Catholics Prepare for Civil Disobedience

Fresh on the heels of the MSM attempting to downplay and ignore what is quite possibly 'the biggest religious lawsuit in US history', we now learn that the Catholic Church is bracing it's membership for civil disobedience as Chairman Zero attempts to force the church to abandon it's belief's for his own...

"“Some unjust laws impose such injustices on individuals and organizations that disobeying the laws may be justified,” the bishops state in a document developed to be inserted into church bulletins in Catholic parishes around the country in June.

“Every effort must be made to repeal them,” the bishops say in the document, which is already posted on the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “When fundamental human goods, such as the right of conscience, are at stake, we may need to witness to the truth by resisting the law and incurring its penalties.”..

The bishops have noted that June 21, when this fortnight will begin, is the Vigil of the Feast of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More. Fisher was a Roman Catholic cardinal whom the English monarch Henry VIII beheaded in 1535 after he refused to act against his conscience and take an oath asserting that Henry was the supreme authority over the church in England. That same year, Henry VIII also beheaded Thomas More (above), his former chancellor, for the same reason."

This clown is easily the most devisive president over the last century. The only reason this isn't being discussed in such terms is because the media is all too willing to acquiesce to this charlatan, going so far as to creepily airbrush recent news stories concerning his family.

Vindication for so-called 'birthers'

Jack Cashill has an even-handed article that gives his take on the newly uncovered evidence that the Serenghetti Saviour was still described as Kenyan-born as late as 2007.

"Despite the claims made in the 1991 sales brochure produced by literary agent Jane Dystel, I do not believe Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

But I do believe that Obama said he was. The agency’s alleged fact-checking error is pure bull. I have written eight books myself, and I got to review every piece of promotional literature sent out about me or about my books. All authors get to do this.

The question that must be asked is why would Obama say he was born in Kenya if he was not. Well, from early on no doubt, Barack Obama learned that it paid to be exotic. Foreign birth gave him a romantic allure and also allowed him to distance himself from the bitter clingers of the country he barely deigned to inhabit.

“I chose my friends carefully,” he writes in “Dreams,” “The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.” These were the people with whom he felt comfortable.

Of course, a Kenyan birth would preclude his becoming president, but in 1991, Obama was not thinking that far ahead."

I have said all along that I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that Obama was born in Hawaii. However one cannot say that this has conclusively been shown given that not a single document expert has ever examined O's long-form birth certificate. One would have to blame the Mainstream Media in this case for doing nothing but run intereference for the guy, squashing any examinination of this charlatan's past while covering his butt at every opportunity.

At least the Arizona Secreary of State is showing an ounce of backbone in this matter by asking hawaii officials to verify O's paperwork.

What they're not telling you about the Trayvon Martin murder..‏

That accused killer of (apparently) unarmed Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman (above) is a wacky, probable cop-sniffer wannabe is my first impression of this nutjob. However, one thing that the MSM is completely glossing over is that Mr Zimmerman isn't exactly very W.A.S.P.Y...

"Because Zimmerman, as you can see below, is Hispanic—not white.

Moreover, in a letter published by the Orlando Sun-Sentinel, Zimmerman’s father describes his son as “a Spanish speaking minority with many black family members…” who grew up in a multiracial family. [George Zimmerman's father: My son is not racist, did not confront Trayvon Martin, By Rene Stutzman, March 15, 2012]

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D.-MO), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, believes that this is a federal “hate crime” and that it should be investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice. There have been marches, petitions and demonstrations against Zimmerman’s supposed “racism”—and that of the Sanford police. Rev. Al Sharpton is making his presence known as well.

Apparently, no one has seen a photo of George Zimmerman or heard that he is Hispanic. Would they be crying, “hate crime” so loudly if they knew Zimmerman is Hispanic?

Law enforcement should, of course, investigate further, if for no other reason than the facts certainly seem to show that Zimmerman used excessive force."

I wonder if it must be quite unsettling for such a complete and verifiable anti-semite like Al Sharpton to know that any time he enters a room full of people, he's probably BY FAR the biggest racist in the room. Bar none. But for a man whose lowliness is second only to Jesse Jackson, I doubt we'll see anything short of adulation by the left of these con-men of the 1st Degree who wouldn't truly want racial harmony to exist in a million years. If that ever did occur, they'd both be out of a job.

Why Leftist Policies are so Detrimental to Blacks‏

Economist Thomas Sowell (above) again hits the nail squarely on the head by laying out in vivid detail how the party that gives lip service to compassion and caring to the lowest members of the societal scale actually winds up destroying black lives with their inept and misguided policies...

"One of the things that turned up, during a long-overdue cleanup of my office was an old yellowed copy of the New York Times dated July 24, 1992. One of the front-page headlines said: “White-Black Disparity in Income Narrowed in 80′s, Census Shows.”

The 1980s? Wasn’t that the years of the Reagan administration, the “decade of greed,” the era of “neglect” of the poor and minorities, if not “covert racism”?

More recently, during the administration of America’s first black president, a 2011 report from the Pew Research Center has the headline, “Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics.”

While the median net worth of whites was 10 times the median net worth of blacks in 1988, the last year of the Reagan administration, the ratio was 19-to-1 in 2009, the first year of the Obama administration. With Hispanics, the ratio was 8-to-1 in 1988 and 15-to-1 in 2009.

Race is just one of the areas in which the rhetoric and the reality often go in opposite directions. Political rhetoric is intended to do one thing – win votes. Whether the policies that accompany that rhetoric make people better off or worse off is far less of a concern to politicians, if any concern at all."

None of this comes as any suprise as even blacks are beginning to abandon Chairman Zero in droves as they are beginning to realize that Obama simply uses them as useful pawns like he does anyone else that he decides is politically expedient at the moment.

The Mainstream Media's Anti-Christian Template: Catholicism

One of the prevailing templates utilized by the drive-by, mainstream media is to portray Catholic priests as largely prone to pederasty and the sexual abuse of minors. If one is in doubt concerning how effective the media's ongoing Jihad against Christianity has been in stigmatizing Catholic priests, simply read this exchange that Archbishop Timothy Dolan had with a man while waiting at an airport. An article out today contains an interview with author Dave Pierre who as written extensively about the acutely uneven coverage in the media concerning priest abuse scandals when compared to similar stories coming from other professions. Here are some of the highlights from the interview...

• "I would frequently look at the Los Angeles Times. A number of years ago, I noticed that the paper published a very large, 3,800-word piece on the front page about decades-old abuses that were alleged to have been committed by Catholic clergy in remote villages of Alaska. Indeed, many of the stories were heart-wrenching, painful, and tragic. However, months later, the shocking story of a Southern California teacher who may have molested as many as 200 children was buried on page B3. I soon began to notice a trend: the Times was often giving front-page coverage to stories about Catholic priests alleged to have committed abuse decades ago. Meanwhile, arrests of public school teachers for abuse happening today were often not reported or buried in the “news briefs” section. The double standard was glaring.
  



• Just a few years back, 13 administrators at the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) received an office memo stating that police had arrested an assistant principal and were “investigating allegations that he had an unlawful sexual relationship with a minor.” Yet a few months later, the district reassigned this principal to another school—where he raped again. None of the 13 administrators whose names were on that memo lost their jobs, and the local media did not seem too interested in reporting this fact. And in another incident at the LAUSD, two administrators pleaded guilty and no contest, respectively, in a court of law to the misdemeanor of failing to report the suspected rape of a 13-year-old girl at their school. Where are they now? They are still working at LAUSD—with promotions. It is not hard to imagine that if these episodes had involved the Catholic Church, the national media would have had quite a field day. Instead, few people outside of Los Angeles are even familiar these stories."
  

These are just a couple of examples and the cited article contains many more. I don't doubt that clergy should be held to a higher standard than many of us, but so should anyone who is entrusted with caring for children. I doubt such anti-Christian bigotry is going away anytime soon, but kudos to Mr. Pierre for shining a light on the practice of unfairly characterizing Catholic priests.

Demolishing the idea that 'there's no such thing as an ex gay'

"NPR should have tried to find individuals that were not 'ex-gay for pay.' Truth Wins Out always challenges journalists to find such people and they come up empty handed," he wrote on his group's website. "This speaks to the fact that there is no genuine 'ex-gay' movement, just a high-dollar, politically motivated marketing campaign to create the appearance that such people exist in large numbers." Wayne Besen, Link

That ex gays abound is an undeniable fact. I would only agree with the idea that there are no 'ex gays' if it is meant in the context that nobody is actually 'cured' of alcoholism. A condition as such still might require active participation on the part of the recovering alcoholic to avoid ruining their life through alcohol. Likewise, homosexuality can be viewed as a problem that is quite complex for the person dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction that can be attributed to a wide variety of factors. However, if Mr Besen or anyone else would like to know if there really are people who have left the homosexual lifestyle behind and are glad they did so, perhaps they might want to speak with such courageous people as...

ex homosexual Michael Glatze

ex homosexual Joe Dallas

former lesbian Jeanette Howard

former lesbian Luanna Hansberger

former lesbian Sandra Aslesen

former homosexual Stephen Bennett

former lesbian Linda Jernigan"

former lesbian Christine Sneeringer

former lesbian Charlene E. Cothran

ex homosexual Phillip Tucker

ex homosexual Nathanael Flock

ex homosexual Richard Weller

ex homosexual Tim Wilkins

former lesbian Melissa Fryear

former lesbian Melinda Selmys

former lesbian Jackie Clune

former lesbian Linda Wall

former lesbian Abigail Meadows

former lesbian Cindy Hinsch

ex homosexual James Hartline

former lesbian Janet Jenkins

former lesbian Teresa Britton

ex homosexual Greg Quinlan

former lesbian Shereka Ford

former lesbian Janet Boynes

former transexual Walt Heyer

former homosexual Stephen Black

former lesbian Yvette Schneider

former lesbian Kristin (Johnson) Tremba

former homosexual James Wimbush

former lesbian Melanie Spinks

former homosexual Deacon Remnant

former homosexual DL Foster

former homosexual Matt Moore

Former homosexual Christopher Doyle

former homosexual Mike Davidson

former lesbian Akila Brayboy

Former homosexual Robert Breaud

And on and on the list goes. These names were accumulated with just a perfunctory seach, could you imagine if one sat down and really analyzed the issue for a considerable length of time? I hope we can finally rid ourselves, once and for all, of the idea that there 'are no ex gays' and diminish the amount of hateful bigotry leveled against former homosexuals who are brave enough to speak the truth. The above list should provide a starting point for anyone truly interested in finding some that actually exist.

Cal Thomas asks, 'What's so bad about adultery?'

Cal Thomas examines the importance of fidelity as it relates to society in his most recent article....

"What is marriage? Is it something for the convenience of the U.S. Post Office for orderly mail delivery, or is there a Higher Authority behind it?

For most people, marriage is a sacrament with "rules" firmly established by God and when followed these rules benefit married couples, their children and society.

Among the main requirements of marriage is fidelity. "Forsaking all others" is the phrase contained in the Christian marriage vow. Divorce has become widely accepted (though not to the Author of marriage) as a sometimes "necessary evil," but adultery remains for most people what it has always been: a betrayal.

It's not just a religious concept. Ask a person who is married but does not believe in God how he or she would feel about a cheating spouse and you most likely would get the same response you would receive from one who does believe in a higher power: anger and profound disappointment."

I think we can all agree with Thomas's assessment. Monogamous marriage is the very bedrock upon which our society is based upon, no matter how others may try to redefine it. Thomas goes on in the article to relate the problem society has with adultery as it relates to the current primary campaign for president...

"Once, divorce was a political "kiss of death." Now we are debating whether adultery should carry a similar penalty. One shudders to think what might be next.

Ultimately, what voters must decide is this: Does a presidential candidate's personal flaws rise (or fall) to a level that inhibits his ability to do the job of president?

Put another way, if you are about to have surgery, do you care if the doctor is a cad, or do you care more whether most of his patients are alive and well?

With the multiple challenges Americans face and with the choices presented to us, if the country is to be made well, voters may just have to sacrifice the ideal for the pragmatic."

While some may criticize Newt Gingrich's personal life, we now know that the 'He Served His Dying Wife With Divorce Papers on Her Hospital Bed' rumor to be completely false, albeit difficult to shake for Gingrich. Americans that had no problem voting for someone who lowered the bar when it came to their personal life like Bill Clinton may soon have to ask themselves if they would vote for a Republican whose personal life is less than pristine and see if the same standard of 'who cares what he did in his personal life' still applies.

Making 'intolerance' their god

Recent news articles seem to be reinforcing specific groups one must be tolerant towards while ignoring the plight of others. First, we read in Thomas Sowell's column from today...

"Back in the 1920s, the intelligentsia on both sides of the Atlantic were loudly protesting the execution of political radicals Sacco and Vanzetti, after what they claimed was an unfair trial. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote to his young leftist friend Harold Laski, pointing out that there were "a thousand-fold worse cases" involving black defendants, "but the world does not worry over them."


Holmes said: "I cannot but ask myself why this so much greater interest in red than black."


To put it bluntly, it was a question of whose ox was gored. That is, what groups were in vogue at the moment among the intelligentsia. Blacks clearly were not.


The current media and political crusade against "bullying" in schools seems likewise to be based on what groups are in vogue at the moment. For years, there have been local newspaper stories about black kids in schools in New York and Philadelphia beating up Asian classmates, some beaten so badly as to require medical treatment.


But the national media hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. Asian Americans are not in vogue today, just as blacks were not in vogue in the 1920s.

Meanwhile, the media are focused on bullying directed against youngsters who are homosexual. Gays are in vogue.

Most of the stories about the bullying of gays in schools are about words directed against them, not about their suffering the violence that has long been directed against Asian youngsters or about the failure of the authorities to do anything serious to stop black kids from beating up Asian kids.

Where youngsters are victims of violence, whether for being gay or whatever, that is where the authorities need to step in. No decent person wants to see kids hounded, whether by words or deeds, and whether the kids are gay, Asian or whatever."


Indeed, for a more recent example of "Red Trumps Black", even within the black community, Dennis Prager reminds us that "In 2009, nine left-wing Democratic congressmen, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, visited Fidel Castro in Cuba and came back awestruck by the dictator. They even refused to meet with one of Cuba’s leading pro-democracy dissidents, Jorge Luis Garcia Pérez, an African Cuban."

But insofar as gays being the preferred mascots of the media elites these days, one need look no further than the recent case involving a New Jersey school teacher...

"In New Jersey, the Township of Union Public School District has suspended a special education teacher named Vicki Knox because she sat in her own home, on her own computer, and expressed her Christian faith on her personal Facebook page.


After seeing a quasi-shrine that had been erected at her school, honoring Harvey Milk, Neil Patrick Harris, and Virginia Woolf for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender History month, Knox expressed disapproval of “homosexuality based on her Christian faith.”


Just think of it – although the Bible unequivocally denounces practicing homosexual behavior, groups like Garden State Equality (GSE) have come out against Knox as if she invented Christianity’s teaching on homosexual practices, and they’re actually calling for her to lose her job.


Said Garden State Equality chair Steven Goldstein: “I find what she wrote on Facebook endangers the learning atmosphere for students beyond repair and violates the school district’s own policy of a safe and comfortable environment for all. She’s no longer in a position to teach in the classroom because she will make many students fearful of her hatred.”..


This point is made even more poignant when one considers the fact that Knox went out of her way to say that she prays for those who are persecuting her and tells them that God loves them (which is now apparently the same thing as expressing “hatred”)."

Which leads to a question I have asked before, is there any criticism of the gay lifestyle allowed whatsoever? Check out some of the comments from self-identified gays in the link for the above article. It seems that even members of the gay community are themselves concerned about such anti-Christian bigotry. Kelly Boggs explains why the teacher was within her rights as an American citizen to expess her opinions...

"It really does not take a constitutional scholar to understand the simple, straightforward wording established by our nation's founders.

First, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." Put simply, the phrase makes it clear that the government must not pass legislation forcing a person to practice or pay homage to a particular religion. In other words, the state will not establish an official religion or church.

Second, "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In the simplest of terms this statement makes it clear that the government will not seek to restrict an individual's practice of his or her faith. A person is free to believe, or not to believe as the case may be, as he or she desires.

To sum up the two parts of the opening portion of the First Amendment, when it comes to the practice of religion in America, the government will not tell citizens that they "must" or that they "can't."...

It would seem that when a public school seeks to keep students or teachers from respectfully expressing religious beliefs that the government is telling them they "can't" exercise their religion or the freedom to express their beliefs.

It does not require a juris doctor degree to understand the plain language of the First Amendment."

Perry, Bachmann, Romney: Obama's Decision to Leave Iraq 'Political"

Reaction from the campaign trail to the announcement that the US would be withdrawing military forces from Iraq by the end of this year was swift.

“The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government,” Romney said in a news release. “The American people deserve to hear the recommendations that were made by our military commanders in Iraq.”

“President Obama’s astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women,” Romney continued.

Texas governor Rick Perry also questioned the motives of the president’s decision.

“I’m deeply concerned that President Obama is putting political expediency ahead of sound military and security judgment by announcing an end to troop level negotiations and a withdrawal from Iraq by year’s end,” Perry said in a statement. “The President was slow to engage the Iraqis and there’s little evidence today’s decision is based on advice from military commanders.”

Minnosata Congresswoman and GOP candidate Michele Bachmann struck a similar tone, calling the announcement “a political decision and not a military one.”

“It represents the complete failure of President Obama to secure an agreement with Iraq for our troops to remain there to preserve the peace and demonstrates how far our foreign policy leadership has fallen,” Bachmann said in a news release. “In every case where the United States has liberated a people from dictatorial rule, we have kept troops in that country to ensure a peaceful transition and to protect fragile growing democracies.”

I watched the CBS Evening News tonight and there was hardly any (if any at all) mention of the Obama administration's failings in negotiations with the Iraqi government and instead the entire matter was treated as a victory and a political coup for the Obama administration. As it turns out, it seems that The Guardian was more even-handed in their coverage than the US press was...

"John McCain, one of the leading foreign affairs specialists in the Senate and Obama's Republican opponent in the 2008 White House race, said: "Today marks a harmful and sad setback for the United States in the world. I respectfully disagree with the president: this decision will be viewed as a strategic victory for our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime, which has worked relentlessly to ensure a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq."

...One of the sticking points in the negotiations with Iraq was a US demand that American forces remaining in the country after December would enjoy the same immunity from prosecution as they do now. The Iraqi government, conscious of public anger over many controversial incidents involving US troops and defence contractors over the last decade, refused.

The Pentagon had wanted the bases to help counter growing Iranian influence in the Middle East. Just a few years ago, the US had plans for leaving behind four large bases but, in the face of Iraqi resistance, this plan had to be scaled down this year to a force of 10,000. But even this proved too much for the Iraqis."

Leave it to Obama to play up the failure of US policymakers to help secure a volatile region of the world on his watch as some sort of victory on his part. I am all for slowly drawing down the number of US troops in the region over the next few years and I only hope there isn't a Post-Soviet Size Hole of a vacuum left after the last of America's most precious resource come home in December.

Trivia Question: How many tons of yellowcake uranium found in Iraq were quietly airlifted out of Iraq three years ago to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and eventually Canada?

A. 150 tons
B. 200 tons
C. 550 tons, or
D. 0 tons

Click here and here for the answer.

Let's Play 'Who Can Spot the Racist?'

Or perhaps we can call it "A Tale of Two Racism Accusations". Let us critically examine two cases of alleged racism by association and then measure as to which accusation better withstands scrutiny. First up, Texas governor and GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry. Columnist Brent Bozell explains why the hushed tones of unsourced accusations of racism seem to be unsourced for good reason.

"Is there a clumsier group of newspaper character assassins than the hit squads at The Washington Post? On Oct. 1, the Post was back on the racist-Republican attack with a 3,000 word, investigative treatise over a rock. Specifically, Gov. Rick Perry had leased a property where the N-word was painted on a rock, and then he had it painted over with white paint.

But investigative genius Stephanie McCrummen could see a virtual Klan hood on Perry's head. "As recently as this summer, the slab-like rock -- lying flat, the name still faintly visible beneath a coat of white paint -- remained by the gated entrance to the camp."

Near the end, she underlined it again: "In the photos, it was to the left of the gate. It was laid down flat. The exposed face was brushed clean of dirt. White paint, dried drippings visible, covered a word across the surface. An N and two G's were faintly visible."

Three thousand words on this.

Apparently, investigative reporting at the Post means staring at old rocks under paint (with a microscope?) to discern almost invisible letters and suggesting this should ruin a presidential campaign."

Bozell goes on to mention that two days later the Washington Post ran an article to support the contention that Perry has a "complicated" record on race.

"Yes, Perry "appointed the first African-American to the state Supreme Court and later made him chief justice" and oh, yes, "One chief of staff and two of his general counsels have been African-American." But many "minority legislators (read: Democrats) say Perry has a long history -- dating to his first race for statewide office more than 20 years ago -- of engaging in what they see as racially tinged tactics and rhetoric to gain political advantage."

What kind of offensive tactics? Guess what's listed first: "Black lawmakers have been particularly troubled by Perry's recent embrace of the Tea Party movement."

I wonder if these particular black lawmakers are also concerned about the Tea Party's embrace of Allen West and Tim Scott. Probably so and with good reason. People may begin to realize that simply hurling unfounded accusations of racism at a political movement that clearly isn't racist doesn't add up and that might mean that they now have to debate the issues rather than engage in their preferred method of ad hominem attacks and thus they will likely lose those arguments every time. If they had something a bit more substative to support their arguments, we probably would have seen it by now.

Bozell then goes on to examine the actions of President Obama in order to compare who appears to be more motivated by race here...

"That's not to say the Post was unfamiliar with the scent of this scandal at Obama's own Trinity United Church of Christ. The news folks could have read Post columnist Richard Cohen denouncing [Reverend Jeremiah] Wright in a column on Jan. 15, 2008, over how Trinity's church magazine fulsomely praised anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan. But the Post "news" hunters weren't turning over that rock."

That Obama attended a church that for years was headed by a confirmed bigot is beyond debate. One other item that was not mentioned in Bozell's article was the fact that Obama publicly marched with the highly racist, militant and extremely bigoted New Black Panthers Party while running for president....

"Newly resurfaced photographs show President Obama appearing and marching with members of the New Black Panther Party as he campaigned for president in Selma, Ala., in March 2007.

BigGovernment.com posted the photographs, reporting the images were captured from a Flickr photo-sharing account before they were scrubbed.

The photos are reportedly featured in a book set to be released tomorrow by J. Christian Adams, the Department of Justice whistleblower in the New Black Panther Party, or NBPP, voter intimidation case.

The book is titled "Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department."

Among the people visible in the pictures with Obama is NBPP Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, a defendant in the voter intimidation case that Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed in 2009.

Also present was the Panthers' "Minister of War," Najee Muhammed...

The NBPP is a controversial black extremist party whose leaders are notorious for their racist statements and for leading anti-white activism.

Shabazz himself has given scores of speeches condemning "white men" and Jews.

The NBPP's official platform states "white man has kept us deaf, dumb and blind," refers to the "white racist government of America," demands black people be exempt from military service and uses the word Jew repeatedly in quotation marks.

Shabazz has led racially divisive protests and conferences, such as the 1998 Million Youth March in which a few thousand Harlem youths reportedly were called upon to scuffle with police officers and speakers demanded the extermination of whites in South Africa."

There is no doubt that Obama, like other liberals, absolutely LOVES to engage to identity politics, but does he have to affiliate with such extreme bigots when he does so? Add to this Obama's "typical white person" comment and it becomes all the more obvious as who is far more deserving of the charge of racism in this side-by-side comparison between Obama and Perry.

No Doubt About It, The Guardian is Thoroughly Obsessed with Michelle Bachmann

That the British tabloid newspaper The Guardian is thoroughly and demonstrably obsessed with Representative (and GOP presidential candidate), Michelle Bachmann is something I've brought up before. Don't believe me?

July 22nd, Michelle Bachmann is apparently a 'homophobe'. Link. (Never mind that the term 'homophobia' has been found to be an etymologically incorrect term.)

June 27th, They licked their chops over Michelle Bachmann mixing up two towns out in the boondocks of Iowa as to which was the hometown of John Wayne as opposed to the hometown of John Wayne Gacy. Two people, both with 'John Wayne' in their names and both from Iowa? A forgivable offense, I suppose. If the hit piece article's author has ever made reference to Obama's 57 States flub or his Special Olympics fiasco, then I might say that it wasn't prejudiced.

July 11th, Michelle Bachmann is anti-new style light bulb. They put Bachmann's photo front and center on the article despite the fact that numerous elected officials at the federal level and in state legislatures opposed any moves to phase out incandescent light bulbs. But why let that get in the way of the obvious fun they are having at their favorite whipping girl's expense?

July 13th, When a bill concerning incandescent light bulbs fails, Michelle Bachmann's image again is put front and center of the story. Apparently, there is a concerted effort to AGAIN focus on Rep. Bachmann during this particular legislative process.

Which brings us to the most recent example of politically motivated agitprop masquerading as 'commentary' entitled, Growing up in Michele Bachmann's world. I'll just quote one of the more obvious paragraphs for our purposes here...

"Unfortunately, millions of evangelicals – and this would include much of the political base being courted by the GOP presidential candidates as well as the candidates themselves – are trapped in an alternative "parallel culture" with its own standards of truth. The intellectual authorities mentioned above – with the exception of Schaeffer who died in 1984 – all have media empires that spread their particular version of the gospel. Millions of dollars every year support the production of books, DVDs, radio shows, school curricula, and other educational materials. Very few evangelicals grow up without hearing some trusted authority – perhaps even with a PhD – tell them that the age of the Earth is an "open question". Or that scientists are questioning evolution. Or that gays are getting spiritual help and becoming straight. Or that secular historians are taking religion out of US history."

Insofar as the "intellectual authorities mentioned" that appear in the article, a veritable 'who's who' of intellectual boogeymen that the Left despises like poison are trotted out in an attempt to scare the reader into a guitly by association fallacy that is as transparent as it is intellectually dicey. Francis Schaeffer, Henry Morris, Ken Ham, James Dobson, Peter Marshall, and David Barton are all given the intellectual frog-walk/perp-walk in the article, yet at no point are any of the ideas of any of these people presented and deconstructed. They are simply dismissed out of hand as being just plain wrong as if it were a given fact.

They go on to basically state that the age of the earth is somehow settled and yet among geologists the figures range from 4.5 billion years to 6 billion years and I have even heard the figure of 10 billion years offered up when it comes to the dating of certain rocks.

The article further assumes that there aren't scientists that differ with Darwinian evolution and yet there is no mention of the ever growing list of scientists that are in fact skeptical of Darwinism, particularly when it comes to the mechanism of natural selection.

The writer seems incredulous that "gays are getting spiritual help and becoming straight" and is apparently comepletely clueless to the fact that the number one reason that gay men seek to leave the homosexual lifestyle is to heal emotional pain.

I could go on and on dubunking the baseless statements offered up by this rag, but you get the picture. These people apparently have an irrational obsession with Rep. Bachmann (R-MN). But why? They seem to be very afraid of her and all of this bigoted, unfair, and negative publicity turns me off to the point that I might actually vote for her in the primaries even though she might not be my favorite candidate. Practically any of the GOP candidates that are polling over 3% now would do a much better job than Obama and if Bachmann is ticking these people off to the exent that they are obsessing over her to this degree, then she must be doing something right.

Solyndra is just the tip of the iceberg

As the entire Solyndra Energy Scandal is beginning to unravel, it seems that Energy Secretary Steven Chu is admitting that he allowed government money to flow to a financially shaky solar panel firm after it had defaulted on it's loans...

"Energy Secretary Steven Chu acknowledged Thursday making the final decision to allow a struggling solar company to continue receiving taxpayer money after it had technically defaulted on a $535 million federal loan guaranteed by his agency.

Chu spokesman Damien La­Vera said in a statement that the secretary approved the restructuring agreement for Solyndra because it gave the company “the best possible chance to succeed in a very competitive marketplace and put the company in a better position to repay the loan.”

Also Thursday, a law enforcement official confirmed that the criminal probe of Solyndra is focused on whether the company and its officers misrepresented the firm’s finances to the government in seeking the loan or engaged in accounting fraud. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe."

I wish I could say that this is where it ends, but apparently it that isn't the case here. The more one examines the current regime, the more corrupt it appears. Now the Daily Caller is showcasing just how corrupt this regime actually is...

"A Daily Caller investigation has found that in addition to the failed company Solyndra, at least four other solar panel manufacturing companies receiving in excess of $500 million in loan guarantees from the Obama administration employ executives or board members who have donated large sums of money to Democratic campaigns.

And as questions swirl around possible connections between political donations and these preferential financing arrangements, the Obama White House suddenly began deflecting The Daily Caller’s questions on Wednesday to the Democratic National Committee.

Asked Wednesday to comment on the connection between large Democratic donors and Obama administration loan guarantees to the companies they represent, the White House responded to TheDC with a single sentence: “We refer your question to the Democratic National Committee.”

These clowns make Watergate look like peanuts in comparison. Where are Woodward and Bernstein when you need them?

""The Energy Department announced Wednesday that is has finalized more than $1 billion in loan guarantees for two separate solar energy projects." That's the news we had about 50 minutes left in the show. "DOE announced a $737 million loan guarantee to help finance construction of the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, a 110-megawatt solar-power-generating facility in Nye County, Nev. The project is sponsored by Tonopah Solar, a subsidiary of California-based SolarReserve. The Energy Department said the project will result in 600 construction jobs and 45 permanent jobs."

That works out to $16.3 million per permanent job. If you roll in the ancillary jobs, like the construction jobs, that's how you get each job costing $200,000. But the actual permanent jobs in the solar industry will cost between 16 and 23 million dollars each. And I'll tell you what's happening out there. Who was the first person that you can recall characterizing the stimulus bill and all of these things as Obama's slush fund? That's right. It was I, your host, El Rushbo. And now, depending on where you go in the blogosphere, in the media, you will see other people now concluding that all this is is a giant Obama slush fund. This is federal taxpayer dollars being sent to Obama campaign bundlers, donors, and contributors. And then the money comes back, a portion of it comes back to Obama as campaign donations again." Rush Limbaugh September 29th, 2011 Link

More Palestinian Myths

Having blogged before concerning The Myth of the Palestinian People, Dennis Prager flays some other misconseptions concerning Palestinians in light of the recent push for full membership at the U.N. One of the more mind-blowingly stupid tactics proposed by the enemies of Israel is to compare Israel to South Africa during the latter's time of apartheid...

"First, what is an apartheid state? And does Israel fit that definition?

From 1948 to 1994, South Africa, the country that came up with this term, had an official policy that declared blacks second-class citizens in every aspect of that nation's life. Among many other prohibitions on the country's blacks, they could not vote; could not hold political office; were forced to reside in certain locations; could not marry whites; and couldn't even use the same public restrooms as whites.

Not one of those restrictions applies to Arabs living in Israel.

One and a half million Arabs live in Israel, constituting about 20 percent of that country's population. They have the same rights as all other Israeli citizens. They can vote, and they do. They can serve in the Israeli parliament, and they do. They can own property and businesses and work in professions alongside other Israelis, and they do. They can be judges, and they are. Here's one telling example: it was an Arab judge on Israel's Supreme Court who sentenced the former president of Israel – a Jew – to jail on a rape charge.

Some other examples of Arabs in Israeli life: Reda Mansour was the youngest ambassador in Israel's history, and is now consul general at Israel's Atlanta consulate; Walid Badir is an international soccer star on Israel's national team and captain of one of Tel Aviv's major teams; Rana Raslan is a former Miss Israel; Ishmael Khaldi was until recently the deputy consul of Israel in San Francisco; Khaled Abu Toameh is a major journalist with the Jerusalem Post; Ghaleb Majadele was until recently a minister in the Israeli Government. They are all Israeli Arabs. Not one is a Jew.

Arabs in Israel live freer lives than Arabs living anywhere in the Arab world. No Arab in any Arab country has the civil rights and personal liberty that Arabs in Israel enjoy."

Gee, I wonder why we never hear this espoused by the liberal lions of the mainstream media. Must not fit the template of the month. Such organizations that buy into the Israel/apartheid canard truly give credence to what Joseph Goebbels said about repeating a Big Lie often enough.

Special thanks to Israel News for providing such a great picture of Palestinian soldiers showing their true colors.

Largest Study Ever: Abortion increases Mental Health Disorders by 81%

A special thanks to Fr. Longenecker for sharing this article via his blog.

"A new study published today in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that women who underwent an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems. The study also found that almost 10% of all women’s mental health problems are directly linked to abortion.

Conducted by Priscilla K. Coleman, Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University, Ohio, USA, the study was based on an analysis of 22 separate studies and 36 measures of effect, that involved a total of 877,181 participants of whom 163,831 had experienced an abortion. The study took into account pre-existing mental health problems prior to the abortion.

“In order to avoid any allegations of bias,” Dr. Coleman explained, “very stringent inclusion criteria were employed. This means every strong study was included and weaker studies were excluded.

The research revealed that abortion was associated with a 34% increased risk for anxiety disorders; 37% greater risk of depression; 110% greater risk of alcohol abuse and 220% greater risk of marijuana use/abuse.

Abortion was also linked with a 155% greater risk of attempting to commit suicide."

Exactly where are all of the Femi-Nazis to decry such effects on women? Where was the expected Lead Story on any of the MSM outlets? You'll never find any because one should realize by now theat the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is fueled by a yearning for tacit approval by society for a self-indulgent, sloppy lifestyle and has nothing to do with 'women's rights' as the foolhardy are lead to believe.

Above photo from priestsforlife.org, Baby Samuel at 21 weeks grasping the finger of the surgeon operating on his mom's uterus

The Coming Wave of Leftist Bigotry

Cal Thomas has a good article in yesterday's Washington Examiner which lays out how the Left is already bearing it's fangs at two of the early front-runners for the GOP nomination who wear their evangelical faith on their respective sleeves...

"Though anti-Semitism and anti-Catholic bigotry sadly are still with us, the new and "accepted" bigotry among some on the left is for those who call themselves -- or are sometimes mislabeled by people who don't know the difference between born-again and born yesterday -- evangelical Christians.

With two evangelicals running for president, the opening salvo in what is likely to be a God vs. government battle has already been launched. A June 22 article in Rolling Stone magazine gives bigots permission for more bigotry. The illustration by Victor Juhasz, which accompanies it, reveals where the writer is headed.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., is dressed as Joan of Arc with a Bible in one hand, a bloody sword in the other, a cross on her chest, and the "finger of God" pointing at her from heaven.

In the background, people are being burned at the stake. Father Charles Coughlin at his worst would have had trouble topping this on his bigoted radio broadcasts in the 1930s.

Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi says Bachmann is "a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions." One of many examples he cites is her assertion that China is "plotting to replace the dollar bill."

Recently, China's official Xinhua News Agency editorialized in favor of a new global reserve currency, replacing the dollar. Don't look for a retraction.

There's plenty more in "Michele Bachmann's Holy War" on which the bigots can feast. This is the argument of anyone who has little or no faith in God. They attack people who believe the Supreme Being does not sit in the Oval Office."

Add to this the infamous and completely biased cover of Newsweek in which they took the worst possible photograph of Bachmann and splashed the highly tolerant words "Queen of Rage" under it. If you were under any impression that the MSM in this country is anything approaching neutral, you can abandon it now.

Not that it actaully gets any better overseas. The campaign to destroy Michelle Bachmann is at full throttle in the UK and is plainly visible by simply clicking here, here, here, and here. Do democrats as a whole get anywhere near the same scrutiny as Bachmann alone in the pages of The Guardian? No way.

Next, Thomas brings up a recent article that appeared in The New York Times which displays more metaphorical feces being hurled by the left, this time over Governor Rick Perry's (R-TX) beliefs.

"The secular left is also going after Gov. Rick Perry's faith. Writing in the New York Times, Timothy Egan refers to the Texas governor as a "biblical bully" and asks, "Is God listening to Rick Perry?"

Ideas that come from the minds of secular liberals are considered right and good, no matter their track record. Ideas from conservatives, be they secular or especially evangelical, are "bat sh*t crazy," according to Taibbi's scatology.

There is a way to blunt this coming tidal wave of anti-evangelical bigotry. Bachmann and Perry -- and any other Republican who wishes to join in -- should not play on the territory of their opponents.

Instead, they should focus on what works and whose lives have been transformed by embracing similar faith and similar attitudes.

Each time a liberal wants to raise taxes to pay for more programs, Republican candidates should introduce to the public people who liberated themselves from government, as examples for others to follow."

Thomas ends his article by saying that "The bigots, like the poor, will be with us always" and I heartily agree. The bigots are on the move people. Let's not let the arena of public discourse to be drowned out by their bigotry but instead focus the relevant debates on the issues at hand and hang them on the petard of empirical evidence based facts and evidence.


UPDATE: Quite frankly, I'm suprised it took them this long. Apparently Rick Perry does not care about science, however he does have a close relationship with guns.

The Bizarre Form of Tourette's Syndrome of the Left

“I always use the word ‘extreme,’ that’s what the caucus instructed me to do the other week,” Sen. Chuck (you) Schumer (D-NY) 3/29/11

Although by and large, I consider most democrat members of congress (and a few republicans) to be complete moonbats, you have to admire the consistancy of the Left in keeping up their attacks against conservative members of congress. Let's count the ways they demonize the opposition as "extreme", yet are so admirably choreographed to all stay on the same page...

Nancy Pelosi: Republican legislation 'Extreme' 2/11/2011

Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL): Republicans Becoming More Extreme 7/27/11

"The extremism of these people; they're not satisfied with a vote on it, they want a guarantee that it pass before they'll allow an extension of the debt limit. I mean, how bizarre can anyone be?" Senate Majority Leader (Dingy) Harry Reid (D-NV) in debt negotiations with republicans Link, 7/29/2011

"We should not let these extremists dictate direction of debate" Harry Reid again, referring to republicans, 7/25/2011 Link

Harry Reid again, ‘Extremists Have Locked Down This Congress’ 7/29/11

"There are 100 people in the House who don’t care if we default, who are extreme and ideological" The aforementioned Sen. Chuck (You) Schumer (D-NY) re: debt negotiations with republicans 7/25/2011

Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE): Sharon Angle. Christine O'Donnell 'Extreme'

You got that Lemming? Republican=Extreme. No free thought allowed here. We'll tell you what to believe and we merely have to make the accusation, not back it up. You do not have the ability to do your own research on the matter and thus form your own thoughts based on the pertinant information.

On a related note, who here would ever like to be "held hostage"? It's nothing that would particularly interest me, but apparently this is another part of the democrat meme of marginalizing republicans as has been recently well documented...

"STENY HOYER: (rotunda noise) The Republicans are holding hostage the credit of the United States of America.

DEBBIE "BLABBERMOUTH" SCHULTZ: ...our Republican colleagues to hold our economy hostage.

DINGY HARRY: The Republican Party is holding our economy hostage.

CHUCK-U SCHUMER: (rotunda noise) It didn't say, "Hold America hostage."

LOUISE SLAUGHTER: ...hold the debt ceiling hostage.

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: One party is holding the country hostage.

JOHN OLVER: The debt limit has never before been held hostage.

BARBARA LEE: Republicans are holding our economy hostage.

EARL BLUMENAUER: ...willing to take hostage the debt ceiling.

JASON ALTMIRE: Stop holding America's credit rating hostage.

ROSA DeLAURO: The Republican majority continues to hold the American economy hostage.

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Let's not hold the entire American economy hostage.

JOHN LARSON: ...ideological HOSTAGE situation...

LLOYD DOGGETT: The only belt they're really tightening is right around the neck of those hostages.

JAMES CLYBURN: Holding the American economy hostage.

JESSE JACKSON, JR.: This President is being treated differently!

SPEAKER PRO-TEM: (gavel banging)

JACKSON: No other President has been stuck up, shook down, or held hostage"

And on and on it goes. Is it too much to ask that members of congress try to work together without characterizing the opposition as some sort of parody? Apparently so and don't even get me started on Tea Party generalizations

Next we come to the obligatory Taliban references..

Republican Taliban declare Jihad on Obama


Jim Moran (D-VA): GOP is the 'Taliban ticket'


DNC: GOP Has Thrown In With 'Terrorists -- Taliban and Hamas'


Representative Alan Grayson “compared Republicans to the Taliban” in his campaign

Are you getting the entire picture yet? Republicans are the ideological equals to extremist, 9th century throwbacks who utilize improvised explosive devices to implement their agenda through terrorism and who sincerely want to take you hostage.

Such hate-filled hyperbole is so verfiably predominant on the Left, it would be laughable if it were not so counterproductive.

Hemingway Exposing Left-Wing Myths About 'Right-Wing, Extremist Christians'

We have recently discussed on this blog the rapid speed in which the MSM jumped on the "Right-Wing Christian Extremist" bandwagon while the shots were still echoing in Norway following the horrific killing spree of Anders Behring Breivik. Mark Hemingway over at The Weekly Standard is obliterating the worn out templates regularly used by Leftists who will not own up to their own kindred spirits being responsible for some of the most devastating attacks in recent memory. First, Hemingway delves into the mindset of convicted bomber Eric Rudolph (above) who stated, according to USA Today...

"Many good people continue to send me money and books," .. "Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I'm in here I must be a 'sinner' in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame. I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible."

I don't know about you, but I've yet to attend a church in which a reading from the Book of Zarathustra segues neatly into that week's sermon.

Next, Hemingway examines the case of (alleged) Anthrax killer, Bruce Ivins...

"As for alleged Anthrax mailer Bruce Ivins being supposedly motivated by his pro-life, Catholic views -- well, that's a pretty unfounded assertion based on a lot of tenuous and anonymous sources. Further, from what we know about his religious views -- to say nothing of considerable evidence that he was mentally ill -- he wanted the Catholic church to liberalize on the issue of female and married clergy. Not exactly what one thinks of when we discuss extremist religious views."

The article goes on to point out the Leftist leanings of Andrew Joseph Stack who flew his plane into IRS offices in 2010 and holocaust memorial shooter James von Brunn . Next time a tragic event unfolds and the finger is immediately pointed at the Right or Christians, just wait for all of the facts to come in. Bill O'Reilly (who I often disagree with) summed it up rather accurately as to why the Left-wing media so readily pounces on such gross mischaracterizations.

"Two reasons. First, some on the left want to make an equivalency argument between Muslim terrorism and other kinds of violent acts. The Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, was often branded "a right-wing terrorist" in the media*. Terrorism is terrorism the analysis goes. It's not fair to constantly emphasize Muslim terrorism without acknowledging the others. Besides, bad men like George W. Bush hype the Muslim threat and use it to do evil things such as invade Iraq.

The second reason is purely political. The left well understands that Christian opposition to things like abortion, gay marriage and drug legalization makes those liberal causes more difficult to achieve. Thus, anything that diminishes Christianity is fair game to be promoted. Every newsworthy sin committed by a Christian is highlighted with a sneering reference to hypocrisy. Any whiff of Christian intolerance is celebrated in the press.

Breivik did not kill in the name of Jesus. He was not a member of a Christian-based al-Qaida-like group. He was not funded by Iran or enabled by Pakistan. It seems he is simply a murderer, a man devoid of any spiritual conscience, a direct descendant of Cain."

* (And positively, NEVER mentioning the fact that McVeigh would often state that "Science is my Religion")

EDIT: Reuters Labels Norway Terror Suspect as ‘Right-Wing’ 25 Times IN ONE ARTICLE

Norway Killer - Darwinist, not Christian

It seemed like the template was already set to roll by the time the smoke cleared in Norway and Anders Behring Breivik (above) was taken into custody. A 'right-wing Christian fundamentalist' we were told by the left-wing media. However, new evidence is beginning to emerge and the explanation offered earlier might not be that simple...

"A review of Anders Behring Breivik's 1,500-page manifesto shows the media's quick characterization of the Norwegian terrorist as a "Christian" may be as incorrect as it was to call Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh one.

Breivik was arrested over the weekend, charged with a pair of brutal attacks in and near Oslo, Norway, including a bombing in the capital city that killed 7 and a shooting spree at a youth political retreat on the island of Utoya that killed more than 80 victims.

Piecing together Breivik's various posts on the Internet, many media reports have characterized the terrorist – who says he was upset over the multiculturalist policies stemming from Norway's Labour Party – as a "right-wing, Christian fundamentalist."

Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has doubts about God's existence, does not pray, but does assert the primacy of Europe's "Christian culture" as well as his own pagan Nordic culture.

Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: "As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."

The terrorist also candidly admits he finds no support within either the Catholic or Protestant churches for his violent ideas."

Lets monitor this situation closely in order to see if ABCBS/NBCNN even bother to mention this at all.

Understatement of the Year so Far..

".. it probably wasn't the most sensitive thing," UC Irvine spokeswoman,Cathy Lawhon

From the file of "things that you never hear about from the MSM", Nate Jackson reports on the rather interesting choice of dinner fare at UC Irvine's 28th annual Martin Luther King Jr. symposium...

"A last-minute decision to serve fried chicken and waffles at a campus dining hall in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. was a regrettable choice and lacked sensitivity, UC Irvine officials acknowledged Wednesday...

The menu and a sign in the dining hall reading "MLK Holiday Special: Chicken and Waffles" were pulled together at the last minute by a chef and other cafeteria staff members, said UC Irvine spokeswoman Cathy Lawhon.

The culinary choices were made without any university oversight, Lawhon said.

UC Irvine student Ricardo Sparks, the 20-year-old co-chairman of the university's Black Student Union, lodged a formal complaint with the administration.

Sparks said the decision's insensitivity has outraged the student union and other ethnic student organizations on campus.

"It's just another in a long line of small events on our campus that aren't meant to be taken in a certain way, but are at least questionable in their cultural legitimacy," said John Murillo III, director of communications for the Black Student Union.

That the incident occurred during the symposium was especially disappointing, Murillo said.

"It takes all the radicalism and activism that we tried to do with the symposium and then [the cafeteria] serves chicken and waffles and takes away from all the stuff that we did," Murillo said.

Officials at UC Irvine agreed Wednesday that serving chicken and waffles on Martin Luther King Jr. Day was not in "good taste."

I don't recall hearing about this on any of the major networks. Somebody try and tell me if such an incident that reinforces racist stereotypes had occured at Liberty University, Patrick Henry College or Brigham Young that it wouldn't be front page news in Second Coming boldface type and protests galore.