Watch the video below for some startling information.
"Abolish the ROTC"
"Bring the war home" (with communist fist in background)
"Power to the Weathermen"
Barack Obama says Bill Ayers is "a guy who lives in my neighborhood; a professor of English in Chicago."
Records indicate Barack Obama and Bill Ayers' paths crossed repeatedly, according to meeting minutes, was the board of the Annenberg Challenge.
With no prior executive experience, Obama was recruited by Bill Ayers to be chairman and president of this $50 million Leftist public education project.
This project gave millions to the Small Schools Project--created by Ayers and former Communist Party Leader Michael Klonsky.
They also sent money to ACORN--the group currently under investigation for vote fraud in a dozen states. ACORN was founded by another SDS comrade Wade Rathke. In some cases, 85% of their voter registrations have been classified as "trash."
Obama and Ayers also worked together on the Woods Fund. One of the recipients of Woods money was Obama's pastor, the racist, anti-American Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
ACORN also got Woods Fund money.
"When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. They were launching him--introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread." - Maria Warren, eyewitness (Politico, 1/22/2008)
"I don't regret setting the bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." - Bill Ayers, 9/11/2001
When Bill Ayers told the New York Times that America "makes me want to puke..." and he wished he'd committed more terrorist bombings against the United States, Barack Obama was 40 years old, and working on his second "philanthropic" project with Ayers.
Bill Ayers has never repented, never apologized, and never renounced his revolutionary communist ideals. In fact, he worked to bring them into inner-city schools, and Barack Obama worked with him.
An ACORN doesn't fall far from the tree. Does it?
The Gods of Liberalism Revisited
The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever. But how can we escape the snare?
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Watch the video below for some startling information.
American Minute from William J. Federer
The only Pilgrim to have his portrait painted, Edward Winslow was born OCTOBER 18, 1595. He joined the Separatists, a persecuted group of Christian refugees, in Leyden, Holland. Edward Winslow helped their pastor, William Brewster, print illegal religious pamphlets which were smuggled back into England.
After many hard years, at age 25, Edward Winslow departed with 102 Pilgrims to the New World. In 1622, Winslow cured Indian chief Massaoit of an illiness, resulting in a 50 year peace. Serving three times as the Plymouth Colony's Governor, Edward Winslow kept the finances and often sailed to England for business, bringing back the colony's first cattle.
While in England, Anglican Bishop William Laud jailed him for 17 weeks.
Edward Winslow served in Oliver Cromwell's army during the English Civil War and sailed with Admiral Sir William Penn, father of Pennsylvania's founder, in an attempt to capture Hispaniola from Spain.
After defeat at Santo Domingo, Winslow died of a fever on the way to Jamaica, which Penn captured.
In Young's Chronicles, Edward Winslow wrote of the Pilgrims: "Drought and the like...moved not only every good man privately to enter into examination with his own estate between God...but also to humble ourselves together before the Lord by fasting."
William J. Federer is a nationally recognized author, speaker, and president of Amerisearch, Inc, which is dedicated to researching our American heritage. The American Minute radio feature looks back at events in American history on the dates they occurred, is broadcast daily across the country and read by thousand on the internet.
by Bruce Earnheart
Libertarians for Life
Libertarianism is a political philosophy only
Libertarianism does not seek to embrace matters of the soul. It is unlike religion, secular ethical philosophies, or the beliefs of fraternal orders or civic associations, but it is compatible with them. As a philosophy of liberty, its concern is not with the details of how we should live our daily lives. It is a framework for governing our relations with one another regarding our individual rights. It is simply a prohibition against the initiation of force.
Libertarians believe that large intrusive governments do not serve the public well. Much needs to be done to free up positive social forces all but smothered by big government. This process would legalize many activities presently banned, but this in no way implies an advocacy of them. Living in a society which is increasingly politicized, this point is often difficult to grasp. People have gotten the notion that everything good should be compulsory, and everything bad, forbidden. This attitude is counterproductive; for example, it encourages moral lassitude. When people believe that everything which is morally wrong should be prohibited, soon large numbers of people will conclude that anything legal must be morally permissible.
We who are libertarians believe that human beings have the right of dominion over their own lives. We have the inalienable right to live in any manner we choose -- so long as our choices do not forcibly interfere with the rights of others.
A few implications of libertarianism
In the economic arena, libertarianism implies an opposition to all laws that prevent or circumscribe our ability to buy, sell, or contract with anyone who chooses to deal with us. We have the right to the peaceable use and disposition of all that we acquire by non-coercive means.
This is also true where financial gain is not a factor. In the realm of social or personal activities, we uphold the right of individuals to exercise any peaceable behavior, including what many consider culturally outrageous and morally reprehensible. It is for this reason that we oppose all anti-vice laws, laws without identifiable, flesh and blood victims. These would include laws against gambling, ingesting drugs, and behavior that may be considered sexually deviant.
Anti-vice legislation is usually thought of as a concern of conservatives. But there is another aspect of social and/or personal freedom that liberals seek to prohibit. Legal sanctions against this type of freedom are usually termed "social engineering." This includes laws against discrimination as well as laws that seek to mandate egalitarianism (e.g., the "melting pot" justification for public schooling). Libertarians oppose all such legislative tinkering. We believe in voluntary association.
Political freedom does not permit aggression
Libertarianism is not simply a litany of liberties. Freedom without responsibility towards others is license, not libertarianism. There is no right to rape, to steal, or to imperil another's life by driving carelessly. Aggression against others is criminal behavior. All libertarians concede that everyone has the right to control his or her own body. Pro-life libertarians recognize that this right does not countenance injury to an unborn human being.
Abortion is the ultimate aggression: homicide
Abortion isn't a vice; it's homicide. Conception begins a process of biological development that leads to the maturing of a human being. Personhood (the state of being by which we have rights, including the right not to be killed) is not acquired along the way. It inheres in the human being from conception.
The claim has been made that despite the personhood of the unborn, pregnant women are justified in evicting them from their bodies by virtue of their right to control their own bodies. But as a matter of biology, the unborn are separate, individual human beings. They are not a part of their mother's body, despite their dependence upon her. Furthermore, they aren't intruders. They are brought into existence by forces outside of their control. Their parents, however, seldom can plead this defense. Whether on purpose or out of negligence, their actions are responsible for the creation of their unborn. And having brought these developing human beings into existence, under principles of individual liberty, they are responsible for their care and provision for the duration of their dependency.
Reprinted by permission of Libertarians for Life.
This is the "Yes on 8" ad the homosexual activists in California would love to keep off the air.
Yes on 8 is the group promoting California's marriage protection amendment, to override (again) the homosexual activists attempts to hijack marriage, and to overrule their accomplices in the judiciary.
You might recall that in May, despite the fact that the people of California voted overwhelmingly in 2000 to put in writing that marriage is between a man and a woman, judicial activists in California's Supreme Court manufactured a "right" for homosexuals to call their unions "marriage."
Proposition 8 will spell out in the state constitution what people have instinctively understood for thousands of years: that marriage is constituted by a man and a woman.
We don't need a spread of the kind of propaganda and social engineering seen in the video below to California...and then foisted onto the rest of the United States.
BY STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION
As John McCain tries to salvage his presidential campaign over the few weeks he has left, he ought to think about the Coca Cola Company in 1985.
That was the year that Coca Cola, based on what the company thought was good internal market research, introduced a new, sweeter formula to replace the taste that American consumers had always associated with Coke.
The result was disaster. Consumers were unhappy with the new flavor that replaced a product that was more than a drink. It was a time tested American tradition. In short order, Coca Cola brought the old traditional Coke back to market, and in a real feat of marketing gymnastics, was selling both New Coke and Coca Cola Classic.
Sales of Coca Cola Classic swamped sales of New Coke, and shortly thereafter, New Coke was gone.
Today John McCain heads the ticket of a Republican Party that many Americans have fallen out of love with. It's a Republican Party that Americans once knew but now, like New Coke, has confused its customers, the voting public.
Restoring a brand that has been damaged might be an even greater challenge than introducing a new product. You've got the added complexities of confusion. But this is what John McCain has got to do. And he doesn't have a lot of time to do it.
How can anyone be surprised that Americans are confused with the Republican brand? This was the party that once captured American hearts and minds by restoring focus to principles of limited government, traditional values, and personal responsibility.
Apologies to George W. Bush, but time is too precious for tiptoeing around the truth. We've seen the biggest growth of government over the last eight years since Franklin Roosevelt, and the country is in a mess. It's only natural psychology to associate the mess with Republicans.
McCain must disassociate from the mistakes of "new" Republicanism, show that these mistakes are exactly where Senator Obama wants to pick up, and re-establish the "classic" Republican brand.
His approach in the latest debate at Hofstra University showed he is grasping the marketing challenge in front of him. His pitch about Joe the Plumber, and his market-oriented stands on big issues like health care and education, showed that he understands he needs to do more than simply say he's not George Bush.
But he's still not being clear or aggressive enough.
McCain must paint with clarity the starkly different worlds that Americans will be buying into when they step into voting booths in November.
Barack Obama is a socialist. McCain must say it. It's not slinging mud but stating fact.
Perhaps a complicating factor in explaining freedom to Americans today is that when "classic" Republicanism was selling, we all still remembered the Soviet Union and communist China. The difference between the United States and the rest of the world then was clearer than today.
When someone said "socialist" or "communist,'' we could look abroad and know exactly what this meant.
There is nowhere where Senator Obama sees Americans suffering from excessive government. The opposite. He sees all our suffering from not enough.
The collapse of communism and socialism abroad was not accidental. Central planning is both dysfunctional and immoral.
Incredibly, Obama thinks that a huge and complex market like health care, where a few hundred million Americans spend almost two and half trillion dollars a year, can be improved with more government controls and spending.
And he thinks that parents, in a country that is supposed to be free, should not be given control over where they send their child to school and the type of education their child gets.
To turn things around, McCain must quickly reestablish the Republican brand of freedom and contrast this with Obama's clear socialism.
Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine. The 1992 Los Angeles riots destroyed her business, yet served as a springboard for her focus on faith and market-based alternatives to empower the lives of the poor.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Greta Van Susteren interviewed Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska this evening and he announced that the controversial invitation to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers to speak at the University of Nebraska has been withdrawn. The governor had taken a firm position on the matter and advised university president J.B. Milliken that hosting Ayers was not in the best interest of the university. This coming after the governor’s office was swamped with irate calls from citizens angry about the speech planned for November 15.
Michelle Malkin has been on this story from the outset and has a follow-up posted this evening with the good news that Ayers has been officially dis-invited from speaking.
Just 11 days after next month’s election, the University of Illinois-Chicago professor, William Ayers, is scheduled to speak at a student research conference held by the UNL College of Education and Human Science.
Gov. Dave Heineman released a statement saying that UNL leaders should not allow Ayers, a 1960s radical-turned-professor at the University of Illinois, to talk during a campus event on Nov. 15.
‘Chairman of the Board of Regents Chuck Hassebrook and President of the University J.B. Milliken should immediately rescind the invitation extended to Bill Ayers to speak at the University,’ the governor said. ‘This is an embarrassment to the University of Nebraska and the State of Nebraska. Bill Ayers is a well known radical who should never have been invited to the University of Nebraska.’
Meanwhile, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, today said in a statement that he is disappointed that UNL invited William Ayers to speak on campus Nov. 15.
‘His past involvement in a violent protest group and incendiary comments are not consistent with the agenda of unity that we need in America today,’ Nelson said. ‘I encourage the university to reconsider this decision.”’
God bless Gov. Heineman and God bless Nebraska.
With both John McCain and Barack Obama dodging the straightforward answers at the last presidential debate, it can be challenging to decipher what was said.
In a special edition of the Focus Action Election Update, Stuart Shepard and Carrie Gordon Earll examine how the presidential contenders handled a debate question concerning Roe v. Wade and the nation's courts.
From the South Dakota Family Policy Council's 2008 general election voter guide, comparing South Dakota District 35 legislative candidates on gun rights for college students:
Support an act to regulate the right to carry a firearm on the campuses of public institutions of higher education? The legislation allows law abiding citizens to bare arms for self defense on college campuses.
D House Fern Y. Johnson N
D House Curtis R. Marquardt
R House Don Kopp Y
R House Mark Kirkeby Y
D Senate Theresa Spry
R Senate Jeffrey K. Haverly Y
During a debate on Fox and Friends between liberal radio talk show host Ed Schultz and conservative talk radio host Steve Malzberg, Schultz couldn't take the heat and walked off the set in the middle of the discussion.
From our friends at NewsBusters, the discussion was about Joe the Plumber (now Liberal Public Enemy #1) and Obama's socialist philosophy about redistribution of wealth.
Schultz must have had a sudden attack of intelligence or enlightenment and realized he couldn't continue stumping for socialism. At least, not without a fresh injection of Democrat talking points.
By the way, this video is dedicated to Don Weinand. We hope you enjoy it, Don!
Barack the Socialist Plumber is ready for work, eager to siphon off the fruits of your labor and give them to someone else.
Did the other folks deserve the fruits of your labor? Do they really need it? Will it help them? Who cares! At least Obama can say that he's "compassionate."
Courtesy of our friends at Americans for Limited Government.
If you're not an Obamaniac who's firmly buried your head in the sand to keep from hearing any truth about Barack Obama's domestic terrorist associate Bill Ayers, you might be interested in Joseph Morrison Skelly's piece at the National Review today.
Though liberals would rather the American people just ignore this whole issue as a "distraction," it is rather an issue of paramount importance to the election. It is a matter of judgment, discernment, and moral strength--qualities which are essential to national leadership and, when lacking, usually have disastrous consequences for a nation.
Skelly examines some background about Ayers' organization, the Weather Underground. His chief source is a book called Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity by Dan Berger. It should be noted that Berger and his book do not indicate disapproval of Ayers or his actions.
Among some of the interesting details shared by Skelly and Berger:
Bill Ayers, for example, was a founding member of the Weather Underground, which split off from the radical Students for a Democratic Society in June, 1969. He was one of the signatories of the organization’s first manifesto, which asserted that “the main struggle going on in the world today is between U.S. imperialism and the national liberation struggles against it.” Taking its call for “a white fighting force” quite literally, the group’s leaders launched a spasm of violence, including street fighting, riots, beatings, pipe bombs, and attacks on the police, all culminating in the infamous Days of Rage in Chicago in October. They tried to organize a new version of the Brown Shirts, in other words.
Some of Ayers' more notable "community work":
In February 1970 the Weather Underground firebombed the home of John Murtagh, a New York City judge, with his entire family barely escaping the conflagration. On March 6 a massive nail bomb intended to kill and maim soldiers at Fort Dix, NJ prematurely detonated in a townhouse in Greenwich Village, killing three members, Ted Gold, Diana Oughton, and Terry Robbins, while two others, Katy Boudin and Cathy Wilkerson, managed to elude capture.
Still more of Ayers' efforts to make America a better place:
On May 10 the National Guard Headquarters in Washington, D.C. became a target, and in October a “Fall Offensive” commenced with attacks against the Long Island City Courthouse in Queens, NY and the Marin County Hall of Justice in California. There was no let up in the following years. On February 28, 1971 the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, DC was hit; in May, 1972 the Pentagon was bombed, causing tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage; and in May 1973 the 103RD Precinct of New York’s Finest was targeted. There were dozens of other attacks against federal offices, state corrections facilities, and corporate headquarters.
Ayers' woman, Bernardine Dohrn, is no better:
A few years earlier, after being elected one of the national leaders of the Students for a Democratic Society, she proudly described herself as a “revolutionary communist.” During the Days of Rage she was apprehended and “charged with battery, mob action and resisting arrest.” She was a fugitive on the FBI’s Most Wanted List for more than a decade.
Skelly's piece points out that Obama's obfuscation that he didn't know about Ayers' radical crimes, that Ayers was just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," is hogwash.
While Obama was just a kid when Ayers was blasting his way across the American political landscape, Obama was 19 years old when Ayers and his babe came out of hiding and hit the national headlines in 1980. And Obama was 20 when Ayers' Weathermen comrades murdered two cops and a Brinks security guard in Nyack, New York in 1981; Obama was in college less than 40 miles away when it happened.
When Obama began to work with Ayers in the mid-1990s, he had to have known about Ayers' terrorist past--and apparently didn't care. At least not enough to motivate him to respond as most reasonable people with a moral compass would have: walk away from this guy and have nothing to do with him.
A man--like Obama--who would work on the boards of organizations with someone like Ayers, who would serve on panels and projects with someone like Ayers, who would go to the home of someone like Ayers and let him help you launch your political career...a man who would associate with a despicable terrorist like Ayers lacks serious judgment about who he associates with, and gravely questionable commitment to America's well being.
Skelly hits the nail on the head:
A person with a sound moral compass would have never developed a relationship with the two former terrorists in the first place, but would have immediately distanced himself from them. A person with a strong moral foundation, never mind a candidate for president of the United States, would have never sought to ingratiate himself with the likes of Ayers and Dohrn, a man and woman who have committed evil acts, who have admitted as such, and who have never repented for their transgressions.
Skelly's piece is four web pages long, but it is worth the read. In fact, it should be required reading for every voter.
However, there is a significant number of Americans who unfortunately will refuse to remove their heads from the sand of self-centeredness long enough to absorb these implications.
You don't have to be one of that number.
From the South Dakota Family Policy Council's 2008 general election voter guide, comparing South Dakota District 30 legislative candidates on right of conscience for pharmacists:
Support an act to clarify the application of certain statutes relative to contraception and birth control? This measure takes away and repeals current legal protections for pharmacists that allow them to exercise their conscience in whether to dispense medication that could cause an abortion.
D House Jacqueline Gerenz
D House Kathleen Ann
R House Lance S. Russell N
R House Mike Verchio N
D Senate David Melmer
R Senate Gordon Howie
The pro-abortionists at Sanford Health in Sioux Falls must be desperate to keep unrestrained abortion legal in South Dakota.
As the local Black Hills Fox News station reports, a "leaked" internal memo from Sanford Health says the health giant has, um, concerns about the implications of Initiated Measure 11.
Initiated Measure 11, incidentally, is a pro-life measure that would end 98.1% of abortions done in South Dakota. The only abortions allowed would be the ones 75% of South Dakotans said in a 2006 poll that they wanted in an abortion ban: rape, incest, health of the mother and life of the mother.
According to the latest statistics from the South Dakota Department of Health, only 1.9% of abortions performed in South Dakota fall within these exceptions.
So just when you think you've heard it all--even from abortion advocates--Sanford Health comes along and surprises you. The memo makes the preposterous claim that the requirement of the rape exception that the crime of rape be reported to law enforcement authorities so the perpetrator can be pursued may be "detrimental to the woman's emotional well-being and therefore interfere with the physician-patient relationship."
Since when has reporting a crime ever been "detrimental" to anyone's emotional well-being? In most crimes (I'm a former cop), reporting the crime is the beginning of restoration for the victim. It is the first step in restoring their control over whatever the criminal took from them. It is also essential in obtaining justice for the victim. It is also essential to take a dangerous rapist off the street and prevent rapes of other women.
Sanford also makes a streeeeeeeeeetch with regard to the health exception, claiming the health "exception imposes a standard that is not clearly defined." It is remarkable that supposedly educated professionals experience bafflement and confusion by a passage as clear as Section 4 of Initiated Measure 11 is:
No person may be prosecuted under section 2 of this Act if a licensed physician has made a judgment that an abortion is necessary because there is a serious risk of a substantial and irreversible impairment of the functioning of a major bodily organ or system of the pregnant woman should the pregnancy be continued and which risk could be prevented through an abortion, unless in reaching that judgment the physician knowingly disregards accepted standards of medical practice.
That is only "unclearly defined" when someone wants to find excuses.
And as Voices Carry recently pointed out, those "excuses" may be what Sanford needs to help protect their relationship with Planned Parenthood, and also Sanford's interest in pursuing embryonic stem cell research, which is itself a form of abortion.
I have to wonder, too, about the local Fox coverage of this. Here in Rapid City, over 300 miles away from Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, you don't hear a lot about Sanford out here--even when Denny Sanford made his huge donation to the Sioux Falls area hospital. Given that it's on the other side of the state, most folks out here who don't have an ideological dog in the fight have little reason to talk about what goes on at Sanford.
So it strikes me as a little odd that the local TV station would run this story about this memo from Sanford. Could it be that the local Fox TV news has an ideological dog in this fight? It would be far from unheard of for an "objective" news outlet to take sides.
It used to be that you could count on professionals to put facts, logic and reason objectively ahead of personal interest. Sadly, that day is long past us.
This video report, while light-hearted at times, holds some very important truth about our "health care crisis."
It also contains a very important truth about socialism itself. Take note of both the visible and underlying attitudes of some of the people interviewed here. If you think they're rare and isolated incidents, you're either out of touch or simply in denial. It's more common that you might think--at least, more common than some of our socialist politicians would have us believe.
reason.tv’s Nick Gillespie isn’t making a run for the White House, but he knows how to get coverage to at least half of the 45 million Americans who need it. And while Barack Obama and John McCain argue about who’s got the best health care plan, each ignores the simplest solution. Call it the Gillespie Plan: If you want health insurance, get some.
“Of people currently classified as uninsured, a conservative estimate says about 45 percent of them would be able to get health insurance right now if they wanted it,” says economist Glen Whitman. That estimate comes from a study headed by a Johns Hopkins University researcher, which separates those who could get insurance into one of two categories: Those who earn enough money to buy it, and those who qualify for existing government programs.
So how about some real straight talk for a change? If we separate those who can’t get coverage from those who can, we can focus more on helping the needy. “So if you can get coverage,” says Gillespie, “don’t wait for Washington. Go on out and get some.”
"Get Some" is written and produced by Ted Balaker. The director of photography is Alex Manning.
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin wows Bangor on energy, the war, national defense and other topics.
Joshua Tardy said she talked as one of the people, on everyday people's terms.
That's what we need. We've had too much blather and too little forthrightness from our leaders.
American Minute from William J. Federer
Her beautiful, long hair was scalped off her head by Indians after she was shot. This was the fate of Jane McCrea, whose loyalist fiancé David Jones had only weeks earlier joined "Gentleman Johnny" Burgoyne, the British General marching with 5,000 troops from Canada to Albany, New York.
Capturing Fort Ticonderoga, Burgoyne headed down the Hudson River Valley, making a treaty with the Mohawk Tribe to terrorize American settlements.
When Indians returned to camp with a scalp of beautiful long hair, David Jones instantly recognized it as his fiancée's. This resulted in an outrage that forced Burgoyne to tell the Indians to show restraint.
Insulted, the Indians left Burgoyne stranded deep in the forest.
Jane McCrea's death, later immortalized in James Fenimore Cooper's novel, The Last of the Mohicans, rallied Americans and resulted in General Burgoyne's defeat at Saratoga.
News of Burgoyne's surrender on OCTOBER 17, 1777, helped convince France to join the War.
Considered one of the most important battles in world history, General George Washington wrote to his brother John Augustine the next day: "I most devoutly congratulate my country, and every well-wisher to the cause, on this signal stroke of Providence."
William J. Federer is a nationally recognized author, speaker, and president of Amerisearch, Inc, which is dedicated to researching our American heritage. The American Minute radio feature looks back at events in American history on the dates they occurred, is broadcast daily across the country and read by thousand on the internet.
With a shady past like this, I think we need to hold hearings.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Barack Obama can't undertake to lay his finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents, but he apparently feels empowered to lay his finger on the fruits of your labor anyway.
Don't let him.
This satirical speech has been floating around the internet for some time and I'm not sure who exactly wrote it, but Dr. Theo sent it to me today and I thought we should share it with our Dakota Voice readers.
If you've ever felt the frustration I sometimes do with the abstruse, unfathomable ignorance which hovers somewhere around 50% of the American population, you will appreciate this.
There are days when I'd pay good money to see President Bush issue this speech.
Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.
I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.
The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too darn lazy to do your homework and figure it out.
Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.
Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too darn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.
We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.
Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?
Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel. Did you sleep through high school?
You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.
That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the butchers are all over the globe.
You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'
Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.
Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.
In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times,USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with the Stars.
I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that 's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.
I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.
So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.
Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.
So that's it. God bless what's left of America.
Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.
PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.
This is the new Hank Williams Jr. song.
According to Barack Obama, domestic terrorist Bill Ayers is "just some guy in the neighborhood."
But WorldNetDaily reports Michelle Obama organized a panel discussion about whether child murderers should be tried as adults. Obama and Ayers sat on the same side--in favor of cutting a sprout for child murderers.
Barack Obama was billed as a leader "who is working to combat legislation that would put more juvenile offenders into the adult system."
Ayers, promoting the panel event, told the student newspaper, "We should call a child a child. A 13-year-old who picks up a gun isn't suddenly an adult. We have to ask other questions: How did he get the gun? Where did it come from?"
Ayers reportedly spent a year observing the juvenile detention system and in 1997 released a book, "A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court."
During his Weathermen days, Ayers once famously commented, "Kill all the rich people. ... Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents."
Boy, for some guy that Obama wants us to believe he vaguely saw every now and then in "the neighborhood," Obama has had quite a bit of interaction with this terrorist whose Weathermen organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and several police stations and post offices.
Obama served on the board of an organization Ayers helped found, the Annenberg Challenge, with Ayers.
They also served on the board of the Woods Foundation together.
Ayers also held a meet-and-greet for Obama at his home to help launch Obama's political career.
And now we find that they both served on the same side of a panel discussion which promoted the view that juveniles who commit adult crimes should be cut some slack from serving commensurate penalties.
What else have Obama and Ayers done together that we don't yet know about?
Even if the list ends here, Obama's moral judgement and discernment in associating with an unrepentant terrorist is disgraceful.
Why would we even consider electing a man who associates so freely with someone who virulently hates the United States and has actually taken violent action against it?
Would you vote for someone who associated freely with Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh?
An animated clip humorously showing the improbability of a single-celled organism forming by chance - well beyond the limits of what science considers possible - 1 in 10 to the 340,000,000th power - the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by a mind-blowing 340 million zeros. The only logical conclusion is that an intelligence was involved in the formation of life - the atheists realize this which is why they're in full-fledged panic mode and why the hostility towards I.D. is so incredibly intense. Footage from the blockbuster documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" - available now on DVD!
This photo isn't very flattering of John McCain (sometimes moments turn out that way with a snap of the camera), but you have to admit it's a hilarious one.
Someone even half-way good with Photoshop could have a heyday with this one.
Check out the Reuters photo at Yahoo here.
This was a good feature on Sarah Palin's advocacy of children with special needs, and her defense of the value and dignity of all human life.
It is a dark and frightening indictment that we have become such a self-centered society that we would "throw away" and kill 90% of unborn children with Down syndrome.
No one wants this for their child...any more than anyone wants their child to have any other birth defect or suffer any serious injury. But life isn't perfect. Instead of trying to murder our way out of a bad situation, we need to be adult, caring people who will love and help these children.
As harsh an indictment this percentage is on our society, thank God for people like Sarah Palin who still choose life over convenience.
It is indeed. Let's not allow the liberals to take us farther down the dark road of socialism. It's a dead-end street paved with broken promises.
Colorado is facing its own battle for life, even as we fight for life with Initiated Measure 11 in South Dakota.
Colorado for Equal Rights is fighting to have the personhood of unborn children recognized. The unborn do, after all, have human DNA from the moment of conception, and from the moment of conception that human DNA is unique--unique from their mother or father or any other human being on earth.
But some are fighting against personhood for unborn human beings. Who? As with some in South Dakota, follow the money.
Greed from Personhood USA on Vimeo
By Aaron Lorenzen
NSU College Republicans Chair
On October 13th 2008, the NSU College Republicans hosted a Town Hall Meeting with Joel Dykstra. The event went very well, the room was crowded, tough questions were asked of the US Senate Candidate. Being the College Republicans Chair, my group and I had put a substantial amount of effort into the success of this event. I was really happy afterwards with the way it went.
To make the event even better, Kelo-Land news was going to cover it. I believed this would be a great time for the College Republicans to take pride in the event they had hosted.
I was disillusioned of this thought however after I watched the story on the nightly news. The portrayal was nothing like how the event took place, and to make matters worse, the young gentleman they interviewed was, to my recollection, not present in the room at any time. In my opinion that is comparable to interviewing someone outside the football stadium the Super Bowl is being held at and asking he or she about what he or she thinks of the game.
I felt as if the facts and the correct story of the Town Hall Meeting was not shown and mislead to the viewers who wouldnʼt have known any different.
The College Republicans of NSU worked very hard to put this Town Hall Meeting on, and I feel the true message of the Meeting was not stated and the efforts of the College Republicans was significantly ignored.
The story is about 1/4 way through this nightly newscast video.
American Minute from William J. Federer
In 1746, French Duke of d'Anville sailed for New England, commanding the most powerful fleet of the time - 70 ships with 13,000 troops. He intended to recapture Louisburg, Nova Scotia, and destroy from Boston to New York, all the way to Georgia.
Massachusetts Governor William Shirley declared a Day of Fasting on OCTOBER 16, 1746, to pray for deliverance.
In Boston's Old South Meeting-house, Rev. Thomas Prince prayed "Send Thy tempest, Lord, upon the water...scatter the ships of our tormentors!"
Historian Catherine Drinker Bowen related that as he finished praying, the sky darkened, winds shrieked and church bells rang "a wild, uneven sound...though no man was in the steeple."
A hurricane subsequently sank and scattered the entire French fleet. With 4,000 sick and 2,000 dead, including d'Anville, Vice-Admiral d'Estournelle threw himself on his sword.
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote in his Ballad of the French Fleet: "Admiral d'Anville had sworn by cross and crown, to ravage with fire and steel our helpless Boston Town...From mouth to mouth spread tidings of dismay, I stood in the Old South saying humbly: 'Let us pray!'..Like a potter's vessel broke, the great ships of the line, were carried away as smoke or sank in the brine."
William J. Federer is a nationally recognized author, speaker, and president of Amerisearch, Inc, which is dedicated to researching our American heritage. The American Minute radio feature looks back at events in American history on the dates they occurred, is broadcast daily across the country and read by thousand on the internet.
The new VoteYesForLife.com ad features a host of South Dakota doctors who confirm what most reasonable people already know: there is no medical reason to oppose Initiated Measure 11.
Anyone who says different is fear mongering and blowing smoke at you to keep abortion as a form of birth control legal and unimpeded.
According to the latest statistics from the South Dakota Department of Health, 84.6% of the abortions done in South Dakota were because "The mother did not desire to have the child."
Only 1.9% of South Dakota abortions fall within the exceptions in Initiated Measure 11 for rape, incest, health of the mother and life of the mother.
Initiated Measure 11 does not interfere in any life-saving medical practice for the mother or her child. IM 11 is designed to end abortion as birth control, not interfere with life-saving medical care.
Don't let Planned Parenthood and their allies fool you into keeping 100% of abortions legal in South Dakota.
Please, for the sake of hundreds of children every year, VoteYesForLife.
How many times have you heard it: Christians are "homophobic" because--if they know the Bible--they condemn homosexual behavior.
Besides the idiocy of the term "homophobic" (how many people are afraid of sameness?), most of us have always known that throwing this term around is just a politically correct method of trying to deflect genuine criticism of an immoral and unhealthy practice.
But now LifeSiteNews reports on a study debunking this which was conducted by the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience at Baylor University and published in the latest edition of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
This is how the experiment worked:
The study involved 100 female participants who were scored for interest in religion. The participants were led to believe that they were working with another participant as a two person team. The participants received hand written notes from their ostensible team partners with personal disclosures. Half the notes disclosed that the writer was homosexual, the other notes did not disclose sexual orientation. Half the notes disclosed that the writer was engaging in sexually promiscuous behavior outside of marriage. This created four cases: homosexual sexually active team member, homosexual celibate team member, heterosexual sexually active team member and heterosexual celibate team member. The participants were then given two minutes to perform tasks that could benefit the team member or a third student.
Participants did not assist the homosexual team mate any less than the heterosexual one. They did help the promiscuous one less than the celibate one.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
We have the blue-collar vote, we have the social conservative vote, we have the feminist vote, and a host of other "votes."
Most of these voting blocks are pretty predictable as to whether they'll vote for John McCain or Barack Obama.
Presidential debates like the one tonight seldom sway these voting blocks; after all, debates these days seldom reach any depth or substance, and most of the voters in these blocks are informed enough to already know who they're voting for, and a shallow debate isn't going to affect that greatly.
But did you know there is apparently a "self-centered-and-brain-dead" voting block?
Rich Lowry has a post at the National Review which questions what issue will make a difference with voters this year.
Lowry doesn't seem to think Barack Obama's association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers will do it, and he doesn't think corruption and fraud at ACORN will do it.
But he points to a post from Ben Smith at The Politico which should shock the socks off any reasonable person.
Smith tells of an email he received from a Republican consultant who conducted a focus group viewing of an ad to an independent group of "Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus." He showed them a no-holds-barred ad which attacked Barack Obama.
The good news: they believed it.
The bad news: it didn't matter.
Smith mentions two unreal moments during that session when he received feedback from this "independent" group. I'll point you to his post to read one of them, but I'll copy here the one that slapped me in the face the hardest:
The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."
How do you respond to this level of self-centeredness? In the woman's own words, she actually believes Obama (not to merely be associated with a terrorist, but) to have actually been in a terrorist group...but by golly, she'll vote for him if it means getting somebody else to pay for her health insurance!
No wonder liberals insist on continuing to prop up the exercise in academic ineptitude we know as "public education" and fight any attempt to allow children to escape it with vouchers and homeschooling: it's producing Democrat voters for them!
I may be proven wrong on November 4, but for now, I refuse to believe that 50.1% or more of Americans are that stupid, self-centered and morally bankrupt.
John McCain missed some great opportunities tonight to really point out some important differences between himself and Barack Obama--and some critical deficiencies in Obama's judgment.
As Fred J. Eckert pointed out earlier today in his column at Human Events, McCain should have taken Obama up on his invitation and asked him, to his face,
“Why are you so comfortable keeping company with people who hate America?”
As important as so many issues are right now to our country, I can think of no more important one than this.
The welfare and defense of our country should come before health care, the economy, before social policy, before anything. If our country is under attack, our very lives and future as a country are at stake.
If someone in a position of power is friendly with people who hate our country, this is cause for alarm. If someone who wants to run our country is friendly with people who hate America, alarm should be off the scale.
Eckert has a few other choice comments he would have liked McCain to have made at the debate tonight:
“Senator Obama, aren’t you at all embarrassed that something you and Osama bin Laden have in common is that you both have associates who have bombed the Pentagon?”
“You were full grown and holding public office on 9/11 when Ayers was saying that he wished he had bombed more American targets.”
"You were full grown when Ayers appeared on the cover of a Chicago magazine stomping on an American flag.”
Read Eckert's full post for some more things it would be good to hear from Barack Obama on.
Along the same lines of Eckert's original question, there are some things I wish Obama would explain to me:
- Why do you want to lead a country that your pastor of 20 years seems to loathe so much?
- Why do you want to lead a country when you plan to gut the military defense of that country?
- Why do you want to lead a country that your wife could find no reason to be proud of until recently?
I also have a question I would like every Obama voter to explain to me: do you love America, and if you do, why would you vote for someone so surrounded by people who loathe America?
Ghost of Dude at SouthDaCola made it clear today that he needs a lesson in American history.
Ghost of Dude says he's "heard a lot lately about how this nation was founded by Christian men and with Christian principles" but expresses confusion that the Treaty of Tripoli says
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (muslims),-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (Islamic) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Ghost of Dude brings this up now because
Because increasingly, theocrats disguised as republicans and campaigning on “values” have begun trying to foist religiously-based laws on this state and nation under the mistaken belief that we are a Christian nation. In reality, we have no official religion, and the establishment of such an organization is expressly forbidden by our constitution - which was written, voted on, and ratified by our “Christian” founding fathers.
His confusion is understandable, in that many people have been confused by this, despite the overwhelming body of evidence that America was founded by Christians on Christian principles, and was never intended to sanitize and separate Christian influence from our government.
Before I examine that overwhelming body of evidence, let's pause for just a moment to take a look at what was meant by this statement in the Treaty of Tripoli.
Muslim nations were--and many still are--genuinely theocratic institutions. Their laws come directly from their holy text and they are ruled in part or in whole by religious officials. As such, they rightly saw themselves as "Muslim nations," but also saw the Western nations they warred against (England, France, Spain, the United States, etc.) as "Christian nations." This could be said to be true of most of these nations in a couple of senses. It was true that the people of these nations almost all ascribed to the Christian religion. And in the case of most of them, they actually had official state churches and official state religions.
The United States obviously did not have an official state church or an official state religion. However, we were closely associated with the other European nations that did, and almost all citizens of the United States were in fact Christians.
Based on their own nationalized religion, and on that of several European nations, the Muslims saw (and still do to a great extent even today) conflicts between Muslim and "Christian" nations not as secular conflicts over land and property and such, but as religious conflicts.
It was in this manner that Article XI of the treaty stated the United States was not "is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
But what secularists usually don't include (and overlook even if they do included) from the Treaty of Tripoli is precisely what is needed to understand just what the authors of the treaty meant.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
So you see, the Treaty itself explains that it is not making a statement about the religious character of the people of the United States, nor about the principles upon which our nation founded. It was rather intended to assure the members of the Muslim nations with whom the treaty was made that we bore them no official hostility or disagreement based on "religious opinions."
Finally, Ghost of Dude suffers from the same fundamental misunderstanding of "theocracy" that many--especially of the liberal persuasion--suffer from today.
I wrote at length on the meaning of "theocracy" a few months ago. I would suggest a reading of that lengthy treatise, but I'll try to explain briefly here.
Theocracy is essentially a form of government where the laws come straight from a "holy book" and policy is dictated by religious leaders.
There are several examples of theocracies around the world, usually found in some Islamic countries.
The American form of government, while from the beginning based on Christian principles and a Biblical worldview, has never involved law that came straight from the Bible, nor has it involved civic leadership by religious authorities.
The founders of the United States were mostly Christians, and most believed Christian principles were the best way not only for living, but for producing a healthy society.
Their statements and writings illustrate this belief in abundance. Now, for some of that voluminous evidence I mentioned from the Founding Fathers:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. – George Washington’s Presidential Farewell Address
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. – John Adams
It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. Religion and virtue are the only foundations…of republicanism and of all free governments. – John Adams
While the people are virtuous, they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader. – Samuel Adams
It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality. – Abraham Baldwin, signer of the Constitution
Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion whose morality is so sublime and pure…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. – Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence
Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. – Benjamin Franklin
Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement – John Hancock
Righteousness alone can exalt them [America] as a nation…The great pillars of all government and of social life: I mean virtue, morality and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible. – Patrick Henry.
The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society…We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses. – Thomas Jefferson
The Holy Scriptures…can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses. – James McHenry, signer of the Constitution, Secretary of War
I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. Therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man toward God. – Gouverneur Morris, penman and signer of the Constitution
Religion and morality…are necessary to good government, good order and good laws, for “when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice” – William Paterson, signer of the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained. – George Washington’s Inaugural Address
The law…dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this. – Alexander Hamilton, signer of the Constitution
Let it never be forgotten that there can be no genuine freedom where there is no morality, and no sound morality where there is no religion…Hesitate not a moment to believe that the man who labors to destroy these two great pillars of human happiness…is neither a good patriot nor a good man. – Jeremiah Smith, Revolutionary soldier, judge, U.S. Congressman, Governor of New Hampshire
It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs whether any free government can be permanent where the public worship of God and the support of religion constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. – Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Judge, Father of American Jurisprudence
Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society – George Washington
Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens. – Daniel Webster
Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown—general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land. – Daniel Webstser
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianity. – John Adams
Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. – James Wilson, signer of the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court Judge
Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country…God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both. – John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration
No country on earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed it would be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass. – George Washington (how deeply sad that we have betrayed Washington’s confidence)
When a citizen gives his suffrage [vote] to a man of known immorality he abuses his trust [civic responsibility]; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country. – Noah Webster
Even though these men recognized that Christian principles were necessary for good government and a healthy society, they also recognized the potential for corruption and oppression when official religious institutions and civic governments were closely married.
For this reason, they established in the First Amendment that people would have the freedom to express themselves religiously as they saw fit, and prohibited a state church or religion.
They also established in the Constitution that no religious test for office would be required. In other words, you could not be officially denied to public office because you belonged to a non-favored religion or denomination, or held a non-favored religious view.
However, as illustrated above by the statements of the founders, this was never intended to sanitize Christian expression or influence from public life or even government itself.
Perhaps the best and most enlightening examination of how religion influences public policy in America in a healthy fashion comes from "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville.
de Tocqueville was a Frenchman who visited America in the early 1800s. He traveled this young country in a quest to find out what made the United States, despite it's youth, such a successful mover and shaker on the world scene.
What he found was amazing. It also points strongly toward this unofficial mix of civics and religion which is so perplexing to some.
Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America, I found they were intimately united and they reigned in common over the same country.
Was this a union brought about by theocracy or state religion? Not at all.
In the United States religion exercises but little influence upon the laws and upon the details of public opinion, but it directs the manners of the community, and by regulating domestic life it regulates the State.
He further explains:
Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must nevertheless be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country
He also says
...there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.
de Tocqueville sums up the proper relationship between civil government and religious faith--actually the need for religious faith.
Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. Religion is much more necessary in the republic which they set forth in glowing colors than in the monarchy which they attack; and it is more needed in democratic republics than in any others. How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie be not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? and what can be done with a people which is its own master, if it be not submissive to the Divinity?
Just as President George Washington indicated, we desperately need religious influence in public life in order to maintain the health of our government and society.
Without it, our government breaks down as it becomes more filled with immoral officials with no moral compass.
As our leaders move farther from a moral foundation which recognizes eternal accountability and the "golden rule" to treat other people as we would like to be treated, they make greater surrenders to selfishness, greed, corruption and personal pursuit of power.
When this happen, freedom suffers. In fact, freedom is gravely threatened. If our leaders cannot be trusted to govern themselves according to moral constraints, they cannot be trusted to safeguard the freedoms of those they are supposed to serve.
And this threatens not only those "values voters" so oft-despised by liberals, but liberals themselves.
For while the things a liberal loves today may be shared by those in power, tomorrow a different set of corrupt politicians may come along who could take it upon themselves to ruthlessly quash these things.
So while we have never had a theocracy, do not currently have a theocracy, and practically no one wants a theocracy, we nevertheless need to promote the traditional moral base of our nation.
That moral foundation is what has made us a great nation; without it, we will shrink to mediocrity at best, but most likely would implode catastrophically.
To illustrate this, I leave you with the relevant quotes of two of the Founders:
Without the restraints of religion and social worship, men become savages. – Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration
Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet. – Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U.S. House
Cory Heidelberger, the man at Madville Times who is by his own definition unqualified to discuss theological matters, is again stepping out and stepping in it. Theologically speaking, that is.
Today Cory condemned Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin for telling the truth about Barack Obama's atrocious record as the most pro-abortion candidate in history, and for doing the important job the "mainstream" media refuses to do by exposing Barack Obama's association with unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.
Cory then said he wants a "teachable moment" from the election. Okay, Cory; class is in session.
I never knew that it was wrong, Biblically or otherwise, to point out when a public official is either doing something wrong, condoning something wrong, or is displaying extremely poor judgment--especially when those things are relevant to his leadership of the country.
Cowardice and reluctance to call evil what it is have never been Christian virtues. Being afraid to rebuke the evil for their own good and for the good of society because someone might call you names (like "intolerant" or "homophobe" or "theocrat" or "Bible thumper") has never--that I've been able to find--been a spiritually commendable attribute.
But from a Biblical perspective, people of God have publicly pointing out the evil of government officials for a long, long time. From the Old Testament prophets like Jeremiah and Elijah to ones in the New Testament like John the Baptist.
Cory might recall from Sunday School that John the Baptist called out King Herod for his immorality and adultery. Was this an unchristian "personal attack?" Or was it speaking out against an evil and doing as God said we should do in Ezekiel 3:18?
He might also recall that Jesus also expressed his displeasure with Herod's wickedness in Luke chapter 13--even calling Herod names!
In fact, according to Cory's rather liberal (excuse the pun) interpretation of "personal attacks," Jesus may just have been the king of personal attacks. Many, many times Christ publicly criticized people for their evil--even with more name-calling them things like hypocrites, brood of vipers, blind guides, a "wicked and adulterous generation," son of hell, blind fools, blind men, whitewashed tombs, and snakes.
He might remember that Jesus' apostle Peter was pretty forthright with the Sanhedrin, speaking against them and their efforts to prevent the disciples from speaking the truth.
Cory might also recall that when the New Testament saint Stephen appeared before the Jewish ruling council, the Sanhedrin, he engaged in a few, ah, personal attacks--particularly letting them have it in Acts 7:51-53
You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him—you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it."
When you take a closer look at the Bible, maybe Sarah Palin is wrong. Maybe she isn't being bold enough about the evil Barack Obama has condoned and promoted.
But at least she is speaking out about the truth and not allowing evil to be accepted for good--which is what Christians are supposed to do.
It's also what good citizens should do.
If you're like me, you don't put a lot of stock into anything that comes out of the National Enquirer. After all, that publication, through some of it's own wild stories, has developed a reputation for being not much better than the rags that routinely report on the goings-on of the "bat boy" and UFO invasions.
I must admit, however, despite my knee-jerk reaction to the National Enquirer, they get it right sometimes as they did with Je$$ie Jackson's "love child, Bill Clinton's use of Monica Lewinsky, and John Edwards recent affair.
So it was with one eyebrow raised that I read Cliff Kincaids's piece on Obama and his mentor today in the Canada Free Press.
Kincaid's piece was noteworthy for two reasons: the information on Obama's mentor, and the details about the handiwork of Obama's associate, the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.
First the details of what Ayers' Weathermen and their terrorism wrought:
In terms of the Bill Ayers controversy, Police Sergeant Brian V. McDonnell was one of the victims of the Weather Underground, a group that took direction from Castro's intelligence service, the DGI. McDonnell was only 45 years old and it took two days for him to die from the injuries caused by the shrapnel in the bomb that was reportedly planted by Dohrn.
Now, one of the officers under the command of Sgt. McDonnell has come forward to describe what happened on the terrible day that the bomb went off.
"On February 16, 1970, my partner and I were on the 1700 block of Haight St., in San Francisco, Calif., when a bomb went off at Park Police Station, where I was assigned," says retired San Francisco Police Department Sergeant James R. Pera. "My partner and I were the first car on the scene and the first sight that we saw, upon arrival in the parking lot of the station, was a friend of ours getting up off the ground. His partner was still on the ground, propped up on one arm and dazed. They had been blown to the ground by the concussion of the bomb that had been placed on the window sill of the station..."
He goes on, "Sergeant McDonnell's Police Car, which was placed between the window sill, where the bomb was, and the car that my two fellow policemen were preparing to get into, took the brunt of the blast and saved them from death. The inside of the station looked like it had been hit by a couple of hand grenades, windows shattered, blood on the pock-marked walls and dazed cops wandering around disoriented. The bomb was so powerful that fragments, which consisted of barbed wire fence post staples, were found on the roof of Polytechnic High School which was located across Kezar Stadium and Frederick St., approximately two blocks away. Polytechnic High School was three stories high. It has since been replaced by a housing complex."
I think time--and a little obfuscatory help from the "mainstream" media--has helped dampen people's appreciation for the despicable acts committed by Obama's associate Bill Ayers. Kincaid has done a service in putting a human face on Ayers crimes--for which he remains blatantly unrepentant.
But on now to Frank Marshall Davis, the man Obama refers to in his book "Dreams From My Father" as a friend and advisor.
It seems Obama was introduced to "Frank" when he was 10 years old, and relied on Frank Davis' advice throughout this teens.
The latest edition of the Enquirer features a piece on Davis and his perverted sexual appetites, and questions what influence Davis may have had on the young Barry Obama. Kincaid's group America's Survival actually composed an expose of this material several weeks ago.
As unsavory as all this is to consider, the connection between Obama and Davis--someone Obama has described as a guide and influence on him--is very relevant for a man who wants to lead the United States.
Obama, after all, has made it very plain that he has a radical sexual agenda for America if he becomes president: repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which protects states from having homosexual "marriage" forced on them, homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. military, the expansion of "hate crime" legislation, and the inclusion of "gender identity" in discrimination laws.
Obama's statements about Davis indicate a close relationship spanning several years. He also talks about drinking whiskey with Davis.
If you're sitting down, read this shocking excerpt about Davis from the British Telegraph which was published almost two months ago:
In a surviving portion of an autobiographical manuscript, Mr Davis confirms that he was the author of Sex Rebel: Black after a reader had noticed the “similarities in style and phraseology” between the pornographic work and his poetry.
“I could not then truthfully deny that this book, which came out in 1968 as a Greenleaf Classic, was mine.” In the introduction to Sex Rebel, Mr Davis (writing as Greene) explains that although he has “changed names and identities…all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences”.
He stated that “under certain circumstances I am bisexual” and that he was “ a voyeur and an exhibitionist” who was “occasionally mildly interested in sado-masochism”, adding: “I have often wished I had two penises to enjoy simultaneously the double – but different – sensations of oral and genital copulation.”
The book, which closely tracks Mr Davis’s life in Chicago and Hawaii and the fact that his first wife was black and his second white, describes in lurid detail a series of shockingly sordid sexual encounters, often involving group sex.
One chapter concerns the seduction by Mr Davis and his first wife of a 13-year-old girl called Anne. Mr Davis wrote that it was the girl who had suggested he had sex with her. “I’m not one to go in for Lolitas. Usually I’d rather not bed a babe under 20.
“But there are exceptions. I didn’t want to disappoint the trusting child. At her still-impressionistic age, a rejection might be traumatic, could even cripple her sexually for life.”
He then described how he and his wife would have sex with the girl. “Anne came up many times the next several weeks, her aunt thinking she was in good hands. Actually she was.
“She obtained a course in practical sex from experienced and considerate practitioners rather than from ignorant insensitive neophytes….I think we did her a favour, although the pleasure was mutual.”
On other occasions, Mr Davis would cruise in Hawaii parks looking for couples or female tourists to have sex with. He derived sexual gratification from bondage, simulated rape and being flogged and urinated on.
Wow. So while this shocking information about Obama's mentor is only now coming to the attention of people like me because of the Enquirer, this information is obviously not some UFO story they made up. The Telegraph is a respected major British newspaper.
In Kincaid's piece, he dares speak the questions on any reasonable person's mind:
What exactly happened in Davis's home? We know from the record that Davis and Dunham drank alcohol and smoked pot together. Obama admits drinking with Davis as well and going on to smoke marijuana and use cocaine. What else happened between them besides listening to Davis's poetry?
In terms of shaping Obama's world view, Davis may have had as much influence as Wright. Indeed, both Davis and Wright expressed anti-white views and sentiments, and that linkage is significant. It connects Hawaii to Chicago.
The sex part makes some people squirm. We don't want to consider the implications. But Obama is running for the office of president of the United States. We are supposed to have the right to know.
Who knows whether anything improper went on between Obama and Davis; perhaps only they could answer that question.
But since we know Davis has given guidance to Obama since Obama's pre-teen years, and since even what Obama has been open with about his sexual agenda for America is very radical, one has to wonder exactly where and how far Obama's attitudes on human sexuality actually go.
On a personal level, such frightening possibilities are between Obama and God.
But for the U.S. senator who wants to set the agenda for the United States, and who has already told us he plans to fire the equivalent of a nuclear missile at marriage and sexual normality, such implications are of paramount importance for the American voter to consider.