08/4/15

Louis Farrakhan, “We Must Rise Up & Kill Those Who Kill Us” [Video]

Louis Farrakhan is at it again… calling for civil unrest and the murder of all whites. No matter how many times he screams for violence from the pulpit, the media just yawns and he is mostly ignored. Except for the 50,000 or so who follow the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan. They are listening very closely and preparing – for war. Late last month, Farrakhan called for blacks to “rise up” and “kill those who kill us” if the federal government fails to “intercede in our affairs.” In other words, if Obama doesn’t step up moving forward towards a race war, the Nation of Islam will do it for him. Farrakhan delivered his calls for an uprising on July 30th in a speech given at Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Miami. Shame on the Baptists for letting this vile race monger preach evil from their church.

“The Koran teaches persecution is worse than slaughter. Then it says, retaliation is prescribed in matters of the slain. Retaliation is a prescription from God to calm the breaths of those whose children have been slain,” Farrakhan intoned. “So if the federal government will not intercede in our affairs, then we must rise up and kill those who kill us. Stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling,” he thundered.

Notice how they applaud this man. The congregants smile and cheer his racist, murderous words. They embrace his vile, hateful speech. Why isn’t the government looking into this incitement to violence? It is a call to slaughter white Americans and revolt. And the crowd went wild for it. Comments were all over the place stating that people would rather die fighting the white man than see black brothers and sisters die at the hands of white supremacy. May I just say, huh? Blacks are not being rounded up and murdered in the streets. Not by cops or anyone else. This is a false, wicked narrative that justifies a race war and it is gathering steam out there.

This video was on Farrakhan’s Facebook page. He included the lovely hashtag: “#JusticeOrElse.” Next month in DC, he’ll be rallying the troops in a demonstration that is meant to commemorate the 20th anniversary of his 1995 Million Man March. It should be filled with hate and possibly violence as Farrakhan brings his words and threats to life. Or should I say, ‘death.’ I consider Farrakhan to be a racist and a terrorist. The Nation of Islam is a terrorist organization as well. This is par for the course for the Religion of Peace.

Don’t let Farrakhan’s age of 82 make you think he is passe and weak. He’s anything but that and when he delivers one of his fiery speeches he commands huge numbers of acolytes who are more than willing to kill for their cause. He’s a dangerous snake. When Farrakhan calls for “10,000 fearless men who say death is sweeter than continued life under tyranny,” he’s got them lining up and volunteering in the aisles. “Death is sweeter than to continue to live and bury our children while white folks give the killer hamburgers. Death is sweeter than watching us slaughter each other to the joy of a 400-year-old enemy,” the radical orator told the faithful.

Close at hand to Farrakhan was Carlos Muhammad who leads the Baltimore chapter of the Nation of Islam. He is a devoted disciple of the minister of hate. Remember that the Nation of Islam also crashes press conferences and shows up in the guise of guarding others from violence and offers to take care of them. Much like the mafia would. They were right there with Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake in April following the first day of rioting in Baltimore after the death of Freddie Gray. That was no coincidence or accident. It was by coordination and design.

Following the Dylan Storm Roof murders in Charleston, South Carolina there have been confrontations between the New Black Panthers and the KKK. Then a black man who defended the Confederate flag was forced off the road and killed by members of a group of men that I would bet money on belonging to the New Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam. Between incidents like these and every time there is the death of a black individual that involves a police officer, racial tensions are ratcheting up more and more every day.

Farrakhan has more:

“If we are denied what rightfully belongs to us then there has to be unified action that we take that will force the justice that we seek.” − The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan

As James Simpson put it in a comment on Farrakhan’s incitement, this is agitation and provocation, not speech.

Farrakhan is a master strategist and orator. It was not by chance that he chose Mt. Zion Baptist Church to give his furnace blast of a speech and a call to arms. This church has served as a meeting place for the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders. The church was packed and several dozen couldn’t get in because it was filled to capacity. They lined up around the block to get in.

From the Miami Herald:

Two decades after the historic march in Washington, D.C., a rally will be held on the mall on Oct. 10. According to the Washington Post, leaders across the country are coordinating an effort to attend the event. This time organizers hope to attract a diverse cross-section of people, including Native and Hispanic Americans, to a rally that is being promoted with the hashtag #JusticeOrElse on social media.

According to the Twitter feed of Brother Jesse Muhammad, a blogger and member of the Nation of Islam who attended Thursday night’s gathering, Farrakhan spoke about respect for women, religion and race relations in America. Journalists from mainstream media outlets such as the Miami Herald, WLRN-FM, CBS 4 and others were not allowed into the church for the event.

“Every time they kill a black man, beat a black woman, we’re being radicalized,” Muhammad quoted Farrakhan as saying.

Farrakhan said it was necessary to return to the site of the Million Man March to demand justice.

“We want to go back to Washington to demand from the government what we have paid for with our sweat and blood,” he said.

Farrakhan called for the Million Man March in 1995, when hundreds of thousands of African American men descended on the National Mall for one of the largest gatherings in U.S. history. The theme of the march was to promote family values and dedication to the community among black men. Men from an array of backgrounds and classes attended the historic march.

As the leader of the Nation of Islam and a prominent public figure, 82-year-old Farrakhan is noted for his outspoken commentary on social and political issues. In June, he announced the October rally at Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., where he pointed to recent police shootings and the mass killing at a church in South Carolina while criticizing race relations in America.

“Yes, all lives matter, but the only reason you’re here is because black lives are being slaughtered,” Farrakhan said to the crowd on June 24, according to the Associated Press.

Louis Farrakhan hates America and he hates white people. He’s also a virulent antisemite. He hates the police, our laws and our Constitution. He is promoting a full blown race war and wholesale murder. Americans are the enemy to him: “Who are we fighting today? It’s the people that carry the American flag,” Farrakhan continued. “What flag do the police have? What flag flies over the non-Justice Department? What flag flies over the White House?” This is a man who demands Shariah Law. A man who would subjugate America to radical Islam and eradicate the white population. He is absolutely evil and as his final act on this earth, he may just bring full scale civil war if he gets his way.

Barack Obama has dined and hung out with Farrakhan. Here’s a relevant quote from the minister:

“The cracker don’t have no authority over me”

“I’m a guided man, and Allah has blessed me to get you this far”

“Since i’ve been on this tour, I’ve been telling the people – that God wants to give you the promised land”

“I know the messiah – I am taught by the messiah – because my work is messaianic”

“I can never forget Iran – Iran has beautiful Muslims. You don’t know how much our Muslim world is anxious to see the enemy handcuffed. …the enemy – the British and the Americans have created all of that havoc in the Islamic world. And imagine us rising up in America at a time.

Sounds like he has a lot in common with Obama, doesn’t it? Between racism, Iran and an overwhelming hatred of America, they could be brothers.

It’s funny… Christian pastors can quietly and strongly stand for their freedom of religion and traditional marriage, and they are denounced and pilloried for it. But if you let a black Muslim minister call for the death of all whites in America, no one seems to care or notice. The leader of the largest Muslim movement in America is openly calling for a race war and we hear next to nothing about it in the media. I imagine we soon will – it’s Farrakhan’s legacy and parting gift to America that I worry about.

07/22/15

Watch the Astonishment on Gay Pride Event Attendees’ Faces When They Learn Which ‘Bigot’ Uttered These Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes

By: Mike Opelka
Hat Tip: Miles Himmel
TheBlaze

Blaze Radio and San Diego talk show host Mike Slater attended last weekend’s Gay Pride event in his home town. And he stunned event-goers with some simple facts they couldn’t believe.

Slater took the opportunity to survey the attendees, asking them questions such as, “What percentage of the male population do you think is gay?” He received a wide variety of answers, the lowest being 28% and the highest, 70%

Using statistics from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Slater surprised virtually every person he encountered telling them the CDC says 1.8% of males are gay.

The radio talker also played a little game with the attendees called, “Which Bigot Said It?”

On a white board, Slater had photos of Donald Trump, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin.

He also posted the following four quotes about gay marriage.

“Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time.”
“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.”
“I think marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.”
“For me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

Slater read the quotes and asked the gay pride parade supporters, “Which bigot said it?”

After they made their guesses, it was revealed the quotes came from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Watch the astonishment:

07/21/15

In Defense of Religious Liberty

07/17/15

How the Republicans Plan to Lose to Hillary

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

A new survey from Univision, the pro-Mexico television network, demonstrates the utter folly of Republicans appealing to Hispanic voters. It finds that 68 percent have a favorable view of Hillary Clinton despite the scandals swirling around her. By contrast, only 36 percent have a favorable view of former Republican Governor Jeb Bush, who is married to a Mexican and speaks Spanish.

Bush “was the highest-rated of all the Republican candidates,” Univision reports, with Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a one-time proponent of amnesty for illegals, coming in second with only a 35 percent approval rate.

What the poll demonstrates is that Hispanics are basically owned by the Democratic Party. The Democrats’ power grab for the Latino vote has been successful. However, ultimately the Democratic Party’s success in the presidential election depends on convincing Republicans to fruitlessly continue to appeal to Hispanics, while abandoning the GOP voter base of whites, conservatives and Christians.

Overall, in terms of political party affiliation, 57 percent of Hispanics identified themselves as Democrats and only 18 percent said they are Republicans. A total of 25 percent called themselves independent.

In another finding, 59 percent of Hispanic voters said they were satisfied with Barack Obama’s presidency after his six years in office. Clearly, most Hispanics have drunk the Kool-Aid. For them, it appears that federal benefits and legalization of border crossers are what matters. Most of them don’t bat an eye in regard to Obama’s lawless and traitorous conduct of domestic and foreign policy.

What the Republicans have left is to try to appeal to white, conservative and Christian voters. But that strategy, of course, runs the obvious risk of being depicted by the liberal media as racist. After all, whites are not supposed to have a “white identity,” as Jared Taylor’s book by that name describes.

Whites cannot have a racial identity, but Hispanics and blacks can. This is one aspect of political correctness. As communists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who are themselves white, put it in their book, it is a “race course against white supremacy.”

If Republicans pander to Hispanics, they will alienate their voter base, which has shown in their reaction to the Donald Trump candidacy that they want more—not less—action taken to control the border with Mexico. Republican Senator John McCain (AZ) calls the Trump supporters “crazies,” an indication that the GOP establishment would rather jettison these people than bring them into the Republican camp. Like McCain, former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has also attacked Trump, saying his remarks about criminal aliens are hurting the GOP. It’s amazing how a loser like Romney, who also threw in the towel on gay marriage when he was governor of Massachusetts, continues to generate press. What he is saying is what the liberal media want to hear.

Of course, the political correctness which dominates the national dialogue and debate also means that Republicans like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are likely to continue to demonize Trump, thereby alienating many whites. As a result, the Republicans will get less of the conservative and Christian vote, further diminishing their chances of winning the White House. It will be a replay of the losing campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney. Republicans have already alienated many Christian voters by giving up the fight for traditional marriage. They had planned to abandon border control as an issue until Trump and “El Chapo” got in the way.

Meanwhile, in another amazing turnaround, Republicans on Capitol Hill are backing Obama’s call for “sentencing reform,” a strategy that will empty the prisons and increase the crime rate, thereby alienating GOP voters in favor of law and order.

As this scenario plays out, Mrs. Clinton is coming across on the Democratic side looking like a moderate, by virtue of the fact that an open socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), is running “to her left” for the Democratic nomination.

The Clinton-Sanders show has all the earmarks of a carefully staged demonstration of the Marxist dialectic, an exercise designed to create the appearance of conflict in order to force even more radical change on the American people through Democratic Party rule.

Anybody who knows anything about Hillary, a student of Saul Alinsky, understands that her “moderation” is only a façade. Her thesis on Alinsky for Wellesley College was titled “There Is Only the Fight…” That is the Marxist strategy. It is the Alinsky version of the Marxist dialectic. It was also adopted by Obama, who was trained by Alinsky disciples working with the Catholic Church in Chicago.

In my column, “Study Marxism to Understand Hillary,” I noted that Barbara Olson had come to the conclusion while researching her book on Hillary that “she has a political ideology that has its roots in Marxism.” Olson noted, “In her formative years, Marxism was a very important part of her ideology…”

This means that Mrs. Clinton understands that the Sanders candidacy actually supports and does not undermine her own candidacy. It makes Hillary look like a moderate while she moves further to the left, a place she wants to be, in response to the left-wing Democratic base. Only the Marxist insiders seem to understand what is happening.

Some uninformed commentators refer to something called “Clintonism,” a supposed moderate brand of Democratic Party politics. If that ever existed, it applied to Bill Clinton and not Hillary.

The fact is that Sanders and Mrs. Clinton have associated with the same gang of communists and fellow travelers for many years. Sanders was an active collaborator with the Communist Party-sponsored U.S. Peace Council.

As for Hillary, Barbara Olson reported in her book Hell to Pay that Robert Borosage, who served as director of the Marxist Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), was “a colleague and close acquaintance” of Clinton. Olson wrote that Mrs. Clinton operated in the “reaches of the left including Robert Treuhaft and Jessica Mitford,” who had been “committed Communists” and “Stalinists.” Olson said that Hillary worked for Treuhaft and paved the way for Mitford to lobby then-Governor Bill Clinton on the death penalty issue.

Olson described Hillary as a “budding Leninist” who understood the Leninist concept of acquiring, accumulating and maintaining political power at any cost. She wrote that “Hillary has never repudiated her connection with the Communist movement in America or explained her relationship with two of its leading adherents. Of course, no one has pursued these questions with Hillary. She has shown that she will not answer hard questions about her past, and she has learned that she does not need to—remarkable in an age when political figures are allowed such little privacy.”

Researcher Carl Teichrib has provided me with a photo of a Hillary meeting with Cora Weiss from the May 2000 edition of “Peace Matters,” the newsletter of the Hague Appeal for Peace. Weiss, a major figure in the Institute for Policy Studies, gained notoriety for organizing anti-Vietnam War demonstrations and traveling to Hanoi to meet with communist leaders. In the photo, Hillary is shown fawning over a Hague Appeal for Peace gold logo pin that Weiss is wearing.

Teichrib, editor of Forcing Change, recalls being an observer at the 1999 World Federalist Association (WFA) conference, held in association with the Hague Appeal for Peace, during which everyone in attendance was given an honorary membership into the WFA. In addition to collaborating with the pro-Hanoi Hague Appeal for Peace, the WFA staged a “Mission to Moscow” and held several meetings with the Soviet Peace Committee for the purpose of “discussing the goal of general and complete disarmament” and “the strengthening of the United Nations.” Mrs. Clinton spoke to a WFA conference in a tribute to veteran newsman Walter Cronkite, a supporter of world government

In the WFA booklet, “The Genius of Federation: Why World Federation is the Answer to Global Problems,” the group described how a “world federation,” a euphemism for world government, could be achieved by advancing “step by step toward global governance,” mostly by enhancing the power and authority of U.N. agencies.

Obama’s Iran deal continues this strategy by placing enormous power in the hands of the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency.

At this stage in the campaign, even before the first Republican presidential debate, we can already see how the race is playing out. Hillary is counting on the Republicans nominating another loser with a losing strategy while she moves to the left and looks like a moderate.

Alinsky would be proud.

07/9/15

We Must Rally Behind the Kleins

By: Lloyd Marcus

Sorry folks, I just can not let this go. Every fiber of my being screams out in outrage. I don’t know what to do, but We the People must do something! Our side is composed of Conservatives, Christians and true patriots with brilliant minds. Surely, we can come up with a solution to defeat a handful of evil Leftist arrogant tyrannical bullying Oregon government officials.

In case you were abducted by aliens and just returned to earth (I watched the movie Close Encounters yesterday), Christian bakery owners, Melissa and Aaron Klein, were fined $135K and state ordered not to speak publicly about it. http://fxn.ws/1D1r17x The Kleins’ crime is refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding.

Now get this folks, the Kleins served their lesbian client on numerous occasions. But, the Kleins’ religious faith forced them to decline from doing anything in support of a behavior that is contrary to the Word of God. That is the Kleins and our first Amendment Right. http://bit.ly/1HN6nPV

Leftists have masterfully entrenched the absurd claim that not supporting a behavior is the same as “discrimination” against a person. Oregon officials figuratively told the Kleins screw your rights; comply or suffer economic death.

Who are these Oregon officials who think they can give the Constitution and 40 million Christians the finger and get away with it? Brother and sister patriots, we can not let this go unabated; literally stand by and watch Christians slaughtered right before our very eyes.

Donald Trump said his rising presidential poll numbers confirm America’s “silent majority”. Rush Limbaugh asked why are we not seeing proof of their existence; push back against SCOTUS redefining the thousands of years old definition of marriage, the bullying of the Kleins and so on?

Explaining his point, Rush cited when Obama sent bus loads of illegals to Murrieta, California. Local residents rose up in protest and would not allow the buses to unload. http://bit.ly/1Hgcskr Why are we not seeing that kind of resistance against the Left’s government minion’s full court press, no-holds-barred assault on our freedom?

I will not give the ministers’ names because I think it is unproductive to beat up on people on our side. Focus on defeating our Nemesis, not each other. In response to SCOTUS unlawfully and outrageously cramming same sex marriage down America’s throats, I heard a few TV preachers say let’s not over react. It is just the world acting like the world.

It felt like the preachers were conceding the point, advising us to speak gently about the topic. Let’s just keep our beliefs safe and warm within the walls of our churches. Well guys, the Left “ain’t” gonna allow Christians to do that.

When a reporter asked a homosexual activist attorney will there be a “ceasefire” now that they have been given the right to marry, the attorney said absolutely not. She said that while they respect religious rights, they will continue to fight for gays to have the cakes and flowers they want. Do you see the insidious crafty way the attorney solidified the Left’s determination to force Christians to act against their faith? Who in the world is stopping gays from having the cakes and flowers they want? Nobody. The Totalitarian attorney is really saying they will not rest until every Christian is government mandated to fully embrace homosexual behavior.

Rush quoted this famous chilling poem by Pastor Martin Niemoller.

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – Because I am not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – Because I am not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – Because I am not a Jew.

They they came for me –and there was no one left to speak for me.”

What am I saying? I am saying if we passively allow the Left to destroy the Kleins, we are next!

I thought another “Dan’s Bake Sale” http://bit.ly/1goxlBl style rally in Oregon might be in order for the Kleins. Imagine, multiple thousands showing up in support of the Kleins and protesting the Left’s unconstitutional tyranny. We would need someone with a big platform like Rush to pull it off.

As I stated earlier folks, I prayerfully covet your ideas and solutions. All I know is We the People can not simply stand idly by and allow what is happening to the Kleins go unabated. Quoting heroic Todd Beamer, “Let’s Roll!”

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee

07/3/15

The Flags of Fascism

06/17/15

Study Marxism to Understand Hillary

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s speech that launched his presidential campaign on Monday noted that Hillary Clinton’s “progressive agenda” includes the admonition that traditional religious beliefs “have to be changed.” Mrs. Clinton’s entire quote, in talking about opposition to her version of feminism and demands for abortion, was that “…deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

Bush also said of the Democrats, “They have offered a progressive agenda that includes everything but progress.”

But it’s never been the case that the progressive agenda offers real progress, as ordinary people understand the term. Instead, the “progressives” offer what Professor Paul Kengor calls cultural Marxism. This is the planned disintegration of the traditional family structure that has been the basis of Western civilization. Kengor, author of the new book, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, told me in an interview that the progressives are guided by the belief that “new rights are coming all the time and that everything is in a state of evolution.” He added, “There are no absolutes for them.” Hence, the gay rights movement has now morphed into rights for so-called transgenders, as we see in the relentless media propaganda that is designed to convince the public that men can, and perhaps should, become women. Kengor says the next step is for “progress” or “evolution” to a new level that includes such concepts and arrangements as multiple wives, group marriages, sibling marriages, fathers and stepfathers marrying daughters and stepdaughters, and uncles marrying nieces.

It’s no secret that Bill and Hillary Clinton’s family structure exists in name only. Bill, the disgraced former president impeached by the House, betrayed Hillary and had sex with a White House intern. He is a serial adulterer. But the Clintons have stayed together for political reasons, so that Hillary can pursue her political career. Together, along with daughter Chelsea, this arrangement has generated nearly $2 billion in donations to a family foundation that now finds itself embroiled in financial scandals over where the money went, and what it paid for.

Looking back on Mrs. Clinton’s career, I continue to be struck by the wisdom of Barbara Olson, the author of the 1999 book Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Olson was the lawyer and conservative commentator who was murdered by Islamic terrorists when the aircraft she was on, American Airlines Flight 77, was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon in the September 11, 2001, attacks. The crash killed 125 people on the ground and another 64 passengers and crew.

I interviewed Olson on December 8, 2000, when I hosted a radio show in the Washington, D.C. area. What follows is an edited transcript of that interview.

Q: Do you believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Marxist?

A: I believe she has a political ideology that has its roots in Marxism. In her formative years, Marxism was a very important part of her ideology…But when you look at her ideas on health and education, you see more government and less individual control. You see very little regard for families…

Q: Do you see Hillary as in favor of Socialist-style thinking at the global level?

A: We saw that with her activities as First Lady. She traveled more than any other First Lady. She had a global view. She spoke at the Beijing conference on women. She was very active in organizations and conferences that seem to be concerned about human rights but which are also directed toward a centralized governmental view. That is, one world. I looked at her travels and saw what she was doing. I always assumed Hillary was going to run for president. And I assumed that these international travels and her work with the Beijing women’s conference and the U.N. were going to be her way into the White House; that she was going to have a foreign policy platform that not many women have…

Q: So you do believe that she will run for president?

A: I do. She believes her ideology to the core. She’s worked for it behind Bill Clinton for years. I have thought that Hillary was going to run for the White House since 1993 when I started investigating the Clintons. She doesn’t compromise. She doesn’t come to the center. She believes in a true leftist, Socialist kind of government.

Q: She portrays her causes such as children’s rights and women’s rights in such an attractive manner. She has put conservatives on the defensive once again.

A: She has. That’s the central focus of her public relations campaign…But her ideas about health care and education have very little to do with women and children. They are the lever she uses to bring the government into the family.

Q: She’s been pushing treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Isn’t she promoting global government?

A: Yes. We all know about her book, It Takes a Village. She says the future is not family but the larger village of teachers, pediatricians and social workers. She talks about raising children as less of a parental task than a social one…You have the destruction of the family unit. That’s very basic when you study socialism and Marxism.

Mrs. Clinton’s speech to the Women in the World Summit, where she spoke on how religious beliefs have to be changed, was significant for several reasons. The event was sponsored by Tina Brown, who launched The Daily Beast and later became editor-in-chief of Newsweek. The event was conducted in association with The New York Times, and included actress Meryl Streep and comedian Jon Stewart. These were the elites of the progressive media and Hollywood.

Typically, Mrs. Clinton talked about families at the event. “We know that when women are strong, families are strong,” she said. “When families are strong, countries are strong.” It’s important to understand this comment in light of her own failed marriage, which she has held together for political purposes, and how she has adopted the entire progressive agenda regarding how traditional families have to be changed to accommodate new sexual rights and new “family” structures. Olson’s book is still important in order to understand what Mrs. Clinton means by families, and how Marxists use family-friendly jargon to confuse and mislead. Kengor’s book is absolutely essential to understand how the progressive agenda would continue to transform the nation under a President Hillary Clinton.

Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign announcement demonstrated that he is aware of the political and semantic games that the modern-day progressives are playing on the American people. If he focuses on this Marxist strain in the Democratic Party in order to identify the forces that are rotting America to the core, he will find many conservatives receptive to his message. At the same time, if he pursues this course, the progressives in the media who gathered around Hillary Clinton during that April feminist summit will come down on the former Florida governor like a ton of bricks.

Will Bush follow up with a full frontal assault on the progressive forces destroying America? Or will he wilt under pressure and make nice with those prepared to destroy the country he wants to lead?

06/12/15

The Marxist/Gay “Takedown” of America

By: Cliff Kincaid
America’s Survival

Paul Kengor’s new book, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, examines “cultural Marxism,” the application of Marxism to culture rather than the economic sphere. Kengor’s book, available from WorldNetDaily and other sites, outlines how this movement to “fundamentally transform” America has reached its zenith under the presidency of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. Things have happened so quickly, he notes, that “everyday Americans” have even been conditioned to embrace major aspects of this revolutionary change.

05/29/15

Reconsidering the U.S. Supreme Court’s Authority to Mandate Same-Sex Marriage

By: William J. Olson and Herbert W. Titus
Right Side News

(Part one of a series)

Inside the United States Supreme Court” by Phil Roeder – Flickr: Supreme Court of the United States. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

“Inside the United States Supreme Court” by Phil Roeder – Flickr: Supreme Court of the United States. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons On April 28, 2015, nine unelected lawyers drawn from three elite law schools (Harvard, Yale, and Columbia) listened to 90-minutes of oral argument about same-sex marriage and then retreated behind a wall of red velvet drapes to confer secretly about whether the U.S. Constitution requires that the U.S. Supreme Court impose same-sex marriage on the entire nation.

Consider for a moment the process by which that decision will be reached. When the Court decided to hear the Obergefell consolidated cases from the Sixth Circuit, that decision was reached in secret. The Justices consult only with their colleagues and their law clerks, also drawn from elite law schools. When a decision in the case is issued, presumably before the end of the current term toward the end of June, the Court will address only those issues argued by parties and the amici curiae that it cares to address. Its opinion will contain only those reasons for its decision that the Court chooses to reveal. The majority decision may be agreed to by as few as five of these nine justices unaccountable to no one but themselves. And then, the Court will expect the American people to set aside their individual and collective judgment and passively abide by whatever decision is reached — based on a doctrine no where found in the U.S. Constitution — “judicial supremacy.”

Although the Supreme Court’s only constitutional responsibility is to resolve “cases” and “controversies” brought before it, the High Court often acts as if it has been entrusted with the raw power to decide for us the most important public policy issues facing the nation. While the Court would have us believe that those decisions are mandated by faithful adherence to the constitutional text, the truth lies elsewhere. In his autobiography, Justice William O. Douglas provided a glimpse behind the curtain as to how the Supreme Court really works. In his autobiography, he explained that Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes had once explained to him: “[a]t the constitutional level where we work, ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections.”

We have been working in the judicial vineyard in support of traditional marriage for many years. When one of the cases now being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court (DeBoer v. Snyder) was before the Sixth Circuit, we filed an amicus curiae brief. In the U.S. Supreme Court, we filed another amicus brief. When the Supreme Court decided the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) case (U.S. v. Windsor) in 2013, we filed three briefs, one at the petition stage, one on the merits, and one on the jurisdictional question, and in the Proposition 8 case (Hollingsworth v. Perry), we filed briefs at the petition stage and one on the merits. Even before that, we filed a brief in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas when the U.S. Supreme Court began down this short road to Same-Sex Marriage while denying that it was doing so. In total, working with groups like U.S. Justice Foundation and Public Advocate of the United States, we have now filed a dozen appellate briefs over the past 15 years addressing the issue of homosexual rights in one context or another.

Although the judicial trend to embrace “homosexual rights” is undeniable, we certainly have not given up hope about the Court’s decision. In fact, it is our belief that the case for same-sex marriage is so pathetically weak, that the Court may understand that it would suffer a crippling embarrassment once the People come to really understand that in no way does the U.S. Constitution command same-sex marriage.

But our role now, while hoping for the best, is to prepare for the worst — and that worst could be terrible indeed. Part of our last Supreme Court brief was published by The American Vision under the name “12 Reasons homosexual marriage will wreck the nation.” If you need additional reasons to give your concentrated attention to this issue in the coming days, you will find those reasons in that article.

The American people need to use the short days remaining before that momentous decision is reached to determine how to respond to an adverse decision. Will they yield to a U.S. Supreme Court that claims the power to override state constitutional and statutory provisions governing domestic relations — an area of law which has historically belonged exclusively to the states. Will they sit back while unelected judges decide for them one of the most important public policy issues of our lifetime? Or will they resist — and, if so, what tools do are available to stand against this judicial tyranny?

If you have not yet signed the “Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage,” supported by Dr. James Dobson, Pastor Rick Scarborough, attorney Matthew Staver, Deacon Keith Fournier, and others, we urge you to do so. That pledge was an excellent first step.

To continue the battle, and to think through these many issues involved, a small group of lawyers and public policy experts experienced in this area have resolved to publish a series of a dozen or more articles to help inform their countrymen. You will not read these articles in the Establishment Media. However, thankfully, a number of publications, blogs, and organizations have agreed to publish this series of articles, as they are written. And, when we see other important articles, such as Robert Reilly’s piece “The New Gnosticism of the Homosexual Movement” we will bring these articles to your attention.

We know that some of you have grown weary of reading articles about homosexual issues. Yet, these issues cannot be ignored. Please look for these articles as they are published. These articles will be structured to inform about the issues which each American must think through to develop his own position, including:

Does the Fourteenth Amendment Really Mandate Homosexual Marriage?
Must a Decision of the U.S. Supreme Court be Obeyed as the Supreme Law of the Land?
Does Romans 13 Require that Christians Yield to a Decision Mandating Same-Sex Marriage?
Why Were Biblical, Moral, and Religious Arguments Ignored By the Parties Arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court?
Have the Federal Judges Deciding in Favor of a Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage Cases Truly Behaved Judicially?
What Would Be the Consequences of Mandating Same-Sex Marriage for the Church and Christian Organizations?
What Would Be the Consequences of Mandating Same-Sex Marriage for the Traditional Family?
How Should Governors, Attorneys General, State Legislatures, and Other State Officers Respond to a Decision to Mandate Same-Sex Marriage?
Could Congress Respond to a Decision Mandating Same-Sex Marriage by use of the U.S. Constitution’s “Good Behavior” Clause?
Could Congress Respond to a Decision Mandating Same-Sex Marriage by Using its Power to Limit the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts?
How Could Congress Respond to a Decision Mandating Same-Sex Marriage using its Appropriation Power to Prohibit the Expenditure of Funds to Implement the Decision at the National Level?
How Should U.S. Citizens Respond to a Decision Mandating Same-Sex Marriage in their various roles as members of grand juries, members of petit juries, taxpayers, and voters?

Although many of us find it increasingly difficult to recognize the nation that we grew up in, we can draw strength from the fact that we still live in a Constitutional Republic, and that our government still operates largely by the “consent of the governed.” And, as Americans, we have the right to determine to withhold our consent from the actions of government officials —if we believe those actions to be lawless. Whatever the U.S. Supreme Court will do, we are each accountable for how we respond. Voltaire counseled “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.” Therefore, there could be personal consequences to each person who chooses the route of resistance, but ultimately each of us is responsible to God, not just to man.

We invite each of you to consider the arguments made in these articles, and then decide for yourself exactly what you believe, and even more importantly, how you will respond.

Should you want to help support this important work, contributions may be made to the U.S. Justice Foundation.

_____________

William J. Olson served in three positions in the Reagan Administration. Herbert W. Titus taught Constitutional Law for 26 years, and concluded his academic career as the Founding Dean of Regent Law School. Together they have filed over 80 briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court, and scores more in lower courts, addressing important public policy issues. They now practice law together at William J. Olson, P.C. They can be reached at [email protected] or twitter.com/Olsonlaw.

Permission is freely granted to publish, copy, reproduce, distribute, or excerpt from this article for any purpose.

05/15/15

My Daughter Married a Woman

By: Lloyd Marcus

All of a sudden, it is pedal-to-the-metal, full-speed-ahead, no-holds-barred promotion of homosexuality everywhere you turn. It is as if someone said, okay, now is the time to launch our all out assault on traditional principles and values; while crushing all opposition.

I can not even enjoy a non-political Saturday watching do-it-yourself home improvement TV channels without almost every show aggressively promoting homosexuality. Homosexuals are only slightly over 2% of the population. http://bit.ly/1IGFmMf And yet, their representation on TV shows is dramatically disproportionate to their numbers. Clearly, the networks have become political activists promoting the homosexual agenda.

My wife can not watch her bridal gown and pregnancy TV shows without the producers featuring same sex couples. We protest by changing the channel.

What really frosts me and is super scary is the Left’s ever-increasing strong-arm tactics, forcing us to agree with their sin. I thought, good grief, next they will be teaching our kids, “Great Lesbians in History.” Then, I thought, oh my gosh, they are already doing that celebrating Gay Pride Month beginning in elementary school. http://bit.ly/1E4rJzV

Think about that folks. Regardless of your religious beliefs or opinion, the Left has said screw you, we’re teaching your child that homosexuality is a good thing and something they should explore. Period.

Leftists (Democrats) are passing legislation to make it illegal to assist anyone unhappy with their sexual attractions to change. http://bit.ly/1zWo104 Isn’t that outrageous? While portraying themselves as victims who claim to only seek tolerance, Leftists are insidiously working to have their government enforcers arrest pastors, counselors and parents who help their sexually confused kids.

Folks, we are talking Sodom and Gomorrah all over again; homosexuality aggressively forced upon us.

http://bit.ly/1dZjMHm Before you call me crazy, consider this. For 200 years marriage was defined as between one man and one woman. Today, such thinking is considered nutty, extreme and hateful in the mainstream media, numerous political and social circles. Opposing their so-called “mainstream” consensus on this issue will cost you your livelihood and even jail-time. http://bit.ly/1zIila5

My Christian minister dad called me to say that a family member gave him a heads up that my daughter’s wedding pictures are posted on Facebook. My daughter married a woman. She wanted me to attend the wedding. I explained that while I love her and am fond of her partner, my faith does not allow me to bless their union by attending their wedding.

Her mom and I divorced when she was around 7 years old. My daughter and I were estranged until five years ago. I cherish our new found relationship. So, I was happy when my daughter said she loves me and understands my reason for not attending her wedding.

At 87 with over 50 years as a pastor, Dad remains as cool and wise as ever. He adamantly advised me to shower my daughter and her partner with love. Dad said as Christians, love is our greatest weapon.

Now do not get me wrong. Far too many Christians today believe “love” means co-signing sin; passively allowing the Left’s relentless implementation of their anti-God agenda to go unchallenged. That is not what Dad meant, nor is it his definition of “loving them.” He suggests that I behave according to Romans 12:9 “Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.”

I will not be manipulated by the Left’s absurd claim that loving parenting means rubber-stamping all of your child’s life choices. When I received my daughter’s wedding invitation in the mail, Dad advised me not to attend and explain why to my daughter. Dad was confident that she would understand.

In response to my daughter’s wedding pictures on Facebook, my millennial nephew and nieces congratulated her. Despite their Christian upbringing, liberal public school indoctrination and mainstream media have shaped their opinions.

Before ending our phone call (I’m in Florida, Dad is in Maryland), Dad instructed me to read Exodus 20: 1-6 and Deuteronomy 5: 1-10. These scriptures promise that if you are faithful and love God, He will bless your family for generations. Praise God. That was Dad’s way of comforting and assuring me that God has everything under control.

I do not pray for God to turn my daughter straight. I pray that she and her partner will come to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Meanwhile, without approving their lifestyle, I will love them both to death.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee