Sheriff Joe Vs. Obama: Tons More Information to Come

Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio has never been known to shy away from a good fight…and he certainly cannot be accused of being mealy-mouthed.

Catholic.org has the story:

America’s sheriff is hot on the case of Obama’s possibly forged credentials. On a March 16 radio show hosted by Roger Hedgecock, Maricopa County, Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio discussed his recent investigation into Obama’s documents and the possibility they could be forged.

LOS ANGELES, CA – Sheriff Joe told Hedgecock there is “tons” more information on Obama than what is currently known and that he feels this is “probably the biggest censorship blackout in the history of the United States.”

On March 1, WND reported that Sheriff Joe and his Cold Case Posse was announcing probable cause that President Obama’s documents which made him eligible to run in 2008 could be forged. At the crux of the investigation are Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration card.

Sheriff Joe said, “I’m not going after the president to keep him off a ballot or anything else, but that could happen. I’m going at it strictly as a law-enforcement guy investigating a possible forgery and fraud. I’m sticking with that, but I’ll tell you one thing. We got tons of other information that could be very shocking, too, but I’m sticking now with just the investigation and possible criminal violations.”

Sheriff Joe was asked if he would try to make an arrest, but he cautioned against that conclusion. “We’re trying to identify any alleged forger. We haven’t done that yet. . I’m not blaming the president, but if they’re forged, someone has to be responsible for doing that.”

Despite the results of his investigation, Sheriff Joe believes that media coverage of Obama’s forgeries is being suppressed. He told Hedgecock, “My problem is, there’s a lot of conflicts out here to get somebody to look into this. .This is probably the biggest censorship blackout in the history of the United States. When I go to the toilet, I make it in national news. .I just can’t believe the media, including the cable media blocking this thing out.”

Currently, Sheriff Joe is focusing attention on Obama’s Selective Service registration card, which contains a bizarre mistake. The date stamp, which should read “1980” only reads, “08.” This is inconsistent with every other stamp the office investigated.

Sheriff Joe has asked for the original document and is still waiting for a response from the Selective Service. Unfortunately, the Selective Service is ultimately under the control of the President, so the Sheriff does not expect cooperation.

There are other items in the media that apparently remain unreported. According to WND, a retired US postal worker has signed a sworn affidavit saying that Obama was a foreign-born student who was given financial assistance from the parents of Bill Ayers. Ayers is infamous for founding the domestic terror group, Weather Underground. Obama has previously been connected to Bill Ayers.

Despite this, the media is not reporting the story, lending credibility to Sheriff Joe’s claim that a full-scale media blackout is occurring.

It was 11 months ago, April 27, 2011, that Obama thought he was putting all of the questions about him behind him as he issued a long form of , what he claimed, was his birth certificate.

WJBC.com reported at the time:

 “We do not have time for this silliness,” President Obama said in a statement to the media this morning about his birth certificate. The White House is releasing his full birth certificate, showing a live birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4th, 1961. In a statement, Obama called himself amused and puzzled about questions that have been raised about his birth. Since 2008, some conspiracy theorists have repeatedly raised questions about whether Obama was actually born in the USA. In recent weeks, real estate mogul Donald Trump has fanned the flames of doubt about the President’s birthplace. Trump is flirting with a presidential run as a Republican.

A statement from White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer says the President viewed the issue as a distraction that was not good for the country. Pfeiffer said, “It may have been good politics and good TV, but it was bad for the American people and distracting from the many challenges we face as a country.”

That did not stop the speculation concerning the president’s birth.  The Birth Certificate he presented appeared as if it had been cut and pasted together.  It fired “birthers” up, instead of shutting them up.

Evidently, Obama still thinks about the subject, as well.

Sauce for the goose (or, should I say “Lame Duck”)

Fox News’ Ed Henry reported on Twitter that after speaking at an event in Cushing, Oklahoma, President Obama jokingly asked a woman where her birth certificate was after she revealed to have been born at the same hospital he was born at in Hawaii.

@edhenryTV: In OK, Woman heard telling Prez she was born at same hospital in Hawaii. He quipped: “Do you have YOUR birth certificate?”

I have mine, Mr. President.  It states that I was born in St. Joseph Hospital, in Memphis, Tennessee, on December 3rd, 1958.

It appears that there are still some lingering doubts (perhaps, even in your own mind) concerning yours.

Malia’s Spring Break…on Our Dime

“Over the last several years, we’ve been able to strike up a friendship. And, you’ll notice that even though technically it is not Saint Patrick’s Day, we like to prolong the party around here,” President Obama said at a press event following a meeting with Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny.

We’ve noticed, Mr. President….No matter how you try to hide it.

Breitbart.com has the story:

An AFP story, linked at the Huffington Post and elsewhere, reported on Malia Obama’s visit to Mexico despite a Texas public safety warning, she’s reportedly accompanied by 12 friends and 25 Secret Service agents. The Huffington Post story link now directs to the main page and the AFP item is fast disappearing from view.

The Yahoo News link now diverts to a completely different story, in contrast to the url: http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-daughter-spends-springbreak-mexico-145031176.html. The headline now reads: Senegal music star Youssou Ndour hits campaign trail.

The International Business Times, among others, still has the story live – for now.  [It has since been scrubbed, too.]:

President Barack Obama’s 13-year-old daughter, Malia Ann Obama, will be spending her spring break in the Mexican city of Oaxaca with 12 friends and 25 Secret Service agents. The young tourists will be in a downtown hotel in the city known for its colonial architecture and native traditions, reported a state police official.

“We are here to block access to the hotel by other people and escort the vehicles that are carrying the visitors to tourism sites,” the police official told the AFP under the condition of anonymity.

Along with the 25 secret service agents, Obama and her friends will protected by a slew of Mexican police officers, according to the AFP.

The group arrived in Oaxaca on Saturday and reportedly visited the architectural site of Mitla.

They also visited the tree of El Tule, believed to be approximately one thousand years old. The group also plans to travel to Monte Alban, which is known for its archeological research as well as the artisan sections of the city.

The report comes at the same time the Texas Department of Public Safety has issued a warning, advising students on Spring Break to not travel to Mexico due to increased violence.

AUSTIN, Texas — A law enforcement agency in Texas has raised safety concerns and advised students on spring break to avoid Mexico.

The Department of Public Safety on Tuesday issued the advisory, citing continued violence throughout Mexico.

The U.S. State Department last month recommended that Americans avoid travel to all or parts of 14 of 31 Mexican states. It’s the widest travel advisory issued by the U.S. since Mexico stepped up its drug war in 2006.

DPS Director Steven McCraw says Mexican drug cartel violence and other criminal activity represent a significant safety threat, even in some resort areas.

So far, only one of the Republican Candidates for Nomination has had enough courage to say anything about Malia’s taxpayer-funded Spring Break Par-taaay.

News.Yahoo.com reports that

Rick Santorum criticized President Obama during a radio interview Tuesday for reportedly allowing his daughter, Malia, to go on a spring break trip to Mexico in an area of the country which Santorum believed had been placed on a warning list for American tourists by the State Department.

“What I would say is that the president’s actions should reflect what his administration is saying,” Santorum told Beck, according to the Blaze. “If the administration is saying that it’s not safe to have people down there, then just because you can send 25 Secret Service agents doesn’t mean you should do it. You should set an example. I think that’s what presidents do. They set an example. And when the government is saying this is not safe, then you don’t set the example by sending your kids down there.”

…An earthquake hit Mexico Tuesday, but the White House released a statement saying Malia was unharmed.

According to CBSnews.com:

The Monday reports prompted the first lady’s office to reach out to media outlets and ask them to pull the stories, which many elected to do. In order to protect the “privacy and security” of the first daughters, the first lady’s office said, it was reiterating its longstanding request that news organizations not “report on or photograph the Obama children when they are not with their parents and there is no vital news interest.”

You mean, like when they reported Dubya’s daughters were out partying?

Was there any “vital news interest” there?

The truth is, the Obama Administration knows that the optics are bad in this situation…and they ordered a cover-up, courtesy of their sychophantic Media Lapdogs.

A 13 year old, in Mexico, on Spring Break with 12 of her classmates, and without her parents?

Shoot.  I didn’t get to go on a “school trip” without my folks until I was a Junior in High School….and that was to Washington, DC, riding for days on a Continental Trailways bus with my classmates, over the Thanksgiving holidays.

Well…I was excited, anyway.  And my parents paid for it.

The War Against Christianity: Operation “Women’s Health”

As has been the S.O.P. of the Obama Dictatorship…errr…Presidency, Director of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, under the orders of her boss, President Barack Hussein Obama, (mm mmm mmmm), issued as Friday Night Document Dump, announcing their plans to go forward with making Religious Medical Organizations offer contraceptives and abortiafacients, even if it violates the tenants of their faith.

That’s not all.  Now, the administration of a man who attended a Black Liberation Theology Church, sitting under the teachings of a former Black Muslim  for 20 years, is going to decide what is or is not a “Religion Organization”.

Here is part of the advance PDF of the report:

On February 10, 2012, the Departments also announced their intention to provide an accommodation with respect to non-exempt, non-profit religious organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage. The final regulation concerning student health insurance plans, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, states that this intention extends to student health insurance plans arranged by non-profit religious institutions of higher education with such objections. This accommodation would apply to some or all organizations that qualify for the temporary enforcement safe harbor, and possibly to additional organizations. Thus, a question for purposes of the intended regulations is: What entities should be eligible for the new accommodation (that is, what is a “religious organization”)?

One approach would be to adopt the definition of religious organization used in another statute or regulation. For example, the definition used in one or more State laws to afford a religious exemption from a contraceptive coverage requirement could be adopted. Alternatively, the intended regulations could base their definition on another Federal law, such as section 414(e) the Code and section 3(33) of ERISA, which set forth definitions for purposes of “church plans.”

A definition based on these provisions may include organizations such as hospitals, universities, and charities that are exempt from taxation under section 501 of the Code and that are controlled by or associated with a church or a convention or association of churches. In developing a definition of religious organization, we are cognizant of the important role of ministries of churches and, as such, seek to accommodate their religious objections to contraceptive coverage.

The Departments seek comment on which religious organizations should be eligible for the accommodation and whether, as some religious stakeholders have suggested, for-profit religious employers with such objections should be considered as well.

The Departments underscore, as we did with respect to the definition of religious employer in the final regulations, that whatever definition of religious organization is adopted will not be applied with respect to any other provision of the PHS Act, ERISA, or the Code, nor is it intended to set a precedent for any other purpose. And, while the participants and beneficiaries covered under the health plans offered by a “religious employer” compared to those covered under the health plans offered by a “religious organization” will have differential access to contraceptive coverage, nothing in the final regulations or the forthcoming regulations is intended to differentiate among the religious merits, commitment, mission, or public or private standing of the organizations themselves. 

Regardless of the definition of religious organization that is proposed, the Departments are considering proposing the same or a similar process for self-certification that will be used for the temporary enforcement safe harbor referenced in the final regulations.

Under that process, an individual authorized by the organization certifies that the organization satisfies the eligibility criteria, and the self-certification is made available for examination. The Departments expect that, for purposes of the proposed accommodation, religious organizations would make a similar self-certification, and similarly make the self-certification available for examination. The self-certification would be used to put the independent entity responsible for providing contraceptive coverage on notice that the religious organization has invoked the accommodation. The future rulemaking would require that the independent entity be responsible for providing the contraceptive coverage in this case.

By the way, what sort of “downtrodden” lifestyle was the “Poster Child” for “Women’s Health” doing she appeared before Congress wanting us to pay for her $3,000 worth of contraception expenses per year?

She and her boyfriend Fluke and her boyfriend, Adam “Cutie Pants” Mutterperl recently traveled to Spain and Italy together.

The 30 year old women’s rights activist and her rich socialist boyfriend were photographed while drunk in the streets over there.

Adam is a proud boyfriend. He tweeted the following recently:

Rush Limbaugh just called my girlfriend a “slut” and a “prostitute” on his show! She’s finally made the big time!

Adam’s rich Daddy, Bill, is a huge Democratic Donor and Operative.

So, just like the cause she’s advocating, Fluke’s real agenda is hidden from the American public.

What in the world gives the Obama Administration the right to decide what is a “religious organization”?  Especially, after the President, himself, attended a “church” for 20 years that views Jesus Christ as a revolutionary along the lines of the murderer, Che Guevara.  

This is not about “Women’s Health”.  This is about facilitating the cradle-to-grave control of our lives by “The State”…and the callous stopping of helpless beating hearts.

Obama Barters with Israel: A Bomb for Peace

Things are one again at the point of ignition in the face-off between America’s staunchest ally, and the barbarians in Iran.

Reuters.com has the story:

Israel has asked the United States for advanced “bunker-buster” bombs and refueling planes that could improve its ability to attack Iran’s underground nuclear sites, an Israeli official said on Thursday.

“Such a request was made” around the time of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington this week, the official said, confirming media reports.

But the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the issue, played down as “unrealistic” Israeli reports that the United States would condition supplying the hardware on Israel promising not to attack Iran this year.

White House spokesman Jay Carney, asked whether the Israelis had made such a request to U.S. officials during the visit, said “there was no such agreement proposed or reached” in President Barack Obama’s meetings with Netanyahu or his aides.

But when asked if the matter was raised with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta or other U.S. officials, Carney told reporters he had no information on that. “I would refer you to other officials,” he said.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that military capabilities came up in discussions between Netanyahu and Panetta but did not elaborate. No deals were struck during those talks, the official added.

Netanyahu made clear to Obama at a White House meeting on Monday that Israel had not yet decided on military action against Iran, the White House has said.

Netanyahu has hinted that Israel could resort to force should Tehran – which denies suspicions that it is covertly trying to develop atomic bombs – continue to defy big powers’ diplomatic pressure to curb its nuclear program.

The risk of an Israeli-Iranian war troubles Obama, who is up for re-election in November and has cautioned against sparking greater Mideast turmoil, though he has also asserted that military action remains an option if sanctions fail. A Gulf conflict could send oil prices soaring.

A front-page article in the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv on Thursday said Obama had told Netanyahu Washington would supply Israel with upgraded military equipment in return for assurances there would be no attack on Iran in 2012.

Of course, the United Nations is urging Israel not to attack, Associated Press reports:

Three days of protracted negotiations held under the specter of war highlighted the diplomatic difficulties ahead for nations intent on ensuring that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.

In a statement Thursday that was less than dramatic, six world powers avoided any bitter criticism of Iran and said diplomacy – not war – is the best way forward.

The cautious wording that emerged from a weeklong meeting of the U.N. nuclear agency reflected more than a decision to tamp down the rhetoric after a steady drumbeat of warnings from Israel that the time was approaching for possible attacks on Iran to disrupt its nuclear program.

Indeed, the language was substantially milder than the tough approach sought by Washington and allies Britain, France and Germany at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s 35-nation board meeting. Agreement came only after tough negotiations with Russia and China.

That could spell trouble on any diplomatic path ahead.

Gee.  Ya think, DiNozzo?

According to the Washington Post, the majority of Israeli citizens do not want to attack Iran without our support:

Amid an escalating din among Israeli leaders about the threat of a potentially nuclear Iran, the Israeli public has displayed little enthusiasm for a solo preemptive military strike. A handful of recent polls have shown that ordinary Israelis are firmly against the idea of going it alone.

“Israelis are much more careful, much more cautious than their government,” said Ephraim Yaar, a Tel Aviv University professor who co-directs a monthly public opinion survey. This week, more than 60 percent of Israelis polled said they opposed an attack on Iran without U.S. cooperation.

In the will-they-or-won’t-they guessing game that discussion about a military strike has become here, few view public opinion as a predictor of outcome. Netanyahu is sharply attuned to public sentiment, analysts say, but he has repeatedly emphasized — most recently in Washington — that he is driven by an obligation to protect Israel even without U.S. blessing, though he clearly wants it.

So, too, do Israelis, though that is not out of deference to the United States, said Yaar, whose survey was conducted just before Netanyahu’s trip. Commentators and retired security officials have questioned whether the Israeli military has the capacity to carry off a solo assault. The Israeli public shares that doubt, the survey found — and believes that Iranian retaliation could kill more than 500 civilians, the figure estimated by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in November.

That may be a long time coming.

On June 4, 2009, President Barack Hussein Obama gave a speech at the University of Cairo to the Muslim world.  Here is an excerpt from whitehouse.gov:

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

Uh huh.

Last year, pajamasmedia.com’s Andrew Klaven presented the following solution to the problem of Israel, with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

As he himself says:

Now, why didn’t somebody think of this before?

Shalom!

Obama Refuses to Touch Out-of-Control Gas Prices

During a speech given Wednesday in Mount Holly, North Carolina, at the Daimler Truck Manufacturing Plant, President Barack Hussein Obama remarked, as reported by The Weekly Standard:

Looks like somebody might’ve fainted up here, have we got . . . Somebody . . . EMS . . . Somebody . . Don’t worry about it: Folks do this all the time in my meetings. You always got to eat before you stand for a long time–that’s a little tip. They’ll be OK, just make sure–give them a little room.

If you haven’t heard about the whoppers he told in this speech, you had better sit down…you’re probably going to faint, too.

Here’s an excerpt from the transcript at whitehouse.gov:

Now, here’s the thing, though — this is not the first time we’ve seen gas prices spike. It’s been happening for years. Every year, about this time, gas starts spiking up, and everybody starts wondering, how high is it going to go? And every year, politicians start talking when gas prices go up. They get out on the campaign trail — and you and I both know there are no quick fixes to this problem — but listening to them, you’d think there were.

As a country that has 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, but uses 20 percent of the world’s oil — I’m going to repeat that — we’ve got 2 percent of the world oil reserves; we use 20 percent. What that means is, as much as we’re doing to increase oil production, we’re not going to be able to just drill our way out of the problem of high gas prices. Anybody who tells you otherwise either doesn’t know what they’re talking about or they aren’t telling you the truth.

Here is the truth. If we are going to control our energy future, then we’ve got to have an all-of-the-above strategy. We’ve got to develop every source of American energy — not just oil and gas, but wind power and solar power, nuclear power, biofuels. We need to invest in the technology that will help us use less oil in our cars and our trucks, in our buildings, in our factories. That’s the only solution to the challenge. Because as we start using less, that lowers the demand, prices come down. It’s pretty straightforward. That’s the only solution to this challenge.

And that’s the strategy that we’ve now been pursuing for the last three years. And I’m proud to say we’ve made progress.

Since I took office, America’s dependence on foreign oil has gone down every single year. In fact, in 2010, it went under 50 percent for the first time in 13 years.

You wouldn’t know it from listening to some of these folks out here — (laughter) — some of these folks — (laughter) — but a key part of our energy strategy has been to increase safe, responsible oil production here at home. Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than any time in the last eight years. Under my administration, we’ve quadrupled the number of operating oilrigs to a record high. We’ve got more oilrigs operating now than we’ve ever seen. We’ve opened up millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration. We’ve approved more than 400 drilling permits that follow new safety standards after we had that mess down in the Gulf.

We’re approving dozens of new pipelines. We just announced that we’ll do whatever we can to speed up construction of a pipeline in Oklahoma that’s going to relieve a bottleneck and get more oil to the Gulf — to the refineries down there — and that’s going to help create jobs, encourage more production.

So these are the facts on oil production. If somebody tells you we’re not producing enough oil, they just don’t know the facts.

But how much oil we produce here at home, because we only have 2 percent and we use 20, that’s not going to set the price of gas worldwide, or here in the United States. Oil is bought and sold on the world market. And the biggest thing that’s causing the price of oil to rise right now is instability in the Middle East. You guys have been hearing about what’s happening with Iran; there are other oil producers that are having problems. And so people have gotten uncertain. And when uncertainty increases, then sometimes you see speculation on Wall Street that drives up gas prices even more.

But here’s the thing. Over the long term, the biggest reason oil prices will go up is there’s just growing demand in countries like China and India and Brazil. There are a lot of people there. In 2010 alone, China added nearly 10 million cars on its roads. Think about that — 2010, 10 million new cars. People in China, folks in India, folks in Brazil — they’re going to want cars, too, as their standard of living goes up, and that means more demand for oil, and that’s going to kick up the price of oil worldwide. Those numbers are only going to get bigger over time.

So what does that mean for us? It means we can’t just keep on relying on the old ways of doing business. We can’t just rely on fossil fuels from the last century. We’ve got to continually develop new sources of energy.

And that’s why we’ve made investments that have nearly doubled the use of clean, renewable energies in this country. And thousands of Americans have jobs because of it. It also means we’ve got to develop the resources that we have that are untapped, like natural gas. We’re developing a near hundred-year supply of natural gas -– and that’s something that we expect could support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade.

And that’s why we’ve worked with the private sector to develop a high-tech car battery that costs half as much as other batteries and can go up to 300 miles on a single charge. Think about that. That will save you some money at the pump. And that is why we are helping companies like this one right here and plants like this one right here to make more cars and trucks that use less oil.

Still trying to line the pockets of your “investors”, huh, Mr. President?  I’m all for future progress, but what you’re proposing does nothing to deal with the reality of average American not being able to afford to fill up their gas tanks, in order to make it to their jobs.

Americans need relief at the gas pumps NOW, Mr. President.

Remember these words you repeated, a few years ago?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Nowhere in the Oath of Office do I see the words:

“I will line the pockets of my friends and investors, now matter how it ruins America’s economy or impacts its citizens.”

P.S.  We don’t want to “be like Europe”.  We’re America!

Heck of a job there, Barry.

Santorum: Obama Has a Different Theology

Republican Candidate for their Presidential Nomination, Rick Santorum,  made some remarks about the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that have been been the fodder for conversations around office coolers and Sunday after-church lunches for 3 years now.

Reuters.com has the story:

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum challenged President Barack Obama’s Christian beliefs on Saturday, saying White House policies were motivated by a “different theology.”

A devout Roman Catholic who has risen to the top of Republican polls in recent days, Santorum said the Obama administration had failed to prevent gas prices rising and was using “political science” in the debate about climate change.

Obama’s agenda is “not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs. It’s about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology,” Santorum told supporters of the conservative Tea Party movement at a Columbus hotel.

When asked about the statement at a news conference later, Santorum said, “If the president says he’s a Christian, he’s a Christian.”

But Santorum did not back down from the assertion that Obama’s values run against those of Christianity.

“He is imposing his values on the Christian church. He can categorize those values anyway he wants. I’m not going to,” Santorum told reporters.

A social conservative, Santorum is increasingly seen as a champion for evangelical Christians in fights with Democrats over contraception and gay marriage.

“This is just the latest low in a Republican primary campaign that has been fueled by distortions, ugliness, and searing pessimism and negativity – a stark contrast with the President who is focused everyday on creating jobs and restoring economic security for the middle class,” said Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt.

So, is President Barack Hussein Obama, a Christian?

For 20 years, Obama sat under the teachings of Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the Trinity United Church of Christ .  Let’s look at the background of Rev. Wright, courtesy of freerepublic.com, shall we?

What most people do not know is that Reverend Jeremiah Wright was a Muslim and a Black Activist before he became the founding pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, a Black Liberation Theology Church.

The rest, you already know.  As a reminder, though, Discoverthenetworks.org gives us the following summation of  Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

  • Longtime pastor and spiritual mentor of Barack Obama
  • Considers the U.S. to be a nation rife with racism and discrimination
  • Blames American racism for provoking the 9/11 attacks
  • “Islam and Christianity are a whole lot closer than you may realize,” he has written. “Islam comes out of Christianity.”
  • Embraces liberation theology and socialism
  • Strong supporter of Louis Farrakhan
  • Likens Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to South Africa’s treatment of blacks during the apartheid era

But, what is Black Liberation Theology?

Again, discoverthenetworks.org gives us the lowdown:

The chief architect of black liberation theology was James Cone, author of Black Theology and Black Power. One of the tasks of this movement, according to Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of blacks who have long been victimized by white oppressors. According to black liberation theology, the inherent racism of white people precludes them from being able to recognize the humanity of nonwhites; moreover, their white supremacist orientation allegedly results in the establishment of a “white theology” that is irrevocably disconnected from the black experience. Consequently, liberation theologians contend that blacks need their own, race-specific theology to affirm their identity and their worth.

“What we need,” says Cone, “is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of Black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” Observing that America was founded for white people, Cone calls for “the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.” He advocates the use of Marxism as a tool of social analysis to help Christians to see “how things really are.”

Another prominent exponent of black liberation theology is the Ivy League professor Cornel West, who calls for “a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers” — a dialogue that centers on the possibility of “mutually arrived-at political action.”

Matthew 7:16 tells us,

You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

Think back on the last three years and try to remember some of the actions by President Barack Hussein Obama.

For instance, one of the first things he did when ascending to the throne, err, the presidency, was to lift restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad.

Per reuters.com:

The Democratic president’s decision was a victory for advocates of abortion rights on an issue that in recent years has become a tit-for-tat policy change each time the White House shifts from one party to the other.

Now, three years later, Obama has made the headlines in his attempt, through the bureaucratic monster known as Obamacare, to force Catholic Hospitals to go against their Denomination’s beliefs and to make them provide contraception and the morning after (abortion) pill.

Again, think back on everything he has done in between these two specific cases.

Is he a Christian?  

“You will recognize them by their fruits.”

Obama to Cut National Defense to 1950 Level

When he assumed office, President Ronald Reagan faced the daunting task of rebuilding our National Defense, decimated by his ineffectual predecessor, Jimmy Carter.

Ronald Reagan, as he always did, went directly to the American people, in a televised speech given on the night of March 23, 1983.

Presidentialrhetoric.com provides the transcript:

…The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression – to preserve freedom and peace.

Since the dawn of the atomic age, we’ve sought to reduce the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking genuine arms control. “Deterrence” means simply this: making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won’t attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression. This strategy of deterrence has not changed. It still works. But what it takes to maintain deterrence has changed. It took one kind of military force to deter an attack when we had far more nuclear weapons than any other power; it takes another kind now that the Soviets, for example, have enough accurate and powerful nuclear weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the ground. Now, this is not to say that the Soviet Union is planning to make war on us. Nor do I believe a war is inevitable – quite the contrary. But what must be recognized is that our security is based on being prepared to meet all threats.

There was a time when we depended on coastal forts and artillery batteries, because, with the weaponry of that day, any attack would have had to come by sea. Well, this is a different world, and our defenses must be based on recognition and awareness of the weaponry possessed by other nations in the nuclear age. We can’t afford to believe that we will never be threatened. There have been two world wars in my lifetime. We didn’t start them and, indeed, did everything we could to avoid being drawn into them. But we were ill-prepared for both. Had we been better prepared, peace might have been preserved.

For 20 years the Soviet Union has been accumulating enormous military might. They didn’t stop when their forces exceeded all requirements of a legitimate defensive capability. And they haven’t stopped now. During the past decade and a half, the Soviets have built up a massive arsenal of new strategic nuclear weapons- weapons that can strike directly at the United States.

…This is why I’m speaking to you tonight – to urge you to tell your Senators and Congressmen that you know we must continue to restore our military strength. If we stop in midstream, we will send a signal of decline, of lessened will, to friends and adversaries alike. Free people must voluntarily, through open debate and democratic means, meet the challenge that totalitarians pose by compulsion. It’s up to us, in our time, to choose and choose wisely between the hard but necessary task of preserving peace and freedom and the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly hope for the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day by day.

President Reagan coined a very famous, but simple, phrase describing his Foreign Policy:  

Trust, but Verify.

Evidently,  our 44th president and his Administrative Staff only believe in the first half of that phrase.

LATimes.com reports:

President Obama greeted the Chinese heir apparent in the Oval Office on Tuesday morning, a venue where the U.S. president usually receives only the nation’s closest friends.

But even as the two countries eye one another warily, the Obama administration wants to keep its options open with Vice President Xi Jinping as he prepares to take his place as president next year.

In a joint appearance before their meeting, Obama told reporters that the U.S. relationship with China is based on “mutual interest and mutual respect,” and that such a relationship is in the interests of the rest of the world, too.

The United States welcomes China’s “peaceful rise,” Obama said, which he said has the power to “help to bring stability and prosperity to the world.”

As Al Jolson once said:

Wait a minute…wait a minute…you ain’t seen nothing yet!

According to the Associated Press :

The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.

Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama’s 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.

No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to: 1,000 to 1,100; 700 to 800, and 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.

The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.

A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003.

Obama has often cited his desire to seek lower levels of nuclear weapons, but specific options for a further round of cuts had been kept under wraps until the AP learned of the three options now on the table.

A spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, said Tuesday that the options developed by the Pentagon have not yet been presented to Obama.

All you Americans in your 50s, like me, and older…remember the old “Duck and Cover” films we watched in school?

Well, those things we learned from those films, won’t help now.

I suggest prayer.