Thursday, May 31, 2012

The Seduction of Pornography and the Integrity of Christian Marriage, Part 1

The Seduction of Pornography and the Integrity of Christian Marriage, Part 1
By R. Albert Mohler, Jr. , Christian Post Guest Columnist
May 30, 2012|8:35 am
At the same time, the problem of human sinfulness is fundamentally unchanged from the time of the Fall until the present. There is no theological basis for assuming that human beings are more lustful, more defenseless before sexual temptation, or more susceptible to the corruption of sexual desire than was the case in any previous generation.
Two distinctions mark the present age from previous eras. First, pornography has been so mainstreamed through advertising, commercial images, entertainment, and everyday life, that what would have been illegal just a few decades ago is now taken as common dress, common entertainment, and unremarkable sensuality. Second, explicit eroticism–complete with pornographic images, narrative, and symbolism–is now celebrated as a cultural good in some sectors of the society. Pornography, now reported to be the seventh-largest business in America, claims its own icons and public figures. Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy, is considered by many Americans to be a model of entrepreneurial success, sexual pleasure, and a liberated lifestyle. The use of Hugh Hefner as a spokesman by a family-based hamburger chain in California indicates something of how pornography itself has been mainstreamed in the culture.
Growing out of those two developments is a third reality–namely, that increased exposure to erotic stimulation creates the need for ever-increased stimulation in order to demand notice, arouse sexual interest, and retain attention. In an odd twist, hyper-exposure to pornography leads to a lower net return on investment–which is to say that the more pornography one sees the more explicit the images must be in order to excite interest. As the postmodernist would explain, in order to "transgress," pornographers must continue to press the envelope.
One further qualification must be added to this picture. Pornography is mainly, though not exclusively, a male phenomenon. That is to say, the users and consumers of pornography are overwhelmingly male–boys and men. In the name of women's liberation, some pornography directed towards a female market has emerged in recent years. Nevertheless, this is decidedly a "niche" market in the larger pornographic economy. The fact remains that many men pay a great deal of money and spend a great deal of time looking at and looking for pornographic images in order to arouse themselves sexually.
Why is pornography such a big business? The answer to that question lies in two fundamental realities. First, the most fundamental answer to the question must be rooted in a biblical understanding of human beings as sinners. We must take into full account the fact that sin has corrupted every good thing in creation, and the effects of sin extend to every dimension of life. The sex drive, which should point toward covenant fidelity in marriage and all the goods associated with that most basic institution, has instead been corrupted to devastating effects. Rather than directed toward fidelity, covenantal commitment, procreation, and the wonder of a one-flesh relationship, the sex drive has been degraded into a passion that robs God of His glory, celebrating the sensual at the expense of the spiritual, and setting what God had intended for good on a path that leads to destruction in the name of personal fulfillment.
The most important answer we can give to pornography's rise in popularity is rooted in the Christian doctrine of sin. As sinners, we corrupt what God has perfectly designed for the good of His creatures and we have turned sex into a carnival of orgiastic pleasures. Not only have we severed sex from marriage, but as a society, we now look at marriage as an imposition, chastity as an embarrassment, and sexual restraint as a psychological hang-up. The doctrine of sin explains why we have exchanged the glory of God for Sigmund Freud's concept of polymorphous perversity.
In addition to this, we must recognize that a capitalist free-market economy rewards those who produce a product that is both attractive and appetitive. The purveyors of pornography know that they succeed by directing their product to the lowest common denominator of humanity–a depraved sexual mind. Without the legal restraints common in previous generations, pornographers are now free to sell their goods virtually without restriction. Beyond this, they base their marketing plan on the assumption that an individual can be seduced into the use of pornography and then will be "hooked" into a pattern of dependence upon pornographic images and the need for ever-more explicit sexual material as a means towards sexual arousal.
The bottom line is that, in our sinfulness, men are drawn toward pornography and a frighteningly large percentage of men develop a dependence upon pornographic images for their own sexual arousal and for their concept of the good life, sexual fulfillment, and even meaning in life. Medical research can document the increased flow of endorphins, hormones that create pleasure in the brain, when sexual images are viewed. Given the law of reduced effect, greater stimulation is needed to keep a constant flow of endorphins to the brain's pleasure centers. Without conscious awareness of what is happening, men are drawn into a pattern of deeper and deeper sin, more and more explicit pornography, and never-ending rationalizing, and all this started when the eye first began its perusal of the pornographic image and sexual arousal was its product.
The postmodern age has brought many wonders as well as incredible moral challenges. Often, technological achievement and moral complexity come hand in hand. This is most explicitly the case with the development of the Internet. For the first time in human history, a teenager in his bedroom has access to an innumerable array of pornographic websites, catering to every imaginable sexual passion, perversion, and pleasure. Today's teenager, if not stranded on some desert island, is likely to know more about sex and its complexities than his father knew when he got married. Furthermore, what most generations have known only in the imagination–if at all–is now there for the viewing on websites, both commercial and free. The Internet has brought an interstate highway of pornography into every community, with exit ramps at every terminal or personal computer.
Pornography represents one of the most insidious attacks upon the sanctity of marriage and the goodness of sex within the one-flesh relationship. The celebration of debauchery rather than purity, the elevation of genital pleasure over all other considerations, and the corruption of sexual energy through an inversion of the self, corrupts the idea of marriage, leads to incalculable harm, and subverts marriage and the marital bond.
Adapted from R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s weblog at Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go Send feedback to Original

-The ‘Chrislamization’ of Europe?

-The ‘Chrislamization’ of Europe?
by Dr. D ~ May 30th, 2012
P religion world
                                           (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I always wondered how the Anti-Christ would do it when it came to forming some kind of new one-world religion to replace all of the rest. After all, it would seem to me that most Christians and Muslims in particular would object and rebel if they were forced to give up their religion all at once and exchange it for a new one.
However if you view what is going on lately in Europe one can see a possible answer in the current syncretistic accommodation going on between European Christians and Muslims.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is constantly calling for greater accommodation for the Muslim religion in British society. Schools and public places are constantly being challenged to remove crosses in order not to offend the growing Muslim population and to make places for Muslim prayers.
This is not an isolated incident but representative of what is going on all over Europe. Schools and public cafeterias have long since stopped serving pork and Muslim holidays are now recognized along with the Christian observances.
Christianity in Europe has been in decline for the last 50 years and most of Europeans are far more secular than religious. So when Muslim immigrants demand that their religion be accommodated there are very few objections from a European population who substantially couldn’t care less when it comes to religion. Even the European Christian clergy is more than compliant to the accommodations since very few really believe in the traditional teachings of Christianity. Today, most of the state church clergy are more like social workers and less than true believers. Most no longer believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation but are far more into the so-called ‘social gospel.’ In some cases, even admitted atheists and agnostics have been  tolerated as pastors and priests in some state churches.
So on one hand you have a Muslim immigrant population which takes their beliefs and religion seriously in the midst of European societies that are substantially secular and post-Christian. Yet Christianity is still the official state religion in European countries and crosses and churches are everywhere. Yet you have Christian leaders and clergy who themselves are weak in the faith and in some instances no longer believe.
For the last 50 years or so, Christian seminaries in Europe have been teaching a watered down form of Christianity which ‘de-mythologizes’ Christ and the New Testament. The fact is, very few of those state priests and clergy still believe that the Bible is the ‘word of God’ or in the miracles of the New testament including the virgin birth and the Resurrection.
I can remember taking a class from a major European New Testament scholar in 1980 who made fun of the miracles of Jesus and claimed that no major Christian scholar in Europe still believed in the resurrection and that was over 30 years ago. So an entire generation of clergy in Europe have been taught to question the truth of the Bible and even the divinity of Jesus.
My point is this, in that context of unbelief it is easy to see why the clergy in Europe is so accommodating to the Muslim faith. After all, they do not see their own faith as the one true religion. Not only that, a syncretistic one-world religion that accommodates some of the teachings of Christianity and Islam would be a small step to take for many of these unbelieving European preachers. A belief in one God with Jesus as merely a great prophet or teacher is far closer to their current personal faith as it stands right now.
It is easy to see how the current European churches could be persuaded to gradually morph into some form of ‘Chrislam’ –a monotheistic religion that recognizes the traditions of both Christianity and Islam but de-emphasizes the role of Christ and the Bible.     


Just when you thought that nothing new from socialist Obama could shock you; he again makes a move towards the Left.
This time, he has embraced the advances towards a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!
And here is what he is about to order via his Executive Order—Mr. Obama wants to transfer some quadrants of the oceans now under United States control directly to the United Nations! Signed…sealed…delivered!
NO Congress—NO treaty—NO vote by Americans—NO National DiscussionsSOLELY BY HIS “POWER” OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS!
His sinister plan is still in draft form. But we must fight this tooth and nail. We cannot let the president just give away hundreds of thousands of square miles of ocean at his whim.
Obama wants to cede parts of United States oceans to United Nations-based international law. An international body, the United Nations, would have control and REGULATE much of the oceans that the United states now has jurisdiction over!
Obama’s draft calls for an Executive Order for a “National Ocean Policy.” This policy is yet another over-reach of the federal government in relationship to the eco-system that will be regulated by the federal government; AND—turn over part of the ocean’s quadrant to the regulations set forth by the United Nations.
That, in itself, is very frightening. However, it is just the tip of the iceberg as to the extent that Mr. Obama is leaning towards a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!
The original “ocean initiative” was the pet project of Leon Panetta, now our current Defense Secretary. Before Panetta’s CIA Director appointment in 2009, he co-chaired the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, a partner of CITIZENS FOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (CGS). CGS is a strong supporter (and a Member organization) of the World Federalist Movement. Without reservation or apology, their literature openly states they support a One-World Government!
The CGS is considered by the World Federalist Movement to be its branch in the United States! Incidentally, their offices are within blocks of the United Nations’ headquarters in New York City and also right near the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. Coincidence? Not on your life! One must continually “connect the dots” to see the pattern of how Mr. Obama has brought America to the very brink of participating in a One World Government!
This National Ocean Policy is a result of the Interagency Ocean Policy Taskforce, also created by an Obama Executive Order in 2010. This taskforce has released a 78-page report which caters to the alleged effects of “global warming.” The report proposes that the United States join the United Nations’ “Law of the Sea Convention.” 
This Law of the Sea Convention is used as a legal instrument to GOVERN activities under, over and on the world’s oceans.
By becoming a part of this, to embrace the additional guidelines formed in this devastating report, would further ERODE our national security, by being under the desires and whims of the United Nations when it comes to ocean regulations. Obama’s supposed selling point: to help the world’s environment!
That may sound nice to the Leftists at election time, but not to true, patriotic Americans. I know you do not want to give away large portions of the oceans that we control to a One World Government!
This supposed bipartisan ocean initiative says that its purpose is to “accelerate the pace of change that results in meaningful ocean policy reform.” (UN Agenda 21)
“Working together to build the political will in the United States” to reach this worldwide vision is what CGS wants to accomplish.
This is a very, very dangerous draft moving towards another disastrous Executive Order.
Here is what this EO will accomplish:
  • An outright giving away of parts of the oceans controlled by the United States
  • A giant first-step towards a One World Government
  • Give the United Nations even more power OVER the United States, while we pay the “lion’s share” of their bills
  • A tremendous over-reach by our federal government
  • Be one of the worst Executive Orders ever promulgated by a president
Yet,  Obama continues to go forward in this “opportunist measure” to give away parts of OUR oceans to the UN world body!
 And George Soros is effectually behind this measure also.
The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council also comprises of John Podesta, former co-chairman of the Obama presidential transition team. Podesta is the president and CEO of the Center for American Progress which advises Obama on various policies.
This organization is funded by George Soros.
The taskforce proposes to the president a well-devised, but dangerous “plan” to obtain the objective of: “an America whose stewardship ensures that the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are healthy and resilient, safe and productive, and understood and treasured so as to promote the well-being, prosperity, and security of present and future generations.”
The United Nations’ regulation of our oceans is not right at all.
It gives away our sovereign rights.
And, more importantly, pushes us towards a One World Government.
But, this is “par for the course” of  Obama. 
This socialist scheme cannot stand!

Second video shows Planned Parenthood clinic advising on how to get a sex-selective abortion; Update

Second video shows Planned Parenthood clinic advising on how to get a sex-selective abortion; Update

posted at 11:21 am on May 31, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier this week, Planned Parenthood responded to an undercover video showing a staffer in its Austin, Texas clinic providing assistance for a sex-selective abortion by firing the staffer, requiring retraining for the entire clinic, and insisting that they do not support gender-based abortions.  Looks like they’ll need to break out the pink slips again.  Live Action released another undercover video this morning that shows a New York City clinic not only advising on how to determine the gender of a pregnancy, but the best way to make the determination in time to get an abortion — complete with referral to a practitioner to assist in the service:
Despite PP’s protestations this week, the staffer in the Margaret Sanger clinic in New York City says, “I can tell  you that, you know, here at Planned Parenthood we believe that it’s not up to us to decide what is a good or bad reason for somebody to decide to terminate a pregnancy.”  The video does include PP’s insistence that “Gender bias is contrary to everything our organization works for … Planned Parenthood condemns sex selection motivated by gender bias.”  Looks like the staffers haven’t gotten that memo from corporate yet, huh?
Let’s muse on Planned Parenthood’s statement just a bit, though.  They condemn “sex selection motivated by gender bias.”  On what other basis would “sex selection” take place other than gender bias?  Why would two girls be so much less desirable than a boy and a girl that one has to take the drastic step of an abortion unless one is applying a gender bias?  What other possible explanation could there be?  And let’s face it — while the selection cuts both ways on occasion, the cultural biases in play would tend to greatly disfavor girls rather than boys in this equation, which is what we see worldwide when abortion is used in sex selection.
I’d guess that Planned Parenthood will stop short of firing another staffer, especially since Live Action hints that they have a few more of these videos on the way.
Update: I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by this, especially from a President that once opposed a version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois:
The White House got back to me this evening to say the president opposes the bill.
White House deputy press secretary Jamie Smith says in a statement: “The Administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision.   The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”
LifeNews explains the vote taking place today in the House on the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA):
The bill would make it a federal offense to knowingly do any one of the following four things: (1) perform an abortion, at any time in pregnancy, “knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex or gender of the child”; (2) use “force or threat of force. . . for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection abortion”; (3) solicit or accept funds to perform a sex-selection abortion; or (4) transport a woman into the U.S. or across state lines for this purpose. However, “A woman upon whom a sex-selection abortion is performed may not be prosecuted or held civilly liable for any violation . . .”
The bill also specifically states, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require that a healthcare provider has an affirmative duty to inquire as to the motivation for the abortion, absent the healthcare provider having knowledge or information that the abortion is being sought based on the sex or gender of the child.”
Unbelievable.  This is the same administration that’s spent the last few months crying about a “war on women,” right?  Well, here’s a fight in which females are taking real casualties, and … nothing.

Eight African Nations on Brink of Starvation - World - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 -

Eight African Nations on Brink of Starvation - World - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 -
The United Nations is asking the world to help millions of West Africans who are facing a crisis of epic proportions. The people in eight nations are on the brink of starvation. At least three million of them are children.
A tiny village in Niger is the starkest example of the hunger that grips eight African countries bordering the Sahara Desert. Families in this area depend on farming, but severe drought has resulted in crop failure.
Huts normally used to store grain are empty, leaving mothers like Mariama struggling to feed their families. On this day, she's left to pick wild leaves from trees.
"I don't think any of us can accept that this mother had to go and pick wild food for her children to eat," Denise Brown, with the World Food Program, said. "If she doesn't go and do it every day, then they don't have anything to eat."
Aid agencies are doing what they can to deliver food to the region, but so far they have not been able to raise even half the money needed to help the millions in need.
Even more people could run out of food before the next fall harvest.
A little girl named Nafissa is being treated at a health clinic where doctors weigh, measure, and monitor the nutritional survival of the children here. She's a year old, but she weighs just eight pounds - about the size of a newborn baby in the United States.
A red armband on one of these children means severe malnutrition. Doctors say they are seeing more and more red bands every day. Three million children are already on the brink of starvation, and 18 million people are in danger.
Brown urged the people of the world to get involved, saying, "These people, these women, these children, they deserve our attention, they deserve our time."

Rep. Franks: Obama Is ‘The Abortion President’

Rep. Franks: Obama Is ‘The Abortion President’
( -- Representative Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said President Barack Obama’s opposition to pro-life legislation such as the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), which would prohibit sex-selection abortion, is the reason why Obama is “the abortion president.”

“I guess as it happens, President Obama did come out, I’m understanding, last evening as against this bill -- and I just have to say that underscores why some of us refer to him as the abortion president,” said Franks during a Capitol Hill press conference on PRENDA.
“There has never been a more pro-abortion leader in the White House in the history of the United States,” said Franks.
“I just am astonished that the leader of the free world would be against a bill that would protect unborn children from being aborted based on their sex," said the congressman.
At the same press conference, Lila Rose, founder and president of the pro-life group Live Action, discussed her group’s exposure, on video, of a Planned Parenthood employee apparently giving advice on how to ensure a sex-selection abortion.
That employee was fired by Planned Parenthood on Tuesday.

Chris Smith
Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.). ( Starr)

Lila Rose said, “Planned Parenthood denies that this is even a problem, they say, well, we [they] fired the employee or this doesn’t follow protocol. But at the same time, they’re fighting to stop PRENDA. They’re fighting for the right to do sex-selective abortions of little girls.”
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) said it was a “sad day in America” when the president opposes legislation that would ban sex-selection abortion, what Smith called “an egregious assault on baby girls” and “the real war on women.”
At the White House daily press briefing on Wednesday, Press Secretary Jay Carney said he would have to check on Obama’s position concerning PRENDA.
Then, late on Wednesday, ABC’s Jake Tapper reported that the White House opposed PRENDA because of potential legal troubles incurred by doctors if they fail to accurately determine the motives of the woman who wants to have an abortion.

Rep. Trent Franks, disabled children
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.). ( Starr)

In a statement, White House Deputy Press Secretary Jamie Smith said, “The Administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision.   The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”
The House failed to pass PRENDA on Thursday in a vote that took place under suspension of rules, which means it required a two-thirds majority for passage.
If enacted, PRENDA would have criminalized abortions that are a result of discrimination on the basis of gender. Those who perform these types of abortions would have faced both monetaryfines and sentences of up to 5 years in prison.

WH: Aborting a Baby Because She's a Girl Part of 'A Very Personal and Private Decision'

WH: Aborting a Baby Because She's a Girl Part of 'A Very Personal and Private Decision'

President Barack Obama, Jay Carney
President Barack Obama on Air Force One with Press Secretary Jay Carney, right, and Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer on May 2, 2012. (AP Photo)

( – The White House is opposed to a bill that was proposed in the House that would ban sex-selection abortions.
In defending President Obama's opposition to the bill, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said it would force abortionists into the position of trying to determine the "motivations" behind a "very personal" decision.
During the White House press briefing Wednesday, Fox News reporter Ed Henry asked, “since the president has been outspoken about being against gender-based discrimination, how can you allow gender-based abortion?”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney responded that President Obama is against discrimination in all forms, but the legislation under consideration would penalize doctors.
“Well, Ed, the administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms,” Carney said. “But the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision. I think we, again, oppose gender discrimination in all cases. I think our record on that is very clear. The president’s record on that is very clear.
“But the purpose of this legislation – or the result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution for failing to divine the motivations of their patients when it comes to a very personal and medical decision,” Carney said.
The Parental Non-Discrimination Act would make abortions based on a baby’s gender illegal by creating a penalty for those who knowingly have gender-selective abortions, coerce a woman into having one, or provide transportation to a woman so she can come to the U.S. to have a gender-selective abortion.
The bill was defeated in the House Thursday in a 246 to 168 vote, because it failed to get a two-thirds majority.
Henry followed, “To figure out how to get to the bottom of this – because when the one-child policy in communist China comes up, people of all political stripes in this country are outraged that girls are killed, essentially. How can that happen in this country?”
Carney stuck with his original statement.
“Again, Ed, we oppose gender discrimination in all its forms – in all its forms, and we don’t selectively pursue legislation in order to achieve other ideological goals,” Carney said. “We oppose it in all its forms. This piece of legislation would have the hopefully unintended consequence of criminalizing a failure by a doctor and prosecuting a doctor for criminal behavior if he or she were somehow to fail to intuit the motivations of a patient in making a very private medical decision.”

Presidents Working at Home | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier

Presidents Working at Home | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier

Presidents Working at Home

Sent to me by one of my many readers with a great sense of humor.

Obama the Gaffe Master Strikes Poland

Obama the Gaffe Master Strikes Poland

May 31, 2012   ·   By    ·   0 Comments
Listen to the Christian Patriot Politicast of this column

Jan Karski at USHMM, 1994. (Photo credit: E. Thomas Wood)
Jan Karski at USHMM, 1994. (Photo credit: E. Thomas Wood)
How can we ever be surprised at anything that comes out of the mouth of Barack Obama (or whatever his name is)?  Yet, his latest gaffe almost leaves me speechless.  Almost.
It was at a ceremony at the White House on Tuesday where Obama was awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to the late Jan Karski, a Polish officer of the resistance during World War II who gave early eyewitness reports of Nazi Germany’s genocide of European Jews.
“For years, Jan Karski’s students at Georgetown University knew he was a great professor; what they didn’t realize was he was also a hero.  Fluent in four languages, possessed of a photographic memory, Jan served as a courier for the Polish resistance during the darkest days of World War II.  Before one trip across enemy lines, resistance fighters told him that Jews were being murdered on a massive scale, and smuggled him into the Warsaw Ghetto and a Polish death camp to see for himself.  Jan took that information to President Franklin Roosevelt, giving one of the first accounts of the Holocaust and imploring to the world to take action.  It was decades before Jan was ready to tell his story.  By then, he said, ‘I don’t need courage anymore.  So I teach compassion.’”
Although I am not used to hearing or reading it, apparently there are people who have incorrectly called some of the Nazi death camps “Polish” because of their physical location in German-occupied Poland, but for a sitting US President to do so is astonishing to me.  Does he have a hard time saying “Nazi”?  I notice that in the whole passage, not only does he not say “Nazi,” but he does not mention Germany at all.  He says, “Jews were being murdered,” but he does not say by whom.  Was he avoiding the use of the words Germany and Nazi in order to not offend the Polish people?  If so, his substitute was a terrible choice that landed him in much hotter water than if he had just called the camps by their correct name.
Of course, we all know that almost everything Obama says in public is what he is reading off a teleprompted script, which he most likely did not write.  What does this say about the intelligence level of his speech writers?  Or, was that wording chosen deliberately?  Either answer is not good.
Regardless of who writes what he says, the words belong to Obama; he owns them when they come out of his mouth.  And, if this were an isolated gaffe, it might be written off as a bizarre aberration, but ever since Obama was first shoved in our faces, he has let out a steady, unrelenting stream of verbal and behavioral flubs that would have caused a Republican to be driven out of Washington on a rail of ridicule.
Newsbusters has a compilation of Obama’s word and deed blunders that is more than a year old, but it is still staggering to see dozens and dozens of the most outrageous statements and goofs by Obama.  You will likely remember most of them as you see them, but here is a short list of Obama’s lowlights:  He “confuses” his “Christianity” for his Muslim faith, he says ATMs cause unemployment, he referenced the “bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor,” he “saw” dead people at a Memorial Day ceremony, he called Europe a country, he claimed that his election would slow the rise of the oceans, he thinks “Austrian” is a language, he did not want his daughters to be “punished” with a baby, he called them Navy “corpsemen,” he said he had visited 57 US states, and that is only a fraction of his gaffes.
This latest Obama blunder has managed to outrage the people of an entire nation and Poles all around the world.  Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk expressed his outrage on Wednesday as reported by Bloomberg,
“We can’t accept such words in Poland, even if they are spoken by a leader of an allied country.  … Saying Polish concentration camps is as if there was no German responsibility, no Hitler.”
Prime Minister Tusk is right, and I wonder how anyone could call the death camps anything other than Nazi or German.  Bloomberg also reported that Poland has been on a campaign to rid the media of the term “Polish concentration camps,” and has called on major newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal to quit referring to the death camps as Polish.  It is truly disgusting that so-called “reputable” news outlets like these would mischaracterize these Nazi death camps and defame Poland this way; it is nearly unimaginable that a US President would also do it.
Yet, in its typical, callous style, the Obama White House brushed off the outrage of the Polish leadership, and spokesmouth Jay Carney was trotted out to declare that Obama just “misspoke.”  He misspoke?!  No.  That was an example of either stunning ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation, and considering Obama’s pathetic history in dealing with Poland, I will guess the latter.
As Nile Gardiner wrote in a column posted at the UK Telegraph,
“President Obama has a long track record of insulting the Poles. In 2010 he chose to play golf on the day of the funeral of the Polish President Lech Kaczynski, the Polish First Lady, and 94 senior officials who perished in the Smolensk air disaster. Eight months earlier he humiliated Warsaw by pulling out of the agreement over Third Site missile [defense] installations in Poland and the Czech Republic.”
So, once again Obama is treating one of our allies like trash, by wrongly tying Poland’s name to the Holocaust.  He continues his track record of being a no-class, socialist, scourge on the US Presidency.
As I wrote back in August of 2010,
“Almost from the moment he was inaugurated, he began showing his contempt for the position and his disdain for our country, whether it was sending the bust of Churchill back to Britain, or snubbing some of our closest allies, or apologizing all over the world for our great nation, he has been nothing but a shameful worm infesting the Oval Office.  I say this with anger and sadness at what Obama and his administration have visited upon our country to date—you know the laundry list; I don’t have to remind you of it all.
This man is not what most of the poor, wrong-thinking Democrats and Independents imagined they were getting when they stupidly cast their vote for him.  He is now revealing himself to be the far left radical we warned you about before the election.  He has surrounded himself with like-minded minions, all of whom wish to destroy the foundation of America and rebuild it on the shifting sands of socialism.
… Truly, our country is currently being run by a group of enemies of America; there can be no question about it to anyone with even one eye half-open.  And at the head of the treacherous pack is Barack Obama, a man without an ounce of class.”

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

Similar Posts:

    None Found
Gina Miller, a native of Texas and current resident of the Mississippi Gulf Coast, is a radio/television voice professional.
Gina Miller
If you enjoyed this article, please consider leaving a comment below (subject to the comment guidelines listed at the bottom of the article), sharing it to Facebook or Twitter or another social media site, subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader, or have a daily digest of the latest American Clarion articles delivered to your email inbox each morning..

Articles: Mystery Religion: Mr. Obama's Contradictory Conversions to Christianity

Articles: Mystery Religion: Mr. Obama's Contradictory Conversions to Christianity
Reasonable people will agree that much of Mr. Obama's biography is not exactly an open book.  Many things about him are unknown because they remain undisclosed, and much that has been disclosed leaves many questions unanswered at the same time as new ones are raised.
This article concerns something about Mr. Obama's life history that, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet been explored -- even though what is about to be discussed is, ironically, an "open book."
Readers are about to learn that Mr. Obama has supplied two completely contradictory accounts regarding the time frame of his conversion to Christianity. 
Startlingly, Mr. Obama has adhered to a story that says he converted to Christianity sometime around 1987-88 as well as a story that says he converted in the early 1990s.  Readers will see that this is easily verified with information the documentation of which cannot be contested.
Thus, unsurprisingly, part of what follows involves yet more dereliction of duty on behalf of the MSM.  It also involves, though, questions about Mr. Obama's two autobiographies.
Dr. Jack Cashill has raised what many consider very good questions as to who really authored Mr. Obama's autobiographies.  With respect to this issue, this article takes the stance that since Mr. Obama has never disavowed authorship, when it turns out that the autobiographies both contain and omit information that is detrimental to Mr. Obama's interests, reasonable people will hold Mr. Obama himself responsible.
So when did Mr. Obama actually convert to Christianity?  Let's begin with the 1987-88 possibility.  Mr. Obama, in an April 5, 2004 Chicago Sun-Times interview with Cathleen Falsani, says he went up for the altar call in Wright's church "16, 17 years ago.  1987 or 88."
It is hoped that readers will here forgive their writer a very brief aside that they may find interesting. 
In response to Ms. Falsani's inquiry "what is sin," Mr. Obama replies with "being out of alignment with my values [emphasis added]." 
Does this fit Christian doctrine?  Those who have read Friedrich Nietzsche, the German philosopher and "Good European," will surely recognize that this kind of sentiment abounds in the man whose writings constituted works such as The Gay ScienceThe Will to Power, and TheAnti-Christ.  Is this a mere coincidence?  Maybe, but please observe that in David Mendell's biography of Mr. Obama, entitled "Obama: From Promise to Power," Mendell indicates that Mr. Obama not only read, "but devoured the writings of Nietzsche" (p.61).  "Devoured" is a powerful word, is it not?
In any event, guess what: Mr. Obama is not the only one who has placed his formal commitment to Christianity in the 1987-1988 time frame. 
Jeremiah Wright ought to know when the president professed his formal commitment to Christianity in response to one of Wright's own altar calls, right?  Wright is featured in a February 8, 2005 article by Emily Udell in In These Times magazine, entitled "Keeping the Faith."  There, we have the statement that Obama "publicly affirmed his faith about 16 years ago when he heeded Wright's altar call at TUCC."
And let's not forget the president's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng.  In an April 30, 2007 article in the New York Times by Jodi Kantor, Soetoro-Ng indicates that Mr. Obama was baptized in 1988, the year of Wright's "audacity of hope" sermon.  Furthermore, Ng says in a subsequent January 20, 2008 New York Times Magazine article by Deborah Solomon that Mr. Obama "has been a Christian for 20 years."  Next, we have a webpage at the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, which states that the commander-in-chief was baptized in 1988.
We're not through yet.  A January 21, 2007 Chicago Tribune article by Manya A. Brachear extols Wright as the inspirer of Obama's "audacity" and states that "[w]hen Obama sought his own church community, he felt increasingly home at Trinity. Before leaving for Harvard Law School in 1988, he responded to one of Wright's altar calls and declared a personal relationship with Jesus Christ."
The 1988 date sure keeps popping up, doesn't it?  All told, in regard to the notion that the date of the president's formal profession of the Christian faith was 1988, we have the president's own 2004 statement that it was (although he also says it could have been 1987; one guesses he couldn't pinpoint the year of his formal profession of faith precisely in the interview, which in itself is intriguing because that means he could not (1) relate it to Wright's audacity sermon, which, as will see shortly, Mr. Obama himself says took place in 1988, not 1987, nor could he (2) relate it to a momentous event in Chicago -- Mayor Harold Washington's demise, which occurred on November 25, 1987 and which Mr. Obama notes on page 285 of Dreams), Wright's 2005 belief that it was, the president's half-sister's 2007 and 2008 declarations, the Miller Center's 2010 claim that it was, and the Chicago Tribune's 2007 statement. 
However, Mr. Obama would also have us believe that he converted to Christianity not in 1988, but in the early 1990s.  Turning now to a July 16, 2007 Christian Science Monitor article entitled "Barack Obama: Putting Faith Out Front" by Ariel Sabar, we are told that Mr. Obama formally committed to the Christian faith four years after Wright's 1988 "audacity of hope" sermon.  The difference between 1988 and 1992 is pretty consequential, particularly when the interim is composed largely of Obama's matriculation through Harvard Law.
Next, in a July 11, 2008 Newsweek article by Lisa Miller entitled "Finding his Faith" and featuring quotes from Mr. Obama, we are told that Mr. Obama was baptized in the early 1990s. 
What gives?  Because we have two different time frames to consider with respect to Mr. Obama's supposed declaration of faith, we shall have to explore each possibility.  We will see that there are serious obstacles to overcome if one is to accept either.
It proves important to hear Mr. Obama tell of lingering outside right after the meeting with a Reverend Phillips (and is anyone absolutely sure who this person is -- perhaps Phillips is another composite?) with thoughts that he (Obama, not Phillips) wouldn't "hear back from law schools until January" (Dreams from My Father, p. 275), since it allows us to get a fix on certain timing issues in regard to Obama's encounters with Phillips and Wright, as well as when the "audacity of hope" sermon was delivered. 
Mr. Obama's first year at Harvard Law School was 1988, and he entered in the fall semester; therefore, he is, in all likelihood, referring to January of 1988.  In fact, he later says he received his acceptance from Harvard in February 1988 (Dreams from My Father, p.289), and it is only, he says, after receiving the letter that he heard Wright's "audacity of hope" sermon (Dreams from my Father, p.293-295).  This implies, you will agree, that Mr. Obama is saying that he heard the sermon in 1988, which is what his half-sister told the NY Times on two separate occasions.
Now, suppose something which is in all likelihood true: Mr. Obama submitted his application to Harvard no more than a year before he received his acceptance.  In that case, we have him talking to Phillips, in all likelihood, sometime in early 1987 (conceivably somewhat later).  As for Wright, Mr. Obama says that he spoke with other pastors after the Phillips conversation, and several referred him to Wright, just as Phillips did.  So, time to pay Jeremiah a call, right?
After discussing the reviews Wright received in the Chicago pastoral community, Mr. Obama says that "[t]oward the end of October I finally got a chance to pay Reverend Wright a visit and see the church for myself" (Dreams from My Father, p.280).  So Mr. Obama met Wright in October 1987, after having met Phillips earlier that year.  Now have a gander at this skeptical musing of the president's, which occurred to him while lingering in his automobile, smoking a cigarette, after the Phillips conversation:
I glanced up now at the small, second-story window of the church, imagining the old pastor inside, drafting his sermon for the week.  Where did you faith come from, he had asked.  It suddenly occurred to me that I didn't have an answer.  Perhaps, still, I had faith in myself.  But faith in oneself was never enough. (Dreams from my Father, p.279)
Next, consider another musing of Mr. Obama's that he says occurred sometime after he first met Reverend Wright in October 1987.  In response to questions as to when he is going to join a church, Mr. Obama reflects:
And I would shrug the question off, unable to confess that I could no longer distinguish between faith and mere folly, between faith and simple endurance; that while I believed in the sincerity I heard in their voices, I remained a reluctant skeptic, doubtful of my own motives, wary of expedient conversion, having too many quarrels with God to accept a salvation too easily won. (Dreams from My Father, p. 286-287)
If one remembers that Obama is thinking this sometime in late 1987, one begins to wonder how one can avoid serious -- if you'll forgive the word -- skepticism in regard to the president's professed 1987/1988 religious conversion to Christianity.   
Let's develop that last notion by going back to the April 5, 2004 Chicago Sun-Times interview with Falsani.  In that interview, the president explicitly says that he answered the altar call in '87 or '88 via a "gradual process."  If Obama answered Wright's call and was baptized in 1988 upon having heard the "audacity sermon," as the president's half-sister says, as other sources quoted above say, and as the president in 2004 said was one of two possibilities, how, in view of the above documented quotations, could his purported conversion to Christianity possibly be described as gradual?  The answer is that it can't, which raises yet another issue as to Obama's sincerity.
Next, recollect that in the Chicago Sun-Times interview, the president himself was uncertain as to whether the baptism he claimed took place in Wright's church occurred in 1987 or 1988.  If it really did occur in 1987, it clearly had nothing to do with Wright's "audacity" sermon, since that happened in 1988, before Obama went to Harvard (and a 1987 baptism would also contradict Obama's half-sister's account).            
If we now direct our attention solely to the prospect that Obama sincerely answered Wright's call to the altar in 1988 after the "audacity of hope" sermon, then, in addition to the direct evidence of unwavering, confessed skepticism in late 1987 that militates against the president's claim that his conversion to Christianity was gradual, there is the fact that nowhere in Dreams from my Father, which was first published in 1995, is there any mention of the baptism.  There is, however, a long description of Wright's "audacity" sermon in the book.  But rather than offering an account of the presumptively ensuing heeding of the call to the altar, the "Chicago" section of the book concludes with the Wright sermon, and then we are whisked away to Kenya.
If Mr. Obama's baptism was sincere and happened in 1988 soon after he heard the "audacity" sermon, there's absolutely no reason why Obama would not have mentioned it (if he thinks it is the kind of thing that should be mentioned) in Dreams from my Father, is there?  And if the explanation is said to be that he doesn't think it is something that should be mentioned, why does he mention it in 2006's Audacity of Hope, and then without assigning a date to it? 
In sum, if, in spite of the other inconsistencies, you believe that the president sincerely converted to Christianity in 1987 or 1988, you are, at a minimum, going to have to believe he was prevaricating when, in 2004, he said that he came to believe in God gradually.  The 1987 staunch skepticism seems to require that assessment.
Now let's turn to the Newsweek and Christian Science Monitor prospect that the president's formal commitment to the Christian faith was in the early '90s.  First, recall that the president himself says in the 2004 Chicago Sun-Times interview that his formal profession of faith was in '87 or '88.  Furthermore, there is no evidence in the 2005 In These Times article that Wright thought anything like this happened in the early '90s. 
If Obama walked down the aisle and knelt at the cross in response to Wright's altar call in the early '90s, why doesn't either of them say so in 2004 or 2005, and why does Obama expressly declare in 2004 that the event took place in 1987 or 1988 and say nothing about the date of the supposed response to the altar call in 2006? 
Furthermore, three to four years after the Sun-Times interview, we observe statements in theChristian Science Monitor and Newsweek suggesting that the president would have us believe that in 2004 he couldn't tell the difference among 1987, 1988, and the early 1990s!
In view of the foregoing, what reason is there at all to believe Obama's claim that he sincerely professed belief in God in Wright's church in the early 1990s?  And, if we accept that he did, it would contradict the 1987/1988 assertions, and then what are we supposed to make of those?
When we emerge from the labyrinth, we can conclude as follows: Mr. Obama has adhered to two contradictory time frames as to when he converted to Christianity, and no matter which time frame one considers accepting, one encounters facts that make accepting the time frame very challenging for a rational person. 
Therefore, one is rational to conclude that Mr. Obama's true relationship to religion, if indeed he has one, is, like so much else about him, a mystery. 
In any event, people the world over now know that whatever the truth on this issue may be, it is necessarily one that is consistent with the idea that the federal government has the power to compel certain religious institutions and people to supply contraceptives against their most deeply held convictions.
Is surgical abortion next?  
Jason Kissner, Ph.D., J.D. is associate professor of criminology, California State University, Fresno.

The Best Foreign Policy Saudi Money Can Buy

The Best Foreign Policy Saudi Money Can Buy
Let’s say that there are three Muslim countries in the Middle East, which, facing a domestic insurgency, use ruthless tactics to suppress it. Which one gets a pass?
The answer is easy. The Saudi ally gets the pass; the others get invaded. But “pass” is too mild a word, because after bombing Libya into submission, while preparing to do the same thing to Syria, the Obama administration has actually resumed arms sales to Bahrain. And the only real reason those arms sales were originally halted, was because of objections from Congress.
What’s the difference between Libya, Syria and Bahrain? Not all that much. All three had rulers widely hated by the people for being unrepresentative tyrants. All three responded to domestic protests with armed force. In Syria, there is a Sunni majority being ruled over by a Shiite splinter group minority, while in Bahrain, there is a Shiite majority being ruled over by a Sunni minority. Why pick one over the other? Because Saudi Arabia is the big brother of the Bahraini monarchy, and so a Sunni tyranny over a Shiite population is legitimized, while a Shiite tyranny over a Sunni population is delegitimized.
While the Obama administration is dancing around the edges of arming the Syrian rebels, it is also arming the Bahraini government. While the United States participates in the Friends of Syria group, whose goal is to overthrow the Syrian government and replace it with the Muslim Brotherhood, it has renewed security cooperation with Bahrain. While Syrian diplomats were being expelled from Washington, the Bahraini Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa came to Washington and met with Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta—nearly every important foreign policy figure in the administration with the exception of Obama.
The optics of having Obama shake hands with a tyrant while handing out Medals of Freedom might have come off as a little tacky, even from an administration that jumps when the House of Saud tells it to, without asking how high. But while the Crown Prince may not have left with Obama’s fingerprints on his palm, he is leaving with Seahawk helicopters, AMRAAM missiles, F-16 parts, a frigate and an option on some armored personnel carriers, for the next time things get hot down in Manama.
What’s even more extraordinary is that the State Department’s press statement on the renewal of arms sales to Bahrain appeared to blame both protesters and Bahraini authorities for the violence, and even teetered on the brink of placing the weight of the blame on the protesters.
“We are concerned about excessive use of force and tear gas by police. At the same time, we are concerned by the almost daily use of violence by some protestors,” the statement reads. “We urge all sides to work together to end the violence and refrain from incitement of any kind, including attacks on peaceful protestors or on the Bahraini police.”
The statement could hardly have had more wriggle room or a softer condemnation of the regime, if it had actually been written by the Crown Prince or one of his flunkies. It is all the more startling to compare this to State Department bulletins on Libya and Syria, which lack any such moral ambiguity or strained refusal to take sides in the conflict between government and anti-government forces.
The deciding factor isn’t Bahrain’s reliability as a regional ally or base space. If that was the issue then Mubarak wouldn’t have been sold out to the Muslim Brotherhood and Yemen’s President Ali Saleh would have enjoyed the same backing as the Crown Prince of Bahrain. Not to mention lesser allies like Tunisia’s President Ben Ali, whom the Obama administration triumphantly jeered to the exit only to see him replaced by Islamist Al-Nahda terrorists. It’s not about how good an ally of America a given country is, but how good an ally of Saudi Arabia it is.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


The only Arab Spring resister to earn a shrug from the Obama administration was Bahrain. When Saudi tanks rolled into Manama, there were a few uncomfortable shrugs in Washington D.C., but no fiery speeches or demands for action. Obama did not take to the airwaves to announce that he would be violating the War Powers Act, with a sustained bombardment of the Saudi Peninsula Shield Force, which was doing the killing. It would have been far easier for Obama to force the Saudis to take their tanks and go home, than it was to bring down Gaddafi or than it will be to bring down Assad. And the fact that it was not done reveals who really pulls the strings on foreign policy in the White House.
The limited suspension of arms shipments to Bahrain was not met with an equivalent suspension of arms shipments to Saudi Arabia, because the United States is not allowed to tell the Saudis what to do. Instead it’s the Saudis who slapped Uncle Sam around by suspending their arms purchases as a sign of displeasure. The myth that Saudi weapons are defensive is used to give the regime a blank check in Washington D.C., but it’s so much nonsense. Saudi Arabia’s military is there to expand its territory, whether in Bahrain or Yemen, with timely interventions from a military machine supplied and trained by the United States. The House of Saud has always been imperialistic and it has never had a problem with killing civilians.
Bahrain is the first country on the menu for inclusion into a Saudi super-state. The tanks in Manama were the leverage to push Bahrain into that union. A union that is the dawn of a planned Caliphate, carried out with American weaponry. The United States has counted on the Saudis to secure the region, but the House of Saud is only interested in securing the region for itself. It has always been imperialistic, but its most reliable tool of empire building has not been military, but political. The local monarchies have ably bought or co-opted a sizable percentage of Western political, diplomatic and military elites into building their empire for them.
The Arab League, Saudi Arabia’s puppet, backed the invasion of Libya and is championing regime change in Syria. If the Obama administration goes along with this latest war cooked up in Riyadh, that will be the fourth war that the United States has fought for Saudi interests. And the wars never seem to end. While the great hypocritical cry of the humanitarian interventionists in Washington and London goes up over Syria, no sanctions are leveled against the Saudis, and no matter how many people end up under the treads of Saudi tanks, no arms shipments are interrupted.
Truly the Obama administration has the best foreign policy… that Saudi money can buy.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

Islamizing the Temple Mount

Islamizing the Temple Mount
It’s the House of God. For centuries, Jews have remembered the destruction of the holy Temple in Jerusalem by crushing a glass at weddings or leaving unpainted a patch of wall in their homes. The Temple Mount is the magnificent edifice that has served the faithful as a symbol of God’s glory for 4,000 years. It’s Mount Moriah mentioned in the Book of Genesis. It’s the site where humanity received the gift of monotheism. It’s where God’s “shechina,” or presence, dwelt. Even the secular imagination, Jewish or not, has been shaped by the “Holy of Holies,” the most sacred site of the Jewish people. It’s there that King David raised a sanctuary for the Ark of the Covenant and King Solomon and Herod built the Temples.The Roman emperor Hadrian covered those ruins with a pagan temple to Jupiter; the Crusaders used it as a garbage dump to defile its Jewish significance and turned the area into a stable for their horses; the Arabs later built their own Islamic holy sites on top of those of their defeated enemy.
Many devout Jews today don’t set foot on the Temple Mount, afraid that they may be stepping on the ground covering the ruins of the Holy of Holies, allowed only to the High Priest on Yom Kippur. That is enough to keep them away. But there are those who believe they have a right to pray on the grounds where the Temple stood, particularly on Tisha be’Av, the anniversary of its destruction (Maimonides too prayed there). Though many respected rabbis forbid praying on the Mount, other very important Jewish leaders permit it. And there is a growing and brave movement, led by Rabbi Yisrael Ariel and Professor Hillel Weiss, which is trying to build awareness among the Israeli public on the Temple Mount. They are leading a historic battle for the rights of the Jews in their most holy site.
In theory, Israel currently controls the Temple Mount. In reality, since 1967, when the Israeli army seized the “holy basin” from Jordanian forces, the Jewish State gave up religious freedom for the Jews. Immediately after the liberation of Jerusalem, then Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan handed over the keys of the Temple Mount to the Waqf, the Muslim religious trust that serves as custodian of the site, which includes four Muslim minarets.
Historically it should be noted that only under Israeli rule was the site open for everyone, Muslims, Christians and Jews. The Islamic Waqf is now attempting to deliberately destroy all evidence of Jewish claims to this site, while using terror and intimidation to impose its exclusive claim to the sacred mountain. The Waqf has proceeded on two fronts: de-Judaize the Mount by archeological destruction and to Islamize it by preventing the Jews from praying there.
Freedom of worship for all religions, including free access to the holy places of all faiths, has always been a cardinal principle of Israel. And by and large, Israel has honored this principle, even under extremely difficult circumstances. It is ironic that Judaism’s holiest site should be the only place in Israel where this principle is violated.
Nothing justifies the infringement of religious rights to the Temple Mount. That infringement undermines respect for the rule of law in Israel by making a mockery of the law that guarantees freedom for all faiths. The Islamic Waqf has removed every sign of ancient Jewish presence at the site. At the entrance, an Arab sign says: “The Al-Aqsa Mosque courtyard and everything in it is Islamic property.” Today, Jews are barred from praying on the Mount and are not even allowed to carry any holy articles with them. With Muslim clerics supervising visits, Israeli police have frequently arrested Jews for various violations, such as singing or reciting a prayer even in a whisper.
A few days ago Israeli police issued new draconian instructions for non-Muslims who ascend to the Mount. Non-Muslims are now not even permitted to close their eyes while on the Mount or do anything that could be interpreted as praying. Jewish women have been arrested following claims by police and Waqf officials that they were praying on Temple Mount.
Why is it a crime for a Jew to mention God’s name on Temple Mount? And why is the State of Israel complicit in enforcing this anti-Semitic rule?
Giulio Meotti, a journalist with Il Foglio, is the author of the book, "A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism."


Lies are obsessive: the Jews, said late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, have never been in Jerusalem and the Temple never existed. This canard has been repeated ever since. Chief Palestinian Justice Sheik Taysir Tamimi declared that the Jewish temples “never existed.” In October 1990, the mere sight of a dozen would-be Jewish worshipers (who had actually been turned away) triggered a blood-drenched Temple Mount riot. The Hebrew language dailies Yediot Aharonot and Arutz Sheva recently revealed that Israel’s “valuable remnants from the two Jewish Temples were thrown away to an improvised garbage dump by members of the Waqf.” Most of the damage was done to the underground space that the Crusaders had termed “Solomon’s Stables.” Located under the Mount’s surface, it was used by ancient Temple priests to store vestments and items. The small room is now used for Muslim prayer. Israeli authorities did not negate the Waqf’s proposal to convert the “stables” into an Islamic praying area, called a “massalam.” An underground chamber with two pillars and an arch from the Second Temple period has already been turned into a mosque, and there are rumors of plans to unify the mosques so as to cover the entire outdoor area. The Waqf also destroyed stonework done by Jewish artisans 2,000 years ago in the underground “double passageway.” The Israeli authorities bowed to the Waqf’s desire to create an emergency exit, only to find that the Islamic body had punched through the outside wall of the Temple Mount.
As early as 1970, the Waqf destroyed the eastern wall of the Herodian Temple complex. Other severe episodes of archeological destruction took place in 1999 and 2007. It was the most massive movement of earth on the Temple Mount in recent times. Remnants of the archeological record have been fished from the Kidron Valley stream bed where the Waqf dumped the earth it removed from the Mount. Instead of working its way down through the site under the close supervision of Israeli archaeologists, the Waqf sent in bulldozers and then trucks to remove the earth by the ton-load. Much of the damage cannot be reversed.
A wall from the outer courtyard of the Second Temple is believed to have been completely pulverized. According to Gabi Barkai, recipient of the Jerusalem Prize for Archaeology, the dirt in the surrounding area is filled with Jewish history from many periods: the Canaanites, the First Temple, the period of the return to Zion from Babylonia, the Second Temple, including the Hashmonaim period and King Herod, and up to now. Finds have included fragments of stone decorated with ornaments from the Second Temple Period, arrowheads from Nebuchadnezzar’s army and also from the Romans, as well as coins and decorations from many periods, jewelry made of various materials, stone and glass squares from floor and wall mosaics. Among the most exciting finds were seal rings, ostracons written in ancient Hebrew script, terra-cotta figurines and a bronze coin dating to the Great Revolt against the Romans bearing the Hebrew phrase, “Freedom of Zion.” The list of the treasures include pot shards, pendants, rings, bracelets, earrings and beads, amulets, icons and statuettes, decorated wall hangings and fragments of decorations from buildings, seals and many other items. The most striking find was a seal impression with letters in the ancient Hebrew script of the last days of the First Temple.
While the Waqf would never allow an archaeological dig on the site, its own destruction continues unabated. The intention is to turn the 36-acre Temple Mount compound into an exclusively Islamic site by erasing every remnant and memory of its Jewish past. It’s an archaeological crime which has been called “cultural Holocaust.” That’s why there is the urgent need of an international campaign aimed to protect Jerusalem’s most holy site. This is the most important battle to any cultured person, regardless of his political and religious identity. It’s the biggest crime against truth.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  
Giulio Meotti, a journalist with Il Foglio, is the author of the book, "A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism."

Obama Celebrates Socialist Dolores Huerta

Obama Celebrates Socialist Dolores Huerta
When you’re a champion of so-called social justice, there is no end to the accolades you’re likely to receive regardless of your faults.
Falsely described by those on the Left as a compassionate humanitarian, radical labor leader Dolores Huerta has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Obama. Huerta “has fought to give more people a seat at the table,” Obama said euphemistically.
The award is not all that surprising for an administration that kisses the ring of Al Sharpton.
In an acceptance statement Huerta pushed all the right politically correct buttons:
The great social justice changes in our country have happened when people came together, organized, and took direct action. It is this right that sustains and nurtures our democracy today. The civil rights movement, the labor movement, the women’s movement, and the equality movement for our LGBT brothers and sisters are all manifestations of these rights.
Did Huerta leave any aggrieved interest group out? If she did, it must have been an innocent oversight because she’s far too wonderful and inspiring a leader to have deliberately slighted any gripe-laden, tax-eating constituency.
Huerta’s 501c3 community organizer-training nonprofit, the Dolores Huerta Foundation, receives funding from high-profile left-of-center philanthropies such as the (Bill and Hillary) Clinton Family Foundation ($100,000 in 2010), Women’s Foundation of California ($35,000 since 2009), and the (Norman) Lear Family Foundation ($10,000 since 2010).
Huerta will soon be portrayed by Rosario Dawson, a beautiful and glamorous movie star, in an upcoming film. And who knows what other tributes Hollywood will generate for the octogenarian socialist.
But despite all the hype, the oft-imprisoned Huerta is no angel. She is less the civil rights leader imagined by the mainstream media and more a champion of vulgar redistributionism. As the saying goes, if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. Community organizers like Huerta don’t teach anyone how to fish: they teach activists how to steal their neighbors’ fish. This is what Huerta and her ilk call social justice.
“I think organized labor is a necessary part of democracy,” according to Huerta. “Organized labor is the only way to have fair distribution of wealth.”
It doesn’t seem to matter to the Obama administration that Huerta is no role model. Like leftist radicals Karl Marx and Jean-Jacques Rousseau she virtually abandoned her children in order to foment unrest as a union organizer. Huerta was arguably to the left even of her United Farm Workers colleague Cesar Chavez. Unlike Huerta, Chavez campaigned against illegal immigration and made an effort to work with Republican lawmakers in the California state legislature. Despite being a socialist, Chavez managed to earn respect on both the left and the right.
Huerta, however, hasn’t received much if any praise from conservatives and an examination of her career makes her an unlikely recipient of the nation’s highest civilian honor which in the past has gone to heroes and luminaries like former British prime ministers Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, actors John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart, writers T. S. Eliot and William F. Buckley Jr., and singer Ella Fitzgerald.
Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of the recently published book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


Huerta is an “honorary co-chair” of America’s largest Marxist group, Democratic Socialists of America. She shares this distinction with DSA members Frances Fox Piven, Gloria Steinem, former Berkeley, Calif., mayor Gus Newport, pseudo-academic Cornel West, and SEIU vice president Eliseo Medina, whom Huerta recruited years ago to become a union organizer for the United Farm Workers.
Huerta’s nonprofit follows the same playbook employed by ACORN and other Saul Alinsky-inspired groups. The foundation “hires organizers from low-income working class communities and trains them using a grassroots organizing model.” Natural leaders are “developed by their participation in community projects” and local residents “hold an assembly of house meeting participants and vote to establish their own organization.” Such groups “make a plan for direct action participation” –Alinsky-speak for in-your-face, often violent action— and by “participation in these community projects, natural leaders develop their leadership skills,” according to the group’s website.
Huerta says “Republicans hate Latinos,” and urges illegal immigrants to join with unions in agitating against their employers. An anti-Vietnam War activist, Huerta also opposes the post-9/11 Global War on Terror, which she has described as a war on immigrants. She reportedly coined the radical zinger, “We didn’t cross the [U.S.-Mexico] border; the border crossed us.”
Huerta praises Venezuela’s brutal Marxist strongman Hugo Chavez, asking “why can’t we do that here in the United States?” (A second Obama administration might be willing to accommodate Huerta.)
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis recently lauded Huerta, who has mobilized angry mobs of illegals against Americans, calling her “a trailblazer” and “a luchadora who endured arrests, death threats and beatings.”
As Mytheos Holt quipped at The Blaze, while “luchadora” is a Spanish word for a female Mexican wrestler, it might be more appropriate to compare Huerta to a bullfighter or matador. “After all, based on her record of public statements, Huerta certainly raises enough red flags.”
Like Hillary Clinton, whose presidential run she endorsed, Huerta looks down her nose at homemakers, viewing them as useless bourgeois artifacts. “Excluding women, protecting them, keeping women at home, that’s the middle-class way,” she said.
Huerta isn’t the only non-mainstream American to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Left-of-center presidents have been awarding the medal to radicals for some time now.
President Obama gave medals to Malcolm X collaborator and poet Maya Angelou, former AFL-CIO boss John J. Sweeney, and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) founding director John Hamilton Adams. President Clinton gave medals to Jesse Jackson Sr. and Huerta’s labor organizing colleague Cesar Chavez.
The U.S. Navy took things with Chavez a step further, deciding to name a cargo ship after him. Chavez reportedly came up with the Obama campaign slogan, “Yes, we can!” Chavez’s union, the United Farm Workers, used the saying he coined as its official motto. (In Spanish, “¡Sí se puede!”)
Will Huerta also one day get a ship named after her? If so it should be a destroyer.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of the recently published book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."