America’s Orwellian Liberalism

By Marvin
Folkertsma

The ink was barely dry on the
asterisk in Jimmy Hoffa, Jr.’s rant about taking out those “son-of-a-b*tches” —
referring to Tea Party members — when the vice president made his own
contribution at a Labor Day rally.  “This is a fight for the existence of
organized labor,” the veep shouted.  “You are the only ones who can stop the
barbarians at the gate!”  And the diatribes have continued with the
establishment of a website designed to track unfair comments made by those who,
in President Obama’s words, want to “cripple” America.  Congresswoman Maxine
Waters’ snippet about telling the Tea Party to “Go to H*ll!”(that pesky asterisk
again) added a nice sentimental touch, and some Wall Street protesters are denouncing free enterprise with
words snatched from Robespierre’s rich vocabulary.

 

This is pretty harsh stuff applied to
a menagerie of mostly gentle souls whose views of constitutional government
differ from those of President Obama & Company, but such perfervid comments
take on a clearer meaning when viewed in a more appropriate context: George
Orwell’s 1984.  That is, somehow the voices of liberalism today sound
less like traditional partisan pep-talks and more like Oceania’s “Two-Minute
Hate” sessions, where party members screamed at a giant telescreen filled with
the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, one of Big Brother’s objective enemies.  The
purpose was to deflect rage against miserable social conditions by directing it
to a foreign source, to siphon off the hatred by venting against Big Brother’s
enemies.

 

The parallels go beyond hurling
epithets at that massive Leon Trotsky lookalike in one of 1984‘s most
memorable scenes.  Consider the three slogans of the Party applied to today’s
Orwellian liberalism: “War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery,” and “Ignorance is
Strength.”  As explained in The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical
Collectivism, “the book” within the book, the purpose of war was to
preserve the domestic power structure.  As applied to today, Orwellian
liberalism’s increasingly vicious attacks against the Tea Party and Republicans
perform the same function, which is to preserve the current liberal power
structure by blaming others for its colossal failures.  High unemployment,
failed foreign policies, high energy prices, horrible housing markets,
disastrous federal deficits — they’re all the fault of liberalism’s enemies.
Republicans, Tea Party members — meet Emmanuel Goldstein.

 

“Freedom is Slavery” offers a host of
villains in civil society to whom the American public is “enslaved” under the
guise of being free, though the slogan offers a variant of what Orwell had in
mind.  Thus, freedom to choose one’s own health care plan or no health care plan
at all is slavery to the insurance companies; Americans “addicted” to oil
driving gas-guzzlers are slaves to Exxon and its partners; freedom to eat French
fries is slavery to clever McDonald’s advertising campaigns; and freedom to make
your own investment decisions is slavery to Wall Street.  In fact, Orwellian
liberalism assumes that citizens’ own decisions to live their lives pretty much
as they please constitute slavery to someone or another in a so-called “free
country,” which is why Big Brother in the form of the nanny state is becoming so
enormous, so oppressive.

 

This leaves us with what likely is
the most important slogan of Orwellian Liberalism: “Ignorance is Strength,”
which means in this context that ignorant citizens constitute the foundation of
the liberal establishment.  Indeed, there is no way America’s Oceania Big
Brother equivalent, President Obama, could get away with ludicrous statements
about “millionaires and billionaires not paying their fair share” of the income
tax without the silent collusion of Americans’ stupendous ignorance about such
matters.  Similarly, the country’s energy shortages could not conceivably exist
with an informed citizenry that is aware of how well-connected environmental
activists have prevented production in resources where North America dominates,
such as coal, natural gas, and shale.  Further, the massive propaganda campaign
centering on anthropogenic global warming could not possibly succeed with an
attentive public.

 

In short, “Ignorance is Strength” for
Orwellian liberals; pierce it, and the whole century-old liberal-progressive
project collapses in a heap of prevarications and pretense.

 

If this happens, liberals’
presumption to govern on the basis of the other two slogans, as well as a thick
vocabulary of Orwellian doublespeak, will collapse as well.  The question is
whether this situation can endure indefinitely, as it did in 1984.  The
answer depends on Americans’ determination to reclaim control of their
government.  Absent that, we had all better learn to love Big
Brother.

 

Dr. Marvin Folkertsma is
a professor of political science and fellow for American studies with The Center for Vision &
Values at Grove City College.  The author of several books, his latest
release is a high-energy novel titled The Thirteenth
Commandment.

Bashing Arizona Immigration Law Supporters

Bashing Arizona Immigration Law Supporters

Posted By Mark D. Tooley On May 3, 2010 @ 12:04 am In FrontPage | No Comments

The Religious Left has discerned that Christianity and Judaism demand virtually open borders by the United States, if not by other nations.  So naturally, many liberal church elites have quickly and angrily lashed out at Arizona’s new immigration law, ascribing to its backers the contempt that much of the Religious Left seems itself to have for many average Americans.

Arizona’s Episcopal Bishop Kirk Smith huffily declared:  “Today is a sad day in the struggle to see all God’s people treated in a humane and compassionate manner.”  And he tut-tutted:  “It seems that for now the advocates of fear and hatred have won over those of charity and love. Arizona claims to be a Golden Rule State. We have not lived up to that claim.”

It’s doubtful that the Episcopal Church in Arizona has been very successful in broadening it’s WASPy flock to include many immigrants.  Still, Bishop Kirk presumes to be their spokesman and moral leader on behalf of the Golden Rule:  “We will continue to work as hard as we can to defeat this law and to work toward just and fair laws that protect the rights of all human beings. We all know that our immigration system is broken, but it cannot be fixed by scape-goating the most vulnerable of those among us.”

Not content to defer to the local bishop, the Episcopal Church’s lobby office in Washington, D.C. also irritably chimed in against the Arizona law, bemoaning that the “lack of fair and humane immigration reform opens the door to misguided and divisive state and local attempts to address immigration enforcement.”  Of course, the Episcopal lobbyists want a national amnesty that would override state attempts at immigration enforcement:   “We urge Congress to provide a solution to a broken immigration system that separates families, spreads fear and keeps millions living in the shadows. Every day, members of our congregations see the unacceptable consequences of our broken immigration system.  We urge the Senate and House to enact bipartisan immigration reform that reunites families, protects the rights of all workers, and provides an opportunity for undocumented immigrants to earn legal status.”

Of course, like the rest of the Religious Left, the Episcopal lobbyists simplistically portray their open borders policy as “Christians…[who] are called to embrace the stranger and to find Christ in all who come to us in need.”  And like the Religious Left, they assume that solutions to vast social problems can be solved by sweeping legislation.  “With strong leadership in Congress, we are confident we can solve the broken immigration system.  We encourage members of Congress to join faith leaders to stand up for immigration policies that renew the dignity and human rights of everyone.”

But what if the open borders and amnesty that the Religious Left typically advocates in fact do not “renew the dignity and human rights of everyone” and instead only create more social disruption whose chief victims are ultimately low income native born and immigrants who lack the economic privileges of most Religious Left elites, especially Episcopalians?  In typical fashion, the Religious Left does not ponder unintended consequences and instead assumes that good intentions and political correctness are sufficient.

Evangelical Left Sojourners chief Jim Wallis wants evangelicals to follow the old Religious Left in distilling the Gospel down to the Left’s latest political demands and prejudices. “The law … is a social and racial sin, and should be denounced as such by people of faith and conscience across the nation,” Wallis intoned. “It is not just about Arizona, but about all of us, and about what kind of country we want to be. It is not only mean-spirited — it will be ineffective and will only serve to further divide communities in Arizona, making everyone more fearful and less safe.”

Arizona’s new crack down on illegal immigration may or may not have faults, but will it make lawful Arizonans “less safe?  Security and effective law enforcement are not typical strong emphases for Wallis or the Religious Left generally.  Instead, they often prefer name calling and charges of bigotry. “This legislation feels reactionary and hateful,” claims Church World Service chief John McCullough, who heads the National Council of Churches’ relief arm.  “It is a clear representation of the politics of division and exclusion.”

Even more hyperbolic was National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference chief Samuel Rodriguez, who has also successfully pressed the National Association of Evangelicals to adopt a liberalized immigration agenda.  “Today, Arizona stands as the state with the most xenophobic and nativist laws in the country,” he pronounced, almost as a curse.  “We need a multi-ethnic firewall against the extremists in our nation who desire to separate us rather than bring us together. Shame on you Arizona Republicans and shame on you Senator John McCain for endorsing the legislation.”

Rodriguez claims to represent virtually all Hispanic evangelicals, and naïve Anglo evangelical churchmen obligingly accept his claims, not considering that many Hispanic and other legal immigrants also have concerns about law enforcement, security, and open borders’ impact on their own ability to advance economically.  Instead, the Religious and Evangelical Left idealize immigration as merely a bumper sticker social justice issue dividing forces of light from bigoted forces of darkness.   Contrary to their claims, the Almighty has not directly revealed His preferences for U.S. immigration policy.  But traditional Christian and Jewish moral teachings about human nature and statecraft offer better guidance than the slapdash pseudo-thinking of the Arizona law’s seething religious critics.

Left Wing Filth and Hatred

Left-wing hate

Alan Colmes says the Right is “struggling to draw equivalency with Obama-bashing.”

There’s no struggle. It’s quite easy to find evidence of vile left-wing hatred and violence…it’s abundant, and it’s tolerated and accepted by mainstream lefties:

(Warning: totally NSFW)

• A look back at some of the crazed radicals the media spent years ignoring
• We support our troops when…
• ZombieTime Hall of Shame
• Bushitler
• Bush Monkey
• 21 Hateful Attacks on Sarah Palin
• Leftwing Violence at 2008 GOP Convention
• HuffPo offended by Tea Parties

Don’t miss the misogynistic hate filth from this left-wing sex pig:

(Warning: totally NSFW)

• Twitter: WhoIsAgentZero
• Obama supporter (and Coffee Party Leader) Annabel Park seems to be okay with vulgar, violent sexism

No, the left-wing hatred that I’ve seen is NOT equivalent to the peaceful and mild mannered dissent that I’ve witnessed at the tea parties over the past year. The left-wing hate is truly disgusting.

Left-wing outrage over uncivil discourse was conspicuously absent two short years ago. Alan Colmes: During the Bush years, where was YOUR concern for incivility?

More

Extensive documentation of Left Wing hatred and filth from ZombieTime (NSFW)

Breitbart: If the LEFT stops eating our fingers, beating up black men, throwing eggs at our buses, threatening violence, perhaps we can work together!

Liberal Narcissism and Anti-Christian Phobia

By Deborah C. Tyler

Americans have always expected national television broadcasters to steer clear of degrading epithets. On April 14, 2009, CNN’s Anderson Cooper established a new low in television journalism when he labeled millions of Americans in the Tea Party movement with a vulgar sexual term. Other mainstream media journalists and personalities gleefully followed suit. There was no outcry from the “anti-hate community.” Many liberals do not merely tolerate contumelies against conservatives, but they delight in them.

In the years after World War II, psychologists (many of whom were European Jews who had escaped Nazism) intensively studied how fascist and authoritarian states could bring ordinary people to commit extraordinary crimes against minorities. The two dominant personality theories of the twentieth century, the Freudian and Adlerian psychoanalytic models, provided theoretical frameworks for understanding bigotry and fascism as forms of individual and collective neurotic delusions. The Freudian model attributed these neuroses to a frustrated “will to pleasure,” while Adler pointed to an unhealthy expression of the “will to power” over others.

For the most part, psychologists today deny or ignore anti-Christian prejudice in the American conversation. This is because psychologists are overwhelming politically liberal and spiritually humanist. In social science, bias in is bias out. In addition, America’s dominant psychological model, behaviorism, has always been anti-theoretical and has not produced an integrated theory of personality equal in influence to either Freud or Adler.

Although Freud and Adler agreed on the existence of unconscious fear as the core of neurotic anxiety, they had different explanations for it. Freud posited that bigotry arises when a child internalizes the prejudices of the father in order to resolve unconscious sexual conflicts in the process of superego formation. This thwarted “will to pleasure” is projected as hatred onto a scapegoat minority. Culturally, fear becomes fascistic, involving rigid group conformity against a common enemy. Freud’s model is obsolete. Anderson Cooper, and the Manhattan micro-niche he typifies, is not anxiously reacting to an overbearing father-figure. It is the extreme opposite. Mr. Cooper is the son of a fantastically permissive brand of humanism. The only thing he has to feel guilty about is guilt itself.

But the Freudian model does have utility in one dimension. The aggression resulting from thwarted narcissism is gratified when projected onto a devalued minority — e.g., Tea Party participants. The core phobia is that non-approving conservatives are thwarting the “will to pleasure.” The need for perfect admiration and approval is the hallmark of narcissism, which is by definition insatiable. Narcissistic pleasure is the precursor to inevitable narcissistic rage. In the narcissistic liberal imagination, Christian conservatives stand in the way of a human heaven of sexual freedom.

Alfred Adler coined the term “inferiority complex.” He held that the neurotic complex arises from harm inherent in the “will to power” over others. His model explains liberal prejudice as an overreaction against unconscious self-doubt that projects intellectual, moral, and cultural inferiority onto others. Uppity and unmanageable conservatives, who, oblivious to their own stupidity, doggedly stand up for their inferior beliefs anger the narcissistic liberal.

Applying either Freudian or Adlerian analysis to liberal phobic structure requires updating the concept of individual anxiety, or neurosis, to the contemporary concept of group-based social phobia. Both Freud and Adler were middle-class Jewish men who assumed that neurosis developed in reaction to imbalances in the paternalistic nuclear family — the only normative child-rearing form either had ever seen.

In 1980, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders III dropped neurosis as a diagnosis and replaced it with culturally based phobias. The father-led nuclear family was no longer the social structure for incorporating values, morals, and role expectations. “Inadequacy adjustment” in relation to that family system was no longer the source of mental imbalance. Values, norms, and the power of social conditioning were moving outside the home and into the hands of “experts,” government schools, universities, and mass media — in other words, liberals.

Liberal phobic structure is a fascinating innovation in the history of prejudice and cultural fascism. It is a dread of specific forms of sin-cognizant religious belief.

Both anti-Christian phobia and narcissism result from the humanist denial of sin, heaven, and hell. Liberals believe the narcissogenic idea that they create their own heaven or hell on earth. The denial of God-defined sin leads to self-deification and the anxious business of high-stakes, self-directed life-styling. Liberals live with their eyes glued to mass media to learn what is and isn’t sin this season. People who believe that such behavior can lead to a nasty outcome beyond this life are detested. Although liberals accuse Christians of being homophobic, true Christians are hellphobic. Regardless of religious self-identification, people who are betting their immortal souls on a denial of sin and its effects beyond this life have to be crazy not to be phobic.

Every permanent theistic religion of the last seven thousand years — Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam — provides an understanding that spiritual wastefulness is sin. These religions seek to protect people from the consequences of sin beyond this life. Traditions that assume reincarnation, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, teach that sinfulness in one life leads to suffering in the next. Religions that do not incorporate reincarnation, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, explain life as a fleeting preparation before divine judgment.

The pathognomic sign that the liberal reaction to sin-cognizant belief systems is a symptom of phobic complex is that it selectively rejects the teachings of its own traditions — Judaism and especially Christianity. These cultural heritages pose a threat to the liberal wills to pleasure and power. Liberal phobia includes a complex delusional system that exempts some sin-cognizant religions. For example, liberals adore their own version of a morally permissive, designer Buddhism. Nor are they phobic toward Islam, which is based on fiercely sin-cognizant scripture. Liberals maintain mechanisms of denial regarding Islam that rise to the level of psychotic dissociation.

G.K. Chesterton wrote, “Bigots are people who have no convictions at all.” Screaming-meemies like Keith Olbermann, Rosie O’Donnell, Sean Penn, Janeane Garofalo, and all the porn-thumping preachers railing against the sin of sin-cognizance are the voices of the new cultural fascists, spittle-flinging celebrities unconsciously raging against their own fear.

I recently evaluated a 53-year-old man who has been unable to recover psychologically or physically from what appeared to be a minor accident. He was born into a devout Christian family in a small Midwestern town. He was also born gay. At about 30, he adopted a gay mode of life. His family continued to love him, but they did not alter their religious beliefs. When he discovered in 1990 that both he and his partner had contracted HIV, his family took this as a sign of the sinfulness of his lifestyle. This man’s friends, counselors, therapists, and humanistic-Christian pastors have for twenty years encouraged him to believe that his family is bigoted. His family has visited him through the years. They sit in the front room and do not stay the night. He acquired a settled resentment toward his people and never went home again. By the grace of God, he and his partner have survived for twenty years, while all of their friends have died. Ironically, he believes that this is because his family back home is praying for him. This man moved from an unyielding belief system based in divine forgiveness to a man-made culture that does not seem to value it.

Dr. Tyler can be reached at deborahtyler@intylergence.com.

Election ’08 Backgrounder

  

Financial Crisis | Iraq | Defense | Background & Character | Judges & Courts | Energy

 

FINANCIAL CRISIS

Quick Facts: Democrats created the mortgage crisis by forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them. In 2006, McCain sponsored a bill to fix the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Barney Frank and other Democrats successfully opposed it. Obama was one of the highest recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac donations in Congress. Related Editorials » Why The Mortgage Crisis Happened » What Caused The Loan Crisis? » Barney Frank’s Bankrupt Ideas » Pin Tail On Donkey » If Bailout Plan Is Too Socialistic, Just Wait For Obama Leviathan

IRAQ

Quick Facts: When the U.S. was on the verge of losing in Iraq, McCain chose to stand and fight.  Obama chose retreat. Even after the surge succeeded, Obama told ABC’s Terry Moran he would still oppose it if he had the chance to do it all over again. Related Editorials » Obama’s Bad Case Of Iraqnophobia » Victory In Anbar

DEFENSE

Quick Facts: Obama has promised to significantly cut defense spending, including saying “I will slow our development of future combat systems.” John McCain has vowed: “We must continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses and superior conventional forces that are capable of defending the United States and our allies.” Related Editorials » Obama And Frank: A Farewell To Arms » McCain Won’t Need Training Wheels Obama Video: Watch Now

BACKGROUND & CHARACTER

Quick Facts: Obama voted “present” 135 times as a state senator, and according to David Ignatius of the Washington Post, “gained a reputation for skipping tough votes.” McCain has taken stances unpopular with his own party and/or the public on controversial issues, including immigration, campaign finance reform, judicial nominations, the Iraq War and more. Related Editorials » Obama’s Fox Trot » The Audacity Of Socialism » Tough Truths About Obama’s Character » Obama Merely Changes The Subject

JUDGES & COURTS

Quick Facts: In a 2001 interview, Obama said he regretted that the Supreme Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.” In the same interview, Obama criticized the Supreme Court because it “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.” Obama has focused on empathy, rather than legal reasoning and restraint, as his basis for appointing judges, saying, “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy…to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.” McCain opposes judicial activism, saying, “my nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power.” Related Editorials » Constitutional Crisis » Judging McCain Obama 2001 Interview: Listen Now

ENERGY

Quick Facts: McCain has proposed building 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 and is in favor of drilling in sectors of the Outer Continental Shelf. Obama has refused to take a stand, saying only “we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix” and he will “look at” drilling offshore. Related Editorials » McCain: The Energy Candidate » McCain On Nukes: Yes We Can » Breaking The Back Of High Oil

God Wants Gun Control

God Wants Gun Control
By Mark D. Tooley
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 18, 2007
Left-wing religious officials raced to exploit the Virginia Tech murders by resuscitating their favorite slogans about gun control.

Winning the tackiness contest, National Council of Churches chief Bob Edgar issued a news release within hours of the shootings.

“How many more will have to die before we say enough is enough?” Edgar asked.  “How many more senseless deaths will have to be counted before we enact meaningful firearms control in this country?  How many more of our pastors, rabbis and imams will have to preside over caskets of innocent victims of gun violence because a nation refused to stop the proliferation of these small weapons of mass destruction?”

Revealingly, Edgar’s quick statement barely mentioned “God,” made no mention of Christ, and quoted no Scripture.  Although ostensibly the head of the nation’s chief ecumenical organization for Christian churches, Edgar evidently thought neither the Redeemer nor Holy Writ were all that pertinent in the wake of over two dozen murdered young people.  Far more urgent was a renewed push for gun control legislation.

From his perch in
Geneva, World Council of Churches chief Samuel Kobia offered prayers for the bereaved before launching into his own political fusillade.  “One of the major obstacles to effective global regulation of small arms and light weapons is the pro-gun position adopted by the U.S. administration during years of international negotiations,” Kobia quickly asserted, connecting the Virginia Tech murders to the global depredations of the
United States.   “The news from Virginia today is little different than the news from Darfur yesterday and the news from
Iraq tomorrow,” he asserted.  After all, Blacksburg, Virginia, like Darfur and
Iraq, has “wanton killings, the indiscriminate use of armed force and the widespread availability of deadly weapons.”Kobia hoped that the “gun lobby across the
USA” will begin to “understand the rising frustration among concerned citizens and governments around the world.”  While admitting there are “other factors,” he still insisted that the “U.S. arms manufacturing and arms sales policies have violent consequences abroad as well as in the
U.S.”      “We are all Virginians in our sympathy, but many people around the world are also Virginians in their vulnerability to the misuse of unregulated guns,” Kobia concluded.  “The globalized trade in small arms and light weapons must come under firm and appropriate controls.”    Like Kobia, Geneva-based World Alliance of Reformed Churches chief Setri Nyomi was also praying for the Virginia Tech victims and for “the United States of America and all nations as they struggle to overcome the temptation to rely on arms and as they work to find true security for all their peoples.” Repentance, from Nyomi’s perspective, would undoubtedly include a ban on hand guns, among other state controls. United Methodist chief lobbyist Jim Winkler also used the Virginia Tech killings to herald his denomination’s official support for a complete ban on handguns.  “The presence of guns in
U.S. society has not led to greater security but in fact has undermined the general sense of safety,” he declared.  “It must be stated that had this ban been in place this shooting might have been prevented since one of the guns used by the assailant was a 9 mm handgun. We once again call on the Congress to ban on all handguns and assault weapons so that our communities will be safer and so that this endless cycle of violence can be ended.”

Not all Religious Left officials exploited the Virginia Tech horrors.  The chief officials of the

Evangelical
Lutheran
Church in America (ELCA), the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) tactfully refrained from crowing about their denomination’s stances on gun control. Even evangelical left leader Jim Wallis showed restraint, calling for a time of “prayer and silence.”

ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson actually quoted Scripture in his statement:  “We mourn, we pray, and with the Psalmist we plead: “Out of the depths, I cry to you, O Lord. Lord, hear my voice!’ (Psalm 130:1)  As family and friends grieve the deaths and injuries of loved ones, we claim the promise of Christ’s Resurrection.”How unique that a prominent mainline church official actually responded to the horrible deaths of countless young people by pointing to the hope of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Why do others of his colleagues not follow his example?

The sin of murder precedes by many millennia the invention of fire arms.  It is recorded in the earliest chapters of the Bible, with Cain’s killing his brother Abel, and continues until the final chapters of Revelation.  Before the advent of guns, fallen humanity killed each other senselessly by the thousands with spears, with arrows, with hatchets and axes, with rocks, drownings, poisons, arsons, strangulations, starvations and incomprehensible tortures.  As Ecclesiastes records, “There is nothing new under the sun.”

Much of the Religious Left, with its absolute faith in statist regulation, and its denial of human fallenness, is confident that murder can be banished by banning its instruments.  But human nature is such that murderers will almost always have guns, and even when deprived, will resort to equally lethal weapons.

The state can punish, rarely deter, but it cannot change corrupt human hearts. The social mores that prevent murder are only effectively instilled by religion, which the Religious Left has neglected in favor of political “salvation.”

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

The “useful idiots” are at it again.

The WSJ reported Christian Leaders Take Iran’s Message to Washington

Then I received this email from a contact of mine in Iran, He asks How Stupid Some Americans Can Be:

Just listen to the chimpanzee/monkey president (Ahmedinajad) who knows nothing about love and humanity. Yet the evil monster turned president responsible for torture and murder of many innocent Iranians teaching the US President to show love and humanity to others.

What makes most Iranians furious is that the Delegation of American Christian Leaders who went to see Iran’s top thug failed to remind Ahmadinejad that he himself is not in a position to preach human kindness to others.

They conveniently failed to ask this bastard a simple question as why he is known to many as the “terminator”? Is not because while he was the member of the notorious Revolutionary Guards he carried out the “coup de grace” against thousands of ill fated Iranian prisoners?

The Delegation of American Christian Leaders failed to tell him that he should be kind and merciful to his own people before preaching humanity to others or sending gifts to Britain.

The regime Ahmaghinejad represents is a terrorist regime which not only creates, funds and supports suicide bombings abroad but has been responsible for chopping hands, stoning people and hanging thousands in public on cranes while torturing and murdering many more.

Some Americans are their own worst enemies. Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Michael More, Saun Penn and these idiots who went to listen to criminal Ahmaghinejad are the ones that Lenin once described them as “Useful idiots” and it seems that there are plenty of them in America.

Click on URL below and turn on your volume.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a Delegation of American Christian Leaders: U.S. President Should Replace His Circle of Advisors and Refrain from Making Decisions While Angry.

LET’S BE SPECIFIC

Well worth the read!

---

LET’S BE SPECIFIC

by Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, (ret.)

Due to the thunderous applause that I received from the far-left over the “I Am Tired” letter written by one of our troops in Iraq, I thought it prudent to follow up with one last attempt to be very specific about what I have observed and actually personally encountered during my 36 years of service to this Great Country. This will be a one time attempt to reach some of those who are confused by far-left and their ilk’s unethical rantings and give some insight through my personal experience as a professional military officer over the years. These examples are but a few. In real life there were many more which space and time will not allow. As a young fighter pilot, flying F-4s in Vietnam, I was stopped in my tracks by the decisions made by Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara. I was young and naive, but even then I knew their daily interference was wrong and would not allow us to win this thing and go home. Decisions like not allowing us to strike enemy aircraft while still on the ground, keeping real targets off the target list, and allowing us to strike only rusted-out trucks made us basically a toothpick factory. However, the big one for me came the day I saw the President Lyndon Johnson on television, forcefully lying to the American people. I’ll never forget the language, “I want to assure the American people that the United States of America has never, and will never, bomb or use force inside the borders of Cambodia”. On and on he disavowed the reports that this was happening. I was amazed. Guess where I had put several F-4 loads of 750 pound general purpose bombs every day for the past five days. You guessed it, Cambodia!!! So much for Mr. Johnson. The only question in my mind was simply, “Was it just Johnson or was it the methodology of a particular political party?” I decided to delay answering that question until more experience was gained.

Years passed, and I ignored politics as much as possible, as a good military man should. Then came Jimmy Carter. Our young people don’t remember 18% interest rates and 18% inflation, but I’ll bet someone in your family does. That is one really bad thing Carter did for our country, but it is not the worst. During this period, I was an F-15 Squadron Commander, located at Langley AFB, VA. Jimmy Carter and his democratic party stopped spare parts procurement for almost every weapon system in our military, and diverted the funds to social programs. The F-15 was brand new at the time with leading edge technology designed to provide air superiority anywhere in the world on a moments notice. That was my job. I loved it, but guess what? In a two year period from 1979 to 1981, there was not one day when more that one-third of my assigned aircraft were flyable. It is amazing the lengths we went to in those days, cannibalizing parts, expending twice the time and energy to fix every little item, and still two-thirds of the birds were always broken because of no spare parts. Had this country faced a really serious military threat during that time frame, only Montana Hunters could have saved us. The military had some equipment, but it was all broken. Do you want to know the really bad part for me and the young fighter pilots working for me? Our flying sortie rate was so low that pilot proficiency dropped to dangerous levels. The accident rate tripled. That obviously was totally unacceptable, as we were losing expensive airplanes and highly trained young pilots at a rate comparable to losses seen in actual combat. All of a sudden, even a Texas Aggie like me began to see a trend.

Forward a few years to 1986. I am an F-16 Wing Commander at MacDill AFB, Florida, and Ronald Reagan is president. His change in attitude and policy toward the military had time to fix the spare parts problem. We were flying 26,000 flying sorties per year out of MacDill AFB, my aircraft fully mission capable rate (FMC) was above 90%, the aircraft accident rate was below 1.75 per hundred thousand flying hours, fighter pilots were flying and proficiency levels were at an all time high. The United States Air Force was ready to defend this Wonderful Country. Proof of the pudding is simple. Look what the USAF, and the military in general, accomplished in Iraq during Desert Storm. And, they did it in less than 100 hours. Yeah, at this point I was starting to realize there was a difference in mentality between Democrats and Republicans, or should I say, the Right and the Left.

Then, came everyone’s favorite—Bill Clinton. If there ever was an individual 180 degrees out of sync with the ideals and the values of the US military, it was Clinton. He was a known draft dodger, military hating, self absorbed, unspeakingly shameless and immoral individual, who the Left managed to elect President of the United States of America. Clinton’s antics in the White House would have brought court martial, conviction, and Dishonorable Discharge had he been a military member. We still suffer oral sex on school buses, because the President told the world it wasn’t real sex, and some of our children believed him. It took a lot of years, but now I became certain. There is a big difference in the right and the left on all fronts, and for the first time I started feeling angry and shamed that the majority of the American people were actually willing to vote for such an individual.

Sometimes, an abstract such as the following tells the story in very simple terms: Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Nancy Pelosi, Barbra Boxer, John Kerry, Benedict Arnold, and the list goes on. America, wake up. Giving in to the likes of these people and Abraham Lincoln’s prediction of destruction from within just may come true. There is not a country in the world that can be considered a conventional military threat to the United States today. However, this country faces a new kind of threat—one that will not go away. It is a threat even more serious that WWII, because money, industry and technology will not defeat it. It is a threat of defeat from within. It is a threat of a faltering economy because of a lack of resources, or the even the simple threat of such a loss brought on by terrorism. It is a threat created by the American people trusting the inept. It is a threat created by the people wanting change, and perilously believing that the left can successfully deliver that change. Have you seen anything from the left that remotely resembles an answer to the Iraq situation? Have you seen anything more than continued Bush-Bashing? Is that an answer? If there was ever a need for a strong, well trained military, it is now. THE LEFT HAS HISTORICALLY DISMANTLED OUR MILITARY IN THE NAME OF REDISTRUBITION OF WEALTH FAVORING SOCIAL PROGRAMS. We just cannot afford to let that happen now. If we do, the entire country will be bowing to the east several times a day within the next 50 years, maybe sooner.

Now a final thought meant to upset as many as possible on the far-left. As you might guess, I don’t believe in political correctness. So, let’s look at the facts, not far-left rhetoric attempting to empower the democratic party. Initially, I was not a George Bush fan. I am not even a Republican. I normally vote Republican, because of my total despise of Communism, Socialism and the far-left in this country. I am a Conservative. However, during his watch, I feel President Bush just happened to stumble upon the leading edge of the greatest threat this country has ever faced. Mistakes have been made, because of the newness of the threat. Overall, the President has done a superb job dealing the threat, and at the same time held off the constant ranting, raving, deceitful and malicious escapades of the far-left attempting to regain political power. IF THERE WAS EVER A TIME THE COUNTRY NEEDS TO COME TOGETHER AND BACK OUR PRESIDENT, IT IS RIGHT NOW. WITHOUT CONCENSUS WE ARE EMPOWERING THE TERRORIST!!!! The far-left is totally absorbed with the power struggle and regaining control of congress. They could care less about defeating the threat. It literally disgusts me to hear the constant disagreement with everything the President tries to do, all in the name of trying to make him look bad to the voters. Unfortunately, by the time the American people really appreciate how bad the far-left really is, it may too late.

What are the real facts? On the home front this country’s economy is the strongest that it has been in my lifetime. Interest rates are as low as they were when I was in high school forty years ago. Inflation does not exist for all practical purposes. For you youngster’s, please remember the Jimmy Carter comments? The Dow is approaching 13,000. Unemployment is nonexistent. Wages are at an all time high. Home ownership is at an all time high. Taxes have been lowered to an almost acceptable level. Because of the surging economy the deficient is under control and projected to go away far ahead of schedule. The far-left is rich beyond its wildest dreams, so Mr. President when are you going to “fix” all these domestic problems? Bob and George, give me a break!!!!

On the war front this country has not been touched since 2001. I remember being part of a seminar at the USAF War College in 1983 discussing the terrorist threat. There were some good minds at that table and a lot of disagreement. However, one common thought was that the US would be hit within the next five years. Answers to the terrorist threat were just as hard to come by then as they are now. Well, it took a little longer than the projection, but the attack occurred. For an old military guy like me, the main point here is that it has not happened again.

We have suckered the bad guys into entering the fight some where other than in our country. To hell with political correctness. The President can’t say this, but I sure can. I smile every morning when I get up and realize that one of our great cities has not been blown away. And, there is zero doubt in my mind that if we pull out of Iraq prematurely, that will happen within a short period of time after our departure. I don’t care what you might think of President Bush personally. He has done the best he can with what he has, and this country is not smoking because of it. So, back off McLean and McClellan. You honestly don’t have a clue about what you are talking about. Call me, and I will tell you what I really think.

I realize there are different points of view on war, and I do not believe the meek will inherit the earth, at least not in the next few hundred years. To those like McClellan, McLean, poor Eve Kyes and Sinowa Cruz let me say, “This is a strong country!!!” It has survived the uneducated thinking of the far-left before, and I’ll just bet it will again. Regardless of who is President, the people will not tolerate mass explosions on a daily basis, as our good friends in Israel have been forced to do. To protect that position of power, even Hillary will be forced to become a true hawk. To guarantee a few more votes Ted Kennedy may be forced to begin supporting a strong military. One more attack on America might even wipe the giddy, ‘I-am-finally-somebody’ grin from Nancy Pelosi’s face, and make her realize that is not about votes and personal power. IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING THIS GREAT COUNTRY FROM ALL ENEMIES, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, (ret.)
349 Jib Lane Lakeside, Montana

Hanoi Lifted Me

Hanoi Lifted Me
By Mark D. Tooley
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 20, 2007
Mainline church groups in the U.S. often enthusiastically supported communist “liberation” of Southeast Asia 30 and 40 years ago.  The defeat of pro-U.S. regimes there and the withdrawal of the U.S. led to some of the most horrible mass atrocities of the last century.   But there has rarely if ever been any buyer’s remorse by mainline church groups, who still ignore ongoing human rights problems in the remaining communist regimes of Southeast Asia. 

Indeed, a recent delegation from the Brethren Church and Church World Service (the relief arm of the National Council of Churches) had a most “successful and uplifting trip” to Vietnam, where apparently all is nearly well.

The work of Church World Service (CWS) in Vietnam has long been controversial.  As the trip report from the Brethren Church laconically observed, “CWS benefits from a relationship with the government of Vietnam that dates back to the Vietnam War, when it did not discriminate in its aid.”  CWS, as always, continues “working with government officials on all levels.”

As CWS’ website recalls: “During the 1960s and 1970s, Church World Service operated in Vietnam through a coalition of three North American NGOs know as “Vietnam Christian Service” (VNCS), while also participating in Peace and Reconciliation initiatives through the World Council of Churches “Fund for Reconstruction and Reconciliation in Indochina (FRRI).”  The FRRI notoriously funneled aid to communist rebel movements throughout the region.

The account of life in Vietnam by the recent church delegation is fairly glowing.  There are only a few cryptic negative notes.  The delegation tried to visit the site where a Brethren missionary was killed during the war.  He was murdered by the Vietcong, a fact that the church report omits.  But it was undoubtedly for this reason that the communist Vietnamese government refused the delegation’s request to pay homage.  Instead, the Brethren faithful held a memorial service in their Ho Chi Minh City Hotel. 

More successfully, the delegation did visit The Mennonite Church of Vietnam, from whom they “heard about the persecution through which they have come since the war.”  Who did this persecuting?  How did these Christians suffer under their communist “liberators?”  Presumably this would be of interest to the constituents of the Brethren Church and CWS.  But there are no details.  Instead, more verbiage is given to the various tourist sites that the delegation managed to hit. 

In a material sense, perhaps CWS has done admirable work in Vietnam.  It helps dig wells and construct latrines, supports rural clinics, conducts disaster relief, delivers food to schools, and trains teachers.  But the CWS publications mention no special concern about churches in Vietnam or CWS’ interest in sharing a Christian message with the Vietnamese.  All of CWS’ partner groups in Vietnam are communist government agencies and “people’s committees.” And despite CWS’ professed concern for social justice, there is almost no critique of the communist Vietnamese government, which, even under economic liberalization, remains one of the world’s most repressive regimes, especially in its suppression of religion.

In CWS’ “advocacy” section of its website, it pledges:  “We fully support the Government of Vietnam’s Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy and the Vietnam Development Goals (VDGs), which both aim to achieve these goals.”  CWS is concerned about good sanitation and clean water in Vietnam.  But none of its ‘advocacy” work, in Vietnam, or its Washington, D.C. lobby office, seems to address any concern about human rights or religious liberty in communist Vietnam. 

In fact, CWS seems to want to discourage any special concern about human rights in Vietnam.  The “advocacy” section of the CWS website carries a plea from the Vietnam-USA Society, a front group of the Vietnamese government, urging opposition to the U.S. State Department’s designation of Vietnam as a “Country of Particular Concern (CPC)” to Vietnam. According to this friendship society, this designation “disregards recent significant improvements in democracy, human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam.”   It is curious why these “improvements” were even necessary, since neither the Vietnam-USA Society nor CWS have noted any particular human rights problems in the past.   But lest the “dignity, feelings and self-respect” of the Vietnamese people be hurt, American friends are urged to write the U.S. State Department and point to the “obvious evidence of religious freedom in Vietnam.” 

Understandably, the communist Vietnamese government is grateful for CWS’s uncritical stance towards their regime.  In 2004, Vietnamese vice president Madam Truong My Hoa addressed a 50^th anniversary celebration of CWS.

“Over 50 years since national independence was achieved and nearly 30 years since the country was reunified, Vietnam has always secured peace and strived for the goal of “rich people, strong nation, equal, democratic and civilized society,” Madam Vice President trumpeted.  Addressing CWS, she gratefully declared that, “Vietnam has ever had more friends, important partners, striving for the common goals of peace, equal development and mutual interests. “  She particularly thanked CWS for having “helped the U.S. general public to better understand Vietnam,” i.e. perform public relations for the Vietnamese communist regime.

Unmentioned by nearly all CWS materials is that Vietnam is a communist one party state that bans all political opposition and independent media.  All religious groups have to belong to a communist party supervisory body.  All religious activities, including ordinations, church construction and charitable work, must be approved by the Vietnamese communist government. 

In claiming religious freedom in Vietnam, the CWS-supported Vietnam-USA Society, without any sense of irony, pointed to the growing numbers of religious believers in Vietnam.  How generous of the communist Vietnamese government to allow their existence!   But in fact, religious groups, including Christians, have survived and grown in Vietnam despite the regime’s efforts to suppress them.  They owe no thanks to their communist overlords.  And they owe little thanks to church groups like CWS that mostly ignore their plight and make apologies for their oppressors

“Divine Obedience” to the Leftist Fringe

“Divine Obedience” to the Leftist Fringe
By Mark D. Tooley
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 14, 2007
The National Cathedral in
Washington, D.C. – operated by the liberal Episcopal Church – will host an ecumenical antiwar rally on March 16. Several dozen leftist church groups will convene in the cathedral “to end the occupation” in
Iraq. Afterwards, the activists will march to the White House and will stage a “Christian witness” (that is, demonstration) in

Lafayette
Park, across the street from the executive mansion. Acts of civil disobedience are being planned. “We expect that some of those who participate will feel called by God to acts of “divine obedience” by taking nonviolent actions that risk arrest in order to make clear our seriousness about ending the war,” according to the “Christian Peace Witness for Iraq” website.According to event organizer Rick Ufford-Chase, who is the former moderator of the left-wing Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the protest will be specifically Christian, as opposed to interfaith, because President Bush is a Christian.“The war in
Iraq, as well as the war on terrorism, is being promulgated by a president who insists that he is acting out of his Christian faith,” Ufford-Chase cried. “Rightly or wrongly, the perception in much of the rest of the world – especially the Muslim world – is that this is a Christian aggression.”  Ufford-Chase wants the world to know that these wars are not waged “in our names.”The former Presbyterian official promised that the demonstrators would declare a “prophetic word” in the “place where the president went to announce his intention to invade
Iraq four years ago.” Ufford-Chase seems to be referring to President Bush’s address at a 9/11 commemorative worship service at the National Cathedral in September 14, 2001, held weeks before the U.S. operation in Afghanistan.

Thus, the March 16, 2007, antiwar rally at the National Cathedral is the Religious Left’s revenge for September 14, 2001. The fact that Bush did not refer to
Iraq at the service is apparently not important.

Far more important, “We must build a movement of Christians who will stand against the war on terror,” Ufford-Chase affirmed. Christians must “not stand idly by while the heart of their scriptural tradition is torn apart.” Manifestly, it is an “inescapable truth that this war is antithetical to everything that Jesus taught and did.”The ecumenical “partners” organizing the demonstration include the Quakers, the United Church of Christ, Jim Wallis’ Sojourners groups, radical Catholic groups like the Maryknollers, and unofficial caucus groups the Episcopal Church,
United
Methodist
Church, the
Evangelical
Lutheran
Church in
America, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), along with the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America.

It is odd that more leftist-led official agencies of the mainline denominations did not endorse. But perhaps the demonstration will be too radical even for them. The Christian Peace Witness for Iraq will demand that all U.S. troops be removed from Iraq and that the U.S. “stop threatening
Iran and other nations.” However, the U.S. must rebuild
Iraq, to “practice the discipline of active nonviolence,” “say NO to torture,” and create a new federal budget that focuses away from war and instead on “hunger, homelessness, environmental destruction, injustice, and oppression.” (Ending environmental destruction, just like Jesus….)

“Just as Jesus wept over Jerusalem because it did not know the things that make for peace, we weep over Washington, D.C., because of the tremendous human suffering and loss of life that have resulted from our government’s policies toward Iraq,” according to the demonstration organizers. “Let us choose life that we and our children and the people of
Iraq may live.”  Ufford Chase further explained, “We believe that we have a responsibility to affirm the fundamental truth of the Gospel – that genuine security comes only in the building of right relationships – and to make it clear that this administration does not speak for us.” In the Religious Left’s mythology, President Bush hijacked American religion at his September 14, 2001, speech at the National Cathedral. There,  surrounded by numerous senior clerics, and having shared the pulpit with evangelist Billy Graham, the president promised, “Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not yet have the distance of history. But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing.”

For the president to speak of victory in the war against terrorism, from behind the altar of a supposedly enlightened Episcopal place of worship, enraged the Religious Left, which, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, dared not publicly articulate its anger. Now, it is more politically safe for the Religious Left to articulate its opposition not just to the Iraq War, but to any and all forceful
U.S. military actions, against any potential targets, as many of those “targets” plot targets of their own.