Expose Obama

Dem Senator Threatens Supreme Court

Doug Book — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:34:11 +0000

Two months ago, Barack Obama decided he could intimidate the United States Supreme Court into finding his namesake healthcare plan Constitutional. Overturning the Affordable Care Act “…would amount to an unprecedented, extraordinary step of judicial activism” said the President at a rare White House news conference, adding “…I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Though someone with the hyper-arrogant mentality of the Manchurian Candidate doesn’t really need a reason to direct this sort of psycho-babble at a presumptive enemy, Obama was probably responding to information provided by far left Justice Elena Kagan that the Court’s closed-door, preliminary vote on ObamaCare had not gone very well. Each Friday, the 9 justices gather for an initial vote on the cases heard during the week. And although these weekly conferences are to be strictly confidential, it’s a safe bet that Obama’s Court stoolie was on the phone with the White House minutes after its conclusion.

However, as this preemptive strike on the court was met with a nationwide flurry of criticism even from a number of his media supporters, Obama made no further reference to the prospective ruling.

But on Monday, a new county was heard from. Dedicated leftist Senator Patrick Leahy directed a 2000 word dissertation at the Court from the Senate floor, selecting as his principle target Chief Justice John Roberts. “The constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act is the current instance in which narrow ideology and partisanship are pressuring the Supreme Court to intervene where it should not,” claimed Leahy, making clear his view that the Court has no business interfering with a Congressional assault on the Constitution. The senator advanced the 2000 Bush/Gore decision as an example of the sort of “judicial activism” that “shook the confidence of the American people in the Supreme Court.” He ridiculed conservative justices for their tough questioning of principle ObamaCare advocate Solicitor General Donald Verilli during oral arguments, stating “their action will not help restore American’s confidence in the Court to fairly apply the law.”

And he alternately praised and threatened the Chief Justice, literally claiming that if Roberts joined other conservatives in a 5-4 decision against ObamaCare it would “…undoubtedly further erode the reputation and legitimacy of the Supreme Court.”

But what prompted Leahy’s sudden decision to lecture the Supreme Court as to its proper role in government? Was it a last ditch effort to intimidate justices into finding ObamaCare constitutional? Or has Kagan perhaps advised Democrats that Roberts is “wavering” a bit, leading Leahy to believe his misguided, nonsensical claims might persuade the Chief Justice to decide in favor of passage?

Since its enactment in 2010, liberals have believed the Affordable Care Act to be a sure thing to pass Constitutional muster. They were stunned when Justices took offense at the law’s contempt for individual liberty during oral arguments. After all, how could forcing Americans to purchase something they don’t want be unconstitutional if it’s for their own good!

If 5 Justices rule the ObamaCare individual mandate unconstitutional, the American people will hear a wailing and gnashing of teeth unequaled since the pro-Gore efforts of the Florida Supreme Court were undone after the 2000 election. We will be in for some very entertaining days.

Does Obama Already Know The Supreme Court’s Decision On ObamaCare? If the Supreme Court has followed long standing tradition, the…
Will Obama Defy Supreme Court If ObamaCare Is Ruled Unconstitutional? For 2 years, champions of ObamaCare have been careful to…

Four Stories You Won’t Hear About Obama

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:28:35 +0000

Most Americans judge a President based on his promises and his results. They measure the success of the nation in part by the question Ronald Reagan asked voters in 1980. Reagan simply said, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

For Barack Obama, this question is deadly. Obama promised big results, but he has failed to deliver. For example, look at these four promises and his results.

Obama’s 825 billion dollar stimulus failed to keep unemployment below 8 percent as Obama promised. Since President Obama’s stimulus passed, America has lost 1.1 million jobs. If you count people who have become discouraged and are no longer seeking jobs, some economists believe that real unemployment rate is above twenty percent.

Obama called his health care package one of his major accomplishments. He told CBS’ Steve Kroft he was “putting in place a system in which we’re going to start lowering health care costs.” Yet it has failed to make health insurance more affordable. According to the fact watchdog website FactCheck.org, ObamaCare is actually making health care “less affordable.” Workers paid an average of $132 more for family coverage just this year.

Obama predicted his investments in green energy would create 5 million jobs, but the Wall Street Journal reports: “The green jobs subsidy story gets more embarrassing by the day. Three years ago President Obama promised that by the end of the decade, America would have five million green jobs, but so far, some $90 billion in government spending has delivered very few.”

Obama pledged to cut the deficit in half, saying: “And that’s why today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.” Even if every part of Obama’s deficit reduction proposal was enacted, the deficit at the end of his first term would still be $1.33 trillion, more than twice what he promised.

But don’t expect much reporting on his record. Instead, watch as the media focuses on polls. They like to treat most campaigns like a horse race. Don’t be bedazzled by the speeches and rhetoric, just look at the promises and his results. Judge Barack Obama by his own expectations and you will see he has been a failure.

But the news media is almost as desperate to ignore Obama’s record as he is to hide it.

As a result of his dismal record, he has decided to run a campaign of attacks on Mitt Romney in the vain hope that the subject will be changed. The mainstream media will help him change the agenda.

We will hear stories about how Bain Capital, Romney’s old firm, restructured business and cut jobs, and the media will forget to talk about how Obama restructured General Motors and cut jobs.

We will hear stories about how Mitt Romney bullied someone in school nearly 50 years ago, and we won’t hear about Barack Obama doing drugs 25 or 30 years ago.

We will hear stories about how Mitt Romney is controlled by the far right, and we won’t hear a story about Barack Obama’s associates on the far left.

Expect the media to work as hard to re-elect Barack Obama as they did to elect him. But if Romney stays focused on giving America the facts and forcing the media to report accurately, this election is his to lose.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Two Stories The American Media Just Does Not Want Us To Hear Yesterday Germany’s most important daily newspaper, The Bild, called the “experts”…
The Top Stories We Broke In 2011 Every year at this time, the media pause to look…

Democrats Label Arkansas’s Black Voters “Racists”

Kevin "Coach" Collins — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:26:02 +0000

Anonymous Democrats are whispering “racism” as the reason for Barack Obama’s embarrassing “victories” in the Arkansas and Kentucky primaries last Tuesday.

They started whispering this after a federal inmate got 41% against Obama in West Virginia’s primary two weeks ago.

Child-like Democrats don’t do well with the truth, so they habitually devise comforting lies when they are forced to confront “inconvenient truths.”

If these butt kickings weren’t the result of racism, they were the result of Obama wrecking our economy or cramming Obamacare down our throats or attacking the Catholic Church, but more likely endorsing gay “marriage.” Democrats can’t face those possibilities or the real message of these primaries, so they prefer to dismiss the results as racism from messengers.

The results from Arkansas and Kentucky were similar but arrived at from quite opposite directions. Arkansas has a Black population (15%) which matches the national percentage; Kentucky’s is about half of that.

While there is no county level data from Kentucky, detailed information on Arkansas’ primary is readily available for those interested in finding it.

Arkansas’s African Americans could have saved Obama from his embarrassing “win” in their state, but they chose not to.

Arkansas has 29 counties with African American populations over 19% – six with over 50%- and these “significantly black” counties did not turn out to support Barack Obama.

In ten counties with Black populations between 19% and 41%, Obama actually lost 38/62! They must all be racists by Democrat “whispering standards!”

The official results showed that statewide, Barack Obama beat John Wolfe, a man no one knew by just 58/42. Since Wolfe is white, the ever race-conscientious Democrats churned out the “racism” charge because to them, white Americans who are not with them are racists if they “need” them to be.

When the votes from the 29 “significant black” counties were tabulated, Obama’s edge over Wolfe actually SHRINKS to 54/46. In other words, African Americans in Arkansas supported Obama by four points less than the state as a whole. They must all be racists!

These truths from Arkansas represent the first test of how much Obama’s support of gay “marriage” has hurt him among his African American base. The numbers aren’t good for The One.

Do Democrats Commit Hate Crimes Against Black Republicans? Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman…
Obama’s Arkansas Primary Problem Two weeks after an imprisoned felon received 41 percent of…

Video: Flashback 1995: Holder Launches Anti-Gun PR Blitz

Kris Zane — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:21:07 +0000

Eric Holder’s skewed anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment ideology has been festering for years, not just raising its sickening head with Fast and Furious. In this 1995 video clip, Holder put into motion a PR blitz to “brainwash” (his words) the public about “how carrying a gun is wrong” (again his words).

Eric Holder Tells Audience: We Must “Brainwash” Against Guns Then U.S. Attorney Eric Holder tells 1995 National Woman’s Democratic…
Shocking Video: Undercover Man Is Offered Eric Holder’s Ballot, But Eric Holder Still Insists Voter ID Laws Are Not Necessary In a shocking new video on Breitbart.com, James O’Keefe’s Project…

Watch the Video and Comment: Video: Flashback 1995: Holder Launches Anti-Gun PR Blitz

Communist Castro Says She Would Vote For Obama

Breaking News — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:13:38 +0000

The daughter of Cuban dictator Raul Castro has told an audience in San Francisco that she would vote for Barack Obama if she lived in this country.

The Obama administration granted Mariela Castro a special visa to attend a San Francisco meeting where she promoted homosexual rights.

“If we don’t change our patriarchal and homophobic culture … we cannot advance as a new society, and that’s what we want — the power of emancipation through socialism,” she said. “We will establish relationships on the basis of social justice and social equality …. It seems like a Utopia, but we can change it.”

Read More at onenewsnow.com. By Associated Press.

Castro, Obama, And The Rule Of Law This week we had the pleasure of sharing a summer…
Longtime U.S. Communist Praises Obama As “Black Radical” Longtime Communist Party USA member Angela Davis, the 1960s radical…

Video: Chris Matthews Gets Angry Over “Thrill Up The Leg” Question On C-SPAN

Floyd Brown — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:12:52 +0000

Chris Matthews embarrasses himself again. He actually defends his “Thrill Up The Leg” statement about Obama, and then he proceeds to call conservative pundits who ask him about it “Jack Asses”. He is no journalist. He is a politico masquerading as a journalist.

Chris Matthews Leg Thrill: Blacks Need Same-Sex Marriage Our media colleague Chris Matthews just got a thrill up…
Imus Rips ‘Angry,’ ‘Vile,’ ‘Psycho,’ ‘Spittle-spewing’ Chris Matthews … Continue to Post…

Watch the Video and Comment: Video: Chris Matthews Gets Angry Over “Thrill Up The Leg” Question On C-SPAN

Obama Should Blame Himself, Not The SCOTUS

Phil Kerpen — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:03:44 +0000

Sometime in the next month, the United States Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Obama’s individual mandate, the provision forcing everyone in the United States to buy health insurance. Based on how badly this provision was defeated in the oral arguments, it will likely be struck down as unconstitutional. If the law’s most popular provision, the ban on excluding pre-existing conditions, is also struck down, Obama has nobody to blame but himself.

Obama campaigned against the individual mandate. In fact, it’s the issue he won the nomination on. Obama said four years ago: “The main difference between my plan and Senator Clinton’s plan is that she’d require the government to force you to buy health insurance.” He even ran attack ads bashing Clinton on the issue.

Once Obama was in the White House, though, his tune changed. The mandate became the centerpiece of a corrupt deal that Obama cut with the insurance industry. They agreed to accept the ban on excluding pre-existing conditions and several other expensive, onerous regulations in exchange for a mandate forcing everyone to buy their product, and hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies to further sweeten the pot.

Ron Suskind, who was granted insider access to the White House, explained that Obama made the deal even though “Obama, never much for the mandate, was concerned about legal challenges.”

He should have been more than concerned. He should have upheld his sworn oath to the Constitution and said no to any deal that relied on an unconstitutional mandate.

The oral arguments before the Supreme Court showed this wasn’t a close call. Even liberal commentators acknowledged it was a blowout. Jeffrey Toobin of CNN said it “was a train wreck for the Obama administration,” and Andy Serwer of far-left Mother Jones magazine added “Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court.”

It wasn’t Verrilli’s fault. Obama was making him defend the indefensible. A federal government with the power to order citizens to purchase politically-favored goods and services is a government of unlimited, unchecked powers—a government the Constitution exists to prevent.

If the ban on pre-existing conditions falls with the mandate, as is likely, that will also be Obama’s fault. The administration’s brief to the Supreme Court argued that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta “was incorrect” to let the pre-existing ban stay in effect. Without the mandate, the Obama administration argued, the pre-existing ban has to go.

Unfortunately, they are right. There is no way to solve the pre-existing condition problem through economically destructive regulations — even if you try to pay-off the insurance companies with an unconstitutional mandate. Without the mandate, as Obama acknowledged, the pre-existing ban would put most insurance companies out of business.

If the Court, as expected, rejects Obama’s unconstitutional mandate and the pre-existing condition ban he tied to it, he’ll have nobody to blame but himself. His whole corrupt approach was a dead-end, and he knew it.

Mr. Kerpen is the president of American Commitment and the author of “Democracy Denied.” Kerpen can be reached at phil@americancommitment.org.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Obama V. SCOTUS I’m always amused by the left’s inability to pass their…
Another SCOTUS Defeat For Obama Looming? And as was the case with the SCOTUS hearing on…

Exposed: The UN’s Latest Bogus CO2 Claim

Donn Dears — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:53:27 +0000

The UN claims that developed countries, including the United States, must cut their CO2 emissions 80% by 2050 or there will be a climate catastrophe.

It follows that if these countries can’t cut their CO2 emissions 80%, there will be an unavoidable climate catastrophe.

Can the United States cut its CO2 emissions 80%?

The answer is no, and this group of articles will explain why.

It then follows that it’s wasted effort and money to attempt to cut CO2 emissions, and that this effort should be used, instead, to grow the economy.

The source of CO2 emissions in the United States are approximately as follows:

40% from generating electricity
20% from using gasoline for cars
40% from all other sources

CO2 emissions from generating electricity and from gasoline must be cut 80% or it will not be possible to achieve an overall 80% reduction by cutting the remaining emissions more than 80%.

Let’s deal with the electricity generation segment first, and the gasoline segment in the next article.

Figure I shows how electricity was generated in the United States in 2011.

Figure II shows that coal produced 81% and natural gas 18% of CO2 emissions from the generation of electricity.

Figure III projects that total generating capacity will need to increase by over 600,000 MW by 2050. This reflects a 1% growth rate as predicted by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) through 2030 and extrapolated to 2050. This growth rate is essentially the same as the population growth rate to 2050 and reflects the EIA’s estimates of energy savings through 2030.

This growth does not include any additional generation required for charging batteries on electric vehicles (EVs).

The projected increase in electricity generation will increase rather than cut CO2 emissions.

In 2050, total CO2 emissions from generating electricity must be reduced to 411 MMT from 2054 MMT in 2011. Figure II indicates that existing natural gas units already produce nearly all the CO2 emissions that will be allowed in 2050.

The fundamental questions are:

How will this additional generation be accomplished?

How can CO2 emissions from existing coal-fired and natural gas power plants be cut 80%?

Co2 emissions and generation

Figure IV shows the predicted outcome based on four assumptions.

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is possible for coal-fired power plants, but not natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants. While carbon capture is still experimental for coal-fired power plants, there’s been no credible process demonstrated for capturing CO2 from NGCC plants.
Carbon capture results in the derating of existing coal-fired power plants by over 30%. In other words, coal-fired power plants will produce 30% less electricity for the grid when equipment is installed to capture around 90% of the CO2 emissions produced by coal-fired power plants.
While some existing nuclear power plants will be retired by 2050, it’s assumed that sufficient new nuclear plants will be built to offset these retirements.
That wind and solar can produce 20% of the forecast generation requirements. This is the theoretical maximum percentage that the grid can tolerate from wind or any unreliable method for generating electricity.

Electricity shortfall in 2050

Figure IV shows that there will be at least a 24% shortfall in electricity, while Figure V shows that existing NGCC power plants produce virtually all permissible CO2 emissions in 2050. No new NGCC plants can be built. Note that over 600,000 new 1.5 MW wind turbines (average size of current units) would have to be built.

Eliminating the 24% shortfall would require building over 300 new nuclear or Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), 1,000 MW power plants.

IGCC power plants capture around 80% of CO2, which must then be sequestered underground if CO2 emissions are not to exceed the permissible level in 2050. IGCC power plants cost about the same as nuclear power plants.

It should be noted that around 20,000 miles of new high pressure (approx.2,000 psi) pipelines must be built to transport the CO2 to where it can be sequestered.

Without building over 300 new nuclear or IGCC 1,000 MW power plants, the 24% shortfall in electricity would require rationing.

Effect without CCS

Figure IV assumes that carbon capture of coal-fired power plants and sequestration is possible. Carbon capture is still experimental and may not work.

Even with carbon capture, the unvarnished truth is that sequestering 1,640 MMT of CO2 emissions from power plants underground, every year for centuries, and expecting them to remain there for thousands of years without leakage of CO2 back into the atmosphere is unproven and probably not possible.

Without sequestration, the permissible level of CO2 emissions in 2050 would require eliminating all coal fired power plants, including IGCC plants.

Eliminating all coal-fired power plants would result in an over 40% shortfall in electricity and a need to nearly double the number of nuclear power plants that would have to be built.

Without building 500 or more new nuclear power plants, electricity would be in very short supply and the economy would be crippled.

Conclusion for Electricity Generating Segment

It may not be theoretically impossible to cut CO2 emissions from this segment by 80%, but it’s impractical and virtually impossible. And we must still cut CO2 emissions from the use of gasoline and from the other segments of the economy that produce CO2 emissions, such as trucks, railroads, airplanes, heating of homes and industry.

It’s really a fool’s errand to attempt to cut CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.

The next article will examine whether CO2 emissions from gasoline can be cut 80% by 2050.

Notes:

MMT = million metric tons

Additional information is in Carbon Folly available at Amazon. It contains actual emission data for 2004.

Who Knew? Contraceptives Will Aid Bogus ‘Global Warming Crisis’ It’s amazing how liberals can, with a straight face, rationalize…
Obama’s Gas-Powered War On Coal With the increasingly likelihood that Obama’s health care law will…

Video: Ashley Judd Is An Air-headed Obama Sycophant

Floyd Brown — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:43:52 +0000

Ashley Judd just had her TV show “Missing” canceled by ABC. It won’t be back next season. So she is out pimping herself for a new show by showing her devotion to left-wing politics. Devotion to the left is how you land on the fast track in Hollywood. I doubt it will help. Her problem is age. Even with her defense of Obama, it will be hard to overcome the lines and sags of age.

More Of USA Money Headed Overseas The Federal Reserve, along with the 17 euro zone national…
Headed For A Photo Finish In Iowa The Republican caucus in Iowa is headed for a photo…

Watch the Video and Comment: Video: Ashley Judd Is An Air-headed Obama Sycophant

Obama Is A Spendthrift— And Here’s The Proof

Breaking News — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:33:55 +0000

Budget: You wouldn’t think that, after adding $5 trillion to the U.S.’ debt, President Obama would seriously claim he’s a fiscal hawk. But thanks to a misleading article on CBS’ MarketWatch site, that’s just what he’s doing.

‘Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years,” Obama said on Wednesday. “Think about that.”

Obama didn’t turn to his own Office of Management and Budget to support this fact, or even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Instead, he went to a CBS MarketWatch column by Rex Nutting, which claims spending under Obama has risen by an average of just 1.4%.

“Federal spending,” he wrote, “is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.”

Warren Buffett And Newspapers: Infatuation Or Cold Calculation?

Breaking News — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:28:17 +0000

“For most newspapers in the United states, we would not buy them at any price,” -Warren Buffett in 2009.

“I’ve loved newspapers all my life — and always will…. Berkshire will probably purchase more papers in the next few years.” -Warren Buffett in 2012.

Will the real Warren Buffett please stand up? Is the Sage of Omaha a sentimentalist or a skeptic when it comes to newspapers?

Yes.

That the Berkshire Hathaway CEO has a particular soft spot in his heart for the medium has been clear since he picked up his hometown paper, the Omaha World-Herald, last fall, a purchase many wrote off as a charitable act.

Video: Ad Targeting Catholics A Winner

Floyd Brown — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:24:45 +0000

Every campaign has a key group that will decide the outcome. This year, the demographic is Catholics, especially Hispanic Catholics. Now a group has put together an ad every Catholic voter must see. It asks a simple question: “Will you vote the values that will stand the test of fire? Some things are more important than high gas prices or a faltering economy. They are life, marriage, and freedom.” The message is clear: “This November, Catholics must stand up and protect their sacred rights and duties.”

Polls Saying Catholics Side With Obama In Mandate Are Not Fooling “CINO” Democrats A poll taken Feb 1 – 5 shows that by…
New Evidence That Catholics Could Seal Obama’s Doom This November Since such records have been kept, no Democrat presidential candidate…

Watch the Video and Comment: Video: Ad Targeting Catholics A Winner

Romney And Obama In A Dead Heat

Breaking News — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:14:27 +0000

This week, ccAdvertising polled the popularity of presidential candidate Mitt Romney against incumbent President Barack Obama. The survey ran on May 20-22, 2012. 11,734 people participated in the survey. The following chart shows the support for each candidate:

Demographically, of all respondents who participated in surveys conducted May 20-22:

38.00% are Republican.
33.91% are Democrat.
28.09% are Independent.
36.65% are less likely to support President Barack Obama because of his support of same-sex marriage.
34.87% are more likely to support President Barack Obama because of his support of same-sex marriage.
28.48% have no opinion on President Barack Obama’s support of same-sex marriage.
42.08% have a favorable opinion of Mitt Romney.
45.88% have a favorable opinion of President Barack Obama.
30.13% are supporters of the Tea Party.
82.59% are concerned about the high price of gasoline.
59.07% feel that the national news media wants Barack Obama to win the presidency.
42.43% feel that they are better off now than they were four years ago.
77.05% are anti-tax.
43.37% believe that the government is trying to take away their religious freedoms.
60.65% are pro-life.
57.89% are traditional marriage supporters.
61.29% support gun owners’ rights.
48.38% use Facebook.
11.14% use Twitter.
44.31% are male.
65.12% are 50 years of age or older.

Dead Heat In Florida Mitt Romney has stopped the bleeding and Newt Gingrich appears to have…
Bill Maher Performs “Un-baptism” Of Mitt Romney’s Dead Father-in-law Bill Maher, the host of HBO’s “Real Time,” has a…

“Let Us Make A Name For Ourselves”

Kevin Probst — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:12:03 +0000

In the generations that followed the Great Flood, there was a tower built in the land between the rivers, the land of Shinar, perhaps better known as Mesapotamia. This was the Cradle of Civilization, located between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in the area of modern day Iraq. It was there that men became quite advanced. Hebrews Chapter 11 reveals the hope of Abraham. He was looking forward to a city “whose architect and builder is God.” But men became impatient waiting for the city God would build, so they took upon themselves the task of building a city. It would be a city built, not to bring glory to God, but to satisfy the desires of the human flesh.

“Let us make a name for ourselves“, they said. Has that not been the theme of man down through the ages? I walked into our new multi-million dollar public library in Columbus, Georgia recently. Near the entrance, I saw a plaque with the names of major contributors to this community structure. It is fundamental to a race of fallen men to have an urge to “make a name for ourselves.” It is the basic tenet of humanism; stealing glory from God and elevating man.

The Tower of Babel was a religious tower. The purpose of its construction was to reach God. But their motive was corrupted by their desire to make a name for themselves. There is a corner stone on many churches I’ve seen. “Erected in the year ________, to God be glory”. As the years pass, the glory of God fades from the institution while the centrality of man emerges. In a God-centered church, the purpose of music is to bring glory to God; in a humanistic church, the purpose of music is to entertain people. A God-centered church has a God-centered pastor whose primary goal is to preach for the glory of God. A humanistic church wallows in spiritually shallow waters with a pastor who is often humorous and can entertain people with catchy quotes and funny stories.

Humanism has so invaded our culture that God has been relegated to a back burner. We are not atheistic; atheism leads to a despair that few can endure for any length of time. Many in the American culture are more interested in calling the shots when it comes to God. God is placed on a shelf to be reached for at our own convenience. Our “don’t call us, we’ll call you” attitude toward God indicates that we think ourselves more important than he. The words of the Psalmist are foreign and confusing to us, “As the deer pants for the water brooks, so my soul pants for You, O God.” Our callings to God are now limited to 911 calls. We have little thirst for God, but we are quick to pull him off the shelf if we are experiencing a crisis in our lives.

I have read recently of three people in the state of Georgia who are suffering from an infection called Necrotizing fasciitis. One of those is Aimee Copeland, who has had one leg amputated at the hip and her fingers removed in an attempt to save her life. This is a horrifying disease for which there is no cure. Humanism has infected our culture and the church like a flesh eating disease. The spirit of the church is being consumed by a philosophy that makes the happiness of man a priority and conveniently ignores the glory of God.

Liberalism in the church flowered in the mid-1800′s. Charles Darwin explained away the role of God in creation. Humanist philosophers taught that the chief end of man’s existence was his own happiness. Religious liberals embraced the cancer of humanism when they declared their uncertainty about the existence of God, heaven, or hell. Their disbelief made it impossible for them to offer any hope beyond our earthly existence, so they began to address the happiness of man in this world. They offered a watered- down version of Christianity that focused on the happiness of man in this life. The doctrines of sin, eternal life, and hell were avoided, and the focus was on “Your Best Life Now.”

A movement arose in answer to the liberals of that day, and they called themselves fundamentalists. But humanism is not selective in its choice of victims, and fundamentalism also became a victim of the deadly virus of humanism. Fundamentalists grew as a conservative movement because of their common beliefs in holding to the traditional teachings of the word of God. They defined themselves as those who believe in the divinity of Christ, the creation, the holiness of God, and the authenticity of the Bible. If you believed in this list of essentials, you were labeled a conservative fundamentalist.

In successive generations, fundamentalists began to teach that one might be saved by simply giving mental assent to a list of basic scriptural doctrines. The measure by which one became a Christian was not the confessing of sin and experiencing a Holy Spirit-induced soul cleansing. The evidence of one’s Christianity was a simple vocal affirmative to a few basic questions regarding the nature of God. A radical change in one’s lifestyle was no longer associated with true Christianity. A card-carrying Christian was no longer expected to demonstrate righteous living or freedom from the bondage of sin. Experiential Christianity was thrown out the door in favor of a simple “I believe.”

Liberalism set about focusing on this life instead of the next life. The assortment of social programs developed to improve the lives of the masses are too numerous to mention. Great declarations were made about eliminating poverty, drugs, and war. But their utopian goal was shattered when the First World War erupted and men set about to destroy one another. The War to End All Wars was followed by another horrendous war, and men began to question the idea that the heart of man is essentially good. Then men proved how short their memories are, and liberalism made another great comeback. L.B. Johnson declared his War on Poverty. The flower children of the 1960′s demanded the end to all war. Liberalism continues its march through the modern age. Al Gore seems nearly insane and certainly delusional in his attempt to create a better earth. Our first lady is strongly dedicated to manipulating the diets of our children.

The liberal says that man must be made happy while he lives on this earth. The fundamentalist says that man must be made happy in the afterlife. Both have succumbed to the primary teaching of humanism: the happiness of man. When a fundamentalist preacher declares that a person ought to accept Christ so that he can escape the fires of hell, or so he can live in eternal bliss, is he not focusing on the humanistic idea of the happiness of man? Should men not accept Christ because he “deserves to receive the reward of his suffering“?

Christ did not walk away from the glorious splendor of heaven and submit to the humility of humanity solely to make us happy. Christ did not drag his cross to Golgotha and allow the Romans to pierce his hands with spikes and his side with a sword only to make us happy. Believing that or preaching that is replacing God with man as the central purpose of our salvation. Does this not border on blasphemy? Did Christ not go to the cross and die for men because it was the only way men might be saved and thus bring glory to God? It wasn’t so much about saving us from hell or making us happy in heaven; it was all about bring glory to God.

How many today get saved as a way of making a deal with God? It is true that salvation comes with benefits, but the benefits are a byproduct. Modern-day ministers will one day be accountable for the steady stream of lies that come from their pulpits. We are no longer being told that sin corrupts the soul. We are no longer told that the grace of God can bring deliverance to hungry hearts. Instead, we are being fed a steady stream of heresy. We are being told that if we accept Christ, He will make us millionaires, He will cure our diseases, and He will dedicate himself to our happiness. We are being sold a bill of goods.

Humanism teaches us to look for human solutions to human problems. We are the most over-medicated society in history. We run to counselors instead of running to Christ. We read self-help books written by pop-psychologists instead of turning to the word of God. If we would only turn to the right source, we could find a cure to alcoholism, to drug addiction, to sex addiction, and to dysfunctional families. But all of this is frosting on the cake. The true motive for submitting to Christ should not be “to make a name for ourselves” or for our own happiness; it should be because doing so is the only possible way an earthly soul can bring glory to a deserving God.

Photo credit: biblevector (Creative Commons)

Congressional Attempts To Make Obama A Legal POTUS The following video will explain how corrupt our government officials…
When Racism Doesn’t Make News Like most people, when I read the trial-by-media reports of…

Video: Obama Saved General Motors For The Red Chinese

Floyd Brown — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:04:17 +0000

This short documentary explains the details of how the US taxpayer rescued GM so it could become a subsidiary or partner of the red Chinese Communists. Americans are struggling to find work because the US Government is so busy helping big multinational businesses. This is why it is never appropriate for government to bail out any company. Help us make sure every voter sees this video before November.

No related posts.

Watch the Video and Comment: Video: Obama Saved General Motors For The Red Chinese

Led By Walker, Republicans Winning Wisconsin Ad Spending Battle

Breaking News — Fri, 25 May 2012 16:55:14 +0000

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and his Republican allies have outspent Democrat Tom Barrett and supportive groups more than 3-1 on TV ad buys during the three months leading up to the June 5 recall election, according to a Hotline On Call analysis.

Walker’s campaign, which has raised a record $25 million+ for the recall campaign, spent over $7 million for TV buys from March 20 through Election Day, according to a source tracking ad buys in the state. In anticipation of the recall, the governor has been on the air since last December, with spots touting his record, including his controversial budget repair bill curbing collective bargaining for public employees. In total, Walker’s campaign has spent over $12 million on recall election campaign ads.

Barrett entered the race at the end of March, and his fundraising has been dwarfed by Walker, who had months to raise unlimited money due to a state campaign finance law regulating recall elections. But the Democrat doubled his total ad buy last week, going from about $340,000 to about $670,000. And while Republican outside groups made a big early mark, Democratic groups including Greater Wisconsin have also ramped up buys lately, dedicating over a million dollars to airtime in the week leading up to Memorial Day. While Republicans have spent significantly more overall, Democrats are trying to narrow the gap during the closing stage of the campaign.

The Democratic Governors Association and the Republican Governors Association have each poured in millions, but the RGA’s spending has roughly doubled that of its Democratic counterpart. Through Right Direction Wisconsin, the RGA has spent over $6 million on the race. The DGA has spent over $3 million via Greater Wisconsin, on TV and other outreach. The RGA has a lot more money to spend; it outraised the DGA more than 2-1 in 2011.

Labor has been an active presence in the race, but not all of its money has been directly aimed at Walker. During the primary, public sector unions largely lined up behind the candidacy of Kathleen Falk, who lost to Barrett. A labor-heavy pro-Falk group spent over $4 million during the Democratic primary.

Read More at nationaljournal.com. By Sean Sullivan.

‘Recall Walker’ Campaign Overshadows Wisconsin Presidential Battle With all the lawn signs and ads on the airwaves,…
Analysis Finds Walker Saved Wisconsin’s Taxpayers Big MADISON — While a lightning rod for controversy and recall,…

Google Trends Show Why Status Quo Should Be Scared

Breaking News — Fri, 25 May 2012 16:43:28 +0000

The volume of searches for the phrase ‘Bank Run’ has just hit an all-time high – higher now than even during the peak of the Lehman Brothers ‘moment’. While English dominates the language choices, the Europeans (Dutch, Germans, and French) are extremely ‘interested’ as are the Chinese…but it appears the Singaporeans are running the most scared (as we noted here) is perhaps not surprising, followed by the Irish and the Americans – with Germany a disappointing 10th – perhaps they really do not care as much as everyone’s bluff-calling hopes.

Read More at zerohedge.com By Tyler Durden.

Today Show Continues Trek To Discover Obama’s Global Appeal Picking up from Al Roker’s puffery…
Are The News Media Scared Of ACORN By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown “Is ACORN Intentionally Structured…

Rubio: Pentagon ‘Wrong’ To Give Bin Laden Filmmaker Access

Breaking News — Fri, 25 May 2012 16:34:53 +0000

Senator Marco Rubio criticized the Obama administration for cooperating with a Hollywood moviemaker on a film about the top-secret Navy unit that killed Osama bin Laden, warning such actions could “impact the ability to carry out similar operations in the future.”
It was “wrong” and “part of a troubling trend of chest- thumping” on the part of the administration, Rubio said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. The 40-year-old Florida Republican sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The Pentagon’s top intelligence official, Michael Vickers, met with Oscar-winning director Kathryn Bigelow and divulged the name of the typically secret Navy commando unit known as SEAL Team Six, according to a transcript of the July 15 meeting released May 22 by Judicial Watch, a Washington-based legal organization. The meeting, sanctioned by the White House, came after then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates and then-Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen urged military officials to stop talking about the May 2, 2011 raid on bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan.

‘Most Divisive’

In the interview, Rubio chastised Barack Obama on a number of issues and reiterated a charge that the president is more divisive than former Republican President Richard Nixon, who resigned under the threat of impeachment for his administration’s involvement in the Watergate break-in scandal.

On immigration, Rubio is crafting an alternative to a bill known as the DREAM Act that would grant a pathway to citizenship for military veterans and allow some students to stay and work legally on non-immigrant visas. A DREAM Act measure backed by Obama and most Democrats that would have given some students brought to the U.S. as children a path to citizenship was blocked by Republican congressional leaders.

New Black Panther Field Marshal: Whites ‘Should Be Thankful We’re Not Hanging Crackers By Nooses…Yet,Yet,Yet’

Breaking News — Fri, 25 May 2012 16:15:41 +0000

According to National Field Marshal for the New Black Panthers King Samir Shabazz:

“I love white-on white-crime, because that is the best crime.”

“I hate the g*ddamn white man, woman, and child, grandma, aunt, uncle, Pappa Billy Bob, and whoever else.”

“You should be thankful we’re not running around here hanging crackers by nooses and all that kind of stuff — yet, yet, yet”

He has a “wet dream about killing the g*ddamn cracker.”

“We don’t allow faggots and lesbians” in the New Black Panther Army.

Washington Wages War Against Your Due Process Rights

Doug Book — Thu, 24 May 2012 18:21:41 +0000

Before the dust began to settle around New York City’s twin towers, Washington’s political elites were contemplating the benefits in sheer legislative power a terror attack of such magnitude could bestow upon the benevolent despots of Capitol Hill.

In a secretly recorded 1992 address to the Bilderberg Organization, Henry Kissinger made this statement: “Today’s Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened [their] very existence.” Though Kissinger was speaking to potential domination by a world ruling order, his message can be readily applied to the United States alone where “individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of [the people’s] well-being, granted to them by their…government.”

Since 9/11, the American people have faced the prospect of another attack, one potentially far more deadly than that which transformed New York. And the federal government has taken advantage of the accompanying fear and uncertainty–both “real and promulgated”–to create legislation devoid of any regard for the Constitutional rights of American citizens.

From the Patriot Act with its massive expansion of governmental authority to gather information to the threat of indefinite incarceration of American citizens by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Congress has initiated an endless assault on the freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights. The exchange of news and ideas has been imperiled by numerous legislative attempts to control the free flow of information on the World Wide Web. A bill was introduced in the United States Senate threatening the forced expatriation of anyone believed to be a supporter of terrorism. The Senate has already passed a measure that “…allows the federal government to revoke the passports of anyone accused of owing back taxes.” And New York Senator Charles Schumer has introduced legislation designed to prevent anyone removing their wealth from the United States unless the IRS receives a healthy cut of it first.

Each of these laws and prospective laws represents a direct attack on due process rights, the “…legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person…” For it is a common theme in each statute that accusation alone is sufficient to warrant the prescribed penalty. No proof of guilt is required; no charge or indictment need be presented. There is no right to a fair and public trial, no right to an impartial jury, no right to appear in or even present a defense, and of course, there is no right to bail.

Without the guarantee of due process, groups and individuals are easy prey for the almost limitless power of the state. And that is the goal of a clear majority of legislators–to allow the government to punish or rid itself of those who disapprove of its laws and methods without the cumbersome, Constitutional requirement of having to prove actual guilt.

Corrupt, power-hungry politicians predictably claim each new assault on liberty to be necessary for the safety and security of the American people. But contrary to Kissinger’s promise of a “grateful” and “willing” public, Americans have not meekly relinquished their rights to the state. Countless lawsuits have succeeded in overturning large portions of offending statutes while the internet and many media organizations have exposed the unconstitutional nature of others. And Americans across the country have armed themselves as they have at no other time in our history.

D.C. criminals will continue the attack on freedom until they are stopped for good. And that day may come far more quickly and decisively than any of their ilk could imagine.

Photo credit: Jessie Owen (Creative Commons)

The Real Truth About The Economy: Have Wages Stagnated? Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor Robert Reich is a hero…
Obama Civil Rights Commission To Investigate Whether States Are Violating Illegal Immigrants’ Rights Only in the Obama administration does it make sense to…