Posts Tagged ‘Christian’

Charleston Church Hate Criminal Victims Were Martyrs For Jesus Christ FAR MORE Than They Were Martyrs For Their Race

June 18, 2015

Dylann Roof is a demon-possessed turd.  Period.  While consistent Darwinism entails a belief in a master race – or let’s at least agree on Charles Darwin’s “favoured race” – all you have to do is take one look at Dylann Roof’s picture and you ought to instantly see that if there IS such a thing as a “master race,” well, a turd like Dylann Roof clearly doesn’t belong to it.

Is he a racist?  I don’t doubt it for a second.  But he didn’t just go to some black nightclub or one of many other places where he could have found a group of black people; he went to a CHRISTIAN CHURCH and he went to a BIBLE STUDY and PRAYER MEETING and the people he murdered were all CHRISTIANS.

Those murdered Christians aren’t merely “victims”; they’re MARTYRS of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It’s a hate crime, all right.  But it’s yet another hate crime against CHRISTIANS during a time when more Christians are being martyred today than at any time in a history in which millions of Christians have been martyred.

Christianity ALONE unites people:

After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. — Revelation 7:9

The Word of God ensures and assures us of the same thing over and over again.  Race is NOTHING.  We can all be BROTHERS and SISTERS in Jesus Christ:

  • Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. — Colossians 3:11
  • For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile–the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on Him — Romans 10:12
  • There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

We have the testimony of St. Peter who visited the home of a Gentile named Cornelius and said to the crowd of Gentiles that were gathered there:

He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. — Acts 10:28

As for the people who are making this murder all about race or all about guns, well, they are only serving to perpetuate the very sorts of hatreds and divisions that motivated Dylann Roof to begin with.  Such people are exploiting this tragic event to politicize it as a cynical means to stir up their base and pit one group of people against another in a hope of a “fifty-percent-plus-one” strategy.

If you are hurting by the division and the hate and the violence, I know THE ONLY PLACE where you can find unity and love and peace – in the Prince of Peace, in Jesus.

The Christian men and women massacred by Dylann Roof knew that unity and love and peace.  Which is why they welcomed him into their midst to share their Precious Savior Jesus with him.

And they died for it.  And they will be richly rewarded in heaven for their sacrifice.

The dead would far rather have been known as “Christians” than as “black people.”  These precious saints will all inherit a martyr’s crown for what they suffered for the name of Jesus.  Don’t you dare try to take that away from them.

I just wanted to point that out.  Because the mainstream media has entirely omitted that fact.

Advertisements

Sick ‘God Damn America’ Culture Mocking Christians In God-Damn America

November 4, 2011

“The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom was plunged into darkness. Men gnawed their tongues in agony and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done” — Revelation 16:10-11

It’s God damn America now.  What else do you expect?

What follows is just a rather typical days’ events in God damn America:

Why the heck do we hate Tim Tebow?
Updated Nov 3, 2011 12:48 PM ET

What if Tim Tebow were a Muslim?

Imagine for a second, the Denver Broncos quarterback is a devout follower of Islam, sincere and principled in his beliefs and thus bowed toward Mecca to celebrate touchdowns. Now imagine if Detroit Lions players Stephen Tulloch and Tony Schefflermockingly bowed towards Mecca, too, after tackling him for a loss or scoring a touchdown, just like what happened Sunday.

I know what would happen. All hell would break loose.

Stinging indictments issued by sports columnists. At least a few outraged religious leaders chiming in on his behalf. Depending on what else had happened that day, they might have a chance at becoming Keith Olbermann’s Worst Person In The World.

And there would be apologies. Oh Lord, would there be apologies — by players, by coaches, possibly by ownership with a tiny chance of a statement from NFL commish Roger Goodell.

You cannot mock Muslim faith, not in this country, not anywhere really.

It is primarily a respect issue, because religion is sacred and should be off limits. Yet when Tulloch and Scheffler dropped to a knee to mock how Tebow prays — an action known as “Tebowing” that has gone viral in the public too — we yawned and told Christians to lighten up. We blamed Tebow for making a show of honoring God rather than himself in moments of joy. We excused them because Tulloch said he was mocking Tebowing, not God.

Tim Tebow, Denver BroncosTim Tebow has been the butt of many jokes, on and off the field.Joe Mahoney

Because ridiculing a man who chooses to honor God is so much better, right?

His religious fervor is an easy target for the vitriol spewed from those who dislike him, but the reasons are much deeper than that. From his advocacy of abstinence to his infamous “You will never see another team play this hard” speech at Florida, it is like he is too good to be true. He is too nice, and thereby we want him to trip up so we can feel better. We want him to be revealed as a hypocrite, and when that fails to happen, we settle for gleefully celebrating his failures on the football field. And why? Because he dares to say thanks?

I keep telling myself I am done with this Tebow debate only to be drawn offside, this time by a Lions player I had never heard of and a viral web meme that sprouted this week that had fans flooding an ESPN story’s comments section with viciously funny, yet downright mean and very sacrilegious quips of the “X > Tebow” formula.

What this whole repeating cycle of Tebow — rip his game, mock his faith, rise to his defense, repeat — has revealed about religious discourse in America is ugly. We have become so enamored of politically correct dogma that we protect every minority from even the slightest blush of insensitivity while letting the very institutions that the majority holds dear to be ridiculed. And this defense that Tebow invites such scrutiny with his willingness to publicly live as he privately believes calls into question what exactly it is we value.

One of the things Boomer Esiason got right in his vicious takedown on Tebow as a quarterback on a radio show earlier this week was how personal the criticism is. A good many NFL players and fans seem to be rooting for this guy to be a massive failure.

I could not figure out what was causing this onslaught of venom for a guy almost everybody claims to like, and I finally decided it is more about us. He makes us uncomfortable. He is a reminder that the blue-red, liberal-conservative fight over taking God out of everyday life is intellectually dishonest. He is too good.

Tebow is proof that God goes comfortably into whatever arena of your life you wish to take Him. I used to work with a great guy, Simon Gonzalez, a very devout Christian, and he prayed before every meal. Others would be killing free press meals and he would stop, bow his head and silently say thanks. He was not making a spectacle of his beliefs. He believed that God deserved thanks for what was before him, and not just when convenient for Simon. And people would squirm — not because what he was doing was wrong, but because it was right. It is the same for Tebow.

There is no organized prayer led by Goodell before every game and no mandate for a post-touchdown prayer. Players such as Tebow — and he certainly is not alone in his belief and faith in the league — do so because consciences request it.

That others chose to mock — and Tulloch is in good company with many journalists I call friends and web posters with a wicked sense of humor — reminds me very much of the final line of The Paradoxical Commandments so often attributed to Mother Teresa. “You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and God; it was never between you and them anyway.”

And everybody is getting dropped in the grease on this one.

The defenses of Tebow, by Christians, are so ugly it defeats the point. This is where Christianity so often loses people, the ardent preaching of the gospel of “I’m Right, You’re Wrong” and the demand for tolerance and the unwillingness to grant it. Because if Tebow were Muslim and did celebrate by bowing to Mecca, that would deserve respect too. Same for a Jewish player, yet why do I see that blowing up into an ugly mess as well? The level of discourse about religion in this country is frankly embarrassing, a bastard child of political discourse.

The only one who looks good in all this — maybe too good for some — is Tebow.

I find it especially telling that Tebow rarely lectures and does not fight back. He did not create Tebowing, nor is he responsible for it blowing up hipster style. It was kind of cool, I thought, after hearing a kid had said he was “Tebowing” while getting chemo.

He is just a guy with the good sense to say thanks. Instead of taking his cue, we mock his faith.

And that says more about us, none of it good.

Meanwhile our president mocks Republicans for passing a measure to continue to honor God.

This is the president who literally (and repeatedly) stripped God out of the Declaration of Independence.  This is the president who edited Jesus out of Easter.  This is the president who called America “one of the largest Muslim countries of the world” even as he explicitly denies that America is or ever was a Christian nation.  This is the president who flat-out ridiculed the Bible as the inspired Word of God even as he called the Muslim call to prayer “one of the prettiest sounds on earth.”  This is the president who has turned his back on Israel and who serves as the Antichrist’s useful idiot.  This is the president whose reverend and spiritual mentor for over 20 years said, “No, no, no.  Not God bless America.  God DAMN America.”

This is God damn America.  And America is getting what it voted for.

Bring it on, God.  Do your worst to us.  Make it hot and dry or freezing and wet.  Send us earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes.  Take away our economy.  Undermine us everywhere at everything.  What used to be the most blessed and most prosperous and most Christian nation on the planet is now defying You at every turn.

America is the baby-murdering land that we love that pats itself on the back for exterminating 54 million innocent human babies in the abortion mills.

Burn America, BURN And let Obama’s fellow fascist liberals help you burn:

We’re asking for it.  We’re pleading for Your wrath.  We’re DEMANDING Your wrath.  Bring it on!

WHY Does Mainstream Media Propaganda Brand Norway Killer Breivik As A ‘Christian’ And A ‘Right-Wing Radical’?

July 26, 2011

Is Anders Behring Breivik a “Christian”?  Not so much, it turns out.

Not that facts stop the mainstream media propaganda machine from attacking the religion they hate more than any other (that’s YOU, Jesus):

Monday, July 25, 2011
Lamestream Media Lets Norwegian Terrorist Define Christianity, then Link Him to Sarah Palin!

The lamestream media is tripping all over itself to pin “Christian fundamentalist” on Anders Breivik’s murderous terror spree in Norway.  Of course to do so, the lamestream media had to make a decision to ignore the terrorist’s
own manifesto.  In it, he claims he wants to launch a “crusade” against those who would destroy Europe’s traditional institutions, which he rightly points out are the product of Christian civilization.  However, he further states that it is not necessary (!!!) to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior to qualify under his definition for the word “Christian”.  Or in the words of Breivik’s manifesto:

“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.” (source)

So apparently, if you are an European atheist who wants to continue to enjoy the political and cultural benefits of Christianity, in Anders Breivik’s terrorist world that makes you a “Christian”.  And if you murder a bunch of people in the name of Christianity, that makes you an even better “Christian”.   Of course, it goes without saying that the lamestream media will jump at every opportunity to smear Christianity, so they are running with the terrorist’s definition of what constitutes the same without any context or opposing points of view.

Now if the terrorist turned out to be a Muslim, and murdered all those people in the name of Allah, you can bet the lamestream media would be breathlessly filling their rags full of Muslim apologetics explaining why it’s impossible for a true Muslim to commit acts of terror because “Islam is a religion of peace.”

And wouldn’t you know it, the revolutionaries masquerading as the media are now trying to link the murder spree in Norway —and— the murder spree in Arizona that left six people dead and thirteen more wounded to–yep, you guessed it–Sarah Palin.

Jesus and Sarah Palin.  Public enemies number one and two on the left’s hit list.

We find out that Breivik’s link to “Christianity” was manufactured AFTER THE FACTSee that proof here.

The UK Guardian correctly points out that:

The Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, who shot dead more than 90 young socialists at their summer camp on Friday after mounting a huge bomb attack on the centre of Oslo, has been described as a fundamentalist Christian. Yet he published enough of his thoughts on the internet to make it clear that even in his saner moments his ideology had nothing to do with Christianity but was based on an atavistic horror of Muslims and a loathing of “Marxists”, by which he meant anyone to the left of Genghis Khan.

See more here.

Jesus told us that we must be born again through faith in Him (see John 3:1-16).  He told us that He is the Living Water Who alone can quench our thirst for life (see John 4:5-26).  Jesus was clearly not speaking about “Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform”; He was speaking about a personal transformation in Him and through Him.

Liberals argue that Breivik says he is a Christian and therefore he’s a Christian.  I wonder if they would affirm their logic if I said I was a liberal and then went on a murder spree.  Would my claiming I was a liberal be enough to vilify liberalism even though I don’t believe in any of the key elements of liberalism?  I have a feeling it wouldn’t work that way.  What if I started calling myself a New York Times reporter?  Would that mean I am one?  So the fact that the Bible and 2,000 years of orthodox Christian tradition that affirms that one needs to have a personal encounter with Jesus Christ in order to be saved (which is what makes you a “Christian”) ought to be important.  Ought it not?

To make a further distinction between Christianity and Islam, Islam literally IS following a set of rules.  And this is not an attack against Islam; Muslims themselves would affirm this.  You do not pray and receive Allah or Muhammad into your heart.  There is no theology of being personally filled with the Spirit of Allah within Islam.  Nor do Muslims call Allah their “Father.”  Christianity is not “acting” a certain way; the Christian life only begins after receiving Jesus Christ by faith and not by works (Ephesians 2;8-10).  You receive a new life in Christ.  Or you are NOT a “Christian.”

Anders Behring Breivik specifically denies that he has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.  But Jesus said, “I am the Good Shepherd.  I know My own and My own know Me” (John 10:14).  He is not a Christian.

The mainstream media is simply profoundly dishonest and depraved in refusing to treat Christianity in terms of its own central claims.

The second thing the mainstream media has routinely done is link Anders Behring Breivik to the “far right” and describe him as a “right-wing radical.”

First of all, this is a tactic that LEFT-wing “journalists” have been employing since they were taught by their communist handlers.  As I pointed out in a previous article:

To put it briefly, the communist Soviet intellectuals – and all leftist Western intellectuals influenced by them – created a false dichotomy between fascism and communism.  Zeev Sternhall observed how study of fascist ideology had been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 316].  Marxism simply redefined fascism as its polar opposite in order to create a bogeyman: If Marxism was progressive, fascism became conservative.  If Marxism was left wing, fascism had to be right wing.  If Marxism championed the proletariat, then fascism had to champion the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism was socialist, fascism needed to be capitalist.  And the fact that none of the above was even remotely true was entirely beside the point.

“Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”

As Gene Edward Veith points out:

“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist  socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist  national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.   [And in fact, Both movements were “revolutionary socialist ideologies.”   Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both  attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special  appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as  workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the  free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  [And finally,]  Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.   They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best  of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

And if the Nazis didn’t represent the far left, they were at best the right wing of the extreme left wing.

Hate and intolerance is bad, therefore leftwing media propagandists define it as “Christian.”  And racism is bad, therefore leftwing media propagandists define it as “right-wing.”

Here’s a brief summary of a McClatchy article that ran on page 1 of the Los Angeles Times on Monday, July 25:

far-right extremists … far-right and anti-immigrant parties … right-wing fanatics … far-right groups … a right-wing extremist … right-wing political muscle … Right-wing radicals … right-wing activism … right-wing extremists …  Far-right radicals … far-right extremist communities … far-right groups in Sweden, Russia and other parts of Europe …

Well, tell us your opinion.  Do you think this loon maybe came from the political right???

Other than one assertion after another, there is not a single shred of evidence that Breivik was “right-wing” rather than “left-wing.”  It’s really just assumed.  I mean, after all, the guy was a racist and he was anti-immigrant.  What more do you need?  It’s the same bogeyman-building project we’ve seen for going on a hundred years: “If Marxism was progressive, fascism became conservative.”  The left is good, so the right must be evil.  And “reporters” can assign whatever is negative to them.  The right is bad by definition.  And said definition was created by the left, so you can know it’s legitimate.

Well, is it the “right-wing” that’s racist?

An SEIU Union VP said:

I’ve organized huge numbers of conversations among workers about immigration, comprehensive immigration reform.  And there is significant worker opposition to comprehensive immigration reform.  And, appallingly, among African-Americans.  People have gone overtime in trying to organize a battle royale – right? – for the country between African-Americans and Latinos on this whole issue.  So I’ve got a feeling it’s got some legs. […]

On white workers, I think we’ve got some real problems. I’ve spent a lot of time in Wisconsin and places like that where I have heard some of the most anti-immigrant sentiments around. It’s also, and this is where you get the black workers first; it’s so fucking rabidly racist – ’till black people get scared.  They don’t just mean you.  So you can organize them quicker.”

“F-ing rabidly racist,” huh?  But wait a minute.  The SEIU couldn’t BE more “left-wing.”  Remember Andy Stern and his “Workers of the world unite – it’s not just a slogan anymore.  It’s the way we’re gonna have to do our work”???

Labor unions have ALWAYS been left-wing.  But lo and behold, they have also ALWAYS been racist:

By giving labor unions the monopoly power to exclusively represent employees in a workplace, the Wagner Act had the effect of excluding blacks, since the dominant unions discriminated against blacks. The Wagner Act had originally been drafted with a provision prohibiting racial discrimination. But the American Federation of Labor successfully lobbied against it, and it was dropped. AFL unions used their new power, granted by the Wagner Act, to exclude blacks on a large scale. Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, and Marcus Garvey were all critical of compulsory unionism.

Democrats were the party of slavery, and the party of the Klu Klux Klan (and see the link here for a thorough treatment).  They were the party of the Klanbake at the 1924 Democrat National Convention.

Let’s see how that trend has continued.  In the fact that the last politician who had not only been IN the Ku Klux Klan, but a Grand Wizard, was a DEMOCRAT who continued to SERVE as a Democrat until his death last year.

Or how about more recently, in former President Bill Clinton:

Bill Clinton helped sink his wife’s chances for an endorsement from Ted Kennedy by belittling Barack Obama as nothing but a race-based candidate.

“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,”the former president told the liberal lion from Massachusetts, according to the gossipy new campaign book, “Game Change.”

The book says Kennedy was deeply offended and recounted the conversation to friends with fury.

After Kennedy sided with Obama, Clinton reportedly griped, “the only reason you are endorsing him is because he’s black. Let’s just be clear.”

Or for that matter in Hillary Clinton, at least according to liberal Obama supporter Michael Pfleger, preaching in Obama’s own church:

“When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always  thought, ‘this is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white, and this is mine. I just gotta get up and step into the plate.’

Then out of nowhere, ‘I’m Barack Obama!’

Imitating Hillary’s response, screaming at the top of his lungs again, he continues, ‘Ah, damn! Where did you come from? I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show!’”

And how about liberal protestors who first called the Tea Party “racist” and then said of Clarence Thomas:

Quote from liberal protestor about black Justice Clarence Thomas: “Put him back in the fields  He’s a scumbag.  He’s a dumbshit scumbag.  Put him back in the fields.  [And what about Justice Samuel Alito?]  Alito should go back to Sicily.”

Another liberal “Common Cause” protestor took that racist ball and ran down the field.  Of black Justice Clarence Thomas she said, “String him up” [as in “Lynch him!”].  Another liberal said of Justice Thomas: “I dunno, ’cause I’m all about peace, but I would say torture.”

Like this, maybe?

Yeah, you string that black man up, liberals.  You torture him.  You put his “kind” back in the fields where they belong.  You use your organizational power as a labor union to keep him down and out of a job.  He ought to be serving coffee, not running for president.  Hillary Clinton ought to be president, because after all, she’s WHITE and ENTITLED.

Here’s another very recent example of racist bias and the left versus the right:

Juan Williams’ Wife: NPR Liberals Are Hypocrites
Wednesday, 20 Jul 2011 11:34 AM
By Ronald Kessler

Delise Williams, the wife of Fox News contributor Juan Williams, tells Newsmax that “so-called liberals” at NPR treated her — a light-skinned African-American — as if she didn’t exist.

“The NPR people were hypocrites because they are supposed to be the liberals who are accepting of all kinds of people and inclusive, and they were the most exclusive group in my experience of going to events related to work that I have ever seen,” says Delise, a former social worker who is the daughter of a doctor.

Juan Williams’ book “Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate” hits bookstores next week. It reveals that for years before NPR fired him, NPR executives harassed him over what he did or did not say on the air.

NewsmaxTV interviewed Juan about the book, including how Fox News President Roger Ailes expanded Juan’s role at Fox and made sure he would not suffer a pay cut because NPR had fired him over what he had said on Fox.

In the meantime, Delise says that she and Juan were the only blacks at NPR parties, a point confirmed by Juan. In general, both say, African-Americans were found only in low level jobs such as security guards.

So other than – to paraphrase that SEIU Vice President, “fucking rabidly left-wing” pseudo-journalism – why on earth would ANYBODY with even a scintilla of objectivity assume that just because someone is racist or anti-immigrant, they must therefore be “right-wing”???

These “journalists” and “reporters” are biased to the cores of their shriveled little cockroach souls.  They have been playing this same dishonest flagrently biased game for so long it is unreal.

If you read them and assign them any credibility at all, you are filling your own soul with lies.  And it is long-passed time for you to quit stupidly and naively filling your soul with blatant lies and propaganda.

Barack Obama Loves Racist Anti-American Preachers. And That Should Tell You Who He Really Is

April 27, 2011

Let’s consider the preachers that Obama likes:

Jeremiah Wright, he of “No, no, no.  Not God bless America, God DAMN America!” fame.

Of Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor for 23 years, two things can definitively be said: 1) Jeremiah Wright is an admitted racist and Marxist; and 2) Barack Obama followed in his mentor’s footsteps.

Then there was Reverend Pfleger:

“… expose white entitlement. And supremacy, wherever it raises its head. I said before, I really don’t want ot make this political, because you know I’m really very unpolitical.

When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, ‘this is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white, and this is mine. I just gotta get up and step into the plate.’

Then out of nowhere, ‘I’m Barack Obama!’

Imitating Hillary’s response, screaming at the top of his lungs again, he continues, ‘Ah, damn! Where did you come from? I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show!’

(mocks crying)

She wasn’t the only one crying, there was a whole lot of white people crying!”

And then we had Reverend James Meeks:

Described in a 2004 Chicago Sun Times article as someone Barack Obama regularly seeks out for “spiritual counsel”, James Meeks, who will serve as an Obama delegate at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver, is a long-time political ally to the democratic frontrunner.

When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2003, he frequently campaigned at Salem Baptist Church while Rev. Meeks appeared in television ads supporting the Illinois senator’s campaign…

Since that time, not only has Meeks himself served on Obama’s exploratory committee for the presidency and been listed on the Obama’s campaign website as one of the senator’s ‘influential black supporters’, but his church choir was called on to raise their voices in praise at a rally the night Obama announced his run for the White House back in 2007.

Interestingly, the Chicago Sun Times has also reported that both Meeks and Obama share a history of substantial campaign contributions from indicted real estate magnate Tony Rezko.

[JAMES MEEKS, REVEREND] “We don’t have slave masters. We got mayors. But they still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able, or to be educated.  You got some preachers that are house niggers. You got some elected officials that are house niggers. And rather than them trying to break this up, they gonna fight you to protect this white man.”

This man appeared in Obama campaign commercials. He served on Obama campaign committees. Obama campaigned at his church. Obama sought him out for “spiritual counsel” and political support.

And we had Obama’s next replacement for racist spiritual adviser Jeremiah Wright, Jim Wallis:

The United States of America was established as a white society, founded upon the genocide of another race and then the enslavement of yet another. […]

What has not changed is the systematic and pervasive character of racism in the United States and the condition of life for the majority of African Americans. In fact, those conditions have gotten worse.

Now we’ve got Dr. Wallace Charles Smith:

James Parker at WRNO-FM in New Orleans did some digging yesterday about Shiloh Baptist’s pastor, Dr. Wallace Charles Smith. Not only did he find that Smith loves to preach on race, but he noticed Smith even infused race into yesterday’s Easter sermon:

One has to dig into the blog notes from various reporters to piece together the content from the sermon.  Aside from the First Couple being honored guests, Pastor Wallace Charles Smith also announces that his 4 week old grandson is attending church for the first time, and a pool reporter noted an interesting perspective on the infant:

“[Pastor Smith] talked about how his baby grandson’s gurgling is actually “talking” because he is saying ‘I am here … they tried to write me off as 3/5 a person in the Constitution, but I am here right now … and is saying I am not going to let anybody from stopping me from being what God wants me to be.’”

 

Parker asks the obvious questions:

The pastor hears American institutional racism in a baby’s gurgle?  Do most people with infants hear Constitutional bigotry in their baby’s gibberish?  Did any mention of the 3/5 clause or racism in general make it into the Easter service you attended?  Is this pastor’s amazing leap from a baby bark to white oppression another coincidence to add to the list, or has he established a pattern of race baiting and white bashing in the past?

And Parker posts a sermon posted on Youtube to document that this was (to paraphrase liberally biased PBS), a “seriously racist, racist preacher” that Obama should have known to avoid like a particularly contagious leper.

Let me begin with his “three-fifths” screed.  It is a lie that this was intended as a racist statement or to promote racism.  The simple fact of the matter was that this was inserted into the Constitution to prevent the United States from having slavery forever, and if men like Wallace Charles Smith are in any way glad that they are not STILL slaves today, they should thank God that our founding fathers came up with that “three-fifths” compromise.

Take a moment to do something that no pseudo-liberal intellectual will never do: learn history.  The “three-fifths” compromise was intended to LIMIT the political power of slave states.  Slave-owning states wanted their slaves FULLY counted in order to maximize their political clout and so protect themselves from ever having slavery banned.  States that did NOT want slavery at ALL wanted to not count slaves at ALL.  The “three-fifths” thing had everything to do with representation and the number of racist pro-slavery congressional representatives a pro-slavery state could get on the basis of its slave population, and nothing whatsoever to do with the ontology of black peole as “human beings.”

If you want to argue that it was about ontolological status, then you are in the rather miserable position of saying that people who wanted blacks to be slaves are the good guys, and that people who wanted to abolish slavery are the bad guys.  It turns you into a moral idiot of the worst possible stripe.

But that is precisely the point: Wallace Charles Smith, Reverend Pfleger, Jeremiah Wright, Jim Wallace, James Meeks, and most definitely Barack Obama who keeps intentionally surrounding himself with these vile people are seething racists who hate and despise America and everything this nation stands for.

It is an amazing thing to have a president who hates me personally on account of my race, and who hates the nation that he was elected to lead and to represent.  But that is precisely what we have in Barack Obama.  That much ought to be blatantly obvious by now.

Finally, although what is above ought to be proof positive enough, Barack Obama is very definitely no Christian on any legitimate understanding of Christianity.  Allow me to simply quote myself from yesterday:

 in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country …” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”
 
What does Jesus say?  Consider Matthew 16:24-25:
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If any one (individual) wishes to come after Me, he (individual) must deny himself (individual), and take up his (individual) cross and follow Me.  For whoever wishes to save his (individual) life will lose it; but whoever loses his (individual) life for My sake will find it.
 
Consider 2 Corinthians 5:10 for the thoughts of St. Paul:
 
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one (individual) may be recompensed for his (individual) deeds in the body, according to what he (individual) has done, whether good or bad.
 
And again, St. Paul in Romans 14:12:
 
So then each one of us (individual) will give an account of himself (individual) to God.
 
Or consider Galatians 2:20:
 
“I (individual) have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I (individual) who live, but Christ lives in me (individual); and the life which I (individual) now live in the flesh I (individual) live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me (individual), and delibered Himself up for me (individual).”
 
And, again, in the words of Jesus as recorded in Revelation 3:20:
 
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock.  If any one (individual)  hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him (individual) and will dine with him (individual), and he (individual) with Me.”
 
Barack Obama is most certainly not a Christian to so miserably misunderstand that we are EACH INDIVIDUALLY saved by our PERSONAL faith in Jesus Christ through what He did for us on the cross.  This is not some esoteric “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” sort of question; it is a core fundamental of the Christian faith.

We are in God damn America.  And as bad as things are now, they will continue to get worse and worse until Obama is finally no longer able to hurt America with his ruinous worldview and the ruinous policies that derive from that worldview.

Cokie Roberts Says We Hate Obama Because He’s Black (But Then Why Do We So Despise YOU, Cokie?)

April 26, 2011

File this one under the category “Stupid liberal tricks.”

It is pulled out all the time, because liberals are people who have no possibility of debating on the level of ideas, and can therefore only demonize and race-bait.

Last year, I responded to the same exact charge from Jimmy Carter the same exact way: “Question For Jimmy Carter: If We Despise Obama Because Of Racism, Why Is It That We Despise YOU?”

But here we go again, another liberal ideologue who assumes that just because she can’t get over her own personal issues of racism, neither can her opponents whom she projects upon:

Because They Can’t Say ‘I Don’t Like Him Cause He’s Black’
By Noel Sheppard | April 24, 2011 | 12:06

ABC devoted its entire “This Week” on Easter Sunday to “God and Government,” and not surprisingly the question of President Obama’s faith prominently entered the discussion.

When it did, Cokie Roberts said, “The bad part about this is that it’s acceptable to say that he’s a Muslim because the same people won’t say, ‘I don’t like him cause he’s black'” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

STEVE ROBERTS: The word Muslim is a code word, and it’s a metaphor. It’s a metaphor for racism. It’s a metaphor for he’s different from us, he’s not like us, he’s got this funny name, which he says all the time. And it is – and he’s an alien on some level. But this goes back to our earlier discussion, that there has always been a strain of America that wants to exclude the other. Exclude someone who’s different…

(CROSSTALK)

COKIE ROBERTS: But – but – but the bad part about this…

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS, S.: But in the long run, the forces of…

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS, C.: Right. But – but…

(CROSSTALK)

RICHARD LAND, SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION: Forty seven percent of white people voted for him.

Actually, it’s 43 percent, but still a spectacular point by Land that most on the panel missed and most in the country ignore. They also forget that shortly after his inauguration, Obama’s favorability rating was around 75 percent. That includes a lot of white people as well.

What the media just can’t get their hands around is that disapproval of Obama today isn’t because he’s black – it’s because of his policies. Or do the 70 percent of the country that now believe the nation is on the wrong track also feel this way because the President is black?

ROBERTS, C.: But – but the bad part about this is that he – that – that it’s acceptable to say that he’s a Muslim…

EBOO PATEL, INTERFAITH YOUTH CORE: That’s right.

ROBERTS, C.: …because the same people won’t – won’t say, “I don’t like him cause he’s black.” So it’s – it’s – and – and the fact that it’s acceptable to dislike him because he’s a Muslim is the problem that you were talking about.

Calling Americans racist, despite there being an African-American in the White House, is acceptable on Easter Sunday.

I doubt I’m the only one that felt this was highly inappropriate on such a holy day.

So why is it that I think you’re a total disgrace, Cokie?  I mean, you’re white and everything.  Why is it, based on your racist theories, that I think that an obviously quite-caucasian-person like you is utterly morally depraved???

 I would rather appreciate it if liberals would search through my blog for liberals like Jimmy Carter, or Nancy Pelosi, or Barbara Boxer, or Harry Reid, or Alan Grayson.  And maybe you can do a pull-quote where I say, “I can’t agree with __________’s politics, but he/she happens to be white, so I like him/her.”
 
I could care less about Obama’s melatonin level.  It’s the color of his ideology I can’t stand.  Same as with you, Ms. Roberts.
 
Cokie Roberts and this Steve Roberts are racists.  They are racial demagogues.  They falsely use the issue of race to attack their opponents.  They are among the very worst human beings in America.  Because if you don’t agree with them in their politics, they will stoop to the lowest and most loathsome tactics to paint you in the most hateful way they know how.
 
I like Clarence Thomas, when I know you can’t stand him, Cokie.  Same goes for tremendous (and black) men like Herman Cain and Allen West.  You can’t stand these black men.  And they are actually considerably “blacker” than Barack Obama.  And going by your own “logic,” I can only conclude that it must be because you are a racist.
 
You are poisonous, vile people.  Frankly, it never would have even OCCURRED to me to think that disliking a politician from the “other party” was due to racism, but you racist bigoted people just keep forcing me to apply your own twisted and perverted standards back at you.
 
It is crap like this that explains why I don’t bother to watch ABC unless they have something like the NBA playoffs on (which somehow I love to watch even though there seem to be an awful lot of black people).  I mean, how much is it worth to hear Cokie Roberts look into my mind from the other side of the television camera and attempt to diagnose my mental states?  You know, when I know that a) she hates me; and b) that she is a fundamentally dishonest and venemous person???  You know, even in spite of the fact that she’s white and all.
 
I like black people just fine, Cokie.  It’s people who think and speak like you I can’t stand.  And I don’t care what color your skin happens to be.
 
For the record, I have never said Oama is a Muslim.  If anything, I think Barack Obama’s god is Barack Obama.
 
I DO know that he is most certainly no Christian:
 in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country …” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”
 
What does Jesus say?  Consider Matthew 16:24-25:
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If any one (individual) wishes to come after Me, he (individual) must deny himself (individual), and take up his (individual) cross and follow Me.  For whoever wishes to save his (individual) life will lose it; but whoever loses his (individual) life for My sake will find it.
 
Consider 2 Corinthians 5:10 for the thoughts of St. Paul:
 
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one (individual) may be recompensed for his (individual) deeds in the body, according to what he (individual) has done, whether good or bad.
 
And again, St. Paul in Romans 14:12:
 
So then each one of us (individual) will give an account of himself (individual) to God.
 
Or consider Galatians 2:20:
 
“I (individual) have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I (individual) who live, but Christ lives in me (individual); and the life which I (individual) now live in the flesh I (individual) live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me (individual), and delibered Himself up for me (individual).”
 
And, again, in the words of Jesus as recorded in Revelation 3:20:
 
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock.  If any one (individual)  hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him (individual) and will dine with him (individual), and he (individual) with Me.”
 
Barack Obama is most certainly not a Christian to so miserably misunderstand that we are EACH INDIVIDUALLY saved by our PERSONAL faith in Jesus Christ through what He did for us on the cross.  This is not some esoteric “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” sort of question; it is a core fundamental of the Christian faith.
 
And if you need further confirmation that Obama’s “Christian faith” is nothing more than a leftwing political ideology masquerading as religion, consider the hateful racist preacher he chose to listen to on Easter Morning when the rest of us were celebrating Jesus’ Resurrection.
 
The “Muslim” thing is a red herring.  To the extent that some “conservative” is wrong to call Obama a “Muslim,” liberals are every bit as factually incorrect to call Obama a “Christian.”
 
Then there’s the fact that Obama has largely brought the “Muslim” label on himself:
 

OBAMA: And what was the first thing the McCain?s campaign went out and did? They said, look, these liberal blogs that support Obama are out there attacking Governor Palin.

Let’s not play games. What I was suggesting — you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you’re absolutely right that that has not come–

STEPHANOPOULOS: Christian faith.

OBAMA: — my Christian faith.

 
You see, I’ve made a lot of gaffes in my day.  But I have never even once in my entire life inadvertainly called myself a Muslim.  That doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s a Muslim, but it definitely at least means that he doesn’t hold his “Christian faith” very firmly.
 
Just this past Sunday (which was Easter for you liberals who don’t give a damn about the day we celebrate the bodily Resurrection of Christ from the dead), Obama amazingly refused to give an Easter statement.  By contrast, Obama has released plenty of statements honoring Muslim holy days:
 
Barack Obama released statements for the Muslims holidays of Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, the Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha last year. Just last month he released a statement for the Persian Nowruz holiday
 
So it’s like when it comes to being accused of being a Muslim, Obama – at the very least – puts a great big giant “PLEASE KICK ME!” sign on his own pants, and then cries in outrage and shock every time somebody dares to kick him in the pants.  And then there’s all these mainstream media propagandists just following Obama around hoping that somebody kicks him in the pants so they can cry foul.
 
In the end, I never cease to be shocked at just how unrelentingly biased and hostile these “objective” journalists are to conservatives.  And frakly, if so-called “journalists” like Cokie Roberts simply had the integrity to come out and say, “I am a rabid leftwing ideologue, and I’d like to tell you what I think,” they would be far more interesting.
 

Liberal Religions Forced To Confront The Dodo-Bird Effect Of Progressivism

April 18, 2011

There was a “Far Side” cartoon that makes all the more sense to me now.  A dinosaur was standing at the podium in front of a large auditorium full of dinosaurs.  And he was explaining, “We’re facing a serious crisis, gentlemen.  The world’s climates are changing, mammals are eating our eggs, and we have brains the size of a walnut.”

The religious side of liberalism is every bit as bankrupt as the political side, and the constantly shrinking membership bears that spiritual, moral and intellectual bankruptcy out.

I saw an article in the Los Angeles Times about liberal Judaism that brought out the fact that liberal “Judaism” was as much a Dodo bird as liberal “Christianity.”  During the same week I spoke to a “Catholic” I frequently chatted with who – after telling me he was a “radical liberal” who believed in abortion and socialized medicine – proceeded to tell me that he utterly rejected the virgin birth of Christ.  Which is of course a central defining belief of orthodox/traditional Catholicism.  And that prompted me to do some thinking about these so-called “mainline” liberal religious movements, and just how utterly meaningless they are.

I better nip one objection in the bud immediately, realizing as I do that many liberals either can’t read very well or can’t understand what they read.  The following article is about the astounding decline of “Conservative” Judaism.  But “conservative” here has nothing to do with politics or even with theology.  “Conservative Judaism” is every bit as liberal as any liberal mainline “Christian” denomination.  It embraces homosexuality; it embraces the notion that the Bible is basically a meaningless book that can be interpreted and then reinterpreted according to constantly changing societal norms.  Which is to say, Conservative Judaism ultimately stands for nothing, and isn’t “conserving” anything remotely important.

That said, “Conservative rabbis” met in Las Vegas to try to deal with a crisis: they are going extinct.  What came out of the meeting is all the more hilarious:

Leaders of Conservative Judaism press for change as movement’s numbers drop
Leading Conservative rabbis gather in Las Vegas to ‘rebrand’ the movement, but there is little agreement about how to draw people back into synagogues.
April 12, 2011|By Mitchell Landsberg, Los Angeles Times

Three hundred rabbis walk into a Las Vegas martini lounge. Bartenders scramble to handle the crowd — the rabbis are thirsty. Suddenly, an Elvis impersonator takes the stage.

We are faced with two possibilities.

One, this is the beginning of a joke.

Two, they don’t make rabbis the way they used to.

The Rabbinical Assembly, the clerical arm of Conservative Judaism, would have you believe the second message, or something like it. That’s why it launched its 2011 convention with a martini reception at a Las Vegas synagogue. The gathering was billed as an attempt to “rebrand” the Conservative movement, which has seen alarming declines in membership in recent years.

“We are in deep trouble,” Rabbi Edward Feinstein of congregation Valley Beth Shalom in Encino told the convention the next day. “There isn’t a single demographic that is encouraging for the future of Conservative Judaism. Not one.”

Those words could apply equally to a number of U.S. religious denominations, especially liberal Protestant and Jewish faiths. Membership is falling; churches and synagogues are struggling financially; and surveys show robust growth among the ranks of those who declare no religious affiliation.

The situation may be especially alarming to the Conservative movement because it was, for many years, the largest denomination in American Judaism. It was the solid center, more traditional than Reform, more open to change than Orthodoxy.

A decade ago, roughly one of every three American Jews identified as Conservative. Since then, Conservative synagogue membership has declined by 14% — and by 30% in the Northeast, the traditional stronghold of American Judaism.

By 2010, only about one in five Jews in the U.S. identified as Conservative, according to the American Jewish Congress.

The Reform and Orthodox movements also saw declines, although not nearly as steep. Reform Judaism for a time claimed the most adherents, but today that distinction goes to people who identify themselves as “just Jewish,” meaning they don’t associate with any of the traditional denominations. Many are entirely secular.

“We’re all in trouble,” said Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Assembly and one of those trying to save the Conservative movement. Correcting herself, she said, “We’re not in trouble, but we’re in urgent need of rethinking the institutions of Jewish life.”

[…]

The movement’s problems, many agree, begin with its name, which has nothing to do with political conservatism and doesn’t accurately describe a denomination that accepts openly gay and lesbian rabbis and believes the Bible is open to interpretation. But that’s just for starters.

Deep dissatisfaction with the organizations that lead Conservative Judaism prompted a number of influential rabbis in 2009 to demand urgent change, warning, “Time is not on our side.” The group won promises of substantial change from the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents Conservative congregations, and helped prompt reforms in the institutions that train and represent rabbis.

A similar revolt by prominent Reform rabbis preceded that denomination’s continuing effort to reinvent itself, a project launched at L.A.’s Hebrew Union College last November.

So what does it mean for a religious movement to reinvent or rebrand itself?

“It’s one thing for a corporation to say ‘We’re going to reinvent ourselves,'” said David Roozen, director of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research.

“Sometimes they get into another business,” he said. “A religion … can evolve, it can be reinterpreted, you can express it in a slightly different style, but you can’t just be doing Judaism one day and say ‘I’m going to sell cars’ the next.”

The Conservative rabbis won’t become car salesmen, but they batted around some fairly radical ideas and predictably stirred up some opposition.

There was talk of eliminating membership dues for synagogues or switching to a la carte “fee-for-service” plans — so that a parent who wants only to send his or her child to religious school won’t also be paying to support the congregation’s other programs. But some said dues give congregants a vital sense of ownership.

Wolpe, the Sinai Temple rabbi, said the movement needs a slogan, one that’s short enough to fit on a bumper sticker. He suggested “A Judaism of Relationships.”

“We don’t have a coherent ideology,” he told his fellow rabbis. “If you ask everybody in this room ‘What does Conservative Judaism stand for?’ my guess is that you’d get 100 different answers…. That may be religiously a beautiful thing, but if you want a movement, that’s not such a hot result.”

[…]

And then there was the name. Some prefer Conservative, which was adopted when the movement began in the 19th century. It denotes the founders’ determination to conserve the best of Jewish tradition while being open to prudent change. But others said it is one reason the movement is seen by young people as being hopelessly uncool.

One suggestion: Change it to Masorti, a Hebrew word meaning “traditional” that is used by Conservative Jews in Israel and Europe.

“If we really want to appeal to the new generation, if you want to create a real worldwide movement … we need a common name, and I think it needs to be a Hebrew name,” said Rabbi Felipe Goodman of Temple Beth Sholom in Las Vegas.

As the meeting ended, there were pledges to work toward meaningful change. One example of what that might look like is an effort to employ a new definition of kosher food that would require ethical treatment of the workers who produce it —something that is being called magen tzedek, or “seal of justice.”

“This is an answer for Conservative Judaism because it’s about the marketplace, it’s about the public square,” said Rabbi Morris Allen of Mendota Heights, Minn., who is leading the effort. Magen tzedek “shifts the entire message of who we are as a religious community. Suddenly, it’s about more than just what is said at the prayer service on Saturday morning.”

Let me begin my analysis by means of a contrast.  Rabbi Morris Allen says, “This is an answer for Conservative Judaism because it’s about the marketplace, it’s about the public square.”  By radical, radical contrast, Christianity is about Jesus Christ, who He is—God incarnate—and what He accomplished—the redemption of sinners who embrace His atoning death for the sin of humanity.

“Conservative Judaism … [is]… about the marketplace.”  That is so sad.  “We need to sell more widgets, or rebrand our widgets, or maybe produce a different kind of widget.”

One of the reasons that Judaism is so swiftly disappearing is because of atheism and a virulent form of Jewish secular humanism which basically holds that it’s perfectly okay to not believe in God as long as you act as though you did.

Dinesh D’Souza points out why precisely why this phenomenon would occur – given the enormous influence of liberalism in Judaism – in his examination of why liberal “Christian” churches are losing membership in droves:

“Unfortunately the central themes of some of the liberal churches have become indistinguishable from those of the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization for Women, and the homosexual rights movement.  Why listen to Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong drone on when you can get the same message and much more interesting visuals at San Francisco’s gay pride parade?”

And D’Souza provides a sizable pile of statistics to show that the traditional (i.e. evangelical) denominations and churches are growing leaps and bounds even as the liberal mainline churches are going the way of the Dodo bird.

His point, of course, is that these liberal religionists are dying out because they don’t stand for anything that has any spiritual power whatsoever.

Here is the story of Christian growth in the world today:

Compared to the world’s 2.3 billion Christians, there are 1.6 billion Muslims, 951 million Hindus, 468 million Buddhists, 458 million Chinese folk-religionists, and 137 million atheists, whose numbers have actually dropped over the past decade, despite the caterwauling of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Co. One cluster of comparative growth statistics is striking: As of mid-2011, there will be an average of 80,000 new Christians per day (of whom 31,000 will be Catholics) and 79,000 new Muslims per day, but 300 fewer atheists every 24 hours.

Africa has been the most stunning area of Christian growth over the past century. There were 8.7 million African Christians in 1900 (primarily in Egypt, Ethiopia, and South Africa); there are 475 million African Christians today, and their numbers are projected to reach 670 million by 2025. Another astonishing growth spurt, measured typologically, has been among Pentecostals and charismatics: 981,000 in 1900; 612,472,000 in 2011, with an average of 37,000 new adherents every day – the fastest growth in two millennia of Christian history.

Christianity – which views itself (and which I personally believe is) the fulfillment of the Jewish Scripture – is the fastest growing religion on the planet.  Christianity is the world’s only universal religion; the only religion with a global reach.  It is particularly spreading in the third world and in Asia.  Soon, China will be the largest “Christian country” in the world.  There may very well already be more Christians in China than there are in America.  In Korea, Christians already outnumber Buddhists.

While mainline liberal Protestant and (mainline liberal) Catholic “Christianity” withers on the vine, evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity is exploding.  And while Western Europe and America increasingly deny the Christendom that brought them to greatness in the first place – even as they increasingly become less and less great as a result – Christianity is taking deep abiding root in cultures whose transformation can only be described as “miraculous.”

Meanwhile, as the statistics prove and as Dinesh D’Souza explains, atheism is shrinking in spite of all its grandiose claims to represent the fulfillment of modernity and knowledge.  “Nietzsche’s proclamation that ‘God is dead’ is now proven false,” D’Souza writes.  “Nietzsche is dead.  The ranks of the unbelievers are shrinking as a proportion of the world’s population…  God is very much alive.”  Secular humanists have long self-servingly claimed that the progression of “reason” and “science” would conquer religion, but this is now demonstrated to be a lie, a fairy tale of secularism.

Christianity stands for something.  And as much as I may personally despise Islam, it too at least takes a powerful stand – even if it relies primarily on force and terrorism to make that stand.  Atheism and secular humanism are only parisites hanging on to Christianity and its superior moral values, and the political liberalism that theological liberalism invariably leads to is the nihilism of objective moral truth all together.

Allow me to provide a concrete example of the empty nexus of liberal politics and liberal theology.  Barack Obama, a quintessential theological and political liberal, has repeatedly stripped God out of the Declaration of Independence and its profound establishment of Creator God as the only and ultimate grounds for legitimate human dignity, freedom and rights.  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” our founders assured mankind, and “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Not so with Obama.  On his repeatedly stated version, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

But just what created us (random mutation or perhaps benevolent fairies?) and exactly how did we become endowed with these rights that most cultures and most worldviews and in fact most political systems throughout human history have denied?  And further, why did the Judeo-Christian worldview which inspired these founding fathers be dumped on its head, such that its antithesis in the form of the radical homosexual agenda and abortion on demand be enthroned in its place?

Basically, the Judeo-Christian worldview – “Christendom,” if you like – has been treated like a salad bar in the Western Civilization that had been forged by Christianity, and secular humanists can pick out the parts that they like and throw away the rest.  But it’s not a salad bar; Judeo-Christianity as both a religion and a worldview is far more like the foundations of a great building.  And what these secular humanists have been doing is pulling out the foundational pillars one block at a time until there is nothing left to sustain the surrounding structure.

Which is precisely why the West – which used to be called “Christendom” – is now on the verge of complete collapse on virtually every level.

I see the war on terror, and from the start I have seen the glaring flaw in our strategy (yes, even when George Bush was waging it).  Basically, we have confronted totalitarian Islam on the military, political and economic fronts.  But we have utterly ignored the religious front – which is precisely the major front by which totalitiarian Islam has been attacking us.  Like it or not, 9/11 was a religious act.  And there has been no major movement whatsoever – either by the Western powers or by the movements within Islam itself – to confront the religious grounds of the totalitarian Islamists.

And the reason is because we have nothing to confront them with.  Secular humanists/atheists have undermined public religious expression at every turn, while cultural relativists have contextualized religion in such a way to strip it of any spiritual power whatsoever.  Now when we truly need true spiritual power to confront the demonic power motivating radical Islam, basically all we’ve got is allegorical dirt clods.

In the sphere of Islam, jihadists have the superior Qu’ranic argument that it is THEY who are carrying out Muhammad’s vision for Islam, not the liberal Westernized contextualizers who want to make very clear claims of Muhammad into metaphors and allegories representing something else.  Muhammad was a man of genuine violence; he had been in some thirty military campaigns in his life; he had committed numerous genocidal campaigns against “infidels”; and he had another thirty military campaigns planned at the time of his death, including the conquest of Western Europe as the means to spread Islam (“submission”) and the call of Allahu Akbar (a comparative which means “Allah is greater”).  If Muhammad is in any way, shape or form a representative paradigm of what it means to be “Muslim,” then the jihadists are right.

And liberalism – whether it be religious/theological or political/cultural liberalism – has exactly what to answer that?  Other than mocking or trivializing it?

Did political liberals – like the liberal rabbis from the LA Times article above – truly believe that we overcome the threat of terrorism by simply changing the name to “overseas contingency operation” from “war on terror”?

As bad as the religion of Allah may be for a free society, it has a great deal of force when the competition is cultural nothingness, the decaying leftovers of “salad bar pseudo-Judeo-Christianity.”

2 Timothy 3:5 says of such “Christians”:

“They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!” (New Living Translation)

St. Paul told us, “But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.” (2 Timothy 3:1).  The risen and glorified Jesus told St. John of the seventh and final church age, “But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!” (Revelation 3:16).
of my mouth!

And it is with this final age of de-spiritualized, unglodly lukewarm “Christianity” and “Judaism” that makes God literally puke that staggering Western Civilization rises to the bell.

If anyone wants to know why I come across as angry from time to time in my blogging, it is because when I look around, I keep seeing the series of morally and even rationally terrible and despicable choices we have made right here in America that will invariably end with Antichrist, the Tribulation and Armageddon.  And it will not have been God that made this happen, or God who chose this end for mankind; but rather mankind that chose this end for itself.

C.S. Lewis said:

“We can always say we have been the victims of an illusion; if we disbelieve in the supernatural this is what we always shall say.  Hence, whether miracles have really ceased or not, they would certainly appear to cease in Western Europe as materialism became the popular creed.  For let us make no mistake.  If the end of the world appeared in all the literal trappings of the Apocalypse, if the modern materialist saw with his own eyes the heavens rolled up and the great white throne appearing, if he had the sensation of being himself hurled into the Lake of Fire, he would continue forever, in that lake itself, to regard his experience as an illusion and to find the explanation of it in psycho-analysis, or cerebral pathology.  Experience by itself proves nothing.  If a man doubts whether he is dreaming or waking, no experiment can solve his doubt, since every experiment may itself be part of the dream.  Experience proves this, or that, or nothing, according to the preconceptions we bring to it.” (God in the Dock, “Miracles,” pp. 25-26).

The problem with liberalism is that it “fundamentally transforms” whatever it touches – whether Christianity, Judaism or fiscal and economic reality – into a game of make-believe pretend.

Margaret Thatcher put the end-state of econimic liberalism succinctly: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”  And then comes the collapse.

When radical Islamist jihadists attack, you can’t answer or fight with make-believe.  Any more than you can fight massive debt with make-believe mass-printed dollars.

My one consolation is this: I’ve cheated; I’ve skipped ahead and read the last pages of Revelation.  God – and most definitely not Allah or secular humanism or liberal mainline pseudo religiousity – wins in the end.  And when God wins in the end, via the return of Jesus Christ as true King of kings and Lord of lords, He will win in a very literal way indeed.

Terrorism: Stop Calling Timothy McVeigh A ‘Christian’

March 12, 2011

I’ve heard it pop up a number of times that Timothy McVeigh is an example of a ‘Christian terrorist.’  As the charge surfaces again in light of the hearings that Rep. Pete King has called regarding terrorism and the militarization of American Muslims, let’s consider the “evidence” that Timothy McVeigh is a “Christian.”

From my looking for evidence that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian who executed his Oklahoma City bombing as a Christian, it mostly boils down to this quote from Time Magazine:

Time: Are you religious?

McVeigh: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.

Time: Do you believe in God?

McVeigh: I do believe in a God, yes. But that’s as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way [to] alienate themselves from me and that’s all they are looking for now.

This quote from the Time Magazine article is so prevalent that I can’t find the actual article.  And, of course, I wonder what else he said that someone like myself would find useful.  Those who want to maintain that Timothy McVeigh was a ‘Christian’ explain that McVeigh distanced himself from Catholicism, not Christianity.  And that since he still believed in “a God,” he wasn’t an atheist or a secular humanist, and hence he was a Christian.

But what you see is a man who had some contact with Catholicism, and then basically turned away from it.

For the record, Christians don’t believe in “a God”; we believe in the one and only true God, the Creator of the Universe and of man.  McVeigh actually corrected the interviewer: “Do you believe in God?” (i.e., the monotheistic deity of Judeo-Christianity).  “I do believe in a god, yes.”  That usage of an indefinite article “a god” actually screams volumes about whatever Timothy McVeigh’s religion is.  But let’s examine the question whether religious affiliation as a child means that one is an adherent of that religion:

Obama’s mother, divorced from Obama’s father, married a man from Indonesia named Lolo Soetoro, and the family relocated to the country from 1967-71. At first, Obama attended the Catholic school, Fransiskus Assisis, where documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather. The document required that each student choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering – Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant.

And:

His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama’s grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both schools he attended. That registration meant that during the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class.

Well, congratulations, liberals.  We now have the smoking gun proof that Barack Hussein Obama is in fact a Muslim.  Because we’re going to use the same childhood standard of religious affiliation on Obama that you want to use on Timothy McVeigh.  And by that standard, Obama is Muslim.

The fact of the matter is that Timothy McVeigh walked away from his Catholic faith (for the record, I myself am a Baptist), and never came back to it.  And rather than having anything whatsoever to do with Orthodox or organized Christianity, he had come to have his own subjective views about something he described as  “a god.”

He definitely did not bomb the Oklahoma City Alfred P. Murrah federal building in the name of Jesus, or do it as an act of his “Christian faith.”  There is absolutely no reason whatsoever save anti-Christian bigotry and profound religious intolerance to suggest that he did.

That is very unlike the hundreds of videos recorded by terrorist suicide bombers who expressed their intent being directly connected to Islam.

Let’s go on.  Was Timothy McVeigh a Christian?  Not according to his own words:

In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would “improvise, adapt and overcome”, if it turned out there was an afterlife. “If I’m going to hell,” he wrote, “I’m gonna have a lot of company.”

And:

McVeigh once said that he believed the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside them. He had also said, “Science is my religion.” [Michel, Lou and Herbeck, Dan. American Terrorist. pp. 142–143]

I – as one example among millions of true Christians – am a Christian.  I am not an agnostic.  And science is very definitely NOT my religion.

I came across a quote – “Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian. he refused to have a clergyman while awaiting execution but changed his mind at the last moment “to cover my bases” – that is directly supported by firsthand sources who had direct access to McVeigh.  McVeigh was an agnostic who in the very end doubted his agnosticism.  He was most certainly no Christian.

Hey, I’ve got an idea: maybe the mainstream media can start saying that McVeigh was a scientific terrorist.  Or at least an agnostic terrorist.  Because either of those statements would be far closer to reality than that he was a “Christian terrorist.”

There’s a little more to say.

I am going to reproduce here the entire article that, if true, proves that Timothy McVeigh merely participated in yet another of the hundreds of thousands of Islamic terror attacks across the world:

“Homeless” Man Hussain Hashem al-Hussaini is “John Doe #2 in Oklahoma bombing
 Doug Hagmann  Friday, March 11, 2011

On Wednesday, a “homeless man” was arrested in the Boston suburb of Quincy, Massachusetts, on a charge of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon after allegedly striking another man with a beer bottle. His name is Hussain Hashem al-HUSSAINI, although has several other aliases and a previous arrest record.

His arrest would have likely gone unnoticed except for the tenacious investigative journalism conducted in the months and years following the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City by author and investigative journalist Jayna Davis. Ms. Davis, a former reporter for KFOR-TV at the time of the bombing, identified al HUSSAINI as the “John Doe #2” in the April 19, 1995 bombing that claimed the lives of 168 people, including 22 children, three who were unborn. Her investigation is chronicled in her book, The Third Terrorist, and is an important investigative report into the actual events that took place in the months, days and weeks leading to the bombing, and perhaps even more importantly, in the years afterward.

// //

The disheveled homeless man arrested this week is at the epicenter of a plot that involves not only domestic terrorism, but the inexcusable failures and activities of the FBI that led directly to the events of September 2001. Ms. Davis documented the direct involvement of a Muslim terrorist operation involved in the 1995 bombing, and attempted to warn the FBI of additional attacks being planned. Despite impeccable documentation compiled by Ms. Davis that I personally reviewed in my capacity as an investigator, her warnings went unheeded. Six years later, the worst attack on American soil killed another 3,000 people. It is my belief that the attacks of 9/11 could have been stopped had the FBI acted upon the evidence she submitted to the FBI.

Instead, twenty-two witness affidavits she compiled and submitted to the FBI in January 1999 that, in part, connect al HUSSAINI to the events of the bombing “disappeared.” Those affidavits contain sworn statements of multiple witnesses who placed al HUSSAINI in the company of Timothy McVeigh prior to the bombing, exiting the Ryder truck that was used for the bombing, and speeding away from the area just prior to the blast. Despite solid witness statements, the FBI reportedly failed to interview al HUSSAINI.

In addition to the “hands-off” approach with al HUSSAINI, the FBI continues to refuse the release of closed circuit camera footage that exists of McVeigh and “John Doe #2” as they exited the Ryder truck in front of the Murrah Building. Why?

Leading up to, and at the time of, the Oklahoma City bombing, Hussain al HUSSAINI worked for a property management company owned by a Middle Eastern businessman who was suspected of having ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization(PLO). Six months prior to the bombing, this man hired several former Iraqi soldiers. Four years earlier, he had been convicted of federal insurance fraud.

Investigation in Boston

In mid-May 2005, I personally conducted an on-site investigation of “John Doe #2” in Boston. My confidential 30-page investigative report was submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice on 1 June 2005. The information contained in that report verified all of the relevant aspects of Ms. Davis’ claims as they pertained to Hashem al-Hussaini. The following is a redacted version of my partial investigative findings from 2005.

Hussain Hashem al-Hussaini

The primary subject of this investigation is Hussain al HUSSAINI, an Iraqi national who has been identified in sworn witness statements obtained by Ms. Davis as, in part:

  1. Accompanying Timothy McVeigh in the Ryder truck used to deliver the bomb to the Murrah Federal Building on 19 April 1995;
  2. Stepping out of the Ryder truck at ground zero minutes before the blast;
  3. Speeding away from downtown Oklahoma City immediately after the detonation of the truck bomb;
  4. Being seen in the company of Timothy McVeigh a various times and locations prior to 19 April 1995.

Hussain al HUSSAINI, a former member of the Iraqi military and Saddam’s elite Republican Guard, currently resides in Braintree, (Norfolk County) Massachusetts, a southern suburb of Boston. As well documented in The Third Terrorist by Jayna Davis, al HUSSAINI came to the U.S. following the Persian Gulf War in 1991 under the guise of escaping persecution from the Iraqi dictator. Because of the significant number of refugees admitted into the U.S. and other factors, the checks-and-balances that were (or should have been) in place to verify the authenticity of those seeking entry into this county were admittedly strained or not properly implemented. Regardless of the reason, al HUSSAINI remains living in the U.S. as of the date of this report.

Subsequent to the Oklahoma City bombing, al HUSSAINI moved to Dallas, Texas, and then to Boston, Massachusetts, where he worked at Boston Logan International AirportAt that time, he resided with two Iraqi men (brothers) who provided food catering services for the commercial airlines at Boston Logan during the time leading up to and including September 11, 2001.

imageThe two Iraqi brothers referenced above have been identified as Khalid [REDACTED] and Majed [REDACTED]. They both continue to reside in Braintree, Massachusetts. Due to their close proximity to the primary subject and their activities in Oklahoma City near the time of the 1995 bombing, this investigator has also conducted comprehensive database research and an on-site investigation and covert surveillance to update their activities as well.

Both men were observed at their residence. The activities of both men were documented, and their activities undocumented by law enforcement, according to a source contacted within the FBI. According to this source, they have “no interest” in either subject.

Left: Surveillance photograph taken by Douglas Hagmann 16 May 2005

Multiple Identities

Investigation determined that Hussain al HUSSAINI possesses a social security number issued in 1994 in the state of Massachusetts. For reasons unclear, it was reissued in Texas in 1995. Several dates of birth are associated with al HUSSAINI, all listing his month and year of birth as September 1965. He also has a lengthy list of aliases, including but not limited to Hussain Hashem Jassem Al-Hussaini, Hussain Hashem Al-Hussaini, Hanan Hashim Jassem Al-Hussaini, Adnan Hashim Jassem Al-Hussaini, Salem Hashim Al-Hussaini and eleven others.

Neighbors as well as fellow employees knew him simply as “Sammy.”

imageAt the time of this investigation, al HUSSAINI was working as a landscaper while living with his 30-year-old American girlfriend, her father, and a two-and-a-half year old daughter. He has resided at this location since 1997. Distinctive in his appearance, he has tattoo reflective of his association with the Iraqi National Guard.

Also at the time of this investigation, the two Iraqi brothers who provided food catering services at Boston Logan on 9/11 were investigated. The reports of their activities, although redacted here, were detailed in my 2005 report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. Yet, much like the warnings of Ms. Davis, nothing has taken place.

Left: The former residence of Hussain al Hussaini in a suburb of Boston

Foreboding prediction?

Confidential psychiatric records confirm that in 1997, Hussain al-Hussaini made a foreboding prediction about a future event to take place at Boston Logan International Airport, the point of origin for two of the four hijacked flights that slammed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

According to those records and prior to 9/11, al-Hussaini suffered anxiety so acute regarding his airport job at Boston Logan International that he checked into a psychiatric hospital to seek treatment for recurring panic attacks. When asked about the source of his trepidation, he told his therapist “if something happens there, I will be a suspect.”

Interestingly, only days after my investigation into the activities of Hussain al HUSSAINI, he “disappeared.” He left his residence of eight years and slipped quietly into the shadows of Boston, only to be found homeless and facing criminal charges this week.

Something is terribly wrong with the FBI’s handling of the 1995 bombing and the events leading up to and including the attacks of September 11, 2001. Something at the highest levels of government that continue through the present.


I’ll allow you to draw your own conclusion regarding how accurate that article is.  But suffice it to say that there is far, far more evidence that Timothy McVeigh took part in a Muslim terrorist attack than there is that Timothy McVeigh was a “Christian.”

I close stating this: 126 individuals have been indicted on terror charges in the U.S. the last two years.  Every single one of them without a single exception is a MuslimFifty of these terrorists were Americans.  And all fifty of these Americans were Muslims.  Conclusion?  There is clearly no connection between Islam and terrorism, says the left.

The same left that says that Timothy McVeigh is a “Christian” based on the flimsiest evidence proceed to refuse ironclad evidence about the terrorist threat of Islam.

And every single person who falsely claims that Timothy McVeigh was a “Christian” is merely an intolerant anti-Christian bigot.

Hitler Wasn’t ‘Right Wing’, Wasn’t ‘Christian’; And Nazism Was Applied Darwinism

September 27, 2010

Glenn Beck’s program on Friday, September 24, 2010, was devoted to the subject of Adolf Hitler, Christianity, and the nightmare that ensues when big government seizes religion in order to legitimize, even divinize, its socialist and totalitarian policies.

I have written about this myself, mostly in responses to atheists who want to foist Adolf Hitler onto Christians and Christianity.  I have grown up reading that Nazism represented the threat of a conservative, right wing government.  It’s a giant load of bunk.

To put it briefly, the communist Soviet intellectuals – and all leftist Western intellectuals influenced by them – created a false dichotomy between fascism and communism.  Zeev Sternhall observed how study of fascist ideology had been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 316].  Marxism simply redefined fascism as its polar opposite in order to create a bogeyman: If Marxism was progressive, fascism became conservative.  If Marxism was left wing, fascism had to be right wing.  If Marxism championed the proletariat, then fascism had to champion the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism was socialist, fascism needed to be capitalist.  And the fact that none of the above was even remotely true was entirely beside the point.

“Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”

As Gene Edward Veith points out:

“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  [And in fact, Both movements were “revolutionary socialist ideologies.”  Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

And if the Nazis didn’t represent the far left, they were at best the right wing of the extreme left wing.

Jaroslav Krejci demonstrated the inadequacy of the “unilinear imagery” of left wing versus right wing.  He pointed out that the metaphor derived from the seating arrangements of the French Parliament  following the Revolution.  Politically, those seated on the right side favored an absolute monarchy.  Economically, they favored government monopolies and a controlled economy.  Culturally, they favored authoritarian control of the people.  Those seated on the left favored democracy, a free market economy, and personal liberty [see Krejci, “Introduction: Concepts of Right and Left,” in Neo-Fascism in Europe, 1991, pp. 1-2, 7].

Gene Edward Veith points out that these models simply break down in 20th century politics [see Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 27].  In terms of the model above, American conservatives who want less government and trust the free market would be on the left.  Liberals who want more of a government-directed economy would be on the right.  And so, while the Nazis would be “right wing” on this model, so also would the American liberal.  Furthermore, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are relative, depending upon what one has to conserve.  The classical liberals of the 19th century, with their pursuit of free-market economics and resistance to government control, became the conservatives of the 20th century as they sought to conserve these principles.

And, to quote myself:

And just what on earth do liberals who call Nazism a form of conservatism even think Hitler was trying to “conserve”?

Adolf Hitler was a violent revolutionary out to overthrow the current system and impose his own radically different system in its place.  He was hardly a “right wing conservative” in any way, shape, or form.  Rather, Adolf Hitler was, as Jonah Goldberg accurately described him in Liberal Fascism, a “man of the left.”

Further, many American leftists embrace communism as though that somehow precludes them from guilt – even though many of their ideas and actions have been objectively fascist in spite of their rhetoric.  But even aside from this fact, don’t forget that communism itself was the single most evil ideology in the history of human civilization.

Were Hitler and Nazism among the greatest evils in the history of the world?  Of course they were.  But actually, Hitler and his Nazism were only the third worse mass murderer in all human history, behind Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, who were both communist leaders of officially state atheist governments.

With that said, let us discuss Hitler and Nazism in terms of Christianity.

Did Adolf Hitler package some of his public remarks as “Christian”?  There is no doubt that he did precisely that at different times his rise to power, and even during his regime.  But that hardly means that Adolf Hitler was a Christian believer.  Politicians often have had clear and obvious reasons to say things that they didn’t really believe for political expedience.  And it is obvious on its face that Adolf Hitler was a liar and the worst demagogic political opportunist in human history, and that Nazism was utterly evil and based almost entirely on lies. Thus, to cite the propaganda of such a regime as evidence that Hitler or Nazism were somehow “Christian” is itself both sick and evil.

Germany had at one time been the seat of the Protestant Reformation.  But by the late 19th century Christianity in Germany had devolved into a near meaningless official state religion.  And Germany was the LEAST Christian nation in all of Europe.  The most prominent German theologians embraced a form of theological liberalism that disconnected the foundational elements of Christianity from historical fact, in what amounted to a sustained attack on the Holy Bible.  The school of “higher criticism” attempted to undercut traditional views about the authorship, composition and legitimacy of the Bible.  This project weakened biblical authority by assuming that the Biblical text and the events described were to be explained entirely in naturalistic terms, and rejected completely the possibility of supernatural revelation.  And it was almost entirely an undertaking of German scholarship (just look at the names: Eichhorn, De Wette, Wellhausen).

The Germany that voted for Adolf Hitler was influenced by an academic elite that had a total hatred for orthodox Christianity.

Given the state of our own university intelligentsia, one of Hitler’s more terrifying comments is this:

“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf Hitler, 1930

And so, yes, Hitler tried to package his Nazism in a way that superficially “Christian” Germany would accept, just as the Marxist Sandinistas deceitfully packaged their godless communism into “liberation theology” in order to deceive the overwhelmingly Catholic population of Nicaragua to support them.  As to the latter, the Catholic church said from the start that it wasn’t legitimate Christianity; but that it was a heresy. And the Cardinal Ratzinger who went on to become Pope Benedict even called the movement “demonic”.

Quote:

“…it would be illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites them (liberation theologies), and to accept elements of the Marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the (Marxist) ideology, or to enter into the practice of the class-struggle and of its Marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads.
— (Author: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, now Pope Benedict XVI; written in 1984)

Quote:

“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.” — Pope Benedict XVI

And Hitler also packaged his hard-core of Nazism with a candy-coating of lies in order to fool the people. And the people were fooled indeed:

….Any opposition to Hitler is ruthlessly eradicated.  Tens of thousands are imprisoned.  Journalist Stephan Laurent dared to criticize The Fuehrer…..

“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing.  Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

Soon, the next wave of profoundly anti-Christian German scholarship took the next logical step in their attack against Judeo-Christian ideals which had stood for two millennium.  Friedrich Delitzsch, a biblical scholar from the University of Berlin, published a work arguing that the Old Testament published a book arguing that the entire Old Testament was dependent upon Babylonian culture and mythology.  Delitzsch concluded that:

“the Old Testament was full of deceptions of all kinds – a veritable hodge-podge of erroneous, incredible, undependable figures, including those of Biblical chronology…. in short, a book full of intentional and unintentional deceptions (in part, self-deceptions), a very dangerous book in the use of which the greatest care is necessary.”

But it soon becomes clear that the reason that Delitzsch believed the Old Testament was “a very dangerous book” was because it was Jewish, and Delitzsch was an anti-Semite first, and a scholar second.  Delitzsch went so far as to argue the plain historical fraud that Jesus was not Jewish, arguing that there was some difference between “Jews” and “Galileans.”  He also maintained an equally bogus distinction between Jesus as a warm humanitarian versus Jewish moral intolerance.  Thus Delitzsch “de-Judaized” Christianity, and “contended that Christianity was an absolutely new religion, totally distinct from that of the Old Testament” [See Gene Edward Veith, Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 53-54].

And so it became an easy next-step for Nazi propagandists such as Ezra Pound (who is also known as the godfather of modernism) to state that the Jewish religion began when Moses, “having to keep a troublesome rabble in order, scared them by inventing a disagreeable bogie, which he called a god.”  And Pound concluded “the greatest tyrannies have arisen from the dogma that the theos is one, or that there is a unity above the various strata of theos which imposes its will upon the substrata, and thence upon human individuals.”

And Adolf Hitler could then state in his Mein Kampf that:

“The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history [the necessity of intolerance] arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature” [Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 454].

The chain began by German scholars was complete: Hitler argued that it was okay to be intolerant of intolerant people, and that the Jews literally epitomized intolerance.

And none of this was “Christian”; it was a project straight from hell.

Friedrich Nietzsche – a patron saint of Nazism – correctly pointed out the fact that:

“Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, of privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion part excellence” [Nietzsche, “The Twilight of the Idols”].

And so, a good Nazi was a Gottglaubiger.  Rather than putting “Christian” on personnel forms they wrote down “Gottlaubig” – representing a “vague pseudo-philosophical religiosity” – to indicate that, while they were not “godless communists,” they were most certainly not “Christian.”

So Hitler publicly said what he needed to say in speeches to deceive a mass population who had been bombarded with anti-Christian heresy and anti-Christian anti-Semitism, to bend them to his will.  But to his inner circle he said very different things than what he said publicly.  Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

What else did those closest in Hitler’s inner circle say about his “Christianity”?

From Joseph Goebbels’ diary, dated 8 April 1941 (Tue):

The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.” [Elke Frölich. 1997-2008. Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Munich: K. G. Sauer. Teil I, v. 6, p. 272].

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Author Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Albert Speer – another Nazi who worked extremely closely with Hitler – reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler:

You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” [Albert Speer. 1971. Inside the Third Reich Translated by Richard Winston, Clara Winston, Eugene Davidson. New York: Macmillan. p 143; Reprinted in 1997. Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 96. ISBN 0-684-82949-5].

Adolf Hitler sounds like an atheist to me. Certainly, Hitler was absolutely not a Christian. He cynically used Christianity like he cynically used everything else that was good; he took ruthless advantage of it as simply another means by which to package his lies to the German people.

The fact of the matter is that Fascism and Nazism were quintessentially hostile to Christianity, and even to monotheism.

Hannah Arendt describes Nazi spirituality in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem:

When convicted Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann went to the gallows, “He was in complete command of himself, nay, he was more; he was completely himself. Nothing could have demonstrated this more convincingly than the grotesque silliness of his last words. He began by stating emphatically that he was a Gottglaubiger, to express in common Nazi fashion that he was no Christian and did not believe in life after death” [p. 252].

One of the leading experts on fascism, Ernst Nolte, defined fascism as “the practical and violent resistance to transcendence” [Nolte, Three Faces of Fascism: Action Francaise, Italian Fascism, Nazi Fascism, 1965, p. 429].  Fascism was anti-God, anti-supernatural and anti-transcendence.

Gene Edward Veith says:

It is particularly important to know, precisely, why the Nazis hated the Jews. Racism alone cannot explain the virulence of Nazi anti-Semitism. What did they see in the Jews that they thought was so inferior? What was the Jewish legacy that, in their mind, so poisoned Western culture? What were the Aryan ideals that the Nazis sought to restore, once the Jews and their influence were purged from Western culture?

The fascists aligned themselves not only against the Jews but against what the Jews contributed to Western civilization. A transcendent God, who reveals a transcendent moral law, was anathema to the fascists” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 13].

By killing the Jews, Hitler intended to kill the God of the Bible.

Of Protestant Christianity, Hitler wrote:

Protestantism… combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established. Yet here we are facing the question without whose solution all other attempts at a German reawakening or resurrection are and remain absolutely senseless and impossible” (Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 113).

Hitler talked about solving the “church problem” after he’d solved the “Jewish problem.” He said:

“The war is going to be over. The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem. It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure” (Hitler’s Tabletalk, December 1941).

Hitler boasted that “I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.”

Martin Bormann, head of the Party Chancellery and private secretary of the Fuhrer, said pointedly:

National socialist and Christian concepts cannot be reconciled. The Christian churches build on the ignorance of people and are anxious so far as possible to preserve this ignorance in as large a part of the populace as possible; only in this way can the Christian churches retain their power. In contrast, national socialism rests on scientific foundations” (cited in Ernst Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler, p. 303).

At a Nazi rally a speaker proclaimed: “Who was greater, Christ or Hitler? Christ had at the time of his death twelve apostles, who, however, did not even remain true to him. Hitler, however, today has a folk of 70 million behind him. We cannot tolerate that another organization [i.e., the church] is established alongside of us that has a different spirit than ours. We must crush it. National socialism in all earnestness says: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

Nazism was pagan to its very core. Carl Jung (a onetime fascist sympathizer himself) described Nazism as the revival of Wotan, who had been suppressed by Christianity but now was released. Germany was being possessed by its archetypal god. (Odajnyk, Jung and Politics, p. 87-89). The Farmer’s Almanac of 1935, published by the Ministry of Agriculture, replaced the Christian holidays with commemoration days for Wotan and Thor. And Good Friday was replaced with a memorial for those killed by Charlemagne in his efforts to convert the Saxons.

In addition, at the very heart of the Nazi’s race programs and at the center of the Holocaust was the belief in atheistic Darwinian evolution. The principle rationale for the Holocaust was that the Jews were biologically inferior, and interfered with the Nazi scientists’ efforts to aid evolution by creating a master race.

Listen to these words and tell me who wrote them:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

It was none other than Charles Darwin himself (Darwin, C.R., “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, 1874, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242).  Charles Darwin literally predicted that someone would come along and extend his Darwinism to its logical conclusion – and thus literally predicted both the Holocaust AND the motivations FOR the Holocaust.

Charles Darwin spake as a prophet, and Adolf Hitler was the messiah who fulfilled the demonic prophecy.

But it wasn’t just the Jew that Hitler was willing to exterminate as being “biologically inferior.”  Adolf Hitler – who had made the Holocaust of the “biologically unfit” and “sub human” Jew the centerpiece of his campaign to create a “Master” Aryan race – ultimately made his “master race” the victim of his hateful Darwinian views:

“If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”

How is that not the World War II that Adolf Hitler started not being explained into a test of Darwinism that the German people had to pass to justify their existence?  The simple FACT of the matter is this: that Adolf Hitler thought in entirely Darwinian terms.  He decreed the Jew had failed the test of Darwinism, and believed that if the German people could not prevail in his war that THEY TOO should be exterminated.

Why is this so?

Gene Edward Veith points out that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection had implications far beyond biology.  What must be true for nature must likewise be true for the individual and society.  If nature progresses by competition, struggle, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then clearly all progress must come the same way (unless we are not part of the natural system, which would mean that we were the product of divine Creation).  According to Zeev Sternhall, social Darwinism in Nazi Germany “stripped the human personality of its sacramental dignity.  It made no distinction between the physical life and the social life, and conceived of the human condition in terms of an unceasing struggle, whose natural outcome was the survival of the fittest” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 322].

Similarly, Sternhall pointed out how scientific positivism “felt the impact of social Darwinism, and underwent a profound change.  In the latter half of the [19th]century its emphasis on deliberate and rational choice as the determining factor in human behavior gave way to new notions of heredity, race, and environment” [Sternhall, 322].

“Nazism was ‘applied biology,’ stated Hitler deputy Rudolf Hess.”

Nazism was also a direct attack against Christianity and Christian humanity.

Friedrich Nietzsche blamed Christianity, which he described as a creation of the Jews, for the denial of life that was represented in Christian morality.  Gene Edward Veith points out that, in his attack on Judeo-Christian morality, Nietzsche:

“attacked the Christian value of love.  Notions of compassion and mercy, he argued, favor the weak and the unfit, thereby breeding more weakness.  Nature is less sentimental, but ultimately kinder, in allowing the weak to die off.  The ideals of Christian benevolence cause the unfit to flourish, while those who are fit are burdened by guilt and are coerced by the moral system to serve those who are beneath them” [Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 82].

Nietzsche, epitomizing the spirit of Darwinism as applied to ethics, wrote:

We are deprived of strength when we feel pity … Pity makes suffering contagious….  Pity crosses the law of development, which is nature’s law of selection.  It preserves what is right for destruction; it defends those who have been disinherited and condemned by life; and by the abundance of the failures of all kinds which it keeps alive, it gives life itself a gloomy and questionable aspect” [Nietzsche, “The Antichrist”].

In short, the Christian ethic of compassion is a kind of sentimentality that violates the laws of nature, in which the strong thrive and the weak die out.

Speaking of this new, Nazi, anti-Christian, Darwinian view of morality and ethics, Reichmaster Alfred Rosenberg said:

“Justice is what the Aryan man deems just.  Unjust is what he so deems” [Alfred Rosenberg, as quoted in Victor Farias, Heidegger and Nazism, 1989, pp. 205-206].

“Justice” for the Jew according to the Aryan mind possessed by Darwinism meant extermination as racially inferior and biological unfit to exist.

Thus, whatever you might want to say about whether Hitler was an atheist or not, his Nazism was inherently opposed to Judeo-Christianity, opposed to Judeo-Christian monotheism, and opposed to Judeo-Christian transcendent morality. The spirituality that resulted was intrinsically pagan, and inherently anti-Christ and anti-Christian.

And in stark contrast to Adolf Hitler’s big government totalitarian Nazi atheism, here’s what our religious founding father’s believed:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

A 1954 Air Force Training Manuel had this commentary on these great words which founded the greatest nation in the history of the world:

The idea uppermost in the minds of men who founded the United States was that each and every human being was important. They were convinced that the importance of the individual did not come from any grant of the state, that the importance of the individual did not come from any position that he had achieved nor from any power he had acquired nor from any wealth he had amassed.

They knew that the importance of man came from the very source of his life. Because man was made in the image and likeness of God, he had a destiny to achieve. And because he had a destiny to achieve, he had the inalienable right and the inherent freedom to achieve it” (FTAF Manual 50-1).

Thus the question, “If God doesn’t exist, who issues rights to man?” becomes profoundly important.  Because the answer is, “Whoever has the power to issue those rights.”

It becomes the State which issues rights to man. And, welcome to come and crush the human spirit, next dictator.

Postscript: you can go here to see how this question about who issues rights to man is becoming increasingly important right here in the USA.

Well, At Least Obama Didn’t Say ‘Endowed By Allah With Certain Inalienable Rights’

September 22, 2010

Some things come flying back at you like a boomerang and smack you in the back of the head.  Take Obama, and the Declaration of Independence.

Just before Obama took office, he said:

What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives — from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry — an appeal not to our easy instincts but to our better angels.”

And now he’s given it to us.

The Declaration of Independence used to read:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But Obama got hold of it.  And he sanitized if for the sake of political correctness, so that it didn’t offend all the people that Obama wanted to “Americanize.”

So let me close by saying this. Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. To British and French, to Dutch and Spanish, to Mexican — (applause) — to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land. We didn’t always get along. But over the centuries, what eventually bound us together — what made us all Americans — was not a matter of blood, it wasn’t a matter of birth. It was faith and fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights: life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Apparently the “faith and fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear” doesn’t include a Creator God.

The video says a lot.  When it comes time to say, “by their Creator,” Obama gets a look on his face like he just stepped in something that smelled really, really bad.

You’ll have to decide for yourself whether that look was because Obama just can’t stand the God of the Bible and of our founding fathers, or because Obama – “the Constitutional scholar” – is too friggin’ dumb to remember a line I was reciting as a 2nd grader.

Personally, I think it’s the “just can’t stand the God of the Bible and of our founding fathers” choice.

Remember when Obama went to Turkey to assure Muslims that America wasn’t a Christian country, but in fact a Muslim one?

It wasn’t all that long ago that we found out that most Americans didn’t think Obama was a Christian, and that in fact a quarter of Americans thought he was a Muslim.

Last Sunday Obama went to church for the first time in nearly six months, presumably to prove he was really a Christian after all, and not a Muslim at all.  But what’s really funny is that the guest preacher WAS A MUSLIM!!!

So, in the spirit of Obama’s defense of his handling of the economy – “It could have been even worse” – allow me to point out that at LEAST OBAMA DIDN’T SAY “ENDOWED BY ALLAH” WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS.”

‘One of the prettiest sounds on earth’: A Quarter Of Americans Now Think Obama Is A Muslim

August 20, 2010

Why do nearly one out of every four Americans now believe that Barry Hussein is a Muslim?

More Americans say Obama is Muslim
By Olivier Knox (AFP) – 13 hours ago

WASHINGTON — Roughly one in five Americans wrongly says President Barack Obama is a Muslim, according to two new US opinion polls out Thursday amid a furor over a planned mosque near New York’s “Ground Zero.”

And about 30 percent of Americans say followers of Islam should be barred from running for president or serving on the US Supreme Court, according to one of the surveys, published in Time magazine and available on Time.com.

The Time poll found 24 percent of respondents said Obama — a Christian church-goer who has repeatedly spoken out about his faith — is a Muslim, while 18 percent said the same in a study from the non-partisan Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

On top of the Americans who believe Obama is Muslim – including a hefty percentage of Democrats, for what it’s worth – is the fact that more than half of Democrats, and even more than half of African Americans, don’t believe that Obama is a Christian.  And less than half of all Americans think Obama is a Christian.

Two years into Obama’s presidency, the American people don’t know who or what the hell has his feet on the desk in the Oval Office.  Kind of strange coming from a man who promised unparalleled transparency.

So the question that matters is why Americans believe that Obama is not a Christian, but is in fact a Muslim.

Well, at least partly because OBAMA once actually said he was a Muslim:

Let’s not play games. What I was suggesting — you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you’re absolutely right that that has not come–

STEPHANOPOULOS: Christian faith.

OBAMA: — my Christian faith. Well, what I’m saying is that he hasn’t suggested–

We all know about Freudian slips.  All I know is that I have never been so confused about my Christianity that I had to be corrected as to which religion I sincerely and passionately held.

But that doesn’t explain why MORE Americans now believe Obama is a Muslim than at any time in the past.  You know what does?  The fact that the American people have had time to see Obama as he really is in his actual policies, rather than as a preening pretender saying whatever he needs to say.

Maybe Americans have finally digested the New York Times article that came out over three years ago:

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

And what was it that Obama recited, and called “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth”?

“Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet… “

Now, you see, as a genuine Christian, I DON’T happen to find that chant very pretty.  Because Allah is NOT supreme – even if you say it four times.  And I particularly find that “there is no god but Allah” part to be anything but ugly.

Because, unlike Obama, I actually AM a Christian, and take no artistic pleasure in claims which specifically deny Jesus Christ’s deity.

In fact, I believe that I would refuse to recite those words even with a gun pointed at my head.  Much less admire their beauty.

It’s remarkably sad that Barack Obama would find some of the most hateful blasphemy ever uttered to be “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth.”

Maybe Americans believe Obama is a Muslim because they took the advice of their president and started giving Muslims’ beliefs more credit:

And while Obama may not identify as a Muslim, that’s not how the Arab and Muslim Streets see it. In Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim. You cannot go back. In Islamic eyes, Obama is certainly a Muslim. He may think he’s a Christian, but they do not.

I mean, why is Obama so intolerant to so flagrantly deny the sincerely-held belief of Muslims?

And, given that converting to Christianity would make Obama an apostate subject to death under islam, Obama being a Christian would be the worst possible thing in terms of our relationship with Islam.  Why do we want a Muslim apostate for a president?

Maybe it’s because Obama – who routinely cites the “Holy Koran” as authoritative – mocks the Bible which he doesn’t bother to refer to as “holy”:

Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.

For the record, I dealt with Obama’s profoundly un-Christian argument in another article.  Like everything else Obama says, it offers a candy-coating of truth over a big chewy mass of lies.

And a lot of Americans realize that no true Christian would think or argue that way.

Obama doesn’t believe the Bible is authoritative.  It’s just the words of a bunch of moldy old long-dead men who weren’t even particularly wise.  It’s a book filled with errors and inaccuracies.  Unlike the “holy Koran,” which Obama has repeatedly cited as being incredibly relevant to our times.

Maybe Americans realize that a guy who pisses on the Bible and yet seems to revere the Koran is a hell of a lot more of a Muslim than he ever will be a Christian.

Maybe Americans need to start hearing Obama start pissing on the Koran the way he’s pissed on the – dare I say it – HOLY Bible.

Maybe it’s because Obama tried to ban Christ from Christmas, but celebrates Ramadan.  Why is that?

Maybe it’s because of the way Barack Obama has repeatedly attacked Christians, calling them racist bitter clingers desperately hanging on to their implements of violence:

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Obama said:

“Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked,” presidential hopeful Obama said.  “Part of it’s because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us.”

Those are incredibly harsh words coming from the most polarizing and divisive president in American history.  If Obama actually bothered to give the Bible any real credit, he’d think about Jesus’ words about taking out the log in his own eye before attacking someone else for the speck in theirs.

Barack Obama has only managed to unite everyone once in his entire embarrassing career, during one of his myriad greed-sicking fundraising events in Los Angeles:

A two-mile drive on the Westside took 45 minutes. Frustrated drivers vented on the Los Angeles Times’ website, among others. No matter their politics, Los Angeles residents were united.

“It was a beautiful thing,” said Brentwood resident Myles Berkowitz, commiserating with his neighbors on Montana Avenue. “Young, old, black, white — everyone was pissed off.”

Maybe the American people find it bizarre that evangelical Christians are much more the enemy to Barack Obama than the terrorists who have actively murdered Americans.  Maybe Americans find it weird that Obama believes that evangelical Christians are more dangerous than terrorism (a label he banned until political pressure forced him to put the word back into use).

Maybe it’s because most Americans can’t understand why Obama pushed for the construction of the Ground Zero mosque but didn’t bother to assist the Christian church that was destroyed in the 9/11 attack and has never been allowed to rebuild.

Maybe it’s because of the weak, apologizing, appeasing stupidity toward Islam Obama has displayed again and again and again in his apology tour, in his asinine Gitmo policy, and other atrocities of moral reasoning.

Getting back to the mainstream media characterization of Obama as a “Christian church-goer.”  Really?

From ABC News:

If church attendance is one measure of a man’s faith, then President Obama may appear to have lost some of his. The first family, once regular churchgoers, have publicly attended services in Washington just three times in the past year, by ABC News’ count, even bypassing the pews on Christmas Day.

By the most recent count I could find, Obama has now gone a total of five times.  Out of 83 weeks.

I wonder if my boss would call me a “work-goer” if I strolled into the office once every three weeks and change or so.

It’s a shame we have a media that just will not simply tell the truth.

I’ve also got to laugh at the fact that 24% became “roughly one in five” as though 24% is closer to 20% than it is to 25%.

So maybe it would help Obama if he went to church.  And I mean a decent Christian church that disavows radical black liberation theology Marxism, too.

Pope Benedict correctly labeled liberation theology as a heresy of Catholicism, and said of Obama’s version of “Christianity”:

“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much.  Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.” Pope Benedict XVI

And the Pope – who understands something about Christianity – got it right: “Demonic” is the right word to describe Obama’s Marxist apostate Muslim Christian heresy.

Because maybe the American people can’t see “Christianity” in Barack Obama’s Marxist collective (as in “collectivist”) view of salvation that is nowhere found in the Bible Obama has trivialized.

So unlike the mainstream media – which has just become psychologically unraveled over this poll – I understand why so many people think Obama is a Muslim.  And it is frankly incredible to me that so many supposedly smart people in the media don’t get it.

For the record, I am personally much more worried that Barack Obama worships himself than I am that he secretly worships Allah.