President Obama » Christ's Internet.com

Barack Obama is no Abraham Lincoln

Comments Off

Mar 102013

By Matt Barber

Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin condemns any people. (Proverbs 14:34)

The name “Abraham Lincoln” enjoys a boundless shelf life. The 16th president of the United States is more popular today than ever. The blockbuster movie “Lincoln” recently took home two Oscars, with Daniel Day-Lewis earning the “Best Actor” nod for his masterful portrayal of the Civil War president.

In his outstanding biography, “Abraham Lincoln, a Man of Faith and Courage,” author Joe Wheeler observed that “Lincoln has had more books written about him than all our nation’s presidents put together.”

Love him or hate him, Abraham Lincoln remains, far and away, the most admired president in U.S. history.

It’s little wonder, then, that President Obama seeks to associate himself with this great man at every possible turn. Even so, in terms of worldview, political philosophy, integrity and honorability, the two men are as north to south. Their similarities both begin and end with an Illinois mailing address.

Consider, for instance, that, whereas Lincoln was both a Republican and a strong social conservative by modern standards – Obama is a hard-left Democrat and radical Marxist by any standard. Whereas Lincoln ultimately united a nation brutally divided, Mr. Obama brutally divides a nation once united.

While, as noted by Wheeler, Abraham Lincoln was a man singularly driven by unfettered fidelity to both biblical principles and the one true God of the Bible, Mr. Obama is hell-bent on undermining, if not outright defying, every jot and tittle of the Holy Scriptures.

By placing his hand on the Lincoln Bible and swearing to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States … to the best of my ability,” Mr. Obama sought to draw some symbolic connection to President Lincoln.

Instead, and due to his counter-biblical public policy, he not only engaged in brazen duplicity, but managed to underscore the stark contrast between the two leaders. As compared to his pious predecessor, “the best of [Mr. Obama's] ability” has been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

In his first inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln observed: “Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.”

I believe that, due to our nation’s near total rejection of God and our government’s official stamp of approval on that which Scripture unambiguously calls mortal sin (i.e., homosexuality, the deconstruction of legitimate marriage, abortion on demand and the like), God has, for the first time in our relatively brief history, “forsaken this favored land.” I believe we are a nation under judgment and that Barack Obama is part of that judgment.

Lincoln also declared, “The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time.”

Let that sink in. “God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time.” God declares homosexual behavior “an abomination.” Mr. Obama celebrates it. God says “thou shalt not murder.” Mr. Obama and his ilk are responsible for the cold blooded murders of 55-plus million American babies at the callous hands of abortionists.

Jesus, in His own words, reaffirmed the definition of legitimate marriage, saying, “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Mr. Obama has called Jesus a liar, saying, in effect, “At the beginning the Creator made them lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT). For this reason a male, female or shemale will leave his, her or whatchahoozie’s father and mother, father and father or mother and mother and be united to his or her wife – and/or husband – and the two or more will become one flesh. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

Contrast Mr. Lincoln’s reverence for God and Christianity with Mr. Obama’s declaration that, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.”

Or consider these words, where Mr. Obama both defamed the Bible and mocked Christ’s Sermon on the Mount: “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?”

The Sermon on the Mount – a passage so radical that its application the Defense Department would not survive? No, Mr. President, you simply desire it not survive.

Indeed, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin condemns any people.” This is not just a flowery aphorism. It’s a self-evident truth – an objective reality. We as an American people have embraced sin and are thusly condemned.

Lincoln said, “The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.” As individuals, we will each stand before God and give an accounting – we will all face judgment. As a nation, we can only be judged in the temporal – in the here and now.

Lincoln also said, “let us renew our trust in God, and go forward without fear, and with manly hearts.” This sage admonition, though certain to infuriate modern-day feminists, is in perfect keeping with 2 Chronicles 7:14, which declares, “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

Because, as the psalmist observed, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” (Psalm 33)

And cursed is the nation whose god is man.

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

Women in Combat: Felony Stupid

Comments Off

Feb 182013

By Matt Barber

The term “moronic” is defined as “notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.” It is frequently used as an insult.

The Obama administration is moronic.

This is not an insult.

President Obama’s latest “notably stupid” stoke of America’s calculated slow burn is the decision to lift the ban on women in direct combat. Along with the move a few years back to turn the Officers’ Club into the Blue Oyster Bar, this most recent social experiment with national security represents one small step for the “progressive” agenda and one giant prance toward the pansification of the greatest military in world history.

It’s a jaw-dropping “lack in good judgment.”

In 1991 the late Gen. Robert H. Barrow, former commandant of the Marine Corps, gave compelling testimony on the subject before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee. He stated, “If you want to make a combat unit ineffective, assign some women to it. … In three wars – World War II, Korea and Vietnam – I found no place for women to be down in the ground combat element,” he concluded.

In a recent column headlined “Women in Ground Combat,” Bing West, former Marine officer and assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan, notes that, during his testimony, Gen. Barrow “cited the 1950 fighting retreat from the Chosin Reservoir in temperatures of minus 20 degrees, with one Marine division pitted against eight Chinese divisions. Had women comprised 15 percent of his division, Barrow concluded, the Marines would have lost the battle. ‘The very nature of women disqualifies them from doing it (killing so brutally),’ Barrow said. ‘Women give life, sustain life, nurture life; they don’t take it.’”

Evidently, Gen. Barrow never met one of today’s abortion-worshiping feminist “Flukes” of nature. Still, they only kill innocent children who can’t fight back.

In short, Gen. Barrow observed that opening the front lines to, um, “infantrywomen” would not only cost precious American lives, it would ultimately “destroy the Marine Corps.”

Now, I know, who the heck do Barrow and West think they are, right? Did they ever bravely serve God and country as a glorified teacher’s assistant at Harvard Law?

I think not.

Did they ever do “a little blow,” march with the Black Panthers, “organize their communities” into welfare-dependent hellholes, or drink lattes with “Marxist professors and the structural feminists”?

No.

Sheesh.

Even so, despite an obvious lack of credibility on combat readiness and a meager century or so in combined service, I think we should at least humor them a bit.

“To Barrow, a warrior admired by three generations of grunts,” wrote West, “ground combat meant killing under the harshest of circumstances. Barrow opposed the incorporation of women into infantry units characterized by primal instincts: sleeping, defecating, eating, and smelling like wolf packs while hunting down and slaughtering male soldiers.”

That’s the problem with political correctness – with liberalism in general. It raises a pseudo-utopian barrier to reality. Often times that barrier is deadly.

This is what happens when a gaggle of left-wing civilian politicians who don’t know which end of the gun goes “bang!” are placed in charge of national security. These yahoos couldn’t bust a grape with a sledge hammer, let alone lift a sledge hammer.

This is what happens when we allow “progressives” to deconstruct our culture by imposing, through public policy, the fantastical delusion of a “genderless society.”

I fully support women learning self-defense and packing heat for protection. I’ve known a number of gals so tough that, for his own safety, a fellow would be better served to break it off via text message should the relationship go south.

Still, as a former professional boxer and police officer, and having served 12 years in the armed services myself, I can say this without equivocation: While there may be the extremely rare anecdotal exception, in direct one-on-one military combat, the toughest, baddest, meanest chick out there is going to get stomped by the weakest infantryman.

This is life and death stuff. Women are no more made for the front lines than men are made for childbearing.

Don’t get me wrong – I love women. I’m married to a woman and am on the hook for two future weddings of future women who, admittedly, have me hopelessly wrapped around pink-polished little fingers.

Even so, if I’m on the front lines and Ahmed, Abdul and Hakeem come charging with fixed bayonets, I danged sure want Billy Bob, not Barbara, in my foxhole.

This doesn’t even scratch the surface. What of the sensitive dynamics of sex and jealousy? How about the reality that, despite feminist protestations to the contrary, chivalry is not dead? Men are naturally wired to protect the weaker sex, even if it runs counter to combat mission. Honorable men will drop everything to protect a woman, even if it means dying in the process.

If the presence of women is not a factor, than neither is sex, jealousy or chivalry (putting aside the whole “gays in the military” debacle). More importantly, if women remain shielded from direct combat, lives are saved and battles are won. Add women, and you add weakness. Both lives and battles are lost. It’s felony stupid.

Am I suggesting that the sitting president of the United States is stupid? Not exactly – not in terms of overall intelligence. But, as Momma Gump always said: “Stupid is as stupid does.”

I’m sure that Mr. Obama has an average or slightly above average IQ. Still, objectively, measurably – as a point of fact supported by the overwhelming weight of the evidence – this man stupidly, perhaps even seditiously, insists upon circumventing Congress to shovel executive order after executive order atop the Mount St. Helens of dictatorial dung heaps.

Eventually it has to blow.

The question is no longer whether Barack Obama is weakening every noble aspect of American life, including our military. The question now becomes whether the rest of us will be able to put the pieces back together once this radical lefty is finally back in Hawaii for good – Mai Tai in one hand and leather-bound copy of the Communist Manifesto in the other.

The question is whether America will survive Barack Obama.

How Conservatives Lost Women Voters

Comments Off

Nov 132012

Late last year when a presidential primary candidate was asked how he was going to reach women voters, he responded that he was polling well with women. Oh, oh. He seemed clueless about what most women really want. Once again, women were being taken for granted and once again we could lose – big time. And lose, we did.

Reaching women is not a new concept. The importance of our vote should be well-known, as women have registered and voted at a higher rate than men since the 1980.

One would think every campaign would have a proven strategy by now. But, while I don’t claim to speak for all American women, no doubt many of us rolled our eyes and sighed or cringed at some of the conservative candidates’ messaging. We may not relish the haranguing and rudeness, but we are willing to ignore it if our candidate can clearly articulate how their positions and plans will improve life for us and our families.

Candidates cannot just treat women like we matter just to get our vote. Women can spot a phony – we have experience. They cannot take us for granted, or treat us like a bunch of airheads who will fall for a good line. Instead of telling us what we should think, they should pay attention to not only what they say, but also how they live – 24/7/365.

Developing consistent, conservative messages, and that resonate with women of all ages is important. But it is just as critical for candidates to start living like they believe those messages, and start telling us how their message is relevant in our lives. A convincing message must be clear and it must connect with the heart.

When a candidate says he’s pro-life, like most Americans, what does he mean? Professing a pro-life belief is necessary for a conservative candidate, but it is not sufficient. How does that translate into real life? What will he really do about it? Does he help single moms? Does he also care about the children we already have? Will he mow an elderly neighbor’s yard or run errands for the sick? Will he throw out senseless regulations so we can feed the homeless? These are pro-life principles, too, that solidifies the pro-life message and makes it relevant.

Or consider gun control. Show women how to have both freedom and safety for their families. Gun policy must make sense to women. We can empathize with the 12-year-old girl who followed her mother’s instructions to arm herself with a gun and shoot an intruder. We can identify with needing guns to keep our family safe.

Women are smart enough to decide whether to have a gun. We don’t want the government telling us we cannot have one. After all, criminals don’t just kill people with guns; they use knives, fires, cars and bombs, too. Does the candidate also have a plan to keep criminals off our streets and out of our schools? That is a plan women can support.

And when a candidate claims to support traditional family values, what does that mean? Will he really work to stop the child molesters and bring the Jerry Sanduskys of the world to justice? Will he commit to work against evil people who destroy so many families? Will he target those who enslave women in prostitution?

A family values mantra is not sufficient when the statistics show that so many men, even professing Christians, are further sickening our communities by viewing Internet porn. A man who demeans women, mistreats his wife, or ignores his kids has no real family values Women this know. Women talk. A politician is free to play golf or watch football so long as he also shows that he takes his marriage vows seriously.

We want politicians who consider our interests as well as his own. While we struggle to balance household, family and work responsibilities, we have a hard time trusting that those we vote for will work as hard for us. We have a nagging suspicion that too many government workers are lollygagging around while pretending to be public servants. Our suspicion is reinforced by the all-too-frequent news reports of lavish travel, infidelity and prostitutes.

Now, about that elephant in the room. For so many conservative women, the presidential race was not about electing Romney. It was, for many of us, an anti-Obama event.

Romney was like the unwanted suitor at our high school prom. We danced because we didn’t want to turn him down and make a scene. Our reluctance was warranted, because as we danced, he talked about his economic plan.

Like one of those dolls we had as kids: “Hello, my name is Chatty Cathy!” Just pull the string to hear the same lines over and over. Ask Romney about anything and he would say, “Hello, I know how to run a business.”

Many of us would have voted for the Grinch if he was the Republican nominee. Other women felt themselves caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, but they were unwilling to give up their current unhealthy relationship for an uncertain voyage.

We believed Romney cared about the economy, but it was not clear if he cared about anything else that we care about. He lost us at “hello.”

Anita Staver is an attorney and President of Liberty Counsel, www.LC.org.

PLEASE PRAY Every Night for U.S. Election – 9:00 p.m. ET (8 pm CT, 7 pm MT, 6 pm PT)

Comments Off

Sep 242012

Please join brothers and sisters across the continent – praying every night for our soldiers and the U.S. Election, Tuesday, November 6 – ONE MINUTE EACH NIGHT! 9:00 P.M. Eastern Time (8 PM Central, 7 PM Mountain, 6 PM Pacific)

An email forwarded from a friend had this text;

“This is the scariest election we as Christians have ever faced, and from the looks of the polls, the Christians aren’t voting Christian values. We all need to be on our knees.

“Do you believe we can take God at His word? Call upon His name, then stand back and watch His wonders unfold. This scripture gives us, as Christians, ownership of this land and the ability to call upon God to heal it. I challenge you to do that. We have never been more desperate than now for God to heal our land.

“2 Chronicles 7:14. ‘If my people, which are called by my name shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.’

“During WWII, there was an advisor to Churchill, who organized a group of people who dropped what they were doing every night at a prescribed hour for one minute, to collectively pray for the safety of England , its people and peace. This had an amazing effect, as bombing stopped.”

David B. Thompson looked into the England prayer event in June, 2004, when the story was brought up as a model for praying for our troops and peace in the Mideast, and wrote on his blog (http://randomruminations.net/1104/minute-of-prayer/) :

“I investigated this after I got the e-mail about it, and hope this gives you some of the info you’re requesting. –http://www.thesilentminute.org/index.php?menu=1 specifically, http://www.thesilentminute.org/article.php?sid=1&PHPSESSID=5f948303c2ae20acbd7a1ae19806db55

“John Ross, president of Daybreak Communications, Inc., received three separate similar emails on the peace prayer subject from friends. That initiated his interest to investigate the matter more. He found out from a United Kingdom website that the original “Big Ben Silent Minute” was a peace prayer initiated by Wellesley Tudor Pole, a major in the British Army. During World War 2, all over Britain and the Commonwealth, millions of people joined together every evening in a silent minute to pray for peace. After reviewing the situation, Ross and his national religious communications firm decided that America needed to know more about “The Silent Minute.” They, therefore, launched www.thesilentminute.org and www.thesilentminute.us on Thursday, March 30 at 9 a.m. (Eastern Time). Ross is hopeful that this specific prayer time can bring a peaceful conclusion to the current Iraq war. He would like to see American and world religious leader endorse “The Silent Minute” and that Americans would continue the grassroots prayer email campaign. Daybreak Communications, Inc. is a Chicago-area publicity firm specializing in fax and email distribution of religious news releases by The The Religion Wire?. — Hereamisendme 21 June 2004, 08:45″

The U.S Silent minute URL no longer appears active – but there is a United Kingdom website talking about the “Big Ben Silent Minute” and a current prayer for World Peace at http://www.thesilentminute.org.uk/. This organization was established by Ms. Dorothy Forster, who restarted the Silent Prayer in England following 9/11.

Wikipedia also tells the story with a little more detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Minute

The note from my friend continued, adding the additional concern for our current election to the previous war concerns:

“There is now a group of people organizing the same thing here in America . The United States of America , and our citizens, need prayer more than ever! If you would like to participate, each evening at 9:00 P.M. Eastern Time (8 PM Central, 7 PM Mountain, 6 PM Pacific), stop whatever you’re doing, and spend one minute praying for the safety of the United States, our troops, our citizens, for peace in the world, the upcoming election, that the Bible will remain the basis for the laws governing our land, and that Christianity will grow in the U.S.

“If you know anyone who would like to participate, PLEASE SHARE THIS!

“Someone said if people really understood the full extent of the power we have available through prayer, we might be speechless. Our prayers are the most powerful asset we have.

I have not yet found the group of people who are organizing the current effort, but it really doesn’t matter. Despite the opinion of Snopes, there doesn’t need to be anyone organizing it. The fact that Christians are interested and responding with prayer is all that is important. If only two Christians responded to the email with prayer, that would be all that was necessary.

Matthew 18:19-20 (NIV): 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

Two sincere Prayer Warriors is all that is required. But when there are hundreds of thousands of us – well, that much stronger.

This site has a PDF that you can use to print off little cards for friends, encouraging them to pray… https://www.bigescape.info/Prayer_Life/ONE_MINUTE_EACH_NIGHT.pdf

Please pass this on to anyone who you think will want to participate. ~ Email, Twitter, Facebook, etc. Thanks!!

###

Onward Christian Soldiers

Comments Off

Oct 202011

by Matt Barber
Liberty Counsel Action

Liberals are nervous. They should be. As the 2012 election grows closer a soft rumble builds throughout thousands of Evangelical Christian churches across America. Pastors and churchgoers alike are waking up to the disturbing reality that we as a nation have strayed drastically from our historical Judeo-Christian moorings.

Though many may try, none can honestly deny that the results have been devastating to our culture.

Once the political tectonic plates shift, there is bipartisan agreement that we can expect an earthshaking groundswell of grassroots advocacy and action to rival – if not surpass – the 2010 Tea Party effect.

This burgeoning Christian movement has not gone unnoticed by the left. For instance, in a piece headlined: “Evangelical pastors heed a political calling for 2012,” the Los Angeles Times recently reported, “Formerly apolitical preachers in states like Iowa, backed by astute organizers and big donors, are mobilizing congregations for the election.”

“Religious leaders have long been active in political causes,” the newspaper notes. “Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. used his Baptist pulpit to agitate for civil rights, and fiery televangelists Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell awakened the religious right in the 1970s and 1980s with calls to fight what they saw as America’s moral decay.

“But the current awakening is different,” the piece continues. “It springs from the grass roots – small and independent churches – and is fueled by emails and YouTube videos. And it is driven less by personality than by the biblical teaching to be the ‘salt’ and ‘light’ of society – in other words, to have a beneficial influence on the world.”

Indeed, the Moral Majority, led by Falwell and other venerable Christian leaders, was central to placing Ronald Reagan in the White House in 1980. Remarkably, the movement’s contemporary counterpart promises to play a key role in President Obama’s eviction from that same residence some 32 years later.

At the time, Falwell gave a rousing call to arms:

“What is wrong in America today?” he asked. “We preachers – and there are 340,000 of us who pastor churches – we hold the nation in our hand. And I say this to every preacher: We are going to stand accountable before God if we do not stand up and be counted.”

Falwell’s words ring no less true today.

Of course you can set your watch to the liberal response. Recognizing the threat to their own secular-socialist designs for America posed by a Christian socio-political revival – “progressive” conspirators have broken out the Saul Alinsky-crafted long knives.

They’re painting those who call for a return to moral principle in public policy “dominionist” bogeymen who seek to “take over government” and impose an American, Taliban-like theocracy.

This, of course, is propagandist nonsense– a silly ploy intended to frighten into action both the “progressive” base and fence-sitting Independents.

Still, this much they have right: Christians and constitutionalists alike do intend to win the ongoing war for our culture. We do intend to “take over government” insofar as this means ensuring that true, traditionalist statesmen are elected to office.

You’ve heard it said, “You can’t legislate morality.” Baloney.

That’s exactly what legislation is. The question is: Whose morality are we going to legislate? “Progressive” secular-socialists like President Obama insist it’s their own, postmodern brand of moral relativism.

Christians, in fast-growing numbers, are beginning to say, “Not on our watch.”

You’ve been lied to. The next time you hear someone appeal to the “separation of church and state,” ask them to point you to exactly where in the Constitution that incessantly repeated and highly abused phrase can be found. They can’t. It’s not there.

Pastors, as this election cycle heats up, expect to receive threatening letters from anti-Christian paper tigers like Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union warning you that if you discuss politics from your pulpit, you stand to lose your tax-exempt status.

Know this: They’re lying to you. That’s what they do. That’s all they have. This is merely a desperate attempt to muzzle Christians generally and pastors specifically.

In fact, guess how many churches have lost tax-exempt status for involvement in elective politics?

Exactly zero. Ever.

Rest assured, there are no signs that the Internal Revenue Service plans to completely trample the Constitution by targeting churches anytime soon. Even federal bureaucrats understand that bothersome little thing called the First Amendment.

John Adams, our second president, once said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Yes, liberals are nervous. They should be. Moral and religious people are taking our government back.

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

Liberty Counsel: U.S. State Dept Promoting Anti-Israel Propaganda

Comments Off

Aug 292011

"Restoring Courage" with Glenn Beck in Israel

Liberty Counsel
NEWS RELEASE
Contact: PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT – 800-671-1776 or Media@LC.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 29, 2011

U.S. State Department Promoting an Anti-Israel Propaganda Agenda

www.LC.org

Washington, DC – The U.S. State Department is promoting an anti-Israel propaganda campaign. The extent of the campaign and the misinformation raises serious concern. The most recent misinformation surfaced last week when the U.S. issued a “warning” to all U.S. citizens the day of Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Courage” event on August 24 in Jerusalem.

On the same day, the Consulate General of the United States released an “Emergency Message” stating that

“Jerusalem is under a heightened Security Alert.” U.S. citizens in Jerusalem were told to “exercise extra vigilance and avoid large crowds during upcoming rallies and religious holidays, particularly in and around Jerusalem’s Old City.”

The “warning” continued:

“On Wednesday, August 24, 2011, there will be a rally held near the south east [sic] corner of the Old City.” The areas where the “Restoring Courage” event was being held “are off limits to official U.S. Government personnel from 4:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. on that day due to recent clashes in the area.” http://Jerusalem.usconsulate.gov/wms-082411.html.

Beck’s event began at 5:00 p.m. in the exact area referenced above.

“As one who spoke at Glenn Beck’s event outside the Southern Wall of the Old City on August 24, I can say that the U.S. State Department’s ‘warning’ was false political propaganda designed to advance an anti-Israel agenda,” said Mat Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law.

“There had been no ‘clashes’ in the area prior to the ‘Restoring Courage’ event, and there were none during or after the event,” said Staver. “When U.S. citizens who attended Glenn Beck’s event learned of the State Department’s ‘warning,’ they were outraged because they knew it to be untrue,” Staver added.

Staver also said,

“At the event I spoke with Israelis who work in the highest level of government. If anyone would have had intelligence suggesting danger, these people would have, and yet they appeared at the event.

The District of Columbia is far more dangerous than Jerusalem or the entire nation of Israel. As of August 26, there were 71 murders in the District, down from a high of 479 in 1991. In all of Israel last year there were 139 homicides, but in the District there were 132. Considering only Jerusalem, the number of homicides or violent crimes pales compared to the District.

The U.S. Consulate General for Jerusalem issued a press release promoting a folk rock concert, funded by U.S. tax dollars, to “promote dialogue and mutual understanding between Palestinians and Americans” held in Jerusalem and the “West Bank” only one month prior to Beck’s event. http://jerusalem.usconsulate.gov/pr_072011.html.

The same website lists 7 pro-Palestinian programs and no pro-Israeli programs. http://jerusalem.usconsulate.gov.

###

Conservative – The new cool

Comments Off

Jun 012011

By J. Matt Barber

We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive. – C.S. Lewis

Comedian Jim Wiegand – aka “Jim Wiggins, the last hippie in America” – is a throwback to a bygone era. The hilarious 70-year-old wisecracker is known for, among other things, a quite liberal worldview. He’s also known for raising Joe Wiegand, his rebellious, good-for-nothing son. Apart from sharing both a sharp sense of humor and mutual love and admiration, father and son see eye to eye on little else.

Joe, a good friend of mine, isn’t a rebellious good-for-nothing in the conventional sense. He’s a 40-something Illinois-based GOP strategist, a Teddy Roosevelt impersonator without equal and a buttoned-up evangelical Christian.

The elder Mr. Wiegand can’t figure out where he went wrong. He jokes that when Joe was a youngster, he once discovered magazines hidden under the boy’s mattress. He was shocked to find his son looking at such smut: National Review.

Hippies once were the counterculture. Liberals were the nonconformist rebels, boldly wearing unwashed anarchy on tattered sleeve. They loudly and proudly raged against the establishment machine.

Today, they are the establishment machine.

All of our ruling-class institutions – academia, courts, government, media and entertainment industries – are teeming with closed-minded, hard-left ideologues who seek to “fundamentally transform America.”

Consider that, according to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, self-identified liberals outweigh their conservative counterparts in the mainstream media by a 5-1 margin.

Likewise, a 1999 North American Academic Study Survey (NAASS) of students, faculty and administrators in colleges and universities throughout the United States determined that five times as many college faculty members vote Democratic as Republican. In fact, 72 percent described themselves as “to the left of center,” while a mere 15 percent identified themselves as “right of center.”

One can only imagine that in the ensuing decade, the ideological disparity has increased. Ask any kid in the halls of academia, and he’ll tell you, with few exceptions, that professor so-and-so is a liberal so-and-so.

Still, liberals – or “progressives,” as they prefer to be called – persist in laboring under an embarrassing misconception: They honestly believe they remain the nonconformists. It’s precious.

In fact, today’s liberals are nothing of the sort. They compliantly conform – like little windup, patchouli-daubed lemmings – to a carnival-prize caricature of what they imagine nonconformity to look like. You know, the usual stuff: neo-Marxism, environmentalist activism, sexual relativism, big-government nanny statism, an actions-without-consequences rendering of reproductive rights, and other such populist nonsense. Simply put, today’s progressive nonconformist conforms.

Indeed, the “Stepford Wives” have become the “Stepford Lesbians.” The prudish, judgmental church lady has swapped spots with the easy – yet somehow self-righteous – birth-bashing feminist.

So what is a young person – brimming over with that instinctive, defiant impulse to rebel against “the man” – to do?

Well, in this up-is-down, spend-money-to-save-money world, conservatives have become the contemporary nonconformists. Today’s rebellious youth are telling the progressive establishment to put its moral-relativist, redistributionist party-line pig swill in its well-used chamber pipe and smoke it.

Kids: Really want to get under your obnoxiously “tolerant,” Volvo-driving, MSNBC-watching folks’ skin? Try this: Go to church, abstain from premarital sex, join the Young America’s Foundation, attend a Tea Party rally, enroll at Liberty University, listen to Rush Limbaugh and vote Republican.

You’ll have them writhing in their Birkenstocks.

I’ve often said that President Obama could either be the best thing to happen to America or the worst. The best insofar as this man’s policies are so radical, so extreme that, in keeping with Newton’s third law of motion, the “opposite reaction” might well trigger Republican rule in perpetuity.

First, the bad news: So far, Mr. Obama is the worst. Now, the good news: I believe he has awakened a sleeping giant in the millennial generation (ages 18 to 29). Today’s counterculture is rejecting the tired progressive policies pushed by this president and his secular-socialist sycophants.

For instance, a 2010 Marist Institute for Public Opinion poll determined that nearly 60 percent of millennials believe abortion is “morally wrong,” a nearly 10-point increase over the more progressive baby-boomer generation. The tide is turning.

Similarly, a recent survey from Harvard University’s Institute of Politics found that millennials are worried sick about their futures. Yet President Hopey Changey and Democrats in Congress continue to play back-alley dice with their lives via incomprehensible deficit spending and a national debt that swells annually by the trillions.

Do you think these kids won’t rebel as the clouds quickly darken?

Winston Churchill once observed,

“If you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative at 40, you have no brain.”

Liberalism is emotion-based and rooted in soaring, knee-jerk notions of “social justice.” Conservatism is logic-based and rooted in reality.

Today’s rebellious youth have the heart part down. I’m glad to see they’re developing some brains.

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action.

Secret recording of TSA threatening passenger Four Parts (Video)

1 Response »

Nov 232010

Secret recording of TSA unlawfully detaining, interrogating and threatening passenger – Four Parts

Part 2 – Passenger appears to know what the law is – and politely requests throughout ordeal for the TSA to clarify why they are questioning him. They never respond. Did they refuse to answer his question because they couldn’t? Did they know there was no law that required him to answer them? Were they having a slow day, and he happened to show up to play with? Once one of them starts messing with a passenger, do the others tend to feel they need to support that TSA officer, even if he was wrong?

Part 3 – After threatening over and over to take him to the police, they finally do. Perhaps they thought that by threatening him, he would submit out of desire to get over this and get back on the plane. But he called their bluff.

They finally take him to the police – who appear to politely look over his paperwork – and then simply let him go. He had done nothing wrong. He broke no laws. Do the police mind the TSA wasting their time on this type of thing? Maybe they don’t end up taking innocent people to the police too often. Most people do what ever the TSA asks – both because they don’t know the law, and because they just want to get on the plane and get to where they are going.

Apparently, this man worked for the Campaign for Liberty – a Ron Paul group – and the money was from the sale of t-shirts at an event. This man had, indeed, answered every question truthfully. He knew the law, knew his rights, and knew the TSA had no legal reason to detain and question him.

Finally – CNN reported on the recordings and the unlawful detention.

Is President Obama a Christian?

1 Response »

Jun 082009

.
I’m not ready to say, as some do, that President Obama is a Muslim. But I certainly question his commitment to Jesus Christ.

The Apostle John, who walked with Jesus Christ, quotes Jesus; “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6 ISV. John also wrote, “And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.”1 John 5:11-12 NKJV

President Obama stated, “I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims.” He said, “As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.”

But a Christian – a disciple of Jesus Christ – who truly believes Jesus when he says he is the only way, truth and life, and that there is no way to the Father other than through Him, knows there is no other way to peace other than following Jesus Christ. To say that there is, with complete rest in one’s heart, would mean that the person doesn’t believe what the Holy Scripture states for fact.

President Obama went on in his speech, saying, “As the Holy Quran tells us, ‘Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.”

But a Christian would never call the Quran Holy. A Christian knows that the Bible alone is God’s Word, and therefore, the only Holy Scripture.

President Obama stated, “And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

When did it become the responsibility of the President to “fight against negative stereotypes of Islam”? He has never promised to defend Christianity in the same way, and in fact, appears to go out of his way to distance himself from Jesus Christ as much as possible, from refusing to acknowledge the day of prayer to asking Georgetown University, a Catholic Institution, to cover up and hide its inscription “IHS” during his speech there on April 14. Apparently, he and his staff didn’t want Jesus’ name to show up on TV.

How come he has never offered to fight against negative stereotypes of Christianity? Well, that would involve a daily rebuke of CNN, the ACLU, Wahington Post, the AP, the New York Times, MSNBC, ABC, and too many liberal organizations to mention. Much too time consuming.

Obama’s grasp of and respect for the Holy Bible – the Scriptures from which he told us last year that he was seeking God’s truth – also seems non-existent.

Instead, during his mid-east tour he quotes a Muslim story that the Bible does not support at all.

President Obama said, “…when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra — as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed — peace be upon them — joined in prayer.”

The Bible holds no record of such an event. Interestingly, neither does the Quran. There is even disagreement within the Muslim community whether the event happened at all.

Barack Obama’s Muslim background was taboo to talk about during the campaign. All evidence of his anti-Israel position was hidden. Obama’s friendship with PLO member Rashid Khalidi was important to his world view, but the LA Times refused to release the video proving that this relationship helped mold Obama’s views regarding Israel.

I can’t tell what’s really in President Obama’s heart. I can only discern from the outside fruit. I don’t believe that attending a Christian church necessarily makes one a Christian anymore than sitting in a garage makes one a car. From what I see, it appears that his years at Rev. Wright’s church were more about networking with potential constituents and furthering his political career than it was about giving one’s heart over to Jesus Christ and becoming His disciple. That’s why it was so easy for him to walk away when it appeared that the church was threatening his political career. Outside of South Chicago, it was no longer an asset. It was now a liability.
.

Older Entries