Michael Wolfe

Study up. Stand up. Speak up. Pray up!

Posts Tagged ‘christian’

« Previous Entries

Glenn Beck Doesn’t Hate The Jewish People: A Point by Point Rebuttal to the JIDF’s Anti-Beck Campaign

Posted by americana83 on June 17, 2011

Update: TO clear any possible confusion, the JIDF (Jewish Internet Defense Force)  has nothing to do with the IDF (Israel Defense Force) and is not affiliated in any way with the government of Israel. I support and embrace a sovereign and independent nation of Israel and oppose any and all attempts to disarm, partition or otherwise damage it. This article is concerned not primarily with the personality of Glenn Beck, but of the ability of even usually good organizations to use and descend to slander and deception when they put an agenda ahead of the truth.

I only address this issue because I take such matters of racial hatred seriously, and that charges of racism/anti-Semitism should only be made when there is clear and indisputable proof of said charge. The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) has often taken a decent stand and I have stood with them on some issues. However, I cannot stand with an organization that condones, sanctions and engages in slander and outright fabrications of the truth.  Recently, they have been attacking Glenn Beck as an anti-Semite, without any credible sourcing. Further, it must be noted before reading this that it has become clear through this episode that the JIDF defines witnessing and reaching out to Jewish people with Jesus Christ as anti-Semitism on par with the Holocaust, “Hitler’s dream.”   This would qualify many people who genuinely love the Jewish people as anti-Semites. The JIDF also counts the New Testament of the Bible as anti-Semite too, and has demonstrated animosity towards Messianic Jews, who have accepted Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah. These things said, now lets examine the JIDF’s claims against Glenn Beck:

1. JIDF claims that Beck placed the guilt of Jesus’s death on the entire Jewish population saying, “He promoted the anti-Semitic idea that the Jews killed Jesus to millions.  All of us.  We’re all to blame, apparently.”

Regarding the YouTube video link above, one YouTube user said this, and it is true:

another misrepresentation by TYT. He is clearly stating that christ was NOT victimized by the jews. If you understand the actual context of his statement (which you wont unless you see the whole thing…which I have) then you understand that he is stating that THE JEWISH PEOPLE ARE NOT TO HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE DEATH OF JESUS. He is stating that the “jesus as a victim” theology is an abomination..which it is. TYT….i can actually smell the shame from here….jgmetals81

Further, Glenn Beck wrote the following letter to the ADL, which is on their website and which I here quote in its entirety:

Mr. Foxman,

Thank you for the note and for reaching out to me.

As you assumed, it was certainly not my intention to say what I have been accused of saying. I strongly believe that it is a historical fact that the Romans, not the Jews, put Jesus to death and that fact has been confirmed by the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations.

Although the words I chose did not make this clear, I was trying to reference accusations that have been made against the Jews and how some of those accusations have led to horrors like the Inquisition as they were permitted to go unchallenged.

While as a non-Jew, I can never fully understand the suffering that has resulted from the historically inaccurate deicide charge, as someone with German heritage, I recognize the horrors that have been perpetrated on Jews throughout history and have asked if my ancestors knew what was taking place and looked the other way or how they could not have known of the horrors taking place. .

Thank you again for reaching out to me, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my thoughts and would welcome the chance to continue the dialogue so I can better understand the injustices that your organization is committed to fighting.

Sincerely,

Glenn Beck

The ADL accepts Beck’s clarification, but the JIDF does not.

2. The JIDF claims Beck endorsed an anti-Semite while discussing the book “The Red Network,” written by Elizabeth Dilling in 1934. Here is a segment of the transcript posted on Glenn Beck.com where he discusses the book:

GLENN: Oh, I know. I know. This here is a pocket history of the American Revolution, pocket history, 1826. Now, I’m getting a lot of people sending their books in. I think they are mainly from people who are like, “I don’t have any relatives to leave them to and I know you’ll preserve them.” And I will. In fact, I had a conversation with my daughters yesterday when I came home. I showed them these books and I said, I will come back from the grave if I ever see anybody with jam hands generations down the road that don’t appreciate what these books are. But I’m also getting these. This is a book, the Red Network. This came in from 1936. People — McCarthy was absolutely right. Now, he may have used bad tactics or whatever, but he was absolutely right. This is a book — and I’m getting a ton of these from people who were doing what we’re doing now. We now are documenting who all of these people are. Well, there were Americans in the first 50 years of this nation that took this seriously and they documented it. And this is from 1936. And in it, it talks about, it’s The Who’s Who and Handbook For Radicalism For Patriots. This is, who were the communists in America. The overwhelming number of communists? Labor unions.

The other thing that they talked about was, in this book that I was reading last night, they said, you know, there’s this — there’s this teachers union thing but you really want to know who the real radical communists are? The NEA. That’s 1936. And they are talking about this new organization that is really nasty that you really have to look out for. The NEA. But everything this book has talked about they have mainstreamed.

Until I read it, I can’t comment on the book’s content, but, given Beck’s record, I doubt he would knowingly give place to anti-Semitism. Beck was discussing a book he was reading that exposed communism in America, and said that regarding communism, the book had a prophetic element to it. It should also be noted that, according to Wikipedia, Dillings didn’t give place to anti-Semitism until 1940:

She then wrote The Roosevelt Red Record and Its Background (1936), condemning the New Deal, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and officials in his administration, claiming they had strong links to Communists. In The Octopus (1940), which she wrote under the pseudonym Rev. Frank Woodruff Johnson, she attacked the Jewish Anti-Defamation League and linked Jews to communism. It was then that she shifted her emphasis to Jews as being responsible for all the world’s problems, partly based on her readings of the Talmud.

This should mean that Red Network was not an anti-Semitic work, however, I will not assert this until I have read the book.

3. The JIDF accuses Glenn Beck of trivializing the Holocaust. Apparently they believe that examining the many evil elements of the National Socialist agenda is equal to trivializing the Holocaust. One must also note that Germany did not go from Weimar Republic to Holocaust over night, and there were many incremental changes that set the state for an atrocity of that magnitude to occur in a supposedly civilized country. Unfortunately, the best source they offer is “Countdown with Keith Olbermann, obviously not someone to go to for an unbiased analysis of Glenn Beck:

As you can see, even in these cherry-picked seconds long snippets, Glenn Beck does not call any of these things “the Holocaust” but merely discusses aspects of Nazi (National Socialist) teaching and policy. Nothing Anti-Semitic about it. And Keith certainly doesn’t understand the danger of allowing empathy to take the place of the law, and is ignorant of the dangers of government funded propaganda, but those are topics for another place and time.

4. They take issue with Beck’s list of “most dangerous people,” accusing Beck of being an anti-semite because he denounced the following individuals. I have hyper-lined each individual to his discussion on GlennBeck.com, and I will let you be the judge of whether or not these individuals deserve to be denounced, without regard to their alleged backgrounds (brief quotes are from the linked article):

· Edward Bernays: Bernays believed that people were motivated by irrational, animal urges. It was a philosophy of the Progressive era, much different than that of the Founders. He believed people were motivated by self-preservation, security, aggression or sex. He shared many of the same theories as Freud.

· Sigmund Freud: Freud basic tenet: hidden deep within all human beings were dangerous and irrational desires and fears. People are not rational  - we have inside of us powerful sexual and aggressive forces that were remnants of our animal past. Feelings we repressed because they were too dangerous.

· George Soros: QUOTE:  “I don’t deny the Jews their right to a national existence–but I don’t want to be part of it.” That experience notwithstanding, Soros has chosen to exclude Israel and Jewish causes, by and large, from his massive philanthropy-a decision that has caused comment among one of his colleagues in the financial community, particularly those who are strong supporters of Israel. In Hungary, Soros has been subject to anti-Semitic attacks. Referring to being a target, Soros, in his book “Underwriting Democracy,” wrote, “I am ready to stand up and be counted.” When I mentioned that rather suggestive line to Soros during one of several extended interviews with him, he responded quickly, “Right. It took me a long time.”

· Cass Sunstein: The office of information and regulatory affairs, Cass Sunstein who I maintain is the most dangerous man in America because you never see this guy coming. According to Red State, Cass Sunstein had championed creating fake websites and using outside 501(c)(3) interest groups to act as alleged independent champions of government policy and to, quote, cognitively infiltrate, end quote, opposition websites.

·Andy Stern, QUOTE: “We created global trade, we created global finance. We created global companies, but we forgot to create a global government.”

· Walter Lippman: Walter Lippmann was the guy who every journalist in America has studied and hails as a hero. He was a eugenicist or eugenics guy. He was a progressive, he was a member of Woodrow Wilson’s administration. He was a really evil dude. When he when Walter Lippmann heard about Fabian Socialism, he said the guys opened up for him. But Stuart Chase just went and became a Fabian Socialist with him at Harvard.

· Frances Fox Piven: The above video shows Frances Fox Piven, in her own words, calling for chaos and manipulating current events in order to achieve the goals of the progressive movement.

· Ed Rendell :( Link is to full article which is provided on Glenn’s abbreviated article. Not really much on Beck’s site if Beck Considers him one of the “most dangerous, its not readily clear on his website: QUOTE: Glenn highlights the real problem with ‘discourse’ in America today – superiority. He plays the incredibly revealing audio clip of Ed Rendell trying to explain his position on an issue, and when the guest disagrees his reaction is shocking. Read more and watch a free clip HERE.

5. The JIDF takes Glenn Beck’s ignorance of some of the tenants of “Reform Judaism, and transliterates it into blame for a forum poster blaming 9/11 on Israel!

That’s right. Despite the fact that the Glenn Beck forum itself identifies the 9/11 attackers as mostly the Muslim Brotherhood. The JIDF’s slander of Glenn Beck has echoed across the internet, leading others to blame the ludictrus article, which doesn’t show up using the JIDF’s google search hyperlink that is supposed to prove Glenn Beck believes Israel did 9/11. What a vicious and deceitful way to slander someone. But according to the JIDF, it is true because someone was repeating in forums related to Glenn Beck, the 9/12 movement, Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. The JIDF doesn’t even take care to note that Glenn Beck has absolutely no control over the individual 9/12 groups, and that trolls can join groups and post obscene things and then go away.

They end this point with the ridiculous assertion that based on one screw ball’s alleged post that, ” it’s no wonder that many of Beck’s fans believe that Israel was responsible for 9/11. I do not know why they have such animosity towards Beck now. Well actually, it will become apparent with the final point.

A comment in response to their coverage here, had this to say:

You have no proof Glenn Beck wrote this. You are relying on a post by a nobody. You are guilty of the 9th commandment. You are trying to slander Glenn Beck’s reputation w no evidence at all. I did not expect this from you guys. I watch his show daily and he is pro-Israel all the way. I know he would never say such a thing. You are being just like the media, posting lies and ruining somebody’s reputation without evidence of wrongdoing. I did not expect this low from this group. Glenn Beck 5:00 EST fox channel. Folks watch it and see for yourselves! Also, check out all of the replies to this article on facebook.

6. Then, they blame Glenn Beck for the alleged Mormon practice of baptising Dead Jews to convert them to mormonism! But that is just a side rant,  here’s the kicker, and the reason for that animosity, and I quote:

And no, his superficial “support” for Israel to get all the Jews there so that he and his Mormon and Christian “Rapture Ready” minions can convert us, does not convince us that he does not hate Jews.  “Support” like that—with an agenda to convert (ie. destroy) Jews—is not support at all, it’s a Hitler-esque dream.

The JIDF equates preaching salvation through Christ (and most of what I have heard Glenn Beck say about Jesus and Christianity has been basic Christian doctrine, not Mormon doctrine. They assert that preaching destroys Jews, and that it is tantamount to Hitler’s “dream.” Hey, JIDF, isn’t that trivializing the Holocaust, which you so baselessly and deceptively accused Glenn Beck of doing earlier? Equating a gospel tract, or a quote of John 3:16 to committing genocide is ridiculous.

But it doesn’t end there. They even take credit for Glenn Beck’s departure from his TV show on Fox News:

All of this explains why we called for him to be fired.  And within two days of doing so, he was.  (Never mind that Van Jones’ group, ColorofChange.org also declared the same thing too – Wolfe) It was probably a “coincidence,” but we’re glad still when stuff like that happens.  It gives us a shred of faith that there might be a shred of justice in an overwhelmingly unjust world.   The fact that this nutcase Glenn Beck influences millions and makes millions is just one of the many things wrong with it.  Beyond this, our pointing out the facts does not mean that we are diving our people.  If anyone is responsible for so much disunity among right and left wing Jews, it’s people like Glenn Beck, who obsess and express so much hatred toward our left-wing brethren.  Who can blame them for voting for Obama when right wing nutcases like Glenn Beck foster so much hatred and vitriol toward them?  Is that going to bring us closer to them, or further away?  Like it or not, left wing Jews are our brethren.  We can “convert” them to the right wing through our smarts, not by blaming all the world’s problems on them, as idiots like Glenn Beck and his fans always do.

In this post, the JIDF is claiming racial solidarity (because clearly people like Soros and Stern are not practicing the Jewish faith, 10 commandments, etc) trumps ideological unity, which is in line with the progressive agenda and which keeps people from recognizing those who are out to harm all of us! The JIDF, throws all of its principles under the bus and espouses the left’s racial solidarity and translates it into an us verses them. Glenn Beck has been open and outspoken against far left ideologues, politicians, and celebrities of every stripe. This charge from the JIDF is absurd in the highest fashion. Even one of the racists in the anti-semitic forums that came up from one of the hyperlinks posted by the JIDF said this: “A small part of me wonders if he tries to slip little things in without getting himself in too much trouble. I doubt it but the possibility is perhaps there. But, and this is a big but, when he speaks on the actual topics of J (capitalization mine) ews and Israel he is a HUGE Philosemite and typical neo con.” You can google it to find the quote if you like, I do not wish to post links to hate forums.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

My brother’s keeper?

Posted by americana83 on February 26, 2011

There has been much said about being your brother’s keeper. but most of all, everyone wants everyone else to be “their brother’s keeper. The president said it repeatedly during the 2008 campaign. A current contemporary Christian song even includes this chorus:

Love, will, hold us together
Make us a shelter
to weather the storm

And I’ll, be, my brothers keeper
So the whole world will know
That we’re not alone

It sounds really good, but what does it mean to be “your brother’s keeper?” Is it necessary to be your brother’s keeper in order to be a good Christian? Was not being his brother’s keeper Cain’s sin? Here is a portion of the exchange Cain had with God:

Genesis 4:5-9  But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.  (6)  And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?  (7)  If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.  (8)  And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.  (9)  And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?

Cain answered God with a lie and a question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” As if the answer to the question was obvious. Abel was a full grown man. In fact, Abel himself was the keeper of the sheep, according to Genesis 4:2. He was the keeper of his sheep. As such, it was his duty to control and provide for the sheep, regulate their diet, their rest, their daily lives. Likewise, a parent is a child’s keeper. This is exactly why we do not want a government to be “our brother’s keeper.” The keeper controls the lives of those kept. Children are kept because they cannot provide for themselves and lack the knowledge to make daily decisions. Sheep are kept because they can never have such knowledge. God does not command us to be our brother’s keeper. People enjoy bashing Cain for that response. But the fact is, he was right. However, he only asked the question in an attempt to redirect God’s attention. God, however, was not deterred, knew where Abel was, and focused like a laser on Cain’s real sin:

Genesis 4:10-11  And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.  (11)  And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;

Cain was a murderer. He was not found guilty of  “not being his brother’s keeper,” he was found guilty of murder. This also shows how jealousy bears hate and can produce murder if not repented of and forsaken.

This is why when Obama says ” we are our brother’s keeper, we are our sister’s keeper” he is completely wrong. Neither he nor the government is our keeper, or should be our keeper. To the Christian, God is our keeper. He provides what we cannot (salvation in Jesus Christ), he knows what we do not, and he provides us through his word the rules for living a prosperous and godly life no matter what happens in the world around us. He provided for the Israelites when Egypt was their keeper. He will provide for us if we have the unpleasant experience of the federal government becoming our keeper. His faithfulness in doing so is demonstrated throughout the scriptures in his frustration of the evil plans of tyrants and kings (whether Haman or Nebuchadnezzar or Saul or Jezebel).

Obama, telling how “we are our brothers keeper,” of course its all through the government, a “benevolent, all powerful government, with the power to redistribute wealth to whom it will, and drain it from whom it will. The government is not my family, nor is it my keeper. it is merely supposed to uphold the rule of law, ensure justice and defend our rights and freedoms.

Obama tells you Government is your keeper. The Federal Government needs to give you a job, insurance, education. The government is your keeper…

This artist wants to be your keeper, but he really wants Obama to be all our keepers… :/

Posted in Barack Obama, Christianity, Election 2008, health care, politics, Presidential, social spending, taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

President’s agenda clear: “Change the culture”

Posted by americana83 on October 26, 2009

Just recently the president posted a blog on his website discussing his plans for sexuality in America. He also shares what “changes” he is already orchestrating in government programs. Thanks to his urging, we now have money at the HHS divided by sexuality:

On the same day, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced a plan to establish the nation’s first ever national resource center to assist communities across the country in their efforts to provide services and support for older LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Transgender -Ed) Americans.

From that link:

Experts estimate that as many as 1.5 to 4 million LGBT individuals are age 60 and older.   Agencies that provide services to older individuals may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the needs of this group of individuals. The new Resource Center for LGBT Elders will provide information, assistance and resources for both LGBT organizations and mainstream aging services providers at the state and community level to assist them in the development and provision of culturally sensitive supports and services. The LGBT Center will also be available to educate the LGBT community about the importance of planning ahead for future long term care needs.

And just a few weeks ago, the Administration on Aging at HHS issued its first ever grant to an LGBT Aging Services Program through its Community Innovations for Aging in Place initiative to the LA Gay and Lesbian Community Center.

Culturally sensitive?! These programs will likely provide the same services just with different sexually slanted language. Questions about the constitutionality of federal involvement not-withstanding, health and aging services shouldn’t need to differ because of sexuality, nor is this a prudent use of tax payers money. this administration continues to divide and expand government outlays of money for no real value. Further WHY would the government need to know who a person sleeps with to provide retirement services? These expansions provide yet another government intrusion on privacy. Why do only the LGBT “community need to learn “the importance of planning ahead for future long term care needs.” Is this arguably not a generic concern, regardless of who one sleeps with?

Further, isn’t the donation of tax payer’s money to a sexuality based organization discrimination? Wouldn’t such a climate be “hostile” or “discomforting” to a person of hetero preferences? Isn’t it discriminatory? Oh wait, that would only be if it were a grant to a Heterosexual Aging Services Program. the hypocrisy is disgusting.

The president concludes his blog with this ominous tidbit:

Every day so many of us working in the Obama Administration ask:  How can we ensure that our time here makes the lives of LGBT Americans living across this country safer, fairer, and a little better?  We know how much work is ahead of us.  Some items will take longer than others.  But the shift since January is clear, and progress at every level will continue.

Day by day, law by law, mind by changing mind.  That is the promise we are fulfilling.

Safety: laws already provide for protection from violent crimes and agression. Fair: *NOONE* has to talk about their sex life at work. Better? presumably by forcibly changing the vestigial remnants of societal mores in this country to see homosexuality as not only acceptable or “tolerable,” but as something beautiful, to be celebrated, which Obama did in his declaration of  gay pride month this year. With the evil men and agenda surrounding Obama, who can say he is a “devout Christian?” Who can say he loves this country when nearly every word and action he takes weakens or damages the United States.

It is very possible that before this man leaves office (which I hope happens in a fair and open election, as historically the transfer of power has happened in this nation) blogs and articles expressing the beliefs and opinions I have here will be illegal.

Obama is fulfilling one promise he made: To fundamentally change this country. That is the promise he is fulfilling. Day by day, brick by brick, he is transforming this country from one with a free press, free market and free people into a totalitarian state with a muzzled press, a communist market, and an enslaved people. And it is being done to accolades and applause. God save our republic.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
(Isaiah 5:20-21)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.
(Proverbs 14:34)

Disclaimer: Opposition to a lifestyle, action or political/social cause (LAoPSC) does not mean hatred of those who engage in aforementioned disapproved LAoPSC. Believing that 2 wrongs do not make a right; I hereby denounce, discourage and reject any and all violence perpetuated, committed or plotted by any individual, group, organization or entity against those who support LAoPSC.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

the truth about D’s and R’s

Posted by americana83 on October 23, 2009

I am sure that some of you think I march lock-step with the GOP based on the things I have written about Barack Obama and all his sordid associations. However, if you think that, you have missed the point. Especially within the last year, the GOP has shown an abandonment of the professed principles that attracted me to it in the first place: family values, small government, low taxes, free market. However, it has become much more like the Democrat Party. Lets explore what has happened in the GOP, especially from the last months of G.W. Bush up to now.

George W Bush, really got the ball rolling by signing off on the Democratic progressives’ 700 billion dollar TARP fiasco. The government had no business doing that, and G.W. Bush, as a self-professing conservative, had no business signing off on something so grossly unconstitutional.

Michael Steele. Despite the initial excitement over his being named to the GOP chair, he quickly showed his true colors. In a GQ Interview that has since been scrubbed from the GQ website, Steele dug himself into a hole by revealing how he truly feels about conservatism, marriage, and abortion.

Why do you think so few nonwhite Americans support the Republican Party right now?
’Cause we have offered them nothing! And the impression we’ve created is that we don’t give a d**n about them or we just outright don’t like them. And that’s not a healthy thing for a political party. I think the way we’ve talked about immigration, the way we’ve talked about some of the issues that are important to African-Americans, like affirmative action… I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude about something that’s important to a particular community doesn’t engender confidence in your leadership by that community—or consideration of you for office or other things—because you’ve already given off the vibe that you don’t care. What I’m trying to do now is to say we do give a d**n.

We “offer them nothing?” We “just don’t like them?” Does he think throwing in a curse word makes him trendy?  Has Steele fell into the Al Sharpton/Rev Wright/ Barack Obama mindset that conservative thought is inherently racist? It is clear that Steele knows very little about conservatism. True conservatism doesn’t offer handouts, or bribes for votes. What conservatism offers is equality. No one is esteemed above another on account of their race. Race quotas, race preferences, those things say “look, you’re not good enough because your a minority, and we need to give you a bonus so you can stand up against the non-minorities.” That is diametrically opposed to conservatism, which stresses the individual over the collective. Any organization that claims conservatism, while embracing racism, attempts to integrate an alien and evil ideology that subverts the whole claim of conservatism.

Now lets see what he says about homosexuality:

Do you have a problem with gay priests who are celibate?
No, it’s your nature. It’s your nature. You can’t—I can’t deny you your nature.

For a Seminarian, who would presumably have read the scriptures, God has a clear commandment for would-be priests/pastors/reverend:

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach…(1 Timothy 3:1-2). He would also have known this: “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26). He would also have been aware of the New Testament condemnation of such behaviors, and that a priest that is “dead in his sins” could never rightly divide the Word of God.

Let’s talk about gay marriage. What’s your position?
Well, my position is, hey, look, I have been, um, supportive of a lot of my friends who are gay in some of the core things that they believe are important to them. You know, the ability to be able to share in the information of your partner, to have the ability to—particularly in times of crisis—to manage their affairs and to help them through that as others—you know, as family members or others—would be able to do. I just draw the line at the gay marriage. And that’s not antigay, no. Heck no! It’s just that, you know, from my faith tradition and upbringing, I believe that marriage—that institution, the sanctity of it—is reserved for a man and a woman. That’s just my view. And I’m not gonna jump up and down and beat people upside the head about it, and tell gays that they’re wrong for wanting to aspire to that, and all of that craziness. That’s why I believe that the states should have an opportunity to address that issue.

Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”

So your feeling would be that people are born one way or another.
I mean, I think that’s the prevailing view at this point, and I know that there’s some out there who think that you can absolutely make that choice. And maybe some people have. I don’t know, I can’t say. Until we can give a definitive answer one way or the other, I think we should respect that.

Steele tossed his “faith tradition” under the bus. Apparently being a man pleaser is more important than being right. To rephrase his answer another way, “I’m not going to let my faith influence my positions.” Sounds a lot like a certain Senator John Kerry, who’s own professed faith played no role in any decisions he made regarding moral matters. He also throws the perverted concept that sexual perversions are the equivalent of race. Race is immutable, sexual preferences can change. His answer to that last question is just a bunch of waffling. There is no consensus that homosexuality is genetic, radical scientists have been searching for it for years.

How about abortion? What does Steele think about that?

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!

How so?
You know, Lee Atwater said it best: We are a big-tent party. We recognize that there are views that may be divergent on some issues, but our goal is to correspond, or try to respond, to some core values and principles that we can agree on.

Do you think you’re more welcoming to pro-choice people than Democrats are to pro-lifers?
Now that’s a good question. I would say we are. Because the Democrats wouldn’t allow a pro-lifer to speak at their convention. We’ve had many a pro-choicer speak at ours—long before Rudy Giuliani. So yeah, that’s something I’ve been trying to get our party to appreciate. It’s not just in our words but in our actions, we’ve been a party that’s much more embracing. Even when we have missed the boat on, uh, minority issues, the Bush administration did an enormous amount to advance the individual opportunities for minorities in our country. In housing. In education. In health care.

It is the whole stupid concept of the “big tent” that has condemned the GOP to electoral hades.  The party doesn’t claim to stand for anything. Obama and the Democrats are clear where they stand on many issues, even if they are dead wrong. A “big tent” can’t take a stand, a big tent has no choice but to move to the left to pick up the abortionists and the homosexuals and the socialists. Perhaps Steele wasn’t aware that one of the main reasons people were attracted to the GOP is for its professed pro-life stance. So much for “core values and principles,” Steel has chucked those under the bus in his quest to create an ecumenical mush that is incapable of drawing the hard core from the Democrat party, and too perverse to attract the conservative faithful.

The truth about D’s and R’s is this: The Republican party is rapidly selling out its principles and becoming a progressive party, akin to the progressive wing of the Democrat party. If I wanted a liberal candidate, I’d have voted for the progressive democrat. But with party bigwigs like the RNC and Newt Gingrich lining up to endorse and fund Progressives running as Republicans, it looks like you can just vote GOP to get a leftist. With Obama’s progressive appointees worshipping Mao, embracing Islamic Sharia law, and sponsoring gay p!rn, “mere” liberals may look like a better choice. However, the end result will be the same. When a republican receives the Margaret Sanger radical abortionist award, it is time to revoke the conservative credentials of ANYONE who supports, funds or endorses that candidate, regardless of their party affiliation.

All this said, parties labels increasingly mean nothing. It all has to do with positions. Ideologically speaking, liberals embrace change, conservatives preserve the norm. So depending on what is being preserved or changed, either label could be good or bad. With respect to the past, yesterday’s republicans where liberals, in the sense that they opposed tenaciously the establishment of slavery, and sought to change it. So the term “liberal” can be good depending on what kind of change is being sought. Movements towards personal freedoms in china would be liberal in the generic sense. However, on the modern political scene in America, Liberal has come to be associated with a specific set of goals, especially at the federal level. Among them are:

Changing society to embrace abortion as an absolute right

Changing society to embrace homosexuality as beautiful

Changing society to redistribute wealth

Changing society to abhor and abolish private ownership of guns

Change society to accept that government’s duty is to provide everything for its citizens

Change society to believe that profit is evil

Change society to believe religion (Christianity) has no place in the public square

Change society by creating permanent racial divisions, that some are more equal than others

Change society by submerging American exceptionalism and promoting globalist socialism (United Nations)

Changing society by getting citizens to accept outrageous government control (soda tax, carbon tax) out of fear

Changing society by rewarding law breakers (illegal immigrants)

Changing society to believe in a dubious “living constitution” that doesn’t actually mean what it says, but rather, whatever they want it to.

Changing society into a collective, and submerging the individual within it.

John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and every other major progressive Democrat politician supports most, if not all, of the above positions and are thus liberal. However, progressive republican politicians like Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, Olympia Snowe, DeDe Scozzafava, John McCain and others are increasingly supporting the above statement in a self-centered attempt to grow and strengthen a party structure as opposed to doing what is best for America and her people. Yet both sides of the isle will, when it is beneficial to their own agenda, in many cases parrot a conservative line to deceive the voters into supporting them. President Obama used a good conservative message of self-reliance in the final version of his school speech:

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.
And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. SOURCE

Basically, the meaning of the conservatism I espouse is this:

Preserving the concept of unborn children’s rights

Preserving the definition of marriage as between a woman and man

Preserving the right of people to keep what they earn legally

Preserving the private ownership of guns, and means of self defense.

Preserving the concept of personal and religious responsibility.

Preserving the right of people to earn a profit and spend or invest it as they desire.

Preserve the notion that America was founded on Christian principles, and that is what made us strong

Preserve the concept that there should be equality, no institutionalized racial preference or deference.

Restore American exceptionalism by getting us out of entangling alliances that are detrimental to our people (the UN)

Preserve American freedom by opposing all punitive taxes and government power grabs (global warming, soda tax)

Restore the concept that law breakers should be punished, not rewarded for their deeds.

Restore the concept of “original intent,” that the constitution means what it says it does, and that it actually guarantees the rights it claims to.

Preserving right of the individual to excel, and guaranteeing equality of opportunity, not outcome

I hope this clarifies my positions on the political parties, and that I do not champion a corrupt and liberal Republican party  as a replacement to the corrupt and liberal Democrat regime we currently reside under. I hope you will join me in seeking out and supporting conservative constitutionalists that will uphold the best and highest ideals of the American experiment, and speak out with boldness against radicals- regardless of party affiliation.

Actions speak louder than words. Listen and take heed. The future of our republic is at stake.

Newt teams up with Nancy Pelosi to sell the American people on global “climate change,” which is merely a UN scheme to soak the US for more money and even sovereignty:

1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations. (SOURCE: official UN site)

unofficial carbon credit ration coupon, based on WWII ration coupon

I daresay NO one who was a genuine conservative would sell out the prosperity and sovereignty of the US and her people for anything, let alone the JUNK science of man-caused global warming, er, I mean climate change.

liberal American politicians know no party lines

Progressive American politicians know no party lines

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The church: a duty forsaken

Posted by americana83 on October 9, 2009

Who’s duty is it to feed the poor? If you listen to the popular political chatter on Washington and ever more frequently on main street  it is the duty of the government to provide all things for the poor (by their own arbitrary definitions). What is the Christian stance on such programs? What does the Bible say regarding the poor? Giving?

Judas knew, and he tried to use it a pretext for theft:

Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. (John 12:4-6)

Ananias and Sapphira knew, however, their motives were wicked and were judged quickly:

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
(Acts 5:1-4)

God comes out and says it in James:

pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
(James 1:27)

Care for the poor is a religious obligation. Therefore, it is the duty of the Christians to uphold, both to provide opportunity to testify to the poor of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to honor their Father in heaven. The Bible testifies that, “God loveth a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9:7)

Government redistribution programs have some serious Biblical problems:

They usurp God’s mandate from the church.

They separate financial well being from the moral and spiritual, encouraging dependency on government and with restrictions designed to prevent marriage and encourage abortions. Effectively, these programs help to propagate and prolong subsistence poverty, as well as a locked in voting bloc for any unscrupulous politicians willing to spend other people’s hard earned money to get some cheap votes.

They steal money from those who are working, and give it to other people.

The ironic thing is that, for all the liberal complaints about greedy, capitalist conservatives, it is conservatives who give the most to charity, and the effects of private charity can impact lives and families in the way no government program ever can: they can address the whole problem: body, mind and soul, and can truly minister to individuals in need.

Giving is a personal mandate from God, not a mandate for the government to forcibly take and redistribute others. God loves a cheerful giver, and it is to be given to further God’s work, whether in evangelism or clothing and feeding the poor. All things are to be done for the glory of God.

Who gets the glory for “government programs?” Check out the following conversation that took place in a line of thousands waiting in line for a share of “obama money” SOURCE:

here’s a portion of Ken Rogulski reporting on WJR in Michigan, two people here in line for Obama cash.

ROGULSKI: Why are you here?

WOMAN #1: To get some money.

ROGULSKI: What kind of money?

WOMAN #1: Obama money.

ROGULSKI: Where’s it coming from?

WOMAN #1: Obama.

ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?

WOMAN #1: I don’t know, his stash. I don’t know. (laughter) I don’t know where he got it from, but he givin’ it to us, to help us.

WOMAN #2: And we love him.

WOMAN #1: We love him. That’s why we voted for him!

WOMEN: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)

Massive government giveaway programs usurp the glory of God, make people think charity is “the government’s duty” and not their personal responsibility, encourage immoral and dangerous lifestyles, and make people dependent on the government for all their needs. Especially in this day in age, where the government is increasingly ignorant of morality, the government is not morally or ethically capable of making medical decisions* or supplying assistance* to the sick and needy. These programs exploit and enslave the poor to the “all sufficient provider,” the giver of health, the  “god-State.” Also, as the above quoted conversation demonstrates, it fosters ignorance and dumb worship. People have no idea that the money, and services provided to them gratis actually do COST someone a whole lot of money. Ignorance in this capacity will help destroy the fabric of society. It is best when individuals and private organizations directly aid the poor instead of faceless government bureaucrats. Personal interactions not only provide for needs, but allow the opportunity to impact people’s lives and let them know that people care, and that God cares.

In whatever capacity you can, do your part and encourage your church to do its part to reach out to the community. It is not the government’s responsibility, it is ours. It is not coercing everyone to pay into amoral or immoral government programs, it is the individual demonstrating their love to God and their fellow man by either directly assisting or supporting organizations that truly care for the poor or needy or sick.

Jesus said,

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was hungry, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
(Matthew 25:34-40)
(Mar 9:41)

* This is beside the lack of Constitutional, legal authority to do so.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Do ends really justify means?

Posted by americana83 on August 29, 2009

This question has been debated for ages. Similar questions have also been asked:

Do we join with anyone that supports one of our beliefs, even if they trample on one or more of our others?

Does the fact that a person is right on one topic mean we should embrace them?

Unfortunately, these questions are not asked enough and the results can ruin a reputation. I’d like to use one example, the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC.org). They totally undermine all the talk about individualism and constitutional rights by embracing racism, a sinful and collectivist ideology.

Consider these bible verses carefully:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
(2 Corinthians 6:14-17)

Organizations and people which you decide to join or publicly embrace (one could say behind the scenes as well, since these things have a way of coming out) will define you (rightly or wrongly) in the minds of others. The people at large do not have access to the complicated reasoning which allows a person to come to the decision of supporting a morally perverse individual or organization for the sole purpose of advancing one common goal.

This is also why you should study and learn more about groups or organizations you wish to affiliate yourself with. For example, some people embrace animal rights organizations like PeTA without realizing that underneath the talk of humane treatment of animals, that the organization espouses the ultimate extinction of all domesticated animals and the abolition of any and all forms of animal use (whether for fur or pets, or milk or eggs or any other conceivable purpose) while at the same time exploiting beautiful women in the same ways they claim to be protesting against.

The same is true of politicians and religious groups and charities. Make sure you know who you are donating to or otherwise supporting. I just recently got a letter from a group that claimed to be opposed to the bailouts and big government, but a little bit of research showed that it was in reality a far leftist group that sometimes operates in conjunction with the ACLU (actually the logo they used of liberty’s head peeking up reminded a lot of the ACLU’s logo).

Know who your supporting. There are few things as easily destroyed as a reputation or a testimony. Make sure know whatever organization or politician or group you choose to embrace. A split decision made on emotion in ignorance can end up undermining your core values and advancing causes which are the opposite of what you believe.

So do ends justify means? Perhaps in the eyes of the world. Karl Marx, Mao, Hitler, and their modern counterparts all believe solidly in the doctrine of ends justifying means. But for the Christian, we should not compromise or sell out our principles or beliefs just to gain ground on one front, because whatever we gain (or likely more than that) will be lost on another front.

Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
(Ephesians 6:11-12)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The moral case for conservative economic policy

Posted by americana83 on July 21, 2009

Whether we like it or not, the fact is God provides wealth to individuals, and they in turn give to charity (note that God will hold accountable those who misuse their wealth, or who abuse others to gain it). With the exception of sacrificial giving, most families in America will only donate after the basic needs of their families are met. A system of government that encourages free and private competition is the economic system which God has used in America to fuel technological advance and wealth generation. For, money itself or the ability to generate large amounts of it is not the root of all evil, but rather the love of money.


Let us look at Ananias and Sapphira for some lessons about economics and morals.

(Acts 5:1) But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

A perfectly acceptable and moral way to raise money.

(Acts 5:2) And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

This verse reveals the source of the couple’s sin, but it also reveals something else: that men of wealth were receiving Christ and joining the church and were donating large sums of money, and that all the church was rejoicing in how God was blessing. While lying is an abomination, it does say something about the society that honor and exaltation was received by those who gave of their wealth voluntarily to further God’s work in the world, which would have been administering to the poor and widowed (as the bible calls “true religion), and presenting the good news of Christ to a lost and dying world.

(Acts 5:3) But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Herein lies the sin: This couple has conspired together to deceive God, that they might receive honor for giving away such a great value as the entire price of what must have been a sizable possession (though in principle it would not have mattered whether it was a comic book or a Beverly Hills mansion).

(Acts 5:4) Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. (Acts 5:5) And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

The early Christian church recognized the God granted right of private property. Civil governments work best when they honor the basic moral laws and principles explained in God’s word. As surely as lying and theft condemn single persons, so to will governmental theft and deceit condemn a nation. For the Bible says:

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. (Proverbs 14:34)

When government steals from men and forcibly redistributes wealth, it breaks the process whereby men generate wealth, by destroying personal incentive by progressive taxation and other methods more recently discussed such as special healthcare taxes, special “windfall profit” taxes. The government also engages in theft when it breaks contracts held by private companies and individuals, such as GM bond holders. Governments, like people are not immune to the effects of sin. The offense of slavery nearly broke this country into pieces. American law at that time, in violation of both our own Declaration of independence, and the immutable laws of God robbed people of their most basic rights: life and liberty. Had we not learned the lesson, that would have been the end of America. Today, we are accelerating down a similar road. The government of man in America has completely lost sight of God spiritually, morally, socially, and economically. In the noble name of promoting “economic justice” (as opposed to equal access to the opportunity to engage in the “pursuit of happiness,” the president and his cohorts across all branches of government seek to destroy personal liberty and private prosperity. By doing this, many who currently work will lose jobs, and many charities will decline and fail (and this in addition to the president’s crass desire to deplete the tax credit granted to the wealthy who donate to charity).

This will not hurt the wealthy, who will merely reduce or eliminate charitable giving, but it will have a direct impact on, and increase the number of, those individuals living at or below the poverty level in the United States, and this even as the president wants to force billions of American dollars into the coffers of the United Nations to “loan” to dictators who can then use it to bribe loyalty and prop up their failing regimes.

The economic implosion being engineered by Obama, Pelosi, Volkner* and their cohorts will have a direct and decisive impact on charity and home and abroad. By limp-wristed diplomacy and kissing up to Anti-Israel forces, Islamic Iranian tyrants and Marxist Latin-American dictators he has set himself at odds with the cause of Liberty.

The bottom line is this: Obama is the current figurehead of a movement that, at its higher levels, seeks to subvert America and remake in their own image, which is revealed by looking that those who promoted his agenda and walked closed to him:

Reverend Wright (Who’s ride under the bus came about only when political necessity dictated Obama appear to distance himself from Trinity United Church of Christ)

Frank Marshal Davis (marxist whom Obama noted as his mentor throughout his autobiography, Dreams from my father.

Fidel Castro, who praised Obama as being “the most progressive on worker and human rights”

The Communist Party, USA, who hailed his agenda and his election frequently on their website, and in their journals, People’s Weekly World and Political Affairs

ACORN, for whom he trained community organizers.

The New Black Panther party, who called him “the only choice”

Val Jones, “Green Czar appointee”

*The head of Obama’s economic recovery team, Paul Volcker has openly advocated the enforced decline of the American standard of living. He said:

“The standard of living of the average American has to decline … I don’t think you can escape that” – Paul Volcker, former Fed Chairman, and current Obama adviser, in 1979

(note Mr. Volcker’s use of the term “average American” – not him and his type of course). (a Source)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

eHarmony: Moves beyond “traditional” Marriage

Posted by americana83 on November 21, 2008

Well, thanks to a cranky person/s, who could have went to any of a dozen other websites to find their same-sex “love,” and a spineless eHarmony, we now have a company forced to create a new website catering to a whole new set of clients.

Why they chose to go to a website that is built for heterosexuals, and seems to cater to a more conservative crowd I’ll never understand, unless it was just to force someone else to embrace their chosen (yes, I said it: Chosen!) lifestyle.

This sets a dangerous precident.  eHarmony, certainly a rich company from all the subscribers paying 15+ dollars a month “couldn’t afford” to defend its rights, what is next? Where will it stop?

According to this article, the lawsuit is still going on (eHarmony loses!) and anyone who logged on and was “denied” access can join the lawsuit.

The lawyer for the cranky persons, had the audacity to say this:

“it’s encouraging that after years of discrimination, eHarmony looks like they might be turning a corner, but it doesn’t change our case. It can’t … be a separate but equal type of situation.”

eHarmony wasn’t discriminating, they were catering to specific clients for whom their compatibility models and resources were designed. So now eHarmony has to create a new site, and invest capital to create something that will never be as profitable as their hetero-specialty? And this lawyer complains? Obviously, moral points aside for now, a hetero-geared site is going to be quite different from an alternate-sexuality site.

eHarmony, in forfeiting its rights, actually will likely suffer a double loss. Not only will the “Compatible Partners” site never be as profitable as eHarmony (especially given the most generously over-exaggerated estimates of 10% of the population seeking after same-sex) but they will also likely lose a good portion of their conservative and Christian target market.

This also opens the door to any other fringe group who was ever denied access to a dating, or other site. Lets take a non-sinful example: poor people. They can’t afford eHarmony’s fees. Class action lawsuit: result? FreEharmony.  How about animal “lovers”? Lawsuit: Compatible Critters??? And on and on.

I don’t know if its a manned address, but you can call or email and voice your discouragement over eHarmony’s failing to stand up for its rights as a private company, allegedly founded on Christian principles here.

Perhaps I’m being too hard on eHarmony, perhaps eHarmony saw the writing on the wall with the incoming president-elect’s iron-clad commitment to non-biblical relationships. He is planning laws and regulations that might even make articles like this written at later dates “hate crimes,” or, more properly THOUGHT CRIME!

Posted in intolerance, sexuality, Spirituality | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Obama self proclaimed “Devout Christian”

Posted by americana83 on March 4, 2008

I don’t generally nitpick and judge people in regards to their private faith. However, when a person boasts that not only are they a Christian, but a devout Christian, they open their personal faith up to public scrutiny. Let’s see what Obama said about his faith, and compare it to what the bible says, and what Obama does.

In terms of my faith, you know, there has been so much confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated through emails and so forth. So, just here are the simple facts. I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years. Pray to Jesus every night, and try to go to church as much as I can when they are not working me. Used to go quite often. These days, we haven’t been at the home church, I haven’t been home on Sunday, for several months now. So, my faith is important to me. It is not something that I try to push on other people. But it is something that helps to guide my life and my values.

-Barack Obama

Perhaps as a “devout Christian,” Obama should consider these doctrines:

(in regards to his recent regret of trying to save Terri Schiavo’s life from death by dehydration)

For I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
(Matthew 25:42-45)

In regards to his choice of church, which has a pastor which exalts racist Loius Farrakhan:

Acts 17:24-26 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; (25) Neither is worshiped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; (26) And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

Acts 10:34-35  Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:  (35)  But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

In regard’s to his fervent support of abortion and his killing of “Born Alive” in Illinois (you could even put his stance on Terri here too)

Proverbs 6:16-19 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: (17) A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, (18) A heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, (19) A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

How he figured out that Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount condones Homosexuality.(see verses here) is beyond me.

Barack’s recent escalated trumpeting of Christ’s name seems merely an attempt to counter the circulating rumors and Farrakhan(Nation of Islam) connection that seem to align Obama more closely with Allah than Jehovah. Perhaps a form of Islamic Christianity? (I mean, Farrakhan would not endorse an infidel)

They surely are Infidels who say, “God is the third of three:” for there
is no God but one God: and if they refrain not from what they say, a grievous
chastisement shall light on such of them as are Infidels.

(The Qur’an (Rodwell tr), Sura   5 – The Table).

When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made
a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the fetters.

And afterwards let there either be free dismissals or ransomings, till
the war hath laid down its burdens. Thus do. Were such the pleasures of God,
he could himself take vengeance upon them: but He would rather prove the one of
you by the other. And whoso fight for the cause of God, their works he will
not suffer to miscarry

(The Qur’an (Rodwell tr), Sura  47 – Muhammad)

How Obama can claim to be a devout Christian when he promotes the slaughter of the innocent and other abominations is completely beyond me. There can be no doubt this is a political ploy attempting however vainly to present himself as a moderate friendly to Christian values.

Be not deceived. This man is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Posted in Barack Obama, children, Christianity, deception, Election, Election 2008, Entertainment, Hillary Clinton, Hollywood, International, intolerance, Islam, Jesus, Legal, Obama, Presidential, Racism, sexuality, social spending, Spirituality, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hollywood’s Praise and Worship Video

Posted by americana83 on March 3, 2008

Check out this video. According to Entertainment Tonight, it was put out by Hollywood. In it you will here homage and reverence paid to Barack Obama in a spiritual style. Listen closely and you will hear that Obama is the “hope for the soul.” to the intoning of “Obama! Obama!” This style of campaigning seems to verge on worship of a man, transfiguring Obama into a sort of secular messiah.

“behold the candidate of Farrakhan, which taketh away the ailments of the world!”

-The book of Hollywood 6:66

It is interesting to see how this campaign is transforming from an American Idol/Miss America campaign to a Messiah coronation. In between all the glitz and glam people continue to ignore the MASSIVE spending he freely speaks of.

Some other highlights of the Obama Worship Video:

he is really going to be the president of the united states

I believe in Obama, because he believes in us

A quote from the Dipdive website, host of the Obama Worship Video:

some say this whole Obama movement is “cult like”…
well…
if it comes across cult like…
then…
the cult is called America…

Last I checked, America wasn’t a cult. In fact the founding father’s rejected cultish leader worship by rejecting a kingship for America’s leader. But rather, a leader picked by a vote, who had to be re-elected to retain his power. Titles and majesty were rejected. Certainly the leader was not to be revered as a god-like figure.

Here is the video in all its eerie “glory” :

Posted in Barack Obama, Christianity, deception, Election 2008, Hollywood, International, moveon.org, Obama, Presidential, Spirituality | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 208 other followers