NY Daily News Endorses... Romney? Shocking!

There's very little that has shocked me this political season... but this really did.

As a former New Yorker, I read the NY news websites much more than the Atlanta papers here where I live. I like the NY Daily News, and have just learned to ignore their liberal slant on political matters. It was pretty much a given that they'd endorse Barack Obama, whom they endorsed in 2008 not surprisingly. So when I saw the NY Daily News endorse Mitt Romney for president, I couldnt believe my eyes. Am I reading this right? Is this satire? Was the webpage hacked? Nope. It's real. And quite surprising, if you really know the Daily News. I cant imagine anyone saying they saw this coming.

When the NYDN turns its back on an incumbent Democratic President, things must be really bad. I know  Daily News writer Mike Lupica must be choking on his corn flakes right about now. Hopefully, he'll be OK.

I'll post a few paragraphs here. The article is well-reasoned, and a well laid out. Its a bit long, but I encourage reader's to check it out in its entirety.

===

America’s heart, soul, brains and muscle — the middle- and working-class people who make this nation great — have been beset for too long by sapping economic decline.

So, too, New York breadwinners and families.

Paychecks are shrunken after more than a decade in which the workplace has asked more of wage earners and rewarded them less. The decline has knocked someone at the midpoint of the salary scale back to where he or she would have been in 1996.

Then, the subway fare, still paid by token, was $1.50, gasoline was $1.23 a gallon and the median rent for a stabilized apartment was $600 a month. Today, the base MetroCard subway fare is $2.25, gasoline is in the $3.90 range and the median stabilized rent is $1,050, with all the increases outpacing wage growth.

A crisis of long duration, the gap between purchasing power and the necessities of life widened after the 2008 meltdown revealed that the U.S. economy was built on toothpicks — and they snapped.

Nine million jobs evaporated. The typical American family saw $50,000 vanish from its net worth, and its median household income dropped by more than $87 a week. New Yorkers got off with a $54 weekly hit.

Our leaders owed us better than lower standards of living, and we must have better if the U.S. is to remain a beacon of prosperity where mothers and fathers can be confident of providing for their children and seeing them climb higher on the ladder.

Revival of the U.S. as a land of opportunity and upward mobility is the central challenge facing the next President. The question for Americans: Who is more likely to accomplish the mission — Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?

Four years ago, the Daily News endorsed Obama, seeing a historic figure whose intelligence, political skills and empathy with common folk positioned him to build on the small practical experience he would bring to the world’s toughest job. We valued Obama’s pledge to govern with bold pragmatism and bipartisanship.

The hopes of those days went unfulfilled.

Achingly slow job creation has left the U.S. with 4.3 million fewer positions than provided incomes to Americans in 2007. Half the new jobs have been part-time, lower-wage slots, a trend that has ruinously sped a hollowing of the middle class.

The official unemployment rate stands at 7.9%, marking only the second month below 8% after 43 months above that level. Worse, add people who are working part-time because they have no better choice and the rate leaps to almost 15%. Still worse, add 8 million people who have given up looking for employment and the number who are out of jobs or who are cobbling together hours to scrape by hits some 23 million people.

Only America’s social safety net, record deficits and the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented low-interest policies have kept the label Great Depression II on the shelf.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/choice-america-future-mitt-romney-article-1.1196299#ixzz2BGJH1X8r

Article: Polls, Pundits Give Romney Historic Debate Victory; Will It Matter?

The Christian Post has a good breakdown and analysis of last night's presidential debate, a debate most observers agree was won by Mitt Romney hands down.
I guess the key question being asked though, is, "Will it matter?". Frankly, I don't think it will.

Maybe I'm just pessimistic, but I still feel like Obama will end up winning in the end. This is the first of three debates. They still have two more debates coming up, dealing with social issues and foreign policy. Social issues like gay marriage and abortion "rights" are always a minefield for any Republican candidate, so I expect Obama to have the edge there. Foreign policy should be the President's strength since he has the power of incumbency and active foreign policy experience, as opposed to Romney, who might have some good ideas, but no actual experience in that area. This might seem to be an area of advantage for Obama, but his problem is that he actually has a foreign policy record to defend, and many areas for Romney to attack (such as the White House's dissembling, deceptive spinning of the story regarding the recent assassination of our ambassador to Libya [see stories here, and here on this, for example]).

Yes, I still think Obama will win, and I'll be shocked out of my mind if Romney pulls off the victory. But in the meantime, it's kinda fun to see so many liberals being quite uncomfortable,  if not downright nervous — even panicky, at seeing that Romney might be more of a challenge to Obama this November than they thought.

Interestingly, I think one of the most telling comments in all this come from NBC's Tom Brokaw, who said that if Romney had performed like Obama did last night this thing would have been over.  He's 100% right on that. The media would have pounced on Romney like jackals on a wounded deer, and essentially stuck the long knives into his campaign to try and finish him off. Now they cant quite do that — something, I firmly believe many of them were hoping, and still hope, to do so their guy can get re-elected.

At the end of the day, my position remains the same. No man has the answer to America's, or the world's, problems. I know who I'd prefer to see win this thing, but I'm not sure in the end it will really matter that much. At it's core, America's problems are neither social nor political; they are spiritual, and when all is said and done, if America continues to stray away from it's original biblical foundations and principles, we'll just continue to march headlong toward the day of destruction which is sure to come. Meanwhile, however, God bless America. And God help America.

THREE TIMES THEY SAID NO TO GOD. Enough said.

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.

FULL STORY HERE: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/democrats-rapidly-revise-platform-include-god/story?id=17164108#.UElBlY38uJp

Ryan vs Obama: Hiding Spending Doesn't Reduce Spending

OK folks, turn your speakers up, and please listen to the video above, if you haven seen/heard it before.

Its videos like this that make me like Paul Ryan.  To me, Ryan is more honest about the real budget numbers than any politician in recent memory. He recognizes that America is headed over a financial cliff, and knows that difficult choices (i.e. cuts) have to be made to prevent American from even more dire financial problems down the road.

Some of the budget cuts he proposes are unpopular, and cause his enemies to vilify him (such as those liars who say he wants to "end Medicaid"). Look for more such lies and distortions from his political enemies between now and November. But Ryan is one of the few who's willing to be honest enough with America to tell us all what we need to hear about the budget numbers and the gloomy picture ahead of us if we continue down this path. His forthrightness on this issue is refreshing, although I do wonder if the American people really want to hear the uncomfortable truth, as much as we might say we do.

Time will tell. But I do like the pick for sure. Ryan is no Sarah Palin. He's no Dan Quayle, and his enemies know that... which I think makes them a bit nervous.  He's a solid pick, one who has no problem going head-to-head with Obama himself (as seen in the video above).

Frankly, the Romney vs Obama debate will be interesting, but what I'm really looking forward to is the Ryan vs Biden debate. Somehow I have the feeling Biden is going to have his head handed to him when that debate comes along. I'll definitely have my popcorn ready. 

Obama, Gay Marriage, and Bogus Christianity

It’s been a few days since the Presidents abominable endorsement of homosexual marriage, and my spirit is still quite disturbed and disgusted by what took place. The social, political, and spiritual ramifications of what the president did are huge, and we’ll see this all unfold over time.

To me the most striking aspect to all this are the spiritual ramifications of course,  and especially in these 2 respects:

A/ Obama used scripture and his supposed Christian faith to justify his opposition to, AND his support of, homosexual marriage. Talk about twisting scripture when it’s convenient!

B/ Obama is a pseudo-Christian, but has been defended and supported by many pastors & preachers (especially among the black clergy in particular), which is disturbing on multiple levels.

So allow me to start off my rant with this:

1/ When Obama said he opposed same sex marriage, he said it was because of his biblical/Christian beliefs. But incredibly, when he decided to come out and support gay marriage, he also used scripture to support his belief. As USA today, put it well:

In fact, one of the most striking aspects of Obama's revelation on Wednesday that he and his wife, Michelle, support marriage rights for gays and lesbians, is that he invoked their Christian faith to support his views. In past years, Obama — as many believers still do — had cited his religious beliefs to oppose gay marriage. (See full article here. )

Barack Obama’s own words:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian…it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” -August 2008 / Interview with Pastor Rick Warren, Saddleback Church.

Yet in his interview with ABC News, he actually invokes the New Testament “Golden Rule” to support his new, “evolved” view:

“[Michelle and I] we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others. But, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.“And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better I’ll be as president,”   May 9, 2012

So now the Golden Rule (Matt 7:12/ Luke 6:31) is now to be used to support sexual immorality?

Wow. Just… wow.  Lord help us.

[As an aside, Bear in mind  that Obama’s 2008 statement above was made while  sitting on the platform in an Evangelical church (so what else was he going to say in front of a buch of Evangelicals?)… Furthermore, he was also running for office at the time. That’s actually a big deal, since Obama had already been on record n 1996 as saying “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” . This was said before he ran for US Senate and the presidency. See here. ) There’s also evidence that Obama and/or his underlings lied about it  in 2011 when confronted with his own words from 1996. See here)]

Anyway, moving on… this just leads me to my other observation:

2A/ Obama is a fake Christian, and always was.

Personally, I’ve NEVER believed Obama was a born again Christian. Not for a millisecond.  The closest he’s come to any kind of Christian experience is his membership in the church of pot-stirrer and racial agitator Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a purveyor of Black Liberation Theology.  Black Liberation Theology is, in essence, a social/political gospel, not a true gospel of salvation.

Enough said on that for now; however…

2B / Despite this man not showing any fruit of being born again, Obama had (and presumably still has) widespread support of many (most?) in the black clergy nationwide. And more than a few of them in the past have bristled at the thought that anyone would question Obama’s Christian faith. For example…

In the video above we see Bishop TD Jakes saying he’s offended (!) by Rev. Franklin Graham questioning Obama’s Christian faith, and even suggests Franklin should apologize! I wonder what Jakes and others think now, since “Mr. Christian” Obama has now squarely come out in favor of something God clearly considers to be an abomination.

In a nutshell, it’s fairly obvious that many of these churches and their members voted in large part based on racial considerations, rather than on any spiritual conviction. It’s sad to me that pastors would come out and give their support to an ungodly man simply because he’s “one of us”. But what does it say about the theological grounding and/or discernment of these men, if they actually sincerely feel/felt that Barack Obama is a born again Christian? Of course, as goes the shepherd, so goes the sheep; thus, if the shepherds are clueless, what does that say for their sheep? Nothing good, frankly.  

Bottom line, the “black church” as a whole is in trouble (or maybe I should say “a great many black churches”, to be fair),. Blind sheep led by blind shepherds. I’m not saying that to be harsh; just calling it like it is.

I do wonder now: how long before the majority of black churches come out accepting or supporting same-sex marriages?  The Devil is definitely working on that, so that may not be too far away.

Come Lord Jesus, and rescue your people from this collective insanity, and this spirit of darkness that is beginning to cover our land.

Amen.  

Netanyahu turns to Bible in tussle over Jerusalem

My respect for the Israeli Prime Minister just went up a few notches after reading this news story. Benjamin Netanyahu is a smart man. You can never go wrong when you turn to the scriptures when looking at the Israeli-Palestinaian conflict, because at it's core, this conflict is neither a a social nor a political issue; but rather, it's a spiritual issue.

This Israel is the land that God gave to Abraham as a possession for him and his offspring forever:

For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.
(Genesis 13:15)

And this Jerusalem is that city that Jesus said would be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles (after its coming destruction in AD 70) until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled :

"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."
(Luke 21:24)

This is that same land that God said he would restore to Israel to in the latter days (see Ezekiel chapters 36-39).

²³ The Gentiles shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity; because they were unfaithful to Me, therefore I hid My face from them. I gave them into the hand of their enemies, and they all fell by the sword. ²⁴ According to their uncleanness and according to their transgressions I have dealt with them, and hidden My face from them.”’
²⁵ “Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: ‘Now I will bring back the captives of Jacob, and have mercy on the whole house of Israel; and I will be jealous for My holy name— ²⁶ after they have borne their shame, and all their unfaithfulness in which they were unfaithful to Me, when they dwelt safely in their own land and no one made them afraid. ²⁷ When I have brought them back from the peoples and gathered them out of their enemies’ lands, and I am hallowed in them in the sight of many nations, ²⁸ then they shall know that I am the LORD their God, who sent them into captivity among the nations, but also brought them back to their land, and left none of them captive any longer. ²⁹ And I will not hide My face from them anymore; for I shall have poured out My Spirit on the house of Israel,’ says the Lord GOD.”
(Ezekiel 39:23-29)

So the Gentiles, and Israel's Arab nations in particular, can fight against Israel if they want to, but in the end they wont win. Maybe Benjamin Netanyahu is one of those few world leaders who recognizes that.


===
Article excerpt from Reuters:

Netanyahu turns to Bible in tussle over Jerusalem

Thursday, May 13

By Dan Williams
JERUSALEM - Beset by questions about Jerusalem's future in talks with the Palestinians, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached for the Bible on Wednesday to stake out the Jewish state's contested claim on the city.

Netanyahu told a parliamentary session commemorating Israel's capture of East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war that "Jerusalem" and its alternative Hebrew name "Zion" appear 850 times in the Old Testament, Judaism's core canon.

"As to how many times Jerusalem is mentioned in the holy scriptures of other faiths, I recommend you check," he said.

Citing such ancestry, Israel calls all of Jerusalem its "eternal and indivisible" capital -- a designation not recognised abroad, where many powers support Arab claims to East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

The dispute is further inflamed by the fact East Jerusalem houses al-Aqsa mosque, Islam's third-holiest shrine, on a plaza that Jews revere as the vestige of two biblical Jewish temples.

Heckled by a lawmaker from Israel's Arab minority, Netanyahu offered a lesson in comparative religion from the lectern.

"Because you asked: Jerusalem is mentioned 142 times in the New Testament, and none of the 16 various Arabic names for Jerusalem is mentioned in the Koran. But in an expanded interpretation of the Koran from the 12th century, one passage is said to refer to Jerusalem," he said.

===

The end of the road for Barack Obama?

A year ago, the thought of Barack Obama being just a one term president, like Jimmy Carter, was almost unthinkable. Now, the idea isnt so crazy after all. 

--------
Telegraph (UK) writer has an interesting article:

It is a universal political truth that administrations do not begin to fragment when things are going well: it only happens when they go badly, and those who think they know better begin to attack those who manifestly do not. The descent of Barack Obama's regime, characterised now by factionalism in the Democratic Party and talk of his being set to emulate Jimmy Carter as a one-term president, has been swift and precipitate. It was just 16 months ago that weeping men and women celebrated his victory over John McCain in the American presidential election. If they weep now, a year and six weeks into his rule, it is for different reasons.


Despite the efforts of some sections of opinion to talk the place up, America is mired in unhappiness, all the worse for the height from which Obamania has fallen. The economy remains troublesome. There is growth – a good last quarter suggested an annual rate of as high as six per cent, but that figure is probably not reliable – and the latest unemployment figures, last Friday, showed a levelling off. Yet 15 million Americans, or 9.7 per cent of the workforce, have no job. Many millions more are reduced to working part-time. Whole areas of the country, notably in the north and on the eastern seaboard, are industrial wastelands. The once mighty motor city of Detroit appears slowly to be being abandoned, becoming a Jurassic Park of the mid-20th century; unemployment among black people in Mr Obama's own city of Chicago is estimated at between 20 and 25 per cent. One senior black politician – a Democrat and a supporter of the President – told me of the wrath in his community that a black president appeared to be unable to solve the economic problem among his own people. Cities in the east such as Newark and Baltimore now have drug-dealing as their principal commercial activity: The Wire is only just fictional.

Last Thursday the House of Representatives passed a jobs Bill, costing $15 billion, which would give tax breaks to firms hiring new staff and, through state sponsorship of construction projects, create thousands of jobs too. The Senate is trying to approve a Bill that would provide a further $150 billion of tax incentives to employers. Yet there is a sense of desperation in the Administration, a sense that nothing can be as efficacious at the moment as a sticking plaster. Edward B Montgomery, deputy labour secretary in the Clinton administration, now spends his time on day trips to decaying towns that used to have a car industry, not so much advising them on how to do something else as facilitating those communities' access to federal funds. For a land without a welfare state, America starts to do an effective impersonation of a country with one. This massive state spending gives rise to accusations by Republicans, and people too angry even to be Republicans, that America is now controlled by "Leftists" and being turned into a socialist state.


Full article here: The end of the road for Barack Obama?

Article:From right and left, questions about peace prize

Interesting article from Townhall.com regardging President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. 

-----------------

Friday, October 09, 2009
From right and left, questions about peace prize
By CHARLES BABINGTON

Gee, you'd think a U.S. president who won the Nobel Peace Prize might get rave reviews from his party's activists and polite congrats from top Republicans.

But news of Barack Obama's award Friday drew a rebuke from the Republican Party chairman, ridicule from conservative bloggers, and even gripes from some liberals who think he hasn't done enough to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Top Democrats congratulated Obama, of course, but critics abounded.

"What has President Obama actually accomplished?" said Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

"It is unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights."

There was praise from two Democrats who also have won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Former President Jimmy Carter, who won in 2002, called Obama's selection a "bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment."

Former Vice President Al Gore, who won two years ago, said, "I think that much of what he has accomplished already is going to be far more appreciated in the eyes of history, as it has been by the Nobel committee," Gore said.

And some Republicans had kind words, too.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Obama's presidential rival last year, told CNN he could not divine the Nobel committee's intentions, "but I think part of their decision-making was expectations. And I'm sure the president understands that he now has even more to live up to. But as Americans, we're proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category."

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said, "under any circumstances I thought an appropriate response is congratulations."

But GOP Rep. Gresham Barrett, who is running for governor of South Carolina, mocked Obama's prize. "I'm not sure what the international community loved best; his waffling on Afghanistan, pulling defense missiles out of Eastern Europe, turning his back on freedom fighters in Honduras, coddling Castro, siding with Palestinians against Israel, or almost getting tough on Iran," Barrett said.

Full article here. 

Democrats See Opportunity as Acceptance of Gay Marriage Grows

As the Democrats have developed a clear political advantage on the gay marriage issue, and many Republicans now seem to be reconsidering their hard stance regarding it. No surprise here. I think anyone who's been paying attention could have seen this coming.
In the end, Republicans may, and probably will, one day accept gay marriage. Society as a whole (and even many churches) seems to be on the way toward accepting it also. But God has never approved of it and never will. And true Christians never will either.

Article from the Atlanta Journal Constitution (excerpt here):

By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON — Gay marriage legalization in several states and the public's growing acceptance of same-sex unions have Democrats sensing political opportunity and some Republicans re-evaluating their party's hard-line opposition to an issue that long has rallied its base.

In recent weeks, Vermont and Iowa have legalized same-sex marriage, while New York, Maine and New Hampshire have taken steps in that direction. Polls show younger Americans are far are more tolerant on the issue than are older generations. For now at least, the public is much more focused on the troubled economy and two wars than on social issues.

In addition, over the past decade, public acceptance of gay marriage has changed dramatically.

A Quinnipiac University poll released last week found that a majority of people questioned, by a 55-38 percent margin, oppose gay marriage. But it also found that people, by a 57-38 percent margin, support civil unions that would provide marriage-like rights for same-sex couples, indicating a shift toward more acceptance.

With congressional elections next year, Republicans, Democrats and nonpartisan analysts say the changes benefit Democrats, whose bedrock liberals favor gay unions, and disadvantage Republicans, whose conservative base insists that marriage be solely between a man and a woman.

"This is not a sea change. This is a tide that is slowly rising in favor of gay marriage," creating a favorable political situation for Democrats and ever-more difficulty for Republicans, said David McCuan, a political scientist at Sonoma State University in California.

full article here.

17 Socialists in the House?

Rep. Spencer Bachus, the top Republican on the Financial Services Committee, is raising hackles with his claim that there are 17 Socialists in the House of Representatives. 

My first thought upon reading the article was: "Only 17?? Congressman, you need to revise that number. I suspect it's a whole lot more than that!"

-----

From Politico.com

April 09, 2009:

Rep. Spencer Bachus, the top Republican on the Financial Services Committee, told a hometown crowd in Alabama today he believes there are several socialists in the House.

Actually, he says there are exactly 17 socialists in the House of Representatives. according to the Birmingham News:

But he said he is worried that he is being steered too far by the Congress: "Some of the men and women I work with in Congress are socialists." 

Asked to clarify his comments after the breakfast speech at the Trussville Civic Center, Bachus said 17 members of the U.S. House are socialists. 

Searching the POLITICO style book and the official U.S. House listings, we don't see a category for socialists -- just a lot of Ds and Rs next to lawmaker names. And Bachus didn't name names of the socialist 17.

Original article here. 

A New Day In America... Post-Inauguration Thoughts 1-21-2009

One thing is for sure. 2008 was the year journalistic integrity died. If anyone seriously thought we had an objective media before, the 2008 presidential campaign proved to us just how much of a left wing/liberal slant the media has. It got to the point where some of them didn’t even try to pretend to be fair and balanced.

John McCain? Nice guy I suppose, but 2008 probably just wasn’t going to be his year, media bias or not. Short of having Jesus Christ as his running mate, it just wasn’t going to happen for him. But he certainly carried himself with dignity, so I give him kudos for that (although I thought he should have spoken up more when some of the unnamed aides close to him were throwing Sarah Palin under the bus)

Frankly, it’ll be interesting to see how long he honeymoon lasts. The media likes to build people up and then turn on them like a pack of wolves when they smell blood. This same media that helped build up Barack Obama as the rising star during the early campaign was circling like a pack of hungry wolves when the Jeremiah Wright story looked like it might seriously damage or kill his campaign in early 2008.

Obama has expectations on him that are beyond anything we’ve ever seen for any incoming president – expectations that are, as a whole, simply unrealistic. The fact is, as president you can’t please everyone, and tough choices have to be made, so it’s guaranteed that many of his supporters are going to be disappointed (or upset) when he doesn’t do some things they want him to, or does some things they don’t want him to. I certainly want him to do well, but it’ll be interesting to see how the slanted media and the left wing political crowd handles it when he has his share of stumbles, as every president does.

As a conservative Christian, there’s a lot to be concerned about with an Obama presidency. His very liberal tendencies are something to keep an eye on as well as his Socialist ties from the past (although the media buried that story). But in the end, we’re stuck with Obama for the next 4 years at least. I wasn’t a fan, and still am not, but whether you wanted him as president or not, he is our leader now, and we should all wish him success. His success will be good for America. If he does badly, America will do badly.

It’s clear to me though, that no matter who is president, those who are pushing for a one world government will still have their way, regardless of what party is in power. Look for more of the same in terms of the North American Union, and the formation of regional political/economic blocs such as the African Union, Mercosur, etc. The march toward a New World Order will continue without missing a beat.

So having said all that, here we are, 1-21-09, the first full day of a new regime. I’m still getting used to the idea of saying President Obama, after saying President Bush for the past eight years. Like him or not, the fact is,we should all recognize that this is a big deal in terms of America’s racial healing, which is still an ongoing process. It was only a generation ago (1968) that Martin Luther King got assassinated for seeking racial equality in this country. In the 60’s blacks in some part of he country were still fighting for their voting rights, lynching in the South were still a risk for blacks and even those whites who marched side-by-side with them for equality. There are some still alive today who still carry in their bodies the scars of bite marks from police dogs, when all they were doing is protesting injustice. It must have been unthinkable to them at that time that a generation later some of those same people would live to see an African-American man sworn in as president. I’m not a fan of Obama’s politics, but I couldn’t help but smile when I saw him being sworn in. America has come a long way in a relatively short time. God bless America.

And Christians… lets not forget to pray for President, Barack Hussein Obama. It’s not just a suggestion -- it’s a biblical command:

1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

(1 Tim 2:1-3)

May God continue to bless America.

.

Obama ridicules McCain charge he's socialist

Well, maybe you can indeed fool some of the people all of the time.

Now Barack Obama is "ridiculing" McCain's contention that he's socialist?

-------

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - Barack Obama accused Republican rival John McCain on Wednesday of stooping to low tactics by labeling the Democrat a socialist. "I don't know what's next," Obama, the presidential candidate, said at an outdoor rally in North Carolina. "By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081029/D944BPMOG.html

-------

Who is this man kidding? Obama's socialist connections from the past have been well documented, including the information on his membership in the socialist New Party in his early days in Chicago politics. This blog has painstakingly documented that information HERE.

And how about his own words where he said he sough out Marxist professors in his college days? This is from his own book, as this FoxNews article spells out:

Article: Obama's Affinity To Marxists Dates Back to College Days

Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/

-----

Of course, the Che Guevara flags in his Houston campaign office (see above) should have been a red flag way back in February of this year, as WorldNetDaily reported in this article:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56293

I'm convinced that if the media were doing it's job of properly vetting Obama and shining a light on his questionable past, John McCain would be certainly leading in the polls right now. Of course, it would have also helped if McCain had run a more effective campaign.

PROVEN: Barack Obama's Socialist Links and background .

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

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78945

Newsbusters.org gives details on Obama’s connections to the New Party.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party

Conservative blog Politically Drunk also details and documents the connection.

http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/web-archives-confirm-barack-obama-was.html

**********

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.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78945

New Zeal provides the documentary evidence on their website:

http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-file-41-obama-was-new-party.html

***********

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.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html

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 primaries last 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).

**********

More confirmation of Obama's membership in the New Party can be found at an article in the November 1996 Progressive Populist magazine: http://www.populist.com/11.96.Edit.html

“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:

http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng47.html

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.

http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.html#anchor792932

“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

www.dsa.org

www.chicagodsa.org

www.socialistinternational.org

Related article:

Peter Kirsanow of National Review speaks on the mainstream media’s silence on this issue in his article: New Party. Where’s the Press?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGE4YTQ1OTY5ZmZhOGE3ODc3OWY2NzhhNmVhNmVlMjQ=

-----------

Obama campaign spokesman responds to Fox News inquiry regarding Obama’s past New Party membership.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,435521,00.html

“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:

88 Third Avenue, Third Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11217

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/275353.php

Racist Democrats in West Virginia

This video was done in the lead-up to the May 2008 West Virginia primary. Very disturbing to say the least. I'm not an Obama supporter by any means, but stuff like this almost makes me want him to win in November, just so he can stick it to the narrow-minded racists like the ones in this video.

Caught Red Handed: CBS & ABC's BLATANT anti-Palin bias!

If anyone ever seriously doubted that there's blatant anti-conservative/anti-Republican bias in the major media outlets, here is CLEAR EVIDENCE...this time courtesy of CBS and also ABC news.

The media is TOTALLY in the tank for Obama. (The only good thing is that in this electronic age, we're able to catch the media in their duplicity... not that they seem to care. )

These two articles speak for themselves...

1....Katie Couric Diminishes Gov. Palin

CBS New anchor Katie Couric ordered staff to drop all references to "Governor" or "Gov." from her interview with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. When a staff member pointed out that in other venues, Couric and CBS News had referred to Governor Palin's opponent, Joe Biden, using his title of "Senator" or the abbreviation, Couric, according to a CBS News editorial aide, sought approval from CBS News management to drop the "Governor" reference
http://www.theamericanprowler.com/ds...p?art_id=13947

2....CBS News Erases Moderate Quotes from Palin Transcript

Governor Sarah Palin has given two mainstream media interviews. In both, she made multiple statements about the importance of multilateralism in foreign policy. In both, these comments were deleted by the news organizations.

After both interviews, a furor has broken out afterwards because of her hawkishness.

At two points in the video (2:58 and 5:39), segments have been removed from the official transcript.

...Interestingly, ABC News also edited out the same kind of moderate, multilateralist comment in order to more effectively promote the misinformation that Palin was advocating a new, warmongering approach to Russia.

http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives...ranscript.html

The Media Distorts Sarah Palin's Record.

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.)