Category Archives: Government

Obama’s HHS ‘Grooming’ Children for Sex by Matt Barber

Posted on by
Reply

My strength is as the strength of ten, because my heart is pure. ~ Alfred Lord Tennyson

My dear friend and colleague Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting law professor at Liberty University School of Law, recently guest lectured during “Sexual Behavior and the Law,” a course I teach. Dr. Reisman’s lecture was filmed by CSPAN and will be airing soon.

In past years, Dr. Reisman has served as scientific consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). She is a world renowned expert on the discredited research of bug doctor turned “sexologist,” Alfred Kinsey.

Kinsey, though married to a woman who took part in his many filmed “scientific” orgies, was a promiscuous homosexual and sadomasochist. He managed to completely upend and twist the world’s perception of human sexuality in the 1950s and ’60s with his world famous “Kinsey Reports.”

Even today, most are completely unaware that during his tenure at Indiana University, Kinsey facilitated, with stopwatches and ledgers, the systematic sexual abuse of hundreds, if not thousands, of children and infants – all in the name of science.

Among other things, Kinsey asserted that children are “sexual from birth.” He further concluded, based upon experiments he directed and documented in his infamous Table 34, that adult-child sex is harmless, even beneficial, and described child “orgasm” as “culminating in extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting. …” Many children suffered “excruciating pain,” he observed, “and [would] scream if movement [was] continued.” Some “[would] fight away from the [adult] partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax, although they derive[d] definite pleasure from the situation.”

Yeah. Sounds like it.

It’s little wonder that Dr. Reisman identifies Kinsey as a “sexual psychopath.” These children were as young as 2 months old.

Disturbing though that may be, what’s equally disturbing is that nearly all of today’s liberal “comprehensive sex education” curricula – such as that pushed by groups like the National Education Association (NEA), Planned Parenthood and the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) – is derived entirely from the criminally fraudulent research of Alfred Kinsey.

But even more troubling is a recent discovery by Dr. Reisman. She found that the Obama administration, which fully embraces the debunked Kinsey sex-education model, has begun pushing a curriculum that, in many ways, eerily mirrors the “FBI Molester Grooming Paradigm.”

In short, she found that both Obama’s HHS and many public sex-education programs are doing to children, constructively, what pedophiles do to “groom” them for sex:

According to the FBI, child molesters:

  • Demonstrate sex acts to children. Offenders commonly use pornography to teach or give instructions to naïve children about how to masturbate, perform oral sex and/or engage in sexual intercourse.
  • Lower the sexual inhibitions of children. Some children naturally fear sexual activities. Some offenders show pictures of other children engaging in sexual activities to overcome these fears, indicating to their intended victims that it is all right to have sex with an adult because lots of other boys and girls do the same thing.
  • Desensitize children to sex. Offenders commonly show child pornography to their intended victims to expose them to sexual acts before they are naturally curious about such activities.
  • Sexually arouse children. Offenders commonly use pornographic images of other children to arouse victims, particularly those in adolescence.

During her lecture, Dr. Reisman shocked the 50-plus in attendance by illustrating that today’s Kinseyan-based sex education – as promoted by Obama’s HHS – does much of what the FBI describes above.

Graphic sexual images and explicit “values neutral” talk of sex and sexuality are rampant throughout classrooms across America, effectively desensitizing children and numbing their natural inhibitions. These inhibitions help protect children from potential predators.

According to Dr. Reisman, “the brain data fully support [the] finding” that such “sex education” literally changes the neural pathways of a child’s brain. There is mounting scientific evidence to support this hypothesis.

Whatever its motive, the Obama administration is guilty of employing these grooming techniques on children.

Consider, for instance, that just last year, the Department of Health and Human Services’ “Questions and Answers About Sex” website provided a “Quick Guide to Healthy Living” section which, like Kinsey, outrageously claimed that “Children are human beings and therefore sexual beings … which is healthy and normal.”

Get the implication? And what do “sexual beings” do? Well, they have sex, of course. “It’s hard for parents to acknowledge this,” admitted the page.

You think?

The HHS link then suggested that youth “may also experiment with sexual experiences, including those with members of the same sex, during the years they are exploring their own sexuality.”

Sound familiar? Remember, the FBI indicates that pedophiles will “teach or give instructions to naïve children about how to masturbate, perform oral sex and/or engage in sexual intercourse.”

Who needs pedophiles when we have today’s “comprehensive sex education”? It does all that and more.

Speaking of masturbation and other “sort of ‘sexual’ behavior … young kids exhibit,” the HHS is right there to help. The link says “Parents should only be concerned about masturbation if a child seems preoccupied with it to the exclusion of other activities.”

Otherwise, masturbate away, I guess.

Today’s Kinseyan “comprehensive sex education” model, embraced by Barack Obama and other “progressives,” is nothing short of educational malpractice. It’s child corruption. It’s criminally reckless. It’s undeniably “grooming” children for sex.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, a then-Sen. Barack Obama spoke about teaching “comprehensive sex education” to kindergartners: “It’s the right thing to do … to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools,” he said.

And by “science-based,” of course, he meant “Kinsey-based.”

So, what is age appropriate, science-based sex education? Well, we know what Alfred Kinsey thought was “age appropriate.” We know what he considered “science-based.”

I’d expect such “educational” grooming tactics and opinions from Alfred Kinsey or Jerry Sandusky, but not from public educators – not from the U.S. government.

And most certainly, not from the president of the United States.

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action.

Obama’s HHS ‘grooming’ children for sex

 

The Most Important Election in History by Matt Barber

Posted on by
2

Who says Republicans and Democrats can’t agree? Every four years, politicos and pundits, both left and right, come together in a harmonious hymn of hyperbole: “This is the most important election in history!” they sing.

I think hyperbole is responsible for all of the world’s problems. Still, this time nobody’s exaggerating. What happens on Nov. 6 really is of critical importance. America’s future really does hang in the balance.

We’re in uncharted territories. We’re lost. We stand dazed at cliff’s edge – legs wobbling – with big government winds at our back. Under President Obama, the reasons for this election’s unparalleled significance are piling up like pink slips in the private sector, like credit rating downgrades, like zeros on the national debt.

Yet, as I see it, there are nine black-robed reasons in particular that reign supreme.

And those reasons never get a pink slip.

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote: “The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. … [T]he judiciary is, beyond comparison, the weakest of the three departments of power … [and] the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter.”

I know. Settle down.

Alas, Alexander Hamilton was obviously no better with a crystal ball than he was with a dueling pistol. For better or for worse (hint: for worse), today’s judiciary – through the constitutionally erosive drip-drop of judicial attrition and congressional submission – has, instead, become the most powerful branch of government.

Today, rather than the properly balanced, decentralized constitutional republic our founders envisaged, we live, to a large degree, under a very much centralized judiciocracy. (That is, when President Obama’s not circumventing the Constitution via executive fiat.)

William Howard Taft, who served as both our 27th president and our 10th Supreme Court chief justice, had unique insight into the dichotomy between the framers’ intent, and today’s reality. He summed it up well: “Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever.”

Indeed, due to the creeping misalignment of separation of powers, the function of appointing Supreme Court justices is almost certainly the most significant thing any president can do. Though it defies the High Court’s original construct, these nine unelected, well-meaning, yet very human, individuals profoundly steer law, public policy and our larger culture in perpetuity.

So much for the balance of powers.

Therein lies the problem. Conservative columnist Andrew McCarthy noted in March that four of the nine sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices are in their late 70s and early 80s.

“We wish them all well,” he wrote, “but the brute fact is that whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court – in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.

“If you don’t think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama,” concluded McCarthy, “I think you’re smokin’ something funky.”

Speaking of “smokin’ something funky,” during Thursday night’s vice presidential debate, Joe Biden touched on the Supreme Court. He agreed with McCarthy: “The next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. … For Mr. Romney, who do you think he’s likely to appoint? Do you think he’s likely to appoint someone like Scalia … ? We picked two people. We pick people who are open-minded.”

And, of course, by “open-minded,” Biden means “not bound by those pesky constitutional limitations intended to avert government tyranny.” He means liberal “living constitutionalists.”

To be sure, the next president may well appoint one, two, three or even four new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As voters, this should be our most critical point of focus: ensuring an originalist, strict constructionist majority. If Mr. Obama is re-elected and appoints just one more Ruth Bader Ginsburg, forget it. America, as our founders envisioned her, is gone.

This is why, after the primary, I went from an outspoken Romney critic, to a cautiously optimistic Romney supporter. He has pledged: “I will appoint conservative, strict constructionists to the judiciary.”

Still not sold?

President Obama has already shown who he’ll appoint. In Justices Elena Kagan and Sonja Sotomayor – nice though they may be – he has stacked the Court with two radical counter-constitutionalists who share his belief that the Constitution “is not a static, but living document and must be read in the context of an ever changing world.”

Naturally, if the Constitution is “ever changing,” the Constitution is meaningless.

But it gets worse. Obama has also called this – the very founding document upon which our laws, public policy, indeed our very freedoms rest – an “imperfect document,” a “living document … that reflects some deep flaws in American culture.”

Yikes.

Moreover, during the 2008 campaign, Obama lamented that the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, failed to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”

Let that sink in a moment. In his own words, this man – a man solemnly sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution – has betrayed utter disdain for it. He has, in essence, admitted that he views our most sacred founding document as a “constraint” against his thinly veiled efforts to “fundamentally transform” America into Greece.

Thank God our Founding Fathers predicted that men like Barack Obama would come and go. And thank God they had the wisdom to plan accordingly.

Patrick Henry once said, “[L]iberty ought to be the direct end of your government.” Today, we have it exactly backward. Four more years of Barack Obama, and government will be the direct end of your liberty.

Still thinking of sitting this one out?

I hope not.

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/the-most-important-election-in-history/

 

Power Grab: Our Technocratic Future by Wesley J. Smith

Posted on by
Reply

October 1, 2012, Vol. 18, No. 03

To paraphrase Freud: Liberals, what do they really want? Not the communism or socialism of the right’s fever dreams. They know that didn’t work. Today’s liberal agenda is more akin to the corporatist vision of the 1920s and ’30s​—​an economy in which the state directs the activities of the private sector to achieve ideologically desired ends. But even that description doesn’t quite get to the nub of it. Liberals today seek to create a stable, and what they perceive to be a socially just, society via rule by experts​—​in which most of the activities of society are micromanaged by technocrats for the economic and social benefit of the whole. In other words, social democracy without the messiness of democracy, like the European Union’s rule-by-bureaucrats-in-Brussels. This is the “fundamental transformation” that President Obama seeks to implement in this country.

The siren song of technocracy attracts members of both parties. Left-wing types tend to believe in issuing direct government commands. Think Nancy Pelosi or Mayor Bloomberg. Big government right-wingers prefer to induce “desirable” behavior through incentives. Think Newt Gingrich at his most utopian.

Since technocrats believe their job is to protect us from ourselves, preventing people from getting hurt becomes the prime directive, the equality that matters most is equality of outcome​—​not opportunity​—​an unattainable goal, which conveniently means a technocrat’s work is never done.

Europeans generally accept this benign statism as the best way to maintain peace and social stability. It has been somewhat rougher sledding in the United States because technocracy undermines individual liberty and the American dream. Hence the widespread outrage over “You didn’t build that.”

But with the coming of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka Obama­care, the technocrats have broken ground for a full-bore, EU-style bureaucratic state. Leading the charge is the Independent Payment Advisory Board, governed by 15 “experts” appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Established to control Medicare costs, IPAB possesses the raw power to force Congress to legislate via its “fast track authority”; IPAB’s financial targets must be enacted into law by August 15 of each year, beginning in 2014. Not only that, if Congress refuses to legislate the level of cost containment demanded by IPAB (or if the president vetoes the bill), IPAB’s original recommendation is automatically imposed. In other words, IPAB’s cost-cutting word is law. And if that isn’t enough: Congress can’t dissolve IPAB until 2017​—​and then only by a supermajority vote of both houses.

Defenders of IPAB claim that such extraordinary authority is necessary because Congress can’t be trusted to cut costs. We should never underestimate Congress’s cravenness, but that is no reason to bulldoze democratic accountability or devolve power from the elected organs of government to a semi-sovereign bureaucracy.

Defenders also tell us not to fear because IPAB’s cost-cutting weapons are limited primarily to controlling payments to doctors and hospitals​—​never mind that draconian cuts in compensation could make it extremely difficult for Medicare beneficiaries to find doctors. But the broad power given to IPAB was not designed to remain limited. Even before it is up and running, President Obama has said that IPAB should be “strengthened.”

More specifically, Christina Romer, the former head of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, suggested in a July 22 column in the New York Times that IPAB “could be empowered to suggest changes in benefits or in how Medicare services are provided,” once it has a “track record”—meaning, once it becomes an accepted reality. But as we have seen, IPAB doesn’t merely “suggest,” it dictates. Thus, Romer is actually arguing that IPAB could eventually be granted absolute authority over Medicare policy, including, perhaps, health care rationing power that would be the envy of any EU technocrat.

Former Obama Treasury Department adviser and New York Times columnist Steven Rattner specifically urged transforming IPAB into a rationing board in a September 17 column. “No one wants to lose an aging parent,” he wrote. But the cost of caring extensively for the elderly “imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear,” and so we too must jump into the rationing pool:

Take Britain, which provides universal coverage with spending at proportionately almost half of American levels. Its National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence uses a complex quality-adjusted life year system to put an explicit value (up to about $48,000 per year) on a treatment’s ability to extend life.

At the least, the Independent Payment Advisory Board should be allowed to offer changes in services and costs. We may shrink from such stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable.

Once we turn our affairs over to the technocracy, bureaucrats even get to decide which of us has greater value and which of us can be kicked out of the lifeboat.

Technocracy is ultimately not about expertise but about determining the common moral values of society. It does not countenance competing centers of moral authority. It is no surprise that the first major regulation promulgated under the ACA by the Obama administration directly attacked freedom of religion by requiring sectarian institutions and private businesses to provide their employees free birth control and sterilization surgeries even if it violates their religious consciences.

Obamacare is also a splendid vehicle for imposing liberal social values that technocrats favor. Thus, the next time the Democrats enjoy one-party rule, expect them to amend the ACA first to permit, then to mandate, abortion coverage. Indeed, Obamacare could easily become the vehicle for enacting many profoundly culture-changing policies, such as requiring employers to cover free in-vitro fertilization, not to mention sex reassignment surgery, and eventually assisted suicide.

The issue isn’t whether there should be regulation. Only the most radical libertarians favor laissez faire. The concern is the Obama administration’s apparent eagerness to cross the border from reasonable regulation to the land of technocracy​—​and not just in health care. In this sense, the current election is about far more than policy issues such as taxation, spending, and terrorism. More profoundly, we will find out whether the voters are ready to allow a second term President Obama to transform Washington, D.C., into Brussels on the Potomac.

Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism. He consults for the Patients Rights Council and the Center for Bioethics and Culture.

Copyright 2012 Weekly Standard LLC.

Source URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/power-grab_652898.html

How An Evangelical Christian Can Support a Mormon For President by Dr. Andy Woods

Posted on by
Reply

I am a theology professor at a Bible College and a pastor. I am also a political conservative. I frequently write posts and articles promoting political conservatism. Recently, some of my students have politely inquired how I could publically criticize Mormon theology in the classroom and from behind the pulpit and yet privately promote the Presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney, who is a professing Mormon. Here is my basic response:

The last time I checked, Jesus is not on the 2012 presidential ballot. Therefore, I have to vote for which of the two existing candidates, I believe better reflects biblical values. Keep in mind that a president is not in power to promote theology. That is what pastors and theologians are for. Rather, a president is elected to politically and economically govern our country. Therefore, I pick a president not based on his personal theology but rather upon his philosophy of government. When you compare Romney’s philosophy of government to Obama’s philosophy of government, which philosophy better mirrors biblical values? This is a question that all Christians need to ask in this upcoming election. For me, the answer is a no-brainer. Romney’s philosophy of government, while not perfect, is much closer to Scripture than Obama’s.

Here are some issues that I look at to discern the biblical orientation of the governing philosophy of any politician. With each issue I have included some Bible verse references in order to demonstrate to the reader that these preferences are not uniquely mine but rather are derived from the pages of God’s Word. These issues can be categorized under the following headings: economic issues, social issues, and foreign affairs matters.

Mitt Romney

Economic Matters

Because of biblical prohibitions against stealing and covetousness (Exod. 20:15, 17) as well as the scriptural promotion of economic self-sufficiency through labor (Gen. 3:17-19; 2 Thess. 3:10), I typically inquire whether the candidate will use the power of the state to take the income of the earner and redistribute it to the non-earner? Due to the fact that the Bible teaches differing God-given abilities among human beings (Matt. 25:15), will the candidate use the force of government to guarantee equality of opportunity for all and leave equality of result to individual initiative, drive, work ethic, and talent?

Because God has given the role of charity to the church (Jas. 1:27; 5:14) rather than the state (Gen. 9:6; Rom. 13:1-7), will the candidate ignore this boundary by imposing upon the state ever increasing charitable obligations thereby marginalizing the church’s God-ordained role in this critical area?

Also, the Bible views the family as the essential building block towards a healthy society (Eph. 5:22–6:4). Since today’s families are under tremendous stress, will the candidate increase this pressure through the added burden of further taxation? Will he advocate excessive government regulation, which has the net effect of spiking consumer prices? Will he place employers under greater taxation and burdensome regulation leading to inevitable downsizing, layoffs, and the re-location of factories beyond America’s borders? All of these repercussions increase financial stress upon the family unit.

Moreover, because the Scripture advocates leaving one’s wealth to one’s descendants (Prov. 13:22; 1 Tim. 5:8), I am always curious about whether the candidate will hamper generational wealth transfer through onerous inheritance taxes, which force the deceased’s relatives to visit the undertaker and the IRS agent on the same day.

Also, does the candidate understand that the earth experiences cyclical heating and cooling (Gen. 8:22)? For example, global warming transpired during the time of the Vikings, long before the advent of SUVs and modern industry. Does he instead attribute such cycles exclusively to human activity? If the latter, he will likely favor increased government control over economic behavior, which can cripple an economy and yet simultaneously have a negligible impact upon either global warming or cooling.

In addition, does the candidate through rejection of true worship of God instead embrace earth worship (Rom. 1:22-23), otherwise known as the Gaia Hypothesis? In other words, has common sense environmental stewardship given way to pantheism and environmental extremism? If so, he will likely impede domestic fossil fuel and oil production. Such domestic drilling has the benefit of reducing America’s dependence upon foreign sources of oil that are often controlled by governments that do not have our nation’s best interests at heart.

Furthermore, because the Bible warns against the bondage associated with excessive debt (Prov. 22:7) and also categorizes unpaid debts as theft (Ps. 37:21), will the candidate continue to add to our runaway national deficits and debt? Increasing our national debt not only steals from future generations, but it also compromises America’s economic well-being.

In a similar vein, because respect for America’s founding documents are the best insulation against runaway government spending and concentration of power into too few hands, will the candidate favor appointing individuals to the judicial branch of government who actually care about the original intent of our Constitution? If not, he may allow judges onto our courts who see our Constitution as merely a “living and breathing” amorphous document. Virtually anything can be read into such a meaningless document in order to socialize our country.

Social Matters

Since Scripture makes no distinction between the born and the unborn (Ps. 139:13; Jer. 1:5), does the candidate favor legal protection for the unborn?

Also, because God has established heterosexual monogamy as the pattern for marriage (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:18-25; Rom. 1:26-27), will the candidate promote this divine standard as the societal norm, or will he instead reduce this time-honored standard to simply one among many lifestyle alternatives?

Moreover, because God has given to the state the power to execute criminals in instances of murder (Gen. 9:6; Rom. 13:4), will the candidate seek to abolish or promote capital punishment?

In addition, because the Scripture routinely warns of the dangers of abusing alcohol (Lev. 10:9; Prov. 31:4-5; 1 Tim. 3:3), pornography (Matt. 5:27-28), and gambling (Prov. 13:11), will the candidate support the legal right of communities to restrict such deleterious influences and establishments from their neighborhoods, schools, children, homes, and churches?

Furthermore, because God has entrusted the task of rearing and teaching children to parents as opposed to government bureaucrats (Deut. 6:6-7; Josh. 4:20-23; Prov. 22:6; Eph. 6:4), does the educational philosophy of the candidate empower the parents or the government teachers’ unions? The former can be empowered through educational choice, vouchers for private or parochial schools, and opt out alternatives for public school courses and presentations deemed offensive and harmful by parents.

Also, in view of the fact that the Scripture commands believers to preach the Gospel to every creature (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15), will the candidate use the force of government to restrict public expressions of Christianity in public places and schools as well as over the airwaves and on the internet? Interestingly, in Luke 22:36, as Christ was sending out His disciples into the hostile world from the Upper Room, He said, “and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one” (Luke 22:36). In so doing, Christ provided not only for the self defense of His disciples but also their right to defend themselves from aggression. Therefore, a good question for any candidate is whether he believes that individual and private citizens have a right to keep and bear arms? In other words, does he believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to bear arms or does he instead believe that the Second Amendment is some sort of nebulous collective right that has nothing to do with personal freedom to retain a firearm? Does the candidate instead support endless regulations and licensing requirements upon firearms thus paving the way toward their ultimate and total governmental confiscation?

Because the Bible teaches that all people have equal dignity and worth (Gen. 1:26-27; Gal. 3:28), will the candidate enforce all of our laws equally and fairly among all people regardless of gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status (Deut 25:16; Prov. 20:23)? Discrimination against racial minorities should no more be tolerated than reverse discrimination against whites through quotas, timetables and set asides. White aggression against racial minorities should be punished to the full extent of the law and so should Black Panther voter intimidation against whites.

Mitt Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu

Foreign Affairs Matters

Because the concept of the individual nation state originated with God (Gen. 10:32; 11:1-9; Deut. 32:8; Acts 17:26), will the candidate favor submitting the political sovereignty of national governments to unaccountable trans-national political organizations all in the name of global governance? A related issue involves national borders. Since God has established national entities and their existing borders, will the candidate enforce our borders or will he leave America vulnerable to terrorist attacks through a porous border policy?

In addition, God has promised to bless the world through national Israel (Gen. 12:3b; Isa. 42:6; 49:6). Consequently, He promises to bless those who bless Israel and conversely vows to curse those who curse her (Gen. 12:3a; Joel 3:2b). Therefore, another important question entails whether the candidate favors reducing Israel’s existing borders in exchange for the illusory promise of peace. Such a process makes Israel more vulnerable to aggression and attack by her surrounding hostile neighbors. After all, it is Satan’s ambition to eradicate the Jewish people and state (Rev. 12:1, 13-17; Gen. 37:9-10). Thus, a candidate’s view on Israel largely tells me whether He is cooperating with God’s agenda or the devil’s.

Moreover, due to the fact that many evil rulers and terrorists abroad will only be deterred from violent behavior through the counter threat of force (Gen. 8:21; Jer. 17:9), will the candidate pursue a foreign policy of peace through military strength? Without this perspective, the danger is that the candidate will naively and ineffectively seek to deter evil in the world through American military reduction and unpreparedness. Such a policy of appeasement will in turn lead to endless dialogue, treaty and peace agreements not too dissimilar from the pattern espoused by Neville Chamberlain, apology tours, and financial subsidies given to America’s sworn enemies, thus endangering our own national security.

Conclusion

For me, the whole issue in selecting a political leader relates to his philosophy of government as opposed to his personal theology. As the old adage goes, “I would rather be governed by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian.” Jimmy Carter serves as a perfect example. While professing faith in Christ, he had a non-biblical philosophy of government. Consequently, he has gone down in history as one of our worst presidents. Besides, if we are going to vote based on a candidate’s personal theology rather than his philosophy of government, I hardly see how Obama is much of an improvement over Romney. Obama attended a church for over 20 years that taught the non-biblical doctrine of Liberation Theology.

When all of the evidence is considered, Obama also seems quite sympathetic to the non-biblical Islamic religion. While I disagree with both men on personal theological issues, I will take Romney’s philosophy of government over Obama’s any day of the week. When it comes to governing philosophy, which is what really counts in a President, Romney is far closer to my understanding of scriptural truth than Obama.

http://www.bibleprophecyblog.com/2012/09/how-evangelical-christian-can-support.html

You Can Never Awaken a Man Who Is Pretending to be Asleep by Bill Warner

Posted on by
Reply

September 15, 2012

The White House and media response to the events in the US embassies in Egypt and Libya can be characterized by the fact they speak like they have never seen Sharia mob justice before in their lives. Or, at least, you would think that from the knowledge and wisdom they display in their analysis.

For the last 11 years since 9/11, we have watched the same events unroll in the Islamic world and the same response come from our so-called leaders in the government, media, schools and the pulpits. The establishment view: Those Muslims are extremists, not real Muslims. We should be careful not to offend the religion of peace. When Muslims are offended by movies, Koran burnings and Mohammed cartoons, it is our fault.

The clue phone is ringing, pick it up. Here are the clues:

The murder of intellectuals and artists who criticize Mohammed is Sunna. Sunna is the perfect example of Mohammed’s life. When Mohammed captured Mecca, he first prayed, then he destroyed all religious art and then he issued death warrants for the artists and intellectuals who had opposed him. There are only two new facts in the Koran, a derivative work. The first new fact is that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, and the second new truth is that if you don’t believe he is prophet of Allah, you can be killed.

Violence is what brings Islam success. In Mohammed’s life, he preached the religion of Islam for 13 years and garnered 150 new followers. When he went to Medina and became a politician and a warlord, when he died every Arab was a Muslim. Jihad violence was what made Islam successful. If Mohammed practice jihad, Muslims must use the technique of jihad.

Hello establishment experts, the black flag is not an Al Qaeda flag. The black flag with the Shahada, “There is no god, but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet” and the swords goes back to the Golden Age of Islam in Baghdad in the 9th century. (The establishment professors never tell you about this jihad aspect of the Islamic Golden Age.) This jihad flag is ancient.

Current news is that Ambassador Stevens was raped before he was killed. If so, then this is pure jihad doctrine. The rules for rape of captured Kafirs (unbelievers) are Sunna. At the conquest of the Jews in Khaybar, the Hadith are explicit that captured Kafirs can be raped.

The mob is a manifestation of the Sharia and the umma (the Islamic community). Notice that when a fatwa is issued, such as the famous fatwa by Khomeini against Salmon Rushdie for his artistic work The Satanic Verses, the fatwa is not to be fulfilled by the Islamic police. No, the murder is to be carried by any member of the umma. This is vigilante justice, Sharia justice, mob justice. Pay attention to how often Muslims riot to make political gain.

The shortest hadith is: war is deceit. So here come all of the “good” Muslims to explain how the murder and riots are not real Islam. And they are so upset about what Arabs are doing at the US embassies. But, they still can tell us that Islam is the religion of peace, without a single trace of irony.

The idea that we should not blaspheme Islam, Mohammed or Allah is pure Sharia and the position of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation). It seems that none of the establishment experts have the foggiest idea of what Sharia blasphemy entails. Not believing that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, that a woman is a second class citizen, that jihad is part of Islam is all blasphemy. Critical thought is blasphemy. The Golden Rule is blasphemy. Any well-founded religion can survive blasphemy, except Islam, and that is the reason it is forbidden. But the worst part of this travesty is the refrain from Obama and Hillary that we should subvert our freedom of speech to the demands of the Sharia. The Sharia is Allah’s law and our Constitution is a document of ignorance to be removed from the world. So say the imams and Obama and Hillary.

And now for the last tired response from the apologists: those violent people are an extremist fringe. NO! The mobs are main-line Islam.

You can awaken a man who is asleep, but you will never awaken a man who is pretending to be asleep. That is the reason that we find our experts in the government, media, education and the pulpits to be such dhimmis. They have refused to learn a single thing about Islamic doctrine and history since 9/11. But, cheer up! When the dhimmis write about the beauty of Islam and how the Kafirs are wrong, read the comments. You will find that the common man knows far, far more about Islam than the experts. The higher you go, the less they know.

________________________________

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam