How Obama Got Elected

Muslim Professor Says Muhammed Never Existed

Muslim Professor Says Muhammed Never Existed


Up to some time ago I was convinced that Muhammad was a historical figure. Although I always based my thinking on the assumption that the Islamic historical narrative regarding Muhammad was very unreliable, I had no doubts that at least the basic lines of his biography were historically correct.I have now moved away from this position and will soon publish a book in which I will, among other things, comment on this question and explain my arguments in more detail. This essay is only a short summary of my most important arguments. It also deals with the question of what implications historical-critical research has for the Islamic theory and how I deal with my research results as a theologian.


And with those words Muhammad Sven Kalisch, Muslim Convert and Professor of Islamic Theology sent shockwaves through the theological world, lost his departmental chairmanship and an probably put a bounty on his head.


My position with regard to the historical existence of Muhammad is that I believe neither his existence nor his non-existence can be proven. I, however, lean towards the non-existence but I don’t think it can be proven. It is my impression that, unless there are some sensational archeological discoveries — an Islamic “Qumran” or “Nag Hammadi” — the question of Muhammad’s existence will probably never be finally clarified.


Read more about Sven’s theory and some of the academic and Islamic reactions below:

Professor Hired for Outreach to Muslims Delivers a Jolt Islamic Theologian’s Theory: It’s Likely the Prophet Muhammad Never Existed By ANDREW HIGGINS

MÜNSTER, Germany — Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a Muslim convert and Germany’s first professor of Islamic theology, fasts during the Muslim holy month, doesn’t like to shake hands with Muslim women and has spent years studying Islamic scripture. Islam, he says, guides his life.

So it came as something of a surprise when Prof. Kalisch announced the fruit of his theological research. His conclusion: The Prophet Muhammad probably never existed.

Read a translated excerpt from “Islamic Theology Without the Historic Muhammad — Comments on the Challenges of the Historical-Critical Method for Islamic Thinking” by Professor Kalisch.

Muslims, not surprisingly, are outraged. Even Danish cartoonists who triggered global protests a couple of years ago didn’t portray the Prophet as fictional. German police, worried about a violent backlash, told the professor to move his religious-studies center to more-secure premises.

“We had no idea he would have ideas like this,” says Thomas Bauer, a fellow academic at Münster University who sat on a committee that appointed Prof. Kalisch. “I’m a more orthodox Muslim than he is, and I’m not a Muslim.”

When Prof. Kalisch took up his theology chair four years ago, he was seen as proof that modern Western scholarship and Islamic ways can mingle — and counter the influence of radical preachers in Germany. He was put in charge of a new program at Münster, one of Germany’s oldest and most respected universities, to train teachers in state schools to teach Muslim pupils about their faith.

Muslim leaders cheered and joined an advisory board at his Center for Religious Studies. Politicians hailed the appointment as a sign of Germany’s readiness to absorb some three million Muslims into mainstream society. But, says Andreas Pinkwart, a minister responsible for higher education in this north German region, “the results are disappointing.”

Prof. Kalisch, who insists he’s still a Muslim, says he knew he would get in trouble but wanted to subject Islam to the same scrutiny as Christianity and Judaism. German scholars of the 19th century, he notes, were among the first to raise questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Many scholars of Islam question the accuracy of ancient sources on Muhammad’s life. The earliest biography, of which no copies survive, dated from roughly a century after the generally accepted year of his death, 632, and is known only by references to it in much later texts. But only a few scholars have doubted Muhammad’s existence. Most say his life is better documented than that of Jesus.

Sven Muhammad Kalish

“Of course Muhammad existed,” says Tilman Nagel, a scholar in Göttingen and author of a new book, “Muhammad: Life and Legend.” The Prophet differed from the flawless figure of Islamic tradition, Prof. Nagel says, but “it is quite astonishing to say that thousands and thousands of pages about him were all forged” and there was no such person.

All the same, Prof. Nagel has signed a petition in support of Prof. Kalisch, who has faced blistering criticism from Muslim groups and some secular German academics. “We are in Europe,” Prof. Nagel says. “Education is about thinking, not just learning by heart.”

Prof. Kalisch’s religious studies center recently removed a sign and erased its address from its Web site. The professor, a burly 42-year-old, says he has received no specific threats but has been denounced as apostate, a capital offense in some readings of Islam.

“Maybe people are speculating that some idiot will come and cut off my head,” he said during an interview in his study.

A few minutes later, an assistant arrived in a panic to say a suspicious-looking digital clock had been found lying in the hallway. Police, called to the scene, declared the clock harmless.

A convert to Islam at age 15, Prof. Kalisch says he was drawn to the faith because it seemed more rational than others. He embraced a branch of Shiite Islam noted for its skeptical bent. After working briefly as a lawyer, he began work in 2001 on a postdoctoral thesis in Islamic law in Hamburg, to go through the elaborate process required to become a professor in Germany.

The Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S. that year appalled Mr. Kalisch but didn’t dent his devotion. Indeed, after he arrived at Münster University in 2004, he struck some as too conservative. Sami Alrabaa, a scholar at a nearby college, recalls attending a lecture by Prof. Kalisch and being upset by his doctrinaire defense of Islamic law, known as Sharia.

In private, he was moving in a different direction. He devoured works questioning the existence of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Then “I said to myself: You’ve dealt with Christianity and Judaism but what about your own religion? Can you take it for granted that Muhammad existed?”

He had no doubts at first, but slowly they emerged. He was struck, he says, by the fact that the first coins bearing Muhammad’s name did not appear until the late 7th century — six decades after the religion did.

He traded ideas with some scholars in Saarbrücken who in recent years have been pushing the idea of Muhammad’s nonexistence. They claim that “Muhammad” wasn’t the name of a person but a title, and that Islam began as a Christian heresy.

Prof. Kalisch didn’t buy all of this. Contributing last year to a book on Islam, he weighed the odds and called Muhammad’s existence “more probable than not.” By early this year, though, his thinking had shifted. “The more I read, the historical person at the root of the whole thing became more and more improbable,” he says.

He has doubts, too, about the Quran. “God doesn’t write books,” Prof. Kalisch says.

Some of his students voiced alarm at the direction of his teaching. “I began to wonder if he would one day say he doesn’t exist himself,” says one. A few boycotted his lectures. Others sang his praises.

Prof. Kalisch says he “never told students ‘just believe what Kalisch thinks’ ” but seeks to teach them to think independently. Religions, he says, are “crutches” that help believers get to “the spiritual truth behind them.” To him, what matters isn’t whether Muhammad actually lived but the philosophy presented in his name.

This summer, the dispute hit the headlines. A Turkish-language German newspaper reported on it with gusto. Media in the Muslim world picked up on it.

Germany’s Muslim Coordinating Council withdrew from the advisory board of Prof. Kalisch’s center. Some Council members refused to address him by his adopted Muslim name, Muhammad, saying that he should now be known as Sven.

German academics split. Michael Marx, a Quran scholar at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, warned that Prof. Kalisch’s views would discredit German scholarship and make it difficult for German scholars to work in Muslim lands. But Ursula Spuler-Stegemann, an Islamic studies scholar at the University of Marburg, set up a Web site called and started an online petition of support.

Alarmed that a pioneering effort at Muslim outreach was only stoking antagonism, Münster University decided to douse the flames. Prof. Kalisch was told he could keep his professorship but must stop teaching Islam to future school teachers.

The professor says he’s more determined than ever to keep probing his faith. He is finishing a book to explain his thoughts. It’s in English instead of German because he wants to make a bigger impact. “I’m convinced that what I’m doing is necessary. There must be a free discussion of Islam,” he says.

Obama Declares War on Conservative Talk Radio

Obama Declares War on Conservative Talk Radio

By Jim Boulet, Jr.

Barack Obama sought to silence his critics during his 2008 campaign.  Now, with the ink barely dry on this November’s ballots, Obama has begun a war against conservative talk radio.

Obama is on record as saying he does not plan an exhumation of the now-dead “Fairness Doctrine“. Instead, Obama’s attack on free speech will be far less understood by the general public and accordingly, far more dangerous.


The late community organizer Saul Alinsky taught his followers to strike hard from an unexpected direction, an approach known as Alinsky jujitsu.


Obama himself not only worked as an organizer for an Alinsky offshoot organization, Chicago’s Developing Communities Project, but would go on to teach classes in Alinsky’s beliefs and methods.


“Alinsky jujitsu” as applied to conservative talk radio means using vague rules already on the books to threaten any station which dares to air conservative programs with the loss of its valuable broadcast license.


Team Obama and the “localism” weapon


The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule in question is called “localism.”  Radio and television stations are required to serve the interests of their local community as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses. 


Obama needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism in such a way that no radio station would dare air any syndicated conservative programming.


Localism is one of the rare issues on which Obama himself has been outspoken. 


On September 20, 2007, Obama submitted a pro-localism written statement to an FCC hearing held at the Chicago headquarters of Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.’s Operation Push.


Furthermore, the Obama transition team knows all about the potential of localism as a means of silencing conservative dissent.  The head of the Obama transition team is John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress.


In 2007, the Center for American Progress issued a report, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.  This report complained that there was too much conservative talk on the radio because of “the absence of localism in American radio markets” and urged the FCC to “[e]nsure greater local accountability over radio licensing.


Podesta’s choice as head of the Federal Communications Commission’s transition team is Henry Rivera.


Since 1994, Rivera has been chairman of the Minority Media Telecommunications Council.  This organization has specific ideas about localism:


In other words, it would not do for broadcasters to meet with the business leaders whose companies advertise on their station.  Broadcasters must reach beyond the business sector and look for leaders in the civic, religious, and non-profit sectors that regularly serve the needs of the community, particularly the needs of minority groups that are typically poorly served by the broadcasting industry as a whole.


Rivera’s law firm is also the former home of Kevin Martin, the current FCC chairman.  Martin is himself an advocate of more stringent localism requirements. 


It was on Martin’s watch that on January 24, 2008, the FCC released its proposed localism regulations.  According to TVNewsday: “At the NAB radio show two weeks ago, Martin said that he wanted to take action on localism this year and invited broadcasters to negotiate requirements with him.”


FCC complaints as politics by other means


Remember that an FCC license is required for any radio or television station to legally operate in the United States.  A single complaint from anyone can significantly hinder a station’s license renewal process or even cost the station its FCC license entirely.


There have been some attempts to utilize the FCC complaint process for partisan political ends, most memorably in 2004, when Sinclair Broadcasting agreed to air a documentary questioning Senator John Kerry’s war record:
Poised to pre-empt programming on its 62 television stations to run a negative documentary about Sen. John Kerry, Sinclair Broadcast Group has come under fire from critics calling it partisan and questioning whether it is failing federal broadcast requirements to reflect local interests.
Members of Congress and independent media groups have questioned the company’s willingness to respect “localism,” a section of federal law that requires media companies to cover local issues and provide an outlet for local voices.


One group, The Leftcoaster, went further:


But what isn’t done a lot which requires the broadcaster to rack up expensive legal fees, is to challenge every one of their affiliates’ FCC license renewals as they come up this year and next.  … [T]here still is time to organize and file Petitions or objections by November 1, 2004 for Sinclair stations in North Carolina and South Carolina, and for Florida by January 1, 2005.


More recently, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium issued a “fill in the blanks” official FCC complaint form which begins “Anything that you feel is offensive is worth reporting.”


Community advisory boards as permanent complaint departments


These random efforts could be far more effective at silencing conservatives if they could only be systematized and institutionalized.  That is exactly what the FCC proposed on January 24th.   Every radio and television station would be required to create:


[P]ermanent advisory boards comprised of local officials and other community leaders, to periodically advise them of local needs and issues, and seek comment on the matter. … 
To ensure that these discussions include representatives of all community elements, these boards would be made up of leaders of various segments of the community, including underserved groups.


The “community advisory board as permanent complaint department” model may well be based upon the 1995 revisions of the Community Reinvestment Act, as described by Howard Husock in City Journal:


[T]the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. … [F]or advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation.  …
By intervening-even just threatening to intervene-in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York…[emphasis in original].


Understand that even allowing conservatives to be radio talk show guests may provoke a FCC licensing complaint.  Just ask “right wing hatchet man” Stanley Kurtz.


For Obama, when it comes to radio talk, silence is golden, at least when it comes to conservatives.


Can localism be stopped?


FCC observers agree that the outpouring of complaints from groups like the National Religious Broadcasters during the original comment period helped delay matters. 


However, Kevin Martin’s determination to enact a localism regulation has led him to ask the broadcast industry to accept a voluntary standard that the FCC would then enact.  If industry failed to agree now, Martin warned, “a future FCC may be less willing to compromise than the current one.”


This scare tactic — agree to our demands today or suffer dire consequences tomorrow — is having an impact. 


What broadcasters need to do: speak up now


Radio and television station owners need to become engaged in the localism issue and then take the time to educate their own Congressman and Senators about the dangers of the FCC’s proposals. 


If broadcasters get involved, it just may be possible to block implementation of any localism rules during the few months remaining of the Bush Administration.


This delay is critical, since once it is the Obama Administration leading the fight for rules which would shut down conservative talk radio, Republican Congressmen and Senators will find it easier to fight back.


The Senate needs to draw a line in the sand: free speech, not localism


While President Obama will have the authority to name Commissioners as their terms end, these nominations must be confirmed by the Senate


A few pointed questions on localism to FCC nominees during their confirmation hearings would be useful.  A filibuster of any and all pro-localism FCC nominees would be even better.


Any Senator leading such a filibuster would earn the gratitude of millions of fans of talk radio as well as everyone who believes in free speech..


Jim Boulet, Jr. is the founder of the anti-localism web site,  Research assistance for this article was provided by Richard Falknor of Blue Ridge Foru

Waltzing on the Titanic

Waltzing on the Titanic

By Larrey Anderson

America’s young people helped elect Barack Obama. Way to go kids! This article is for you. Let’s take a look at your future.


We won’t need a time machine. We will just need to visit Europe and talk to the youth of France, Italy, and Greece. Don’t worry. They won’t mind. They have plenty of time to talk. They don’t have jobs.


Young people in Western Europe tend to sit around, smoke Marlboro cigarettes, drink espresso (and Coca Cola), and (at least until this election) bitch about America.


They have been taught, since their first day in school, that capitalism is evil — that the government can, and should, provide health care, employment, and eventually, guaranteed retirement benefits for everyone.


In their leisurely conversations when they have finished condemning capitalism, they go on to praise the idea of socialism. They do not praise their own countries. They are not stupid. The health care stinks. (Young people don’t care much about that.) There are no jobs. (But there are unemployment benefits.) And the retirement systems are bankrupt. (But old age is way, way, way in the future.)


So, they argue, in the next election they are going to replace the loser socialists who currently run their countries with some real socialists — politicians who will finally keep their promises. I heard this discussion in France thirty years ago. I heard it the last time I was in Italy. It is taking place in Greece right now.


The last time I was in Rome I listened as a very bright young man explained to his friends, over lunch at a sidewalk café, what was really going on: Most European countries have become, essentially, plutocracies. The socialist governments give lip service to wealth redistribution but they are tightly interwoven with the “old money” in the banking system and in big business.


This came as no surprise to his educated friends. Their response was (same as it always is): Of course the system is corrupt. We will throw out the old socialists and put in some new ones. It played in their minds like a broken record. I have heard it for years and years and years.


The only thing that stopped the conversation from becoming a perpetual loop was that one of the conversationalists eventually proclaimed, “Ah. But at least we are not America!” The Marlboros got lit up. The espresso amd Coca Cola were sipped. And they got back to the serious business of bashing capitalism.


Well, not all of them. It turned out that the bright young man who had so eloquently described the current corruption was the bus boy at the café. He had a university education … and a job!


I had the opportunity to speak with one of these young people alone. Actually, this fellow was not so young anymore. He was thirty-four. He still lived with his parents.


He could not afford his own place. His family was having problems even paying their electrical bills.


The reason the price of electricity was so high was that the “greens” had for years stopped the Italian government from building nuclear power plants.


He drove a taxi a few days a week (the only job he could find). He had a girlfriend but could not afford to marry her. He was not planning on having children. But in the next election, he assured me, a brand new socialism was coming. He started to rattle off the names of the experts he had read in the newspapers (and he had studied in the university) who had told him so.


I felt sorry for him. I had had this exact conversation many times before. He was brim full of hope and change.


Listen up young Americans: What is coming to the United States is what has been happening in Europe for decades. The ships of state have smashed into an iceberg called socialism and they are sinking.


This is not a Republican versus Democrat thing. Republicans had ten years to clean up the mess. They made it worse. I don’t blame you for wanting to throw the bums out. I did too.


But putting in a new and improved and ever more aggressive socialist like Obama is not the answer. (Don’t argue about his socialism. Go to his website and show me some free market proposals.) They have been trying this in Europe for three generations. It has not worked.


That trillion-dollar “bi-partisan” bailout passed by our Congress did not go to the people who cannot make their house payments. It is being handed out to the big bankers and to big business.


That is how socialism works. Politicians, bankers, and big businessmen do an age-old dance in triple time. There is no trickle down economics in socialism. Almost all of the money stays at the top.


America will soon be, like Europe has been, waltzing on the Titanic. Thanks for the dance.


Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. His latest award-winning novel is The Order of the Beloved.

Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship

Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship
Nov 10 08:46 PM US/Eastern
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) – A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.”It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force,” Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. “I’m just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may—may not, I hope not—but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism.”

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

“That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did,” Broun said. “When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”

Obama’s comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado in which he called for expanding the nation’s foreign service.

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” Obama said in July. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

The Obama transition team declined to comment on Broun’s remarks. But spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama was referring in the speech to a proposal for a civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure—an idea endorsed by the Bush administration.

Broun said he believes Obama would move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national security force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors “common sense” gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he’ll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

“We can’t be lulled into complacency,” Broun said. “You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I’m not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I’m saying is there is the potential of going down that road.”


On the Net:

Rep. Paul Broun:
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not

Where’s the Birth Certificate? Supreme Court Orders Obama to Produce

SCOTUS Tells Obama To Produce Birth Certificate
Lawyer Philip Bergs lawsuit questioning Barack Obamas natural born status has entered a do-or-die phase after the Supreme Court has ordered the president-elect to produce his birth certificate by December 1st.

Berg, who appealed his case of Americas highest court, was told by Justice David Souters Clerk that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was denied. The Clerk also required the defendants (Obama, the DNC, and FEC) to respond to the Writ of Certiorari by December 1. At that time, Obama must present an authentic birth certificate to the Court, which has been sealed by Hawaii governor Linda Lingle. Berg will get to respond afterwards.

Failure to do that will surely inspire the skepticism of the Justices in Obama, who are not used to being defied. The Court will have to decide what to do about a president-elect who refuses to prove his natural-born citizenship.

I can see a unanimous Court (en banc) decertifying the election if Obama refuses to produce his birth certificate, says attorney and writer Raymond S. Kraft. They cannot do otherwise without abandoning all credibility as guardians of the Constitution. Even the most liberal justices, however loathe they may to do this, still consider themselves guardians of the Constitution. The Court is very jealous of its power – even over presidents, even over presidents-elect.

Obamas own campaign website has stated the president-elect was a Kenyan citizen until 1982. Audio of Obamas Kenyan grandmother saying he was born in Kenya has recently surfaced.

On December 13, the Electoral College meets to casts its votes. If it has been determined that Mr. Obama is an illegal alien and therefore ineligible to become President of the United States, the Electors will be duty-bound to honor the Constitution.

By NewsGuy November 9th, 2008
Filed under: Defeat Obama Central
Article tags: birth certificate, natural born lawsuit, Obama, SCOTUS

November 9th, 2008 – 5:50 pm The Supremes have issued an order because they want that birth certificate as part of their response to the writ of certiorari. If they dont get it, then cert might well be granted, and *then* it would go to a hearing.

And they dont have to decertify the entire election. They might, however, dictate that the Electoral Collegians cannot mark any of their ballots for Barack Obama and must mark their ballots for someone else as President. And this would pretty much unbind them from having to vote for the named candidate on the November ballot.

Im not saying that John McCain would win by default. I am saying that this would create quite an interesting situation, to be sure.

November 9th, 2008 – 5:55 pm In light of Obamas refusal to provide his birth certificate to the court in answer to Bergs lawsuit; if it turns out that Obama is not a natural born citizen as defined by the constitution, then one can only conclude that his intention all along was to create a constitutional crisis, forcing the Supreme Court to decide between overturning Section I Article II of the constitution, or unseating a popularly elected President – either of which would undermine the very fabric of our constitutional form of government.

If hes not a natural born citizen and they overturn Section I Article II, half the country will revolt because the SCOTUS ignored the constitution.

If hes not a natural born citizen and they unseat him according to the constitution, half the country will revolt because the man they chose as President will be removed by the courts.

That is a no-win situation, and reeks of totalitarian divide-and-conquer.

I pray, quite earnestly, that Barack Hussein Obama is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and that he has the documentation to prove it.

At this point, Supreme Court Justice David Souters Clerk informed Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who brought the case against Obama, that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was denied, but the Clerk also required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1. At that time, Mr. Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond.

If Obama fails to do that, it is sure to inspire the skepticism of the Justices, who are unaccustomed to being defied. They will have to decide what to do about a president-elect who refuses to prove his natural-born citizenship.

I can see a unanimous Court (en banc) decertifying the election if Obama refuses to produce his birth certificate, says Raymond S. Kraft, an attorney and writer. They cannot do otherwise without abandoning all credibility as guardians of the Constitution. Even the most liberal justices, however loathe they may to do this, still consider themselves guardians of the Constitution. The Court is very jealous of its power – even over presidents, even over presidents-elect.

Also remember that on December 13, the Electoral College meets to casts its votes. If it has been determined that Mr. Obama is an illegal alien and therefore ineligible to become President of the United States, the Electors will be duty-bound to honor the Constitution.
[link to]

Virginia court has ruled against already but they haven’t concluded he was born in Hawaii. The birth is just registered in Hawaii days after his birth.
[link to]
“TPTB will help him out. He’ll produce (actually, the tptb will produce) a birth certificate.”

“Yes, they very well might do this. It is no problem for them to do this and they have, no doubt already begun to get it done. How the people in Kenya would feel about this is a foreign affairs concern, but you know they would call it a lie.

“If hes not a natural born citizen and they unseat him according to the CONSTITUTION, half the country will revolt because the man they chose as President will be removed by the courts.”

The courts shouldn’t be blamed for this…not their fault, it’s the law.

Barry probably isn’t sleeping well tonight.”

Time will tell what happens!

Worshippers in Lansing, MI assaulted by liberal activists

Worshippers in Lansing, MI assaulted by liberal


Rick Moran
Suppose you were sitting in church one Sunday peacefully minding your own business, praying that God grant our new president the wisdom to do what is right when suddenly, the sanctity of the church is violated in the most horrific way by vandals, thugs, and screaming lunatics.

This is what happened at a small church in Lansing, MI called Mount Hope. From the blog Right Michigan:

Mount Hope, for the record, is an evangelical, bible believing church whose members provide free 24 hour counseling, prayer lines, catastrophic care for families dealing with medical emergencies, support groups for men, women and children dealing with a wide variety of life’s troubles, crisis intervention, marriage ministries, regular, organized volunteer work in and around the city, missions in dozens of countries across the globe, a construction ministry that has built over 100 churches, schools, orphanages and other projects all over the world and an in-depth prison ministry that reaches out, touches and helps the men and women the rest of society fears the most.  They also teach respect for all human life and the Biblical sanctity of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman.
What followed is like something out of the annals of Solzhenitsyn or some other account of bigotry directed against religion:


This is what Michigan liberals label a “radical right wing establishment,” and over 30 of them showed up in force yesterday.  Wearing secret-service style ear pieces and microphones they received the “go” from their ringleader and off they went. 
Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony.  “Jesus was gay,” they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage.  Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air.  Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss.
Their other props?  I’ll let them tell you in their own words… from another of their liberal blogs:
“(A) video camera, a megaphone, noise makers, condoms, glitter by the bucket load, confetti, pink fabric…yeh.”
The video camera they put to good use as they attempted to provoke a violent reaction.  The image of the pink-clad folks above is one of theirs, stating in a picture worth more than a thousand words the goals of the Michigan left.  
The “open minded” and “tolerant” liberals ran down the aisles and across the pews, hoping against hope to catch a “right winger” on tape daring to push back (none did).  And just in case their camera missed the target, they had a reporter in tow.  According to a source inside the church yesterday there was a “journalist” from the Lansing City Pulse along for the ride, tipped off about the action and more interested in getting a story than in preventing the vandalism, the violence and anti-Christian hatred being spewed by the lefties.  We’ll see what he files and what his editors see fit to print.


How charming. And how revealing. These thugs were only doing what many liberals would love to do  – if they were as shameless as these idiots.


Can we expect more of this? Given what I’ve seen so far, I think that social cons are in for a very rough few years as Obama’s victory seems to have empowered these punks. They will force their moral views down your throat whether you like it or not.

And they think they have the power to do it.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers