Mike Corthell

Mike Corthell
Editor & Publisher at Fryeburg Free Press MEDIA

Saturday, October 31, 2009

We dressed


Jesus is the punch line … again

''My friends, I would greatly prefer being hated by the world for loving the Jesus of the Bible than being loved by the world for compromising His words. We might as well get used to the fact that when we stand with Him, we will be detested and the brunt of jokes.''

A friend of mine frequently gathers information on the Internet regarding attacks on Jesus Christ in the modern culture. It is really quite amazing what is out there: from Jesus on the Cross dress-up dolls to "Jesus Was Queer" posters to videos such as "Rock Me, Sexy Jesus." (There is also quite a bit that I couldn't even begin to describe in this column.)
In these instances we see that it has become fashionable in our so-called culture of diversity to assail Jesus and those who follow Him.
The most recent example came this week on the HBO broadcast of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" in which the character of Larry (apparently a semi-fictional character played by "Seinfeld" co-creator Larry David) desecrates a painting of Jesus, thereby triggering an assumption by two women that the painting is miraculously crying.
In a statement to FoxNews.com, HBO said of the episode, "Larry David makes fun of everyone, most especially himself. The humor is always playful and certainly never malicious."
"Speechless: Silencing the Christians," by Don Wildmon, lays out determined strategy of coalition of liberal secularists, homosexual activists and Fortune 500 companies
Maybe there's no maliciousness in the
presentation, but can't those who run the networks see that it is Christ and Christianity that are so often the target of such jokes? In the spirit of diversity that the left frequently touts, I wonder if HBO would try broadcasting a similar story line with a character desecrating a portrait of Muhammad or Martin Luther King or Mother Teresa. I think we know the answer.
We saw a few years ago on Comedy Central's "South Park" that the network permitted a scatological-themed episode to include a depiction of Jesus, but not Muhammad. The message: Jesus is fair game for ridicule, but Muhammad is not.

Liberal NBC show defends unborn

"My daughter was pro-choice until she saw a sonogram of her unborn child." And later, "I used to expect people to be consistent. … I used to expect that [liberal] champions of human rights would claim some for the unborn. I don't expect that anymore."
Personhood is back, Jack. Expect a lot.

"You got it backwards, man. The horrible thing is the rape, not the bringing of a life into the world."
Two decades into an NBC staple, and just
two years into America's resurgent personhood movement, "Law & Order" produced its first-ever overtly pro-life episode. In this installment, titled "Dignity," a vigilante murders a late-term abortionist at church with writers loosely basing their script on deceased Wichita abortionist George Tiller.
First airing Oct. 23, 2009, a "Law & Order" character, Assistant District Attorney (ADA) Connie Rubirosa says, "I grew up thinking Roe v. Wade was gospel. … But [now] I don't know where my privacy ends and another being's dignity begins." And Executive ADA Michael Cutter was quoting real-world
surveys when he said, "The tide has turned. Most Americans are pro-life now."
As readers multiply at Internet news sites and surfers of all kinds swell, newspaper and network audiences are shrinking. U.S. newspaper circulation dropped 10 percent in the last six months. Ratings for a basic cable program just beat NBC's "Leno Show," and so on.
The personhood movement's ideas, some of them anyway, have made it into prime-time television. However, this showing has as many contradictions and reasons why it may have been produced, such as the producers' need for controversy, ratings and just to break the routine after 900 franchise-wide episodes. Presumably though, the producers would never have presented, for example, an overwhelmingly racist message.
From its headquarters in Denver, American Right To Life advocates personhood as the strategy to re-criminalize abortion and, along the way, to influence the culture. Cutter, played by Linus Roache, virtually quoted the co-sponsor of Colorado's 2010 Personhood Amendment, Gualberto Garcia Jones, who launched the statewide ballot initiative holding his 10-day-old son at a
press conference and saying, "Two weeks ago, my son had less rights than a dog or a cat." Speaking to District Attorney Jack McCoy, Cutter says, "My God, cats and dogs have more rights than the unborn."
What makes Garcia Jones' observation so horrific, powerful and influential is that no writer, producer nor a single pro-choice activist can even attempt to refute it. Kill a dog and go to jail. Of course, it is abortion that's always wrong – and there is never a medical emergency that could justify a physician who stops caring for a pregnant mom just long enough to kill her child.
Other examples of personhood influencing the episode include a detective rejecting abortion after rape, a reference to fetuses in the womb as "persons" and even the pro-choice mom who, against her doctor's advice, did not abort her premature baby and found out in the hours they had together that her child "wasn't a monster, like the doctors warned me."

Clocks back

Hate-crimes law: Blatant fascism

''All violent crimes are hate crimes, and all crime victims deserve equal justice. This law [Hate Crimes Prevention Act] is a grave threat to the First Amendment because it provides special penalties based on what people think, feel, or believe.''
~ Eric Stanley, Alliance Defense Fund
Chelsea Shilling, my colleague at WorldNetDaily, I thought did an excellent job in her recent article on this administration's latest act against America,
"Obama signs 'hate-crimes' bill into law."
Hate-crimes bill? How can this be? I thought the Constitution said that Congress shall make no law against religious freedom or the right to hold political opinions and express them.
The Democrats were Machiavellian enough to link this hate-crimes bill to their new $680 billion bill called the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act which many Republicans felt compelled to support to stand behind our troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Why the urgency for a hate-crimes bill?
President Obama said, "After more than a decade, we've passed inclusive hate-crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are." Obama, by the passage of this hate-crimes bill, has succeeded in fulfilling the 1960s countercultural dream of normalizing the abnormal and morally perverse while concurrently denigrating the normal, the good and the godly.
This hate-crimes bill should have been named the ACA – Anti-Christian Act – for this legislation in essence will put a muzzle on ministers and rabbis and forbid them from preaching against the homosexual, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
lifestyles dominating our culture at pain of civil rights lawsuits, fines, arrests and even imprisonment.
Are we living in America or in Communist Russia under Lenin and Stalin?
Of the many constitutional problems with hate-crime laws, one of the most venal, surreptitious and reminiscent of George Orwell's "1984" is the fact that these fascist laws punish our very thoughts. It is not so much a hate-crimes law, but in reality a thought-crimes law, for (absent an invalidation by the
Supreme Court) people, particularly Christians, will be severely punished for speaking out against what they consider to be immoral behavior expressly prohibited in the Bible. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114548

Exclude illegals from 2010 census

A funny thing happened on the way to the 2010 census. A United States senator stood up and said the next census will be a fraud on the American people.
Louisiana Sen. David Vitter set off a firestorm recently when he introduced an amendment proposing that the upcoming census ask respondents if they are U.S. citizens, and if not, if they are here as Legal Permanent Residents. Under his amendment, the census would count all persons, but illegal aliens, tourists, foreign
students or other temporary visitors would not be included for the purpose of the congressional apportionment or divvying up federal funds.
This seems like common sense to most Americans, but in fact, illegal aliens and millions of others here on a temporary basis have traditionally been included in the census count. This was not a big problem in past decades while those numbers were small, but today, we have over 30 million persons in the country who are neither citizens nor Legal Permanent Residents ("green card holders").
Counting these millions of non-citizens as equal to citizens for all census purposes seriously distorts our nation's politics and government. How so? States with high numbers of illegal aliens
profit by gaining more congressional seats and more federal grant monies. This creates a perverse incentive for states to attract illegal aliens to increase their clout in Congress and their share of federal funds. By the same token, states with laws discouraging illegal aliens from taking up residence are penalized by losing representation in Congress.
In September, Sens. Bennett, Enzi and others proposed a new law to fix the problem, the Fairness in Representation Act, but the Democrats who control the Senate have not allowed a
hearing on the proposal.
Concerned about the unstemmed flow of illegal aliens over our border? Don't miss Tom Tancredo's book, "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security"
The New York Times called the proposal for redoing the questionnaire for the 2010 census "ridiculously expensive." But curiously, they don't object to the Census Bureau's $300 million dollar campaign to encourage illegal aliens and other non-citizens to participate in the census. Nor do they object to the extra money spent for bilingual forms,
Spanish language public service announcements and funds given to far-left groups to set up "Census Information Centers." Can you say, ACORN Walking Around Money? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114537

The Constitution? How quaint Millicent

''Liberals, apparently, just plain don't agree with the Constitution. ("Liberal" in this case isn't restricted to Democrats; I know a whole lot of Republicans who think similarly.) Do they believe the Constitution is a "living document" whose restrictions can be tweaked or abandoned at whim? Or would they prefer to do away with the Constitution altogether? Who knows?''

As our freedoms and liberties have been chipped away in the last few years, how many times have you wanted to ask a politician why? Why are you doing this? Why are you destroying our country? How can you justify trashing the Constitution in order to advance your particular agenda?
A reporter finally – finally! – asked
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a version of this simple and logical question.
CNSNews.com: "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health
insurance mandate?"
Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
CNSNews.com: "Yes, yes I am."
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the
House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individual Americans buy health insurance was not a "serious question."
"You can put this on the record," said Elshami. "That is not a serious question."
Yes, Madam Speaker, it is a serious question. In fact, it is probably the most serious question anyone could ever ask. The reason you're flustered, Nancy dear, is because you know exactly what the answer is … namely, NONE. There is no authority in the Constitution to require people to buy health insurance.
When did government officials start ignoring our national charter – and why does it continue? Find out in "Who Killed the Constitution?"
CNSNews asked
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy a similar question, and Mr. Leahy was similarly flummoxed. Both Pelosi and Leahy finally fell back upon the ol' Commerce Clause (designed to keep states from charging each other tariffs) to justify their agenda. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114534

Palestinian Arabs can't handle democracy

''Unlike democracy, whose other cardinal principle is equality, Arab-Islamic culture is strictly hierarchical. Top-down leadership is a fundamental principle of Islamic theology. Authority runs down from Allah to Muhammad and from Muhammad to the imam, the ruler of the regime.''

The claim that the Palestinian Arabs are entitled to independent statehood is based on the principles of contemporary or normless democracy. This claim, we shall see, can be refuted by those very principles. The same claim can be refuted by employing the principles of classical or normative democracy. What are the differences between these two types of democracy?
Although both normative and normless democracy emphasizes freedom and equality as basic principles, normative democracy derives these principles from the Genesis account of man’s creation in the image of God. As a consequence, freedom and equality in normative democracy have rational and moral constraints. This is not the case of normless democracy, where moral relativism flourishes and prevents those tainted by relativism from opposing a Palestinian nation-state on moral grounds.
Now, it should be obvious that Arab-Islamic culture is utterly opposed to the basic principles of democracy however the term “democracy” is understood. But if this is the case, then the Palestinian Arabs, in this period of history, have no right to an independent and sovereign state anywhere—certainly not on Israel’s doorstep. Indeed, the creation of such a state, at this time, would serve neither the good of these Muslims nor the good of Israel. Any claim to the contrary by Arabs is but a ploy to truncate Israel and thereby facilitate its destruction. If such a claim is made by Jewish democrats, it merely reflects abysmal ignorance if not intellectual dishonesty.
That Arab-Islamic culture rejects the basic principles of democracy is so obvious that I must apologize to the reader for enumerating the following well-known facts...

Organizing for America(OFA): Help Wanted

“Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”

The Obama administration is now recruiting college students that will not only get paid for knocking on doors but will “earn college credits” while advocating for change. It’s called ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA (OFA) and could be a part of Obama’s young and educated civilian army.The OFA website states: “Students and young people were critical in building the movement that helped elect President Obama last year. By becoming a National Organizing Intern, you’ll be part of the grassroots effort to make the change we fought for a reality in 2009 and beyond. As an Organizing Intern, you’ll work side by side with OFA staff and community leaders to help build support for President Obama’s agenda. You’ll learn core organizing principles that are crucial for any campaign and play an important role in building our organization in your state. If you’re passionate about making sure every American has quality health care, reviving our economy and building a clean energy future, don’t miss this great opportunity. No previous experience is needed in order to apply.” I wonder if Mr. Obama read PROVERBS 22:6 “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” How much training and indoctrination will these young people receive before they become full fledged soldiers in Obama’s Civilian Army? If they haven’t been thoroughly brainwashed while attending the government run public schools, they will most certainly be “educated” by the anti-capitalists, anti-Christian, anti-Constitution left-wing of the Democratic Party. http://www.newswithviews.com/brownfield/brownfield176.htm

A Halloween media nightmare story

''I'm not going to make this about me – because it's not. But let me tell you just how biased ALL of these shows and networks are when it comes to this eligibility issue. Up until May of this year, I would regularly, at least once a week, get an invitation to be on these shows – especially Fox News.''

There was pompous old Bill O'Reilly again this week attacking one of his favorite targets – "birthers."
He had two guests on with him – neither one cognizant of the facts surrounding the Barack Obama eligibility questions. Both of them happily nodded in agreement to most of the tripe emanating from O'Reilly's big, ill-informed
Night after night, show after show,
network after network this goes on.
This is journalism?
Whatever happened to "fair and balanced"?
Whatever happened to getting other points of view?
Whatever happened to the idea of interviewing those with whom you disagree?
Whatever happened to the notion of representing honestly the
opinions of others?
I'm getting flat-out sick of it.
It's not just the Obama flacks at MSNBC and CNN. It's Fox, too. Let's be honest about it. And it's not just the issue of eligibility where minimal journalism standards go right out the window. But it is a perfect illustration of my point.
Now watch the red-hot eligibility story on DVD: "A Question of Eligibility: Is Obama's presidency constitutionally legitimate?"
Not one of these cable networks, let alone the Associated Press, New York Times, Los Angeles Times or the major networks, has reported the significance of the fact that Michelle Obama admitted her mother-in-
law gave birth out of wedlock.
Nevertheless, these ignorant talking heads continue to treat this subject like it's a big joke that only smart people like them understand.

Fumigation of the White House is in Order

''We must clean house – starting with our own White House.''

In time, it seems to happen to all older houses, no matter how well tended they may be.
All manner of
parasites, vermin, roaches, rats, worms and termites find their way into the building. Long before they're detected, they infiltrate the walls, the floors, the roofs – and then chew their way into the structure, the supporting beams and the very foundation of the house itself. Silently, surreptitiously, whole communities of invaders make places for themselves, hidden but thriving, totally unknown by the homeowner.
Then, in time, tell-tale signs are seen. Little droppings, discolored trails, proliferating piles of residue appear in corners, on tabletops, little hanging sacs from
ceilings – alarming evidence that the grand old dwelling has been invaded. Decidedly unwelcome creatures have made this place their home
, and by their very existence will eventually destroy the house and bring it to ruin.
What can be done, when you learn that
your house has already been invaded?
Well, the tried and true remedy is tenting.
Experts come in, actually envelope the whole dwelling in a giant tent – and send a very powerful fumigant, lethal to the varmints and unwelcome creatures, into every nook and cranny of the house. Done thoroughly, every last destructive
insect or rodent is sent to varmint hell – and in a day or two, the grand house is habitable again.
I believe – figuratively, but in a very real way – we need to tent the White House!
For reasons only he can explain, the current occupant has purposely brought a whole flock of social and political voracious varmints with him into our House. He doesn't own it; he hasn't even rented it; we the people have simply given him the keys and invited him to live there for four years, making it convenient to serve us better, to carry out our expressed wishes for our country.
It's not too late to rescue the nation! Read how in "Save America Now! The New Revolution to Save Freedom and Liberty"
To the dismay of millions of us, this occupant seems to think we need an emperor. Even though all polls show that the majority of Americans don't want a whole new government-run health-care system, detest the trillions of dollars in un-payable debt he has foisted on us, question the whole "global warming" scare and disagree with him on many other issues, he boldly announces: "We're going to fundamentally transform America!" And he makes it clear that he is going to cram things down our throats whether we want them or not.

How to save America

''Globalists and progressives will argue that this amendment would slow or stop the process of globalization. Others will argue that the process should have been slowed or stopped years ago. Globalists and progressives will argue that this amendment is a step backward for civilization. Others will argue that civilization needs to return to the values and virtues of America's founders.''

The United States is on the brink of signing a new climate-change treaty that many people believe will be the mechanism that ushers in global governance. Global governance has been under construction for many years. Every new treaty in which the United States participates requires the surrender of a little more sovereignty. International treaties have influenced domestic policy throughout the 20th century, forcing the federal government to impose restrictions on individual freedom – restrictions that are not authorized in the enumerated powers set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
For example, nothing in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the federal government to restrict the use of private
property. The Endangered Species Act, enacted to bring the United States into compliance with several international treaties, gives the federal government the power to dictate what a private land owner may and may not do on his own land. This is only one of the more obvious examples of how a treaty is used to extend the power of the federal government beyond the limitations set forth by the Constitution.
When the Constitution was written, senators were chosen by the legislature of each state. The power of the states was substantially diminished by the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, which called for senators to be elected by popular vote, rather than by the legislature. This loss of the state legislature's power to influence the central government is especially pertinent to the ratification of treaties. The Constitution requires two-thirds of the senators present to vote in the affirmative to ratify a treaty.
Jerome Corsi's latest blockbuster reveals globalists' plan to put U.S. on the chopping block -- "America for Sale: Fighting the New World Order, Surviving a Global Depression, and Preserving USA Sovereignty"
The U.S. Constitution required ratification by three-fourths of the states. The Constitution, along with "… all treaties made, or which shall be made … shall be the supreme law of the land" (Article VI). It makes no sense at all to ratify a treaty that explicitly limits the power of government, and then ratify treaties that require the government to exercise power beyond those authorized by the Constitution.

Friday, October 30, 2009

Bad to the bone

So many of you have been boned by the government this year, you should have no trouble handing some out to these cute goblins.

Socialized medicine? You betcha

''Bloggers at Verum Serum have further exposed this "transparent deception" with a video montage of Obama and other leftists – including politicians, professors and journalists – speaking candidly about the relationship between a "public option" and a single-payer system.''

Can you imagine the brazenness of President Barack Obama and his cohorts in going so far as to ridicule opponents of Obamacare for rightly pointing out that its ultimate goal is single-payer socialized medicine?
These people are propaganda virtuosos of the highest order. You might expect grand artists of deception just to silently dismiss such claims from critics or, at most, to summarily deny them. But they go further and mock the critics, trying to reduce them to acutely paranoid, tinfoil-hat-wearing, black-helicopter-hallucinating Cuckoo's Nest inpatients.
What better way to distract attention from what is right in front of our faces? It's brilliant reverse jujitsu: using the outrageousness of your own plan to discredit as preposterous the allegations of your opponents about your truly outrageous plan. Shameless!
Obama and his minions are indeed conspiring to foist socialized medicine on this nation through whatever means necessary – including outright deception over the nature and purpose of the so-called public option. But before presenting proof of that, let me pose a few questions
on the likelihood Obama would be involved in such a deception in pursuit of this goal.
Didn't Obama repeatedly threaten to "spread the wealth"? Isn't he deliberately indebting us through government expenditures of borrowed funds not remotely designed to appreciably increase employment? This "stimulus" monstrosity is a massive redistributive scheme not only in its direct transfer payments but also in the confiscatory tax increases it will necessitate to
retire the debt it is generating.
It's not too late to rescue the nation! Read how in "Save America Now! The New Revolution to Save Freedom and Liberty"
Obama is hell-bent on passing economically crippling cap-and-tax legislation on the dubious pretense that man-made global warming is leading to an apocalypse. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that this legislation would make the United States some $9.4 trillion poorer by 2035 while moderating temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 40 years. Obama's former colleague Sen. John Kerry, adding insult to
injury, has the audacity to sell this plan as one that would enhance our national security – security that depends on our economic viability. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114427

United Nations, Death and Population Control

“The lowest strata are reproducing too fast. Therefore…they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive long unemployment should be a ground for sterilization.” - Julian Huxley

''The Internationalists of today i.e. global elites, environmentalists and global warming crowd are nothing more than communistic agents hiding behind the created crisis''

The push to flatten us into submission to the International elites is going just as planned. The Copenhagen Climate Treaty is set to take off December 8th, 09 just weeks away and President Obama has promised to sign it. This would cede our sovereignty to the International elites running this Treaty. Once the Senate had ratified this, international taxes and new rules would be levied on the American people to lower the mythological effect of carbon emissions. This would lead beautifully to its domestic relative and nightmare, the Cap and Trade Bill, also a carbon emissions bloodhound Obama will gladly sign. Neither of these international schemes should happen. We must fight them with all that we have.
The UN has been exploring international controls and a one world Government for decades while the U.S. has largely looked the other way. One of the UN’s offspring, boldly declaring their real agenda was started clear back in 1945,
UNESCO – United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. Their declared goal laid out for all to see is to push for a standardized one-world culture in preparation for world government. http://www.newswithviews.com/Roth/laurie187.htm

Time for the GOP to buff some balls

Did you ever imagine that men — who created, fought and died for, and built America — would one day comprise a special-interest group (SIG)? Stop imagining. That day is today.
Judging by how they view themselves, and, consequently, how women view them, men are neither special nor of much interest to America. Accordingly, this so-called “group” is, in reality, hollow and nonexistent and, therefore, trivial.
Typically, SIGs organize, raise money, and fight to coerce spineless politicians to subvert the US Constitution to create unilateral rights and privileges. Result? Unconstitutional laws such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the newly enacted
Hate Crimes Prevention Act — which, some argue, could have allowed the feds to nullify North Carolina’s decision to forgive three innocent men in the Duke Lacrosse Case.
Obama’s Macho Window Dressing
Women keep playing oppressed victims when, clearly, they aren’t: Maria Shriver declared America a
Woman’s Nation. Yet, they endlessly seek unilateral legal dominance when the Constitution, as written and amended, gives them everything they need. Why? Simple: because they can. They know that, whenever women cry foul, men buckle.
In the past week, feminists accused Barack Obama of running a
boys’ club within the White House — because he frequently shoots hoops and plays golf only with male colleagues and friends. Big freaking deal. His “boys’ club,” a mere retreat from self-imposed subordination to women, is macho window dressing. http://www.newswithviews.com/Rudov/marc132.htm

FoxNews to drop Newt Gingrich?

''A video from a leading conservative news site, Newsmax.com, shows Flaherty denouncing Gingrich for associating with the activist. “Newt has made a bad decision and we believe he should end his relationship with Sharpton,” Flaherty said.''
On the occasion of its 13th anniversary and dramatic success in the television ratings, Fox News is coming under serious scrutiny. But there is no reason why this scrutiny should come exclusively from those on the left who are jealous of the cable channel’s success. Conservatives should not hesitate to offer their own critique of the popular news network.
Since Fox News has come to symbolize in the public mind the conservative viewpoint, conservatives should examine which personalities and issues are being presented regularly on the cable channel. Inevitably, such an analysis will focus on former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who seems to appear every few days on “The O’Reilly Factor,” “Hannity,” or “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.”
However, Gingrich’s position as a Fox News regular may be in jeopardy because of his abandonment of the conservative candidate,
Doug Hoffman, in a special election race in New York. One of the White House criticisms of Fox News is that it is an arm of the Republican Party. The regular use of Gingrich, a knee-jerk Republican who defers to party bosses, tends to support that thesis.
Since many people tune into Fox News to ascertain the conservative point of view, the regular use of Gingrich will become disconcerting and problematic to many members of its viewing audience. In a major break with some of his on-air colleagues, independent conservative and Fox News host Glenn Beck openly has questioned Gingrich’s embrace of the official Republican candidate, liberal Dede Scozzafava, in the race. Beck noted her ties to ACORN and interviewed her conservative opponent, Hoffman. The interview ran under the headline, “Principles or Party?” and is now featured on Hoffman’s website.

Climate cult used to facilitate Global Governance

''Corsi quotes Monckton as also saying, "I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word 'government' actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity."''

The system appears to be loaded to ensure that the world body overseeing this document is granted total control for the enforcement of the requirements of this document throughout all developed countries. Penalties for non-compliance by developed countries are scattered throughout the document. It appears that what a U.S. President and Congress (Republican or Democratic) could not do through the constitutional legislative process, they are attempting to do through international treaty. Therefore, it is my studied opinion that Lord Monckton's assessment that this upcoming Climate Change Convention in Copenhagen is a "pretext" for the establishment of one world government is "spot-on."
It does seem to be getting clearer and clearer that if the elected civil magistrates in Washington, D.C., do not quickly grow some backbone and develop some sagacity as to the direction these globalists are taking our country, resistance will be forced (in one way or another) upon the States and the People, because it is not possible for the policies and financial burden that are--and will be--levied upon the backs of the American people to be sustained without the surrender of independence, the abridgment of constitutional government, and the loss of liberty. Stay tuned. http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin543.htm

The ever-changing Obama nativity story

''Let's face it: If Michelle and Barack Obama can't even get their stories straight about the marital status of his parents, why should we simply accept that they were his parents? Why should we accept the official story of where he was born? Why should we accept that he is constitutionally eligible to serve as president as a natural born citizen? Why isn't everyone, including those who like Barack Obama, demanding that he address this question head-on and lay out the proof for the American people?''

In another month or so, millions will be reading the Nativity story – the one so well-chronicled by gospel-writer Luke.
It's amazing to me that the details of a birth that took place nearly 2,000 years ago are so precise – complete with genealogical records dating back eons.
Yet, today, even the most basic birth information about the man occupying arguably the most powerful office in the world is murky – and ever-changing.
Nevertheless, if you dare to ask questions about Barack Obama's birth, even questions about facts required to establish his constitutional eligibility for office, you will be pilloried, ridiculed, written off as a wacko, characterized as a "fringe" extremist, even labeled a "racist."
What raises this issue for me, again, is the fact that even Barack and Michelle Obama are telling two entirely contradictory stories about his birth – and even this raises no questions in the minds of uniformly unquestioning media types.
In case you missed it,
Michelle Obama stated at a public event last year during the campaign that Barack Obama's mother was unmarried when she gave birth.
Now, I don't really care, except for the fact that Barack Obama has told a different story – in his autobiography and elsewhere.
Is it important in and of itself? No.
But what's important to note is that there is no
to ascertain the facts.
And that's what the so-called "birther" issue is all about.

Sinbama and the Forty Thieves

''It's like the schoolyard bully claiming that it was really his victim who bullied him. The bullies at the Kremlin House in Washington, of course, are all too aware that Fox is really the only station that is actually reporting the news, while the fringe media (ABC, CBS and NBC), along with CNBC and MSNBC, are going to great lengths to keep their viewers in the dark about what is really happening – particularly in Washington.''

Those commentators on Fox News who like to play it down the middle keep saying that they believe BHO's strategy of trying to marginalize the most successful TV network in the country is unwise. Unwise? They've been inside the Beltway too long.
The Duplicitous Despot and his criminal minions – most notably David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Anita Dunn, and Mark Lloyd – are out to shut down Fox News. No subtlety about it. They take seriously Mao's belief that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. After all, Anita Bandita looks to Chairman Mao when it comes to her philosophical inspiration.
When you watch certain commentators (whom I shall purposely leave unnamed) on Fox, it's not hard to understand why there are still millions of people sleepwalking down the road to servitude. I just shake my head in amazement when I hear them – after more than nine months of nonstop treason by the White
House and Congress – talk about BHO as though he's just another one of those na├»ve, misguided, liberal presidents.
As Bill O'Reilly (oops … slipped) often says, "If Obama does (this or that), he's toast. It will be the end of his presidency." The thought of a dictatorship being established before 2012 would be a comical idea to the host of such intellectual fare as "body
language expert" Tonya Reiman and the Great American Culture Quiz.
Discover the truth about the intimidation tactics used by today's White House in Whistleblower magazine's "MOB RULE: Under Obama, Chicago-style bullying and intimidation go nationwide"
Worse, when Glenn Beck appears as a guest on "The O'Reilly Factor," fair-and-balanced Bill loves to chuckle and refer to him (jocularly, of
course) as a "troublemaker." Beck is in an awkward position. Either by design or by accident, O'Reilly embraced him even before he came to Fox News, which makes Beck beholden to him. He's walking a tightrope, and I don't blame him for not wanting to upstage O'Reilly, who already is regularly out-brained by the likes of Laura Ingraham, Monica Crowley and Megyn Kelly.

Liberal love for evil leaders

''The answer is that they identify with tyrants. They don't oppose gulags on principle; they simply don't wish to be sent to one. That doesn't mean they wouldn't like to run one. They also have a soft spot for dictators because they, themselves, are miserable excuses for human beings who look down on the masses as being ignorant, religious peons who, in a just world, would exist only to serve as organ donors.''

Back when I was a kid, the two major fears in America revolved around polio and communism. Because the first disease was so prevalent and so often fatal prior to the miraculous cures wrought by Dr. Albert Sabin and Dr. Jonas Salk, neither of whom managed to garner a Nobel Prize for their heroic efforts, children were kept out of public swimming pools and were discouraged from having too much physical activity. It's a wonder that our entire generation didn't grow up to be hypochondriacs because if you were even slightly fatigued or had an aching back or a stiff neck, anguished parents started measuring you for an iron lung.
The second disease, communism, created its own form of hysteria. During the late '40s and early '50s, we had A-bomb
drills in public schools. We grammar-school kids were led to believe that in case the Russians hit L.A. with an atomic bomb, we would be safe so long as we dropped to the floor and huddled beneath our desks with our hands clasped tightly behind our necks. As everyone knows, there's nothing better than tiny hands to ward off the effects of atomic radiation. To this day, I wonder who came up with that particular brainstorm.
On the off-chance that the Russkies elected not to vaporize us, a lot of people were convinced that the plan to prevent tooth decay by introducing fluoride into our reservoirs was a Commie plot. The fluoride, we were warned, would turn our
brains to mush and make us easy prey for the Soviet Menace. It's taken about 60 years, but I am now convinced that the scaremongers were right. How else to explain American liberals except by accepting that the Commies contaminated our water supply?
The fact that most Americans haven't turned into brain-dead zombies muttering "hope … change … hope … change" like those scary creatures in horror movies only goes to prove that people have different tolerances to tainted water, just as they do to alcohol, various viruses and Barack Obama's voice.
I mean, seriously, when Obama, during the campaign, spoke about judging him by the people he surrounded himself with, he pointed to Richard Lugar, Joe Biden and Warren Buffett, while drawing the curtain on Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi. These days, though, he surrounds himself with such visitors from a strange planet as Van Jones, Kevin Jennings and Cass Sunstein. I'm just wondering if it's still OK for us to judge him by his associates.
The MSM likened Obama to Abe
Lincoln. I guess their confusion was caused by both men being skinny and from Illinois. One major, rather obvious difference, though, is that Lincoln waged a war to preserve the Union. Obama, on the other hand, would go to war to preserve such unions as the SEIU and the UAW.
Liberals get all in a tizzy when they're accused of hypocrisy, but it's hard to escape the fact that while arguing for the redistribution of wealth, you never see such kazillionaires as George Soros, Dianne Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Charles Schumer or John Kerry redistributing any of theirs or even paying a penny more in taxes than is absolutely required. And, as we discovered when he was putting his
administration together, Obama's friends and colleagues quite often try to avoid paying any taxes at all. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114412

Sting: Obama is 'sent from God'


British recording artist Sting says President Barack Obama could be the answer to the world's problems – the divine answer.
"In many ways, he's sent from God, because the world's a mess," he said in a new interview with the Associated Press.
The comments from The Police's lead singer, whose real name is Gordon Sumner, are just the latest in a long series of statements suggesting Obama's connection to the supernatural.
WND previously reported when an artist who planned to unveil a portrait of Obama in a Christ-like pose with a crown of thorns upon his brow canceled the event, due to "overwhelming public outrage." Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan also was clear in a nearly religious adoration of Obama. As WND reported, Farrakhan declared last year that when Obama talks, "the Messiah is absolutely speaking."
Addressing a large crowd behind a podium with a Nation of Islam Saviours' Day 2008 sign, Farrakhan proclaimed, "You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. That's a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking."
Farrakhan pointed out that the man Nation of Islam followers refer to as "the Saviour," Fard Muhammad, had a black father and a white mother, just as Obama did.
"A black man with a white mother became a saviour to us," he said. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."
WND also previously reported a website called "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?" capturing the wave of euphoria that followed the Democratic senator's remarkable rise. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114422

Muslim congressman defends CAIR

Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn.

''U.S. prosecutors believe CAIR, while claiming to be a civil-rights group, is actually a front group for Hamas and other terrorists. The Justice Department stated in September 2007 during its prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation in Dallas – the largest terror-financing case in history – that CAIR "has been identified by the government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew."

A Muslim congressman says there is no need to investigate interns who may be placed with members of strategic security committees by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., who took his oath of office holding his hand on a Quran instead of a Bible and had CAIR staff members working on his campaign, read a statement in Congress criticizing the call for an investigation.
Lawmakers John Shadegg, R-Ariz.; Sue Myrick, R-N.C.; Paul Broun, R-Ga.; and Trent Franks, R-Ariz., earlier asked the House sergeant at arms to investigate whether the D.C.-based Muslim group carried out its plan, revealed in the book
"Muslim Mafia" by Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry.
In another letter, this one to Attorney General Eric Holder, the House members asked the Justice Department to reveal to Congress members why CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-finance case in U.S. history. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114435

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Scare a lib for Halloween

For Halloween. Cut this out.Tie it on. Terrify a liberal.

Holy Teat, ACORN is Back!

Personal responsibility and personal accountability

''Before 1960, Americans enjoyed a high degree of personal responsibility and personal accountability. Most graduated from high school and could read, write and work mathematical equations. No matter how poor or how illiterate, Americans worked to put food on the table. But after Lyndon Baines Johnson’s “Great Society” erupted with free food, free housing, free medical, food stamps and a host of ‘get something for nothing’, American culture for minorities changed and then, it changed for whites in America, too.''

Following up the two part series on “U.S. Filling Up with Dumb People”, an amazing number of emails arrived with a sense of heart break, distress and futility. Older Americans seem to think that America can return to the way it was! Younger Americans don’t have a clue as to the way it used to be! Immigrant Americans don’t know what America once was nor do they care about what we are becoming. They don’t know the difference.
Immigrants celebrate being here rather than being where they came from because where they came from can only be described as miserable enough to flee. Please be advised that over 10 million people wait in line to move to America and their numbers grow by 77 million annually. But as more and more of them arrive, they turn our country into the same chaos they left in their countries. Example: California!
As we change our language to many languages, as we change our ethnic makeup to a majority of Mexican-Americans and Muslim-Americans by 2042, (Source: PEW Research) as we change our dominant Christian religion that built this country—into a multicultural morass, as we lower our standards in education, culture and personal accountability—America will never again enjoy its exceptional past.
This quote bears repeating as it applies to America. In Dr. Otis Graham’s “Unguarded Gates: A History of America’s Immigration Crisis”, he writes, “Most Western elites continue urging the wealthy West not to stem the migrant tide, but to absorb our global brothers and sisters until their horrid ordeal has been endured and shared by all--ten billion humans packed onto an ecologically devastated planet.”

Hey, all you fuzzy socialists!

Excuse Me, I Mean LIBERALS

Fuzzy, socialist-liberals — What useful idiots you are for the Obama's of this world. You always accuse free-market advocates like me of being "mean," or not having any Christian ideals. Well, let's see. What would a good Christian want for his fellow man? — for people to live happy, productive lives, to not be slaves of any dictatorial government, to have the chance to fulfill their hopes and dreams, to not have to live in poverty and misery, to be charitable to their fellow man, right?
''You can be whatever you want to be in a free market if you have the gumption and perseverance to do so. Use your intelligence to be more successful and reach your highest potential.''

Now lets compare the vicious liberal/socialist system you so love to the "evil" capitalist system that you knee-jerk denigrate:
1 — The socialist/communist/fascist countries of Nazi Germany that ruled in the 20th century and today were responsible for the murder of over 100 million people, and the torture, slow starvation, political enslavement, and violation of basic human rights for the vast majority of the citizen/slaves living under these anti-human regimes (Remember, the NAZI party letters stood for 'National SOCIALIST party', for those who know little history, and claim I confuse socialism with fascism. Mussolini was the first fascist dictator prior to World War II, but his party was the Socialist party of Italy).
2 — Capitalism, even though not perfect because no economic system created by human beings can be perfect, in every country in which it flourished, dramatically raised the standard of living for the hundreds of millions of people living under a capitalist or semi-capitalist system. Of course, America is the prime example of this. In the course of 150 years, capitalism in America raised the standard of living of hundreds of millions of Americas to levels undreamed of by humankind for the past 5000 years. It gave average Americans the right and the chance to live a prosperous, decent life, to fulfill their potential and dreams, to see their children constantly do better than they did, to have personal liberty that no country on Earth in the last 5000 years ever gave its citizens. America was a miracle of liberty and prosperity, not for the governing power elite, but for the average man and woman.

Exit an era, welcome a new

''Marxism? No one can any longer take Marx seriously, even though Marxism, in diluted form, continues to influence Western politics. As for Christianity, its doctrine of separation of church and state, once salutary, now precludes Christianity from having architectonic influence on contemporary society.''

We are approaching the end of an era. Politics and democracy have entered their terminal stage. Party government has become nothing more than a struggle for power, and parliaments are but arenas of self-aggrandizement. This was inevitable. It was inevitable because, in its modern conception, democracy separated morality and politics, just as Christianity separated religion and state. Hence, egoism—even in principle, let alone in practice—was bound to supplant family values and the common good.
Democracy has fulfilled its historical function. Its two cardinal principles, freedom and equality, liberated the acquisitive instincts, facilitated the conquest of nature, alleviated widespread toil and poverty, and opened the door to talents. But while men and women in democratic societies enjoy unprecedented freedom and equality as well as material abundance, a frightful number find their lives lonely and meaningless. The reason is not far to seek: democracy is the dissolver of ideologies, of traditional beliefs and norms of behavior which alone can sustain individual freedom along with national solidarity and ethical purpose.
The decency and civility still visible in contemporary democracy have nothing to do with democracy itself. They derive from the morality of the Bible now under attack by the atheism and nihilism permeating academia. Neither democratic equality nor democratic freedom provides any moral standards as to how man should live. What is there about democratic equality that would prompt a person to defer to wisdom or to show respect for teachers or parents? What is there about democratic freedom that would prompt him to restrain his passions, to be kind, honest, or just?

A glorious day

''It was a glorious day because it revealed the lack of mettle the administration has; it revealed the extent of their paternalism and arrogance where the establishment press is concerned; and gave the latter pause that is tantamount to a loss of political currency for Obama.''

Friday, Oct. 23, 2009, was a glorious day. On that day it was reported that the Obama administration had failed in a significant effort in the area of the autocratic tactics it has employed since Barack Obama took office, and far more increasingly in recent weeks.
I am speaking of the administration's attempt to maneuver establishment news organizations into segregating the Fox News
from the press corps. On Thursday of last week, the administration planned to allow members of the White House press pool to conduct interviews with "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg. The pool is a group of five rotating network news organizations that is ostensibly representative of the press at large, and traditionally has shared the expense and function of covering the president.
The White House's intention was that all members of the White
House press pool would be allowed to participate in the interviews with Feinberg – all, that is, except for Fox News.
As the reader may be aware, the Obama administration has been waging what can only be considered a one-sided (albeit vigorous) war of words against Fox. On Oct. 18, White
House senior adviser David Axelrod said (on ABC News' "This Week" program) that Fox News is not a real news organization, and that other news networks ought not treat it as such. A broad hint, to be sure, if not a threat; on the same day, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel made similar remarks during his appearance on CNN's "State of the Union" news show.
But, despite the establishment press' heretofore slavish devotion to Obama, the tactic backfired. The bureau chiefs of the pool networks asserted that none of their reporters would participate (in the interviews with Feinberg) unless Fox News was allowed to do so.
Discover the truth about the intimidation tactics used by today's White House in Whistleblower magazine's "MOB RULE: Under Obama, Chicago-style bullying and intimidation go nationwide"
And the administration gave in.