Category Archives: The Death of America
by SPARTA on MAY 9, 2013
Uploaded on Sep 3, 2010 by CBNnewsonline
The French have become increasingly fed up with what they see as the growing Islamization of France… The Christian Broadcasting Network CBN http://www.cbn.com
PARIS – Friday in Paris. A hidden camera shows streets blocked by huge crowds of Muslim worshippers and enforced by a private security force.
This is all illegal in France: the public worship, the blocked streets, and the private security. But the police have been ordered not to intervene.
It shows that even though some in the French government want to get tough with Muslims and ban the burqa, other parts of the French government continue to give Islam a privileged status.
An ordinary French citizen who has been watching the Islamization of Paris decided that the world needed to see what was happening to his city. He used a hidden camera to start posting videos on YouTube. His life has been threatened and so he uses the alias of “Maxime Lepante.”
His camera shows that Muslims “are blocking the streets with barriers. They are praying on the ground. And the inhabitants of this district cannot leave their homes, nor go into their homes during those prayers.”
“The Muslims taking over those streets do not have any authorization. They do not go to the police headquarters, so it’s completely illegal,” he says.
The Muslims in the street have been granted unofficial rights that no Christian group is likely to get under France’s Laicite’, or secularism law.
“It says people have the right to share any belief they want, any religion,” Lepante explained. “But they have to practice at home or in the mosque, synagogues, churches and so on.”
Some say Muslims must pray in the street because they need a larger mosque. But Lepante has observed cars coming from other parts of Paris, and he believes it is a weekly display of growing Muslim power.
“They are coming there to show that they can take over some French streets to show that they can conquer a part of the French territory,” he said.
France’s Islamic Future?
If France faces an Islamic future, a Russian author has already written about it. The novel is called “The Mosque of Notre Dame, 2048,” a bestseller in Russia, not in France.
French publisher Jean Robin said the French media ignored the book because it was politically incorrect.
“Islam is seen as the religion of the poor people, so you can’t say to the poor people, ‘You’re wrong,’ otherwise, you’re a fascist,” Robin explained.
The book lays out a dark future when France has become a Muslim nation, and the famous cathedral has been turned into a mosque.
Whether that plot is farfetched depends on whom you ask. Muslims are said to be no more than 10 percent of the French population, although no one knows for sure because French law prohibits population counts by religion.
But the Muslim birthrate is significantly higher than for the native French. Some Muslim men practice polygamy, with each extra wife having children and collecting a welfare check.
“The problem of Islam is more than a problem of numbers,” said French philosopher Radu Stoenescu, an Islamic expert who debates Muslim leaders on French TV. “The problem is one of principles. It’s an open question. Is Islam an ideology or just a creed?”
“It doesn’t matter how many there are,” he aded. “The problem is the people who follow Islam; they’re somehow in a political party, which has a political agenda, which means basically implementing Sharia and building an Islamic state.”
In Denial or Fed Up
From the 1980s until recently, criticizing or opposing Islam was considered a social taboo, and so the government and media effectively helped Islam spread throughout France.
“We were expecting Islam to adapt to France and it is France adapting to Islam,” Robin said.
About the burqa controversy, one French Muslim man told a reporter that Europeans should respect Muslim dress. One Parisian woman wearing a headscarf said “the veil is in the Koran” and “we only submit to God and nobody else.”
But even if many government elites are in France are in denial over Islam, the people in the streets increasingly are not. Some have become fed up with what they see as the growing Islamization of France.
They’ve started staging pork and wine “aperitifs,” or cocktail parties in the street. They’re patriotic demonstrations meant to strike back against Islam. Another national demonstration is planned for Saturday, Sept. 4.
A Warning to the West
The French parliament debated the burqa law in this year. Jean-Francois Cope, president of the Union for a Popular Movement political party, has a warning for the West and for America.
“We cannot accept the development of such practice because it’s not compatible with the life in a modern society, you see,” he said. “And this question is not only a French question. You will all have to face this challenge. ”
For more insight on the slide toward a post-Christian Western society, check out Dale Hurd’s blog Hurd on the Web.
For more insight on ‘Islamization’ around the world, check out Stakelbeck on Terror
**Originally published September 1, 2010.
1. What made you get involved in countering radical Islam in France?
For me, as for many people, 9/11 was a turning point. It was the proof that Muslim terrorists will stop at nothing to kill as many people as possible. I began to read more and more about Islam and its threat, in the books and in the news. Then, in July 2009, I witnessed, in the heart of Paris, my beloved town, thousands of Muslims taking over 4 streets, and praying on the pavement.
2. What have you done as part of these efforts?
In August 2009, I joined Riposte Laïque, a French secular organization dedicated to fight islamization. I bought a hidden camera, and went in the 18th district of Paris, to videotape those illegal Muslim prayers, which take place there each Friday, only 500 meters away from Sacré-Coeur, a big and famous church. In one year, I have produced 40 videos showing this scandal, and I have uploaded them on our French YouTube channel. I also wrote more than 80 articles denouncing this scandal. Finally, one week ago, I opened a new channel on YouTube, totally in English, on which I have already uploaded 5 of my videos translated in English. I’m planning to translate and upload on this channel 30 other videos showing the illegal Muslim prayers in Paris, in the coming months, with the help of a professional translator.
3. How do you define radical Islam? How is it different than Islam?
Radical Islam equals Mohammed plus the Koran, and Mohammed plus the Koran equals Islam, so radical Islam and Islam essentially are the same thing. The only difference is that radical Muslims don’t hesitate to kill, while standard Muslims don’t usually kill. But both share the same goal: to impose Islam on the world by establishing a worldwide caliphate under shariah, Islamic law.
4. What was the most shocking thing you discovered in your fight against radical Islam?
Everything in radical Islam is shocking, and therefore everything in Islam is shocking, since Islam is the doctrine of radical Islam. I watched some horrendous videos of Muslims slaughtering and beheading men and women, and many photos of Afghan women disfigured by sulfuric acid, I read about all those good Muslim fathers who suddenly butcher their daughters because they haven’t made their prayer or because they have put some lipstick on… The list could go forever.
5. What do you think the government could and should do to help stop radical Islam?
Shariah law has to be denounced as fascism and banned from all the Free World. Governments have to arrest and expel all Muslims who refuse to denounce shariah law. Immigration from Muslim countries shall be completely stopped. Islamic finance has to be banned, and all money transfers from Muslim countries forbidden.
6. Is radical Islam something that should concern everyone? Why or why not?
Radical Islam’s aim, the same as Islam’s aim, is to submit or kill every human being. So everyone is at risk and should be concerned.
7. You may not be a prophet, but do you think radical Islam will ever be stopped?
Yes, radical Islam, and its doctrine, Islam, will be stopped. There are 5 times more non-Muslims than Muslims in the world, and the fastest growing religion is Christianity, not Islam. So the Muslims don’t have demography on their side, contrary to what the mainstream media say. But this will not be an easy task. Many people are killed by Muslims around the world and many more people may die before Islam is stopped.
8. What’s the danger of radical Islam to the typical person?
The first danger is simply to be killed. Then, to be maimed or hurt in a bombing. Then, to be threatened to be killed if the person refuses to convert to Islam. Then, to be raped, if the person is a woman wearing a skirt. And so on.
9. How could the average person help fight radical Islam?
There are many way to fight radical Islam, and its doctrine, Islam. First is to inform people of the danger, like what Radicalislam.org does. You can make personal inquiries about illegal actions committed by Muslims, like I do with my hidden camera. Contact the MSM and ask them to report the truth about Islam, and to stop to ban the words “Muslims” and “Islam” when Muslims commit a crime or a bombing, as they often do. Tell your elected official to fight shariah. Demonstrate against political leaders who are siding with Muslims, and are therefore traitors. Vote for political leaders who are aware of the threat that the Free World is facing.
10. You have an opportunity to tell something to our 45,000+ subscribers. What do you wish you to say?
I want to say that we, people of the Free World, are facing a threat even bigger than what Nazism was. The more we wait to fight back, the more innocent people will die, killed by Muslims. This is an existential battle. No less. I want to survive, do you?
From 1389 Blog: http://1389blog.com/
Soon after the Obama Regime went into overdrive to publicize having finally given the green light to the SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden, 17 SEALs were killed along with 13 other troops when a US helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan under questionable circumstances. Try not to smash your computer screen when you read what our Islamophile rulers permitted to happen at their funeral service:
Today three families of Navy SEAL Team VI special forces servicemen, along with one family of an Army National Guardsman, appeared at a press conference to disclose never before revealed information about how and why their sons along with 26 others died in a fatal helicopter crash in Afghanistan on August 6, 2011. …
At the press conference today the families released video on how military brass, while prohibiting any mention of a Judeo-Christian God, invited a Muslim cleric to the funeral for the fallen Navy SEAL Team VI heroes. This cleric disparaged in Arabic the memory of these servicemen by damning them as infidels to Allah.
This video from today’s press conference includes footage of the funeral services at Bagram Air Force Base:
A transcript of the Muslim curse the heroes were granted instead of a Christian blessing:
Amen. I shelter in Allah from the devil who has been cast with stones. In the name of Allah the merciful forgiver. The companions of “THE FIRE” (The sinners and infidels who are fodder for the hell fire) ARE NOT EQUAL WITH the companions of heaven. The companions of heaven (Muslims) are the WINNERS. Had he sent this Koran to the mountain, you would have seen the mountain prostrated in fear of Allah. (Mocking the GOD of Moses) Such examples are what we present to the people, so that they would think. (repent and convert to Islam) Blessings are to your God (Allah) the God of glory and what they describe. And peace be upon the messengers (prophets) and thanks be to Allah the lord of both universes (mankind and Jinn).
At what point do we decide we have had enough?
On tips from Just TheTip, G. Fox, and Stormfax.
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
Found at Mad Medic: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
From Mad Medic
WARREN, N.H. – Bringing the national gun debate to a tiny New England town on Tuesday, the daughter of the slain principal of Sandy Hook Elementary confronted Sen. Kelly Ayotte at the lawmaker’s first town hall meeting since she voted against expanded background checks on all commercial gun sales.
Erica Lafferty, who first met with the Republican senator in Washington earlier this month after she opposed the compromise negotiated by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., was visibly angry as she spoke into the microphone at the meeting, which drew more than 100 people who came to condemn or support Ayotte’s vote.
“You had mentioned that day the burden on owners of gun stores that the expanded background checks would harm. I am just wondering why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the halls of her elementary school isn’t more important than that,” said Lafferty, whose mother Dawn Hochsprung was gunned down by Newtown shooter Adam Lanza.
I heard these remarks on my drive this morning and knew I had to respond to this pathetic display, but Jeff Goldstein beat me to it:
Answer: your mother was gunned down with a weapon stolen by a guy who killed his own mother by shooting her.
And perhaps had someone in the school been armed besides the murderer with the stolen weapon, your mother would still be alive. I know that’s no real comfort, but it has the luxury of being the truth. No extra burden put on law abiding citizens would have stopped that horror from happening. But perhaps had the murderer believed he wasn’t walking in to a turkey shoot, he would have thought twice.
Oh, and pimping out your own dead mother with the object of denying law abiding citizens their natural right to protect themselves — something your mother couldn’t do thanks to laws passed in your state — that’s some sick-in-the-head shit.
Indeed, it is, but that is the state of our Culture these days.
We live in a society where, thanks to the infection of Leftist Thinking, the personal has become political. Using one’s dead loved ones for political purposes is acceptable because this Society values ends more than it does the morality of the means. Nothing is beyond the pale. No behavior is proscribed. Prudence and discretion are seen as negatives.
But the situation is even more complex. American Society is also a Therapeutic Society, where feelings and emotions have been exalted, placed on a shiny pedestal, and where Reason has been delegitimized, where one no longer grieves in private, and where being a victim or related to a victim of crime grants someone expert status is the eyes of their fellow citizens.
Could This Be One Explanation?
American Culture is sick, it may be in grave condition because the minds within it are so poisoned.
For her own sake, for the sake of her sanity, Mrs. Lafferty should withdraw from the public eye and work on overcoming her grief in private and she should contemplate the horror that is her pimping of her murdered Mother.
_ *Enough with the exotic spelling of first names! Enough! One has to wonder if this practice isn’t a small tactic in the effort to undermine and destroy all things Western and especially all things English.
From Camp of The Saints:
I was reminded today of what the character of Floyd Ferris said to Hank Reardon in Atlas Shrugged:
There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted — and you create a nation of lawbreakers — and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.
The criminalization of every day life proceeds apace as the Left In America seeks to enslave us.
In two separate posts over at Protein Wisdom, Jeff Goldstein covered two stories that illustrate for me the Left’s ongoing project to turn all of us into criminals of some type, so that they can intimidate us, Mafia-style, into becoming their sheeple.
Eagle Scout Cole Withrow was just a few weeks from graduating with honors from his North Carolina high school, but now the active church member is facing a felony weapons charge and a precarious future after accidentally leaving a shotgun in his pickup truck in the school parking lot.
…Withrow had been skeet shooting with friends a day before, and only noticed he had left his shotgun in his truck on Monday morning as he reached to grab his book bag, said family friend Kimberly Boykin. When he realized his mistake, rather than leave school grounds, he went to the front office to call his mother for help.
“He didn’t know what to do,” Boykin, whose son is friends with Withrow, told Fox News. “If you jump in the truck and leave, then they get you for skipping school. Once you are there you have to say.
“You teach your kids if you’re in trouble or if you see you’ve done something wrong, go ahead and admit it,” she said. “Be a man and it’ll be fixed. In this case, that’s what he did and he’s being punished for it. That’s not the lesson we need to teach our kids.”
Withrow, who did his senior class project on gun safety, locked the gun in his truck before going to call his mother. But when he asked her to come and take the gun, the trouble started.
“He was overheard in a private conversation with his mother explaining what happened,” Boykin said. “He could have told a story, but he told the truth.”
A spokesperson for Johnston County Schools confirmed to Fox News that they found the shotgun in Withrow’s locked vehicle.
“The law is very clear when a person knowingly and willingly brings a weapon onto educational property,” spokesperson Tracey Peedin Jones said. “The situation was turned over to law enforcement immediately.”
Boykin said he was also expelled for 365 days – meaning that he will not be able to graduate from high school.
Zero Tolerance rears it’s mutated, pablum-puking head again.
Editor’s Note: When I was in high school back in the seventies, you could ususally find a shotgun, or rifle in the back window of just about any pickup truck out in the school parking lot during deer hunting season. Nobody got shot, nobody got expelled, nobody gave it a second thought. Now we are being governed and lorded over by lunatics. ZTW
Meet Kiera Wilmot, a 16-year-old student in Bartow, Florida. Before last week, Bartow High School Principal Ron Pritchard tells WTSP-TV, she had “never been in trouble before. Ever.” But then, the station reports, she
mix[ed] household chemicals in a tiny 8-ounce water bottle, causing the top to pop off, followed by billowing smoke in [a] small explosion.
Wilmot’s friends and classmates said it was “a science project gone bad, that she never meant to hurt anyone.” Even the teen’s principal said, “She made a bad choice. Honestly, I don’t think she meant to ever hurt anyone. She wanted to see what would happen [when the chemicals mixed] and was shocked by what it did. Her mother is shocked too.”
The explosion happened around 7 a.m. Monday morning on school property, and no one was hurt. Staff, along with the school resource officer, acted quickly.
The principal told 10 News, “She told us everything and was very honest. She didn’t run or try to hide the truth. We had a long conversation with her.”
So: No one was hurt. There’s no sign that Wilmot was up to something malevolent. The kid’s own principal thinks this wasn’t anything more than an experiment, and he says she didn’t try to cover up what she had done. What punishment do you think she received? A stern talking-to? A day or two of after-school detention? Maybe she’ll have to help clean up the lab for a week?
Nope. The budding chemist has been kicked out of school and charged with a couple of felonies:
Wilmot was arrested Monday morning and charged with possession/discharge of a weapon on school property and discharging a destructive device.
The teen was expelled and will now complete her education in an expulsion program.
Miami New Times reports that Wilmot will be tried as an adult.
A statement from Polk County Schools says, “We urge our parents to join us in conveying the message that there are consequences to actions. We will not compromise the safety and security of our students and staff.”…
As Jeff remarks:
Not to beat yet again on how language and intentionalism plays into all this, but look at what’s at work here: the student and the principal — hell, all parties involved — agree that there was no malicious intent. No one was injured. The student was forthcoming and cooperated with school administrators. And she had been a model student. Forever.
And yet the school and the school board are all pretending that they are hopelessly constrained by rules, as if those rules can exist without a human agency behind them, or a human agency available to interpret and implement them — as if the rules merely appeared one day in the sand, produced by the accidental scratchings of egret feet, and a cult was built up around them demanding that they be followed to the letter, with no room to consider the intent behind them. Rendering all powerless forever more to defy the dictates of their found totem!
Were these rules produced and implemented to punish students who, with no malice, accidentally caused a disturbance — students who had never been in trouble and who were engaging in scientific experimentation — in a way that forces their expulsion? Was this the intent behind them?
If so, the rules are surreal and need to be scrapped and their authors punished — or, if they have passed on, dug up and bitch slapped. If not, then the school administrators’ decision to hide behind them to justify they’re overreaction and petty tyrannical impulses is merely disgusting and, of course, linguistically incoherent.
Besides their desire to intimidate us, the Left is also seeking to rid our minds of all traces of Common Sense. Zero Tolerance policies help them do this because their foot soldiers, Fellow Travellers, and Dupes can hide behind such policies and claim — and they do in both cases presented here — that they’re doing it for ‘the safe and security’ of the community, especially ‘for the children’, when, in Truth, they are servants of a destructive and pernicious disease, a cancer.
The cancer known as Leftist Thinking continues it’s insidious metastisizing through every nook and cranny of The American Body.
Like actual cancer, Leftist Thinking drains the body of it’s strength as it destroys bone and tissue and muscle. It slowly consumes the Will. It weakens the Soul. The goal is to so weaken the Soul that it will voluntarily give-up and submit to the cancer. And then the cancer turns on the Soul and crushes it.
What can we do about this?
I like Jeff’s advice:
Fight. Be an outlaw.
Resistentiam Tyrannis nunc. Resistentiam Tyrannis saecula. PROSCRIPTUS!
Resistance to Tyranny now. Resistance to Tyranny forever. OUTLAWS!
From Camp of the Saints: http://thecampofthesaints.org/
Not surprisingly — considering that rabid anti-Christian bigot Mikey Weinstein has been called in to assist — the well-documented campaign by the Obama Regime to drive Christians out of the military has gone into high gear. You can now be court-martialled for putting in a good word for your faith:
The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense… Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis…”.
Being convicted in a court martial means that a soldier has committed a crime under federal military law. Punishment for a court martial can include imprisonment and being dishonorably discharged from the military.
So President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime — possibly resulting in imprisonment — for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains — military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith (mostly Christian pastors or priests, or Jewish rabbis) — whose duty since the founding of the U.S. military under George Washington is to teach their faith and minister to the spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel, instruction, or comfort.
America is getting fundamentally transformed, as promised. Without even putting up a fight — yet.
If it was ever possible to be both a Christian and a supporter of the Obama Regime, it certainly isn’t now.
On tips from Artfldgr, Curtis, Bob Roberts, G. Fox, and Apostle53.
April 30, 2013 (LiveActionNews.org) – During the breaking “Inhuman” investigation, Live Action investigated the Washington Surgi-Clinic where Cesare Santangelo performs late-term abortions in Washington, D.C. Santangelo revealed several horrors involved with late-term abortions that America needs to know.
1) Babies are purposely suffocated or otherwise cruelly killed to ensure their deaths.
“Um, I cut the umbilical cord first, wait for the baby to expire, and then we do it that way.”
Of course, we all know that the umbilical cord is a baby’s means of receiving the vital oxygen her body needs to survive. The umbilical cord also conducts blood to the baby’s body. In order to ensure that a baby does not survive a late-term abortion at his facility, Santangelo purposely suffocates the baby and stops her vital blood flow.
And did we catch the word “wait”? This is a process – suffocation, that is. It does not happen instantly. What terror and pain does an almost-born baby experience through this process? [...]
4) Hospitals and medical professionals who save infants after attempted abortions are “stupid.”
This admission by Santangelo may just top the iceberg. (Taking the cake just isn’t an appropriate analogy here.)
First, Santangelo acts as though women should not be calling a hospital – they should only be calling him, the master of death. (Remember, no babies have ever survived in his clinic.) Apparently, women should not panic, they should not deem their pain necessary of a hospital’s intervention, and they should definitely not change their minds about the abortion.
Santangelo then goes on to claim that when a Virgina hospital helped women to deliver their babies (and saved them after an attempted, partially-completed abortion), “the hospital helped them to deliver, which was the stupidest thing they could have done.” He went on to claim that the hospital “did everything they shouldn’t have done, which was help them to deliver…”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Found at Mad Medic: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
At last some honesty from a moonbat. We all know that the Left is not on the level with its sudden urgent concern that homosexuals have their sexual liaisons sanctified by the government as legitimate marriages. Lesbian journalist Masha Gessen, as quoted by Micah Clark, spells out what they are actually up to:
“It’s a no-brainer that [homosexuals] should have the right to marry [each other], but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … (F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
“The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
“I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”
To “fundamentally transform,” as Obama put it regarding his plans for America, is to destroy.
On a tip from Wilberforce.
Of Course…The Left Will Not Let a Bombing Happen Without Trying to Blame Everyone Except the Real Culprits
The Grotesque Politicization of the Boston Bombing
This isn’t journalism. This is speculation. It’s hackneyed. It’s malicious, unprofessional, and dangerous. The lack of professionalism demonstrated by the above should be enough to shame them forever from the profession, but the profession now thrives on tabloid-level “reporting.”
After a tragedy the normal person responds by falling to their knees in prayer. The compassionate person responds with concern for the affected. The professional reports the facts and differentiates between speculation and confirmation.
It is the desperate and professionally and spiritually anemic who heartlessly view tragedy as a chance to settle some imaginary score. These individuals are baselessly impugning innocent groups and in doing so, inadvertently impugn themselves and their profession.
See all Dana’s examples at the link.
Also, at Twitchy, “Detective Chris Matthews speculates on tax day connection to Boston bombing,” and “Michael Moore puts two and two together after Boston Marathon bombing.”
Progressive ghouls. Same bullshit. Different day.
More on this later…it’s going to be a major part of the story, unfortunately…
From American Power: http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/
April, 10, 2013 — nicedeb
A few days ago, I reported on the shocking story about the Army instructor in Pennsylvania who labeled Evangelical Christians, Catholics, Orthodox Jews and Mormons “religious extremists” alongside Hamas and al Qaeda during an Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training brief on extremism. An Army spokesman told Todd Starnes of Fox News that this was an “isolated incident not condoned by the Dept. of the Army.”
Well it was assuredly not an isolated incident.
Today, Todd Starnes reported at Townhall that an Army officer at Ft. Campbell, KY sent an email to subordinates using similar descriptions to describe two mainstream Christian ministries that were put in the same category as Neo-Nazis, Racist Skinheads, White Nationalists and the Ku Klux Klan.
A U.S. Army officer sent an email to dozens of subordinates listing the American Family Association and Family Research Council as “domestic hate groups” because they oppose homosexuality — and warned officers to monitor soldiers who might be supporters of the groups.
“Just want to ensure everyone is somewhat educated on some of the groups out there that do not share our Army Values,” read an email from LTC Jack Rich to three dozen subordinates at Fort Campbell in Kentucky. “When we see behaviors that are inconsistent with Army Values, don’t just walk by – do the right thing and address the concern before it becomes a problem.”
So— one has to wonder what “Army Values” are in Obama’s America? We know what they aren’t are: traditional, conservative, Christian values. Like our parents and our parents’ parents had. Those yucky, old-fashioned ”extremist” values are being drummed out of our heads – whether it be in the public schools, throughout civil society and now even in the military – a devout faith in secular humanism is not only strongly suggested – it’s aggressively forced down everyone’s throats.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Fox News he was disturbed by the contents of the email.
“It’s very disturbing to see where the Obama Administration is taking the military and using it as a laboratory for social experimentation — and also as an instrument to fundamentally change the culture,” he said. “The message is very clear – if you are a Christian who believes in the Bible, who believes in transcendent truth, there is no place for you in the military.”
When Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty asked the Army instructor who conducted the briefing on religious extremism, where she got her information, he was told it was the Southern Poverty Law Center.
This latest Army email has all the markings of SPLC anti-Christian propaganda.
Last November, they came out with a report labeling the Family Research Council (FRC), the American Family Association and other family advocates as “hate” groups because of their stand on marriage.
The National Prayer Network reported that the SPLC’s 10-page attack was distributed to police officers all across America.
Called 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda, it encourages police to especially watch the hateful, violence-inciting propaganda from Christian/conservative “watchdog” organizations. These include the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, Coral Ridge Ministries, Liberty Council, and Traditional Values Coalition.
According to Dr. Gary Cass, who is affiliated with the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, “To say that anybody who has a principled objection to homosexuality [and warns of] the impact that that sinful lifestyle has on individuals and on society is somehow morally equivalent to overt racism and violence is absolutely defamatory.”
According to emails obtained by Judicial Watch, Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Dept. has worked closely with the SPLC, even inviting co-founder Morris Dees to appear as the featured speaker at a July 31, 2012, “Diversity Training Event” sponsored by the Civil Rights and Tax divisions of the DOJ, for which employees who were instructed qualified “for mandatory annual diversity training for supervisors.”
The demonization of the Christian right has apparently now spread to the US Army.
Perkins, a Marine Corps veteran, said it’s clear that “Army Values” have indeed changed.
“And it’s the values of Evangelicals and Catholics,” Perkins said. “It’s not the values of the vast majority of those serving in our nation’s military. I think it’s the values of this administration trying to superimpose upon our military.”
Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, now an executive vice president of the FRC, told Fox News that all Americans should be concerned about the contents of the email.
“If this is the action of a single Army lieutenant colonel, it needs to be investigated,” he said. “On the other hand, if what he reflects is a shifting policy or attitude of the Army or DOD, then I think it is a much bigger issue.”
Boykin served more than 36 years in the military before retiring in 2007. Since 2008 he said he’s seen withering attacks on religious liberty.
Among the incidents:
-A War Games scenario at Fort Leavenworth that identified Christian groups and Evangelical groups as being potential threats;
-A 2009 Dept. of Homeland Security memorandum that identified future threats to national security coming from Evangelicals and pro-life groups;
-A West Point study released by the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center that linked pro-lifers to terrorism;
-Evangelical leader Franklin Graham was disinvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer service because of his comments about Islam;
-Christian prayers were banned at the funeral services for veterans at Houston’s National Cemetery;
-Bibles were banned at Walter Reed Army Medical Center – a decision that was later rescinded;
-Christian crosses and a steeple were removed from a chapel in Afghanistan because the military said the icons disrespected other religions;
-Catholic chaplains were told not to read a letter to parishioners from their archbishop related to Obamacare mandates. The Secretary of the Army feared the letter could be viewed as a call for civil disobedience.
Crews said the military is getting their information on domestic hate groups from the Southern Poverty Law Center. And the email written by the lieutenant colonel referenced the organization.
“This is disturbing that the military would use this list composed by the Southern Poverty Law Center when these organizations that are highly esteemed and respected in the evangelical community,” he said.
The Chaplain Alliance filed a Freedom of Information Act request – asking if the SPLC list had been widely distributed in the military or if had been used in a formal manner.
The response they got from the Dept. of Defense left Crews troubled.
“They told us they had no record of the SPLC list being used,” he said – even though the email clearly proves otherwise.
So they’re lying – as all leftists do. Crews said what we’re seeing is part of a disturbing trend: “We believe it is more widespread than the military is acknowledging. We keep getting calls from military personnel telling us of their issues.”
It should be noted that the anti-Christian propaganda found on the SPLC website incited Floyd Lee Corkins to attempt a mass shooting at the Family Research Council, last August.
There needs to be a House investigation on this anti-Christian poison that is being pushed on Americans throughout law enforcement and the military. These aren’t isolated incidents and it needs to be nipped in the bud, before it becomes more pervasive.
From Nice Deb: http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/
Found at 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
By George Neumayr on 4.3.13 @ 6:09AM
Churches will be pressured into blessing gay marriages.
The end point of liberalism is a coercive secular state in which the religious have no meaningful rights. American church leaders are kidding themselves if they think the gay-marriage juggernaut is going to stop at civil marriage. It won’t. It will quickly travel past court houses to churches, demanding that all religions bless gay marriages.
Denmark casts a shadow of this future, where the gay-marriage juggernaut has smashed through church doors. Last year the country’s parliament passed a law requiring all Lutheran churches to conduct gay marriage ceremonies. “I think it’s very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married,” said Manu Sareen, Denmark’s minister for gender equality. Reluctant bishops have to supply ministers to satisfy the right whether they like it or not.
Iceland and Sweden have similar arrangements. Since many of the bishops are in the tank for gay marriage anyways and since these churches are “state” churches, this pressure generates little news. But it is instructive nonetheless. Where gay marriage exists, religious freedom gradually disappears, to the point where ministers have to choose between serving as secularism’s stooges or facing societal oblivion.
In America, this pressure will take the form of “discriminatory” churches losing government grants, permits, and participation in programs. It will be the death of religious freedom by a thousand little cuts here and there: canceled speeches of religious figures at state universities, lost HHS grants, the refusal of city governments to recognize churches that don’t permit gay marriages, “hate crime” legislation that extends to opposition to gay marriage, and so on. All of this will have the effect of pressuring churches into blessing gay marriages. A law forcing priests and ministers to preside at gay marriages won’t need to be passed; the invisible law of indirect governmental pressure will do the trick.
During last year’s campaign, Obama said that religions will remain free to determine their own “sacraments.” Shouldn’t that go without saying? The very fact that Obama made such a declaration should scare people. Whenever a pol says “I won’t do [fill in the blank],” it usually means that very activity is on his mind. While he can’t determine the sacraments for religions, Obama will try and marginalize those religions that don’t determine the sacraments in a manner he considers “nondiscriminatory.”
Obama’s “respect” for these religions is on par with his respect for the policies of the Boy Scouts. “I think that my attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does in every institution and walk of life,” said Obama when calling on the Boy Scouts to accept gay scoutmasters. Notice Obama’s phrase: every institution and walk of life. Surely in time that will include churches.
But for now, Obama thinks the religious should feel grateful to him that he is not busting down church doors and forcibly injecting them with contraceptives or requiring them to preside at gay weddings. That in his mind is the sum total of religious freedom. And yet even that little space can be crowded in on through laws that allow government to reward secularized religions and shun traditional ones.
The goal of the gay-marriage juggernaut is to make Christians pariahs, as irrelevant to public life as racists. It doesn’t have to pass a Denmark-style law to force churches to conduct gay marriages; it can achieve the same end through punitive political correctness.
On ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos thought it appropriate to ask Cardinal Timothy Dolan, albeit in a roundabout and implicit fashion, if Catholicism could accept gay marriage for people who feel “unwelcome” in the Church: “What do you say to a gay couple that loves God and the Church, but also love each other and want to raise a family in faith?” It would have been nice to see Dolan challenge the insidious premise of the question by saying something like: So, George, you are saying that unless the Church loves the sin it can’t love the sinner?
Instead, Dolan seemed to concede the media narrative about the Church as hateful — “We have to do better to see that our defense of marriage is not reduced to an attack on gay people. I admit, we haven’t been too good at that” — while gingerly trying to uphold the Church’s teaching on marriage. His attempt at appeasement didn’t work. Gay activists pounced on him anyways, generating headlines such as “Cardinal Dolan Demeans Gay Relationships As He Says Church Should Be More Welcoming to Gays.”
The gay-marriage juggernaut only speeds up at the sight of such gestures, seeing civil marriage as just one stop on a longer road to a secularist state in which religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular fall silent and compliant out of fear if not law.
Photo: UPI (Supporters of Illinois’ “Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act,” Jan. 2, 2013)
From The American Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/04/03/religious-freedoms-drip-by-dri
Gay marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the
deconstruction of marriage between men and women. That is a thing that many men and women of one generation understand but have trouble conveying to another generation for whom marriage has already largely been deconstructed.
The statistics about the falling marriage rate tell the tale well enough. Marriage is a fading institution. Family is a flickering light in the evening of the West.
The deconstruction is destruction. Entire countries are fading away, their populations being replaced by emigrants from more traditional lands whose understanding of the male-female relationship is positively reactionary. These emigrants may lack technology or the virtues of civilization, and their idea of marriage resembles slavery more than any modern ideal, but it fulfills the minimum purpose of any group, tribe or country– it produces its next generation.
The deconstruction of marriage is not a mere matter of front page photos of men kissing. It began with the deconstruction of the family. Gay marriage is only one small stop on a tour that includes rising divorce rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by twenty and even thirty-somethings.
Each step on the tour takes apart the definition and structure of marriage until there is nothing left. Gay marriage is not inclusive, it is yet another attempt at eliminating marriage as a social institution by deconstructing it until it no longer exists.
There are two ways to destroy a thing. You can either run it at while swinging a hammer with both hands or you can attack its structure until it no longer means anything.
The left hasn’t gone all out by outlawing marriage, instead it has deconstructed it, taking apart each of its assumptions, from the economic to the cooperative to the emotional to the social, until it no longer means anything at all. Until there is no way to distinguish marriage from a temporary liaison between members of uncertain sexes for reasons that due to their vagueness cannot be held to have any solemn and meaningful purpose.
You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting the votes or taking the process seriously. The same goes for marriage or any other institution. You can destroy it by outlawing it or by eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is absurd.
Every aspect of marriage is deconstructed and then eliminated until it no longer means anything. And once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the deconstruction and destruction will be complete.
The deconstruction of marriage eroded it as an enduring institution and then as an exclusive institution and finally as a meaningful institution. The trendy folk who claim to be holding off on getting married until gay marriage is enacted are not eager for marriage equality, they are using it as an excuse for an ongoing rejection of marriage.
Gay marriage was never the issue. It was always marriage.
In the world that the deconstructionists are striving to build, there will be marriage, but it will mean nothing. Like a greeting card holiday, it will be an event, but not an institution. An old ritual with no further meaning. An egotistical exercise in attention-seeking and self-celebration with no deeper purpose. It will be a display every bit as hollow as the churches and synagogues it takes place in.
The deconstruction of marriage is only a subset of the deconstruction of gender from a state of being to a state of mind. The decline of marriage was preceded by the deconstruction of gender roles and gay marriage is being succeeded by the destruction of gender as anything other than a voluntary identity, a costume that one puts on and takes off.
Destroying gender roles was a prerequisite to destroying gender. Each deconstruction leads naturally to the next deconstruction with no final destination except total deconstruction.
Gay marriage is not a stopping point, just as men in women’s clothing using the ladies room is not a stopping point. There is no stopping point at all.
The left’s deconstruction of social institutions is not a quest for equality, but for destruction. As long as the institutions that preceded it exist, it will go on deconstructing them until there is nothing left but a blank canvas, an unthinking anarchy, on which it can impose its perfect and ideal conception of how everyone should live.
Equality is merely a pretext for deconstruction. Change the parameters of a thing and it ceases to function. Redefine it and expand it and it no longer means anything at all. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but if you change ‘rose’ to mean anything that sticks out of the ground, then the entire notion of what is being discussed has gone and cannot be reclaimed without also reclaiming language.
The left’s social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts. Claims of equality are used to expand institutions and ways of living until they are so broad as to encompass everything and nothing. And once a thing encompasses everything, once a rose represents everything rising out of the ground, then it also represents nothing at all.
Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage, or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property with no lasting meaning or value.
As Orwell understood in 1984, tyranny is essentially about definitions. It is hard to fight for freedom if you lack the word. It is hard to maintain a marriage if the idea no longer exists. Orwell’s Oceania made basic human ideas into contradictory things. The left’s deconstruction of social values does the same thing to such essential institutions as marriage; which becomes an important impermanent thing of no fixed nature or value.
The left’s greatest trick is making things mean the opposite of what they do. Stealing is sharing. Crime is justice. Property is theft. Each deconstruction is accompanied by an inversion so that a thing, once examined, comes to seem the opposite of what it is, and once that is done, it no longer has the old innate value, but a new enlightened one.
To deconstruct man, you deconstruct his beliefs and then his way of living. You deconstruct freedom until it means slavery. You deconstruct peace until it means war. You deconstruct property until it means theft. And you deconstruct marriage until it means a physical relationship between any group of people for any duration. And that is the opposite of what marriage is.
The deconstruction of marriage is part of the deconstruction of gender and family and those are part
of the long program of deconstructing man. Once each basic value has been rendered null and void, inverted and revealed to be random and meaningless, then man is likewise revealed to be a random and meaningless creature whose existence requires shaping by those who know better.
The final deconstruction eliminates nation, religion, family and even gender to reduce the soul of man to a blank slate waiting to be written on.
That is what is at stake here. This is not a struggle about the right of equality, but the right of definition. It is not about whether men can get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all. It is about preserving the shapes and structures of basic social concepts that define our identities in order to preserve those very concepts, rather than accepting their deconstruction into nullification.
The question on the table is whether the institutions that give us meaning will be allowed to retain that meaning. And that question is a matter of survival. Societies cannot survive without definitions. Peoples do not go on existing through the act of occupying space. The deconstruction of identity is also the destruction of identity.
And that is what we are truly fighting against.
Starbucks No Longer Wants My Business – Because I Support Traditional Marriage. And They Won’t Get it.
From Mad Medic: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Don’t like having to explain to your six-year-old why two men are kissing across the front page of the newspaper? That’s just too bad, according to the Denver Post, which recently ran a picture of Colorado House Speaker Mark Ferrandino smooching sex partner Greg Wertsch to celebrate the passage of yet another bill promoting homosexuality:
The Post ran that photo as its main front-page picture, taking up 20-25 percent of the front page.
It isn’t that media apparatchiks like Director of Newsroom Operations Linda Shapley don’t care what readers think. They just don’t care what readers who aren’t on board with the liberal agenda think.
The headline on her column first read: “Mark Ferrandino kiss photo shows truth, no matter how objectionable.” But that offended the pro-gay lobby, so the explanation of the offense … offended. The new headline became “Picture of Mark Ferrandino kissing partner shows the truth, even if it offends some.”
Sexual deviancy is the “truth,” according to the depraved ideology of our ruling class.
Unsurprisingly, the accompanying story aggressively promoted the homosexual agenda:
The story included seven different responses to the bill passing. Pro-civil union backers outnumbered opponents 6-1. The story went on to mention “milestones in the gay movement” including “the Stonewall riots, Harvey Milk’s assassination.” Most of the article read like an LGBT press release.
Only a year ago, not even Barack Hussein or Shrillary Rotten supported the disgusting and blasphemous travesty of homosexual “marriage.” Now it seems likely to soon become the law of the land. Propaganda blitzes work.
Liberals can be counted on to continue using their control of the media to push the envelope as far as they can, even after America has been fundamentally transformed into a degenerate culture that would make any decent person sick.
On a tip from Bob Roberts.
Peter Roberts gasps in horror at what multiculturalism and the practice of importing massive hordes of welfare colonists have done to the homey suburb where he grew up:
When you see your homeland, which was what Greenacre was, turned into a minefield, or a battlefield, or a refuge of drug dealers, criminals, drive-by shooters and terror – you find yourself in a quandary. It’s all part and parcel of the greater good, of the New Australia, of the emergence of alternative cultures – it’s just a settling-in process.
Whatever the apologists say, it’s traumatic to read about the new Greenacre where I had my roots. It’s tragic to see things go so wrong.
The police are powerless. I’ve seen it first-hand. They are harassed and intimidated for simply doing their job. The Premier says we can have confidence in the police to apprehend the culprits of a recent murder in Wilbur Street. Even if they do, which is unlikely, as the local residents live in permanent fear of reprisals, can they stop the next shooting and the next?
Australia has some of the most repressive laws in the world regarding firearms ownership. As in Chicago, this results in deadly anarcho-tyranny.
Soon Greenacre/Lakemba will be an enclave of little Lebanon, with all the worst features transported from a failed country to a new one, one still proud of its tolerance. I am told time and again that tolerance is not weakness. A bit like saying appeasement is not weakness. But I’m growing more sceptical.
That was my home – the place where I simply couldn’t imagine living anywhere else once – transformed to the place where I could never imagine living again.
Greenacre is a suburb of Sydney. It could just as easily be a suburb of London or Los Angeles.
Eventually the civilized will run out of places to retreat to. Then the whole world will be the Third World. Multiculturalism will have triumphed.
On a tip from Andrew M.
Pat Caddell Rips The Consultants Running the Republican Party For Being a Bunch of Money Grubbing Elitists
Interesting how it took an outsider to say what needs to be said…
Pat Caddell, the Fox News Contributor and Democrat pollster who engineered Jimmy Carter’s 1976 Presidential victory, blew the lid off CPAC on Wednesday with a blistering attack on “racketeering” Republican consultants who play wealthy donors like “marks.”
“I blame the donors who allow themselves to be played for marks. I blame the people in the grassroots for allowing themselves to be played for suckers….It’s time to stop being marks. It’s time to stop being suckers. It’s time for you people to get real,” he told the audience that included two top Republican consultants.
Caddell stole the show as a panelist in the breakout session titled “Should We Shoot All the Consultants Now?” He spoke with a fire and passion that electrified the room. When the session began the large room was half filled, but as word spread of the fireworks going on inside, the audience streamed in. By the end, it was standing room only.
Breitbart News spoke with Caddell prior to his talk, and he promised he would deliver a “brutal critique” of the Republican establishment and its political consulting class. He did not disappoint, pulling no punches with an unyielding evisceration of a small group of Republican consultants, the Romney campaign, the Republican National Committee, and Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS Super PAC.
“When you have the Chief of Staff of the Republican National Committee and the political director of the Romney campaign, and their two companies get $150 million at the end of the campaign for the ‘fantastic’ get-out-the-vote program…some of this borders on RICO [the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] violations,” Caddell told the crowd. “It’s all self dealing going on. I think it works on the RICO thing. They’re in the business of lining their pockets.”
“The Republican Party,” Caddell continued, “is in the grips of what I call the CLEC–the consultant, lobbyist, and establishment complex.” Caddell described CLEC as a self serving interconnected network of individuals and organizations interested in preserving their own power far more than they’re interested in winning elections.
“Just follow the money,” Caddell told a rapt audience. “It’s all there in the newspaper. The way it works is this–ever since we centralized politics in Washington, the House campaign committee and the Senate campaign committee, they decide who they think should run. You hire these people on the accredited list [they say to candidates] otherwise we won’t give you money. You hire my friend or else.”
Financial corruption is a key component of the current process, according to Caddell. “There’s money passing under the table on both parties. Don’t kid yourself…If you can’t see racketeering in front of you, God save you.”
As a Democrat, Caddell said he could tell the truth about the failings of the Republicans 2012 campaign efforts since “I have no interest in the Republican Party.” He compared Republicans unfavorably to Democrats.”In my party we play to win. We play for life and death. You people play for a different kind of agenda…Your party has no problem playing the Washington Generals to the Harlem Globetrotters.”
Caddell left no doubt he is not an admirer of Mitt Romney’s campaign management skills. He called Romney “the worst executive I’ve seen” when it comes to leading a political campaign. Romney’s failure to attack Obama’s Benghazi debacle during the foreign policy debate was “cravenness” that came about because his consultants told him “we don’t want to look warlike.”
Caddell predicted that the Republican Party, unless it became the anti-establishment, anti-Washington party, would become extinct, like the 19th century Whig Party. “These people [in the
consulting-lobbying-establishment complex] are doing business for themselves. They are a part of the Washington establishment. These people don’t want to have change.”
The 2010 takeover of Congress by the Republicans, Caddell said, “was not engineered by the Washington Republican establishment. They [the
establishment] then took that victory and threw it away.”
Caddell called Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) “the Ambrose Burnside of American politics.” Burnside was the commander of the Union’s Army of the Potomac during the Civil War. He was dismissed by Lincoln for his inability to press his advantage against the enemy, his plodding and unimaginative strategies, and his inability to focus resources on the tactics needed for victory.
Caddell cautioned Republicans not to read too much in the 2012 results where they maintained control of the House of Representatives. “You won the House [in 2012] because of the reapportionment that came after the 2010 [Tea Party] victories,” he said. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), elected in 2010, and Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), elected in 2012, had to fight this establishment at every step in the process and “claw their way” to electoral success, Caddell said.
When an audience member asked Caddell why he, a Democrat, was offering Republicans advice that would help them beat his own party, his response was met with huge applause. “I’m not a fan of Barack Obama,” Caddell said. “My first allegiance is to my country. I have paid a huge price, and when I watch you people screwing up I’m offended.”
Nancy Smith, a grassroots activist who co-founded an independent Virginia group that focused on door-to-door canvassing and get-out-the-vote in the 2012 election, was effusive in her praise of Caddell’s critique. “This talk by Caddell is what this entire conference should be about.” [BOB: I nominate Miss Smith to be Chairman of the Republican Party]
This is the ‘Come To Jesus’ moment for the GOP…and conservatives.
There are two paths you can go down and it’s a time for choosing.
Is anybody there?
Does anybody care?
From The Camp of The Saints: http://thecampofthesaints.org/
Here is how Wikipedia describes the Washington Monument Syndrome…
The Washington Monument syndrome, also known as the Mount Rushmore Syndrome, or the firemen first principle, is a political tactic used in the United States by government agencies when faced with budget cuts. The tactic entails cutting the most visible or appreciated service provided by the government, from popular services such as national parks and libraries to valued public employees such as teachers and firefighters. The name derives from the National Park Service’s alleged habit of saying that any cuts would lead to an immediate closure of the wildly popular Washington Monument. Critics compare the tactic to hostage taking or blackmail.
…and here is how Obama’s USDA puts it into practice:
Salmonella outbreaks. E. coli outbreaks. Millions of dollars in economic losses.
These are among the scenarios the Obama administration warned about last month as it claimed the sequester would force the U.S. Department of Agriculture to furlough meat inspectors.
But while the administration prepares to take that step, it continues to pursue a “partnership” with the Mexican government to “raise awareness” about food stamps among immigrants from that country. When a top Senate Republican proposed cutting off funds for that program last week — in the form of an amendment to a budget resolution — Democrats on the Budget Committee shot it down.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) estimates the immediate cost of this malignant program to be in the $millions. The long-term cost is incalculable, since the obvious purpose is to lure Third-Worlders into the USA with government handouts in hopes of massively expanding the intergenerational welfare dependency that provides the Democrat Party with its base.
On a tip from Dr. 9.
As Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) entered the eighth hour of his filibuster of Obama CIA nominee John Brennan on Wednesday, he pleaded for an assurance from the White House that the Obama administration would not kill Americans on U.S. soil.
“I have a message here from, not from the White House, a message saying the White House hasn’t returned our phone calls,” he said holding up a piece of paper shortly before 8 p.m. “If anybody knows anybody at the White House and wants to call them, we are looking for an answer from the White House.”
Since the filibuster began, White House officials have twice responded to messages from POLITICO seeking comment: They have nothing to say.
Paul joked “Maybe they’re going to call me when the sequester’s over,” then added, “I really think that one of the courtesies that they ought to think about is, particularly if what they’re hearing is something that they don’t object to, why not end the debate by going ahead and letting us know?
“You’d think that would be a pretty easy answer for them.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Found at 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
Lost in the “homophobia” smoke is just how radically liberal masterminds are attempting to transform society to conform to their warped ideology. Not even the concept of motherhood is safe:
The Obama Justice Department is arguing in the United States Supreme Court that children do not need mothers.
The Justice Department’s argument on the superfluity of motherhood is presented in a brief the Obama administration filed in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended California’s Constitution to say that marriage involves only one man and one woman.
The Justice Department presented its conclusions about parenthood in rebutting an argument made by proponents of Proposition 8 that the traditional two-parent family, led by both a mother and a father, was the ideal place, determined even by nature itself, to raise a child.
The Obama administration argues this is not true. It argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers is just as good as having one of each.
This bizarre assertion is backed up by the moonbat social engineers of the American Psychological Association, who proclaim that perverts make better parents than normal people. The point is to advance homosexual adoption of innocent children.
So far in the history of the human race, no child has ever been born without a biological father and mother. Now, in the Supreme Court of the United States, the Executive Branch of the federal government is arguing that, regardless of the biological facts of parenthood, states have no legitimate and defensible interest in ensuring that children conceived by a mother and a father are in fact raised by mothers and fathers.
Only a few years ago, virtually anyone would have recognized that this represents institutionalized depravity. But deviancy is the norm in the upside-down twilight zone of fundamentally transformed Obamunist America. Those who aren’t sick had better get with the program.
In any case, Big Government is the only parent anyone really needs in a collectivist utopia.
On a tip from Stormfax.
Question For Conservatives: Why Are Your Children Still In Public School?
Written on Wednesday, February 27, 2013 by David L. Goetsch
I am sure conservative Americans love their children and want the best for them. Since this is the case, I have a question for conservatives: Why are your children still in public school? You would not let your little children play in a busy street, jump off the roof of a ten-story building, or drive a car at the age of five. You would not do these things because doing so would put the lives of the children you love in peril. With this said, why then do the majority of conservative Americans turn their children over to public schools that put their children’s lives in peril by subjecting them to twelve years of leftwing indoctrination and mind control.
What is at risk may not be the physical well-being of your children—although with school shootings becoming more and more common their physical well-being is certainly a consideration—but their ability to think for themselves, develop the academic skills necessary for success in a global world, and internalize the values their parents are trying to teach them. If you think I exaggerate, consider the latest trend in public schools nationwide: replacing great works of fiction with non-fiction books that might include such inspiring works of literature as EPA manuals.
In 46 states, students in the public schools will soon be reading an EPA manual on levels of insulation required in buildings or a treatise on invasive plant species in California instead of literary classics such as To Kill a Mockingbird, The Scarlet Letter, and Silas Marner. The plan in these 46 states is to require that 70 percent of the books children read in the K-12 system be works of non-fiction. That in itself is not a major reason for alarm. After all, the best book ever written is non-fiction.
The problem is that not only are the public schools moving away from classic fiction to non-fiction, the states in question are providing teachers a list of “approved” non-fiction books from which they must select the ones they will teach. The list will be comprised not of great works of non-fiction, but of books that are supposed to help prepare students for the workplace. What a nonsensical claim. What this move will really do is create an easier pathway for introducing leftwing indoctrination into the classroom.
Preparing students for the workplace—the supposed purpose of the move away from classic literature—is certainly a worthy goal and one that needs more attention in schools and colleges. I spent 36 years as a professor of business preparing students for rewarding careers in the workplace. However, I never lost sight of the fact that we were preparing students first for life and second for the workplace. Part of the rationale for providing a well-rounded education is to ensure that not only can graduates secure rewarding, responsible positions in their chosen fields of endeavor, but they can also be good citizens who are able to deal with the eternal verities of life, propagate the values of a civilized society, and think for themselves rather than being led by the nose like sheep.
I suspect that the real rationale behind the move away from classic fiction to non-fiction can be found in the attitudes of liberals toward these two just-mentioned aspects of a well-rounded education: eternal truths and the values of a civilized society. First, liberals do not even subscribe to the concept of eternal truth. The holy grail of the left is moral relativism. Heaven forbid that students learn from the study of classic fiction that there are actually eternal truths, truths that have been with us for all time and are still with us. For liberals to allow children in the public schools to eat the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge is to allow them to learn that eternal truths not only exist, but must exist if we are to have a civilized society.
Speaking of a civilized society, to have one we, its members, must subscribe to a set of broad values that govern our behavior and how we interact with each other. Once again, the last thing liberals want school children to learn is the values that grow out of the Ten Commandments, the very values that have undergirded western society for all time. It is the steady erosion of these values that have made ours such a coarse and uncaring society, a society in which innocent unborn babies are murdered for the sake of convenience, homosexuality is openly endorsed, elderly people are warehoused like so much unwanted baggage, and corruption in business and government is rampant.
Public school officials who advocated for the move away from teaching classic literature attempted to disguise their nefarious motives by claiming that: 1) children do not enjoy reading classic fiction, and 2) reading fiction does not prepare students for jobs. As to whether children enjoy reading fictional literature or not, who cares? Children enjoy very little of what they must do and learn to become responsible adults who contribute something positive to society. As to whether reading classic literature prepares students for the workplace, that is not its purpose. However, students who dislike reading fiction but are required to do so anyway will learn one of the most valuable lessons that can be taught in preparing people for the workplace: People in the workplace often have to do things they do not enjoy and, hence, do not want to do. Work is not always fun—that’s why it is called “work” and people get paid to do it. If it was fun it would be called “play” and people would do it for free.
My final comment on this move away from teaching classic fiction—the latest in a long list of steps taken by liberals to control the minds of students and turn them into the radical leftwingers of tomorrow—is this: if you are a conservative and still have your children in public school, take them out. Find a private school, Christian school, or charter school for your children and if these options do not work, homeschool them. Whatever the reasons are for sending your children to public school, they are vastly outweighed by the damage that will be done to them after 12 years in such an environment. You would not loan the family car to someone who was determined to destroy it. Surely your children are more important than the family car.
It is by studying good literature that students learn the power of words and the critical lesson that words have meaning. Graduates who understand the power and proper use of words are more difficult to lead down the garden path of liberal orthodoxy with false but persuasive rhetoric. The study of classic literature helps students become critical thinkers, not something one will learn reading an insulation handbook from the EPA or a treatise on invasive plant species in California. Of course, the fact that critical thinking can be learned by studying classic literature is one of the reasons liberals who long ago took control of public education in America would rather have students read non-fiction works off of their approved booklist.
FOund at Mad Medic: http://maddmedic.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/3stooges.jpg
These Republicans in Congress Make Me Sick. No Convictions, No Principles, No Integrity, No Stand Against Sheer Incompetence and Open Hatred for Israel
The Senate approved Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Defense secretary Tuesday, ending a contentious battle that exposed deep divisions over the president’s Pentagon pick.
After Republicans blocked the nomination earlier this month, they ultimately allowed for an up-or-down vote on Tuesday. The margin was historically close, with 58 senators supporting him and 41 opposing in the end.
Though Hagel is himself a former Republican senator, the resistance to his nomination showed an unusual level of distrust among many senators toward the man chosen to lead the Defense Department – at a time when the country is trying to wind down the Afghanistan war, while assessing emerging threats from Iran, Syria and elsewhere in the turbulent Middle East and North Africa.
Republicans had earlier held up the nomination largely over demands for more information from the Obama administration on the Sept. 11 Libya attacks.
But they also raised serious and recurring concerns about Hagel’s record of past statements and votes on everything from Israel to Iran to nuclear weapons.
Sen. John McCain, a leading Republican, clashed with his onetime friend over his opposition to President George W. Bush’s decision to send an extra 30,000 troops to Iraq in 2007 at a point when the war seemed in danger of being lost. Hagel, who voted to authorize military force in Iraq, later opposed the conflict, comparing it to Vietnam and arguing that it shifted the focus from Afghanistan.
McCain called Hagel unqualified for the Pentagon job even though he once described him as fit for a Cabinet post.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked what the delaying tactics had done for “my Republican colleagues.”
“Twelve days later, nothing. Nothing has changed,” the Democrat said on the Senate floor. “Sen. Hagel’s exemplary record of service to his country remains untarnished.”
Reid blamed partisanship over Obama’s second-term national security team for the delay. Both Reid and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Democrat, warned that it was imperative to act just days before automatic, across-the-board budget cuts hit the Pentagon.
Hagel will succeed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and join Obama’s retooled national security team. Hagel’s nomination bitterly split the Senate, with Republicans turning on their former party colleague and Democrats standing by Obama’s nominee.
Republicans also challenged Hagel about a May 2012 study that he co-authored for the advocacy group Global Zero, which called for an 80 percent reduction of U.S. nuclear weapons and the eventual elimination of all the world’s nuclear arms.
The group argued that with the Cold War over, the United States can reduce its total nuclear arsenal to 900 without sacrificing security. Currently, the U.S. and Russia have about 5,000 warheads each, either deployed or in reserve. Both countries are on track to reduce their deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 by 2018, the number set in the New START treaty that the Senate ratified in December 2010.
In an echo of the 2012 presidential campaign, Hagel faced an onslaught of criticism by well-funded, Republican-leaning outside groups that labeled the former senator “anti-Israel” and pressured senators to oppose the nomination. The groups ran television and print ads criticizing Hagel.
Opponents were particularly incensed by Hagel’s use of the term “Jewish lobby” to refer to pro-Israel groups. He apologized, saying he should have used another term and should not have said those groups have intimidated members of the Senate into favoring actions contrary to U.S. interests.
The nominee spent weeks reaching out to members of the Senate, meeting individually with lawmakers to address their concerns and seeking to reassure them about his policies.
Hagel’s halting and inconsistent performance during some eight hours of testimony at this confirmation hearing last month undercut his cause, but it wasn’t a fatal blow.
There was no erosion in Democratic support for the president’s choice and Hagel already had the backing of three Republicans – Sens. Thad Cochran, Mike Johanns and Richard Shelby. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., also switched to support Hagel in the final vote.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/