If you have uncontrollable shivers going up your leg right now, please call your doctor and get a dose of reality.

By now anyone who has had contact with the outside world knows that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning.  Why?  Maybe the liberal bloggers at the Huffington Post can enlighten us:

It would be hard to think of a more electrifying and deserved recipient of this year's Nobel Peace prize than President Obama.

Obviously, the award is based on the hope that Obama will achieve real progress in advancing diplomacy rather than confrontation around the globe. To some degree, he already has.

His acceptance speech in Oslo will offer him a golden chance to set forward a more sweeping and comprehensive vision of what his administration and America can do to advance peace.

Obama got the prize not for doing, but for being. Not for making peace, but for exemplifying something new on the world stage — the politics of dignity. The Nobel Committee has simply made explicit what many have sensed. President Obama is the herald of a dignitarian politics.

But anyone who thinks this award is unprecedented hasn't been paying attention.

Wow.  I guess giving great speeches over and over again beats actually following through with any action.  Just talking about his lofty, and unrealistic, idealism won Obama a Nobel Prize.  I need to take some speech classes.

Former leader of Solidarity and former Polish President Lech Welesa, who also won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1983, said upon hearing today's news, "So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage. He is only beginning to act."  Welesa, who fought against Soviet oppression his entire life, knows what it means to struggle for peace.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele released a statement saying, “The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has out shined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights."  He continued, "One thing is certain –President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.”

While conservatives attacked Obama's record, the leftists at the Huffington Post also went on the attack.

It's giving an award to encourage the change in world relations that Obama has promised, and to try to help shield Obama against his domestic adversaries. The committee is well aware that history is contingent and that Obama might fail. It knows very well that the same country that elected Obama also gave the world George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

In giving this award, the Nobel Committee is telling these right-wing forces to back off. And it's sending a message of encouragement to those Americans who put Obama in office.

Yes, America did give the world Ronald Reagan, and most of the world thanks God that we did, including, I'm sure, Lech Welesa.  Reagan, who Joe Scarborough pointed out on his radio show this morning is conspicuously absent from the list of Nobel Peace Prize winners, did more than anyone in the last few decades to fight for peace.  Regan recognized the evil inherent in the Soviet system, and brought that system down freeing millions from oppression.  But of course in leftist mythology, the Soviet Union was a model for the socialist utopia, and the Reagan administration had nothing to do with its downfall.

But the attacks didn't stop with Kool-Aid drinking bloggers.  The Democratic National Committee issued the following statement:

The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists — the Taliban and Hamas this morning — in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize — an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride — unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries,has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim.

Of course this ridiculous statement only follows up on the liberal attack line that anyone who doesn't agree with and praise Obama is anti-American, a racists, and a right-wing terrorist.  Obama can do no wrong, and all the world should love him. 

The Republican Party puts politics above patriotism?  Does the DNC really want to press that charge?  These people must have been in a cave during the Bush years (probably helping out Osama bin Laden just to stick it to President Bush). 

The Republicans have no boundaries and no shame?  Do the Democrats not find shame in continuing to support their last president, Bill Clinton, who was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, and is a despicable womanizer to boot?  Do they feel no shame in supporting a president who has John Holdren, Kevin Jennings, Cass Sunstein, and (formerly) Van Jones in his administration?

I congratulate the president for all of his nice speeches.  I just hope that someday he will start actually defeating our enemies, and rebuilding our economy to bring us peace like President Reagan did.

Meet Ardi, the oldest "human" skeleton.  Admittedly I'm no scientific expert, but many parts of evolutionary theory just don't make sense to me.  Are there any other species that lived 4 million years ago that have managed to survive all the natural disasters and ice ages to evolve into vastly superior beings, or are humans supposed to be the only species out of thousands and thousands of others to achieve this?  I mean if the natural trend of life is to evolve, where are all the talking reptiles? 

I'm not decrying species adaptation, but is it possible there were species similar to humans that went extinct, like many others that existed millions of years ago have, and then humans were created as a new species?  I guess I'm attempting to bridge the "gap" between science and religion. 

I do believe that God created all life, and made humans special compared to other life on Earth by infusing us with the power to reason, and writing His law upon our hearts.  So often people try to separate reason, or science, and religion into combating spheres, but they do not exist apart.  God gave us reason to figure out the mysteries of the universe.  Without God there is no science.

If the "laws of science" were just a wee bit different, there would be no life in the universe.  There would be no universe.  The universe is designed in such a way, as is DNA is designed in such a way, that life is allowed to exist.  Such design lends proof to a designer.

Atheists, who rely heavily on science in the absence of God, have never been able to prove how the vast expanse of the universe suddenly appeared from nowhere.  I guarantee you that if you take an empty box, and somehow manage to suck out every atom and molecule of air, then wait around for millions of years, the box will still be empty when you come back.  Even the smallest of molecules known to man do not just appear out of nowhere.  It's a scientific impossibility.  So if it's scientifically impossible for something to appear from nothing, then even the molecules that supposedly collided to form the universe in the "Big Bang" had to be created right?

Somebody get Richard Dawkins to perform this science project and see how it turns out.  And tell him to keep his mouth shut until the end of the experiment.

Remember those Danish cartoons of Muhammad?  The ones that caused riots in Europe four years ago by offended Muslims?  (In case you don't, look below)

One of the cartoonists, Kurt Westergaard, spoke to a private group in New York last night, and is scheduled to give a lecture at Yale University tonight.  Westergaard, who has received death threats from irate Muslims since publishing his cartoon, believes that he is fighting a "just cause."

In an interview, Westergaard said, "I am fighting for a just cause. And so you have a moral alibi, which is good, and then I have only worked according to our traditions in Denmark."  According to Westergaard, those Denmark traditions include satire. "And, of course, there's been a lot of support from the man which I meet in the street, the ethnic Dane who pats my shoulder and says, 'Well done.' Then there's also been the Muslims who have threatened me and cursed me … but I think the most reactions I have received, they are very positive."

Westergaard said that Muslims need to understand that they are "not free of being mocked or being offended."


Members of Yale's Muslim Student Association find themselves "deeply hurt and offended" by Westergaard's presence on campus.

"As an institution purportedly committed to making our campus an educational environment where all students feel equally comfortable, we feel that by hosting Kurt Westergaard Yale is undermining its commitment to creating a nurturing learning environment by failing to recognize the religious and racial sensitivity of the issue," a group statement reads.


It has been my experience that liberal universities love freedom of speech when people are saying things they want to hear, but once a speaker they disagree with tries to talk, their hateful rhetoric is not welcome.  Instead of letting speakers freely express their ideas, and then attempting to combat those ideas with ones of their own, liberal students usually engage in loud emotional displays of protest to keep alternative views off the campus entirely.

It seems that many members of society believe they have some sort of "right" not to be offended.  The term "hate speech," and laws meant to criminalize such speech, convey the widely held belief found around the world that anything offensive should be illegal.  Only the weakest of minds can truly accept this premise.

If an idea, ideology, religion, belief system, etc., is found by an individual or group to be offensive, instead of holding their ears and screaming (or starting riots), the proper course of action to be taken is as follows:

1. Respect the speakers right to speak, and actually listen to what the speaker has to say.
2. Analyze the arguments in a thoughtful and serious manner.
3. Compare these arguments to your own belief system, with an open mind that you may be wrong.
4. Make an informed and rational decision on whether you agree with the speaker's argument.
5. If you disagree, combat the speaker's ideas with logical and truthful information.  Fight ideas with ideas, not physical force.

Rationally analyzing an opponent's arguments often leads to a deeper understanding of one's own belief system, either strengthening those beliefs, or leading to an abandonment of them.  Remember that old lesson that Mommy taught you, "Use your words, not your fists."

In a verbal spar on Sunday with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, President Obama said, “I absolutely rejected that notion,” when pressed by Stephanopoulos to admit that mandating health insurance for all citizens, and fining them if they fail to buy insurance, constitutes a tax increase. President Obama promised throughout his campaign, and since becoming president, that he would not raise taxes on any Americans making less than $250,000 per year. 

When asked to explain how the health insurance mandate and fining system did not create a new tax, Obama provided the American people with a “teachable moment.” 

After questioning Obama over and over again about the tax increase, Stephanopoulos finally pulls out the definition of “tax” from the dictionary: “A charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.” The President simply finds it laughable that Stephanopoulos has proven him wrong, and continues to say that there will be no tax increase. This teaches us that the President either fails to understand a simple definition, is too egomaniacal to admit when he is wrong, or has the power to change the meaning of words by decree, and expects us to accept his new meaning.

During the interview, Obama also equates the needed mandate for health insurance with the mandatory car insurance laws already in place, as he has in other speeches and interviews. This statement teaches us several more lessons about President Obama.

First, President Obama does not seem to understand the laws in the country he was elected to govern. Car insurance is not necessary, or mandatory, to drive a car everywhere in the United States. New Hampshire and Wisconsin are two states that have no laws mandating car insurance.

Second, in the places where car insurance is mandatory, only those people who choose to drive need to purchase insurance. And those persons who do not choose to drive do not pay fines for not purchasing insurance which they do not need.

And finally, President Obama shows that he misunderstands another important word: liberty. Obama begins an important thought by saying, “If…we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the cost, we’ve done everything we can, and you actually can afford health insurance, but you just decided, ‘You know what? I want to take my chances,’ and then you get hit by a bus…,” but Stephanopoulos cuts him off before he can finish. Obama says a few seconds later, “You’ve gotta take a responsibility to get health insurance.”

If the government has done everything possible to drive down the cost of health insurance to help me out so that I can afford it, and still choose not to buy, that is my choice! I thought the Democrats were the pro-choice party? I guess that’s only true when they want to choose murder for babies and old people.

The freedom to choose my own fate is the essence of liberty itself. To mandate that every citizen purchase health insurance in a health care system controlled by the government makes us servants of the government, not free and independent citizens. 

Maybe the government should choose to enforce the immigration laws so millions of illegals are not plugging up our emergency rooms, or choose to take on tort reform, or let people take their health insurance with them when they lose their jobs, or allow people to buy insurance across state lines. These choices would bring down the cost of insurance, and might entice me to choose to buy a policy, rather than threatening me with a fine. 

And Mr. President, imposing a fine on those of us who choose not to purchase insurance is definitely a tax. Maybe you should look up that word again.

 

The President’s address to school children planned for September eighth should raise some concerns for all parents, not just those who happen to disagree with Mr. Obama. In addition to the speech, the Obama administration will distribute work sheets to teachers across the nation to help students understand Obama’s message. But instead of asking questions about being a good American citizen, teachers raise questions on how the students can best listen to Obama, and help his radical agenda come to fruition.

Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?

What do you think the President wants us to do?

Does the speech make you want to do anything?

Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?

These are a few of the questions that teachers are to encourage their students to think about and answer. When I first read over the work sheets, I could hardly believe my eyes. The whole event seems like an innocent attempt to teach young kids some valuable lessons, but the lessons here are dangerous to a child’s understanding of how free citizens interact with the government.

The proper answer to the first question, which I am sure will not be explored in the classroom, is that elected officials work for the people, and are supposed to represent the interests of the people in accordance with the Constitution. And what they say is important because when they speak out against the Constitution and the principles that made America great, they need to be voted out of office. I fear that what will actually be discussed is that politicians are our leaders, and do things to help us, like providing cars, houses, heath care, etc.

This is the last question asked on the work sheet before the speech starts. The intent is obviously to set the tone that the kids should pay attention to what the President is about to say, and do what he says. And if that is not obvious enough, just look at the other questions.

The following questions somehow did not make it onto the work sheet, but are the questions young students should be thinking about:

Do the people control the President or does the President control the people?

Shouldn’t the President be doing what we want, and not have us following his orders?

Is the President’s vision of America in line with American founding principles?

Do the President’s policies follow the restrictions on the federal government established in the Constitution?

How much pressure are these teachers going to put on young students to follow the mandates of this administration? According to the work sheets, teachers should also encourage students to read books about Barack Obama. Which books has yet to be disclosed. I imagine the parts about using cocaine, being angry at white people, and joining Marxist and radical groups in college will be left out…maybe not. 

The whole event is pure propaganda intended to gain support for Obama. Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us? Just wait until your kids come home asking you this same question. What happens if you tell your children that you do not want to do what Obama is asking? “But teacher says we should listen to the President. Bad Mommy and Daddy!”

Parents have three options here. Option 1: Take your kids out of school that day and attempt to explain to them the situation in order to deal with their teacher and classmates when they return to school. Option 2: Let your kids watch the speech, but prepare a lesson for them when they return home to combat the Obama indoctrination. This will be hard if the teacher and other students are fully in support of the Obama cause, especially because kids are more likely to listen to their teachers than their parents.  Option 3: Just let the government controlled schools take hold of your kids now. With the way things are going, odds are the government will control every part of their lives by the time they are adults anyway right?

Personally, I would avoid Option 3 at all costs. 

Now is the time to be involved in government, which means being involved in public education. The frustration over government meddling seen by Americans at Tea Parties and town hall meetings cannot end there. As Joseph Stalin said, “Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”  Right now, the Obama administration holds the education of our nation’s youth in their hands. And it appears to be aimed against the freedom loving opponents of his agenda.

I find it very upsetting, and unhelpful in the health care debate, to hear Republicans and so-called conservatives arguing against Obamacare, while saying they support Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These programs are just as socialist in nature as the proposed national health care plan. The creation of a “safety net” by the federal government may be well intended, but these programs are unconstitutional and infringe upon the liberty of a free people.

 

No provision exists anywhere in the Constitution which would allow the federal government to create these “safety net” programs. Maybe liberal constitutional scholars, such as Mr. Obama, can try to interpret the words and invent some hidden meaning within the text to justify creating these programs, but to do so is an affront to the Founding Fathers, the rule of law, and would be a bold faced lie. Not to get off on a tangent, but the Constitution is not a “living document” to be interpreted as one sees fit. This would negate its very purpose as a source of absolute law since the ability to redefine and reinterpret the text creates a situation whereby those in power can rule according to their individual thoughts and feelings, i.e., a tyranny.

According to the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So should there arise a necessary and proper function of government not provided for within the Constitution, the responsibility rests upon the individual State governments to take action. 

Then the question still remains, “Is it a proper function of government to provide health care or retirement benefits for people?” First, examine exactly what this function of government implies. A free people enjoy the opportunity to make their own choices in life, and use their talents and abilities as they see fit. An individual can make millions of dollars in a free market and blow it all on material possessions, or use it to help the needy. A free people also create a government bound by the rule of law to protect them from harm and serve their interests. But when representatives in government enact plans like Social Security or socialized medicine, what the representatives are really saying is, “Even though you people used your good judgment to vote us into office to serve you, we don’t think your judgment is good enough to take care of your own lives, or to help those in your community.” So instead of allowing citizens to donate their time and their own hard earned money to any number or private sector or non-profit organizations and programs, the representatives in government decide to steal money from your wages and force you to take care of others.

This is not an argument against taxation. The Constitution enacts specific functions of government which require funding from the people. But when the government creates unconstitutional programs and taxes people to fund them, this is outright theft.

Taking care of the poor and sick are indeed humane and Godly deeds, but breaking God’s commandment of “Thou shall not steal” to do so is unjust. If some billionaire would rather spend his money on expensive playthings instead of donating to the sick, his choice may be deplorable, but he should be free to make that decision. No American should be forced to fund an illegitimate function of government, no matter how good the cause might seem.

Are we truly incapable of taking care of our own lives? Are Americans unable to save money for when we get sick, or for retirement? Do we really lack the capacity to take care of the sick, the needy, and the elderly in our communities without being forced to do so?

For our society to return to an era of personal responsibility will take some time after decades of relying on the government and its “safety net.” The health care system in this country undoubtedly needs reform, but those reforms should be constitutional and based on free market principles.

If you walk up to any person on the street and ask, “Would you like to be a slave?” odds are that 99.99% of the time, the answer will be “No.” Slavery in any form is a degrading and brutal way to live one’s life. The history of slavery in America is no exception. The mention of slavery in America tends to conjure images of black men and women wearing rags and picking cotton in the heat while being whipped by a man on a horse. The impact of black slavery still influences the thoughts and actions of many Americans today, especially in terms of race relations, equality, and achievement.

 

So if being a slave is such a horrible station in life, why are so many Americans, especially in the black community, voluntarily embracing slavery? The slavery I am referring to is slavery to a tyrannical governmental system. This embrace has happened slowly over many decades as the people accept more and more leftist policies which erode personal freedom. But make no mistake; the acceptance has been voluntary as people willingly make themselves servants of the government. 

I emphasize acceptance of this form of slavery within the black community due to the great irony of the situation. An overwhelming majority of black Americans support the same leftist politicians imposing this slavery upon them and the rest of the country, including our first black president, Barack Hussein Obama.

So many in America believe that giving the government more power and influence over their lives is the key to solving all the country’s problems and creating a better tomorrow. Sean Hannity calls this line of thinking, “government derangement syndrome.” He says liberals, “worship at the altar of big government,” despite all the evidence which shows that government just makes life worse. Like Hannity, I just cannot understand their mindset.

Liberals want government run health care, government run schools, government run auto manufacturers, government run banks, government mortgages, government controlled CEOs, etc. They want the federal government to tell people what they can and cannot eat, to read their credit card contracts for them, to control their state and local governments, to control who lives and who dies in this country, and on and on. If only somehow the government could make every single decision for them for the rest of their lives, liberals would be in a utopia (provided that funding for the decision making and implementation process comes from taxing the rich at 99%).

How can any reasonable person look at life like this and not see slavery? The overarching principle which caused the American colonies to fight against the British and bring our country into existence, and which made America the greatest country in the history of the world, is liberty. The belief in a God given right to liberty for all men is what made America great. 

Those who believe in liberty are the ones speaking out at town hall debates on health care, and engaging in protests all across the country. Those who believe in liberty are the ones who support family choice for, and local control of, their children’s schools. The believers in liberty support the right to life of the unborn, elderly, and infirmed. Supporters of liberty believe in the principles of capitalism and the free market; that any person no matter what their station in life can use their God given talents to create a better life for themselves through hard work. They believe in following the Constitution, and the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, corporate bailouts, the “stimulus,” Cash for Clunkers, government housing, government schools—all failures of questionable constitutionality created by the federal government. And the list goes on for decades. 

Americans are not supposed to be servants of the government. We pay these people to serve us! But if people continue to choose and quietly accept the policies of slavery, we can kiss liberty goodbye. 

JUST KIDDING!!!  How could I not support this woman?  She's intelligent, courageous, inspirational, and let's face it, stunning.  It was refreshing to see someone keeping to their beliefs and faith, instead of compromising them for short term gain. 

What I hope really comes out of this whole situation is that America sees what the gay agenda is really all about.  The goal is not a land of tolerance where people can agree to disagree and get on with their lives, but domination of the majority by a violent minority.  Across America, including in California, the majority of people do not agree with gay marriage.  When they disagree, they are attacked.  In every case, except recently in Vermont, gay marriage has been imposed on people by the judiciary despite the people voting to uphold traditional marriage.  Vermont is a dangerous state that should be voted out of the Union anyway.  The place is a haven for child molesters, with judges who refuse to fully prosecute them and protect children.

Gay activist label anyone who disagrees with them a hateful bigot, worthy of chastisement and punishment.  The result?  So called "hate crimes" legislation.

A vote is looming tomorrow on HR 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2009.  The aim of this bill is to "protect" homosexuals and people with gender identity issues.  The "protection" is from opposing view points.

Even though the 14th Amendment already provides for equal protection for all citizens, this special legislation is required for some reason.

All this bill will do is open the door to trample our constitutional rights to free speech and free religion.  If you quote that the Bible is against homosexuality--lawsuit.  If you quote that the Qur'an is against homosexuality--lawsuit.  If you protest against a gay pride parade--lawsuit.  If you are an "ex-gay," and say that homosexuality is a choice that can be overcome--lawsuit.  The government will tell you what beliefs, opinions, and thoughts will be acceptable in America.

If this bill gets passed, you can basically kiss the Constitution goodbye.

When I first heard that the Obama administration would not attend the UN's racism summit, I was kind of surprised.  Could Obama actually be standing up for American principles of free speech? 

Reportedly the two main reasons that the US will not attend are an intended criticism of Israel in the conference declarations, and a move by Muslim countries to silence all criticism of Islam, Sharia law, the prophet Muhammad and other tenets of their faith.

The White House said it could not support a singling out of Israel, one of America's close allies, or a limitation on speech, because as State Department spokesman Robert Wood pointed out, such limitations, "run counter to the U.S. commitment to unfettered free speech."

After thinking about Obama's decision, I'm pretty sure it has to do more with the criticism of Israel being a problem, than limiting speech.  Jewish groups have aggressively lobbied the US and other countries to not attend the conference after a previous UN draft statement likened Zionism to racism.  The Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Canada, Israel and Italy will also not be in attendance.

I think the fight over Israel had more to do with Obama's decision because he has already expressed here in America that he does not support free speech.  Obama and his administration aggressively attacked Rush Limbaugh, a private citizen, after Rush criticized Obama's policies.  Obama and other top Democrats have also openly stated that they support restricting the free opinions expressed on all conservative talk radio programs.

After people realized that the "Fairness Doctrine" was anything but fair, Democrats dropped the name, but began planning to implement its regulations in other pieces of legislation.  One of the provisions amounts to affirmative action where station owners will be forced to hire minorities and people of diverse view points to put on air or face having their operating licenses revoked.

And we shouldn't forget about how Obama hired a team of lawyers during the campaign to go after any citizen who criticized him, his past, his nepharious relationships, or his policies.   

I hope the political pundits are not fooled by this move.

On Thursday, Joe Scarborough reacted to the vile coverage of the TEA Party protests seen on his own MSNBC network, and on CNN.  I'm somebody at this network has some sense.

"You look at these huge rallies, and I'm not going to mention names of people on networks that made sexual jokes, childish sexual jokes, about tens of thousands of Americans who went out and wanted to get involved in their government."  The names Joe didn't mention would be ones like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and David Shuster.

Scarborough continued, "I mean, it was really middle school jokes being made. I didn't hear those jokes being made when people on the left protested over the past eight years."

"But, if a media outlet wants to expose its bias, they can mock tea parties, if they like."

Scarborough asserted that he would expect such juvenile actions from liberal bloggers, however, "I would expect more...from news outlets. And it happened on several networks yesterday."


Media Research Center President Brent Bozell also chastised the liberal press for their coverage. 

"Now the news isn't just biased, it's R-rated," said Bozell. "MSNBC and CNN both allow this vulgar attack-journalism to go out on their airwaves without blinking an eye and without any sign of guilt. It appears neither woeful bias nor lowly crassness on their airwaves bothers them a bit."

"MSNBC and CNN owe these decent Americans an apology for the slimy, smarmy attacks they perpetrated in 'covering' the TEA Parties. Ordinary citizens exercising their First Amendment rights in over 750 cities and towns deserve the media's coverage, not their sleaze-riddled condemnation."

Eric Odom, administrator of TaxDayTeaParty.com, told WorldNetDaily, "It couldn't become more apparent that CNN is taking their content off left-wing blogs and pushing it out through what they consider ethical and coherent journalism.  And I think it further proves the downfall of the mainstream media."

"What's been happening in the last few days has been an example of the [media's] clear and present and complete disconnect with American society.  I don't even know if CNN knows they're doing this. I think they believe what they're saying is sincerely accurate," Odom said, adding, "I don't know that we'd like to see an apology more than we'd like to see some sort of grasp of reality because this is a completely unrealistic realm that they're thriving in, and it's hard to believe they're considered mainstream journalism."

Barack Obama has already spit in the face of Catholics with his radical anti-life policies.  His scheduled appearance to speak at the University of Notre Dame's commencement ceremony (where he will also be honored despite the U.S. Council of Bishops forbidding such a thing) has caused an uproar in the Catholic community with thousands of the faithful, including clergy and Bishops, in protest.  But Obama couldn't stop there.

Prior to speaking at Georgetown University's Gaston Hall this week (a Catholic and Jesuit institution), the White House reportedly asked the university to cover up the IHS monogram that would be seen behind Obama while he spoke.  IHS is an abbreviation for the name of Jesus Christ (read a brief history here). The university did oblige, although we are still waiting to hear a good reason why other than that Obama asked them to.

Many prominent officials have given speeches at Gaston Hall where the monogram was uncovered. Among those is First Lady Laura Bush.

Georgetown University professor James Schall asked some important questions about this issue in his article on The Catholic Thing:

If this president speaks at a Jewish Synagogue, or a Baptist church, or the Crystal Cathedral, or the Muslim Mosque on Massachusetts Avenue, the Ravens Stadium, the George Washington University, the headquarters of Planned Parenthood, or the hall of the local Atheist Society, will the same policy be followed? Will all signs of what the place actually is and stands for be covered over? If so, it represents equitable treatment, but is it wise? Is the president never to appear in any venue with obvious particular commitments, and why choose religious and not secular signs? Should, say, a university seal be exempted, but a crucifix not?

Will presidents be able to appear anywhere outside government buildings if the rules are really equally applied to both religious and secular? And this raises a real question: Is it American?

Many of these are questions the Obama administration will have to answer themselves. But Schall’s last question, “Is it American?” is an easy one. Resoundingly the answer is NO! 

Since our inception as a country American presidents and politicians have actively promoted religion among the people. Government officials have also gone so far as to promote unity among the citizens of different faiths by highlighting their common beliefs. And shockingly enough, presidents have even proclaimed national days of prayer.

In his first years as president, George Washington wrote letters to Presbyterians, Quakers, Hebrew Congregations, and Roman Catholics expressing his support for them as people of faith in America.

To the Catholics in 1790 Washington wrote, “And may the members of your society in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and still conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity.”

He wrote to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, 1790, “May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

Of course today’s society has been radicalized to think that the government having anything to do with religion is unconstitutional, despite the numerous historical documents proving otherwise. 

What most people have yet to realize is that creating a system where the government is devoid of contact with the various faiths in our country in essence violates the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. But the laws being enacted against religion are themselves creating a de facto state religion: a secular humanist one. 

Government officials, government sponsored schools, official proclamations, etc. should actively support the religious faithful in America. To do otherwise violates the true intent of the Constitution.

President Washington assured Jewish Americans that, “there shall be none to make him afraid,” but when people cannot even pray at a high school football game, we have become afraid.

 

The Boston Tea Party and the TEA Parties across the nation yesterday were both in opposition to a tyrannical government.  One of the things I talked about with a reporter on the scene yesterday was how our elected representatives have trampled all over the Constitution of the United States to expand their own power.  Now those on the Left will say that these politicians just interpret the document differently than I do, but if you actually review history and why certain wording was used in the Constitution, and what its authors actually said it was supposed to mean, much of the Left's argument is completely blown out of the water.

Here's something to think about:

The authors of the Constitution just finished a war to gain freedom from a tyrant.  The British did have established laws with understood meanings to govern British subjects.  King George went around those established laws (call it reinterpreting them) to impose his own will on the American Colonies.  So after fighting for independence, would it make sense that the Americans then set up a government under a document that could be interpreted at will by those in power? 

The Constitution was written with fixed meanings for a purpose: to limit the ability of a tyrant (or tyrants in the case of Congress) from imposing their own will on the people.  When we cease being a nation governed by the law, we become a nation governed by the whims of men (and women), which is where we are now.

Here's another thought:

A business owner opens up a shop.  He establishes the policies and procedures to operate the business in following a mission statement.  Time goes by, and the business is prosperous.  One day the owner hires a new manager who decides to start running things under his own policies and procedures with his own mission and goal for the business.  After being confronted by the owner, the new manager says, "Your procedures and mission is in the past.  They don't matter anymore.  This is a new age, and I run things around here."  The business owner then has to choose between conceding to the manager, or firing the bum.

We the People are the owners of America.  Our elected representatives are the managers that we have hired to run things.  We have the same decision to make: do we concede to their power and give up the ways that made us prosperous, or do we fire them and hire new management?

I made a point to watch the liberal media's coverage of today's protest, and boy was I NOT surprised at what I saw.  First there was the flagrant, crude, and childish sexual innuendo provided by the high paid anchors of CNN and MSNBC.  Drench all of those completely inappropriate comments in an elitist smugness looking down on all those who participated, and throw in a bunch of complete lies and misrepresentations about the movement to produce a journalistic quality unsuitable for a high school newsletter.

Before watching all of this, I'll admit that I wasn't completely against these stations as news sources, but now I see that they have absolutely zero credibility as reliable and fair sources.  Now of course Fox News did report favorably on the commentary/opinion shows it airs (Glenn Beck and Hannity), and it's journalists just delivered the story.  Now there is a clip of some long haired guy on the Fox Business Network calling Republicans and Democrats fascists, which was his opinion, but then again, at least it was a balanced opinion. 

Of course Fox was labeled as one of the chief architects of the protests by the liberal MSM, but any intelligent person would know that planning for all of the protests began way before Fox said they were going to cover these events.  And they were started by regular people, not rich corporations or the Republican Party.

What I did notice in watching this dispicable display of so called journalism today was the complete loathing of "traditional values."  Statements were made in many instances to suggest that traditional values (you know the ones that perpetuated the actual existance of this country that we live in and made it the greatest and most prosperous country in the history of the world) were dead and over.  Of course if these values are gone, they have to be replaced right?  And that would mean they could only be replaced by ANTI-AMERICAN values since the traditional ones were those that essentially defined America.

But despite all their smugness, I think liberals are just scared that the spirit of America still lives, and is making a comeback.

Now is the time for Catholics to find themselves and renew their faith in the Church. As Rahm Emanuel famously said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Catholics in America now face a serious crisis concerning their faith. Politicians, reporters, aid workers, judges, teachers, and public figures around the world have hacked away at the Church’s beliefs for a long time, and the scrutiny is intensifying. To compound the problem, many bishops and Vatican officials lack the fortitude to stand up to these attacks, and the flock itself is dwindling and without solid guidance. 

The most recent outrage comes from elements within the Catholic Church itself. Father John Jenkins, President of the University of Notre Dame, recently announced that Barack Obama accepted an invitation to speak at Notre Dame’s commencement ceremony this year, and will also receive an honorary law degree from the University. The Cardinal Newman Society, now joined by CatholicVote.org, organized a petition of protest in hopes of convincing Fr. Jenkins to rescind the invitation due to Obama’s far left, anti-life policies. Mr. Obama is no friend to the pro-life movement whatsoever, even to the point of supporting infanticide in botched abortions. The Catholic Church is very clear in its teaching that human life begins at the moment of conception. At the time of this writing, over 104,000 have signed onto the petition.

Despite the petition, and a wave of criticism of Fr. Jenkins and of Notre Dame in the press, so far the university shows no indication of rescinding the offer to Mr. Obama. Kevin Keane, a 1988 alumnus of Notre Dame, told the student newspaper The Observer, “I will be in attendance on commencement day with several thousand others to show my distaste for this decision. We will bring with us the graphic photos of what abortion does to its victims, so there can be no doubt about the hatefulness of the man chosen to instruct Notre Dame graduates in how to be a success in life.” The student paper also interviewed several other people planning massive protests on campus.

Immediately preceding the Notre Dame scandal was the AIDS controversy Pope Benedict faced over comments made during his trip in Africa. “You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem,” the pontiff declared concerning the AIDS virus that has ravaged the African continent. The pope’s remarks were met with condemnation of the Church’s long held beliefs on sexuality. 

“His opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans,” said Rebecca Hodes with the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa.

CNN’s Roland Martin wrote that, “For the church to continue to ignore the definitive research that condoms play a huge role in decreasing the spread of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases is mind-boggling.”

What Rebecca Hodes fails to realize is that if Africans adhered to the dogma of the Catholic Church, as Pope Benedict was encouraging them to do, millions of African lives would be saved.  And as far as Mr. Martin’s contention goes, according to Dr. Edward Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, “There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded 'Demographic Health Surveys,' between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates.” 

Dr. Green went on to say that, “We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates," said Green, "which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working,” adding, “The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates.”

Last month Pope Benedict met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a self proclaimed Catholic and abortion supporter, and reminded the Speaker of, “the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.” In the past I have been clear in saying that I think pro-abortion Catholic politicians such as Pelosi, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden are dangerous heretics. These public figures intentionally mislead the faithful to win votes, but Church officials do little to stop them.

The crisis among American Catholics is real. The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University found last year that only 23% of adult Catholics attend Mass every week. Exit polls from the recent presidential election found that Obama won the Catholic vote overall 52 to 45 percent, but that John McCain won the Catholic vote among those who attended Mass on a weekly basis. These numbers reinforce what common sense suggests; that Catholics who regularly attend mass will vote for politicians supportive of Catholic teachings. 

The U.S. Council of Bishops wrote in 2004 that, “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” Obviously this statement failed to reach Notre Dame, and the Catholics who voted for Obama, Biden, Pelosi, etc.

The drumming of Republicans (the political party of life) in the last two elections has galvanized the conservative movement in America to reorganize and take action.  Conservatives realize that the ideas and values of America’s Founding Fathers are timeless, and can restore our nation’s greatness. Likewise, Catholics need to reinvigorate the faithful, and bring our brethren back to Mass (on days other than Easter and Christmas). The teachings of Jesus and of His Church still have real value, even in an era of political correctness. Only by knowing and living the faith can those who identify with Catholicism be truly representative of their religion. Never let a serious crisis go to waste. 

Over the weekend I read the most recent book from featured TruthOfANation.com columnist and martial arts legend Chuck Norris, “Black Belt Patriotism.” Norris has peppered his columns with excerpts from this new book lately, but it really must be read cover to cover. Norris doesn’t delve deep into political philosophy with confusing jargon to explain his vision of America. He provides practical steps to “reawaken” the American people, and return to the tradition of honoring God and country. Chuck Norris, not Barack Obama, truly offers change we can believe in.  

Norris, much like myself, believes that the American people have drifted too far from our history and the traditions and beliefs of the Founding Fathers. In just ten hard hitting rounds (chapters), Norris enters the culture war, and provides the American people with some ammunition for the fight. He discusses American history, the role of religion, our economy of debt, protecting the borders, education, the American family, health, and the need to take action to secure our future. 

The pages are littered with quotes and references from the founding period of America’s history conveying what the men who actually fought for and instituted the government of the United States envisioned its role to be in lives of American citizens, and the world. Thomas Jefferson was most often quoted by Norris in the defense of his beliefs, even in defense of religion in public life.

Norris reminds us that the often misunderstood “separation between church and state,” is not actually found in the Constitution, but first appeared in a letter Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that no particular Christian denomination would hold power over the government. He also notes that two days after writing this letter, Jefferson “attended church in the place where he always had as president: the U.S. Capitol.”

Norris, like other scholars of American history, knows that the Christian religion was essential to the formation of the United States of America. Other than quoting Founding Fathers, Norris often quotes the Bible in providing context to his lessons on returning to our roots. The leaders of America at its birth were men with a strong faith and belief in God, who recognized the need for religion and morality in the lives of American citizens. Unfortunately we don’t learn about this in history class, as Norris points out. Barack Obama believes we should forget about this part of history all together.

Norris dedicates an entire chapter to the need for the Millennials (citizens eighteen to twenty-nine years of age) to take action in the culture war. This generation (my generation) is on the verge of coming to power in America after being cheated out of the truth about our history and traditions, and taught to be ashamed of our country. Far left ideologies have corrupted our schools and the media, and poisoned the American people to the point where a leftist radical like Barack Obama now has a chance to be elected President of the United States. Fortunately for us Millennials, the Information Age has provided the means to learn the truth denied to us, and have a voice in the culture war. 

While the mainstream media has anointed Obama the candidate of the young people, they downplayed the youth activism and excitement over Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign for the presidency. Ron Paul’s message of freedom and traditional values inspired a legion of young people to continue the freedom movement even after he lost the presidential nomination through the Campaign for Liberty. Freedom is popular, and so is the truth.  

A liberal friend of mine once confessed to me that in forming her vision of the role of American government that she didn’t really study writings from the founding period because they had no real importance in present day America. I strongly disagree. The Founding Fathers would disagree. And Chuck Norris disagrees. How can our country have a future if we forget our past? The culture war is real, whether we want to enter the fight or not. Earn your black belt, and meet me at the front lines.