Book of Oppositions | Pocket Full of Mumbles |


This world is one big game of "Go"-- Black against White, Light against Darkness --and we all have a choice to make: Do we war FOR the Light?

...or against it?

Ridiculous Headline of the Day:

"Critics worry atom smashing could lead to Armageddon"

The critics are ignorant. "Armageddon" is a specific place, at a specific time. Atom smashing may lead to something, but I'd have to see 'the six degrees of Kevin Bacon' on it to take this headline seriously.

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 10:34 AM, ,

Of Dogs & Fleas, Judgments & Lamentations

Remember, O LORD, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach. Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens. We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers are as widows. We have drunken our water for money; our wood is sold unto us. Our necks are under persecution: we labour, and have no rest. We have given the hand to the Egyptians, and to the Assyrians, to be satisfied with bread. Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities. Servants have ruled over us: there is none that doth deliver us out of their hand. We gat our bread with the peril of our lives because of the sword of the wilderness. Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine. They ravished the women in Zion, and the maids in the cities of Judah. Princes are hanged up by their hand: the faces of elders were not honoured. They took the young men to grind, and the children fell under the wood. The elders have ceased from the gate, the young men from their musick. The joy of our heart is ceased; our dance is turned into mourning. The crown is fallen from our head: woe unto us, that we have sinned! For this our heart is faint; for these things our eyes are dim. Because of the mountain of Zion, which is desolate, the foxes walk upon it. Thou, O LORD, remainest for ever; thy throne from generation to generation. Wherefore dost thou forget us for ever, and forsake us so long time? Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old.

Lamentations 5:1-21

California is beset by wildfires; extraordinarily so. The Midwest by flooding and tornadoes, the Southwest and Southeast as well. Natural disasters abound.

California has also begun to allow homosexual marriage, which is a perversion of God's natural order; a decision hailed by many as a good thing...

...who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them...

Romans 1:32

While those who oppose such are mocked.

The price of oil continues to climb, and Democrats don't care. They do not care how high the price of gasoline gets because they see in this a path to greater political power... which does nothing to feed the hungry who can no longer afford to drive to work, much less buy food.

Does God still judge nations? How would he do it?

How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger! The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations of Jacob, and hath not pitied: he hath thrown down in his wrath the strong holds of the daughter of Judah; he hath brought them down to the ground: he hath polluted the kingdom and the princes thereof. He hath cut off in his fierce anger all the horn of Israel: he hath drawn back his right hand from before the enemy, and he burned against Jacob like a flaming fire, which devoureth round about.

Lamentations 2:1-3

If He did it once, would He not do it again? If He drew back His hedge of protection from Israel, how much more so America? Did God hold back His protection on 9.11? Katrina? The Myriad of tornadoes, floods, and wildfires? What about AIDS?

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:27

"Lie down with dogs and come up with fleas?"

Why is it so difficult for those who claim a belief in God to also believe that God is judging this nation, and that it's likely to get worse? You can safely bet your last dollar that if gas reaches 6-8 dollars a gallon that everything else will become that much more difficult to obtain: food, housing, energy, medical treatment... everything.

I guess it's easier to ridicule men like Falwell, Parsley, and Hagee for declaring these many events and circumstances are the chastisements of God, than it is to repent and turn again to God and His precepts.

This fall we will all stand at a crossroads. Will we elect a man whose policies reek of Marxism? Whose past votes reveal him to be a man devoid of any compassion for the unborn? When God decides to chastise a nation He raises up weak leaders, and the only thing strong about Obama is his rhetoric and his desire to move this country further away from God.

How many who call themselves Christians will stand against the evils men like Obama want to spread. Is there anyone out there with eyes open? Can anyone see what is happening here?

Or am I all alone in this?

Will this be our lament?

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the LORD'S song in a strange land?

Psalm 137:1-4

It is true we are strangers in a strange land, but when the land becomes even stranger to those who believe in God? Even in the midst of judgment the LORD will not forsake the righteous.

I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread. He is ever merciful, and lendeth; and his seed is blessed. Depart from evil, and do good; and dwell for evermore. For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off. The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever. The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment. The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide. The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.

Psalm 37:25-32

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 11:17 PM, ,

Ms Green Recently Lamented Disingenuousness...

...and I don't disagree with her. But what about Indifference? Is it not just as damning?

What's the old saying?

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing?

In Ms. Green's most recent post, Who are the Real Haters? Part 2, there is a link to an Agape Press article entitled, Homosexual Activists' War Against Christianity, in which "Michael Swift" first declared in the February 1987 issue of Gay Community News:

We shall sodomize your sons .... We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together... All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked .... [W]e shall make films about the love between heroic men .... The family unit -- spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence -- will be abolished .... All churches who condemn us will be closed.

The article clearly shows how much of a "beachhead" the enemy has already made against the standards of Godly morals in America. But to threaten churches with their tax-exempt status? So what. Jesus said "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's." I'd prefer my church willingly surrender its tax-exempt status so that our pastor could freely speak out against specific candidates from the pulpit. This way if the Gay & Lesbian movement ever caught wind of our church's stand against the Homosexual lifestyle they could cry all day long and not constrain us or stop us one. Besides which, this whole notion of "tax-exempt status" is simply a leash the government uses to ensure the religious right stays "in the yard."

Well, sorry! Jesus commanded us to go into ALL THE WORLD... not just the governmental yard, under the government's rules, and its less than benevolent and watchful eye. Convicts in prison have THAT much. But "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" is what Jesus said. He did NOT say 'render unto Caesar the thing's which are mine...'

I welcome the revocation of my church's tax-exempt status. In my best George W. Bush imitation... "Bring it on!"

The only real danger then is, as the article points out, a showdown between the 1st Amendment and some nefarious and nebulous law establishing a protected class of citizenry based solely on sexual preference [not orientation]. And the only way we can lose that fight is if we allow, through inaction or indifference, the election of men like Barack Obama. For while the Constitution and its Amendments supersede "laws"; in that laws do not take precedent over the Constitution, as demonstrated by the recent decision to over-turn D.C.'s gun ban.

I understand Ms Green's reluctance to vote McCain, just as I understand TugboatCapn's reluctance. But when you consider that had Gore been successful in stealing the '00 election, and were it not for George W. Bush's appointment's of Roberts and Alito, we would have lost yesterday our 2nd Amendment right to possess and bear arms.

McCain is no prince of a conservative, but Barack Hussein Obama...? To allow him the presidency through inaction, or indifference [there's that word again!], or just plain 'ole down to earth disgust with the Republican party and its candidate, you allow Barack Obama to appoint judges and inJustices that will hasten the defeat of Christian morality in America.

It is easier to keep a ship from running aground than it is to drag it off the sandbar. It would have been easier by far to appoint judges that would NOT have discovered a Constitutional right to an abortion in 1973, than to overturn Roe v Wade in all the 35 years that have since followed.

If we allow Obama to appoint judges like the ones he currently admires on the U.S. Supreme Court we are, in effect, giving the victory to the Homosexual agenda.

And this is just ONE issue. Consider all the other issues the Supremes have decided recently, and imagine as well all the issues that COULD come up in the next eight years. What happens if Obama stacks 3 more Liberal inJustices on the Supreme Court before the end of his second term?

I fear for my country. But I fear for my freedom to openly worship God more. I don't like McCain, but I like the threat of an Obama presidency far, far less.

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 11:26 PM, ,

American Leftist Justices:

Back-Door Muhammadan Pedophiles?

Saudi Arabian Marriage Officiant Said Marriage To One-Year-Old Girl Is Legal

That's right, it is now legal in Saudi Arabia and, realistically, throughout the Muslim world, to marry a girl when she is only one-year old.

Marriage is actually two things: First we are talking about the marriage contract itself. This is one thing, while consummating the marriage-– having sex with the wife for the first time -–is another thing.

There is no minimal age for entering marriage. You can have a marriage contract even with a 1-year-old girl, not to mention a girl of 9, 7, or 8. This is merely a contract [indicating] consent. The guardian in such a case must be the father, because the father's opinion is obligatory. Thus, the girl becomes a wife.

The Prophet Muhammad is the model we follow. He took 'Aisha to be his wife when she was 6, but he had sex with her only when she was 9.

--Ahmad Al-Mu'bi, officiant for marriages from Saudi Arabia

WOW! Marry your neighbor's one-year old daughter, and in eight short years you can have sex with her!? In America you can also have sex with a nine-year old, and thanks to five intellectually deficient inJustices you won't even have to pay the ultimate price for it. But don't do it in Louisiana. Governor Jindal will have you chemically castrated.

Makes me wonder about Liberals when they can so casually condone, by virtue of not punishing, pedophiles. Really makes me wonder.

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 8:38 PM, ,

And God said to Adam, "Here is a line, do not cross it."

He stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground a line, straight and unambiguous. "You may go as far and wide as you wish, Adam-- I have given you dominion over the entire earth. But you may not cross this line."

"Why, Father? Why can I not go beyond the line you have drawn?"

"It should be enough that I have said you may not. But obey me in this or it will mean your death."

God created Eve for Adam. No doubt. And this was God's perfect will-- before 'The Fall' --before that straight and unambiguous line was crossed. But God is in the restoration business. This sinful world will be restored to Eden's pristine perfection... one day. How do I know this? Shake the dust off your Bible-- God's word. It's in there.

Marriage was the perfect relationship between ONE man and ONE woman, and until God allows us BACK across the line He drew, all our relationships are distorted... perverted... NOT perfect. Including human relationships. Especially human sexuality. All relationships 'between perfections' are flawed. Some more than others.

Homosexual relationships, for example. It is the antithesis of pristine. Why? Because it has its genesis on the other side of the line God drew. Heterosexual marriage, though flawed this side of the line, still has its origin in the mind of God on the other side of the line-- the side we are all longing to see and experience; made possible ONLY by the shed blood of God Himself.

The price of crossing the line God stooped down to write with his finger? To witness God Himself kill and skin some creature that Adam and Eve might be clothed. Their nakedness cost the life of an innocent, and eventually their own. Homosexuality cost the life of an innocent. Jesus paid for that sin. But sin it is, if for no other reason that it is the product of perversion-- a perversion of the pristine.

If what is on OUR side of the line were acceptable to God, He would not have had to kill an innocent lamb [if lamb it was] to clothe Adam and Eve's nakedness. If what is on OUR side of the line were acceptable to God, He would not have had to clothe HIMSELF in human flesh to die an innocent lamb, to erase the line that separates us from our loving Father Creator.

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 7:34 PM, ,

The Man I Would Vote For...

Were it not that Barack Obama is a Most Dangerous Man.

Mr. Alan Keyes

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 8:25 PM, ,

The New Bigotry of Age-Old Faith

If you believe God made man for woman, and woman for man, and that this heterosexual model is His perfect design and plan for the sexes you just may be a bigot. If the thought of men marrying men, and women marrying women makes you-- at the very least --cringe, chances are you're a bigot. If the sight of men kissing men, and women kissing women makes you turn your head in revulsion, you're definitely a bigot. At least that's what a great deal of Progressive Liberals, and Homosexual Rights advocates, believe. They may not always frame it in just that way, but if you're against homosexual marriage, to them you are a bigot. And if that source of bigotry comes from the faith you have in God, then your faith espouses bigotry.

Not once did Jesus speak about homosexuality being wrong. Not once that's recorded in the Gospels. Paul may have spoken against it, but the language is obscure... unclear. Leviticus speaks of men laying with men as being an 'abomination' and deserving of death, but if we're to condemn such today for homosexuality, we have to condemn and stone unruly children as well-- and all who eat shellfish. The sin of Sodom? It was their lack of charity toward the poor and the widow, and their lack of hospitality to strangers.

But what does the Bible have to say about homosexuality? The very word is nonexistent in the text of the Bible, except in a few newer translations, but those are suspect in "other areas" of doctrine, and cannot therefore be considered reliable as a whole. But the good ole King James has no such word in its entire text. That being said, what does the Bible infer about homosexuality?

Genesis 1:27 says this about Man's beginning--

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Why differentiate between 'him' and 'them'? I'll hazard a guess and say that Adam, the first created human being, was a 'him.' But Adam and Eve together, each equally 'Man' [the term being, as it is used, non-gender], and being more than one, they constituted a 'them'. Simplistic, I know, but my point is this, God created male and female for a purpose... for procreation. To subdue and fill the earth through child-bearing [vs. 28]. THAT was God's plan for Man; male and female.

Homosexuality defeats that purpose as no man could ever impregnate another man, let alone that a woman could impregnate another woman. It's simply not possible.

I therefore offer into evidence against Homosexuality and Gay Marriage, Genesis 1:27-28.

Supplemental and complimentary to Genesis 1:27-28 is Genesis 2:23-24, which states--

Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Please note that nowhere in subsequent passages does God correct Adam. Adam has correctly identified God's perfect will towards sexuality and marriage-- One Man for One Woman, and vice versa. And solely within the confines of Marriage.

But the California Supreme Court has just ruled contrary to God's law. In affect, forcing the rest of the nation to recognize an aberrant lifestyle, and its mockery of God's perfect design, as "normal".

Well, homosexuality is NOT normal. If it were, it would account for a much higher incidence among the population than its current 3-5 percent [and that's being very very generous]. It is an 'anomaly' at best. And NOT ordained by God, whatever the state of California might have to say.


This is just exhibit "A". More posts to follow under the ripped-off, though altered, title, "The Bible, and Homosexuality"

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 11:10 PM, ,

From the Side, Not the Heel...

I found it curious that Dan's most recent post so closely mirrored the theme of my pastor's Father's Day message. Speaking on the loss of respect for Fatherhood, my brother and pastor went back to the beginning and outlined the roles God intended for Man, and the roles He ultimately felt obliged to establish. That is, I mean to say, what IS is not what God wanted or intended. What I found curious was that many of the verses Dan used in his post my pastor also used in his sermon, albeit with an altogether different conclusion. And one, I might add, that wasn't the least bit "sexist."

When I discovered Dan's post, Is the Bible Sexist? Is God?, the comment count was at 40 and I had no desire to wade through all them all. I wanted to offer my two-cents but didn't want to "clutter [Dan's] comments with points that may already have been dragged out and savaged by verbose men." As you may surmise, I chose instead to send Dan my own thoughts via email, adapted from the gist of my pastor's sermon.

What follows is what followed...

In light of Paul's admonition that women keep silent, it's more complicated than mere "sexism," which I believe is misnamed. Insisting that she no longer make autonomous decisions is not sexist, but the action [to my mind at least] of a just and loving God.

You have to go back to Genesis.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

--Genesis 1:26-27

God created Man male and female, but equally "Man." God did not put Adam over Eve, nor Eve over Adam. They were equal. A colloquialism that illustrates this: God didn't make Eve from Adam's heel so he could walk over her as he chose, but He made Eve from Adam's rib; taken from his side that they might walk as equals, side by side. That is until Eve chose to strike out on her own and make decisions independent of her husband Adam... and God.

God was forced to pronounce His judgment....

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

--Genesis 3:16

But why? Why did God put Adam, who was before the fall Eve's equal, over her after the fall?

"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

--I Timothy 2:13-15

I think it's interesting to note verse 15.... "Notwithstanding....."

She shall be saved in childbearing... perhaps because through childbearing a savior would come.

If they continue in faith.... because only through faith would they and their descendants one day be redeemed through Christ.

I won't debate salvation with you-- we've been down that road. I only offer a reason why women are deemed, in God's eyes, to be subject to their husbands... not inferior. But consider also, Jesus redeemed women just as equally and men. Women are not chattel, but the design is still "The Design"... Marriage places the husband at the head. And despite being the "head," he is just as subject to his wife through the express command of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh."

--Ephesians 5:22-31

They are "One Flesh".... equal in the sight of God. Nonetheless she is subject to her husband.... but neither is she property. As "One Flesh" she is every bit as much his hand, and he is hers. They are equal.

"The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife."

--1 Corinthians 7:4

Perhaps the admonition for her to keep silent in church is because Eve was deceived... rather easily, I might add... but Adam was not. He loved his wife so much that he deliberately sacrificed himself that he might continue to love her and be with her. Much like what Jesus did for us.


There you have it.

Personally, I have a lot of trouble calling the Bible, let alone God, "sexist." If God is holy, then it is impossible for God to be "sexist," which is subjective-- and a very human term. Any word man can devise will fail in accurately describing a single attribute of God. That God put the text of the Bible into the hearts of men to pen and save for all posterity and the edification of Godly men and women only means God recognizes our limits and expresses His love and will to us in terms we can understand.

Overall I think my email response to Dan was incomplete; there was so much more I could have said.

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 8:30 PM, ,

Awaiting Rescue in a Lifeboat or...

...buggered in the wilderness. That's how Hardball Matthews frames the November election.

Chris Matthews seems to desire the promise of Deliverance, and its promissory buggering. I'll take the lifeboat, please. Typical Democrat, that Chris Matthews, pushing the Homosexual Agenda.

The man is an intellectually bankrupt Democrat tool who-- get this --worked in the Carter administration as a speech writer.


I think McCain has the right of it: Obama is campaigning for Carter's second term.

Perhaps Matthews can write malaise-rimed speeches for Obama.

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 10:32 PM, ,

Truer Words....

NEVER believe a Democrat. Remember, this is the "do as I say, not as I do" crowd. They SAY they are champions of the poor, but when it comes to charity, they are as tight-fisted as an old miser. They SAY they want to save the children, but they abort 1.2 million children a year. They SAY they are the party of civil rights, but every piece of legislation ever passed by Democrats has only contributed to the further misery of minorities.

--The Lone Ranger

...Are Rarely Spoken.

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 3:49 PM, ,

New Entry into the Library of Pearls

The Audacity of the Democrats
--by Rocco DiPippo

For those of you without the stomach for a long read, I offer three quotes... Beginning, middle, end.

There was a pre-Lewinsky time, before moral relativism blurred America's vision, when associating with people like Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers would have automatically excluded someone from attaining the highest office in the land. Back then, anyone with well known connections to such America-averse personalities would have been rejected by a super-majority of the electorate during primary season and almost certainly blocked by the Democratic Party before they could have gotten to within a mile of the White House. But those days -- when patriotic, true liberals like Joe Lieberman were considered typical Democratic Party politicians -- are gone. Now politicians like Lieberman are banished to the Party's periphery and leftists, not liberals, like Denis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Jim McDermott, John Kerry, (who served in Vietnam), Jim McGovern, Patrick Leahy, Richard Durbin, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have replaced them.

Until recently in our history, a President Barack Obama would have been an impossibility. But given the political and ideological climate that exists today in America, the ascension of a leftist like Barack Obama into presidential politics makes perfect sense. Beliefs like domestic terrorist William Ayers's and racist, anti-US preacher Jeremiah Wright's are no longer met with utter scorn or a trip to behind the woodshed, but are embraced, promoted and defended by many Americans. Think MoveOn, International ANSWER, think hordes of young neo-communists and their indoctrinating, puppet-master Marx-spouting professors. Think Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill and his acolytes. Think NYU, Columbia, The New School and Harvard. Most importantly, ponder the makeup and direction of the Democratic Party leadership. Like Barack Obama and his radical friends, it is appallingly far Left.

Ideological descendants of Marx and Rousseau now lead the Democratic Party and they have turned it into a disloyal opposition to an increasingly accommodating GOP. They have molded the Party into a force working stridently and unashamedly against a Commander in Chief during wartime. They have made it a den of treachery devoted to American defeat in Iraq. They preside over an institution advised and influenced by moneyed, non-governmental groups and individuals with unquestionably anti-US agendas who help make the Party a pseudo-intellectual sinkhole filled with perverse, tried-and-failed ideas repulsive to the majority of Americans. Those ideas are shaped into agendas which are then forced on the public by an activist leftwing judiciary and by a major media and arts consortium shot through with utter disrespect, indeed contempt, for traditional American values, religions and institutions.

The Democratic Party has devolved into a club for the illegitimately aggrieved, the self-absorbed, the self-hating and the perpetually pissed-off. It is a sanctuary where solipsistic malcontents and their disjointed causes find refuge and support. It has long ceased being an earnest gathering of broad minds where man's timeless problems are examined against the backdrop of the Constitution and solutions to them proposed based on the actual realities of the human condition. It is now the political province of the intellectually deceased, where frightened, lock-step ideologues and other small men and women concoct and promote divisive, destructive, weird and cowardly policies developed within a not-so-quaint, quasi-Marxist stricture of gender, class and race.

So what does all of that have to do with the propulsion of Barack Obama to within a whisker of the Presidency? Everything.

Buoyed by the 2006 election success of their Vietnam-era strategy, Democrat leaders and other leftists began openly calling Iraq an ‘unjust' war, an "unwinnable" war and relying on the short memories of most Americans to hide the fact that many prominent Democrats had actually voted to authorize it. Jesse Macbeth, Jimmy Massey, Scott Beauchamp and other antiwar frauds who admitted faking tales of atrocities committed by US soldiers were praised by the press and the Democrats as heroic dissenters against the evil Bush war machine, their false tales of butchery and bloodlust spread far and wide. Widespread, positive coverage was given to antiwar, anti-American, pro-terrorist activists like Cindy Sheehan, who was sanctimoniously christened America's "Peace Mom" by leading Democrats and the leftwing media, while true American heroes, patriots like Paul R. Smith and Jason L. Dunham, both Medal of Honor winners, both killed in the act of protecting America from her enemies, received virtual media silence for their heroism and sacrifice and little public acknowledgment from Democrat politicians.

The press and the Democrats did however publicly acknowledge American soldiers when they were killed, when they spun tales of atrocities, when they groused or when they returned home and fell through the cracks. They wanted Americans to be ashamed of their soldiers, to be ashamed of the Commander-in-Chief, to be ashamed of America itself. They needed America on its knees -- disillusioned, angry at its leaders and their policies -- hopeless, sick of hearing about the war and demoralized because then, out of desperation, they would naturally look to Democratic politicians for relief.

The technique of creating discontent and "talking all things Bush down" paid big dividends for the Democrats in 2006. Devoid of credible ideas and solutions, they had nevertheless worked a strategy leading to the re-acquisition of at least some of the political power they had lost during their wilderness years after the Reagan Revolution. The 2006 election confirmed the effectiveness of their "destroy Bush" election strategy. And so the Democratic Party's attacks on Bush and the Republicans increased to a ferocious level, even as Iraq turned a corner towards security and political stability.

When to the Party's dismay the Bush troop surge took hold and the situation in Iraq began improving, the Democrats' defeatist rhetoric reached a desperate, farcical crescendo: "The war is lost," (even though objective measurements indicated that it was being won) crowed many Democrats, including prominent ones like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry and Barack Obama. Prominent Democrat John Murtha publicly tried and convicted US Marines involved in the Haditha incident before those Marines even went to trial. "Bush lied us into war" became the catch-phrase of almost the entire Democratic Party leadership, even though before the war had commenced many of those same Democrats had access to the same information that the Bush Administration used to justify it.

Power at any cost indeed, even at the defeat and humiliation of one's own country.

It is no wonder the American electorate has slipped into a foul mood -- little wonder why it seems that its heart is not in the fight against the totalitarian theocrats who threaten it. For seven years Americans have been pounded with messages that their country and its leaders are unjust, warmongering, and evil and hated by all -- it deserves whatever evil it gets.

America now has serious doubts about itself. Its citizens have been pummeled with those terrible messages for so long now, that many of them believe them to be true. They are vulnerable to the Democratic Party's sudden mantra of Hope and Change and Progress. In a nutshell, here are the mechanics of the crude, hate-based initiative the Democratic Party and its media wing have forced on America since 2001:

1) Invent, inflate, and over-report bad war news. Tie all bad news to Bush and/or Republicans. At the same time, ignore or downplay good news as it relates to Bush, the Republicans or the war(s).

2) Create the illusion of widespread, honest dissent to Bush policies by giving plenty of airtime to leftwing groups and individuals historically antagonistic toward the projection of US, and only US, power. Fail to report the true agendas of those groups -- when covering antiwar, anti-Bush protests and events, make sure to meticulously portray antiwar marches as spontaneous gatherings of mainstream, mom and pop Americans.

3) Downplay, ignore and disparage American success wherever you find it.

4) Exalt in, sympathize with and mythologize America's enemies, vilify and deconstruct its protectors.

5) Downplay America's generosity and righteousness. Recast a mission that includes saving a nation from a murdering brute and his rapist, sociopath sons as a brutal occupation in the pursuit of American Empire.

6) Fill the Nation's airwaves, from sea to shining sea, with questionable and sometimes outright false tales of Bush-related misery, butchery, fraud and waste.

7) Foment as much national anxiety and hatred of the Republican leader as money and can buy. George Soros and other moneyed leftists will fund you. Give airtime and print coverage to leftist radicals and Democrats who call Bush a war criminal. Present those radicals and their crazy plans to try President Bush and Vice President Cheney for "war crimes" as worthy of consideration.

8) Provide coverage to leftwing intellectuals and scientists making anti-Bush statements. Present them as legitimate, non-partisan experts in their fields. Publicize their specious, politicized findings, present those findings as non-partisan, accurate and objective.

9) Present major news coverage of every antiwar protest you can find, whether it draws 100 people or 10,000 people, ignore all pro-US, pro-Iraq War, pro-troop rallies completely or portray their attendees as violence-prone, fringe-lunatic jingoists.

10) Blame a hurricane's aftermath on Bush. Give news coverage to racists and Democrat crackpots who say Bush and Cheney actually caused the hurricane and blew up levees to kill African Americans. Keep that Bush-hate buzz alive at all costs.

11) Give airtime and print coverage to groups and individuals accusing George W. Bush of having engineered and directed the 911 attacks. Remember, it is not the credibility of accusations that count in shaping public opinion now, but the seriousness and sheer volume of accusations that do.

12) To sow further strife, anxiety and confusion, continue stoking the fires of racial tension and class warfare.

13) Once the onslaught of lies, moral relativisms and crazy notions have created a self-sustaining, luciferous, widespread unhappiness and confusion, dangle a fat bait of silence and tranquility -- of Hope, Change and Progress -- crowning your deceptive achievement by hooking the same fish you made hungry.

That is the immoral, destructive strategy used by the Democratic Party, even as our soldier sons and daughters have been fighting and sometimes dying to protect us, in the years since 911 to recapture power it unjustly covets as its Divine right.

Now, a master psychological fisherman, Barack Obama, dangles a bait of salvation. As a highly experienced practitioner of Saul Alinsky's radical arts, he is perfect for the job. Those who know Obama well, like Mike Kruglik, who helped train him in Alinsky's methods would agree:

"He [Obama] was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation. . . As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better."

It is truly audacious of the Democrats to entice us with their slick-tongued messiah, one who appears out of nowhere and graciously offers to scrape clean and sanitize the same plate of defeat he, his party and their assistants in the media served to America for nearly eight years in the middle of a war. Soon we will see if a majority of the American electorate accepts that offer, or if it rejects it, sending the Democratic Party back to confront the same irrelevance it risked the safety and security of our nation to avoid.

I used to think I could afford to "vote my conscience" and vote against McCain-- though not for a Democrat. Today I can't afford to NOT vote McCain. He's not the best candidate the Republican party could have fronted-- and to no small extent they have Democrats to thank for it --but considering the alternative, I'd rather see America led by a Liberal Republican, than a Marxist Democrat. Any day of the week.

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 12:33 PM, ,

Forget Brangelina

Let's look ahead to "The Obamadinejad Talks" --The reincarnation of Chamberlain seeks an audience with the ghost of Hitler. The ObaMessiah takes on Dead Eyes 'dinejad.

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene...

"Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started."

--Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
June 2, 2008

Today we are engaged in a deadly global struggle for those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms. If we are to win this struggle and spread those freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction.

--Senator Barack Obama
February 3, 2005

He also said this:

I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.
I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

--Barack Obama
The YouTube Defense Credo

Should Barack win in November, which Obama will sit in the Big Chair? The strong 'moral compass' guy, or the limp-wristed disarmament guy?

Can't wait for the fireworks. Assuming Barack doesn't take those off hair-trigger alert too.

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 8:43 PM, ,

Doing the Right Thing

It has never been about Jeremiah Wright. It has been about Barack's claim to Christianity while sitting in a "church" whose pastor spills vile hatred and lies from his mouth while the congregation cheers him on. But now Barack has seen the light, as it were, and resigned his membership from Trinity United Church of Christ.

While it is surely a good thing to get up and leave a church where even once every six months hatred and lies are preached from the pulpit, I personally cannot credit Obama too much for having left at this time. For all the appearance of "doing the right thing" will lay to rest in the minds of many this controversy that has dogged him-- and not without cause, but for many others it will be viewed as little more than political expediency. The evidence after all is quite clear: Barack has left his church of twenty years only because his membership was hurting his candidacy. From the Chicago Tribune:

Obama told reporters that he and Michelle had weeks earlier talked to the new Trinity pastor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, about leaving the church, "and we prayed on it."

The Obamas thought it would be difficult to continue as members as long as he was running for president, and the recent episode with Pfleger reinforced that view, Obama said. He said he and his wife hoped that, once they left the church, it would "be in a position to get back to doing what they do, which is worshiping God."

"Doing what they do"? Jesus said if you hate your brother you are a murderer at heart. No one, or congregation, can worship God with hate in their heart.

Two points. Barack and Michelle had stewed over leaving Trinity weeks earlier. And after praying on it decided it would be difficult to continue as members as long as he was running for president. On the surface it's rather innocuous, that is until you look just a fraction deeper. You have to ask yourself, would the Obamas have stayed at Trinity if they weren't running for president? Of course they would.

As far as perceptions go, it gets even worse. From Christian News Wire:

Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Washington DC based Christian Defense Coalition comments, "It is painfully clear that Senator Obama has publicly discarded decades long relationships because his church has become a hindrance to his political aspirations.

"Only one of the two following options may be true; for the past twenty years Senator Obama was a member of a church fellowship that was the foundation of his spiritual and moral reasoning -- or -- he sat in the pew of Trinity United Church simply for the political gain such relationships could bring.

"If Trinity United Church was simply a club to improve Obama's standing in the community, then he is consistent in discarding his membership today, when such gain is gone.

"But if his church membership was truly spiritual -- then this action shows a fundamental lack of integrity. Obama's resignation of membership in Trinity United Church demonstrates that he will trade even on his faith for political advantage.

"As voters, the American people must ask Obama, as president, what closely held value will he trade away next time."

A faithless pretender to grace, or a weak babe lacking discernment. Either which way you go with this Barack Obama wins nothing by doing what he should have done-- as a Christian --years ago. Many will say 'Bravo, well done, now we can get back to the business of bringing about change America can believe in!' These many will turn all their venom on Barack's detractors. But as I said at the beginning, this has never been about Jeremiah Wright, or for that matter Rev. Otis Moss III, or Father Michael Pfleger. It has been about judgment and integrity.

It would seem that Faith in Christ still has some sway in America, enough so that this controversy was even possible-- the salt has not lost all its savor. But as evidenced by the number of angry Americans on the other side of the ideological divide, the definition of 'Faith in Christ' is swiftly being replaced by something entirely faithless. The fox is in the hen house, and he's not sparing the flock... and the yard hands are too drunk on worldliness to check out the commotion in the hen house, let alone kill or drive the fox out.

Still, congratulations are in order. Congratulations Barack for doing the right thing. Too bad it's years too late for many people. All I can say at this point is I hope your decision and repentance was truly God given, and not the result of political expediency.

Yet despite that hope, and it is genuine...

"As voters, the American people must ask Obama, as president, what closely held value will he trade away next time."

It IS a fair question, and as voters we have every right to ask it.

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 9:19 AM, ,