If anyone doubts that the Democratic Party is the party of godlessness, the videos below speaks for themselves (especially the second, longer version).
They can hastily try to cover up what they REALLY feel about God, as they did yesterday, to try to avoid a public-relations catastrophe (see story below). But the proverbial cat has long been out of the bag, for those of us who've been paying attention all these years.
More and more, the Democrats, the party of abortion and homosexual marriage, are starting to show their true nature, whether they want to or not.
==
One thing is crystal clear. They NEVER GOT they 2/3 majority needed to update their platform. This was a rush job, a scam, and a coverup to repair the damage they were beginning to suffer, as their original anti-God platform got more and more scrutiny.
God only knows what America will look like if we get four more years of these people in power. God help America.
Dems Quickly Switch to
Include "God," "Jerusalem"
Moments after convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa gaveled in day two of the Democratic Convention, the hall burst into chaos as Democrats voted to amend their party's platform to include the word "God" and name Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Villaraigosa called the vote three times. The first two voice votes, which require a two-thirds majority to pass, were tied between "ays" and "nos." On the third vote it was still hard to tell whether he "ays" were audibly louder than the "nays" in the half-full arena.
When Villaraigosa announced "the ays have it," loud boos erupted across the arena.
The Washington Free Beacon points out in this article that there’s a "stunning" lack of diversity in Obama’s campaign staff in Chicago.
A photo of Obama’s “army” originally posted on the campaign’s Tumblr site and run in conjunction with a BuzzFeed story on the Obama campaign reveals a stunning lack of diversity among the president’s Chicago staff.
The Obama campaign’s Chicago headquarters has it all—from Jack Daniels and Ping Pong to bouncy balls and ironic desk mementos.
Yet the “army of twenty-somethings” campaign manager Jim Messina has assembled in the president’s hometown is almost uniformly white, according to photos contained in a detailed BuzzFeed report Monday.
Further examination of the Obama’s campaign’s Tumblr site over the past month reveals very few black individuals—apart from the president and his wife, Michelle—in the pictures posted in the feed.
One of the only featured pictures to include a black individual is one from a recent White House visit by Star Trekactress Nichelle Nichols.
Rich irony indeed. Chicago
is 42% white, and 36.8 % black, but there’s nary a black face to be found at
the campaign headquarters of America’s
first black president. Is anyone surprised by this? Not me. The issue goes beyond just the Obama campaign, and to the very Democratic party itself.
I’m not a fan of “affirmative action” by any means, but it’s
ironic to me that in the party of affirmative action, the same party that likes
to paint the Republicans as racist (and yes, there are quite a few racists in the
Republican party, to be sure), they really don’t practice what they
preach when it comes to diversity. In general elections, blacks
tend to vote 90% + for the Democrats over Republicans, but have little to show
for it. For all the college-educated,
articulate, competent blacks who are mayors, state senators, and occupy many
many positions in state and local politics nationwide, where is the “affirmative action”
and push for “diversity” to open doors
to them to rise to national level politics? Where are the black governors, the black US senators?
Even in the upper levels of the Democratic National Committee,
African-Americans are woefully underrepresented relative to their percentage of
the population, and their overwhelming, support of the Democratic party as a group. Looks
to me like the party that likes to point fingers at Republicans &
conservatives on race issues needs to clean its own house first.
The University of North Carolina-Greensboro (UNCG) is saying a Christian student club
isn’t religious—and because it’s not religious, the “Make Up Your Own
Mind” club must allow students from other religious and belief systems
to become members and leaders in order to get formal group recognition
from the university.
That move led to a federal lawsuit against UNCG. Alliance Defense
Fund (ADF) attorneys representing the club filed suit on Wednesday.
“Saying that a Christian club isn’t religious is
flatly absurd, especially when the university has granted its
belief-based exception to numerous other clubs,” says ADF Legal Counsel
Jeremy Tedesco. “The First Amendment forbids the government from
determining what is and what is not ‘religious,’ yet the university is
doing exactly this by telling a Christian group that it is not
religious.
Let's just be real here. Would UNCG tell a Muslim group that they'd have to accept Buddhists as members of their club? Would they force an Atheist group to accept Christians or Muslims? Or a Liberal/Democratic club that they must accept Republicans/Conservatives as members? The answer to these questions is of course, no.
The stupidity of this all is simply breathtaking. Then again, these are
NOT stupid people we're dealing with here; this is a university staff
-- obviously fairly intelligent people. So what's at play here is
nothing but an anti-Christian agenda. UNCG has no leg to stand on, neither from a legal, or common-sense standpoint. This is nothing but harassment. This just makes me think of the days to come when the Devil will look for more reasons to harass believers in Christ and use whatever method, including the legal system, to do so. Jesus spoke of persecution that will face believers in Him:
9
“You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local
councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand
before governors and kings as witnesses to them.10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.11
Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand
about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it
is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.12
“Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children
will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.13 Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. (Mark 13: 9-13)
It's insane that this matter even has to go to court to dealt with. But may God work this out for His glory. This is an important case, just in terms of the precedent it could set. If UNCG is allowed to get away with this stunt, it just opens the doors for other colleges, universities, and other schools to do the same thing to Christian students. Here's hoping the Make Up Your Mind Club wins this case in court speedily. I'll keep an eye on this to see how this case turns out.
NewsBusters.org has an excellent article shining the light on the Huffington Post Religion Blog, which ends up pretty much being a left-wing view of religion, displaying a scornful attitude traditional Christian religion and it's values. Then again, knowing the Huffington Post (founded by former right-winger turned left winger Arianna Huffington), and knowing the American left wing, this shouldnt be a surprise.
If you ever wanted a clear view of how the God-hating religious left thinks, then HuffPost Religion definitely provides that for all to see. This, of course, is a view that we can expect to see more of as our culture begins to shift more and more to the left, and becomes increasingly godless.
-----
Excerpt:
The Religion Blog That Hates Religion
By Carolyn Plocher (Bio | Archive)Wed, 03/31/2010 - 08:57 ET
No, hell hasn't frozen over but, yes, the Huffington Post now has a religion blog. The Huffington Post, a Web site devoted to rankling conservatives and pushing a liberal agenda, announced on Feb. 24 that it was launching HuffPost Religion.
Huffington Post's co-founder, Arianna Huffington, claimed it would simply be "a section featuring a wide-ranging discussion about religion [and] spirituality," but the numbers prove that it is more of an attack on traditional Christianity than a discussion.
The site didn't waste any time throwing punches. In its first two weeks, it churned out articles by a liberal nun calling Catholicism sexist; a Rabbi claiming that Judaism will "stagnate and cease to be meaningful" unless it participates in the "green movement;" an avowed atheist comparing those who believe in God to a 7-year-old still believing in the tooth fairy; a science writer warning being religious could lead to "dangerous side-effects" such as "the crusader jihadist mentality;" and a neuroscientist calling those who believe in "obsolete religious ideas" a "lunatic fringe."
HuffPost Religion is the religion blog that hates religion, but the faith it abuses the most is Christianity.
Never before has the United States of America had a president who was previously a member of a socialist party. In January 2009, Barack Obama could become the first.
The mainstream media is hiding from this story. But here are the facts:
Below is DOCUMENTED PROOF of Barack Obama’s past membership in the socialist New Party, in Chicago.
Link: Newspaper showed Obama belonged to socialist party
Copies of the New Party News,the party's official newspaper, have been found,which show a photo of Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a New Party Member, and include quotes from him.
The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards.
**********
Archived page from NewParty.org, which speaks of Obama as being a New Party member.
New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races:
Illinois:Three NP-members won Democratic primarieslast Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).
“New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.”
**********
Chicago Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) website speaks of Obama as being a New Party member:
Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis.Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.
**********
Obama was not just “associated” with the party. To run on their party line he had to be approved by a New Party committee and sign a contract with them.
“Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.”
**********
The New Party was the creation of the quasi-Marxist Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the radical community organization ACORN. The DSA is associated with the Socialist International, the worlds largest organization of socialist and Marxist political parties worldwide.Related links
“A spokesman for the Obama campaign insists his candidate ran as a Democrat in that race and said, "Don't believe the trash you read on the Internet."
Note:The rep did not deny that Obama ran on the New Party line, but simply stated that he ran as a Democrat. This answer is misleading because in fact Obama ran both as a Democrat AND a New Party member.
**********
INTERESTING NOTE:
Three organizations, the controversial leftist community activist group ACORN, Project Vote, and The New Party were found to all share the same address in New York:
I'm quite disappointed in ABC News' Charlie Gibson as I write these words, but maybe I shouldn't be. I thought he was a good choice do do Sarah Palin's first televised interview since she got picked to be McCain's VP. He seemed like a fair person, and one who would do his research and ask solid questions. Maybe I was wrong.
Within minutes of looking at a released transcript of the interview on abcnews.com, one glaring error jumped out at me. Notice the dialogue here:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.
That's what that comment was all about, Charlie.
-------------
Palin explains herself well here. But frankly, the question didn't even need to be asked, because that same meaning was clear in the original context in which Sarah Palin first made those comments. And ABC news knew this, but chose to ignore the plain truth, so they could come up with a question based on a phony assertion -- that she feels that the Iraq war is "from God".
Immediately, the Charlie Gibson's credibility is shot, in my eyes, because those may have indeed been Palin's "exact words", but those words are pulled blatantly out of their context, cut off from her words immediately previous to those quoted. This of course serves to misrepresent her original meaning. For those who care about truth, here are the the facts:
On June 8, 2008, Sarah Palin spoke at her home church, the Wasilla Assembly of God. During that speech she started speaking about her son Track, who was preparing to be deployed to Iraq. Palin says:
"Pray for our military. He's gonna be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for -- that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan. So Bless them with your prayers, your prayers of protection over our soldiers. "
Therein lies the key difference. Palin never stated the war was "a task that is from God". She asked that the congregation pray that the soldiers would be on a task that was from God -- in other words, she was praying that the soldiers would be in God's will in what they were doing, and that our national leaders would also be in the will of God. Let's be clear here. Her prayer is quite similar to the many such prayers that concerned mothers and fathers all across the country pray for their own children daily. That is VERY DIFFERENT from the Charlie Gibson's contention that Palin stated they were "on a task that is from God", as news outlets have been repeating for almost a week now. Looking at what was said, any adult with proper reading comprehension can see what was really being said. These media types are almost all college-educated individuals with excellent comprehension skills. For them to take a slice of what she said, and pull it out of context and simply use the piece that they did, simply creates an irresponsible and unconscionable distortion.
Clearly there are many who are eager to portray Sarah as someone who's an irrational warmongering religious kook. And for the media to falsely imply that she believes the Iraq war is "a war from God" just gives further ammunition to her political enemies, and the enemies of Christianity as well.
ABC News and other news outlets that are misrepresenting Palin's words had full access to the full context of what Palin said. (As so we all --- the video clip is all over YouTube.) But they chose to slice the part of her words that woud create a certain impression, rather than just let the truth speak for itself. And in so doing, they give us yet one more reason not to trust the mainstream media.
(The context of Palin's comments can be seen from 3:05 to 3:42 on this video.)
I know the year isn't over yet, but this article by Fatima Ali of the Philadelphia Inquirer is soooo bad, it's the clear front-runner for the "Worst Article of the Year" Award. Some of you might be thinking: "I didn't know you HAD a "Worst Article of the Year" award. In fact, I didn't. But this article is so bad, I decided to create one!
"The policies of the current White House have brutalized our economy, yet the wealthiest think that everything is fine."
"...Critics of the GOP believe that a four-year extension of the Bush administration will be disastrous. People are struggling, and the privileged are so out of touch they pretend it's OK that children go hungry. " "...If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and hopelessness!"
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20080902_Fatimah_Ali__We_need_Obama__not_4_more_years_of_George_Bush.html ------- So if Obama loses, we should expect a race war? Puh-leeze.
Then again, no surprise here. It's just the typical alarmist tripe we've come to expect from the left -- painting the bleakest picture possible, talking down our economy, and making it seem like we're living in some Third World country. Yawn.
(The photo above is of Amina and Sarah Said, [allegedly] killed by their father in a so-called " honor killing" in Texas on New Years Day 2008. The father is still being sought, and is widely believed to be have fled the country. )
Can you properly discuss the phenomenon of "honor killings" without mentioning Islam? No... but CNN somehow tried very hard to do so. Another example of our liberal mainstream media bending over backward to not offend Muslims or make Islam look bad. Honor killings are are not exclusively a Muslim issue, but they do occur disproportionately in Muslim societies.
...Political correctness run amok. From Newsbusters.org:
Quite a feat: CNN has pulled off the MSM equivalent of describing a spiral staircase without using one's hands. It has managed to produce a segment on "honor killings" and related violence in the UK . . . without using the word "Muslim" or "Islam." CNN Newsroom anchor Don Lemon introduced the segment this afternoon at 1:37 PM EDT.
DON LEMON: Women forced into marriages, or killed for having the wrong boyfriend. So-called "honor crimes" are often committed by fathers or brothers when daughters do something that supposedly brings shame on the family. It's on the rise in Britain, and authorities, they are very worried about it. Our Paula Newton reports.
Slate magazine has an interesting take on why the mainstream media is largely ignoring the recent story that indicates John Edwards may have secretly fathered a child by someone not his wife.
Make no mistake -- if the story is true, it's a sad story all around. No can in good conscience gloat at such an unfortunate turn of events. But the fact is, Edwards is a national figure. He ran for president twice, and is still considered one of the most prominent Democratic politicians in the nation, and is still young enough to be a viable presidential candidate in the future. So when a scandal like this breaks, why is the media silent? They seem to be selective about what scandals they give coverage, and then, how much coverage they give. Clearly, there's an agenda at work here.
For example, Republican senator Larry Craig was crucified in the press last year when he was found to have had a "bathroom encounter" with another man. So why is the Edwards story being ignored, especially since he is much more well known than Larry Craig ever was?
So why hasn't the press commented on the story yet? Is it because it broke too late yesterday afternoon, and news organizations want to investigate it for themselves before writing about it? Or are they observing a double standard that says homo-hypocrisy is indefensible but that hetero-hypocrisy deserves an automatic bye?
That's my sense. "
Frankly, I think he's way more off base here. The issue is not homosexual vs heterosexual. The issue is liberal vs conservative.
If this were Mike Huckabee, Rudy Guiliani, or some other prominent Republican politician, does anyone think there would be a media blackout on this story? Not on your life. But the largely liberal media has much more enthusiasm for crucifying Republicans and conservatives than Democrats and liberals. And here once again, they're following their old pattern of bias again.
You cant open a bank account without ID; you cant board a plane without ID; so why should you be able to vote without identifying yourself?
Makes no sense, but Keith Ellison, a Democrat (no surprise there), is introducing a bill to PROHIBIT people from needing to show ID when they vote. This is so insane as to leave one almost speechless.
And why is it that the people who want to promote the idea of "no voter ID needed" are always liberals and Democrats? Could it be that they stand the most to gain if illegal aliens and non-citizens are able to vote without proving their identity or eligibility? Just wondering.
National Center For Public Policy Research Press Release
For Release: November 5, 2007Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11
Washington, D.C. - Legislation introduced by Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) to prohibit photo ID requirements for voting in federal elections would promote election fraud, say members of the black leadership network Project 21.
"Representative Ellison's proposal is fundamentally flawed and potentially harmful to the integrity of our democratic process," said Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie. "Why invite that which can only lead to unimaginable fraud and corruption?"
Imposing existing Minnesota election law on a national scale, the "Voter Access Protection Act of 2007" (H.R. 4026) would ban the use of photo ID for voter verification in federal elections. Rep. Ellison calls photo ID requirements "burdensome" and liken them to a "modern-day poll tax." He further charges that the Bush Administrations enforcement of voting rights issues effectively promotes "voter suppression of minorities, seniors and young people."
"The Ellison bill will do nothing more than encourage situations in which legitimate minority, elderly and poor voters - among others - will be disfranchised by non-citizens and corrupt political activists," said Project 21 member Kevin Martin. "Americans are already required to present photo ID for things such as banking and travel. I must show a photo ID if I want to try to talk to Representative Ellison about his bill in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol, but I presently do not need to show any identification to vote for him back in Minnesota. To compare voter security precautions to a poll tax is reprehensible."
Project 21 members suggest that voting rights groups - many of which accept taxpayer funds - offer services to ensure those currently without valid ID can obtain them.
"Photo ID is not the problem. Photo ID is the solution," added Project 21's Massie. "The rational and responsible response to complaints about a photo ID requirement is to help those who absolutely cannot get identification without assistance. If groups such as ACORN can afford to conduct voter registration and voter education and transport people to the polls on Election Day, they should certainly be able to transport and subsidize the cost of IDs for those who need them as well. If they cannot undertake this pro-active action when they can afford to lobby and litigate against photo ID requirements, they reveal their concerns are disingenuous."
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.
Liberals are fond of saying there is no liberal bias in the media. Of course, every major study of the issue has shown that there IS such bias. Funny how liberals can easily see the conservative bias at Fox News, but have a hard time seeing the obvious libreal bias in other media outlets. Willful blindness, I suppose.
So, for those who want FURTHER evidence of the obvious, I present this article from Investor's Business Daily:
Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:30 PM PT
Journalism: The debate is over. A consensus has been reached. On global warming? No, on how Democrats are favored on television, radio and in the newspapers.
Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.
Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."
The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.
Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. "Obama's front page coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Clinton's was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative."
In stories about Republicans, on the other hand, the tone was positive in only a quarter of the stories; in four in 10 it was negative.
The study also discovered that newspaper stories "tended to be focused more on political matters and less on issues and ideas than the media overall. In all, 71% of newspaper stories concentrated on the 'game,' compared with 63% overall."
Television has a similar problem. Only 10% of TV stories were focused on issues, and here, too, Democrats get the better of it.
Reviewing 154 stories on evening network newscasts over the course of 109 weeknights, the survey found that Democrats were presented in a positive light more than twice as often as they were portrayed as negative. Positive tones for Republicans were detected in less than a fifth of stories while a negative tone was twice as common.
The gap between Democrats and Republicans narrows on cable TV, but it's there nonetheless. Stories about Democrats were positive in more than a third of the cases, while Republicans were portrayed favorably in fewer than 29%. Republican led in unfriendly stories 30.4% to 25.5%.
CNN was the most hostile toward Republicans, MSNBC, surprisingly, the most positive. MSNBC was also the most favorable toward Democrats (47.2%), Fox (36.8%) the most critical.
The anti-GOP attitude also lives on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition." There, Democrats were approvingly covered more than a third as often as Republicans. Negative coverage of Democrats was a negligible 5.9%. It seemed to be reserved for Republicans, who were subject to one-fifth of the program's disparaging reports.
Even talk radio, generally considered a bastion of conservatism, has been relatively rough on the GOP. On conservative shows, Obama got more favorable treatment (27.8%) than Rudy Giuliani (25%). Sen. John McCain got a 50% favorability rating while Mitt Romney led the three GOP candidates with 66.7%.
The PEG-Shorenstein effort is only the latest to conclude that the mainstream media tilt left. Others include Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter's groundbreaking 1986 book "The Media Elite"; "A Measure of Media Bias," a 2005 paper written by professors from UCLA and the University of Missouri; and Bernard Goldberg's two books, "Bias" and "Arrogance." All underscore the media's leftward leanings.
The media, of course, insist they are careful to keep personal opinions out of their coverage. But the facts tell another story — one that can't be edited or spiked.
Well, I'm not going to say very much on this. I've posted before about Barack Obama and his (mis)use of faith in the campaign - or his attempt to position himself being a man of faith.
"I thought I was coming to save a ministry but in fact I was being saved, and I accepted Jesus Christ into my life." (speaking about his suposed conversion in Chicago)
" I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God."
"We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."
Oh boy. I'm trying to approach this seriously, and not make some snarky-sounding comment. So my point here is this: This man is in favor of homosexual "civil unions" and abortion. But he claimed he wants to be "an instrument of God", and that he "accepted Jesus" , whatever that means. I wonder: what bible do these liberal self-described "Christians" read that tells them homosexuality and abortionare ok with God?
His brand of progressive liberal "Christianity" is obviously fooling many. It's not fooling me, and hopefully not fooling anyone with any true discernment. My take on this: anyone who thinks he's "serving God", but thinks homosexuality and abortion are acceptable before God, is DELUSIONAL.
Funny how Democrats become highly offended when they're referred to as unpatriotic. But numbers like this speak for themselves. Unquestionably, there is a sizable anti-American wing firmly resident within the Democratic party, a wing the so-called mainstream Democrats spend too much time catering to.
Now if 1 in 5 admitted they think we'd be better of losing, the real number might be closer to 2 in 5 or even 3 in 5 for all we know. After all, people are known to be less than candid when dealing with pollsters. Pretty soon we'll have people who think like this running the country. With this kind of thinking out there, perhaps our biggest enemy is within.
Frankly, America as we know it is finished. Done. Kaput. Lights out. God help America. Original article.
NEW YORK — Nearly one out of every five Democrats thinks the world will be better off if America loses the war in Iraq, according to the FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll released Thursday. The percentage of Democrats (19 percent) who believe that is nearly four times the number of Republicans (5 percent) who gave the same answer. Seven percent of independents said the world would be better off if the U.S. lost the war. .
More proof that the far left is dangerous and a threat to the republic. This recent news article tells us how hard-left group Moveon.org now wants to intimidate advertisers who run ads on the Fox News Network.
I thought liberals were supposed to be open minded, and totally in favor of freedom of speech. For too many liberals though, freedom of speech is ok, as long as it's speech they agree with. They give lip service to the idea of free speech, but want to intimidate and remove all those whose speech they disagree with.
Its strange how these people are quick to point out the right wing slant on Fox, but love to deny or ignore the liberal/left wing slant found in the mainstream media as a whole, including the New York Times, National Public Radio, PBS, and to a lesser extent CBS, CNN and so many others. I guess its only bias if its a conservative bias; if its a left wing bias, its simply "the truth". Its ironic that so many on the far left like to use the shrill Bush=Hitler rhetoric, but they dont see that their very tactic of trying to shut down conservative voices they disagree with is itself Nazi-like.
One day, we're going to have a White house, Congress, and Senate all controlled by the liberals, and when that day comes, God help America.
Liberal activists are stepping up their campaign against Fox News Channel by pressuring advertisers not to patronize the network. MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos.
The groups have successfully pressured Democratic presidential candidates not to appear at any debate sponsored by Fox, and are also trying to get Home Depot Inc. to stop advertising there. At least 5,000 people nationwide have signed up to compile logs on who is running commercials on Fox, Gilliam said. The groups want to first concentrate on businesses running local ads, as opposed to national commercials.
"It's a lot more effective for Sam's Diner to get calls from 10 people in his town than going to the consumer complaint department of some pharmaceutical company," Gilliam said. ....
Ok. I'm going to rant again for a minute. I'm not the biggest George Bush fan out there, although I prefer him to pretty much all the Democrats. I do recognize that he's probably the most hated president ever, although I believe most of that hatred is irrational, a manifestation of what's sometimes called Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) .
I don't think its always been fair, and the liberal media has contributed in its own way to BDS. I remember how Ronald Reagan was hated too in his heyday, but the media gave him some grudging respect in the years after his presidency ended, and particularly after his death. On many issues, I have disagreed with Bush (especially on immigration, the border, and the North American Union issues ).
One fact that came to my attention today was really striking to me . A CNN reporter tonight on the program The Situation Room stated that the Bush administration had spent quadruple the amount of money on Africa than the previous administration. I don't know where he got that exact figure, but a little Google searching actually did make it pretty clear that Bush indeed has spend a lot more on African aid than Clinton did. Considering that the dislike for Bush seems to be greatest among the African-American community (yes, this is anecdotal), I find this very interesting. Listening to the many Democratic party and black activists, you'd almost think "George Bush doesn't care about black people" . But he spent a lot more on Africa than Bill Clinton, the man who many blacks lovingly call "America's first black president"! Who would have thought?
And don't get me started on the fact that the Clinton administration's veto of a more to send UN peace-keepers into Rwanda contributed to the death of 800,000 black Rwandans in 100 days!! No one called Clinton a racist for that, and I'm not saying he was - but I know if that was George Bush who had done the same thing he certainly wouldn't get a free pass the way Bill Clinton did.
The stereotype/fallacy that "Republicans are racist and Democrats are not" is part of what contributes to this kind of bias, blindness, and demagoguery, even in defiance of the facts. It's as if the facts don't matter, especially if they conflict with the preconceived notions people wish to hold on to.
Sure , you could always argue they could have done more but, personally, I appreciate the fact what this administration has done in terms of spending more on Africa than any other administration before it. Too bad they'll never get their proper due. But sometimes when you do the right thing , it doesn't matter if you get recognized for it or not.
Since the information on the White House website will probably change after next year's elections, I decided to post the relevant facts here,m for any who might be interested. The facts speak for themselves. From http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/africa/accomplishments.html:
President Bush's Africa Accomplishments and Initiatives
I. GREATEST LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT OF ALL ADMINISTRATIONS
Meeting with 25 African Heads of State in First Two Years
President Obasanjo of Nigeria, May 11, 2001 at White House
President Mbeki of South Africa, June 26, 2001 at White House
President Moi of Kenya, June 27, 2001 at White House
President Kufuor of Ghana, June 28, 2001 at White House
President Wade of Senegal, June 28, 2001 at White House
President Konare of Mali, June 28, 2001 at White House
President Obasanjo of Nigeria, November 2, 2001 at White House
President Museveni of Uganda, November 10, 2001 at UNGA
President Ratsiraka of Madagascar, November 11, 2001 at UNGA
President Moi of Kenya, November 11, 2001 at UNGA
President Kabila of Dem. Rep. of Congo, November 11, 2001 at UNGA
President Mbeki of South Africa, November 11, 2001 at UNGA
President dos Santos of Angola, February 26, 2002 at White House
President Chissao of Mozambique, February 26, 2002 at White House
President Mogae of Botswana, February 26, 2002 at White House
President Museveni of Uganda, May 2002 at White House
President Mbeki of South Africa, September 13, 2002 at UNGA
President Kagame of Rwanda, September 13, 2002 at UNGA
President Kabila of Dem. Rep. of Congo, September 13, 2002 at UNGA
President Biya of Cameroon, September 13, 2002 at UNGA
President Deby of Chad, September 13, 2002 at UNGA
President Bongo of Gabon, September 13, 2002 at UNGA
President Obiang of Equatorial Guinea, September 13, 2002 at UNGA
President Patasse of Central African Rep., September 13, 2002 at UNGA
President Buyoya of Burundi, September 13, 2002 at UNGA
President Sassou-Nguesso of Rep. of Congo, September 13, 2002 at UNGA
President de Menezes of Sao Tome and Principe, Sept. 13, 2002 at UNGA
President Moi of Kenya, December 5, 2002 at White House
Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia, Dec. 5, 2002 at White House
First American President to Visit Africa in First Term - Trip in January 2003
Bush Directed His Cabinet Secretaries to Have High Level Engagement in Africa
Five in First-term: Secretary Powell (May 2001, August 2002); Secretary Thompson; Secretary O'Neill; AMB Zoellick; Secretary Evans planned for November 2002
II. GREATEST LEVELS OF ASSISTANCE OF ALL ADMINISTRATIONS
Core Development Assistance for Africa: Historic High Levels
30 percent increase for sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) from 2001 to 2003
Over $1 billion ODA for SSA in FY03, highest level in U.S. history
Millennium Challenge Account: Increase global development assistance by 50% over the next three years, resulting in $5 billion annual increase over current levels
HIV/AIDS Global Funding: Historic High Levels and Climbing...
$988 million in FY2002, a 36% increase over FY2001
$1.1 billion in FY2003, doubles level of funding when he took office
$500 million to Global HIV/AIDS Fund, first and largest contributor
III. MAJOR POLICY INITIATIVES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Promote Health and Education; Combat HIV/AIDS, TB, Malaria
Created HIV/AIDS Cabinet Council co-chaired by Powell and Thompson
Jump-started Global HIV/AIDS Fund with first $500 million contribution, represents one quarter of the Fund's total resources
New $500M Mother and Child HIV Prevention Initiative
New $200M Africa Education Initiative to train over 400,000 teachers; provide 250,000 scholarships for African girls; and provide 4.5 million textbooks
Promote Growth and Development; Eradicate Poverty
Implementing African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA); Provides over 90% duty free market access for African imports to the U.S. President Bush attended AGOA Forum in Washington, DC. Plans to attend Forum in Mauritius in 2003.
"Stop the Debt". IDA Grants Initiative for Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to provide up to 50% of assistance to poorest in form of grants not loans.
Provided 18 percent increase to the African Development Bank's fund to assist the poorest-by far, the largest increase among the major donors.
Promote Regional Peace and Stability; End Conflict and War [President Bush's leadership is directly responsible for progress ending wars in Sierra Leone, Sudan, and Congo
Appointed former Senator Danforth as Presidential Envoy for Sudan
Appointed Andrew Natsios as Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan
Build the capacity of regional peacekeepers in Sierra Leone and Congo
Provided additional $55 million in FY2002 for combating terrorism in Africa
Launched $5 million awards program to track individuals responsible for genocide and terror acts in Central Africa. Three Apprehended since June 2002.
In my previous post I talked about how sickening it was to see Barack Obama trying to skillfully play the "faith" card as part of his campaigning strategy.
An article in this week's Time magazine shows that it's not just Obama's strategy, but a calculated Democratic Party strategy for the 2008 elections (and most likely beyond it). I'm sure they'll fool many people with this newfound emphasis on faith and values. But to me its a cynical attempt to appeal to people of faith by pretending to share similar values with them. They realize that the faith and values issue was a key to them losing to the Republicans in the 2004 presidential elections (according to to exit polling), so they've decided to have a more inclusive faith strategy going forward.
Their new game is simply: "See, we've got religion too!", but done in such a way that doesn't alienate the typical "secular progressives" who are the base and driving influence in the Democratic Party as a whole.
But thats all it is - its not genuine personal faith; its just a strategic ploy to appeal to people of faith. Sad and sickening is what it is, and its a shame that more people wont be able to see through this cynical strategy.
Left-wingers have long complained about conservative Christians and the political right wing supposedly using religion for political purposes. But really... who's "using religion" now?
Something tells me its going to be a long and disgusting campaign between now and November 2008.
In this campaign season, if Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards are any measure, there will be nothing unusual in Democrats' talking about the God who guides them and the beliefs that sustain them. Clinton has hired Burns Strider, a congressional staffer (and evangelical Baptist from Mississippi) who is assembling a faith steering group from major denominations and sends out a weekly wrap-up, Faith, Family and Values. Edwards has been organizing conference calls with progressive religious leaders and is about to embark on a 12-city poverty tour. In the past month alone, Obama's campaign has run six faith forums in New Hampshire, where local clergy and laypeople discuss religious engagement in politics. "We talk about ways people of faith have gone wrong in the past, what they have done right and where they see it going in the future," says his faith-outreach adviser, Joshua DuBois. Speeches on everything from the budget to immigration to stem-cell research are carefully marinated in Scripture. "Science is a gift of God to all of us," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during a debate on increased embryo-research funding, "and science has taken us to a place that is biblical in its power to cure."
The Democrats are so fired up, you could call them the new Moral Majority. This time, however, the emphasis is as much on the majority as on the morality as they try to frame a message in terms of broadly shared values that don't alarm members of minority religions or secular voters. It has become an article of faith among party leaders that it was sheer strategic stupidity to cede the values debate to Republicans for so long; that most people want to reduce abortion but not criminalize it, protect the earth instead of the auto industry, raise up the least among us; and that a lot of voters care as much about the candidates' principles as about their policies. "What we're seeing," says strategist Mike McCurry, "is a Great Awakening in the Democratic Party." ...
I'm happy that America has progressed to the pont that a black man can be a serious contender for the presidential nomination of a major party. For that reason alone I find the candidacy of Barack Obama mildly heartwarming. But the warm fuzzy feelings end there.
I recognize him as a man full of platitudes, full of nice soundbites, but short on the depth and experience that should make a good president. To me its absurd that a man so lacking in gravitas could be so close to becoming the "leader of the free world", as they say.
Obama has taken more than a few shots so far (at times subtly, at times harshly), at the so called Christian Right; his use of the faith issue is the most prominent so far among the leading presidential candidates. He positions himself as someone with a kinder, gentler approach to "faith" than those cyncial hardliners on the Christian right. To Barack ""We" (him and people who are on his side) put their faith in action to truly make a difference in society, while "They" (read: Conservative Christians") just talk about faith and use it for divisive political purposes.
From his website:
"Barack Obama is a committed Christian and his faith informs his values. Barack believes that people of all faiths should come together to put their faith into action to change this country for the better. "
and
"When we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another…others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends." – Barack Obama, Call to Renewal Keynote Address, June 2006
Also from Obama:
Addressing the 50th anniversary convention of his own denomination, the United Church of Christ, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois said Saturday that the religious right had “hijacked” faith and divided the country by exploiting issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and school prayer.—“But somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together,” Mr. Obama said. “Faith started being used to drive us apart. Faith got hijacked.”…
Hmm. Watch for a lot more of this kind of rhetoric from him between now and election day, as well as stories of his "journey of faith". To me, this guy's fakesness is so striking to me, that its beginning to carry an odor to it. Perhaps it's been well said that this man is "the Paris Hilton" of the 2008 campaign.
Michael Moore made millions with his movie Fahrenheit 911. But how many people actually saw the rebuttal documentary Fahrenhype 9/11 ? Very few. Michael Moore has such a history of lying that it's amazing that he has any credibility left with the American public. Then again , since most people dont know that Michael Moore's Lies have been documented over and over, he keeps finding an audience.
Now if a conservative filmmaker had been found to have put so many inaccuracies and blatant falsehoods in his movies, would the mainstream media let him get away with it? (Yes, I know - dumb question.)
Someone once said "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." So true.
The next time someone tells you that there is no liberal bias in the media. Just give them 2 words: Dan Rather. Obviously, the issue of media bias is a lot more multi-layered than that; but Dan Rather is exhibit A in the discussion. Here's a man whose bias has been so obvious over the years, but he gets a free pass from the, um, liberal media, because he's one of their own, of course.
The website RatherBiased.com documents over and over this man's history of blatant left leaning bias. I mean, there's a reason why his viewership was like 70% Democrat. It's so hypocritical to me to see these leftists love to pontificate about how Fox News is right-leaning... as if they don't see the blatant liberal bias at CBS, the New York Times, and others. I guess in the end, people only see what they want to see.
Posts
