Friday, March 30, 2012

Barack Obama's War Plan Against The Constitution

Jim Mullen
by Jim Mullen: The U.S. Constitution is a fortress built by the Founders around the American people and is the country’s only defense against the internal destructive forces of evil, Barack Obama and his leftist comrades. To realize their dream of defeating America and having their way with its citizens, they must destroy that constitutional wall of protection.The constraints placed upon government by our Founding Fathers via the Constitution led to the greatest explosion of freedom and prosperity ever witnessed in the history of civilization.

The man now occupying the Oval Office believes he has a better idea than did those freedom-loving patriots. This man sees unfairness and danger in liberty, and offers ‘hope and change’ through a massive federal government that controls commerce and constrains all personal liberty and self-determination.

Barack Obama pompously refers to himself as a constitutional scholar. More appropriately, he is a mortal enemy of the U.S. Constitution. He studies it as a military planner studies an adversary’s defensive positions in preparation for battle. Analyzing, examining and probing points of weaknesses to the constitutional fortress, he takes adversarial positions on every concept of a free republic. Attack, overwhelm, and overcome is the battle cry for the radical leftist from Chicago.

The condescending view with which Obama sees the Constitution and the American people is evident every time he opens his mouth. He becomes increasingly more brazen and arrogant and exhibits an unapologetic contempt for the laws of the nation and his oath of office to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.’

Historically, when Obama wanders off without his handlers he is prone to spout off his real Marxists’ beliefs like the ‘spread the wealth’ comment to Joe the Plumber. Seven years before that, however, he unleashed his pent-up rage from his long-held vendetta against the Constitution, telling a Chicago public station in 2001, that ‘redistributive change is needed.’ This was before he employed handlers, acting coaches, and PR specialists to keep him muzzled when not standing in front of his Teleprompter.

Consider Obama’s opinions about the Constitution, and note the animosity:
  • ‘The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth.’
  • ‘It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.’
  • ‘The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.’
  • ‘The civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways, we still suffer from that.’
He is a master of deceit and knows that free Americans and their institutions are his enemies, and that he must destroy their constitutional defenses before he can dictate his will. He knows Sun Tzu’s principle in ‘The Art of War,’ that ‘all warfare is based on deception.’ Obama is well equipped for the art of deception, claiming exemption from truth in the name of the ‘greater’ or ‘common good.’

The country is under siege. He and his administration spent the first three years in office prosecuting, judging, and sentencing America for its ‘sins’ against collectivism. He led a federal invasion into the states, and declared all-out war on the American people, business, lending institutions, religion, energy, capitalism, and every aspect of traditional society. When Congress denied his wishes, he simply created a law and dictated his will upon the country. He crowed that when Congress refuses to act according to his plans, he feels an ‘obligation as President to do what he can without them.’

Congress has long been complicit with chipping away at the peoples’ rights by overstepping their authority, while at the same time ceding much of its legitimate power to the Executive branch and the bureaucracy. This acquiescence of its constitutional mandates relegates the third branch of government to an insignificant position of buffoonery. They are consigned to entertaining and bowing to the whims of the King like a troupe of court jesters.

Obama wants Americans unified around a collective culture and everyone reduced to the lowest common denominator. In other words, he wants a once proud and independent nation on its knees, begging favors and alms from an all-powerful federal government.

Like most wannabe tyrants he uses military analogies when trying to rally the American people. He wants everyone to unify around his idealistic, collective culture, and follow his inexorable quest to change the country into a Marxist state. It’s another way of stifling dissent by suggesting that all ‘loyal’ Americans will march to the beat of his leftist drum against his ‘enemy.’

To achieve the progressives’ dream they must perform revolutionary surgery to remove the healthy tissue from the body politic of America and leave a blob of freedom destroying parasites and collectivists.

Barack Obama, the self-proclaimed ‘hope’ of the nation is an instrument of despair, a common despot, and a fraud. He is devoid of any love for our constitutional republic, and determined to still the beating heart of liberty.

The Constitution is the guardian of America and the country will surely die without its protection.
This article is contributed by Jim Mullen of Parkersburg, West Virginia. He writes for and published this article on the Parkersburg Conservative Examiner and his personal site, Freedom For Us Now. He is retired and presently involved as a conservative activist.

Tags: Barack Obama,War Plan, Against the Constitution To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Shall We Be Citizens or Subjects?

Before the ink was dry, Jefferson
  changed "subjects" to "citizens" on the
  Declaration of Independence draft
Pix Via Library of Congress
Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison, ARRA News Service: In Washington this week, a rare drama is unfolding in the U.S. Supreme Court. The momentous question that is before the court is this: Shall we be Citizens or Subjects?

The high court is considering a historic challenge by twenty-six states to the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare. Hundreds of people have stood in line, some of them overnight in the chill March air, to get inside. Our colleague, Ken Klukowski, was one of those fortunate few. We are relying on Ken’s reporting and also on the impressions of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

Ken Klukowski reports what was perhaps the critical exchange in the three-day oral arguments. Justice Anthony Kennedy is widely viewed as the pivotal figure in this case.

His vote is essential to any likely 5-4 ruling. Kennedy mildly said that this health care legislation “changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way.” With this statement, Klukowski hopefully reports, “the individual mandate—the centerpiece of ObamaCare—is likely doomed.”

We agree, with Ken Klukowski and with Justice Kennedy. It is noteworthy that press reports already capitalize “Federal Government” and lower-case the word individual.

The next question, of course, is exactly how will ObamaCare change the relationship of the Federal Government and the individual?

Thomas Jefferson provided the answer. The National Archives announced with some excitement over the Independence Day weekend in 2010 that they had discovered an early draft of the Declaration of Independence. In it, young Mr. Jefferson scratched through the word Subjects and wrote in the word Citizens.

Archivists instructed us on the importance of the change. They invited us to go through that mental process with Thomas Jefferson as he and we became Citizens of a republic for the first time.

Was this amazing event on the nation’s birthday a portent? The National Archives made this announcement on the first Fourth of July after the passage of ObamaCare. It’s almost as if we were receiving a message from on high. Shall We Be Citizens or Subjects?

Why is this so? America is not like other countries. Ronald Reagan understood why America is exceptional. He offered these words in his Farewell Address to the nation in 1989.

Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: “We the People.” “We the people tell the government what to do; it doesn’t tell us.

But under ObamaCare, government not only tells us, it Mandates. We have seen a great controversy over the first Mandate from HHS . This first HHS Mandate would require religious hospitals, schools, colleges, and institutions provide drugs that can cause abortions, and orders them to further violate their consciences by covering sterilizations and contraceptives.

This is only the first of many Mandates that are coming under ObamaCare. There are literally hundreds of places in this ill-conceived legislation where “the Secretary” determines what is mandated. Life and death decisions for millions will be mandated by an unelected government bureaucrat in a distant city.

Justice Scalia asked Obama administration attorneys: “If the government can do this, what can it not do?” Attorney Mike Carvin represents the National Federation of Independent Businesses, suing the Obama administration. Carvin said: If a person enters the market simply by being born, “that…means they can regulate every human activity from cradle to grave.”

Death and taxes. Benjamin Franklin said those were the only certainties on earth. This truth was reaffirmed in the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, as Ken Cuccinelli reports: Somewhat amusingly, Justice Alito noted that burial costs were expensive and could hit one unexpectedly as well. He further noted that if he was too poor to pay his own costs and hadn’t prepared for his burial, he would still certainly be buried, and those costs would in turn be shifted to others either by raising everyone else’s burial costs if the buriers had to absorb those costs, or we’d all pay higher taxes if the government bore these costs.

Before our liberal readers generously take up a collection for Justice Alito’s burial costs, it is time for all of us to step back and consider very carefully the question that is really before the U.S. Supreme Court this week.

If the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare, columnist George Will notes, then government’s “power to compel contractual relations would have no logical stopping point.” Which is why, Will says, the case the high court hears this week is “the last exit ramp on the road to unlimited government.” Which will it be: Citizens or Subjects?
J. Ken Blackwell is a conservative family values advocate. Blackwell is a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission and is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and a visiting professor at Liberty University School of Law. Bob Morrison is a Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council. He has served at the U.S. Department of Education with Gary Bauer under then-Secretary William Bennett. Both are contributing authors to the ARRA News Service.

Tags: Ken Blackwell, Bob Morrison, Citizens or Subjects, citizens, United States, Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, Federal health care, individual mandate, mandate, Obamacare, forcing people to buy products, to pay to be citizens, liberty, freedom To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!

Monday, March 26, 2012

The Invisible Toxic Air

I like Mike Landry & Ice Cream.
by Mike Landry, Wildcat Creek Review: Liberal journalists like to say their news coverage is “unbiased” and “objective.”

Nonsense. Everyone is biased. No one is objective. If you write a grocery list, your biases will cause you to put ice cream at the top of the list.

People often read news stories and know there’s something not quite right. Or as the old journalism movie Absence of Malice defined it: the story is not true, but it’s accurate. And when we read a news story about something with which we are familiar, we are often disturbed at the reporter’s ignorance of the overall topic, and/or the subtle but deliberate distortions.

I used to feel that way sometimes reading a newspaper story until I went back to the top of the story and realized it had come from the New York Times or the Associated Press. That's how I learned not to trust those guys.

A great example appeared recently on Page One of Arkansas’ statewide newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. The story – about former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee going up against Rush Limbaugh in a daily radio talk show -- is not the focus of what I’m going to say; rather, I want to look at how the story is presented. Because the story relates to topics about which I have familiarity: 1) radio broadcasting, in which I worked for about a dozen years; 2) Rush Limbaugh, to whom I’ve regularly listened for most of his 23-year national career, and 3) journalism, where I spent some time in radio, television, and newspapers.

Below is part of the story in boldface type. Italics indicate what I believe the reporter is trying to say. My comments are in regular type.

WASHINGTON — The advertising exodus from Rush Limbaugh’s nationally syndicated radio show has fallen like a gift into the lap of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Starting April 9, Huckabee, who unsuccessfully ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, will begin airing a three-hour radio show in the same afternoon time slot as Limbaugh, a revered figure among many conservatives.

Limbaugh’s ability to stir things up is his stock in trade.

He has routinely called women leaders “feminazis”... Women leaders? Would those women leaders be individuals like Michelle Malkin? Sarah Palin? Limbaugh has used the "feminazi" term only to describe militant feminists. Does the reporter believe that small strident group leads half the population?

...and has angered critics for comments deemed by them to be racially biased. These days anything representing conservative dissent is considered racist (ask those of us who’ve been involved in the Tea Party), so there's little to comment on here. But notice how the reporter can inject his opinion: "critics" call Limbaugh racially biased. Reporterspeak basically has said Limbaugh demeans prominent women and is racist. True? No. Accurate? As expressed in the reporter’s world view: yes.

Also, the reporter has managed to highlight his own distaste for Limbaugh by placing these comments in the opening paragraphs of the story. In reality, the story is supposed to be about Huckabee competing on-air with Limbaugh, but the reporter apparently believes it is important for you first to know how to think about Limbaugh before getting to the actual story. This, my friend, is the invisible toxic air of liberal media bias that we breathe all the time.

Earlier this month, Limbaugh referred to Georgetown University Law School student Sandra Fluke as a “prostitute”and a “slut” after she spoke out for government-mandated free contraceptive coverage. Truth, not accuracy, would say that Ms. Fluke is also a feminist operative who may have "forum shopped" for a school like Georgetown that does not provide free contraceptives so she could perhaps call them out on it. If anything, she’s not, as others have portrayed her, the innocent “civilian” unwittingly pulled into the culture wars. Also, the Democrat-Gazette story neglects to say why Georgetown resists the government mandate: it's a Catholic school and contraception is contrary to official Catholic doctrine.

Republican House members denied a request to let Fluke testify during recent hearings on the ability of religious institutions to opt out of covering birth control. Reporterspeak: Not only has Limbaugh mistreated Ms. Fluke, but so have evil Republican House members. Oh? Ms. Fluke's appearance was before a Democratic-called meeting. It apparently was a grandstanding event in favor of an Administration policy that many Republicans oppose. Why would Republicans want to give her the platform Democrats did?

Advertisers apparently have not been mollified by Limbaugh’s subsequent apology. At least 98 of them have pulled their ads from the show. Accurate but not entirely complete. Best I can tell is perhaps six or eight national sponsors pulled out of Limbaugh's show (with one asking for, but being refused, reinstatement). Others, according to Limbaugh, are local businesses that have asked local radio stations not to run their ads during Limbaugh's program. Happens in broadcasting all the time. Indeed, large consumer-oriented corporations (car companies, airlines, electronics manufacturers) tend to avoid conservative media outlets. Even the late William F. Buckley’s staid National Review tends to have lesser-known advertisers.

Huckabee, who has a weekly television show on Fox News and began his career in the radio business, is betting that a toned-down talk radio format will lure listeners. Did Huckabee actually say that, implying he will do the job better than Limbaugh? Or was Huckabee comparing and contrasting their on-air personalities? Which brings us to:

“It’s not my style to get in the face of a guest,” he said. “I’ll engage in conversation and not have a shouting match.”

These quotes imply Huckabee believes Limbaugh tends to "get in the face of a guest" and leans toward having a "shouting match." I question the context -- while I believe Huckabee said these things about himself and/or talk radio, these quotes may have been inserted here to make the reporter's case that Limbaugh abuses guests and engages in heated arguments. Huckabee, as a conservative and a broadcaster, would presumably know this is not true. First, Limbaugh rarely has guests and, secondly, when a person with an opinion different than his calls the program, Limbaugh is the gentleman. He will debate the individual, raise questions, provide differing comments, but is not rude. Sometimes he may get agitated, but often is careful to say his agitation is at the caller's thoughts, and explains that he is not personally upset with the caller. Again, we don't know the context of Huckabee's statement, but I'm suspicious.

[The story then goes into four paragraphs about the business and logistics aspects of the new Huckabee program.]

Huckabee downplayed any competition with Limbaugh, calling him “the most successful voice in radio by leaps and bounds.” Very relevant comments about the Limbaugh-Huckabee matchup, which is supposed to be what the story is about. But it's buried deep in the text, lest we wade through the story without being told how to think about Limbaugh.

“Rush apologized,” Huckabee said. “He was right to apologize, and he was wrong to have said what he did.” Again, the apology is important information buried deep in the story, along with the next two sentences.

But Huckabee suggested that there was a double standard for judging remarks made by liberal commentators.

“I’m still waiting for Bill Maher and Chris Matthews to apologize for what they’ve said about conservative women,” he said.

[The story then at length conveys the thoughts of Rhode Island radio consultant Holland Cooke about business aspects of the Limbaugh and Huckabee shows].

The question remains whether Huckabee will be able to take advantage of the opportunity created by the Limbaugh controversy.

Cooke called Huckabee an “affable guy” who could succeed on radio nationally.

“Why must talk radio be snarling? Why can’t it be reasonable?” Cooke asked. “I think he’ll do real well.”
Now we're told "talk radio" -- read Rush Limbaugh -- is "snarling." Limbaugh does not snarl. He speaks boldly and with the brilliance of the accomplished lawyers from which he descends. And he is very effective and influential for conservative thought. That’s his crime

Again, I'm not focusing on what Limbaugh said. Elsewhere I've written that it was over the top and silly. But that’s not within the scope of what I’m writing about: media bias.

Of course, like the writer of the story we've looked at, I'm biased, too. It's part of being human. But I'm voicing opinion, not writing what is supposed to be a news story.

And ice cream would probably be at the top of my grocery list.

Tags: invisible, toxic air, media, news verses opinion, Reporterspeak, Mike Landry, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!

Saturday, March 24, 2012

The War in Afghanistan: More Dollars and No Sense

I wrote this article sometime back, but find that it's more fitting now than at the time I wrote it.

More Dollars
The cost for each American soldier deployed to Afghanistan has now reached one million dollars per year. The cost of maintaining a Taliban soldier in the field for a similar period is somewhat difficult to estimate, but many find the figure to be under $3,000. This means the debt ratio is about 300 - 1, with the Taliban maintaining a overwhelming edge. The debt ratio is not however the only problem, but the ugly question of sanctuary is again hitting the American military in the face as it did in Korea, Vietnam, and to a certain extent in Iraq. The Taliban and their al Queda allies are more or less free to move between Pakistan and Afghanistan and we are powerless to attack them in their strongholds in the mountains of western Pakistan. Yes. we have the UAV's (unmanned aerial vehicles) with their hell-fire missiles that occasionally find an al Queda leader in a remote mud hut hidden in some mountain valley and dispatch that trusty Hell-fire against him at a cost of $100 to $200 thousand dollars each. The parts of this fallen leader are quickly gathered up and buried before sunset as is the custom in that part of the world. And a new leader is quickly named at a cost far less that the cost of sending the first on his trip to meet the many virgins. When I hear that we have killed another Taliban leader in the mountain of Pakistan, I almost laugh. Its like killing a single ant in the giant ant hill and calling that some kind of victory. This is not war, this is playing at war, this sadly has become a game with the young men of our country being the pawns in a protracted conflict we can never win with the current rules of engagement . We will lose this war without ever having lost a battle and the many young men who will never return to their families will have fallen in vain because of this great political game. The Taliban and al Queda will continue to be funded by the massive amounts of petro dollars coming from the Wahabis sects in the Gulf States and the enormous sums of money generated by the opium poppy in the mountains of Afghanistan.

No Sense
The way this war is being waged in the mountains of Afghanistan is absolute madness and insanity that is totally out of control and one that has its roots going back to the 1950's and the Korean War. In that conflict the U.S. government under the leadership of President Truman allowed a great American army to be stalemated in the mountains of Korea, and despite repeated request by the commander in the field General Douglas MacArthur for tactical nuclear weapons to be used they never were. Today we have a nuclear armed state in North Korea, a state that poses a serious threat to all of its neighbors in that region. A few years later in another part of the world French forces in Indochina faced a turning point in their struggle against a communist insurgency in what is now northern Vietnam. French forces were surrounded and outnumbered at the besieged fortress of Dien Bien Phu and after many request from the french government for tactical nukes to be used to break the siege Dien Bien Phu fell and we had the establishment of the communist state of North Vietnam and the stepping stone to the Vietnam war where tens of thousands of young American soldiers died. To this day the use tactical nuclear weapons remains off the table even though that decision has cost us tens of thousands of young Americans lives. At some point in the very near future the battle field situation will become so dire that an American President may be forced to revisit that decision and for once think about the troops in the field and not the journalist at the London Times. Even after seeing what happened in Korea and at Dien Bien Phu we entered another war where we were bound by old rules of engagement that had failed us in the past. Our enemy was allowed sanctuary---a place to regroup and rebuilt and a place from which to attack again and again. In Vietnam the American soldier never lost a major battle, but the government lost the war and Vietnam fell to the enemy. This is our current path in Afghanistan, a path we've traveled many times before and it will end in the same place--DEFEAT AND DISHONOR!
The defeat will not be of battles lost by our brave troops for none have been lost. And the dishonor will not fall on them for they are all, all honorable men. The defeat is the nations and the dishonor is ours.
Ron Russell
Also posted at TOTUS

Tags: commentary, dien bien phu, vietnam, sanctuary, afghanistan, Douglas MacArthur, wahabis To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Progressive Racism

by Ron Russell, TOTUS: Progressive racism is being spewed from the university campus, from the halls of congress, from the MSM, from the high schools, and from the many hate sites on the Internet. Sadly it is all done in what many have referred to as a post racial America. Those on the American left cannot afford to let this issue die, they cannot just let it fad away. They have far too much invested in this issue. In the major metropolitan areas without this issue they would lose tens of thousands of voters. Those on the left are race-baiters and play the race card in every debate. Its always there fall back position when they begin to lose their arguments on radical positions they can defend no other way. Many of the white leaders of the so-called progressive movement (I say so-called progressive, because this movement is not new its very old and anything but progressive--it is regressive) have nothing, nothing at all in common with the black masses. They see the black man as a means to an end and will toss him aside when it become expedient. The black vote has always been cheap to buy. Liberal politicians have known this for years. The 40 acres and a mule ruse has evolved over the years to the food stamp, to affirmative action, to free medical care, free birth control and of course the all encompassing "free lunch". What has been the cost of all these free hand outs? Little to the politicians (they use others money to foot the bill); but to the black man these give aways have cost him his dignity, and his self-esteem, and to many his political freedom. Many blacks feel an obligation to vote for these unscrupulous political leaders who have promised much, but delivered only misery to the poor black. Keeping the black man down is the goal of many leaders on the left, for its only in keeping them down that they will continue to have their support.

The progressive left finds its support among the poor and those elitist who feel responsible for the economic conditions of poor blacks. Sadly, this assumption by some progressives is correct, in that their policies have led to this situation among the poor blacks. Those well-intended elitist on the left are caught in a vicious cycle from which there is no escape. They offer a hand out, thinking it is a hand up. The reality of their position escapes them. But there is another group on the left, a far more dangerous one. These leaders know the reality of there positions and all they are seeking is power, power at any cost to achieve their ends. Our current president falls into this group. Obama will use what means it takes to increase his power, he will quickly toss aside anyone, any group who stands in his way as evidenced by his abandonment of a life long friend and mentor, the infamous reverend Wright.

Finally, racism does exist and will always exist. Racism is found on the right as well as on the left. The big difference in contemporary America is that many on the left encourage racism and rely on the "race card" to advance their political agenda. They will continue to keep the black man down, not because they feel that's where he belongs; but because is doing so they have created a cause for those naive whites who follow their progressive beliefs. And the poor black, well he will remain a victim. Not a victim of racism from the right (as was the case for many years in the south and throughout the nation); but a victim of a far worse form of racism by those who seem to be offering a hand up, while at the same time keeping the poor black down for political reasons. The present day Democratic party in now like the old radical Republican Party of the Reconstruction era with a new "forty acres and a mule" reelection agenda.

Tags: progressive racism, commentary, race-baiters  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Barack Obama Is America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President

By David Barton, WallBuilders: When one observes President Obama’s unwillingness to accommodate America’s four-century long religious conscience protection through his attempts to require Catholics to go against their own doctrines and beliefs, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Catholic. But that characterization would not be correct. Although he has recently singled out Catholics, he has equally targeted traditional Protestant beliefs over the past four years. So since he has attacked Catholics and Protestants, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Christian. But that, too, would be inaccurate. He has been equally disrespectful in his appalling treatment of religious Jews in general and Israel in particular. So perhaps the most accurate description of his antipathy toward Catholics, Protestants, religious Jews, and the Jewish nation would be to characterize him as anti-Biblical. And then when his hostility toward Biblical people of faith is contrasted with his preferential treatment of Muslims and Muslim nations, it further strengthens the accuracy of the anti-Biblical descriptor. In fact, there have been numerous clearly documented times when his pro-Islam positions have been the cause of his anti-Biblical actions.

Listed below in chronological order are (1) numerous records of his attacks on Biblical persons or organizations; (2) examples of the hostility toward Biblical faith that have become evident in the past three years in the Obama-led military; (3) a listing of his open attacks on Biblical values; and finally (4) a listing of numerous incidents of his preferential deference for Islam’s activities and positions, including letting his Islamic advisors guide and influence his hostility toward people of Biblical faith.

1. Acts of hostility toward people of Biblical faith:
  • April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren't like them.” 1
  • February 2009 – Obama announces plans to revoke conscience protection for health workers who refuse to participate in medical activities that go against their beliefs, and fully implements the plan in February 2011. 2
  • April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus' name be covered when he is making his speech. 3
  • May 2009 – Obama declines to host services for the National Prayer Day (a day established by federal law) at the White House. 4
  • April 2009 – In a deliberate act of disrespect, Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican; of course, the pro-life Vatican rejected all three. 5
  • October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions. 6
  • November 2010 – Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law. 7
  • January 2011 – After a federal law was passed to transfer a WWI Memorial in the Mojave Desert to private ownership, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the cross in the memorial could continue to stand, but the Obama administration refused to allow the land to be transferred as required by law, and refused to allow the cross to be re-erected as ordered by the Court. 8
  • February 2011 – Although he filled posts in the State Department, for more than two years Obama did not fill the post of religious freedom ambassador, an official that works against religious persecution across the world; he filled it only after heavy pressure from the public and from Congress. 9
  • April 2011 – For the first time in American history, Obama urges passage of a non-discrimination law that does not contain hiring protections for religious groups, forcing religious organizations to hire according to federal mandates without regard to the dictates of their own faith, thus eliminating conscience protection in hiring. 10
  • August 2011 – The Obama administration releases its new health care rules that override religious conscience protections for medical workers in the areas of abortion and contraception. 11
  • November 2011 – Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial. 12
  • November 2011 – Unlike previous presidents, Obama studiously avoids any religious references in his Thanksgiving speech. 13
  • December 2011 – The Obama administration denigrates other countries' religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights. 14
  • January 2012 – The Obama administration argues that the First Amendment provides no protection for churches and synagogues in hiring their pastors and rabbis. 15
  • February 2012 – The Obama administration forgives student loans in exchange for public service, but announces it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion. 16

2. Acts of hostility from the Obama-led military toward people of Biblical faith:
  • June 2011 – The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burial ceremonies at Houston National Cemetery. 17
  • August 2011 – The Air Force stops teaching the Just War theory to officers in California because the course is taught by chaplains and is based on a philosophy introduced by St. Augustine in the third century AD – a theory long taught by civilized nations across the world (except America). 18
  • September 2011 – Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of programs and services available to them from chaplains. 19
  • September 2011 – The Army issues guidelines for Walter Reed Medical Center stipulating that “No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials and/or facts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.” 20
  • November 2011 – The Air Force Academy rescinds support for Operation Christmas Child, a program to send holiday gifts to impoverished children across the world, because the program is run by a Christian charity. 21
  • November 2011 – The Air Force Academy pays $80,000 to add a Stonehenge-like worship center for pagans, druids, witches and Wiccans. 22
  • February 2012 – The U. S. Military Academy at West Point disinvites three star Army general and decorated war hero Lieutenant General William G. (“Jerry”) Boykin (retired) from speaking at an event because he is an outspoken Christian. 23
  • February 2012 – The Air Force removes “God” from the patch of Rapid Capabilities Office (the word on the patch was in Latin: Dei). 24
  • February 2012 – The Army orders Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners that their archbishop asked them to read. 25

3. Acts of hostility toward Biblical values:
  • January 2009 – Obama lifts restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, forcing taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. 26
  • January 2009 – President Obama’s nominee for deputy secretary of state asserts that American taxpayers are required to pay for abortions and that limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional. 27
  • March 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. 28
  • March 2009 – Obama orders taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. 29
  • March 2009 – Obama gave $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that promotes abortion and works closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations. 30
  • May 2009 – The White House budget eliminates all funding for abstinence-only education and replaces it with “comprehensive” sexual education, repeatedly proven to increase teen pregnancies and abortions. 31 He continues the deletion in subsequent budgets. 32
  • May 2009 – Obama officials assemble a terrorism dictionary calling pro-life advocates violent and charging that they use racism in their “criminal” activities. 33
  • July 2009 – The Obama administration illegally extends federal benefits to same-sex partners of Foreign Service and Executive Branch employees, in direction violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 34
  • September 16, 2009 – The Obama administration appoints as EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, who asserts that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, if they may negatively affect homosexual “equality.” 35
  • July 2010 – The Obama administration uses federal funds in violation of federal law to get Kenya to change its constitution to include abortion. 36
  • August 2010 – The Obama administration Cuts funding for 176 abstinence education programs. 37
  • September 2010 – The Obama administration tells researchers to ignore a judge’s decision striking down federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. 38
  • February 2011 – Obama directs the Justice Department to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 39
  • March 2011 – The Obama administration refuses to investigate videos showing Planned Parenthood helping alleged sex traffickers get abortions for victimized underage girls. 40
  • July 2011 – Obama allows homosexuals to serve openly in the military, reversing a policy originally instituted by George Washington in March 1778. 41
  • September 2011 – The Pentagon directs that military chaplains may perform same-sex marriages at military facilities in violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 42
  • October 2011 – The Obama administration eliminates federal grants to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for their extensive programs that aid victims of human trafficking because the Catholic Church is anti-abortion. 43

4. Acts of preferentialism for Islam:
  • May 2009 – While Obama does not host any National Day of Prayer event at the White House, he does host White House Iftar dinners in honor of Ramadan. 44
  • April 2010 – Christian leader Franklin Graham is disinvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer Event because of complaints from the Muslim community. 45
  • April 2010 – The Obama administration requires rewriting of government documents and a change in administration vocabulary to remove terms that are deemed offensive to Muslims, including jihad, jihadists, terrorists, radical Islamic, etc. 46
  • August 2010 – Obama speaks with great praise of Islam and condescendingly of Christianity. 47
  • August 2010 – Obama went to great lengths to speak out on multiple occasions on behalf of building an Islamic mosque at Ground Zero, while at the same time he was silent about a Christian church being denied permission to rebuild at that location. 48
  • 2010 – While every White House traditionally issues hundreds of official proclamations and statements on numerous occasions, this White House avoids traditional Biblical holidays and events but regularly recognizes major Muslim holidays, as evidenced by its 2010 statements on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha. 49
  • October 2011 – Obama’s Muslim advisers block Middle Eastern Christians’ access to the White House. 50
  • February 2012 – The Obama administration makes effulgent apologies for Korans being burned by the U. S. military, 51 but when Bibles were burned by the military, numerous reasons were offered why it was the right thing to do. 52
Many of these actions are literally unprecedented – this is the first time they have happened in four centuries of American history. The hostility of President Obama toward Biblical faith and values is without equal from any previous American president.

1. Sarah Pulliam Baily, "Obama: ‘They cling to guns or religion’," Christianity Today, April 13, 2008. (Return)
2. Aliza Marcus, "Obama to Lift ‘Conscience’ Rule for Health Workers," Bloomberg, February 27, 2009; Sarah Pulliam Baily, "Obama Admin. Changes Bush ‘Conscience’ Rule for Health Workers," Christianity Today, February 18, 2011. (Return)
3. Jim Lovino, "Jesus Missing From Obama’s Georgetown Speech," NBC Washington, April 17, 2009. (Return)
4. Johanna Neuman, “Obama end Bush-era National Prayer Day Service at White House," Los Angeles Times, May 7, 2009. (Return)
5. Chris McGreal, “Vatican vetoes Barack Obama’s nominees for U.S. Ambassador,” The Guardian, April 14, 2009. (Return)
6. Meredith Jessup, “Obama Continues to Omit ‘Creator’ From Declaration of Independence,” The Blaze, October 19, 2010. (Return)
7. "Remarks by the President at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta, Indonesia," The White House, November 10, 2010. (Return)
8. LadyImpactOhio, "Feds sued by Veterans to allow stolen Mojave Desert Cross to be rebuilt," Red State, January 14, 2011. (Return)
9. Marrianne Medlin, “Amid criticism, President Obama moves to fill vacant religious ambassador post,” Catholic News Agency, February 9, 2011; Thomas F. Farr, “Undefender of the Faith,” Foreign Policy, April 5, 2012. (Return)
10. Chris Johnson, “ENDA passage effort renewed with Senate introduction,” Washington Blade, April 15, 2011. (Return)
11. Chuck Donovan, “HHS’s New Health Guidelines Trample on Conscience,” Heritage Foundation, August 2, 2011. (Return)
12. Todd Starns, “Obama Administration Opposes FDR Prayer at WWII Memorial,” Fox News, November 4, 2011. (Return)
13. Joel Siegel, “Obama Omits God From Thanksgiving Speech, Riles Critics,” ABC News, November 25, 2011. (Return)
14. Hillary Rodham Clinton, “Remarks in Recognition of International Human Rights Day,” U.S. Department of State, December 6, 2011. (Return)
15. Ted Olson, “Church Wins Firing Case at Supreme Court,” Christianity Today, January 11, 2012. (Return)
16. Audrey Hudson, “Obama administration religious service for student loan forgiveness,” Human Events, February 15, 2012. (Return)
17.Houston Veterans Claim Censorship of Prayers, Including Ban of ‘God’ and ‘Jesus’,” Fox News, June 29, 2011. (Return)
18. Jason Ukman, “Air Force suspends ethics course that used Bible passages that train missle launch officers,” Washington Post, August 2, 2011. (Return)
19. "Maintaining Government Neutrality Regarding Religion," Department of the Air Force, September 1, 2011. (Return)
20. "Wounded, Ill, and Injured Partners in Care Guidelines," Department of the Navy (accessed on February 29, 2012). (Return)
21. "Air Force Academy Backs Away from Christmas Charity," Fox News Radio, November 4, 2011. (Return)
22. Jenny Dean, "Air Force Academy adapts to pagans, druids, witches and Wiccans," Los Angeles Times, November 26, 2011. (Return)
23. Ken Blackwell, "Gen. Boykin Blocked At West Point,", February 1, 2012. (Return)
24. Geoff Herbert, " Air Force unit removes 'God' from logo; lawmakers warn of 'dangerous precedent',", February 9, 2012. (Return)
25. Todd Starnes, "Army Silences Catholic Chaplains," Fox News Radio, February 6, 2012. (Return)
26. Jeff Mason and Deborah Charles, "Obama lifts restrictions on abortion funding," Reuters, January 23, 2009. (Return)
27. "Obama pick: Taxpayers must fund abortions," World Net Daily, January 27, 2009. (Return)
28. Steven Ertelt, "Pro-Life Groups Left Off Obama’s Health Care Summit List, Abortion Advocates OK," LifeNews, March 5, 2009. (Return)
29. " Obama Signs Order Lifting Restrictions on Stem Cell Research Funding," Fox News, March 9, 2009. (Return)
30. Steven Ertelt, “Obama Administration Announces $50 Million for Pro-Forced Abortion UNFPA,” LifeNews, March 26, 2009; Steven Ertelt, "President Barack Obama’s Pro-Abortion Record: A Pro-Life Compilation," LifeNews, February 11, 2012. (Return)
31. Steven Ertelt, "Barack Obama’s Federal Budget Eliminates Funding for Abstinence-Only Education," LifeNews, May 8, 2009. (Return)
32. Steven Ertelt, "Obama Budget Funds Sex Ed Over Abstinence on 16-1 Margin," LifeNews, February 14, 2011. (Return)
33. Steven Ertelt, "Obama Admin Terrorism Dictionary Calls Pro-Life Advocates Violent, Racist," LifeNews, May 5, 2009. (Return)
34. "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies," The White House, June 17, 2009. (Return)
35. Matt Cover, "Obama’s EEOC Nominee: Society Should ‘Not Tolerate Private Beliefs’ That ‘Adversely Affect’ Homosexuals,", January 18, 2010. (Return)
36. Tess Civantos, "White House Spent $23M of Taxpayer Money to Back Kenyan Constitution That Legalizes Abortion, GOP Reps Say," Fox News, July 22, 2010. (Return)
37. Steven Ertelt, "Obama, Congress Cut Funding for 176 Abstinence Programs Despite New Study," LifeNews, August 26, 2010. (Return)
38. Steven Ertelt, "President Barack Obama’s Pro-Abortion Record: A Pro-Life Compilation," LifeNews, February 11, 2012. (Return)
39. Brian Montopoli, "Obama administration will no longer defend DOMA," CBSNews, February 23, 2011. (Return)
40. Steven Ertelt, "Obama Admin Ignores Planned Parenthood Sex Trafficking Videos," LifeNews, March 2, 2011. (Return)
41. Elisabeth Bumiller, "Obama Ends ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy," New York Times, July 22, 2011; George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1934), Vol. XI, pp. 83-84, from General Orders at Valley Forge on March 14, 1778. (Return)
42. Luis Martinez, "Will Same Sex Marriages Pose a Dilemma for Military Chaplains?," ABC News, October 12, 2011. (Return)
43. Jerry Markon, "Health, abortion issues split Obama administration and Catholic groups," Washington Post, October 31, 2011. (Return)
44. Barack Obama, “ Remarks by the President at Iftar Dinner,” The White House, September 1, 2009; Kristi Keck, “ Obama tones down National Day of Prayer observance,” CNN, May 6, 2009; Dan Gilgoff, “ The White House on National Day of Prayer: A Proclamation, but No Formal Ceremony,” U.S. News, May 1, 2009. (Return)
45. "Franklin Graham Regrets Army's Decision to Rescind Invite to Pentagon Prayer Service," Fox News, April 22, 2010. (Return)
46.Obama Bans Islam, Jihad From National Security Strategy Document,” Fox News, April 7, 2010; "Counterterror Adviser Defends Jihad as 'Legitimate Tenet of Islam'," Fox News, May 27, 2010; "'Islamic Radicalism' Nixed From Obama Document," CBSNews, April 7, 2010. (Return)
47. Chuck Norris, “President Obama: Muslim Missionary? (Part 2),”, August 24, 2010; Chuck Norris, "President Obama: Muslim Missionary?,", August 17, 2010.(Return)
48. Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President at Iftar Dinner,” The White House, August 13, 2010; "Obama Comes Out in Favor of Allowing Mosque Near Ground Zero," Fox News, August 13, 2010; Pamela Geller, "Islamic Supremacism Trumps Christianity at Ground Zero," American Thinker, July 21, 2011. (Return)
49. "WH Fails to Release Easter Proclamation," Fox Nation, April 25, 2011; "President Obama ignores most holy Christian holiday; AFA calls act intentional," American Family Association (accessed on February 29, 2012).(Return)
50. "Report: Obama’s Muslim Advisers Block Middle Eastern Christians’ Access to the White House," Big Peace (accessed on February 29, 2012). (Return)
51. Masoud Popalzai and Nick Paton Walsh, “ Obama apologizes to Afghanistan for Quran burning,” CNN, February 23, 2012; "USA/Afghanistan-Islamophobia: Pentagon official apologizes for Quran burning," International Islamic News Agency (accessed on February 29, 2012). (Return)
52. "Military burns unsolicited Bibles sent to Afghanistan," CNN, May 22, 2009. (Return)

Tags: WallBuilders, David Barton, Barack Obama, America’s Most Biblically-Hostile, U. S. President facts, sources, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Why Does Rick Santorum Have "Serious Problems" With the Gold Standard?

by Ralph Benko, Forbes: On a recent episode of the Glenn Beck Show, Beck had an exchange, summarized here, with presidential candidate Rick Santorum.
“I think you’ve got to put the Fed back in the business of just managing the money supply for the purposes of holding inflation in check,” Santorum said. “If the Fed’s only mission was dollar stabilization, then they wouldn't be doing what they’re doing right now.”

Glenn pushed Santorum harder on this issue. “There are no checks and balances [on the Fed]. How is this not a criminal organization? Because what they’re doing to us…it’s the biggest heist in human history.”

“To go that one step forward and say ‘Well let’s abolish the Fed and go back to a gold standard,’ I have some serious problems with that,” Santorum said. Glenn cut in. “You can’t afford the lifestyle we have on gold.”

“The problem is the idea with the gold standard was…gold would increase as economic growth increases,” Santorum continued.

“That’s not necessarily true anymore, I mean we don’t have a lot of gold supplies in this country that we can increase as the economy increases, and can become – in fact, are – dependent on a lot of not particularly great areas of the world for gold mining.”
Yes, Senator Santorum you do have a serious problem. The conservative movement greatly hopes that your comments represent casual and unconsidered statements … and that future pronouncements will reveal an intelligent open-mindedness on monetary policy (a separate question from abolishing the Fed).

For starters: money supply? This is an anachronism. The premier monetarist, Prof. Milton Friedman, disavowed managing the money supply in a famous June 7, 2003 interview with the Financial Times: “The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success.”

As columnist and a leading debunker of the quantity theory of money Nathan Lewis wrote in Why the Gold Standard Still Matters Today:
The amount of metal piled in a vault has little relationship to the value (or quantity) of paper banknotes. In 1779 the Bank of England held 953,066 ounces of gold in reserve. In 1783 this had fallen to 339,261 ounces. One year later, in 1784, it had grown to 1,683,724 ounces. A year after that, it was down to 703,692 ounces, but in 1786 it bounced back up again to 1,535,538 ounces.

These gyrations had no effect on the value of the British pound, which was pegged to gold at 3.89375 pounds per ounce.
“A gold standard does not place some artificial limit on the supply of money, nor is the supply of money constrained to the output of gold mines. The supply of base money grows or contracts as necessary to maintain the currency’s value in line with the gold parity. Between 1775 and 1900, the U.S. base money supply increased by 163 times–in line with an expanding economy and a population that went from 3.9 million in 1790 to 76.2 million in 1900. Over this 125-year period, the amount of gold in the world increased by about 3.4 times due to mining.

“The only thing that mattered was the value. The dollar maintained its link near $20.67 per ounce throughout the 19th century (with a lapse during the Civil War).”

If sheer quantity mattered, which it does not, the pointlessness of worrying becomes even more obvious if one looks at the inventory of monetary gold by the governments of the world. The United States’ holdings, as of January 2011, of 286 million ounces, tower above those of most other countries. (China: 37 million ounces. Russia: 27 million ounces.)

As for making America “dependent on a lot of not very great areas of the world for gold mining?” Charles Dickens’ satirized this very sentiment by placing it in the mouth of a particularly dimwitted legislator in Nicholas Nickleby:
‘Besides which,’ continued Mr Gregsbury, ‘I should expect … a few little arguments about the disastrous effects of a return to cash payments and a metallic currency, with a touch now and then about the exportation of bullion, and the Emperor of Russia, and bank notes, and all that kind of thing, which it’s only necessary to talk fluently about, because nobody understands it.’
Presumably Sen. Santorum, in referring to “not very great areas of the world,” had in mind the modern version of the “Emperor of Russia,” a favorite bogeyman of those opposed to gold convertibility then as now.

Who condemns gold puts himself on the opposite side of Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, and a clear majority of the conservative leaders, especially free market ones. Condemning the gold standard aligns one with leading Obamunists such as Paul Krugman, July 6 New York Times blog post, “The Armageddon Caucus“: “Gold bugs have taken over the GOP,” Think Progress‘ Marie Diamond that “the …Tea Party groups are determined to make returning to the gold standard a litmus test for GOP presidential candidates….” The Roosevelt Institute’s Mike Konczal who wrote on April 27, “Conservatives are … rallying around the gold standard wing of their party.” Or Thomas Frank’s July 2011 story in Harper’s Magazine condemning gold as “yet another eccentricity of the right-wing fringe has moved into the mainstream of American life.”

As my sainted grandmother used to say, Senator… lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. It is an oddity, one hopes not indicative of anything more than a casual misstatement, to see someone of Sen. Santorum’s stature — one who proudly styles himself a conservative — aligning, as Nixon did, with economic ultra-liberals.
Presidential candidates — especially newly prominent ones — deserve an opportunity to grow out of casually held old views. No less respectable a source than the Bank of England, summarized by AOL’s DailyFinance recently published a paper showing that the current paper-based monetary system is dramatically inferior to the form of gold standard enjoyed by the world under Bretton Woods —destroyed by President Johnson and then repudiated by President Nixon. Economic growth has been much slower, panics and crashes much more frequent, under the current system than under even a dilute form of gold standard.

The conservative movement respectfully asks those who aspire to the presidency at least to reserve judgment on the critical issue of monetary policy. If unwilling to embrace gold with Dr. Paul or to join with Speaker Gingrich in calling for a gold commission, at least emulate Gov. Romney in maintaining an openness to “look at a whole range of ideas on how to have greater stability in our currency and in our monetary policies.”
Ralph Benko is a senior economics adviser to The American Principles Project and author of The Websters’ Dictionary: How to Use the Web to Transform the World. He is working on a new book, called "A Golden Age: the political consequences of the peace." He is also a contributor to the ARRA News Service

Tags: Ralph Benko, Rick Santorum , Gold Standard To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!