas, they’re the domestic side of an international terrorist group. What they’re doing is psychological operations,” Leitner said. “Their mission to do misinformation and psy-ops is for the purpose of supporting jihadist movements in the United States and Canada,” Leitner said. … Leitner said CAIR’s “masquerade is to divert attention from the Islamic threat in the U. S. by oversensitizing law enforcement and intelligence officials.”

“To make that happen, they’ve infiltrated their agents into the various national security agencies,” Leitner said.



“Their greatest work is to create a grand illusion of a peaceful religion to distract attention from what their real plan is,” Leitner said.

He also says the lawfare tactics ares [sic] fundraising mechanism.



Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., a frequent advocate for persecuted Christians, affirmed that his committee research shows that CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated terrorist organizations pose a real security threat.

“The threat is real and I serve on the committee that has jurisdiction of the FBI. We’ve put language in a bill that will completely prevent the FBI from involving themselves with CAIR,” Wolf said.

“An example of the depth of the threat comes from the Somali al-Qaida-affiliate al-Shabaab. Imams recruit for al-Shabaab from Somali groups in Minneapolis. Not only that, they’re telling Somalis not to cooperate with federal authorities who are investigating the Somali mosques,” Wolf said.

The FBI has become more cautious in its dealings with CAIR, he said, as has his committee. “I know we’ve been very careful interacting with any group that is involved with CAIR,” Wolf said. “I refused to go to any group that has connections to CAIR.”

Krikorian: Pro-Immigration Republicans Should Vote Against Reform To Spite Obama

At least Mark Krikorian knows his audience. In an interview with WorldNetDaily today, the Center for Immigration Studies director urged House Republicans who support immigration reform to oppose the Senate’s bipartisan immigration plan simply in order to deny President Obama a “victory.”

“The only thing he has left now that would salvage the wreckage of his administration is an amnesty,” Krikorian told WND. “And why any Republican, even if they agreed with him, would save President Obama’s political fortunes is beyond me.”

Klayman's 'Peaceful' Revolution Comes With Hints Of Violence

At last week’s Reclaim America Now rally, a placard next to the speaker’s podium featured a Thomas Jefferson quote that many speakers cited: "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." But there is apparently no evidence that Jefferson ever said this: the website of Monticello, Jefferson’s home, lists it among “spurious” quotations attributed to him.

Larry Klayman repeatedly described the Second American Revolution he is launching in nonviolent terms. He says massive peaceful civil disobedience will lead to the downfall of the current government and patriots from across the country will convene in Philadelphia to convene a new one. In recent weeks, though, Klayman has repeatedly warned that if the nonviolent approach doesn’t work, the people and the military will rise up and resort to “another recourse.” He has said that “violent revolution…looms on the horizon, if we cannot find a way to peacefully settle the score with the political establishment…”

A similar theme was heard at last week’s rally from speaker Manny Vega, who was identified as a retired marine and a Three Percenter. Three Percenters take their name from their belief that during the American Revolution only three percent of colonists took up arms against the British. The Anti-Defamation League reported a few years ago that Three Percenters, like the Oath Keepers, “promote the idea that the federal government is plotting to take away the rights of American citizens and must be resisted. The two groups are apparently trying to make inroads in the U.S. military.”

Vega, who said he served multiple tours in Iraq, said he thinks war is “abhorrent” and he wants peace to prevail. But he also said the Virginia Three Percenters are “planning and getting ready to mobilize if anything comes down.”

“But I’ll tell you what. There are a lot of men and women across this country who are willing to give it all, ok? Our forefathers, they fought for less. I am willing to fight today, ok? And, God, we don’t want violence, but if it should ever come to that, I can tell you what. I was willing to give my life in Iraq, over there, today I am more than willing to give my life over here, and I hope the president of the United States understands that. There are many more men and women like myself who are more than willing to give their lives here at home. Spread the word.”

JCN Cries Crocodile Tears For Senate Bipartisanship

After President Obama was elected, the right-wing Judicial Confirmation Network changed its name to the Judicial Crisis Network and altered its mission from “working to ensure a fair appointment process of highly qualified judges and justices” to blocking anyone Obama appoints to the bench.

The group’s name and mission statement aren’t the only things to have changed under a Democratic president. JCN’s chief counsel Carrie Severino appeared last week on Sandy Rios In The Morning to decry the Senate’s recent move to modify the filibuster to allow a simple majority to end debate on most nominees – a rules change that the JCN once said it supported “regardless of what party’s in power.”

“The 60 vote majority is there because we need to have both parties working together,” Severino said. “You don’t want to do things by a bare majority vote all the time, and it is actually a benefit to get something that has a larger consensus. I don’t know if Thomas Jefferson initiated it but I wouldn’t be surprised because those kinds of consensuses things that our founders thought were important.”

But during the Bush era Severino’s predecessor, Wendy Long, now a Republican politician, said in 2006 that finding a “consensus” over judicial nominees is “not the right thing to do”:

Seeking a 'consensus' candidate is not the right thing to do. It is not what the Constitution contemplates, in our system built on the consent of the governed. Majorities didn't elect George W. Bush and 55 Republican Senators to do that. For the President to choose a Justice on this basis would retroactively disenfranchise the voters in these elections. The people elected the President so that he would exercise his own judgment according to the criteria he stated in two elections. By definition, those will never be 'consensus' nominees. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer were not 'consensus' nominees, nor should any Republican nominees be — particularly when Republicans control the Senate, for heaven's sake.

But the real issue with Severino’s claim is that Senate Republicans didn’t block Obama’s three picks for the DC Circuit Court because they weren’t “consensus” candidates. Rather, GOP leaders explicitly said they would oppose any person President Obama nominated to the court — a position that they took before even knowing who the nominees would be.

Plus, Republicans’ unprecedented obstructionism — cheered on by the JCN — makes it hard to believe that they were merely hoping for “both parties to work together” to find a “consensus” as Severino maintains.

Michael Peroutka, God, and Christian Reconstructionists At Larry Klayman's Revolution

At last week’s less-than-spectacular kickoff for the Second American Revolution, Larry Klayman announced that President Obama has until this coming Friday, November 29, to resign. If he doesn’t, Klayman and his friends will move forward with their plan to organize mass civil disobedience, force the resignation of President Obama and the Congress, and replace them with a government-in-waiting to be formed in Philadelphia in the coming weeks.

The idea was even too much for Alan Keyes, who decided not to show up at Klayman’s rally in Washington DC last week.  Klayman read the crowd a letter from Keyes explaining his decision, then dismissed Keyes’ argument that Americans should rely on grassroots political organizing rather than Egyptian-style mass demonstrations. Klayman said he no longer believes America can be fixed through elections, at least not until he’s “cleaned house.” Klayman complained bitterly that none of the Tea Party-affiliated members of Congress was willing to attend his revolution rally.

One speaker who did show up at Klayman’s rally was Michael Peroutka, the U.S. Constitution Party’s presidential nominee in 2004 (he got about 150,000 votes). According to the party’s platform, “The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.” Peroutka is also a southern secessionist and Christian Reconstructionist who sees the Republican Party and “Godless” conservative movement as part of the problem.

Just last month, Peroutka wrote, “Anyone, including those who identify with the ‘Tea Party’, who loves America and desires real reform, would do well to disengage themselves from the Republican Party and their brand of worthless, Godless, unprincipled conservatism.” And in challenging Rush Limbaugh’s rhetoric about Republicans having been “hoodwinked” by Democrats and the media during the government shutdown showdown, Peroutka wrote,

Isn’t it more likely that those who have been “hoodwinked” are those that put their trust in the Republican party and the Godless, conservative movement? Isn’t it beyond time to return to the true American View of law and government, acknowledging the Creator God as the Supreme Judge of the Universe and the written Constitution as the Supreme law of the Land?

At the rally, Peroutka praised Klayman as a “legal restorer,” saying “an order has been denigrated and lost and needs to be found and recovered and restored.” His rhetoric echoes Christian Reconstructionist godfather Rousas John Rushdoony, who said, “The only true order is founded on Biblical law. All law is religious in nature, and every non-Biblical law-order represents an anti-Christian religion.” Klayman is a member of the secretive Council on National Policy, where he has had the chance to rub shoulders with people like Constitution Party founder Howard Phillips, who died earlier this year. In his introduction to Peroutka, Klayman praised Phillips as “a great American” and “one of the icons of the conservative movement.”

In addition to his association with the Constitution Party, Peroutka is the founder of the Institute on the Constitution, a Maryland-based group that spreads Christian Reconstructionist ideas about the law and Constitution through seminars presented around the country. Peroutka’s remarks at the rally echo the Institute’s message that the only law that matters is God’s law:

“There is a God. Our rights come from him. The purpose of civil government is to protect and defend God-given rights. This is the American view of law and government. It also happens to be the biblical view of law and government. America was founded upon the biblical view of law and government….”

According to this Christian Reconstructionist view, God has not granted government the authority to have any role, for example, in education or the alleviation of poverty; God gives that responsibility to churches and families. Religion scholar Julie Ingersoll describes Christian Reconstructionism this way:

For Reconstructionists, the civil government’s authority is limited to protecting citizens from criminals. Family and ecclesiastical authority are established to uphold (and enforce) other aspects of biblical law. That’s not to say that any of these institutions are understood as functioning autonomously; all are under the authority of God and are to function according to biblical law. But each is independent of the others.

The idea that the Bible puts strict limits on government’s “jurisdiction” is at the core of Christian Reconstructionist thinking, and is frequently embraced by more “mainstream” Religious Right leaders. Peroutka writes:

Since civil government is ordained by God in order to protect God-given rights, then the function of civil government is to obey God and to enforce God’s law – PERIOD.

It is not the role of civil government to house, feed, clothe, educate or give heath care to…ANYBODY! (Or to operate a Panda-cam at the National Zoo.)

On a website promoting the Institute on the Constitution’s course, Peroutka says, “As American culture has moved away from the acknowledgment of God’s authority, and the desire for his blessing, American government has untethered itself from God’s requirement that it stay within its limited jurisdiction.” He argues that “When God’s law is ignored, chaos ensues.” Peroutka recently told right-wing radio host Steve Deece that “so-called civil rights laws” are not law because “there is no such thing as a civil right.” And he denounced the proposed Employment Non Discrimination Act as “federalizing perversion.”

Echoing a theme heard frequently at Religious Right events, Peroutka told rally participants they share the blame for the country’s problems because they have allowed “usurpers” who don’t have allegiance to his view of law and government to “rule over us.” He said, “We need to repent of these ways, these things that we have done. Because we have broken the law by allowing this to occur. We are responsible. We need to repent before God.”

Last year, the Human Rights Campaign noticed that Peroutka, a Maryland-based lawyer, was one of the biggest donors to the anti-marriage-equality effort in the state, and slammed his association with The League of the South. Peroutka denied that he is a white supremacist, but called himself a “proud member” of the group; in fact he is a board member. He was a featured speaker at the group’s conference last June, which was entitled, “Southern Independence: Antidote to Tyranny.” The group defines its mission this way: “The League of the South is a Southern Nationalist organization whose ultimate goal is a free and independent Southern republic.”   Also:

We also encourage individuals and families to personally withdraw (secede) from the corrupt and corrupting influence of post-Christian culture in America. We call this "abjuring the realm," and it's a real and dramatic first step all of us can take by simply withdrawing our support of and allegiance to the corrupt government in Washington that through its greed, corruption and lack of Christian values has destroyed your children's and grand children's future.

Plenty of other speakers, including a couple of clergy, claimed God’s endorsement.  Even W. Cleon Skausen, the late far-right Mormon conspiracy theorist, was invoked. Sheriff Richard Mack demonstrated a “political prayer” that he said Skausen had taught 250 law enforcement officers at a training session – a series of hand motions to go along with a recitation of the preamble to the Constitution. Skausen, also a member of the Council on National Policy, was popularized by Glenn Beck’s promotion of his book The 5000 Year Leap as divinely inspired. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes the book as “an illustrated recipe for turning the United States into 50 little theocracies.”

Klayman himself wasn’t shy about invoking God’s blessing on his revolution:

“Our strength comes from God. We take orders only from him. We don’t take orders from Hussein over there. We take orders from our God, not his. So consequently we are moving forward and we look for your support and your help.” He ended his remarks by saying, “and most important of all, we have God on our side.”

 

 

Klayman Rally Speaker: America Under God's Judgment, Must Repent

Among the speakers at Larry Klayman’s rally in Washington was Brooke McGowan, a Tea Party activist from North Carolina. She had also spoken at the “We the People” rally on Veteran’s Day. McGowan, who was introduced as a representative of the Tea Party News Network, devoted her remarks to the need for national repentance, declaring that “we are in dire trouble today in America. We are a nation under judgment.” Among the reasons McGowan cited were abortion, religious pluralism, and church-state separation:

“In this nation we have turned away from the God of the Bible, and we’ve told Him He’s simply not welcome here. We have welcomed pluralism, atheism, secular humanism, Wicca, and even Islam, but we’ve told the Holy God to stay away. Legally, we removed God from the public schools over 50 years ago, and then 40 years ago through a court of nine justices, though not unanimous, we determined that His very image, precious life in the womb, could now be legally torn apart, killed, and discarded. Legalized murder began our rapid moral downfall....Now, how can we expect as a nation to stay blessed or even prosper when we willingly stay under this curse?”

McGowan cited the theories of Jonathan Cahn, whose book The Harbinger and movie Isaiah 9:10 Judgment argue that America is experiencing the end-times wrath of God in ways that were foretold in the Old Testament. According to Cahn, the 9/11 attacks were a wake-up call from God, but America didn’t repent, so the 2008 financial crisis was sent our way, but still we as a nation have not repented. If we don’t repent now, we’re looking at a military takeover in 2015.

McGowan pushed right-wing “war on Christianity” themes and a couple of false myths meant to prove it. “Today there is a cold war on Christianity, a civil war,” McGowan said. “Will we repent? How far does it have to go before we give in to His call for repentance?”

“At Walter Reed hospital down the road where our broken and mangled servicemen and women lie, you can’t even speak the name of Jesus or take in a Bible,” she said. “This is a disgrace!”

Actually, it’s a lie.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious