Government in Exile

Are Liberals anti-Christian?

"Ernie" has some thoughts on liberals and Christians.

 It's pretty obvious that Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism and other long standing religions have been targeted by the left for elimination.  We're all familiar with the seeming endless list of anti-Christian organizations that continuously go to court to "shut down" religious activities.  We can't mention Jesus, Christ, Moses or any other Biblical personalities in school, the workplace, the public square, the Pledge of Allegiance, or any other place that has heretofore been not only acceptable, but expected and applauded.  While this assault on Christianity continues to expand we're ridiculed, insulted, abased and called bigots if we say anything against Islam or the Koran. 

Being politically correct apparently applies only when referring to Muslims.  "Most Muslims are pro-American and moderate, caring people", we're told by the left.  Sorry, but when Muslims say nothing in rebuttal to 9/11, when they sing and dance in the streets at the news, when these loving moderates didn't flee from Islam in response to Islamic terrorism that continues to murder innocent people by the thousands around the world, you can forget trying to convince me that there are "moderate" Muslims.  They all adhere to the tenets of the Koran which includes the order to convert infidels or kill them.

 

     Back to the demise of Christianity.  We're being replaced by a new religion called "liberalism".   Even Obama tells the world that we're not a Christian nation anymore.  It's not hard to realize why the left hates Christianity and wants it forever destroyed.  Our beliefs simply run counter to the beliefs of the Religion of Liberalism.  For example:

 

     a.  Christians are against abortion.  The left promotes it and finances it.

     b.  Christians believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.   The left is in favor of same-sex marriage.

     c.  Christians believe in the constitution.  The left claims it's an evolving document that no longer fits with the "new norm" crowd.

     d.  Jesus taught against slothfulness (laziness for you low-information voters).  The left wants more and more people dependent upon government for their survival.

     e.  Christians believe its a parent's right to discipline their children.  The left thinks kids should be allowed to do whatever they want and parents who discipline them should be arrested for child abuse.

     f.   Christians believe in the Ten Commandments.  There might be 1 or 2 the left will accept, but that's about it.  What's all this baloney about no adultery, stealing, bearing false witness and all those other invasions of human rights?

     g.  Christians teach against excessive drinking.   The left wants to legalize all drugs.

     h.  Jesus said, "have no other Gods before me."  The left has more gods than the Romans had.  For example money, iphones, luxury cars, drugs/booze, the democrat party, Obama, Hollywood, global warming, socialism, the environment,  and on and on.

     I.   Christians teach abstinence to their children.  The left wants them to have a right to abortions, the morning-after pill, and other contraceptives...and paid for by the taxpayer.

 

     In fact you can read through the Bible and especially the teachings of the Gospels and you'll find very few things the left would agree with.  In fact, you'll find more and more members of the Church of Liberalism who reject the Bible as myth, folk lore or terribly out of date in today's "new norm".   Ronald Reagan said, "when we take God out of country, then we'll have no country."

Is American Culture Dying?

"Ernie" has some thoughts of the demise of American culture.

Obama made it very clear in his 2008 campaign that he was going to fundamentally transform America.  He didn't say how, or what he was going to transform it to, but after 5 years of this disastrous administration we have a pretty clear idea. 

 

     As much as he'd like to take full responsibility for what's befallen us as a country and a people, this ideology really started long before his regime took office.  You can go all he way back to that Woodrow Wilson, the nation's first "progressive" statists who preached the growth and power of the government.  But wait, let's not forget Teddy Roosevelt.  For all his admirable qualities, he was the first conservationist president who took millions of acres out of the private sector and gave it to the government to "preserve the natural environment".  

 

     Back to the "how" part of the transformation, that too was designed and implemented back in the FDR days.  It began with the work projects designed to defeat the Great Depression.  What it really did was transfer personal responsibility to various government welfare programs.  Though the media gave him full credit for ending the depression, it was the second world war that put America back on a path for economic growth, primarily by creating a massive industrial revolution.  

 

     It was FDR's charisma that began transforming the media from journalism to the propaganda wing of the democrat party.  That situation has grown out of control and probably irreversible.  In addition the "progressives" gained control of the educational system and eventually the entertainment industry.  The influence of these 3 entities to implement Obama's ideology is insurmountable.

 

     Most recently beginning with Clinton and exploding under the Obama regime, the fuel that runs the "transformation" engine is in these new phrases....Political Correctness (PC) and diversity.  As with integration, affirmative action, Head Start, quotas and numerous other welfare programs, the lower classes (primarily blacks) were going to be freed from their slavery mentality and lifted up to become part of the great American culture.  Such things as learning about personal responsibility, love for country, work ethic, career opportunities, unity with other ethic groups, Christian values, etc.  You know, the culture that made Americans proud and productive for 150 years.  Has it worked?  Absolutely not.  School integration didn't lift the black culture up, it brought their inner city culture into public schools and helped destroy the best educational system in the world.  But we cater to this backsliding into the abyss in the name of diversity and PC.  As a result the number of blacks feeding at the government trough has skyrocketed, new welfare programs keep on coming, and America is on the verge of bankruptcy.

 

    But this destruction of the proud American culture doesn't stop there.  Look at the worlds of music and sports.  Music is nothing more than drug enhanced screaming, and sports arenas have become the Roman coliseums of the new century.  Sportsmanship has been replaced with endzone dances, chest pounding, trash talking, tattoos, body piercing, in-your-face boasting, and other inner city inventions. 

 

     Add to this the influx of hispanics flooding across the border.  Again in the names of PC and diversity, we have to let them bring their cultures with them, and sacrifice our American culture and traditions to accommodate theirs.  Heaven help us as the Islamic influence continues to grow and begins crowding out Christianity, Judaism and American traditions.  Come to think of it, it's already happening.  Are you ready for Shariah law?  You wouldn't want to offend the people who are trying to destroy us, now would you?

 

    Abandoning the tradition of the proud American culturalism that built this country into the worlds most powerful, wealthiest, freest, most compassionate (internationally & domestically) and innovative nation in the history of mankind, we are dooming the country to failure.  Just like Greece, Spain, Italy, and most of the other Euro Zone, only worse.  When the giant falls, the noise is much louder, the destruction more devastating.   

 

     Would the last person left alive please turn out the lights?     

Is Our CIA Director a Muslim?

"Ernie" has some thoughts about our CIA director.

 When John Brennan was nominated for head of the CIA there was an outpouring of opponents who were adamant about his lack of qualifications, even tho he had served in numerous intel gathering positions including CIA chief in Riyad Saudi Arabia.  Of course the media denounced all of those opponents as right wing bigots and "professional" obstructionists.  The primary argument against his appointment was the accusation by a former FBI anti-terrorism specialist named John Guadolo, who claimed that Brennan had converted to Islam while stationed in Saudi Arabia.  (Probably around 1996-97).  Guadolo was acknowledged as an expert on Islamic terrorism, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Jihadist organizations so spoke with some authority on the subject of Islam.   He gave as additional proof the fact that Brennan had gone to both Medina and Mecca during Hajj, which is a requirement of all faithful Muslims.  Brennan admitted that he had gone, but as a courtesy because he was living in Saudi Arabia at the time.   Guadolo retired from the FBI in 2008 when it was learned he had once had an affair with a key witness in the investigation of Rep Williams from Louisiana.   More "smear the opposition"? 

    I have read tons of material on Google about Brennan, but I've never found a time when Brennan was questioned about his so called conversion.  Neither by the media nor the congress.   One explanation given for the omission was because of the law that says no one can be denied a position in the government because of his religious beliefs.  In addition, I also never found anytime when he'd flatly denied being a Muslim.  What I did learn was he has an remarkable resume including  20 years with the CIA and other intelligence community organizations, and most recently (pre-CIA head) as chief counterterrorism advisor to Obama.

     Guadolo further argued that Brennan was recruited by the Saudi's as a counter-intelligence operation.  They supposedly felt this was a way of assuring that Muslims would be infiltrated into the US federal government in highly sensitive positions.  Whether true or not, it is true that during Brennan's career as counter-intel advisor to Obama the number of Muslims working in the government has increased significantly.

     After all my searching I'm left not knowing if he converted to Islam or not.  However, there is enough information about his friendly relationship with Muslims during his tour of duty in the mideast to question his objectivity and qualifications.   If Guadolo's accusations are believed to be right, why would Obama want a Muslim heading the CIA who's charged with gathering intel on Muslim extremists?  Not to mention the fact that we've suffered numerous attacks on US soil (domestic and foreign/embassy) by these extremists, many of whom have openly decared war on America.

 

     Brennan certainly has a distinguished resume, but if he's a recent convert to Islam that should without question disqualify him from heading our most important intel gathering organization, especially at a time when militant Islam is probably the biggest threat against our country's future.   

U.N. Human Right Council Member Says Boston Had it Coming

By Anne Bayefsky A UN “expert” of the UN Human Rights Council, Richard Falk, has announced that Boston had it coming. America’s “fantasy of global domination” justified what he has labeled “resistance.” Boston’s “canaries” happened to be the ones the resisters decided “have to die.” Appointed in 2008 as the UN “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967,” Falk spends his time as a professor emeritus from Princeton University, responding to speaking invitations, collecting awards from around the country, spouting antisemitism, and supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories. In his latest tirade in an online journal, Falk says the Boston attacks make sense when one properly understands that “the American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world.” Consequently, he argues, we should all be “meditating” on poet W.H. Auden’s apt line “Those to whom evil is done/do evil in return.” According to Falk, what happened in Boston was a mere “blowback.” Not only that, it will get “worse” if America does not fundamentally alter its “relations with the Islamic world.” Falk has been peddling his grotesque opinions from the UN platform for years. Because the truth is that antisemitism and anti-Americanism is his Human Rights Council job description. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) controls the balance of power on the Council by holding a majority of seats in the African and Asian regional groups, which in turn comprise the majority of Council members. Now Falk has pulled Boston into his twisted terrain, where fighting back is itself indefensible. He called the police action in Boston a "hysterical dragnet." Similarly, Falk has analogized Israeli responses to Palestinian terrorism to the “Nazi record of collective atrocity.” His website has sported a cartoon of a dog wearing clothing marked with “USA” and a star of David, devouring blood spattered bones and urinating on a statue of lady justice. Richard Falk, however, did not materialize out of thin air. Less than two weeks ago, a top UN committee charged with drafting the first comprehensive convention against terrorism, ended in disarray because Islamic states insisted that there is a distinction between terrorism and “legitimate struggle” against “colonial or alien domination.” Morsi’s Egypt led the way in pressing for a world conference on “root causes” of terrorism and “the conditions conducive to terrorism.” OIC countries insisted that these conditions include “political and economic injustice, marginalization, poverty, hunger and alienation.” In short, the real victim becomes the terrorist, not Krystle Campbell, Lu Lingzi, Martin Richard, and Officer Sean Collier. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has become a lead champion of the UN Human Rights Council. While President Bush refused to join a human rights body that had no human rights credentials for membership, joining and supporting the Council has been a signature foreign policy move of President Obama. The State Department has approached the experience of belonging to the Council as a game of whack-a-mole. When the unimpeded election of Colonel Gadhafi’s Libya to the Council finally became too embarrassing, they had Libya temporarily “suspended.” When the permanent bash-Israel agenda item of the Council comes up three times a year they sit mute, and send assistant secretaries of state to Jewish events across the country assuring the community they feel their pain. When Iran wanted a Council seat, they traded the country for a seat on the UN’s top women’s rights body, the Commission on the Status of Women. The question is what are they going to whack now? Richard Falk is emboldened by a UN “human rights” Council that is emboldened by the participation and support of the world’s leading democracy. It is time to put an end to America’s support for the Council now.

Is Political Correctness Destroying America?

"Ernie" has some thoughts on political correctness. 

I enjoyed reading Peter's article because it touched on a topic I wanted to write about....political correctness and how it's destroying our freedoms from top to bottom.  Whether its practicing our freedom of religion, our right to disagree, our freedom of speech or any/all of the other freedoms we've come to take for granted in a free society, they're being taken from us.  In simple terms we're losing the freedom to make our own life choices, or to just be ourselves.  Check out Common Core.  This travesty will take our career choices and our education choices away from the family and giving them to the government.  It would eliminate the right to home school our children.  Just another liberal program designed to "transform" America.

 

Many people think PC began under the Clinton administration, but actually it's been alive and well for thousands of years.  Everywhere there was an authoritarian style government, people were not allowed to voice an opinion or do anything that wasn't approved by the government.  Joseph Stalin was the most recent autocrat who demanded that people buy the government ideology or face punishment ranging from death to living forever in a Siberian gulag.

 

A noted authority on terrorism was asked by FOX yesterday what we need to do to protect ourselves from being destroyed by Muslim extremists.  His answer...."do away with political correctness".   How can we justify kissing the feet of people who want to wipe us off the face of the earth?  PC says because we want to show them that we're tolerant and respect their beliefs.  Okay, we've shown them so can we now shut down all the mosques in America, denounce Islam as an unrecognized religion, and quit sending them trillions of dollars for  their oil when we have more oil underground than they have?   An imam can rail against America, Jews, Christians, capitalism, American "luxuries", etc, and that's fine.  But just let a Methodist preacher read (from the Bible) something negative about same sex marriage, homosexuality or abortion, and the progressives want to shut him down, close his church and turn the ACLU loose on him.

 

I saw recently where a teacher was fired for giving a student a Bible.  It seems the student was constantly asking the teacher (outside the classroom) about various verses in the Bible.  When he asked the teacher if he could get him a Bible, the teacher took his own small Bible from his pocket and gave it to him.  He specifically told the student that it was a personal gift and had nothing to with school.  When the principal found out about it, he fired the teacher.  This is just one more example of PC gone crazy.  He could have given him a copy of the Koran and nothing would have been said.

 

There is an endless string of such examples of how PC is destroying our lives, and our country.  Over time I've even grown proud of some of the spiteful, insulting labels they hang on people like me.  Anything that shows I'm not "one of them" is OK fine with me.

Did the U.S. Subsidize the Boston Bombers?

"Peter" has some thoughts about the Boston bombers.

Why are American taxpayers subsidizing the immigration of Muslims from such hell-holes as Chechnya, Syria, Somalia, etc? 

It is undisputed that Islamist doctrines are incompatible with American principles and culture. To Muslims we are satanic infidels who must be annihilated; evil-doers who must be converted to Islam or murdered. Muslims cannot become Americans and still retain their Muslim doctrines and Shariah laws. To become an infidel is a capital crime for a Muslim.

Muslims do not want to become Americans, they just want to live here and enjoy our wealth.

So why is our government paying them to immigrate to the U.S. and housing them in our neighborhoods at our expense? Why is our own government's apparent policy to place Americans at risk and make us pay for it?

Why isn't this glaring hypocrisy and incongruity being addressed by the "Gang of Eight" immigration policymakers?

Why isn't this being discussed in the media? Even Fox News tippy-toes around this injustice of acting against our own interests!

It's so obvious: Political correctness has nullified the First Amendment and intimidated an entire generation into shameful silence! America is slowly committing political and cultural suicide. The land of freedom envisioned by our founding fathers is decaying into divisiveness, violence and chaos at the hands of an ill-educated generation that truly does not understand the meaning of freedom!

 

Who is Responsible for the Boston Bombings?

"Ernie" has some thoughts on the Boston bombings.

 

I empathize with those poor people in Boston who were either involved in, or witnesses to, the bombing at the marathon.  I know the culprit(s) haven't yet been identified, but it has all of the appearances of Muslim jihadists.  The 2-bomb tactic is widely used in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas of the peace loving "Arab spring" countries of the mideast.  The first bomb kills people and the second bomb kills the first responders.

I was surprised to hear Obama call it an "act of terror".  Obviously he's clinging to the hope it was done by the NRA, the TEA Party, or other gun loving, God-clinging right wingers.  If it turns out to be done by Muslims he'll no doubt switch from "an act of terror" to a "marathon incident.  Sorta like the Ft. Hood massacre.  When it turned out to be a raghead shouting "Allah Akbar", the slaughter quickly became a "workplace incident".

Using WH logic, I guess Syria is just a "civil disagreement" and the killings and harassment of Egyptian Christians by those fun-loving kids of the Muslim Brotherhood are just "desert incidents".  Why don't we send the MB F-16s and Abrams tanks to show we bear no hard feelings. As for the Palestinians, the Iranians, the NoKoreans and other crazies, they're just expressing their point of view in the only way they know how.  You know, by killing.

How amazing is it in a world full of crazies who want to destroy us, that Obama keeps weakening our military?   The latest report is he's offering to reduce our nuclear weapons cache even more in a move to get the ChiComs to shut up the thumb-sucker in NoKo.

It will be interesting to see how the media and WH finally sum up today's travesty.  Was the perp protesting marathon racing or Patriots Day?  If so, those events will forever be seen by the libs as "assault provoking events".  Marathon races will have to be shortened from 26 miles to 5 miles.  Patriots Day will be to commemorate Muslim freedom fighters.  

 

Reagan, Reagan, where are you?  Does anyone remember "peace thru strength"?  Does anyone on the left remember the end of the communist Soviet Union?  Does anyone remember the iron curtain coming down?  Probably not anybody under the age of 50.  They do however know who the last winner of American Idol was.   We're on the verge of collapse unless we somehow find leaders who can tell people the truth in a convincing, believable way.  And soon.

Is the Justice Department Pro-Abortion?

The House Judiciary Committee today held a hearing on “Mismanagement at the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice” and invited Liberty Counsel’s Senior Litigation Counsel, Harry Mihet, to testify on this troubling subject. Mihet was the lead attorney in Liberty Counsel’s successful defense of Susan Pine, a pro-life woman who endured a two-year, baseless and politically motivated prosecution by the DOJ, under the leadership of Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez. Mr. Perez is President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Labor. Mihet today told Congress that “The Department of Justice has apparently forgotten its name and that its purpose is to pursue justice and protect civil rights, not unconstitutional, groundless claims manufactured by abortion clinics to intimidate and silence pro-life Americans.” Mihet recounted how Mr. Perez assembled a team of seven (7) taxpayer-funded lawyers, flew many of them down to Florida for a taxpayer-funded stakeout of Ms. Pine’s constitutionally protected speech outside an abortion clinic, and filed a federal lawsuit against her, claiming that she “obstructed” a vehicle from entering the clinic. The DOJ had no “victim” because no one ever complained of being obstructed. The DOJ and the clinic failed to preserve the videotapes from the clinic’s security system, which would have shown that Ms. Pine broke no law. And the DOJ manufactured facts out of whole cloth, only to have them refuted by its own witnesses. At the end of the two-year ordeal, federal Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp concluded that “the evidence could not lead a rational jury to find that Ms. Pine’s conduct [i.e., having peaceful conversations with clinic visitors on a public sidewalk] constituted a physical obstruction” in violation of any law. “The Court is at a loss as to why the Government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place,” he added. And he suspected that “this action was the product of a concerted effort between the Government and the [abortion clinic], which began well before the date of the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine’s activities.” The Court threw out the DOJ’s lawsuit, and the DOJ paid $120,000 in fees and costs for its frivolous conduct. “When the very institution charged with protecting civil rights becomes complicit in violating them, all Americans suffer,” said Mihet. “Mr. Perez and those under his leadership have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to follow the rule of law when it conflicts with their partisan ideology,” he added. Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented: “Today’s testimony reveals that this Department of Justice is driven by political ideology rather than the rule of law. The testimony is especially troubling regarding Thomas Perez. When confronted with the thugs of the New Black Panther Party, who used clubs to intimidate citizens from voting, he refused to apply the law because he believes the law protecting the right to vote free of intimidation does not apply to ‘white citizens.’ In our case with Susan Pine, Perez ignored the law and placed his abortion ideology over the rule of law. He was soundly chastised by the federal judge for his shocking disregard for the law and facts. He has been nominated by President Obama to be the Secretary of Labor. In this capacity, he would be charged with equal enforcement of employment non-discrimination laws, which past history reveals he is incapable of doing."

Is There Any Hope for a Resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?

"VietVet" has some thoughts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

  After seeing our President speaking to an assembly of Israeli college students recently on his latest trip to the Middle East and calling for them in the name of "stability and peace", to try and see things the way the Palestinians do and go the distance to make things better for "future generations of disenfranchised Palestinian Arabs"; I was hoping that Pat Condell would have something to say on the subject. And now he does.

   After sixty four years of warfare between the Israelis and the Arabs who surround them on all sides, and after peace missions by virtually every President and diplomat of importance who ever lived during that sixty four years; you would think we would have figured out the problem by now - but guess what? It took an private citizen of Great Britain to actually say the words. Click below for the (not so) surprising truth of why people are still dying there.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzCIckbZKUs&list=UUWOkEnBl5TO4SCLfSlosjgg&index=3

 

Are Physicians Turning Away Patients Because of ObamaCare?

"Ernie" has some thoughts on ObamaCare.

An article by the Washington Post today reported that many cancer physicians were turning away Medicare patients because of the sequestration cuts.  Naturally the Post..being a propoganda rag for the WH... slanted the article by claiming the cuts were due to the republicans refusing to negotiate with lib/dems to stop the sequester from going into effect.  The subtle accusation being that republicans would rather let our seniors die than "reach across the aisle" to negotiate with the all-caring, all-compassionate libs who just want to save the lives of our precious senior citizens.  The truth appears to be that libs would rather let our seniors die than stop ObamaCare from robbing the Medicare system.  After all, most of the elderly vote republican.

  

It's obvious the far left is going to blame the sequester and the republicans for all economic suffering in the country from ending WH tours to reducing the number of border patrol agents on our Mexican border.  I guess if N.Korea throws a missle at us it will be the fault of the GOP's sequestration.   Their comrades in the media will be only too willing to "spread the word".

The Post article failed to mention that ObamaCare robbed $716B from Medicare in order to fund ObamaCare.  That $716B is a whole lot bigger number than the 2% budget cuts that "could" be assessed by the sequester against MediCare.  Please note that the sequester says the cuts "could be"...not "would be"...cut.  That insinuates that the cuts are not mandatory.  They further failed to mention that the 2% cuts were not cuts from the Medicare budget, but rather cuts from the projected 6% rate of growth of the budget.  It didn't mention anything about the WH budget for 2013 already 2 months late, with no anticipated submission date in sight.  But what the heck, he hasn't submitted and passed a budget in 5 years.  How you supposed to do that and campaign at the same time?  Not to mention those golf outings and luxury vacations that have to be fit into his schedule.

It's obvious that truthfulness has taken a leave of absence from the Obama administration and the media.  The media is not as guilty of blatant lying as Obama, but rather lean more towards the side of "lying by omission".  In other words, don't print or broadcast anything that would hinder Obama's ideological agenda of destroying America as planned and taught by Cloward and Piven at Columbia U.  (Obama was one of their most attentive students).  They outlined a plan for destroying our economy by overloading the entitlement system via welfare, nationalized health care, strangling the private sector, and other assorted gov't expenditures.   If  the media feels forced to at least mention such WH indiscretions you'll find them on page 46 or in a once only 30-second clip on the news.  Forget MSNBC reporting any such thing, Matthews is still giddy over the tingling in his leg.