Hating Christians, Hating God

It’s tiresome and repetitive and yet Hollywood just can not stop themselves from grinding that ax deeper. Hating Christians ought to have far exceeded it’s shelf life, but Hollywood is mired in an anachronistic world of pagan earth worship. The sages of that nether world remind me of the priests that attended kings as interpreters of signs and portents, wringing prophecy out of rat’s asses, substituting dire frenzy for wise counsel. Of which neither they, or the priests of Hollywood, have to impart. And their latest attempt to paint the villain with a coat of Christianity is also their latest failure.

Speaking to CNN recently about the new thriller about an openly atheist hero and a Christian Villain, he compared the film to “Brokeback Mountain,” a film which he feels made people more accepting of the gay community.
(…)
Atheists hold a valid point of view according to Chapman who is urging Christians and all believers to see the new film.

“There are a lot of us, we are thinking people we care about many of the same issues as believers, and yet we are rarely heard and widely hated,” says Chapman.

He concluded: “I hope atheists who are still in the closet will take heart from the film and think. I am not alone”

(Source)

Bang your head on the ground until infinity, pour blood on clay idols (or sell the blood of slain infants in 2011 Babylon), worship the earth as earnestly as you want – only evil or silence will answer. Whatever goodness or wisdom atheists may have, is borrowed. They don’t own it and Hollywood can not bestow it. It’s called grace. God has a habit of imparting it and we all are it’s benefactors, or we’d be the dust we damn well ought to be given the never ending stream of insults issuing from us to God. Atheists constantly attempt to whitewash themselves using the paint of a moral code directly attributable to the God that they reject. Christians who are “villains” are acting outside of that moral code, not in accord with it. In other words, they are behaving in an UN-christian manner and do not represent the faith.

And ‘Christian’ is a useless word anymore, since so many pretenders, leftists and weak willed Christians have absolutely defiled “the Brand’. But God was there before any Christian existed and His Word is eternal. It is He and that Word which gives witness to who He is, instructs us in how we might actually live a life – soul intact – forever,and finally,He judges us. And the choice, of course, is ours. The fact that judgment is inevitable doesn’t abrogate the freedom with which we choose the state of soul we are in when we finally meet it. And disbelieving it all doesn’t forestall it’s coming.

And then there are those who truly believe they will defeat God and all his nasty Christians. Such as Lucifer. In modern times, the name Saul Alinsky – whose widely studied manifesto is dedicated to “the first rebel; Lucifer ” – comes to mind. Certainly an apprentice to the devil par excellence and one of the key choreographers whose work is used so adroitly by the present powers that be.

Sphere: Related Content

Read More

Barack Hussein Obama: The Malignant Tenets of the Community Organizer

I can not urge you enough to read Melanie Phillip’s Revolution You Can Believe In, a dissection of what Barack Hussein Obama’s community organizing actually served to do. Far from some benign outreach to the poor and young, it was no more than another chapter in this Marxist’s malignant vision for a broken and castrated America. Below find a few excerpts, but damn, you simply have to read the entire piece. It will chill you to the bone.

…in the world of Barack Obama, community organisers are a key strategy in a different game altogether; and the name of that game is revolutionary Marxism.

The seditious role of the community organiser was developed by an extreme left intellectual called Saul Alinsky. He was a radical Chicago activist who, by the time he died in 1972, had had a profound influence on the highest levels of the Democratic party. Alinsky was a ‘transformational Marxist’ in the mould of Antonio Gramsci, who promoted the strategy of a ‘long march through the institutions’ by capturing the culture and turning it inside out as the most effective means of overturning western society. In similar vein, Alinsky condemned the New Left for alienating the general public by its demonstrations and outlandish appearance. The revolution had to be carried out through stealth and deception. Its proponents had to cultivate an image of centrism and pragmatism. A master of infiltration, Alinsky wooed Chicago mobsters and Wall Street financiers alike. And successive Democratic politicians fell under his spell.

His creed was set out in his book ‘Rules for Radicals’ – a book he dedicated to Lucifer, whom he called the ‘first radical’. It was Alinsky for whom ‘change’ was his mantra. And by ‘change’, he meant a Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means which turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. And the way to do this, he said, was through ‘people’s organisations’.

…winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. I wonder if in his wildest dreams that Alinsky would imagine that his Marxist dreams would one day be represented so completely in the person of Barack Hussein Obama.

Alinsky viewed as supremely important the role of the organizer, or master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People’s Organization… Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’[40] The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict’[41] and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘[42] ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’;[43] i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.

Obama’s connection with Alinsky, whom he never met but whom he reportedly idolised, was through two bodies promoting the Alinsky model of community organisation, ACORN and the Gamaliel Foundation.  John Perazzo again:

Obama was trained by the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in Chicago and worked for an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, whose modus operandi for the creation of ‘a more just and democratic society’ is rooted firmly in the Alinsky method. As The Nation magazine puts it, ‘Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing…’  In fact, for several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method.
[...]
But Obama brought a special slant to Alinsky’s radicalism.Far from being – as he has been painted – a ‘post-racial’ politician, Obama’s politics are all about promoting the cause of black people and achieving ‘reparations’ from white society (a perspective through which his whole welfare redistribution agenda is framed). Accordingly, he saw his three-year role as a community organiser in Chicago as mobilising black people for action against their white oppressors. Finding himself hampered in creating an activist network among black churches, he decided to join such a church to give himself more credibility. That’s why he joined the infamous black-power Trinity Church of Christ – a move, it seems, that had less to do with any spiritual quest than as a radical tactic for mobilising the black proletariat….

[...]

If anyone should doubt Obama’s debt to Saul Alinsky, they might ponder this encomium from no less an authority than Alinsky’s own son. In a letter to the Boston Globe, L. David Alinsky wrote of his father’s influence at the Democratic Convention:

All the elements were present: the individual stories told by real people of their situation and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, the crowd’s chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot of texting and phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump into the political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting of the agenda by the power people.

Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

Continue reading… Revolution You Can Believe In

Sphere: Related Content

Read More

Barack Obama Round-up

American Thinker: Obama’s Foreign Donors: The media averts its eyes

So here an intrepid blogger finds a keg of dynamite of dirty dollar donations to Obama and what does the media do? They ignore it. And when forced to confront it by the sheer newsworthiness of the story, what happens? They go after McCain. They punish McCain.

And that is meant to be a lesson to all of us, Whatever you find, whatever you discover about the Candidate of Mystery, they will blow it back in your face. And they did. Almost immediately.

The irony and the upshot of all this. John McCain is reviewing contributions. Ain’t that a kick in the head. I can tell him he needn’t bother. Been there, done that. Nothing to see, keep moving.

Obama’s out there raising millions, some in illegal donations and the Washington Post jumps on McCain for a $50k, which hasn’t been shown to be illegal, but merely “inappropriate.” The left and their handmaidens, the mani stream media, were so quick to deflect this hit, it seems we have hit a raw nerve. I intend to keep digging. Stay tuned.

Jill Stanek – Breaking news: New documents show Obama cover-up on born-alive survivors bill

Last week Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee drew my attention to a previously unnoticed January 2008 article by Terence Jeffrey stating Barack Obama actually did vote against a version of the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act that was identical to the federal version, contrary to multiple public statements Obama or his surrogates have made to rationalize his opposition to the IL bill for the past 4 years.

Since then we have found 2 separate documents proving Barack Obama has been misrepresenting facts.

In fact, Barack Obama is more liberal than any U.S. senator, voting against identical language of a bill that body passed unanimously, 98-0. In fact, Barack Obama condones infanticide if it would otherwise interfere with abortion.

Here is the statement with documentation released by NRLC this morning…

New documents just obtained by NRLC, and linked below, prove that Senator [Barack] Obama has for the past four years blatantly misrepresented his actions on the IL Born-Alive Infants Protection bill.

Book Review: The Case Against Barack Obama by David Freddoso : Stop The ACLU

Throughout his tenure in the Illinois General Assembly, Obama had given favors and steered state contracts to contributors and friends. In particular, he has a great deal of ties to real estate developers that benefited from his state legislative career and he benefited from their success. Developers having access to the corridors of power is nothing new, especially in Chicago, but for a candidate who is preaching an anti-lobbyist anti-special interest message, the evidence shows he didn’t practice what he preaches.

The Obama campaign has steadfastly refused to speak the nitty-gritty of policy on the stump and has run a “cult of personality” campaign. This is why it is a timely and important work to show the man behind the façade, but to do so in a legitimate way. Many, mostly slanderous, attempts have been made to show Obama as some kind of un-American Trojan horse candidate. This has only helped to inoculate him against legitimate criticism. However, Freddoso sticks to the record with copious footnotes to back him up.

American Thinker: Obama’s Alinsky Hoodwink is Coming Home to Roost

July 31, 1995 – Tony Rezko makes his first political donation to Obama.

July 1995 – Obama seeks (and later receives) endorsement of radical New Party.

January 2, 1996 – Obama begins process of throwing all of his opponents off the ballot.

March 19, 1996 – Obama wins Democratic state Senate primary, unopposed.

January 14, 1997 – Tony Rezko, while claiming he cannot afford to turn on the heat in one of his slums, writes a $1,000 check to Barack Obama’s campaign.

February, 1997 – Obama co-sponsors a bill that creates affordable local housing funds in order to subsidize private developers.

August 23, 2001 – Bill co-sponsored by Obama, giving special tax credits to donors to private developers of “affordable housing.”

May 21, 2003 – Obama votes for the Affordable Housing Planning and Appeal Act, creating demand for at least 7,000 new “affordable housing” units and letting private developers circumvent local ordinances.

August 14, 2003 – Stuart Levine and Tony Rezko steer $50 million in teachers’ retirement money to an investment firm and receive a $250,000 kickback from the “finder.”

March 4, 2004 -Obama co-sponsors bill to move forward deadlines of developer-friendly housing bill.

June 15, 2005 – Obama and Tony Rezko close on adjacent properties in Hyde Park.

May 26, 2005 – Chicago Tribune profiles Tony Rezko, noting that he has been subpoenaed in a criminal investigation.

January 2006 – Obama purchases part of neighbor Tony Rezko’s lot.

In his first position of any government power, Barack Obama, perfectly evidenced his own pronouncement:

“…the actions of those in power have enormous consequences — a price that they themselves almost never have to pay.”

Syrian-born Tony Rezko is now in prison, after having been convicted by a federal jury on 16 of 24 counts of corruption charges.

Cheating the taxpayers is serious business.

But while Tony Rezko languishes in a prison cell, Barack Obama seeks the Presidency.

And what of those lovely “affordable housing” units that Tony Rezko and his Illinois state Senate handmaiden, Barack Obama, paid for with taxpayer money?

They are rat-infested slums, which have been largely condemned by local authorities as uninhabitable by human beings.

The poor citizens of Illinois are left paying the consequences of Obama’s power. He’s off in Hawaii resting up for his Denver coronation.

How far will Obama go?

DC Protest Warrior: How Long Did It Take?

Conspiracy theories make for interesting novels when the storyline is not so absurd that it can grasp our attention. ‘TheManchurian Candidate’ and ‘Seven Days in May’ are examples of plausible chains of events that captures the reader’s imagination at best-seller level.
‘What if’ has always been the solid grist of fiction. Get yourself something cool to drink, find a relaxing position, but before you continue, visualize the television photos of two jet airliners smashing into the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and remind yourself this cowardly act of Muslim terror was planned for eight years.

How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for President of the United States? As long as it took them to place a Senator from Illinois and Minnesota?
The same amount of time to create a large Muslim enclave in Detroit?
The time it took them to build over 2,000 mosques in America? The same amount of time required to place radical wahabbist clerics in our military and prisons as ‘chaplains’?
Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being a ‘freedom fighter’ when he was actually part of the most corrupt and violent government in Kenya’s history.
Find a candidate with close ties to The Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in Africa, a candidate who is educated among white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial toothy smile.
Find a candidate who changes his American name of Barry to the Muslim name of Barak Hussein Obama, and dares anyone to question his true ties under the banner of ‘racism’. Nurture this candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white, anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim middle east connections and Islamic monies. Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer dollars to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa.
Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception because questioning him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen as ‘bigoted racism’; two words too power ful to allow the citizenry to be informed of facts.
Allow your candidate to employ several black racist Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan followers as members of his Illinois Senatorial and campaign staffs.

Sphere: Related Content

Read More

Obama and His Pastor Jeremiah Wright

I suggest that you read the entire article as it also highlights the radical left political ideology espoused by Saul Alinsky, a man that Obama has admired and whose tactics he has himself employed. This excerpt about Obama and the Trinity church speaks for itself.

Denouce all you wish Obama. The evidence of your ideological breeding are ample. An honest American can’t help but be appalled at not only your so-called spiritual roots, but your political roots as well.

On a Sunday morning two weeks before he launches his presidential campaign, Obama is at Trinity United Church of Christ on the South Side, gently swaying from side to side under a giant iron cross. From the outside, the church looks more like a fortress than a house of worship, with high whitewashed brick walls topped with security cameras. Inside, Trinity is the sort of African American community that the young Obama longed to connect with when he first came to Chicago. The church’s motto is “unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian,” and sunlight streams through stained glass windows depicting the life of a black Jesus. The Reverend Doctor Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Trinity’s pastor since 1972, flies a red, black, and green flag near his altar and often preaches in a dashiki. He has spent decades writing about the African roots of Christianity, partly as a way to convince young blacks tempted by Islam that Christianity is not “a white man’s religion.”

On this particular Sunday, the sea of black worshippers is dotted with a few white folks up in the balcony, clutching copies of The Audacity of Hope they’ve brought for Obama’s book-signing later. Obama, sitting in the third row with his wife and two daughters, Malia and Natasha, stands, claps, prays, and sways along with the rest of the congregation. During the sermon, he watches the preacher carefully and writes notes. When asked by Wright to say a few words, Obama grabs the microphone and stands. “I love you all,” he says. “It’s good to be back home.” The 150-person choir breaks into a chorus of “Barack, Hallelujah! Barack, Hallelujah!”

[...]

Wright was unimpressed. “They were going to bring all different denominations together to have this grassroots movement,” explained Wright, a white-haired man with a goatee and a booming voice. “I looked at him and I said, Do you know what Joseph’s brother said when they saw him coming across the field?’” Obama said he didn’t. “I said, Behold the dreamer! You’re dreaming if you think you are going to do that.’”

From Wright and others, Obama learned that part of his problem as an organizer was that he was trying to build a confederation of churches but wasn’t showing up in the pews on Sunday. When pastors asked him the inevitable questions about his own spiritual life, Obama would duck them uncomfortably. A Reverend Philips put the problem to him squarely when he learned that Obama didn’t attend services. “It might help your mission if you had a church home,” he told Obama. “It doesn’t matter where, really. What you’re asking from pastors requires us to set aside some of our more priestly concerns in favor of prophesy. That requires a good deal of faith on our part. It makes us want to know just where you’re getting yours from.”

After many lectures like this, Obama decided to take a second look at Wright’s church. Older pastors warned him that Trinity was for “Buppies”–black urban professionals–and didn’t have enough street cred. But Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity’s guiding principles–what the church calls the “Black Value System”–included a “Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.’”

The crosscurrents appealed to Obama. He came to believe that the church could not only compensate for the limitations of Alinsky-style organizing but could help answer the nagging identity problem he had come to Chicago to solve. “It was a powerful program, this cultural community,” he wrote, “one more pliant than simple nationalism, more sustaining than my own brand of organizing.”

As a result, over the years, Wright became not only Obama’s pastor, but his mentor. The title of Obama’s recent book, The Audacity of Hope, is based on a sermon by Wright. (It’s worth noting, however, that, while Obama’s book is a coolheaded appeal for common ground in an age of political polarization, Wright’s sermon, “The Audacity to Hope,” is a fiery jeremiad about persevering in a world of nuclear arms and racial inequality.) Wright is one of the first people Obama thanked after his Senate victory in 2004, and he recently name-checked Wright in his speech to civil rights leaders in Selma, Alabama.

The church also helped Obama develop politically. It provided him with new insights about getting people to act, or agitating, that his organizing pals didn’t always understand. “It’s true that the notion of self-interest was critical,” Obama told me. “But Alinsky understated the degree to which people’s hopes and dreams and their ideals and their values were just as important in organizing as people’s self-interest.” He continued, “Sometimes the tendency in community organizing of the sort done by Alinsky was to downplay the power of words and of ideas when in fact ideas and words are pretty powerful. We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal.’ Those are just words. I have a dream.’ Just words. But they help move things. And I think it was partly that understanding that probably led me to try to do something similar in different arenas.”

from…..Barack Obama’s unlikely political education

(all emphasis mine)

Sphere: Related Content

Read More

Obama and Hillary: Steeped in the Rhetoric of Oppression

I never signed up for a course in the “-isms“; Marxism, Socialism and Communism – but researching the ideological underpinnings of the two progressive contenders for the presidency is teaching me more than I ever wanted to know.

I will frankly say that I will not vote for any black presidential candidate who chooses to designate himself as an African-American (as opposed to an American). In my mind that hyphen has come to symbolize race card politics, signaling an agenda of divisive grievances, not national unity.

And quite frankly, I could never bring myself to vote for a woman. Do with that what you will, but there was only one Margaret Thatcher and Hillary is her anti-thesis. But Hillary feeds at the same socialist trough as Obama, devouring the same multicultural, kumbaya swill.

With either candidate, it’s always about race, or class warfare, or gender issues, but never about celebrating America and it certainly is never about promoting – dare I say it – American exceptionalism.

The trinity of American exceptionalism could be described as (1) dynamism (support for equality of individual opportunity, entrepreneurship, and economic progress); (2) religiosity (emphasis on character development, mores, and voluntary cultural associations) that works to contain the excessive individual egoism that dynamism sometimes fosters; and (3) patriotism (love of country, self-government, and support for constitutional limits).(link)

I always find it amusing that the admonitions to respect the traditions of all cultures that are preached from the pulpits of multiculturalism have failed to make an impression on the very “cultures” that seek protection behind the PC mantle. But then, multiculturalism is a weapon aimed directly at the idea of “American exceptionalism”, as well as at whites, Euros, Anglos and other various “oppressor groups”. You may denigrate those cultures at will.

Obama and Hillary are steeped in the rhetoric of white supremacy, sexism and oppression, as are the academic elites who have poisoned American education.

Kors states that at an academic conference sponsored by the University of Nebraska, the attendees articulated the view that “White students desperately need formal ‘training’ in racial and cultural awareness. The moral goal of such training should override white notions of privacy and individualism.” One of the leading “diversity experts” providing scores of “training programs” in universities, corporations, and government bureaucracies is Hugh Vasquez of the Todos Institute of Oakland, California. Vasquez’s study guide for a Ford Foundation-funded diversity film, Skin Deep, explains the meaning of “white privilege” and “internalized oppression” for the trainees.

from…Why There is a Culture War

Might I suggest that the generations of blacks who have been indoctrinated to believe that they are oppressed get some training as well. If they want to claim that racism is institutionalized by whites, than I would have to say that entitlement and victim hood is institutionalized among all so-called minorities who jump on the grievance train.

From Shelby Steele’s ‘A Dream Deferred”

I believe this acceptance of victimization is a totalism caused by the downfall of post-sixties liberalism. This is where liberalism lost it’s balance and ultimately its integrity. Many observers who lived through the sixties realize that it was the old American problem of race that did liberalism in. To accept victimization not as one of many variables but as a totalism was to see it as structural – so built into the patterns of society that that it could be manifested apart from human will. And if the evil was structural. only structural remedies would work against it. You couldn’t fight racial victimization on a case-by-case basis; you had to put into place structures that would prefer the victim in compensation for the victimization we could presume he or she endured. Thus liberalism becomes preemptive rather than defensive. It no longer protected individuals and fought for equal opportunity but it pursued group rights and equal results. It remedied the victimization before it was manifest. This transformation came from the embrace of victimization as a totalistic explanation of black difficulty. But it changed the basic terms of American liberalism from freedom, rights, and responsibilities to planning, engineering and entitlements.

I absolutely do not buy that minorities in this country suffer under systematic oppression. Instances of prejudice and incivility, yeah, I am sure that there are incidents galore. It’s called human nature and the only fools who think that they will be able to extirpate prejudice completely from the human psyche are , well – fools like Obama and Hillary – magical thinking elitists who presume to know just the right alchemy necessary to recreate the human soul.

One such social engineer is a far left radical Saul Alinsky, often mentioned in both Obama’s and Hillary’s accounts of influential political mentors.

Diane Alden on Saul Alinsky…

Alinsky asserted that he was more concerned with the acquisition of power than anything else: “My aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and how to use it.” This is not to be done with assistance to the poor, nor even by organizing the poor to demand assistance: “[E]ven if all the low-income parts of our population were organized … it would not be powerful enough to get significant, basic, needed changes.”

Alinsky advises his followers that the poor have no power and that the real target is the middle class: “Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead center upon America’s white middle class. That is where the power is. … Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle class majority.”

But that didn’t stop Alinsky and his followers from using the middle class for their own purposes. They counted on the guilt and shame of the white middle class to get what they wanted. In order to take over institutions and get power, the middle class had to be convinced that they were somehow lucky winners in “life’s lottery.”

Alinsky’s radicals found a perfect vehicle for their destruction of the American system and more particularly for taking and maintaining power. That instrument was the Democratic Party.

from….Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption

More on Alinsky and the political lens through which Obama and Hillary view America in coming posts.

Related Reading:

Hillary Clinton’s Wellesley Thesis

Center for Community Change

Mr. Obama, You’re No Jack Kennedy

Sphere: Related Content

Read More