Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
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.
In the first three chapters of Revelation we saw Christ prophetically addressing seven churches which represent “the Church” composed of all true believers in Christ on earth throughout the centuries. In Rev 4 we saw “the Church” called up to heaven in the Rapture, and we saw ourselves surrounding God on His throne. In Rev 5 we saw Christ on the throne of God being singularly declared worthy to unleash the judgments that will defeat evil and win earth back for God’s glory. And then beginning in chapter six we have begun to see those judgments in the form of seven seals, seven trumpets and seven bowls.
I had described two ways God could bring about some of these judgments: by supernatural means or by merely stepping back and allowing man to do what comes naturally to his depraved nature (e.g., with nuclear war). But there is actually a very real “third way” – namely the eruption of super volcanoes: It turns out that just one of these things “could be sufficiently severe to threaten the fabric of civilization.” And there are FIVE super volcano zones – including one in Yellowstone! Which is to say that God has THREE paths to fulfilling every prophecy in the Book of Revelation: supernatural causation, allowing humans to fulfill the judgments upon themselves, and very real and very terrifying natural calamities that scientists declare are every bit as real and possible as they are unthinkable.
I thought that worth pointing out; I have to do a lot of simplifying and selective editing for a “midlevel” flight over Revelation, and that means it’s possible to leave out something I should have included. Such as the effect of super volcanoes and their end times potential.
Today we’re going to get an interlude from all the hell-on-earth judgment (at least until the seventh trumpet is sounded and we get the terrifying bowl judgments). We’re going to discuss the message of an angel, we’re going to talk about the coming Jewish Temple that will be built and we’re going to examine the ministry of the coming “two witnesses.”
“Then I saw another mighty angel…” We saw “a mighty angel” in Rev 5:2. These angels who are designated “mighty” are apparently members of the highest order of angels (the archangels) who stand in the very presence of God. There are messages that are so significant to human history and divine mission that no one but an archangel with supreme authority such as Michael (Jude 9) or Gabriel (Luke 1:19) can deliver them. And get a load of the sheer majestic “mightiness” of this “mighty angel”: he is clothed with a cloud which is the vehicle GOD Himself uses to come to earth (see Psalm 104:3; Isa 19:1; Daniel 7:13; Matt 17:5). A rainbow is upon his head heralding back to Gen 9:9-17 and God’s promise that He remembers and keeps His covenants. His face will be like the sun to remind us of the brilliant glory of the One from whose presence he has just come (e.g. Ex 34:29). His feet are like pillars of fire, reminding us of Christ in Rev 1:15 and symbolic of divine judgment. In placing his right foot upon the sea and his left foot upon the earth, he comes to take possession of the entire earth by divine decree of judgment. And his voice is as the roar of a lion. And the voices of the seven thunders answer his call.
This is a passage that always sends shivers down my spine. But as incredibly mighty and glorious as this archangel – quite possibly the archangel Michael himself – is, if there were a contest to see who could fall on their feet before Jesus Christ first, I’ll bet this mighty angel would win hands down. He serves One more glorious.
The archangel takes possession of the land and the sea and says that “there shall be delay no longer.” Delay in doing what, we might ask. This angelic visitation takes place very near the end of the seven years Tribulation: there shall be delay no longer in Jesus Christ returning to the earth He created as King and Lord over it. Christ shall delay His return no longer. The time of the eschaton predicted by the prophets has finally arrived and absolutely no power of man or demon will be able to hold it back.
We’re told “the mystery of God will be accomplished” (Rev 10:7). The completion of the mystery is the conclusion of the Father’s plan that was initiated before the foundation of the world and is now finally to be realized in its fullness. Many times, overwhelmed by evil, righteous man has cried wondering if God was even working at all in the affairs of men. GOD WAS WORKING. GOD IS WORKING. AND GOD’S WORK WILL CULMINATE IN GOD’S ETERNAL PURPOSE.
The “bittersweet message” of Rev 10:8-11 is this: God’s Word is sweet when we learn of God’s love for man resulting in God’s salvation of man accomplished by Christ. But it is bitter indeed to discover the brutal reality in store for all who reject Christ’s salvation and therefore experience the full wrath of God’s holy judgment for their sins. God does not want us to be a people who are characterized by rejoicing when the wicked “get theirs.” God wants us to be a people who grieve when He is forced to judge sin and unbelief. Because that’s how Jesus will feel, and we should be like Jesus (Luke 9:52-56).
Revelation 11 assures us that there WILL be a Third Temple. The Second Temple was destroyed as Christ predicted in AD 70 prior to John’s receiving Revelation in 96 AD. So there is no question that this is a yet-to-be-built structure. Part of the seven year covenant that Israel signs with Antichrist will allow them to reinstitute animal sacrifice (Dan 9:27) – and there is NO other place that a Jew would do so but in the Temple. The problem is that for 4,000 years the Temple has stood in one and only one place – and that place appears to be taken up by the Muslim Dome of the Rock which was deliberately built right on top of the ruins of the Jewish Temple. We don’t know what’s going to happen: destruction in an earthquake, destruction in a war, or something else. Scholars like Dr. Grant Jeffrey believe that the Second Temple is actually in a slightly different location from which is commonly believed and the Third Temple could be constructed without damaging the Al Aqsa Mosque. Jeffrey claims that a previously unknown gate of Solomon’s Temple proves that the original Temple was several hundred feet north of the Dome of the Rock (remember Herod MASSIVELY enlarged the Second Temple).
It’s actually amazing how many obstacles existed to a Third Temple – and how many have been overcome. Money is no problem when you realize how many Jews over the centuries have included the Temple in their wills or purchased Temple bonds. But only a Jew from the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron can enter the Holy of holies and how can Jews prove their descent? The answer to that is DNA testing resulting in “the first family reunion of the Jewish priestly dynasty in nearly 2,000 years.” You’d need to have a Sanhedrin which hasn’t existed since 425 AD. The answer is that Israel reestablished the Sanhedrin in 2005. You need holy anointing oil – which was discovered and chemically verified as authentic in 1988. And you need stuff like a red heifer – and they’re working on it and they’ve already come so close it’s unreal. If you think any of the difficulties are beyond God, you’re daft.
I’m excited about the Third Temple as a fulfillment of prophecy – but in many ways it is actually a bad thing. It will result from the covenant with Antichrist (bad thing); it will be built as a result of Israel’s unbelief in Messiah Jesus (bad thing); and Antichrist will sit in the Holy of holies and decide he’s God (bad thing). The Jews have longed for their Temple because they believe it will fulfill all their national and religious hopes as a people; but sometimes you’ve just got to get exactly what you want in order to be able to see that what you always wanted won’t fulfill you, after all. Ultimately Jews will have to realize that it is NOT the Temple which merely symbolizes the work of Christ that fulfills hope, but only Christ Himself.
In Rev 11:1 an angel tells John to physically measure the Temple. If you study Ezekiel 40 and Zechariah 2, you will see that when God takes such measurements, it is to evaluate the spiritual condition of His people. Is this Third Temple built with the help of Antichrist and the False Prophet (Rev 13:11-18) fulfilling God’s true calling to Israel? Not even close. It is built as an apostate place of worship that refuses to recognize Israel’s true Messiah; rather, they just want some kind of national identity symbol if not a giant stone idol. And thus the verdict of Rev 11:2: in the second half of the Tribulation for 42 months, Jerusalem will see nothing but war and suffering until “the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” (Luke 21:24). And the times of the Gentiles will only end with the return of Messiah Jesus.
Rev 11:3 introduces the two most incredible Jesus freaks who ever lived: God’s two witnesses. God is NEVER left without a witness. Who are these men? We won’t know for sure until “the players take the field,” but many scholars believe it will be Moses and Elijah. In God’s very last words in His Old Testament, He says in Malachi 4:5-6, “I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.” And that “great and dreadful day” is the second half of the 7 years Tribulation. Elijah will show up at the beginning of the Tribulation and he will preach the Gospel right under the angry nose of the Antichrist who is powerless to stop him. And a lot of people will be saved. But ONLY “when they have finished their testimony” (Rev 11:7) and said everything that God sent them to say, will Antichrist finally be allowed to kill them. Because God is sovereign. Elijah’s most famous miracle was shutting up the sky for – get this – three and a half years (James 5:17; 1 Kings 17:1). Just like “somebody” will do during the Tribulation. So Elijah has good bona fides as a candidate. Why Moses? Moses’ most famous miracles featured turning water into blood and sending plagues (Rev 11:6 cf. the Exodus). And both Moses and Elijah had their ministries end in failure – with Moses being denied entrance into the Promised Land (Num 20:12) and Elijah being taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot after he fled in fear from Jezebel and asked God to kill him. And God replaced him with Elisha (1 Kings 19:16). I’m sure both men would love to have a second chance to be faithful to the very end – and I believe God will give them that opportunity.
Every Christian ought to be like the two witnesses from Revelation while on this earth. Think about it; these two men have been in heaven with Christ for millennia – and now they’re returning back to earth for one more mission and an opportunity to cover their past failure with glory. In the same way, according to the Bible we died in Christ (Galatians 2:20) and were born again to a completely new life. We’ve tasted a little bit of heaven through the Holy Spirit; and now each of us are on earth on a divine mission from God. BE A WITNESS!
Every believer from the Old to and through the New Testaments has dreamed of eternity with God. But what’s the process? How does it happen – and most important of all WHEN does it happen? We find that it doesn’t fully happen when we die: we are with the Lord, but those who have died up to now have not yet received their glorified bodies. So when does it happen? How?
For the first three chapters of the Book of Revelation, the word “church” – referring to believers in Jesus Christ on earth – is mentioned seven times with the word “churches” being mentioned twelve times. That’s a total of nineteen times, all ye math whizzes. For the first three chapters, it’s church, church, church. And yet, after referring to the church and addressing the churches over and over again, “the church” is not referenced in any way, shape or form until Rev 19 when Christ returns to earth with His saints. And the only believers referenced in between are the two witnesses and the 144,000 Jews– and we aint them. So what explanation makes sense?
This one: Rev 4:1 begins with the phrase “after these things” (NIV “after this”) and we hear the command to “come up here.” And next thing you know we’re in heaven with John. And the Church mysteriously appears to remain in heaven until we return with Christ as King of kings in Rev 19. This can be nothing other than the Rapture of all true believers that occurs prior to the Tribulation. No other answer makes sense to explain the complete absence/omission from the Church on earth during the Tribulation. Want a little more proof? In Rev 1:12 we have a reference to “seven golden lampstands.” In Rev 1:20 Jesus Himself explains that the seven golden lampstands are the seven churches that He tells John to write to. John is called up to heaven, and what does he immediately see? Among other things surrounding the throne of God, he sees “seven lamps of fire burning before the throne” (Rev 4:5). And I’m just going to tell you that those seven lamps are going to be resting on seven golden lampstands! Because the Church is in heaven where it belongs serving as the seven golden lampstands for those lamps. As a further proof, Jesus seven times says in chapters 1-3, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” Yet in Rev 13:9 we hear, “If anyone has an ear, let him hear.” Either God is so angry at the churches He’s no longer even talking to them, or He isn’t talking to them because they’re in heaven and in Rev 13 God is urging the inhabitants of the earth to wisdom. Another proof that the church is now in heaven is the twenty-four elders. We know they aren’t angels because they are wearing crowns (Rev 4:4) – and angels NEVER wear crowns ANYWHERE in the Bible because that honor is reserved only for God and for believing humans whom God honors. The Bible mentions five crowns for believers: 1) the imperishable crown for believers who faithfully run their race (1 Cor 9:24-25); 2) the crown of rejoicing to those who win new believers for Christ (1 Thess 2:19-20; Dan 12:3); 3) the crown of life for Christians who endure trials even to death (James 1:12; Rev 2:8-11); 4) the crown of righteousness to those who love the appearing of Christ (2 Tim 4:8); and the crown of glory to shepherds who faithfully minister their flocks (1 Pet 5:1-4). Further, “24” is symbolic of priestly service and priestly service is associated with human believers, not with angels. As an example, there were 24 classifications of priests in 1 Chronicles 24-25.
Rev 3:10 promises that believers will be “kept from the hour of testing which is about to come upon the whole world.” We have the promise of the sign of Noah and the sign of Sodom where Noah, Lot and their believing families are removed before divine judgment falls upon the earth. There’s a clear pattern: God prophetically warns the world of judgment; God removes His people; judgment falls.
So, by way of conclusion, John epitomizes a glorified believer prophetically called up to heaven at the beginning of events in Revelation 4 just as we shall be, and then seeing the rest of events through the eyes of a glorified believer. We will have “a bird’s eye view” of what happens if there ever was one.
And we’ll be surrounding the throne of God, with the throne of God being the central focal point of the book of Revelation. Everything that proceeds does so first from God on His throne. John’s description of God on His throne is awesome in its majesty: God’s glory radiates like a precious multi-faceted gem (Rev 4:2). Jasper is a white diamond representing divine purity; the sardius stone is a blood-red ruby symbolic of divine wrath and judgment. God’s judgment is tempered, however. Because both God’s purity and wrath are enveloped in a rainbow of emerald representing divine life and mercy. The NIV correctly says “encircled.” Circles represent continuity and eternity. And apparently every Christian is going to find out quickly that surrounding the throne of God is the place to be.
Surrounding the throne are four living beings (Rev 4:5-8). They are apparently a class of angel in addition to the seraphim (Isaiah 6:1-7) and the cherubim (Gen 3:24; Ezekiel chap 1). These four living beings may be a type of cherubim because they guard the throne of God (Psalm 89:1; 99:1). What is most interesting about them is that their features resemble the description accorded to the different portraits of Christ in the four Gospels: In Matthew Jesus is presented as a lion, the king. In Mark Jesus is described as the hard-working ox who is fully obedient to the will of the Father. The living being with the face of a man is recognized in Luke’s portrayal of Jesus as the perfect Man. And the soaring eagle is fulfilled in John’s emphasis of Jesus’ heavenly and divine origin.
The word “sea” is also important. In Rev 13 “the sea” is used to describe sinful humanity tossing around in fury and violence and confusion. Isaiah repeatedly uses the metaphor of a restless ocean to describe the nations as “a troubled sea in a storm” (see Isaiah 57:20). See also Jer 49:23 and Jude 1:13. By way of contrast, we who surround God’s throne will be the picture of divine calm and peace, like a sea of crystal flowing out from the throne of God. I like that picture a lot more than the always-raging sea of sinful humanity.
As we view the throne of God we begin Revelation 5: the exalted majesty of God on His throne leads to one thing – to the exaltation of the Lamb “standing in the center of the throne” (Rev 5:6). Consider the incredible concept of God’s throne being a battle chariot from Daniel 7:9-10. The battle chariot used by Old Testament warriors was a 2-3 man operation, with one steering the chariot while an archer/s and/ or spearman fought. God’s throne is a Trinitarian throne. And it is a throne that goes wherever God goes.
You see in Revelation chapter 5 Christ receiving worship in a manner that is impossible to deny. As an example, in John 20:28 Thomas says, “My Lord and my God!” And Mormons and JWs say it’s just an exclamation rather than a recognition of deity. Jesus stands in the center of the throne of God (Rev 5:6). The elders fall down on their knees before Jesus (5:8). They and the angels pronounced Jesus as “worthy” (Rev 5:12). And then God the Father and God the Son TOGETHER are worshiped (5:13-14). It is merely unbelievable unbelief to deny that Jesus is truly and fully God given the statement of Rev 5.
Now, we have a seven-sealed scroll with writing on both sides on the hand of the Father with the question, “Who is worthy to open it?” And NO ONE is found who is worthy except one and ONLY one Person: the Lamb who was slain. The physical characteristics of the scroll make one thing abundantly clear: it is a legal document that was seen in the ancient world: the contract would be written on the inner side, rolled up and sealed with seven seals, and a short description would be written on the outer side. There are actually six different interpretations of what this scroll represents in various schools of thought. But I’ll only mention the two that are genuine candidates. The scroll is either: 1) the title deed to the earth (God gave man dominion over the earth, but Satan usurped that dominion; and Christ won the title deed back but had never exercised His claim until now); or 2) the decree to issue the judgment that will result in the eschaton (end of days) and ultimately in eternity. I believe it is this second possibility because Christ opens the scroll and we initiate the unfolding of judgment and the beginning of the ushering in of the glorious eternal state. So on that view, why does John weep when no one is found worthy (“qualified”) to open the scroll? Because mankind is in this terrible state and nothing can be done to advance their condition and bring this terrible condition of the human race and planet earth to a good conclusion. Only by Jesus opening the scroll can history move to the conclusion that a righteous, holy and merciful, loving God had foreordained for the world.
The seven years of the Tribulation will be the most fateful years in all of human history. They initiate the countdown to the end of human law and lawlessness, and at the culmination of these seven years Jesus will finally personally return in a cataclysmic appearance on earth to establish the long-anticipated Kingdom of God.
The Tribulation will result in the Millennium in which Jesus Christ sits on the earthly throne of David in the earthly city of Jerusalem and rules over the world as is His right that He won for all time on the cross. What is the purpose of all this? It is twofold: 1) to literally fulfill every single promise that God gave to Israel, to God’s physical DNA-people the Jews. Every promise of prominence, of blessing, of wealth and abundance, of shalom, in which Messiah rules from His David throne while all the peoples of the earth come to Jerusalem to worship Him, will be literally and completely fulfilled. And 2) to also literally demonstrate to secular, unbelieving, sinful humanity that they can NOT create a better world – or even a world capable of surviving – apart from God and most especially apart from Jesus. The world is saying, “We could evolve to our highest potential and solve all of our problems if only it weren’t for those damned Christians.” Jesus is going to give them their chance: and in only seven years they will degenerate to the point that they will destroy themselves and literally destroy the planet they’re living on unless Jesus comes to personally intervene and take control. By the time the Tribulation ends, no one will be able to say, “We were doing fine until Jesus showed up and ruined everything.”
Finally, the twenty-four elders, as glorified human saints, also give us a glimpse into our future work and ministry. God will give believers crowns to honor our faithful service to Him while on earth, but we will primarily use those crowns not to exalt ourselves but rather to have something to exalt our God with as we cast our crowns at the feet of Jesus (Rev 4:9-11). But in Rev 5:5-9 we also see these glorified believers being able to encourage and explain (“Stop weeping; behold!”); they carry “the golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” as priests who minister before God. And, yes, we WILL have harps in heaven and the ultimate capacity to make a truly joyful noise before the Lord.
I rather routinely call Obama the F-word. No, not that F-word (although the ability to resist doing so is dwindling); the other F-word: Fascist. Barack Obama is a fascist.
I have had quite a few liberals fixate on this word, and – while ignoring the rest of my arguments – proceed to give me a lecture about how my extremism undermines my positions and arguments (which they don’t bother to consider).
I’d like to respond to that. At length.
There are many who would argue that if a politician is not as rabid as Adolf Hitler, that one cannot use this label of “fascist” – at least not unless the target is a Republican (see below). Barack Obama is not a “dictator,” these would argue. He hasn’t launched the world into global war and he hasn’t murdered 6 million Jews (at least, he hasn’t yet). So he can’t be a “fascist.” This argument fails on two parts. First of all, by such a metric, Benito Mussolini wouldn’t be a “fascist” either (except for the “dictator” part). One of the reasons it is hard to have an easy definition of “fascist” is because fascism has taken a different character in every country and culture in which it has been embraced. Hitler is not the norm or standard of fascism; he is merely the most extreme example of its virulence and danger. Secondly, even if we were to take a Hitler as our example, let us realize that Adolf Hitler was a very cunning politician who managed to gain power in a Germany that was THE most sophisticated, educated and scientific nation and culture of its day. What I am asserting is that if an Adolf Hitler were to run for the presidency of the United States in 2012, he would run a platform that we could very easily label as “hope and change,” he would demagogue his adversaries as being the cause for the nation’s plight, he would lie both cynically and outrageously to win votes and he would then proceed to push the country as far as he possibly could toward his agenda. And so here, from the outset, I am claiming that the suggestion that either Barack Obama or anyone else does not qualify as a “fascist” simply because he or she can’t be directly compared to Adolf Hitler is nothing but a straw man.
The question thus becomes, what is fascism, and then it is what is Obama steering us toward?
THE WORD “fascism” is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government–in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.
As an experiment, I typed the words “Bush fascist” and then “Obama fascist” sans quotes. I got 3,280,000 Google hits for Bush fascist (and keep in mind an awful lot of hits would have vanished in the last 11 years as domains purged articles or simply ceased to exist) versus only 2,490,000 for Obama. That means liberals were over 45% more likely to call Bush a fascist than conservatives have been to call Obama one.
And when these liberals express their outrage that I would dare call Obama a fascist and thus lower the discourse, I invariably ask them just where the hell they were when their side was teeing off on Bush for eight unrelenting years of Bush derangement syndrome??? It was rare indeed to see a liberal excoriate his fellow liberals for demonizing the president of the United States.
With all due respect, the left started this form of “discourse.” They turned it into an art form. And how dare these hypocrites dare to tell me not to do unto Obama as they did unto Bush???
That might only be a rhetorical argument, as two wrongs clearly don’t make a right. But it remains a powerful one. Liberals have forfeited any moral right to criticize conservatives for using their own tactics against them.
But I don’t simply call Obama a fascist because liberals called Bush one. I call him one because he has exhibited all kinds of fascistic tendencies, which I shall in time describe.
But fascism has a far more precise definition. Historically, fascism is a far-right movementof the middle classes (shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants) who are economically ruined by severe economic crisis and driven to “frenzy.”
In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky, fascism brings “to their feet those classes that are immediately above the working class and that are ever in dread of being forced down into its ranks; it organizes and militarizes them…and it directs them to the extirpation of proletarian organizations, from the most revolutionary to the most conservative.”
I have no doubt that the irony of these words were entirely lost to the “Socialist Worker” who wrote the article. But allow me to illuminate it for you: think of the most infamous fascists of all time, the Nazis. What did the word “Nazi” stand for? It was the “acronym for the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’.” Let me try that again, just in case you missed these precious little details: “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”
But ask the “Socialist Workers” and they’ll assure you that the “Socialist Workers Party” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialist Workers. Because that would certainly be awkward, wouldn’t it???
It is rather fascinating that “Socialist Worker” would cite as his authority on fascism and who should be labeled as a “fascist” the Marxist thinker . Allow me to provide one counter statement which is based not on the “brilliant words” of a Marxist, but on the plain simple facts:
“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative. [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.” Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite. If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative. If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing. If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie. If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.
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. 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. 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].
So depending on Leon Trotsky or any other Marxist-inspired academic who merely parrots “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” has rather serious intellectual drawbacks. And yet that is largely what we get. Far too many American academics wouldn’t be so obvious as to use the phrase, “In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky,” but they give his ideas, theories and talking points total credence, nonetheless. The term “useful idiots” was literally coined to describe these Western “intellectuals.” And their being “useful idiots” is every bit as true today as it ever was in the past.
Consider the REAL “polar opposite”: American conservatives are capitalists, not socialists. They demand a limited national/federal government, not a massive centrally planned state as does socialism, communism and fascism. They prefer the federalist idea of powerful states’ rights against a weakened federal government, not some all-powerful Führer. And to try to force conservatives into some Nazi mold invariably means either creating straw men arguments or citing irrelevant facts (such as that conservatives favor a large military just like the Nazis did, as though virtually every single communist state does not similarly favor a large military “just like the Nazis did”). If you want an all-powerful national government that gets to decide who wins and who loses, if you want to see a system where you have to come to your government for assistance and resources with all manner of strings attached rather than being allowed to depend on yourself, your family and your community, you should embrace the political left, not the right.
By the way, another favorite idiotic red herring for liberals asserting that “Nazism was right wing” was that the Nazis hated the admittedly left wing communists. But consider the fact that Coke hates Pepsi and Barbie Doll makers hate Bratz Doll makers. Are we supposed to believe that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi as opposed to water, milk or orange juice? The fact of the matter is that Nazis and Soviet Communists hated each other because both movements had a global agenda of totalitarian dominion, and both movements were competing for the same rabidly left wing converts.
Pardon me for the following insult, but the only people who believe garbage arguments like these are ignorant fools who live in a world of straw men. Even if they have the title “PhD.” after their names.
It is for that reason that I can state categorically that Marxism and fascism are not “polar opposites” at all. They are merely two potentially complementary species of socialism. That is why China has been able to easily weave blatantly fascistic (national socialist/corporatist) elements into its Maoist communism. It is also why Joseph Stalin was able to go from being an international socialist (i.e. a communist) and then appeal to nationalism (i.e., national socialism or “fascism”) when he needed to fight Hitler, only to switch back to “international socialism” after the war, as a few lines from Wikipedia on “Russian nationalism” point out:
The newborn communist republic under Vladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology[4]. Russian nationalism was discouraged, as were any remnants of Imperial patriotism, such as wearing military awards received before Civil War….
The 1930s saw the evolution of the new concept of Soviet nationalism under Joseph Stalin, based on both Russian nationalism and communist internationalism. Official communist ideology always stated that Russia was the most progressive state, because it adopted socialism as its basis (which, according to the writings of Karl Marx, is the inevitable future of world socio-economic systems). Under Lenin, the USSR believed its duty to help other nations to arrange socialist revolutions (the concept of World Revolution), and made close ties with labor movements around the world[4].
[…]
The Soviet Union’s war against Nazi Germany became known as the Great Patriotic War, hearkening back to the previous use of the term in the Napoleonic Wars. The Soviet state called for Soviet citizens to defend the ‘Motherland’, a matrilineal term used to describe Russia in the past.
[…]
In 1944, the Soviet Union abandoned its communist anthem, The International, and adopted a new national anthem which citizens of the Soviet Union could identify with.
And then, with the victory secured over fascism, the Stalinist “national socialism” (a.k.a. “fascism”) suddenly became international socialism again. The Nazis’ very name was Nationalsozialistische.
One can be a “Marxist-fascist” and combine and blend elements of both totalitarian socialist systems quite easily, as both the Russian and then the Chinese communists proved. Communism and fascism have far more in common with one another than they have in opposition; especially when you examine the fact that both political systems invariably end up becoming the same big-government totalitarian police state.
So for my first two points – namely that 1) the left has routinely demagogically labeled the right “fascist” even when 2) it is clearly the left that owes far and away the most to fascistic elements – I am going to continue to shout from the rooftops who are the real fascists in America.
That said, it is still not enough to merely point out the FACT that American liberalism has much in common with fascism. And there is a lot more yet to say.
Before I begin spouting particular examples, I therefore need to further approach just what it is that would constitute a “fascist.” And then see who and how the label fits. From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had “reached the end of its historical function,” Mussolini wrote: “To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself…. Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”
This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.
[…]
Mussolini’s fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.
Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.
[…]
Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.
Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy’s industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.
The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933…
Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual. Its message is about the good of the nation, or the people (or the Volk), or the community, rather than the good of a nation’s individual citizens. It is about distributing and then redistributing the wealth and returning it to “its rightful owners” under the guise of an all-powerful state rather than recognizing and rewarding individual achievement. In short, when Hillary Clinton explained that, “It takes a village,” an educated Nazi would have snapped his fingers and excitedly shouted, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!”
For Obama, the collectivism, community or “village” thing is such a profound part of him that he has literally made it an integral part of his very heretical form of “Christianity,” which very much stresses individual salvation and individual responsibility. Obama has on several occasions put it this way:
For example, 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.”
In the Christian faith, there is no such thing as collective salvation. Salvation is an individual choice. It is personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, Son of the living God.
Obama’s is a wildly perverted view of orthodox Christianity. It so distorts true Christianity at such a fundamental level, in fact, that one literally has to go to Hitler to find a suitable similar parallel from a “Christian” national leader. The great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther – the most famous German prior to Hitler – had written the most monumental text of German culture prior to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It was called “The Bondage of the Will,” which was considered THE manifesto of the Reformation. According to Luther, the human will was in bondage to sin. The fallen will, if left to itself, will choose what is evil. The human will has been perversely set against the righteous will of God. For sinful human beings, the will is not in a state of liberty but is in bondage to its worst impulses. Luther wrote in this work, “When our liberty is lost we are compelled to serve sin: that is, we will sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.” Adolf Hitler infamously turned that key doctrine of Christianity on its head in his “The Triumph of the Will,” in which he exalted depraved human will to an altogether different level of human depravity. Which is to say that Hitler was so profoundly wrong that he proved Luther right.
But getting back to Obama’s profoundly anti-Christian concept of “collective salvation,” the Nazis would have been all over that, enthusiastically shouting their agreement, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!” Recall the encyclopedia entry on fascism stating that, “Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual,” which was then further defined as “collectivism.” And the Nazis repeatedly called upon loyal Germans to make horrendous sacrifices in the name of that collective.
What the Nazis pursued was a form of anti-capitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”
From the Nazi Party Platform:
– The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:
– Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
– In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
– We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
– We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
– We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
– We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
– We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
– We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
– We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
– The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
– The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
– We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
– We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
Ah, yes, the Nazis had their “Fairness Doctrine” long before this current generation of liberals had theirs.
You read that Nazi Party Platform carefully, and you tell me if you see small government conservative Republicans or big government liberal Democrats written all over it.
Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.
Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHO was recognized as fascist in America.
Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.
H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:
These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”
H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”
It was from the lips of liberal progressive H.G. Wells that Jonah Goldberg got the title of his book, Liberal Fascism. Goldberg didn’t just invent this connection: H.G. Wells flagrantly admitted it and George Orwell called him on it. All Goldberg did was rediscover history that liberals buried and have used every trick imaginable to keep buried.
And as a tie-in to our modern day, who more than Barack Obama has been more associated with said FDR?
But let me move on to some real red meat. In just what specific, concrete ways can I call Obama a fascist?
Well, to begin with, there is the signature achievement of his entire presidency, his national health care system (ObamaCare). For liberals, it is nothing but the most bizarre coincidence that Nazi culture had a national health care system that was quite rightly considered the wonder of its day by socialists in America. It is the most despicable of insults that Sarah Palin excoriated ObamaCare as “death panels” – even though it is more precisely a bureaucratic maze consisting of more like 160 separate death panels:
And the “czar” thing hits a very fascist nerve, too. Obama has appointed 39 czars who are completely outside our Constitutional process. Obama signed a budget bill into law that required him to remove these czars, but why would a fascist trouble himself with outmoded things like “laws”? One of the enraged Republicans responded, “The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy.” And of course, he’s right.
But why do I say it’s financial fascism in 20/20 hindsight? Because of what we just learned: in spite of all the bogus lying promises and the massive takeover “for our own good,” Obama didn’t fix anything. Instead he made it WORSE:
The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned.
S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures.
“The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report.
But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”
Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP.
Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse.
Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis.
So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.
Think last year’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue package was beaucoup bucks to spend bailing out the nation’s floundering financial system? That’s chump change compared to what the overall price tag could be, a government watchdog says.
The inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. That’s more than six times President Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.
Nobody here but us fascists. And we sure aint talking.
Then there are other issues that the left usually uses to attack conservatives, such as racism. Wasn’t Hitler a racist, just like conservatives? The problem is, the liberals are as usual upside-down here. After running as the man to create racial harmony, Barack Obama has instead done more to racially polarize America than any president since other famous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Frankly, if one were to conduct a major study of racial politics, and the setting up in opposition of one racial group against another, just which party has emphasized race and race-baiting more?
Hitler’s Jew-baiting was all about the idea that one race had taken over the culture, had the money and the power, and was using its influence to oppress the people in the banking system and anywhere else that mattered. And Hitler’s constant screed was that Germany needed to confiscate the Jews’ wealth and then redistribute it. With all respect, all the left has done is replace “Jew” with “Caucasian” and making the exact same claims.
And with all this hard-core racist demagoguing, I’m supposed to say that, “Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives who are guilty of demagoguing race”??? Seriously???
Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war. According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.” What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin – openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values??? What would the left call this if not “fascist”?
But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.
Also in yesterday’s news is the fact that Obama is the perpetual demagogue– which is a quintessentially fascist tactic. Obama demonized Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling until he needed to raise it. Now it would be un-American for Republicans to act the same exact way Obama acted. In the same demagogic spirit, Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to a speech just so he could personally demonize him. The same Obama who lectured Republicans that it would be counter-productive to rely on name-calling and accusations in the health care debate launched into a vicious demagogic attack. Ryan correctly said that “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.” But that is par for the golf course for a fascist. If that wasn’t enough, Obama held a White House conference for “stake holders” in the immigration debate and refused to invite a single governor from a border state.
A Republican equivalent would have had to come out of a deep involvement with some vile racist militia organization to approximate Obama’s background. And liberals would rightly label such a politician a fascist for his past alone.
Here’s a recent Youtube video of Obama’s key union allies on camera saying, “We’re not going to rely on the law,” and, “Forget about the law” as they seek to impose their unions basically whether workers want them or not:
Obama gave a very good speech last night. But when he said:
“But what we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together…”
I would have believed it to be far more sincere had Obama mentioned his own spiteful and polarizing rhetoric –
Didn’t Obama spend more than 20 years with a church that by any reasonable standard would be readily identified as a racist hate organization? You remember: that whole sordid “God Damn America” thing?
Didn’t Obama tell his followers to “punish our enemies”? With said “enemies” being Republicans?
And there are so many others. Even ones that most people would find minor, such as the campaign slogan, “Fired up, ready to go!”, should sound sinister given the attack that Sarah Palin’s “Don’t retreat, reload” has received.
– and disavowed many of his own words as contributing to the hostile climate that we have seen spring up in his presidency.
We’re not supposed to make a great tragedy political???
Tell it to Obama:
“Together We Thrive” was the slogan (and just when in the hell did Memorial services start getting “slogans”?) of the Tucson memorial service. You know, the one where the crowd cheered as though they were at a political rally, rather than at an event to mourn and honor people who were just ruthlessly gunned down by a psychopath.
Here are the T-shirts printed with the political slogan (yes, we can factually say that this is was very much a political slogan, having been the slogan of Obama and his “Organizing for America” organization):
And just when the hell was the last time you attended a memorial service for people who were gunned down and murdered or maimed, and received a T-shirt with bearing a political slogan???
President Barack Obama’s consoling, sermon-like speech at a service for the victims of the Arizona shooting rampage steered clear of politics, yet it may have given him one of the biggest political boosts since he took office two years ago.
“Steered clear of politics”??? The partisan crowd cheering at the “memorial service” were literally wearing their politics like T-shirts!!!
I mean, my God. I’m just disappointed now that I didn’t get my Bush 9/11 victims memorial speech commemorative T-shirt, featuring a George W. Bush for president election slogan.
Meanwhile liberals are congratulating themselves at their marvelous “tolerance” expressed in Obama’s speech, even as they continue to pile on in their hate for conservatives like Sarah Palin.
Death threats to former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin have increased to unprecedented levels in the wake of Saturday’s shooting in Tucson, an aide tells ABC News.
Following the attack that seriously wounded Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others, Palin has found herself embroiled in a firestorm of controversy. Numerous left-wing commentators have accused Palin’s hard-hitting partisan rhetoric of influencing accused shooter Jared Lee Loughner.
The Daily Caller reported that dozens of Twitter users called for Sarah Palin’s death in the hours following the shooting, with some going so far as to wish for her assassination.
Major mainstream media figures continued to demonize Sarah Palin even after Obama’s speech. Keith Olbermann attacked her for speaking out in her video one day after attacking her for not speaking out. Bill Press said that Sarah Palin’s self-defense against the vicious leftwing attacks against her reminded him of a terrorist hostage video.
Sarah Palin’s worst “crime” was coming out with a map that “targeted” vulnerable districts for Republican election victories, including Gabrielle Giffords’ seat. It is conveniently overlooked that the DEMOCRAT PARTY has used similar maps. It is conveniently forgotten that powerful leftwing site Daily Kos targeted the moderate Gabrielle Giffords. It is conveniently forgotten that Daily Kos featured an article literally saying of Gabrielle Giffords, “she’s dead to me.”
Funny. I don’t recall Sarah Palin saying that Gabrielle Giffords was dead to her. All she did was use a map the same way Democrats have been doing basically since Lewis and Clark rowed around America in their canoes.
All I can say is I watched the Tucson memorial service. I thought the Native American blessing thing was bizarre (were any of the shooting victims Native American?). I thought the University of Arizona president thought the event was to celebrate his university. And I thought the cheering at what was supposed to be a memorial service was just flat-out wrong.
But even the cheering dims in sheer brazenness to the “Together We Thrive – Organizing for America” political sloganeering.
It very much seems to be ALL about politics to the left. Because they don’t seem to believe in anything else but raw political power. And that goes from the lowest leftwing blogger furiously writing in his parents’ basement all the way up to the president of the United States.
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.
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.
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.”
“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.”
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?
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.
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.
“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.”
“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.”
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 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?
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%.
“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.
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.
We have a situation in which a police officer placed a man who turned out to be a Harvard professor of African-American Studies under arrest for disorderly conduct. And then we have a situation in which the President of the United States of America decides to directly involve himself in his role as Racial-Arbiter-in-Chief.
The best place to begin is with the facts. A neighbor saw two men attempting to force their way into a home that had already sustained an attempted break-in previously that week. The police arrived.
On Thursday July 16, 2009, Henry Gates, Jr. – -, of Ware Street, Cambridge, MA) was placed under arrest at Ware Street, after being observed exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place, directed at a uniformed police officer who was present investigating a report of a crime in progress. These actions on the behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose and caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed.
…When I arrived at Ware Street I radioed ECC and asked that they have the caller meet me at the front door to this residence. I was told that the caller was already outside. As I was getting this information, I climbed the porch stairs toward the front door. As I reached the door, a female voice called out to me. I looked in the direction of the voice and observed a white female, later identified {} who was standing on the sidewalk in front of the residence, held a wireless telephone in her hand arid told me that it was she who called. She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of• Ware Street. She told me that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry. Since I was the only police officer on location and had my back to the front door as I spoke with her, I asked that she wait for other responding officers while I investigated further.
As I turned and faced the door, I could see an older black male standing in the foyer of {} Ware Street. I made this observation through the glass paned front door. As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked if he would step out onto the porch and speak with me. He replied “no I will not”. He then demanded to know who I was. I told him that I was “Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge Police” and that I was “investigating a report of a break in progress” at the residence. While I was making this statement, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed “why, because I’m a black man in America?”. I then asked Gates if there was anyone else in the residence. While yelling, he told me that it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer. I assured Gates that I was responding to a citizen’s call to the Cambridge Police and that the caller was outside as we spoke. Gates seemed to ignore me and picked up a cordless telephone and dialed an unknown telephone number. As he did so, I radioed on channel I that I was off in the residence with someone who appeared to be a resident but very uncooperative. I then overheard Gates asking the person on the other end of his telephone call to “get the chief’ and “what’s the chiefs name?’. Gates was telling the person on the other end of the call that he was dealing with a racist police officer in his home. Gates then turned to me and told me that I had no idea who I was “messing” with and that I had not heard the last of it. While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence, I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me. I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at Ware Street and so that I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding that I show him identification but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card. Upon learning that Gates was affiliated with Harvard, I radioed and requested the presence of the Harvard University Police.
With the Harvard University identification in hand, I radioed my findings to ECC on channel two and prepared to leave. Gates again asked for my name which I began to provide. Gates began to yell over my spoken words by accusing me of being a racist police officer and leveling threats that he wasn’t someone to mess with. At some point during this exchange, I became aware that Off. Carlos Figueroa was standing behind me. When Gates asked a third time for my name, I explained to him that I had provided it at his request two separate times. Gates continued to yell at me. I told Gates that I was leaving his residence and that if he had any other questions regarding the matter, I would speak with him outside of the residence.
As I began walking through the foyer toward the front door, I could hear Gates again demanding my name. I again told Gates that I would speak with him outside. My reason for wanting to leave the residence was that Gates was yelling very loud and the acoustics of the kitchen and foyer were making it difficult for me to transmit pertinent information to ECC or other responding units. His reply was “ya, I’ll speak with your mama outside”. When I left the residence, I noted that there were several Cambridge and Harvard University police officers assembled on the sidewalk in front of the residence. Additionally, the caller, Ms. Walen and at least seven unidentified passers-by were looking in the direction of Gates, who had followed me outside of the residence.
As I descended the stairs to the sidewalk, Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him. Due to the tumultuous manner Gates had exhibited in his residence as well as his continued tumultuous behavior outside the residence, in view of the public, I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly. Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell, which drew the attention of both the police officers and citizens, who appeared surprised and alarmed by Gates’s outburst. For a second time I warned Gates to calm down while I withdrew my department issued handcuffs from their carrying case. Gates again ignored my warning and continued to yell at me. It was at this time that I informed Gates that he was under arrest. I then stepped up the stairs, onto the porch and attempted to place handcuffs on Gates. Gates initially resisted my attempt to handcuff him, yelling that he was “disabled” and would fall without his cane. After the handcuffs were property applied, Gates complained that they were too tight. I ordered Off. Ivey, who was among the responding officers, to handcuff Gates with his arms in front of him for his comfort while I secured a cane for Gates from within the residence. I then asked Gates if he would like an officer to take possession of his house key and secure his front door, which he left wide open. Gates told me that the door was unsecurable due to a previous break attempt at the residence. Shortly thereafter, a Harvard University maintenance person arrived on scene and appeared familiar with Gates. I asked Gates if he was comfortable with this Harvard University maintenance person securing his residence. He told me that he was.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Recently, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I — I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here.
I don’t know all the facts. What’s been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place.
So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into — well, I guess this is my house now, so — (laughter) — it probably wouldn’t happen.
(Chuckling.) But let’s say my old house in Chicago — (laughter) — here I’d get shot. (Laughter.) But so far, so good. They’re — they’re — they’re reporting. The police are doing what they should. There’s a call. They go investigate. What happens?
My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I’m sure there’s some exchange of words. But my understanding is — is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.
Now, I’ve — I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.
And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportion ately. That’s just a fact.
As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society.
That doesn’t lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that’s been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us.
And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and oftentime for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that’s why I think the more that we’re working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we’re eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody’s going to be.
We find out in addition that the police officer, Sgt. James Crowley, actually teaches courses on racial profiling at Lowell Police Acadamy, and has been teaching the course there for five years. We find out that Sgt. Crowley receives no pay for teaching the class, and that he drives from Cambridge to Middlesex Community College in Lowell. And we find out that he is an incredibly well-respected police officer.
Okay. So here’s your test: WHO was “acting stupidly”?
For the record, it is black men like Henry Louis Gates who make the charge “racist” utterly meaningless to me. Because the only way I could be any more racist than Gates is if I went to weekly meetings wearing a white robe and a pointy hat.
Personally, I have to give a tie to Professor Henry Louis Gates and President Barack Obama. Gates is clearly an arrogant hard-core racist jerk who deserved to be seriously beaten with a baton, let alone arrested. And Barack Obama is clearly an arrogant, hard-core fool who should have kept his stupid mouth shut rather than join Gates in throwing around charges of racism.
Mouthing off to police officers is a bad idea, and Henry Louis Gates officially disqualified himself from the roles of reasonable and intelligent people for having so remarkably mouthed off with so little provocation. And Harvard University is clearly an inferior academic institution for having such pathetic, angry, bitter, nasty, racist psychos on its payroll as “faculty.”
I am a law-abiding citizen, yet I have had several similar encounters with the police. On one occasion, I was ordered off my motorcycle (back when I had one), and ordered to interlock my fingers behind my neck and drop to my knees on the side of a highway. I hadn’t mouthed off in any way, or given any cause to believe that I was a threat when the black police officer gave me the order. And the officer’s tone had been, “Do it now or I will shoot you.” He inspected me for weapons and inspected my bags, before clearing me to stand up. When I asked why he had treated me this way, the officer curtly answered, “You matched the general description of a robbery suspect.” No, “Gee, I’m really sorry. It must have been kind of embarrassing kneeling on the side of the road with your arms over your head like that and all them cars driving by.”
I thought the officer was a complete jerk. But it never even occurred to me to think that this black authority figure was a racist out to get even with whitey. Primarily because I’d already had three earlier unfortunate wrong-place-wrong-time situations with rude police officers who were white. Once I’d been loudly cursed at by a police officer who was manning a perimeter check point when I tried to tell him I’d just seen the man they were probably looking for and noted the direction he was running. Another time I was ordered out of my car at literal gunpoint out in the desert. I had gone out there to walk my Rottweiler, and the officer was treating the situation as a possible stolen car incident.
It’s partially because police officers are always potentially about to be shot at, and partially because law enforcement just too often attracts men and women who get off exercising authority, that civilians often feel like they are being treated rudely.
In the particular case of Sgt. James Crowley and Professor Henry Louis Gates, it seems clear to me that Crowley was in the former category of “potentially about to be shot at,” while Gates was in the latter category of “get off exercising authority.”
Blacks often talk about racism being about an unequal power relationship. Well, the racists in this particular situation are the powerful men in society: a privileged Harvard University professor, and a President of the United States. And the victim of racism is an honest, blue collar working man.
How dare you accuse such a man of racism, Professor Gates? How dare you, President Obama? You were the two men who acted stupidly, and you are the two men who should feel ashamed of yourselves.
Is Barack Obama a racist? As far as I’m concerned, he’s now got three strikes. Strike one was belonging to a thoroughly racist church under Jeremiah Wright for 23 years. Strike two was his appointment of a “wise Latina judge” who had imposed a racist ruling penalizing white firefighters just for being white. And strike three is standing up for a racist bigot like Gates – who apparently becomes the next thoroughly racist extremist bigot Obama would no more disown than his own white grandmother – and associating Sgt. Crowley with racism and racial profiling when he didn’t know the facts of the case by his own admission is strike three.
It’s not the police officer who should be defending himself against allegations of racism. It’s Henry Louis Gates. And it’s Barack Obama. Obama should be asked every single day, “How dare you defend the kind of racist behavior your good friend Henry Gates exhibited toward that poor white police officer who was just trying to do his job?”
The president-elect isn’t shy about his penchant for exercise. He begins most mornings with a visit to a gym and frequently discusses his love for sports. Associated Press reporter Deanna Bellandi describes the incoming first couple as “fabulously fit.” Back in June, Men’s Fitness magazine ranked Obama the candidate as one of the 25 fittest guys in America.
So if this virtue of exercise is praised, how, you ask, have reporters referred to President Bush’s workout routine? They have used words such as “obsession,” “indulgence” and even “creepy” to describe the President’s exercise habit.
— FOX News Channel’s Zachary Kenworthy contributed to this report.
Just so we can all be aware that the blatant media propaganda campaign that damned and condemned everything about Bush while praising and adoring everything about Obama extends even into the most trivial aspects of their lives.
Though Moscow’s stock market is hit harder than its counterparts in Paris or London, Russian media are limiting their coverage of the financial crisis to Wall Street’s debacle, thereby adhering to confidence-boosting instructions from the Kremlin…
The Russian stock market has suffered a drop double that of Paris and has lost two-thirds of its value in just a few months, but this national channel gives no information on the situation and devotes less than 30 seconds to the financial markets.
In the corridors of Russia’s national media there is talk of a directive issued by the Kremlin – on the sensitive issue of the financial crisis, the order is – be positive on TV.
“It’s forbidden to use the word crisis if you’re speaking about Russia,” says Vladimir Vorfolomeev, the vice editorial director of radio Echo Moskvy. “You can’t say that the Russian market is falling or that shares are plunging…you have to be more neutral, saying for example that the share value is falling.”
But on the other hand, there are no restrictions when it comes to reporting on Wall Street – there, Russian journalists do speak of crisis and the inevitable recession which shows the limits of capitalism.
“They report that the plummeting US economy is dragging the rest of the world down,” says Vladimir Vorfolomeev. “They report Europe’s misfortunes – just like we did in Soviet times. On the one side there’s the West, which is in the process of collapsing, and on the other Russia, which if it is not prospering, can at least boast stability”.
And the Kremlin’s plan is working: if you believe the opinion polls more and more Russians are convinced that their economy is in good shape. Russians are not worried – for now the crisis is elsewhere and hasn’t affected them.
Barack Obama has talked at length about the United States becoming more like the rest of the world. And in some ways we already have: our media, for instance, is now as thoroughly corrupt, dishonest, and untrustworthy as news services of all the totalitarian regimes we used to stand against.
This has always been my issue with Barack Obama, and it’s never even so much as been asked of the man by the mainstream media: how on earth could you have stayed in that church under that horrible Jeremiah Wright for 23 years? How can you argue that you have the judgment and courage to be the President of the United States when you didn’t even have the judgment or courage to leave that church?
I don’t understand the ins and outs of running for President of the necessary dark sides of being a politician, but I DO know that there is no way in hell I would have remained in that Godforsaken church.
It’s time this line of thought finally came out of the mouth of a Democrat and Obama supporter. As found on the Weekly Standard, Congressman Jerrod Nadler had this to say about Obama’s long time attendance at Jeremiah Wright’s racist, Afrocentric, anti-American church:
Says Nadler: “I have no personal knowledge of what I’m about to say. What I’m about to say is my guess…”
Hoo boy.
“My guess,” Nadler said, “knowing how politics works, what I’m about to say is not particularly…”
He searches for the word. Rejects a couple suggestions.
“…not particularly complimentary towards Sen. Obama,” he says.
“Think of the history here,” says the six-term New York congressman. “You have a guy who’s half-white, half-black. He goes to an Ivy League school, comes to Chicago … to start a political career. Doesn’t know anybody.
“Gets involved with community organizing — why? Because that’s how your form a base. OK. Joins the largest church in the neighborhood. About 8,000 members. … Why did he join the church? … Because that’s how you get to know people.
“Now maybe it takes a couple years,” Nadler says, suggesting that soon Obama starts to think of Wright, “’Jesus, the guy’s a nut, the guy’s a lunatic.’ But you don’t walk out of a church with 8,000 members in your district.”
Suggests a woman: “You don’t walk in though.”
“He didn’t know it when he walked in, presumably,” said Nadler.
And then, the line that may haunt Nadler for four years or longer: “He didn’t have the political courage to make the statement of walking out.
“Now, what does it tell me?” Nadler asked. “It tells me that he wasn’t terribly political courageous. Does it tell me that he agreed with the reverend in any way? No. It tells me he didn’t want to walk out of a church in his district.”
The claim that Obama lacks political courage has quite a bit of other evidence apart from Jeremiah Wright. We can go back to his relationship with the Chicago political machinery to examine a man who – although surrounded by corruption – never once bucked the system. Chicago Tribune writer John Kass explains the media’s utter refusal to look into Obama’s political dealings in Chicago thusly:
The national media have never wanted to understand, much less expose, political corruption here, or examine how Obama prospered under the Daley machine’s guidance. A trip down the Chicago Way would force them to re-examine their ridiculous narrative that sets Obama as a political reformer riding a white horse, or is that a winged unicorn?
Kass discusses Obama’s relationships with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, Tony Rezko, and Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Barack Obama never displayed political courage in the US Senate either. A man who votes with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid 97% of the time isn’t exactly proving how brave he is. And along the enlightened path along brown nosing his leadership in such a stellar manner, Obama managed to win the coveted title of “most liberal Senator” in the process. And he most certainly didn’t earn that title by bucking the system, but by following it.
Just as he followed Jeremiah Wright for 23 years.
It occurs to me that an examination into Barack Obama’s life would likely reveal that John McCain displayed more courage in one typical day during his 5 1/2 years of hell in the Hanoi Hilton than Barack Obama displayed over his entire life.
Too bad if Obama wins tomorrow; given these difficult times the country is facing, our next President will likely need a great deal of courage to succeed, political and otherwise.
I found the following discussion about the treatment that Gov. Sarah Palin has received since she was announced as John McCain’s Vice President incredibly insightful. It was broadcast on the September 5, 2008 “Hannity and Colmes” program on Fox News.
The participants are conservatives Sean Hannity, Bay Bucanan, and liberals Alan Colmes and Kirsten Powers. Kirsten Powers had some amazing things to say:
Kirsten Powers: It’s not the National Organization for Women, right? But it’s not. It’s really the National Organization for Liberal Women. It’s not the National Organization for Women, because she’s a woman. And they put out a statement saying, “Not all women speak for women. Sarah Palin doesn’t speak for women.” Well, look; this woman, when I look at her – even if I don’t support her, you know, a lot of her policies, she is the embodiment of what feminism was all about. She’s a mother, she’s successful, her husband helps with the children. You know, we should be exited about this, even if you don’t support her. (more…)
Start Thinking Right 