Archive for August 21st, 2008

Dems Hope to be Seen as “Faith-Friendly” in Denver

Thursday, August 21st, 2008

Apparently Obama and his cronies think the American people are completely stupid. We know his stand on Christianity, we know his stand on abortion and gay marriage, we know that he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing…….why does he continue to try to make everyone believe that he is “faith-friendly”? We know the truth, he might as well go ahead and show his true colors instead of trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public.

An evangelical pastor from Florida who calls himself a “conservative Republican” will be delivering the opening and closing prayer at the Democratic National Convention next Thursday in Denver.

The Democratic National Convention (DNC) will kick off Sunday with what organizers call an “interfaith gathering” of Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, and Jewish leaders and a representative of Denver’s Buddhist community. A Convention spokeswoman says the event will show that Democrats are “faith-friendly” and more “religiously diverse” than Republicans.

According to news reports, “religious leaders” will open and close each day’s session. On Thursday, Orlando mega-church pastor Joel Hunter will be opening and closing the DNC with prayer.
Former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer argues that the only way the Democratic Party can get evangelical votes is if they use the “language of faith” and get the cooperation of people like Pastor Hunter, who has indicated he may vote for Barack Obama.

“I don’t know how you can do that if you’re a serious evangelical pastor and are pro-life, given what Barack Obama has said publicly about his extreme views on abortion,” he responds.

Nevertheless, Bauer says he wishes Hunter well. “I’m glad somebody’s going to be praying at the Democratic National Convention,” states Bauer, “but I certainly hope that Pastor Hunter [when speaking in Denver] prays for the unborn children…who have been destroyed because the Democratic Party supports and has supported for decades abortion on demand.”

Featured speakers scheduled for earlier in the week at the DNC include the leaders of two of the nation’s largest abortion advocacy groups in America — Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America (Monday), and Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood of America (Tuesday).

Original Link

Study: ABC, NBC, CBS Strongly Support Obama

Thursday, August 21st, 2008

It would take someone who is just completely out of touch with current events for them to fail to notice how “in love” the press is with Obama. This statement says it all:
‘Coverage bordered on giddy celebration of political rock star’

A comprehensive analysis of every evening news report by the NBC, ABC and CBS television networks on Barack Obama since he came to national prominence concludes coverage of the Illinois senator has “bordered on giddy celebration of a political ‘rock star’ rather than objective newsgathering.”

The new study by the Media Research Center, which tracks bias in the media, is summarized on the organization’s website, where the full report also has been published. It reveals that positive stories about Obama over that time outnumbered negative stories 7-1, and significant controversies such as Obama’s relationship with a convicted Chicago man have been largely ignored.

Rich Noyes, the research director for the MRC, told WND Obama has “always received very positive press from the national media,” and that was a “huge boost to anyone seeking a national political career.”

That’s contrary to the normal “default position” for reporters of being slightly cynical and a little skeptical, he said. It is “not the normal professional approach you see in journalists,” he said.

Noyes said the results imply that the Democratic National Convention in Denver next week, where Obama is expected to be nominated and has scheduled an acceptance speech in the city’s 75,000-seat football stadium, will generate much media praise for the candidate.

If Obama is described by the media repeatedly as the historic first black to carry a political party’s nomination for president while presumptive GOP candidate Sen. John McCain is just a Republican, that would give Obama an advantage, he said.

The MRC said it located every story referencing Obama on ABC’s World News, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News “from the time Obama emerged on the national stage.”

“The three evening news broadcasts may not be able to tout the high ratings of a generation ago, but together averaged more than 23 million combined viewers from January through early June of this year, far more than their cable news competitors,” the MRC said.

A total of 1,365 news stories and interviews offered “at least some discussion” of Obama, and 40 percent focused exclusively on Obama.

NBC aired 490 stories, ABC 464 and CBS had 411.

Brent Bozell, president of the MRC, said in a news release accompanying the report the bottom line issue for journalism is that the Big Three networks, “had a horse in this year’s Democratic primary race.”

He also credited the three networks with providing Obama’s “margin of victory” over fellow Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton.

“The press fixated their infatuated gazes on Sen. Obama, and afforded him the crucial coverage and support he needed to win,” Bozell said.

The study noted Obama’s victory over Clinton was by 41,622 votes out of 35 million, one-tenth of a percentage point.

But it said the networks provided Obama with 462 positive stories during the studied time frame, to just 70 that were critical, and Obama got “his best press when it mattered most, as he debuted on the national scene.

All of the networks lavished him with praise when he was the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and did not produce a single negative story about Obama (out of 81 total reports) prior to the start of his presidential campaign in 2007, the study said.

As important as the positive spin the MRC found, “the networks downplayed or ignored major Obama gaffes and scandals. Obama’s relationship with convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko was the subject of only two full reports (one each on ABC and NBC) and mentioned in just 15 other stories. CBS and NBC also initially downplayed controversial statements from Obama’s longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright, but heavily praised Obama’s March 18 speech on race relations.”

Even when the networks were giving Obama his worst publicity, they still offered two positive stories about him for every critical report, the MRC said.

Tellingly, they referred to Obama as “rock star, “rising star,” or “superstar” 29 times in four years, describing him as “liberal” only 14 times.

“Perhaps if he had faced serious journalistic scrutiny instead of media cheerleading, Barack Obama might still have won his party’s nomination. But the tremendously positive coverage that the networks bestowed upon his campaign was of incalculable value,” the report said.

“The early celebrity coverage helped make Obama a nationally-known figure with a near-perfect media image. The protectiveness that reporters showed during the early primaries made it difficult for his rivals to effectively criticize him. And when it came to controversies such as the Wright affair, network reporters acted more as defenders than as journalists in an adversarial relationship. If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama, they surely made it a whole lot easier,” the report said.

The report said the bias the MRC uncovered also has not been lost on Americans.

“The Pew Research Center surveyed about 1,000 adults in late May and reported that ‘far more Americans believe that the press coverage has favored Barack Obama than think it has favored Hillary Clinton,’ even with 35 percent of Democrats seeing ‘a pro-Obama bias,'” the report said.

A Rasmussen survey in July found nearly half of voters believe most reporters try to help Obama with their reporting.

The report cited instances such as when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said when he was listening to Obama, “I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.”

During the 2004 DNC, then-NBC anchor Tom Brokaw said of Obama: “His national debut is getting rave reviews … This blessed young father of two is the son of a Kenyan working-class man and a white Midwestern mother. Both his parents are gone, but the lessons of their love are not.”

Conversely, Brokaw said the Republican keynoter that year, Democratic Sen. Zell Miller, was “torching his party and its ticket.”

“Obama in 2007 had the luxury of launching his presidential campaign having never once been the subject of a negative evening news story,” the report said.

Significantly, when Obama claimed his parents “got together” because of “what happened in Selma,” ABC and NBC ignored the fact that Obama was born in August 1961 and Selma’s civil rights march happened three months later.

Later when a Clinton campaign surrogate suggested Obama’s admissions of using cocaine could be exploited in a general election, the networks called out the Clinton campaign for its “dirty trick.” That contrasted to eight years earlier, when candidate George W. Bush was pushed aggressively to reveal whether he might have used cocaine.

“If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama, they surely made his road to the White House a whole lot smoother,” the report concluded.

Original Link.

Will Every Crime Become a Federal Case?

Thursday, August 21st, 2008

The federal government continues to grow, and as a result, it finds more ways to intervene in our lives. I am a complete supporter of government being made smaller. Much smaller.

Is Washington making a federal case out of everything?

Researchers have discovered a major trend toward federalization of crimes since the nation was founded in 1776, Accuracy in Media reports. A study has recorded a major boost in the quantity of federal crimes within U.S. law.

“When the country started, there were basically three crimes: piracy, counterfeiting and treason,” former Attorney General Edwin Meese told the publication. “At the time of our [1998] report, there were some 4,000 crimes.”

Meese is currently chairman of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. He said most federal crimes became such in the last 30 years.

A Heritage Foundation panel on June 17 discussed substantial expansion of federal crime laws and power shifts from state to federal governments, according to the report. Meese, John Baker and Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert attended.

Baker and Gohmert told Accuracy in Media the federal government has created too many laws that focus on state issues, and it has been consistently removing powers from states.

Baker, a member of the American Bar Association’s Task Force on the Federalization of Crime, is not new to the study of federal crime counts. He said current information stems from studies done 25 years ago.

“As of early 1983, the Justice Department put the number at 3,000 crimes and we’ve worked off that figure,” Baker told the publication. “[They] did a hand count of 27,000 pages in the US Code. No one since then has [undertaken such a tally].”

Researchers took that number and updated it to include new federal crimes that have been added since the original report.

“The conclusion we come to, as of this date at least, [is that] we have roughly 4,450 crimes,” he said.

Baker said researchers often run into problems when counting crimes because federal statutes often encompass multiple crimes within a text.

“One statute in particular in the last eight years was enacted right after [September 11] It contains 60 crimes,” Baker said.

He said a team of researchers searched documents for the keywords “fine” and “imprison” to reach a more precise figure of federal crimes created since the 25-year-old report.

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert said lawmakers don’t always scan federal laws inside bills and acts to make sure they don’t strip state governments of power.

According to the Accuracy in Media report, Gohmert, a former judge on the Judiciary Committee, said he encountered a similar problem with a fellow House member about a penalty within a bill. He spoke with the legislator and expressed his concern:

“I went to him and I said, ‘Look, I don’t think this is doing what you really want it to do, and he said, ‘You read the bill?’ and I said, ‘Yeah, and as a former judge I’d have a real problem interpreting the bill, and I don’t think this is what you want.'”

Gohmert told Accuracy in Media many lawmakers pass bills that transfer authority to the federal government so they do not appear “soft on crime.” Members of Congress often pass legislation granting federal government authority over issues previously handled at the state level to appear proactive and get re-elected.

“The power in Washington is like Tolkien’s ring,” Gohmert said. “Really good, wonderful people get the ring, and it changes them and they can’t put it down, they can’t let it go, they gotta fight and do whatever it takes.”

Baker and Gohmert told the publication the federal usurpation of power will continue to worsen if left unchecked.

“The more that the American people come to accept that any federal agency with power is somehow a police power, we are, piece by piece, building the police state that the left worries about,” Baker said. “Both left and right ought to be worried about the expansion of federal criminal law if we value our liberty which the Founders understood meant leaving general police powers at the local level.”

Original Link.

“The Devil’s Delight: Deceiving the Church” by Jan Markell

Thursday, August 21st, 2008

I received an interesting e-mail today from a pastor and would like to build on it. The e-mail reads, “Your ministry has been a wealth of information during my sermon series preparation on the ‘death of discernment.’ There is so much to cover. I liken it to our recent trip to New York. We saw 50 major landmarks and we only scratched the surface.”

The pastor continues, “There is no way I can cover all the deception issues in a sermon series in less than three years. What would you consider to be the top ten issues on this topic?”

It will take him three years! Is it really that bad? It may be. And I’m glad I can add to a good pastor’s sermon material!

The Bible prophesies that the church of the last days will be characterized by apostasy. Paul said that the Antichrist will not be revealed until “the apostasy comes first” (II Thess. 2:3). Jesus prophesied that “many will fall away” and “most people’s love will grow cold” (Matthew 24:10, 12).

Dr. David Reagan, one of our “Understanding the Times 2008” speakers, asks, “How have we reached this crisis point in the church? It is rooted in the German School of Higher Criticism which invaded this country big-time in the 1920s. According to the ‘scientific approach’ of this school of skeptics, the Bible is not the revealed Word of God. Rather, it is man’s search for God, and therefore it is filled with myth, legend, and superstition.

“Today this viewpoint dominates the seminaries in America. The Bible is studied not to be believed and obeyed but to be analyzed, dissected, and criticized. The result is that the Scriptures have lost their authority.”

The pastor who e-mailed me asked for the top ten areas of deception. The possibilities are legion. When we have voices out there like Brian McLaren stating that “everything must change” — in his book by that title — the old ways of doing church are mocked along with sound theology. The invasion of these post-moderns is alarming.

Writer and researcher Berit Kjos says, “Infiltration and deception have been tools of conspirators through the ages, and the church has been a primary target! After all, God warns us that ‘the whole world is under the sway of the evil one’ (I John 5:19). One of his most effective schemes is to redefine God’s Word and divert Christians from His unchanging truth to man’s shifting ideals.”

The world and church have let Oprah Winfrey shape the culture with her me-centered gospel. Her “New Age” terminology is viewed by many believers as “Christian.” Throw in Emergent theology and its post-modern message that emphasizes feelings over doctrine. Add to the mix the push for unity today and we have a freight train on the move and out of control. The conclusion is that “felt needs” trump everything. Oh, and don’t forget the “seeker movement” message of “gospel lite” so that Christians today can hardly find the true gospel anywhere.

Biblical Christianity never became outdated even if Emergent leader Brian McLaren implies that it has. Biblical truth will continue to be scorned by those who consider themselves to be intellectual (I Cor. 1:20), and it will likely be rejected by those who seek the praise of man over the praise of God (John 12:42,43). But the Spirit of God is always at work in the hearts of men, giving life to human spirits by the same power that raised Jesus Christ from the dead (Ephesians 1:19).

Will you contend for the faith today as we are asked to do in Jude 3? It will cost you something. You will lose loved ones. You will be tempted to cave in and keep quiet. You will feel very alone. I know these things because endless e-mails from the four corners of the earth come into our office stating this is the case. If everyone who felt alone would get together, I promise you we wouldn’t feel alone! We would fill many football stadiums.

The pastor mentioned above closed off with a good word: “Don’t spend too much time focusing on the deception but rather, on the truth.” May I add, don’t stop being a “watchman” or “contender for the faith?”

So don’t despair and do plan on a great reward for standing up for truth rather than the razzle-dazzle gimmicks that tell us we can get closer to God if we walk the labyrinth or practice centering prayer. He’s living inside of us. How much closer can He be to us than living within us?

Awaiting His return,
Jan Markell, Olive Tree Ministries

Original Link.

“Reviving Jim Crow: Racism and Reparations” by Jack Kinsella

Thursday, August 21st, 2008

Which is worse? The America of the past, the America of the present or the America of the future?

Ok, it’s a trick question. If you are Barack Obama then it is a tossup between the past and present.

If you are Al Gore, the tossup is between the present and the future, if you are Harry Reid, the answer is all three.

And if you are Nancy Pelosi . . . oh look! A squirrel . . . !

Congress just passed a meaningless resolution apologizing once again for the behavior of a generation whose members are all long-dead.

The nonbinding resolution, which passed on a voice vote, was introduced by Rep. Steve Cohen, a white lawmaker who represents a majority black district in Memphis, Tennessee and is facing a tough campaign against a black challenger.

“Jim Crow,” or Jim Crow laws, were state and local laws enacted mostly in the Southern and border states of the United States between the 1870s and 1965, when African-Americans were denied the right to vote and other civil liberties and were legally segregated from whites. The resolution states that “the vestiges of Jim Crow continue to this day.”

Really? There are LAWS that legally segregate blacks from whites in America? Which states? If Congress would only name them, those state capitals would be ringed with protestors ten deep demanding the repeal of any vestiges of Jim Crow. I personally would join the protestors demanding its repeal.

“African-Americans continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow — long after both systems were formally abolished — through enormous damage and loss, both tangible and intangible, including the loss of human dignity and liberty, the frustration of careers and professional lives, and the long-term loss of income and opportunity,” the resolution states.

The resolution says American blacks CONTINUE to suffer from Jim Crow and slavery. It is extremely politically incorrect to question such an assessment, but I still have to ask . . . WHERE?

One of the many positions that Obama seems to be on both sides of is the issue of paying reparations to the descendants of former slaves as a way of saying “mea culpa” for American institutionalized slavery.

In his debate with Alan Keyes in 2006, Obama said he was against it, favoring instead greater enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and job training. In a speech he gave the other day after Congress passed a resolution apologizing [again] for America’s past sins, the ‘other’ Obama surfaced.

“I personally would want our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged.” said Obama. “I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it’s Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.”

Deeds? What about the Emancipation Proclamation? What about the Thirteenth Amendment? Desegregation? Affirmative Action?
What about the 360,000 [mostly white] Union soldiers who gave their lives to put an end to slavery? Are these words? Or deeds?

Keep in mind, Obama is referencing the Congressional apology issued by the House for the “injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow.”

Excuse me for asking, but isn’t the current front-runner for the Presidency of the United States er . . . black?

If you aren’t sure, wait a couple of minutes and he’ll remind you that he can’t get elected because he’s black. Wait a couple more minutes and he’ll tell you that he is going to be elected — also because he’s black.

And if he is the front-runner, doesn’t that mean that his candidacy has more support (at least for now) than the white guy he’s running against?

Both the current and former US Secretaries of State were black. There is an African-American justice seated at the bench of the US Supreme Court. (It is worth noting that all these color-barriers were shattered by Republicans, not Democrats.)
“Deeds” is a code-word for the real word, which Obama accidentally allowed to slip from his lips, “reparations.” What it means in this context is, “money for nothing.”

The concept of ‘reparations’ (championed by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright) holds that modern white America should pay modern black America for 88 years of institutionalized slavery that was abolished by war, Presidential decree and Constitutional Amendment 144 years ago.

How would that work? Do I owe Oprah Winfrey, one of the wealthiest women on Planet Earth, reparations for bringing her ancestors to America? How much will I have to pay Bill Cosby? Michael Jordan? Barack Obama?

I have this mental image of some white family on food stamps trying to come up with the money to ‘apologize’ to Oprah Winfrey for depriving her of the chance to grow up penniless in Mogadishu or the Congo or the Ivory Coast.

Or Bill Cosby cashing his reparations check. Or that Jeremiah Wright really prefers that his ancestors had been left alone so he could retire to a grass hut rather than his $10 million Tinley Park home.

But most outrageous of all is the mental image of some impoverished sharecropper living on the Ivory Coast getting a reparations bill to compensate some black doctor in Manhattan whose ancestors sold the doctor’s ancestors to white slavers 200 years ago.

(As for the Congress including Native Americans in the apology, I doubt many of them would shut down their casinos in exchange for a tent, a pony and a rifle, either).

It would seem that if modern American blacks have suffered financially as a result of their ancestors being brought to America, rather than paying them to continue to live here, wouldn’t it make more sense to pay for those who are unhappy about how they got here to return to the land of their ancestry?

If not, then does the idea of reparations make any sense at all?
To my knowledge, none of my ancestors played any role in the slave trade. Until the end of the 19th century, they lived in Ireland. Should I be exempted?

Or should I have to pay strictly because of my color? What about American blacks whose ancestors emigrated to the US after 1865?
Do they get reparations checks based entirely on their color? What does racism mean, again?

It is a matter of documented American history that the Irish were also discriminated against when they arrived in America. Should the Irish be entitled to a Congressional apology?
What about reparations for financial losses suffered by those Irish-American immigrants confronted with the signs, “No Irish Need Apply”?

If not, then it is about color, not past injustices, is it not? If the apology and reparations are based in race, then aren’t the Irish being discriminated against — again?

I know the whole Irish thing is stupid, but that’s the point. So is the Congressional apology and the concept of paying reparations to 21st-century blacks for 19th-century injustices.

It perpetuates the myth that America is somehow a worse country than some others because it once permitted institutionalized slavery. So did Great Britain. And France.

And all the rest of the European colonial powers, at one time or another. But no living American has ever either owned a slave or been enslaved by another American.

Slavery, however, is alive and well among Islamic nations and is permitted under Sharia Law. (Particularly in Africa, where Sudanese Christians are routinely enslaved by the Islamic janjaweed.)

The same liberals who demand that I write Oprah Winfrey a check to ‘apologize’ for the fact she lives in a fifty million dollar home instead of a mud hut cover their ears and run away screaming when confronted with the problem of the ongoing Islamic Sudanese slave trade.

Sure, many of those taken as slaves are black, but they were enslaved for being Christians, not black, so who cares? It isn’t racial.

It’s religious, and what business to Americans have interfering with someone’s religion?

Does THIS sound like the post-racial America that the liberals and Barack Obama claim his candidacy is all about?

What is ‘post-racial’ about all white people paying slavery reparations to all black people, whether either the white people or black people were ever directly affected by the slave trade or not?

I’ve lived through the majority of the Civil Rights era. When I was born, Harry Truman was in the White House. I’ve followed every presidential election since the Ford-Carter election in 1976.

I recall clearly the candidacy of Jesse Jackson for the Democratic nomination in 1988, as well as the more recent candidacy of Al Sharpton. It wasn’t their race that cost them the job. It was their character.

Americans have been ready for a black president for decades — just not a black racist like Jackson, Sharpton, or, one hopes, Barack Obama.

No presidential campaign in my memory has been as racist as the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama, the post-racial candidate for post-racial America. And it isn’t whites that keep bringing up race as an issue.

THEY wouldn’t dare.

Original Link.