The Left’s Love Affair with Tyrants, Murderers, and Terrible People

From AMAC at https://amac.us/lefts-love-affair-tyrants-murderers-terrible-people/

Castro tyrants murderers terrible left love

 

 

 

 

 

 

In their pursuit to erode our culture of its established values, American leftists continue to expose themselves and their insidious brand of moral relativism through their disturbing idol worship of notably evil figures throughout world history.

Call it sympathy for the devil, call it willful ignorance, call it plain evil. Whatever you decide to call it, these people just don’t seem to understand why we justly criticize despots and dictators.

To help out the leftists and their historically-challenged ilk, here’s a nifty guide laying out why these figures are so heinous. Remember kids, reading is fundamental.

Fidel Castro

The American left has always shown sympathy for Castro, former prime minister of Cuba and known mass murderer.

Leftists love to praise the man as a secular hero, and glorified him for his socialist policies while he was alive and in power. It seems they’ve all conveniently forgotten that Castro oversaw the murder of tens of thousands of Cuban citizens. The man banned free press and religious liberty, and was known to imprison his political opponents, as well as journalists who criticized him and anyone else who challenged his status quo. Castro was also notorious for punishing his critics with long-term prison sentences, arresting human rights defenders, and endorsing termination of employment for citizens who went against him.

But hey, maybe American lefties skipped that chapter of their history books. They can’t really be that delusional to think that Castro was somehow a good guy… can they?

In a statement following Castro’s death, Barack Obama spoke of “the countless ways in which [Castro] altered the course of individual lives, families and of the Cuban nation.” I wonder how the thousands of people who risked their lives fleeing Cuba to escape Castro’s deadly regime feel about that statement — sure, Obama, I guess you could say Castro altered their lives.

Leftists also like to believe Castro bettered the Cuban education system. However, they forget that under his authority, it was stipulated that anyone who received universal education would have to actively promote Castro’s government policies both during after their schooling. Pupils were required to take government-approved courses that forbid any criticism of socialism as a way of life. Castro viewed education as a crucial element of his revolution, and believed that universal education was the best way to create a population that was loyal to the government.

Sound familiar?

Karl Marx

The father of socialism is the same man behind much of the modern-day communist rambling from the American left.

Marx, in his writings, envisioned the creation of a new, superior individual who would go on to create a new society. This vision of a “new man” and “new society” apparently involved creating a communist revolution complete with mass murder, enslavement, torture, and the subjugation, starvation, and suffering of millions around the world. Historians have estimated that in their attempt to create a “better” world, Marxist and communist regimes have killed as many as 200 million people in the twentieth century alone.

These deaths cannot be dismissed as acts of rogue dictators who weren’t following the “true tenets of Marxist philosophy” either, since Marx taught his followers that it was necessary to kill a large segment of the population in order to attain the basic objectives of communism.

Furthermore, Marx had little regard for the rights of the individual; his disdain for personal liberty was evident in his writings. By calling for legislative absolutism of the state and advocating a classless society, Marx supported the suffering of millions, since by its very nature, socialism cannot exist without an oppressive government.

This is why I can’t help but groan when American leftists praise Marx as a great thinker and political theorist, especially when they talk about how they wish to continue his legacy. His “legacy” is one of cruelty, murder, and hypocrisy.

I suppose, however, that these are just the normal elements of a socialist utopia.

Che Guevara

I knew a self-identified socialist in college, the kid thought that the poster of Che Guevara on his wall and his dog-eared copy of The Communist Manifesto made him a bona fide revolutionary. Alas, the poor kid was mistaken. Do these young idealists realize that when they go to chain stores and buy mass-produced merchandise with Che Guevara’s face screen-printed on, that they’re contributing to the very same cycle that Guevara himself denounced? (I know — asking self-awareness from leftists is a lofty request, nigh impossible — but hey, I can dream).

Many overlook the fact that Guevara was not an “icon” or a hero, but a murderous ideologue with a tyrannical streak who desired absolute military power and called for death to all of his dissenters. Guevara banned books he felt “encouraged delinquency”, and he banned music that challenged his regime, including jazz and rock and roll. He lined up his enemies before firing squads, punishing them with death simply for speaking out against his tyrannical worldview.

Guevara hated hippies, artists, and free thinkers. He was a known racist and bigot who treated homosexuality as a crime. And he was more than willing to kill anyone he deemed “delinquent”. This is, perhaps, the strangest part of the left’s idol worship of Guevara: those who admire and venerate the man today are the same folks Guevara himself likely would’ve jailed (or even killed) if they had lived under his regime. Guevara’s ultimate goal was to make individualism disappear from the nation.

Why do leftists continue to worship a man who was openly against everything they supposedly stand for?

The Takeaway

The left’s hero worship of these three figures is particularly alarming, as it not only displays their lack of historical knowledge, but proves how their sense of “morality” is completely inconsistent. Leftist values are based upon spreading and normalizing their destructive dogma, and thus are always fluctuating. The ethical boundaries of American leftists will always be subject to change, as they are completely dependent on however they can justify their ideological motives.

Larceny, treason, exile, murder, political suppression, rape, starvation, and torture are all condemned by leftists… until one of their idols is guilty of such a crime.

Is anyone else tired of this blatant hypocrisy? Of the left’s two-faced conduct, their performative rhetoric, and their “say one thing and do another”-style politics? I know I certainly am.

Until leftists come to terms with historical reality, it’s time to stop venerating villains.

“How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.” — Ronald Reagan

 

So-Called “Progressivism” Is Actually Regressive

Today, on the comments section of this blog, a lengthy comment was posted from a “Progressive” taking exception with President Trump and “Conservatives.” He called all politicians “moral” and found it hard to understand why anyone would hold to conservative values.

Here is my response to him:

Thank you for your comments although they’re too lengthy for the comments section of a typical blog including this one.

Even though your comments are contrary to main philosophical tenets of this blog and grossly mischaracterize my philosophical views, I am not opposed to counterpoints when presented intelligently and respectfully as you have done. As the Bible wisely states, iron sharpens iron, and when our beliefs are challenged, as you have done, this opens the channels for dialog allowing, hopefully, the advancement of truth.

This blog is primarily a Bible study blog, and it’s from this perspective and worldview that we operate. Thus I will answer you accordingly. I will be brief and to the point. The older I get, the more I see the value in saying more with fewer words.

The God/Elohim of the Bible isn’t sectarian. He is neither a Democrat or Republican, a progressive or a conservative, a socialist or a capitalist. He is on the side of truth—his truth. Therefore he can’t be pigeon-holed into labels. As a follower of him neither can I. Truth as the Bible defines it can be found in many areas. In the political arena, the so-called Progressives have some truth as do the Conservatives. In determine who to follow, the questions to ask are these: What is truth? Who determines it? Who enforces it thus legitimizing it? How much truth does a person or group have? One can have one percent truth and 99 percent lives, or vice versa. Which is better? Who determines this?

The idea that “all politics is moral” quite frankly is laughable. That presumes that all men are moral. If that were the case, then why are there politicians in jail convicted of crimes? Was Mao, Stalin, Hitler, et al moral? They were politicians.

The problem here is that the social evolutionist presumes that man is evolving upward and improving morally. If that were the case, then why, when left to themselves, do things in the physical world naturally go from a state of order to disorder? That law of physics alone disproves the evolutionary model right there. This is true of humans as well. At this point, I’m reminded of the book and movie, “The Lord of the Flies.”

Next, your thesis presume that man is innately good. This is the typical foundation upon which cosmic or secular humanists base their beliefs. This is neither a biblical worldview and nor logical one. If man is innately good, then why all the problems, sin, disease, pollution, war, criminality, misery, suffering, etc. on the earth? The secular humanist and Marxist models blame this on man’s environment and how they were raised (i.e. nature and nurture). If they can just manipulate (called social engineering) the environment (political, economic and social systems) and destroy religion, then we’ll have paradise on earth. Hmm?! Show me where that’s ever worked? Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hugo Chavez, etc., etc. have all failed miserably!

The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that men are innately sinful and morally debased. He needs redemption, deliverance and to be brought to a higher level through divine intervention. He needs a hand up, not a hand out. Elohim provides the former, governments of men the latter. The former improves a person from the inside out; the latter enslaves and often debases a person!

You see, the political progressive looks to government to supply all of its needs and to fix all of its problems. Government has become their god. This is called the religion of statism. This seems to be the ladder you have leaned your ladder up against. The problem is that government is run by sinful men who are not always moral. Therefore, putting one’s faith in government is regressive, not progressive. That’s why I view Progressivism largely as a joke. It’s not working in Europe. Why do you think it will work in America? A wise man learns from other people’s mistakes (and from history), so he doesn’t have to make them himself.

Over the history of the world governments have come and gone. There is nothing new under the sun. Men still have the same social ills they always have. So why should I trust government? Usually it’s the source of the problem, not the solution. Government enslaves, not liberates.

I could go on and on. And I have only made it to the fourth paragraph of your rather lengthy comment. I shall stop here.

 

The New Civil War in the US and Its Causes Excellently Explained

Anti-Trump protesters lash out at Trump supporters in Berkeley "March-4-Trump" rally March 4 (Photo: Twitter)

Anti-Trump protesters lash out at Trump supporters in Berkeley “March-4-Trump” rally March 4 (Photo: Twitter)

Editor’s note: The Age of Trump is characterized by extreme polarization of the American populace, increasing violence and growing accusations of “fascism,” “white supremacism” and even “Nazism” – especially directed at the president himself, many even comparing him with Hitler. Tens of millions of everyday Americans are thought of as “racist,” “bigoted,” “woman-hating,” “homophobic” and “anti-immigrant,” not to mention (in Hillary Clinton’s words) “deplorable” and “irredeemable.” 

Yet, as David Kupelian reveals below in the opening chapter of his latest book, “The Snapping of the American Mind,” America’s extreme polarization started well before Trump. In fact, the nation has been reeling under a full-scale revolutionary attack for many years, leading to the extreme level of anger and division currently gripping the country. And he reveals the true nature of this division, which at core is neither political nor even ideological.

As part of my well-rounded childhood, I read “Superman” comic books.

That’s right. Also “Superboy,” “Batman and Robin,” “Aquaman,” “The Flash,” “Green Arrow,” “Green Lantern” and others – but my favorite was Superman. And one of the most memorable characters in those adventures was a guy named Bizarro.

Created when Superman was exposed to a “duplicate ray,” Bizarro was essentially a defective clone of the “man of steel.” Ugly, surly and speaking broken English like Tonto in “The Lone Ranger” (“Me hate Superman! Him bad!”), Bizarro’s defining characteristic was his total rebellion against everything normal, everything sensible, everything Superman stood for. Indeed, he took pride in being the exact opposite of Superman in every way.

Thus, Bizarro eventually relocated to Bizarro World, a cube-shaped planet called Htrae (“Earth” backward). Life on Htrae followed “Bizarro logic” – meaning it was wrong to act in a right or normal way – and a legal system based on the “Bizarro Code,” which decreed it “a crime to do anything well or to make anything perfect or beautiful.” For example, I remember reading, as a 9- or 10-year-old Superman fanatic, how on Bizarro World, when the street-sweeping truck came down the road, instead of sweeping up dirt and debris, the Bizarro street-sweeper would actually throw dust and dirt onto the streets to make them dirtier! In every area of life, Bizarro folk did the opposite of whatever was logical.

Got the picture?

Now, let’s look at today’s USA, which increasingly resembles a “Bizarro” version of traditional America – not just different, not just “transformed,” but morphed in so many ways into the opposite of what it was in previous generations.

First, for those who weren’t around during the 1950s, let me just say that the America of my youth, despite its many shortcomings, was basically confident, prosperous and overflowing with life, hope and unlimited opportunity. People were patriotic, and our culture was strong and essentially moral. America was the undisputed leader of the world – not just militarily and economically, but in terms of freedom and generosity. (To my liberal friends: Do me a favor and don’t tell me, “But the ’50s had racial segregation.” Yes, and today we dismember, poison, vacuum, crush the skulls of, chemically burn or decapitate 3,000 beautiful human babies every single day. So just drop it.)

Compared with the shining and vibrant nation it once was, today’s America has become a different country: deeply and angrily divided, unable to deal with crises foreign or domestic, the world’s greatest debtor nation with 50 million people on food stamps, rampant divorce and family breakdown, unprecedented sexual anarchy with 110 million with STDs, almost 60 million abusing alcohol and 70 million taking mood-altering drugs. On so many levels, America is becoming ever more “bizarro” – diametrically opposed to logic and common sense.

To really understand what’s happening, we need to transcend the usual left-right paradigm and dive deep into the heart of the matter.

Although America’s bizarro transformation has been in progress for decades, it burst into full bloom in the age of Obama.

Let’s take a quick trip back in time to the 2008 presidential election. While much of the public was electrified by the soaring rhetoric of a little-known freshman Illinois senator named Barack Obama, just out of view was his astonishingly disturbing background, replete with communists (Frank Marshall Davis), terrorists (William Ayers), criminals (Tony Rezko) and rabid, anti-American racists (Jeremiah Wright) – not to mention his Islamic education as a boy in Indonesia and his hard-core Marxist orientation in college. But somehow, mesmerized by the prospect of heralding the nation’s first black president, the establishment media couldn’t be bothered to investigate Obama’s qualifications to lead the free world. Just the opposite: He was the object of near-unanimous worship by the major media.

Now, for comparison, bring to mind the same media’s treatment of Sarah Palin, the junior half of the GOP ticket opposing Obama in ’08.

Essentially a very normal American with strongly held Judeo-Christian values, Sarah Palin had grown up bold and outspoken enough to challenge local political corruption, get herself elected mayor, and later become a popular governor of Alaska.

But once she was tapped by Sen. John McCain to become the Republican vice presidential candidate, an extraordinary phenomenon started to unfold: While studiously ignoring Obama’s obviously subversive background, the media instead sent hordes of journalists to Wasilla, Alaska, dumpster-diving for dirt on Palin – investigating who paid for the tanning bed she had installed in the governor’s mansion (she did), and whether she is actually the mother of her youngest son, Trig (she is).

The story took on even more bizarre proportions once Election Day arrived and the Republicans lost. One would think the attacks would have ended, especially after Palin resigned the governorship in mid-2009 (in the face of nonstop harassment) and no longer wielded any official power.

Instead, the hatred grew. Consider the following 2011 Twitter comments made about Palin:

“Join us in praying to God that Sarah Palin contracts cancer and dies.”

“My hatred for Sarah Palin continues to grow. I think this woman should be assassinated.”

“I hope Sarah Palin dies a slow and painful death.”

“I hope she dies gnashing her teeth.”

“Sarah Palin is the single most dangerous threat to the future of the human race. Thick venomous cretin she is. Someone bloody shoot her.”

Mind you, these are only five out of dozens of similar Twitter messages, all equally horrendous, calling for an agonizing death for the former governor and VP candidate. They came after a deranged young man named Jared Loughner tried to assassinate Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in downtown Tucson – and many people, for some incomprehensible reason, blamed Sarah Palin.

This is not political. Politics cannot account for such dark, otherworldly expressions as “I hope she dies gnashing her teeth,” and death threats against the Palins’ children.

For years, the left and the major media continued the vilification, with both the Washington Post and New York Times in 2011 begging readers to join in a new witch hunt to find something – anything – incriminating or embarrassing in 24,000 newly released Palin e-mails. Again, they found nothing.

What explains such bizarrely extreme hatred – reprised in late 2013 when MSNBC host Martin Bashir angrily ranted, on the air, that justice would be well served if someone would defecate in Sarah Palin’s mouth?

Shortly after the ’08 election, I took a passing stab at this question in my book, “How Evil Works”:

Haven’t you ever wondered why, when someone on the public stage radiates noble character, common sense and natural grace – like Ronald Reagan did, or more recently Sarah Palin – he or she is regarded by the “big media” with an inexplicable revulsion? Hatred is almost too soft a word. It’s because Reagan and Palin manifest the very qualities of character that the jaded media elite lost long ago, and since being thus reminded of their lost innocence is painful and unwelcome, they feel compelled to attack the “reminder.”

Later, “Robin of Berkeley” – literary pseudonym for a licensed therapist in Berkeley, California – wrote a perceptive column reaching the same conclusion: “Leftists loathe Palin because she has retained something that was stripped from them years ago: a wholesomeness, a purity of heart. People on the left despise Palin because she shines a bright light on their shame and unworthiness, which they try desperately to deny.”

This phenomenon obviously extends far beyond Sarah Palin. Indeed, what we are looking at here is actually the defining phenomenon of modern American life. It capsulizes the underlying reason today’s secular-left news media, government, school system, and popular culture mysteriously tend to side with the subversive and perverse, and to demonize traditional Judeo-Christian values – even, as “Robin of Berkeley” put it, to be offended by “wholesomeness” and “purity of heart.”

Consider the case of 13-year-old Taryn Hathaway of Salinas, California, who, according to news reports, was told by a teacher at her middle school that her drawing of the American flag with the words “God Bless America” inscribed on it was “offensive.” How, one wonders, is this possible or even conceivable? What is there about a child’s lovely drawing of an American flag, with that reverent three-word phrase added, that could be considered even remotely offensive? What exactly is disturbing about a little girl’s innocent expression of love for God and country?

Or how do we explain the high-profile Lisa Miller custody case? After childhood abuse led her into a dysfunctional life of addictions and homosexuality, eventually Lisa found the Christian faith, freedom from her former bondage, and real hope. She left behind the lesbian lifestyle in which she had lived as “spouse” to another woman in a same-sex civil union. And she dedicated her life to raising her little daughter, Isabella, conceived through artificial insemination and born during her brief homosexual cohabitation. Only one problem: The judge demanded that Lisa allow her former lesbian partner to have unsupervised visits with little Isabella, which according to multiple experts and eyewitness testimony, were so traumatizing to the child that Lisa discontinued allowing the visitations. In response, another judge ruled that Lisa Miller must give up her daughter entirely – her own legal and biological daughter – to her former lesbian lover, who had no biological connection to the child. As a result of such legal perversity, Lisa “kidnapped” her own daughter and left the country, rendering her a fugitive and sending a pastor who helped her to prison.

What would possess a judge to rip a daughter away from her own loving, biological, Christian mother and give the child totally over to a former lesbian partner?

As a working journalist, I can testify that such examples as these are a daily occurrence in today’s bizarro America. Let’s look at a big one.

A new kind of extremist

In the early months of Barack Obama’s first term, the Department of Homeland Security produced a report warning about the threat of homegrown, radicalized, militant and potentially violent extremists. And who exactly were these scary people? If you were pro-life, your car had an NRA bumper sticker, you were concerned about illegal immigration or government debt, or especially if you were a returning military veteran – just home after having defended America with your very life – you were potentially a dangerous “extremist” and threat to the country, according to the Obama administration.

Here’s how retired Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North responded, in a column headlined, “I am an extremist”:

According to the U.S. government, I am an extremist.

I am a Christian and meet regularly with other Christians to study God’s word. My faith convinces me the prophecies in the Holy Bible are true. I believe in the sanctity of human life, oppose abortion and want to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

I am a veteran with skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. I own several firearms, frequently shoot them, buy ammunition and consider efforts to infringe on my Second Amendment rights to be wrong and unconstitutional.

I fervently support the sovereignty of the United States, am deeply concerned about our economy, increasingly higher taxes, illegal immigration, soaring unemployment and actions by our government that will bury my children beneath a mountain of debt.

Apparently, all this makes me a “right-wing extremist.” At least that’s what it says in the April 7, 2009, “assessment” issued by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security.

Fast-forward a couple of years. After one of several debt-ceiling melodramas in Washington, D.C., during which the tea party demonstrated the most sanity of any of the main players, the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd – in a column headlined “Washington Chain Saw Massacre” – characterized tea partiers as “cannibals,” “zombies” and “vampires.” She wrote:

They were like cannibals, eating their own party and leaders alive. They were like vampires, draining the country’s reputation, credit rating and compassion. They were like zombies, relentlessly and mindlessly coming back again and again to assault their unnerved victims, Boehner and President Obama. They were like the metallic beasts in “Alien” flashing mouths of teeth inside other mouths of teeth, bursting out of Boehner’s stomach every time he came to a bouquet of microphones.

Let’s be crystal clear as to who is being talked about. “Tea-party members” is just a contemporary label for people who in previous generations would have been described as normal patriotic Americans.

Normal people – regular, fair-minded, live-and-let-live, law-abiding citizens with traditional values: work hard, save your money, play by the rules, help other people, don’t spend more than you have. These are the people being labeled “cannibals,” “vampires” and “terrorists.”

On cable news, pundit after pundit could be heard parroting the day’s talking points, likening tea-party folk to terrorists.

  • MSNBC’s Steven Rattner: “It’s a form of economic terrorism. These Tea Party guys are like strapped with dynamite, standing in the middle of Times Square at rush hour, and saying, ‘You do it my way or we’ll blow you up.’”
  • Bloomberg’s Margaret Carlson: “They strapped explosives to the Capitol.”
  • MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “The GOP has become the Wahhabis of American government, willing to risk bringing down the whole country in the service of their anti-tax ideology.”

Ironically, as former CBS newsman Bernie Goldberg observed during an “O’Reilly Factor” broadcast, “These are people who don’t call real terrorists ‘terrorists.’”

Of course, before tea partiers were maligned as “terrorists,” “zombies,” “cannibals” and “vampires,” they were “racists.” And before that – even before the name “tea party” came into vogue – the same normal American people were maligned as “right-wing extremists” by the likes of the Obama Department of Homeland Security.

Is the picture becoming clearer?

There is a growing and highly influential segment of our society that regards normal, “Ozzie and Harriet,” traditional-minded Americans as evil.

The picture of ‘normal’

The early years of the Obama presidency witnessed many tea-party events colorfully evoking classic Americana, with patriots dressing up as George Washington or Thomas Paine, moms with their kids holding homemade “God bless America” signs, people praying together, a grandmother thoughtfully picking up litter after a rally so the city’s maintenance crew wouldn’t have too much to do, and so on. The Americans attending these events frequently reminded me of characters out of a patriotic Norman Rockwell painting.

You remember Norman Rockwell: He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for painting “vivid and affectionate portraits of our country” – like the man standing up at a town hall meeting to exercise his freedom of speech or the family saying grace before a meal or the crowd pledging allegiance to the flag.

Norman Rockwell painted the country most Americans have long loved and revered.

But did you know there are influential people who hate Norman Rockwell paintings?

One of the more vocal is Blake Gopnik, the Washington Post’s chief art critic for a decade, and now a contributor to Newsweek and the Daily Beast. Gopnik has written about how much he is “offended” by and even “hated [Rockwell’s] art”: “I can’t stand the view of America that he presents, which I feel insults a huge number of us non-mainstream folks.”

“Non-mainstream”? What exactly does that signify? Or maybe a better question is, if Gopnik hates Norman Rockwell’s vision of America, what vision does he love?

Here’s a possible clue. Gopnik came to the defense of a taxpayer-funded exhibit at Washington’s National Portrait Gallery by homosexual artist David Wojnarowicz of a film featuring a crucifix with ants crawling on Jesus’ body.

The Wojnarowicz exhibit also featured male sex organs, naked brothers kissing, men in chains and other offensive stuff the Washington Post’s chief art critic defended. But he hated Norman Rockwell’s work because of the image of America his art portrays – which many “mainstream” Americans would probably describe as love, affection and respect for their country. The ants-crawling-on-Jesus video is so incredibly creepy that it makes “mainstream” people want to run screaming from the room. But apparently to some, art that is sacrilegious and nausea-inducing is somehow laudable.

What we’re looking at is nothing less than a spiritual polarization of Americans – a divided population fighting on behalf of warring values.

Author Dinesh D’Souza describes the phenomenon this way:

Contrary to what we frequently read and hear, the great American divide is not a clash between conservatives who advocate liberty versus progressives who oppose liberty. Rather, the two sides each affirm a certain type of liberty.

One side, for example, cherishes economic liberty while the other champions liberty in the sexual and social domain. Nor is it a clash between patriots and anti-patriots. Both sides love America, but they love a different type of America. One side loves the America of Columbus and the Fourth of July, of innovation and work and the “animal spirit” of capitalism, of the Boy Scouts and parochial schools, of traditional families and flag-saluting veterans. The other side loves the America of tolerance and social entitlements, of income and wealth redistribution, of slave-revolts and the civil rights movement, of Indian rights and women’s rights, of sexual liberation and abortion, of gay rights and gay marriage.

How did we get to this point?

On one level, it’s simple to understand: All of us are shaped by other people – first parents and family, later friends, school, college and work, as well as culture, which today is wildly immoral and corrupting. When we go to school, our common sense and innocence are under attack. The government education system (which we prefer to call “public school”) is, just like most of our colleges, dominated by the political and cultural left. For example, a central feature of modern university life, something leveraged across every area – from curriculum to campus culture – is the mainstreaming and forced acceptance and celebration of sexual perversion and debauchery, glorified as though it were enlightened and liberating. And all for only $60,000 a year!

Unfortunately, once we’ve had our innocence and integrity ripped off and have mysteriously oozed into a darker, more conflicted version of our former self, now when somebody comes along who simply radiates the wholesome qualities we left behind, we feel uncomfortable in his or her presence. In fact, we feel positively threatened, as though there’s something malevolent about that person. At the same time, we are attracted to, and feel comfortable around, people who (like us) have been seduced to the “dark side.”

Barack Obama is no exception. He has a serious case of this syndrome, sympathizing and identifying with subversive characters while being mysteriously repelled by genuine virtue. Seen at public events with leftists radicals, LGBT groups, or pro-abortion outfits like Planned Parenthood, Obama’s smile is broad and animated; he obviously feels comfortable and at home there. Yet he displays a palpable aversion to all that is emblematic of the success of Western Judeo-Christian civilization.

Thus, no sooner was Obama sworn in as president than he immediately got rid of the long-cherished White House bust of Winston Churchill, his aides finally admitting the act after initially denouncing the claim as “100 percent false.” Far worse, from the start of his presidency, Obama manifested a mystifying coldness and incomprehension in the presence of Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. That attitude shockingly escalated during Obama’s second term into an all-out effort to defeat the Jewish state’s prime minister, complete with Obama’s campaign team setting up shop in Tel Aviv to try to turn the election against the sitting leader of a trusted American ally.

Following the Bizarro Code

Although an increasingly toxic culture has negatively impacted Americans for decades, this society’s degeneration has undeniably accelerated during Barack Obama’s presidency.

Incredibly, Obama has made an annual habit of releasing onto America’s streets tens of thousands of criminal illegal aliens – people who entered this nation illegally, then were convicted in U.S. courts of serious crimes, like murder, rape and assault – but who, rather than being deported or incarcerated, have been released back into America’s communities! The specific crime breakdown for the 30,000 such criminal illegals released in 2014 wasn’t publicly disclosed, but the Washington Times reported that “among the 36,000 released in 2013 were 193 homicide convictions, 426 sexual assault convictions, 303 kidnapping convictions and 16,070 convictions for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.”

Remember my description of the comic-book Bizarro World, where the Bizarro street sweeper would actually throw dirt and debris back onto the streets to make them dirtier, rather than cleaning them up?

Isn’t the Obama administration’s annual release of at least 30,000 illegal-alien convicted criminals back onto America’s streets, rather than endeavoring to clean up our neighborhoods’ violent crime problem, even more bizarre? Personally, I’d prefer the dirt.

Recall likewise the Bizarro Code, which banned doing “anything well” or making something “perfect or beautiful.” I still vividly remember, like most Americans who were around in 1981, the thrillingly perfect three-point landing of NASA’s original space shuttle Columbia as it touched down after its maiden voyage in outer space. It made everyone proud to be an American.

But in the age of Obama, with the space shuttle program mothballed, NASA has a new mission, to inspire a new kind of pride – the pride of Muslim nations for being so great at math and science.

What?

Hard to believe, but here’s how NASA chief Charles Bolden explains it:

When I became the NASA administrator, [President Obama] charged me with three things. … One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering.

Not bizarre enough for you? How about this?

There are now calls by environmentalists for punishment, even imprisonment, for “global-warming deniers” (now renamed “climate-change deniers,” a label that still works even if the temperature goes down). One professor actually called for the death penalty for such intolerable “denial,” but this increasingly totalitarian mindset has been encouraged by the likes of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who laments, “I wish there were a law you could punish [deniers] with,” and Al Gore, who agrees, “We need to put a price on denial in politics.”

Wow. But then, what do you expect from someone who insists we should spend $90 trillion to ban cars from every major city in the world?

Of course, the problem with Al Gore’s brilliant plan to eliminate the automobile’s fossil-fuel carbon footprint is that the gross world product for 2014 – that’s the combined gross national product of every country on the planet – was $77 trillion. So, Gore wants us to spend more money than the entire world earns annually to ban cars.

I don’t think “bizarro” comes even close to describing Mr. Gore.

(And remember, all you Democrat voters, this is the candidate who came within a hair’s breadth of the presidency in 2000, winning the popular vote against George W. Bush but losing the needed electoral majority.)

So goes the bizarre transformation of America in the age of Obama. Today we have summer camps for children whose parents want to encourage their little ones to change to the opposite gender. We allow Satanic “black masses,” featuring denunciations of Jesus Christ, spitting in holy water, and rituals that include urine, nudity and sex to be publicized and held in public in the American heartland. Four-year-olds who misbehave in preschool are now handcuffed and carted off to the police station. Oh, and speaking of handcuffs, good old family friendly Walmart and Target have taken to promoting and selling sadomasochistic sex toys to cash in on the “Fifty Shades of Grey” craze.

And, let us not forget same-sex “marriage.” It seems so familiar to us now, doesn’t it? So warmly accepted and celebrated – and since the Supreme Court’s decision, “the law of the land.” But take a deep breath and consider that just a few short years ago, the idea of two men, or two women, marrying each other was regarded almost universally as not merely bizarre, but insane. Yet today, dare express disapproval of same-sex marriage and you risk being branded a bigot, an extremist and a hater akin to a Ku Klux Klansman. Worse, for many Christian business owners, politely declining to actively participate in celebrating a homosexual wedding ceremony has exposed them to lawsuits, criminal prosecutions, huge fines, mandatory pro-LGBT “reeducation,” death threats and the loss of their businesses and homes.

In many ways, today’s America makes Bizarro World of the “Superman” saga seem both tame and sane by comparison.

Yes, I know it all sounds very bleak, prompting the question, Is there a way back?

Of course there’s a way back, and that’s what this book is ultimately all about. Exploring the problems we’ve gotten ourselves into is not an end in itself, but rather a necessary step in arriving at genuinely enlightened solutions, which become apparent only when we’ve understood in a profound way what on earth has really happened to our beloved country – and to us.

Thus, in the next chapter, we’ll explore exactly how and why America has so dramatically been morphing into a freakish version of its former self. But we will also discover, as we progress through that chapter and those that follow, that vital clues are coming into view, so that by the time we reach the end of our journey together, the way back – both for us as individuals and for our great nation – will be clear.

 

Chains of Tyranny: The Lies of the Socialists and Progressives

2047204

One of the main lies of big government socialism and so-called progressivism is that it buys people off by  promising to take care of and protect them. This results in the loss of people’s freedom.

The problem is that to take care of the people, the government has to steal the people’s money and resources in obvious and subversive ways to pay for it.

Furthermore, in the process, socialism and progressivism makes the people dependent on government hand-outs, so the people are no longer self-dependent and self-sufficient. In this way, the power of the people has been transferred to their government overlords thus making it almost impossible for the people to cast off the chains of government tyranny and control without biting the hand that feeds them thus imperiling their own existence and security. This is one of the main lies of big government socialism and so-called progressivism.

Do you not think that the moneyed elite power brokers and social planners don’t know how to use the lure of government hands to ensnare the people into their grasp? Do you not think they don’t use the promise of government handouts (thus preying on people’s natural tendency toward laziness and wanting something for free, while not having to work for it)  to enslave the people in a supine position, while insuring their own power-positions and financial security (at the people’s expense) as the people’s permanent overlords? Yet, sadly, the people are too blind and stupid to see this, and they keep voting in those who would package the chains that would enslave them in little boxes neatly wrapped in bright colors, ribbons and bows.

Gift 19982532

Many in the younger generation who don’t know their history and who have lost their moral and spiritual compass have fallen prey to the lies of socialism and progressivism. That’s why they’ll vote for people like Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and pro big government Republicans et al.

 

 

 

Can you trust your feelings? If not then what can you trust?

Should we make major life decisions based on our feelings? La decisin correcta Should we make moral choices that determine what is right and wrong based on our feelings? To what degree can we trust our feelings? If we can’t trust our feelings, then what can we trust?

In our modern culture, it is becoming more common for people to act or speak based largely if not totally on their feelings. For many, feelings have become their “moral compass” determining what is right and wrong and thus their actions. Is this a reliable standard to follow? If everyone is following their feelings, does this promote and insure peace and stability in a society over the long haul?

What are feelings? The dictionary defines feelings as “an emotional state or reaction; the emotional side of someone’s character; emotional responses or tendencies to respond; a belief, especially a vague or irrational one.” In short, Continue reading

 

They Didn’t Ask Me…

The assault in the U.S. against traditional biblical values by the “liberal-progressives” seems to slowly but steadily eroding away the moral and spiritual underpinnings of most Christians according to the article below. This spiritual brainwashing isn’t working on me, though, because the Torah-Word of Elohim is the solid and immovable foundation on which my spiritual house is built. Foundations don’t change. If they did, we’d have some pretty shaky buildings. Perhaps this is why the buildings called America, the Christian Church and the West are falling. Elohim’s judgments unto repentance are on them now.

For me, the Word of Elohim is the divine revelation of the heart and will of Elohim. What the Bible calls sin was sin in the past and is still sin now. YHVH Elohim and his Word do not change. Period!

The data below is a sickening commentary on the negative influence that secular humanism along with its sister, moral relativism, has had on our society.

In Mark 13:22, Yeshua says that even the very elect will be in danger of being deceived by the end times tidal wave of evil that will be sweeping across the earth. This is a warning for us all.

Natan

From http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/18/most-u-s-christian-groups-grow-more-accepting-of-homosexuality/

Most U.S. Christian groups grow more accepting of homosexuality

Almost all Christian groups now more accepting of homosexualityAcceptance of homosexuality is rising across the broad spectrum of American Christianity, including among members of churches that strongly oppose homosexual relationships as sinful, according to an extensive Pew Research Center survey of U.S. religious beliefs and practices.

Amid a changing religious landscape that has seen a declining percentage of Americans who identify as Christian, a majority of U.S. Christians (54%) now say that homosexuality should be accepted, rather than discouraged, by society. While this is still considerably lower than the shares of religiously unaffiliated people (83%) and members of non-Christian faiths (76%) who say the same, the Christian figure has increased by 10 percentage points since we conducted a similar study in 2007. It reflects a growing acceptance of homosexuality among all Americans – from 50% to 62% – during the same period.

Among Christians, this trend is driven partly by younger church members, who are generally more accepting of homosexualitythan their elder counterparts. For example, roughly half (51%) of evangelical Protestants in the Millennial generation (born between 1981 and 1996) say homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with a third of evangelical Baby Boomers and a fifth of evangelicals in the Silent generation. Generational differences with similar patterns also are evident among Catholics, mainline Protestants and members of the historically black Protestant tradition.

At the same time, however, a larger segment of older adults in some Christian traditions have become accepting of homosexuality in recent years, helping to drive the broader trend. For instance, 32% of evangelical Protestant Baby Boomers now say homosexuality should be accepted, up from 25% in 2007.

Regardless of age, seven-in-ten Catholics – whose church teaches that homosexual behavior is “intrinsically disordered” – say that homosexuality should be accepted by society, a 12-percentage-point increase since 2007. Similar jumps have occurred among mainline Protestants (from 56% to 66%), Orthodox Christians (from 48% to 62%) and members of the historically black Protestant tradition (from 39% to 51%).

Most Mormons and evangelical Protestants still say homosexuality should be discouraged by society – in line with the teachings of many of their churches – but 36% of both groups say it should be accepted. Among Mormons, there was a 12-point increase (from 24% to 36%) in acceptance since 2007, and among evangelicals there was a 10-point rise (from 26% to 36%). Jehovah’s Witnesses remain perhaps the most opposed of any U.S religious tradition toward homosexuality, with just 16% saying it should be accepted by society.

The trend of growing acceptance is evident across many specific Protestant denominations, including some conservative denominations with official teachings that remain strongly opposed to same-sex marriage. For example, among members of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the share saying homosexuality should be accepted by society grew by 12 points (from 44% to 56%) between 2007 and 2014. And although Pentecostals who identify with the Assemblies of God remain largely opposed to homosexuality, 26% now say it should be accepted by society, up from 16% in 2007.

Members of many Protestant denominations now more accepting of homosexuality

Among members of the Southern Baptist Convention – an evangelical church and the nation’s largest Protestant denomination – the share saying homosexuality should be accepted increased 7 points, from 23% to 30%.

Members of several mainline churches – some of which have officially embraced same-sex marriage – have become even more accepting of homosexuality in recent years. For instance, 73% of members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America now say it should be accepted by society, up from 56% in 2007. Members of the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the United Church of Christ also have become more accepting toward homosexuality.