Daily Archives: October 16, 2012

10/16/12

Obama’s Media Allies Struggle to Conceal Red Mentor

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

A liberal writer named Elspeth Reeve, who writes for The Atlantic magazine, frets that Barack Obama’s relationship to Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis is getting more attention from voters and may constitute an “October surprise” that dooms the President’s re-election chances. She calls Davis only an “alleged communist” when in fact he was a card-carrying CPUSA member with a 600-page FBI file.

Her story goes further downhill from there, clearly suggesting that Obama’s media backers are worried and desperate to conceal the truth.

Practicing a new form of damage control, she acknowledges that “Davis was important to Obama,” because the evidence of the relationship cannot be denied, but claims that “Obama doesn’t seem to have been important to Davis.” Her evidence for this claim is that Davis biographer John Edgar Tidwell was quoted as saying that there was no mention of Obama in any of Davis’s papers. She thinks this gap in the record somehow gets Obama off the hook for a relationship with a communist who doubled as a pornographer.

But what she is acknowledging, without saying so directly, is that Davis did not want his relationship with Obama to be revealed. This makes sense, especially if Davis was a Communist Party member under FBI surveillance engaged in espionage or recruitment. His file does suggest espionage on his part.

The relationship was disclosed back in 2007 when a CPUSA writer talked about it, leading to the identification of “Frank” in Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, as Frank Marshall Davis. The appropriate question, never asked by the major media, is why Obama would cover up Frank’s real identity. He makes a reference to “Frank” 22 times in his book.

Before I gave a speech on the subject of Davis at the September 21st AIM conference, Paul Kengor, author of a book on Davis, The Communist, told me, “I haven’t received a single media inquiry from anyone in the mainstream media, despite the book making the top 10 on the New York Times’ bestseller list and hitting number 1 in non-fiction on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble.com. Not one reporter from the mainstream media has bothered to contact me…They will do anything to protect Barack Obama. The truth be damned.”

The cover-up is getting more intense as Election Day approaches.

Paul Kengor now draws our attention to the fact that Obama’s audio version of Dreams from My Father has omitted every reference to “Frank” that was in the book.

For example, the book says, “It was the same dilemma that old Frank had posed to me the year I left Hawaii.” The audio version says, “It was the same dilemma posed to me the year I left Hawaii.”

Kengor told The Blaze, “This is blatant, flagrant—clearly a concealment. And it’s in Obama’s voice. There’s no question that Obama knew of this. No question.”

Joel Gilbert maintains that the cover-up stems from the fact that Davis was not only Obama’s mentor but his biological father. He has produced “Dreams from My Real Father,” a film being distributed to millions of voters in various swing states.

Gilbert reports that 1.5 Million DVDs of the film have been shipped to Florida; 700,000 to Colorado; 500,000 to Iowa; 1.2 million to Ohio; 100,000 to New Hampshire; 100,000 to Nevada; and 3 million are going to Pennsylvania, Virginia, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

“Because almost all levels of the mainstream media are suppressing the information in ‘Dreams from My Real Father,’ my distribution company is mailing millions of free copies of the DVD across the United States,” Gilbert says.

His theory is controversial, so much so that Gilbert tells me that The Washington Post, USA Today, and The New York Times would not run paid ads for it. “This ad has been declined,” the Times told Gilbert, with no further explanation.

On the other hand, The Washington Post and USA Today did run paid ads from pornographer Larry Flynt offering $1 million for information on Mitt Romney’s “unreleased tax forms” and bank accounts.

When the New York Post ran Gilbert’s paid ad, MSNBC’s Alex Wagner went ballistic and came to Obama’s defense. She labeled Davis a mere “labor activist,” continuing a cover-up in the media that has been going on for over four years.

The Gilbert film is now available through Netflix, the Internet subscription service that sends movies and TV programs over the internet to PCs, Macs and TVs. Netflix has more than 27 million members.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].

10/16/12

Forget Renewables, We Need Cheap Oil – An Interview with Gail Tverberg

By: James Stafford of Oilprice.com

What does our world’s energy future look like? Does renewable energy feature as much in the energy production mix as many hope it will? Will natural gas and fracking help reduce our dependence upon oil and how will the world economy and trade fare as supplies of cheap oil continue to dwindle?

To help us take a look at this future scenario we had a chance to chat with Gail Tverberg – a well known commentator on energy issues and author of the popular blog, Our Finite World

In the interview Gail talks about:

• Why natural gas is not the energy savior we were hoping for
• Why renewable energy will not live up to the hype
• Why we shouldn’t write off nuclear energy
• Why oil prices could fall in the future
• Why our energy future looks fairly bleak
• Why the government should be investing less in renewable energy
• Why constant economic growth is not a realistic goal

Gail Tverberg is an independent researcher who examines questions related to oil supply, substitutes, and their impact on the economy. Her background is as a casualty actuary, making financial projections within the insurance industry. She became interested in the question of oil shortages in 2005, and has written and spoken about the expected impact of limited oil supply since then to a variety of audiences: insurance, academic, “peak oil”, and more general audiences. Her work can be found on her website, Our Finite World.

Interview conducted by. James Stafford of Oilprice.com

James Stafford: Do you believe that shale gas is the energy savior we have been hoping for and can deliver all that has been promised? Or have we been oversold on its potential?

Gail Tverberg: I am doubtful that shale gas will be the energy savior that we have been hoping for. There are several issues: (a) It is hard for US natural gas prices to rise to the point where shale gas extraction will truly be profitable, because of competition with coal in electricity generation. (b) While natural gas can be used for transportation, it takes time, investment, and guaranteed long-term supply for it really to happen. This will be a long, slow process, if it occurs. (c) People won’t stand for “fracking” next door, if the end result is LNG for Europe or Japan. We have otherwise “stranded” non-shale gas in Alaska that would be a better option to develop and sell abroad.

If shale gas does come into widespread use, it will take many years. The quantity will be helpful, but not huge. Furthermore, it will still be natural gas, rather than the fuel we really need, which is cheap oil.

James Stafford: The old dream of US energy independence has been finding its way into the headlines again as a combination of resurgent domestic oil production, improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency and the shale boom have led many experts to predict that although it is unlikely, it’s no longer the fantasy it once was. What are your thoughts on US energy independence?

Gail Tverberg: I think that the direction in years ahead will be toward reduced trade of all sorts. By definition, every country will become “more independent,” including more “energy independent”. Whether or not current lifestyles are supportable with lower trade is another question.

James Stafford: Japan recently made the announcement that they aim to phase out nuclear power by 2040. What is your opinion on this decision and on nuclear energy in general? Can the world live without it?

Gail Tverberg: The decision by Japan is worrisome, because there aren’t many good replacement options available. Japan has volcanoes, so it may have an option to use geothermal as an option. Also, 2040 is far enough away that other options may become available.

Phasing out nuclear in other countries is likely to be difficult. In most countries, this will likely mean “less electricity” or “more coal.” It may also mean higher electricity cost, and lower competitiveness for manufacturers. Germany has already started the process of phasing out nuclear. It will be interesting to see how this works out.

In general, I think we should be taking a closer look at nuclear, because we have so few other low-carbon options. There is considerable dispute about the extent to which radiation from nuclear is a problem. This question needs to be examined more closely. To use nuclear long-term, we need to find ways to do it cheaply and without a huge amount of hot fuel that needs to be kept away from people indefinitely.

James Stafford: Renewable energy continues to be a favorite amongst many politicians – yet advances are slow and expensive. Do you see renewables making a meaningful contribution to global energy production? And if so over what time period?

Gail Tverberg: I have a hard time seeing that intermittent renewables (wind and solar photovoltaics) will play a big role in maintaining grid electricity, because of the stress they place on the grid, and the high cost of needed grid upgrades to handle them. Renewables from wood and biomass are hard to scale up, because wood supply is limited and because biomass use tends to compete with food production. Renewables from waste (left over cooking oil, for example) are not something we can count on for the long term, as people stay at home more, and dispose of less waste.

Related Articles: Which Biofuels Hold the Most Promise for the Future – Interview with Jim Lane

All renewables depend heavily on our fossil fuel system. For example, it takes fossil fuels to make new wind turbines and solar panels, to maintain the electrical grid, and to repair roads needed for maintaining the grid system. Biofuels depend on our fossil fuel based agricultural system.

I expect that the contribution renewables make will occur primarily during the next 10 or 20 years, and will decline over time, because of their fossil fuel dependence.

Quite a few individuals living off-grid would like to guarantee themselves long-term electricity supply through a few solar panels. This is really a separate application of renewables. It will work as long as the solar-panels work, and there are still the required peripherals (batteries, light bulbs, etc.) available—perhaps 30 years.

James Stafford: Are there any renewable energy technologies you are optimistic about and can see breaking away from the pack to help us extend the fossil fuel age?

Gail Tverberg: The technology that is probably best is solar thermal. It works like heating a hot water bottle in the sun. This is especially good for reducing the need to use fossil fuels to heat hot water in warm climates. But even this is not going to do a huge amount to fix our problems, especially if they are primarily financial in nature.

James Stafford: Renewable energy innovation has been coming under fire lately, with the Solyndra scandal and now Tesla motors are looking to be in trouble – both of whom were backed by government loan guarantees. Do you believe the government should be investing more or less in renewable energy companies?

Gail Tverberg: Less. I think we should be looking for inexpensive solutions. Anything that is high-priced starts with two strikes against it.

Also, I think if the true picture is considered, the amount of environmental benefits of renewables is very low, or perhaps negative. Their higher cost tends to make countries using them less competitive, sending production to China or other Asian countries where coal is the primary fuel. This may raise world carbon dioxide emissions.

Since 2000, world carbon dioxide emissions have increased far more than would have been expected based on prior patterns. A major cause seems to be the shift in industry to Asian countries, as countries attempted to reduce their own carbon footprint.

James Stafford: In a recent article you mentioned that the world economy is currently suffering from high-priced fuel syndrome. Would you be able to let our readers know a little more about this? And also if there is anything that can be done economically to help move beyond this syndrome?

Gail Tverberg: High priced fuel syndrome is primarily (but not entirely) a problem of fuel importers. It has symptoms such as the following:

• Slow economic growth or contraction
• People in discretionary industries laid off from work
• High unemployment rates
• Governments in increasingly poor financial situation
• Declining home and property values
• Rising food prices

Part of the problem seems to occur when fuel prices rise, and people cut back on discretionary spending. The result is layoffs. Fewer people pay taxes, and more collect unemployment benefits, causing financial problems for governments. The other part of the problem seems to be lack of competitiveness with countries (such as China and India) that use a cheaper fuel mix.

While oil is the fuel with the big price-problem in the US, high-priced natural gas contributes to the problem in Europe and Japan. High-priced renewables also contribute to the problem.

To keep costs down, we really need to consider cost first when considering alternatives to oil. Alternatives that need subsidies or mandates are likely to be a problem. Thus, in the US, natural gas right now might “work” as a substitute, but not offshore wind.

Regarding the competitiveness aspect, tariffs on international trade might help, but would reduce world output.

Related Article: Can Syria’s Rebels Overthrow Assad? An Interview with Jellyfish Operations

James Stafford: What is your position on peak oil? Have we already reached the peak in oil production? Or do you side with Daniel Yergin in saying we have decades more of production growth?

Gail Tverberg: I think the peak in oil production will be determined based on financial considerations. Such a peak is probably not very far away, because we are already experiencing lower economic growth and the governments of several countries are in dire financial straits.

As the oil price gets too high (or already is too high), governments of oil importing nations will be increasingly stressed by high unemployment and low revenue. Any way of fixing this problem (higher taxes, government layoffs, or reduced programs like Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment insurance) is likely to lead to lower disposable income and less “demand” for (that is, ability to pay for) products using oil.

With lower ability to pay for products using oil, the price of oil will drop. Fewer producers will be able to extract oil at this lower price, and the supply of oil will decrease.

James Stafford: What is your view on our energy future? Is it as bleak as some commentators point out – or is there a ray of hope for us?

Gail Tverberg: I see the future as fairly bleak. The big issue is the way high oil prices affect the economy, leading to recession, joblessness, and huge government deficits. The issue is really a lack of cheap oil.

This is an issue that can’t be expected to go away, even with new (high priced) oil supply in the US, or with the possibility of more natural gas supply. We are right now experiencing adverse financial impacts from high oil prices, but these impacts are being disguised by artificially low interest rates and huge amounts of deficit spending.

I find it hard to see much of a ray of hope for avoiding some kind of discontinuity, because the problem seems to be already at hand. For example, I see Europe’s current financial problems and the US’s fiscal cliff as being a direct result of lower energy affordability, especially oil, in recent years.

James Stafford: We recently published a news piece on a broker who in a drunken stupor managed to move the oil markets. What do you believe moves oil prices – is it supply and demand or energy market traders – or a bit of both?

Gail Tverberg: I think that over the long run it is mostly supply and demand that moves prices. (Of course, demand has to be read as “affordability”. People who are paying higher taxes can afford less oil products, so “demand” less.)

There may be some short-term impact of energy market traders, but it is likely quite small as a percentage of the total.

James Stafford: If oil prices continue to rise do you see Americans changing their driving and energy consumption habits?

Gail Tverberg: I think some changes will take place, but they will not be as fast as many would like. New car buyers are likely to be unwilling to pay large upfront costs for fuel-saving features, because they may not own the car for very long. Getting their money’s worth will depend on getting a high resale price for the car.

People in poor financial condition are more likely to make big changes. People who lose their jobs may sell their cars, and share with others. Teenagers who don’t get jobs will not buy a car. People with low wages and long commutes will look for people to share rides with.

James Stafford: A short while ago Forbes ran a piece on Thorium as possibly being the biggest energy breakthrough since fire and both China and India have announced their intentions to develop thorium reactors. What are your thoughts on thorium as a possible replacement for uranium?

Gail Tverberg: From everything I have heard, it is still a long ways away—at least 15 years. If it would work, it would be great.

James Stafford: In another article you have linked energy to employment and recession. Are you suggesting that without growth in energy production the economy will not grow, and employment levels will not rise?

Gail Tverberg: It takes external energy to make anything that we make in today’s economy. It takes energy to operate construction equipment, or to operate a computer, or to manufacture and transport goods. Even making “services” requires energy.

So if we have a lot less energy, today’s jobs are likely to be impacted. It is possible that we can create more half-time (and half-pay) jobs, but the result will still be that the world will be a lot poorer. We can still do jobs that don’t require external energy (such as make a basket out of reeds, or wash clothes in a stream), but our productivity will be much lower than when electricity or oil was available to leverage our production.

James Stafford: What is the most pressing matter that will affect the world in your opinion? food shortage, water shortage, energy shortage, climate change, etc?

Gail Tverberg: I think the immediate problem will be financial, but caused by high-priced energy.

The big concern I have is that financial problems will lead to political disruption. The natural tendency of countries with less energy supply is to break into smaller units—for example, the Soviet Union broke up into Russia and its member nations. There is now talk about whether Catalonia can become independent from the rest of Spain, and whether the Euro can hold together. If breakups become a major pattern, even spreading to the New World, it could make international trade much more difficult than today.

Financial problems could also lead to debt defaults and rapidly shifting currency relationships. These, too, could lead to a reduction in international trade.

Related Article: The Real Reason Behind Oil Price Rises – An Interview with James Hamilton

James Stafford: Economic growth is what the public expects, anything less is treated as a recession, but is constant economic growth a realistic goal? Is it achievable?

Gail Tverberg: Constant economic growth is not a realistic goal. We live in a finite world. This is obvious, if a person stops to think about it. There are only a finite number of atoms in the earth. There are interrelated biological systems on earth, and humans are one part. Humans cannot become too numerous without destroying the ecosystems that we depend on.

In a finite world, it is clear that eventually extraction will become more expensive. When we first started extracting fossil fuels, we started with what was easiest (and cheapest) to obtain. As we move to more difficult locations, such as deep under water, or the Arctic, the cost becomes more expensive. It is these high costs that seem to be disturbing economies now.

It appears to me that we are now hitting some version of “Limits to Growth”. Most economists haven’t figured out the connection between the economy and the natural world, so are oblivious to our current predicament.

James Stafford: If the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy is ever actually made, what do you believe will be the effect on GDP?

Gail Tverberg: I don’t see renewable energy as being sustainable on its own. If it were, we might expect a GDP level of perhaps 10% or 15% of today’s GDP.

James Stafford: Other than a severe reduction in the global population what solutions are available to humanity as it reaches the limits of the planet?

Gail Tverberg: Unfortunately, solutions seem few and far between. Our biggest problem seems to be a lack of time to fix a financial problem that seems very close at hand.

A partial solution for some people may be a reduced standard of living combined with local agriculture.

Regardless of what happens, we do have quite a lot of “stuff” that humans have made that will cushion any down slope—roads, houses, clothing, and tools, for example. Many people would like a solar panel or two for their long-term use. We also have knowledge that we did not have on the upslope.

The past 10,000 years for humans has been real miracle, first with the discovery of agriculture, and later with the discovery of fossil fuels. If there is a Guiding Hand behind what is happening, there may be other miracles in store, as well.

James Stafford: In your opinion, who will make the better president in terms of energy policies and saving the economy, at the upcoming elections?

Gail Tverberg: The last presidential candidate that I had real enthusiasm for was Ross Perot in 1996. He would have put the United States (and the world) on much more of an isolationist path. In retrospect, this is the one thing that would have helped put off the predicament we are in today, because it would have slowed world economic growth, and with it the extraction of resources. World population would probably be lower now, too.

In this election, I would probably slightly favor Romney, because he seems to have some grasp of the issues we are up against. As I look at the numbers, it is absolutely essential that we start cutting programs, if we are to balance the budget. As bad as fossil fuels may be, they provide our jobs, our food, light, and heat so we need to continue to extract them. We don’t seem to have very good alternatives at this time. Even what we consider renewables depend upon fossil fuels.

In the next four years, I expect we will find ourselves doing a U-turn on economic growth. I don’t think either candidate (or for that matter, any leader) will be able to handle this well. Ideally, the new leader should be looking at the issue of how to deal with a low-energy future. Do we move to local agriculture, and if so, how? If rationing is done, how should it be done? If there are not enough jobs for everyone, should we go to more part-time jobs?

Romney has been accused of flip-flopping, but in some ways, with such big changes coming, I think that what we need is someone who is willing to change his views with changing circumstances. We seem to be headed for truly uncharted territory.

James Stafford: Gail thank you for taking the time to speak with us.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Interviews/Forget-Renewables-We-Need-Cheap-Oil-An-Interview-with-Gail-Tverberg.html

By: James Stafford of Oilprice.com

10/16/12

Four Reasons Black Christians Should Not Vote for Obama

By: Eric Cornett
Right Side News

Outspoken and passionate in his faith, Maryland Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr. tells it like it is. Speaking to his congregation last Sunday in Baltimore, the outspoken man of faith declared his reasons for opposing the re-election of Barack Obama this November 6th. In fact, he offered four compelling reasons to make a stand against the first black president that may resonate strongly in the black Christian community.

Jackson, Senior Pastor of Hope Christian Church and regional bishop in the Fellowship of International Churches is no stranger to controversial opinions. In fact, it was his stance in 2009 against gay marriage that really put him in the political spotlight. “I believe that the Bible teaches that same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. If you redefine marriage, you have to redefine family. You’d have to redefine parenting. I’m looking at the extinction of marriage. And black culture is in a free fall.”

Back in the pulpit on Pulpit Freedom Sunday, Jackson took a strong political stand on the upcoming November elections. “The Bible says righteousness and justice,”he preached. “We’ve come to a point… there would be a split in the Christian world. And divided, we would not be able to stand. We’re here at the pinnacle of this election. We’re here in 2012 making some awesome choices because we’ve been a little bit slow in hearing the message of righteousness and justice.”

The Bishop emphasized the importance of this presidential election. “I believe that God is giving us in this election one more chance and should he save us from the wrong choice, and I’m going to tell you very specifically what that choice is… I’m going to talk to you (about) why I cannot vote for one of the presidential candidates.” His congregation listened in silence, punctuated with the occasional cheer, as Jackson made his case against the Obama administration.

1. Sanctity of Marriage

Jackson argued from his pulpit, “You’re going to bring down God’s wrath, in a sense…because of your rebellion, and nobody gets to have any input.” His tone became incredulous. “I thought you said we have a representative government? I thought the constitution said the people had a voice? I thought we’re supposed to have some sort of interaction? I don’t get it that one group calls itself an underprivileged, if you would, group with no rights, how is it that the group that says it’s being discriminated against takes all the authority, all the privilege, all the rights, pulls all the levers, and has greater rights than the rest of us? I don’t get that! Now, maybe you’re smarter than I am.”

Jackson transitioned from minister to professor momentarily to make a critical point. “If we were studying civics again, as we did in old days, you would understand that a person who can really shape the party platform would be the president. So we can’t say, as many people in the black community are saying ‘hey, he had to do this ’cause he had to raise money’. No, he didn’t have to put it in the platform. He didn’t have to put gay marriage in the platform, to redefine marriage and dishonor and desecrate the understanding in what it means in God’s first institution. He didn’t have to do that. And he didn’t have to make a show of putting the name of God into the platform at the convention.”

Voters have opposed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in over half the nation. A recent North Carolina constitutional amendment banned same-sex marriage, and yet the Democrat National Committee convention was held in that state. The Democrat party just doesn’t seem to understand the opposition to re-defining marriage and it may ultimately cost them the election. There are referendums for same-sex marriage on the ballot in four states this November 6th. Bishop Jackson has had enough of Obama and the left-wing assault on traditional marriage. “Now, at your big convention you make a show to be the guy who saved the day, I don’t buy any of that. So you’re against marriage? We’re against you.”

2. Right to Life

Bishop Jackson made this point clearly with no equivocation. “The president is against the value of human life… The fact that there a law and a healthcare program that wants to pay for abortion and wants to stand against major faith traditions in order to do so says that there’s no a value first of faith’s traditions, and second that there is not a value of human life.” The pastor cited Barack Obama’s Illinois senate record on the matter. “As state senator in the state of Illinois, he voted for abortion in the ninth month at the fifth stage. Meaning, when all fingers and hands are formed. Our president said, “kill that child” and I vote against life. I cannot vote for someone like that knowing that that’s the case.” Obama stated in a 2003 press conference that he supported late-term abortion citing a woman’s choice and calling anyone who opposes such measures to protect the life of babies as “meddlers”. “The fetus, or child — however you want to describe it” has no right in the matter said Barack Obama.

3. Support of Israel

Jackson continued his list of grievances against the incumbent Barack Obama. “Number three… you’re not for Israel. The Bible is clear that if we are against Israel, that there comes attached to that the vengeance of God. I didn’t say it, so many verses in the Bible say it.” The recent United Nations session in New York is a prime example of Obama’s callous treatment of our Middle Eastern ally. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had urgently requested a face to face meeting with president Obama while he was visiting the United States. The White House declined, citing scheduling conflicts, and instead generously agreed to permit a telephone conference.

Bishop Jackson cannot abide the lack of support for Israel and makes the case that this is contrary to Biblical teaching, and reminds his audience that there will be consequences. “So now you want to put my nation under a divine vengeance, and you think our economics are going to get better? Because you got a plan? It ain’t worked yet brother!” He continued, citing economic data that underscores that assessment. “Right now, despite whatever current economic indicators might seem to lift in the last month, you got at least 14.4 percent folks unemployed. And then you’ve got the black community that has been the most faithful Christian community, has the highest unemployment rate of any subculture in the land. And they are foolish enough, listen to me black Christians, you are foolish enough to vote against the God who brought you out of slavery! The God who brought you out of the civil rights thing, just because somebody’s skin is black, you’re going to support an anti-God, anti-Gospel agenda, no wonder you can’t get a job!”

The Bishop Jackson has a clear view of just what the consequences of four more years of Barack Obama means for America. He cautions black Christians to be careful when making their choice for president based on race over their religious beliefs. “If you celebrate your race over grace, you ought to do badly. God is spanking you right now! And I’ve got news, you heard it here, the folks that sign on to this now and support the president right now in this, will find that their best days are behind them. It’s gonna get worse, because the principal is, you pray the drought Elijah, who represents the church, the drought stays until, in the mercy of God, we as a church finally say ‘uncle’! We’ll serve God without any repentance. We’ll go wholly his way. We’ll go all the way to God.” He underscores his point with a stern warning that bad times are ahead if we stay the course. “So, it’s got to get worse, it’s got to get worse economically, until America in the grace of God, returns to her God.”

4. Freedom to Preach the Gospel

Rounding out his sermon, Bishop Jackson stated, “So we talked about life, we talked about marriage, we talked about Israel, and the last thing, it is religious liberty. Remember, Elijah said, ‘I only am a prophet of God’. That was not by mistake. Jezebel and Ahab had so intimidated the voice of a prophet in the land. They were intimidated to speak. Elijah had to come out of hiding. Four more years of Barack Obama will ensure an aggressive anti-Christian spirit that currently has hold of the administration and this country. Beware, my Christian friends, you should not vote for Barack Obama! We do not endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States.”

And he’s not alone in his position. Black ministers and clergy around the nation are making similar sermons urging their congregations to not support Barack Obama this November. As Harry Jackson concluded his sermon and the clear political statement to his congregation, he received scattered cheers. Not one person in attendance objected vocally. His message included a warning and a call for action. “So we’re at this place. Should God give us four years of reprieve from the current administration at the White House… we’re going to have to make a pact as Christians that we’ll do something… Something ain’t right in America!”

And indeed, there is a groundswell of opposition amongst evangelical black Americans that may lead to increasing erosion of black support for Barack Obama. As the Obama campaign becomes more desperate, their true faces are starting to shine out from behind the mask. Americans are beginning to see that Barack Obama represents a pattern of consistent failure and lack of fidelity in matters that mean the most to them. Statistics show that America is still a largely Christian nation with values rooted in tradition. The extremist views of liberals who have hijacked the Democrat party are increasingly anathema to Americans who value and respect the founding of our nation in the Christian traditions.

———————

Eric Cornett, Right Side News

Writer/Photographer/Graphic Artist

Eric is a writer and professional photographer in charge of the Right Side News graphic design projects. Devoted father of four and husband, Eric is proud to be head of a traditional nuclear family in times where proclaiming such is politically incorrect.