Is this freedom of the press?

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday I commented that our First Amendment rights were vanishing.  Today I am confronted with an example of why you should be concerned, although, as you will see in Chris Kelly's take on the issue...."Why you don't care about the Journolist Fiasco."  Not, why you shouldn't care.  The assumption is that you are too intelligent to believe anything a non-progressive says about this issue.

When I first became aware of this issue I read some of the posts in question, particularly those discussing using Sarah Palin's baby boy as a tool against her. After about three pages I realized I was uneasy with this situation because these were supposed to be journalists; unbiased reporters that give us information so that we can make decisions.  It really sounds a bit more like political activists talking about what they can do to get a particular person elected.  In this case it was Obama, but FOR THE RECORD, I would be uncomfortable with it if it involved trying to get McCain elected.

The Daily Caller article on this issue (link in title above) lists reasons to be concerned about this issue.  They quote one of the journolist contributors as posting:
"The single biggest thing journolist can do is to lay the analytical framework within the media elite necessary for an Obama debate win to be viewed as such by a sufficient portion of media elites that voters know it was a win."

Now, where have I heard that "elite" reference before?  Oh yeah, Bernays in Propaganda.  He referred to the "intelligent few" but I believe that amounts to the same thing.

The Daily Caller article presents information: who was involved, what was posted, the lists 'strict ban on political operatives and explicit partisan coordination', and information about the members' subsequent government appointments.  The writer assumes that you know that this is wrong.  That our media should be a check on our government and that this shows that it might not be a very effective check if things like this are happening.

Now, the Huffington Post writer tells you why you don't care.  He very effectively presents to the reader that "those lunatics" who are concerned about this also believe a number of other ridiculous things.  He outlines those issues in humorous language that do not represent the concerns accurately.  After the first paragraph you say to yourself: "gosh, I sure am glad I'm not THAT stupid."  Any opinion that conflicts with his views is "living in a parallel universe."  He goes on to describe this universe in increasingly derogatory terms to prove his point.  He does not even come close to describing accurately what opposing views really are.

He then spends considerable energy, in fact the rest of the article, demeaning Dennis Prager.  I am not familiar with this individual, but he obviously takes an opposing view.  His first example in which Prager makes a point/analogy to "confronting bullies."  He goes on to say that he has "never witnessed or experienced the feelings in this analogy, and neither has anyone else."  I believe I, and many other people have experienced these feelings and it will ironically play out in this instance.  He will bully you into believing that if you hold an opposing view you are stupid, ignorant, racist, or whatever the word of the day is.  If you belong to a group, let's say a Tea Party, then if you point out the facts to shine a light on the errors in his analysis  there will be people in your group that don't like that because they might be bullied even more.  That happens frequently in my universe and it happens in Chris Kelly's universe too, whether he admits it or not.

At one point he writes of Prager: "Aha, and zo, who ist zist boy you keep seeing in zist dream?" He doesn't come right out and  call him a fascist, he let's his intelligent reader draw this conclusion all on their own.  (See my post on free will for more information.)

Finally, during the last presidential election a few times I had my son listen to America Right for an hour and then America Left for an hour.  I did this, in part, to show him the importance of getting both sides before making a decision.  At one point he said to me, "When I listen to America Right I get information I can follow up on and check out.  When I listen to America Left I get to listen to insults without very much information.  I'm getting tired of hearing about Sarah Palin's wardrobe.  Why don't they spend more time giving me information that I can use?"

In our current world, opposing views and the reporting of facts that should be considered are first ignored.  If that does not work, they are deflected.  If that does not work they are re-directed.  If that does not work the person is mocked and/or marginalized.  That is NOT freedom of the press, it is manipulation for the purposes of power and control.  And that goes for ANYONE who does this.

THINK for yourself.  Don't be bullied into believing that your world view is responsible for every single woe on the planet nor be convinced that an opposing world view is responsible for every single woe on the planet.  Get the information and draw your own conclusions.  But, please be aware that you now have to fight to retain the right to have access to all the information because if they can't bully you into ignoring Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh these voices will be eliminated.  More on that later......  

Related articles by Zemanta

• Chris Kelly: Why You Don't Care About JournoList (huffingtonpost.com)

If you smell smoke, you check to see if there's a fire

I had commented the other day on a friend's post on FB that the event she shared was a symptom of the bigger plan.  The issue in question was a woman singing the "Black National Anthem" instead of our adopted, traditional national anthem.  My response was that the plan to "divide and control" was demonstrated in events such as these.  Another friend sent me the link again, and said that she felt it was out of line for the woman to substitute the black national anthem but that it was not part of a larger agenda.

You have to know that I respectfully disagreed.  If you find yourself dismissing the possibility of the larger agenda I believe you may not have the full picture of what is going on in our country.  If you look at all the pieces; all the evidence I believe it would give you a better foundation on which to make your judgments.  "Identity politics" divides us.  Approaching the world from the viewpoint of the "oppressed" vs the "oppressors" does nothing more than create a victim mentality in order to identify the bad guys (the "oppressors".)  In Germany it was the Jews.  In Black Liberation Theology its the "whites."  In La Raza, it's "those frail white people."  In white supremacist groups it's anyone with dark skin.

I was reminded in this exchange of something called "normalcy bias."  It's a cognitive condition that can dull sensitivity to risks and dangers.  There is a facet of this condition that I think is termed "conformity bias" that creates situations where our judgment and behavior rely heavily on the behavior of those around us.  I thought of my fear of flying.  Whenever there is turbulence or any sound that is strange I look to others, especially the flight attendants to determine whether or not I should start thinking about reminding myself where the emergency exits are and/or if I should start flapping my arms.  You cannot live in a constant state of "fight or flight" but at some point you do need to recognize danger signs and take appropriate action.

If you smell smoke at home, in the movie theater, at your job, you or someone would probably check to see if there is fire.  Fire is dangerous.  You would take action to protect yourself, your co-workers, your family would you not?  If you become aware of actions and events in our country that don't seem quite right what do you do?  If the majority of people around you say, "don't worry, be happy" and/or "don't listen to those nutcases, fear mongers, hate mongers, and, the most popular today, racists" you would probably dismiss the information and not seek further for the facts that are a vital part of decision-making.

If you educate yourself on the Progressive world view and how and WHY our Founding Fathers designed our Constitutional Republic I believe you would find that the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" are in grave danger.

I did not want to believe this.  I kept telling myself, "if our government officials step out of line, our system is built to withstand this attack and the American people will bring it back to where it should be."  I found out that this is no longer the case.  It wasn't any one thing, but a collection of facts that lead me to this blog.
As a behavior analyst I know that if you are genuinely confused by a person's behavior there is a very good chance that you are being manipulated.  So I started educating myself.  At this point, to tell you the truth, I'd like to jump back into the "don't worry, our Constitution will protect us" world I was living in.

The checks and balances are vanishing.  And, the one I am most concerned about is that the freedom of speech, press and religion are disappearing and many people are not even aware of it.  We are told that Fox News is not a real news outlet.  We are told that Glenn Beck is (fill in the blank) so we don't even watch, because we don't want to listen to all that hate.  We enter the conformity bias state and form our opinions and base our actions without all the facts.

One of my relatives never watched Fox News.  She has never heard of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Van Jones,  or Andy Stern.  She has no information about these people and their connection to our president, except maybe to hear on MSNBC that there's nothing there to be concerned about.  The Weather Underground members who wanted to "kill Capitalism and install world Socialism" are old news.  These people are now respected teachers, law professors or employed by Foundations with really nice sounding names.  However, it seems that they have done nothing more than decide to work within the system to achieve the same ends. 

I do read the other side of the story.  I take the time to read the Huffington Post, and other sites to try to find out facts I might not get with Fox News.  Below is an example of the types of sites I visit to do a reality check.  I remember listening to Glenn Beck's radio program one day and heard him mocking the Obama children.  He has always clearly stood for leaving the children out of the discussion.  He subsequently apologized.  However, this article also addresses his "paranoid" notion that there are a number of individuals close to the Obama administration who are actively trying to encourage boycotts of advertisers in order to silence him.  The article below, as happens many of these situations says it's all unsubstantiated and he's just (fill in the blank.)  However, when he makes a statement like this, especially on his TV show, he also shows the websites and quotes from interviews and speeches that support his statements.  I rarely, if ever, find that the mainstream and Soros-funded news sources address these facts head on.  They tell their listeners and readers that things are absurd and motivated by hate without ever giving them all the information.  In other words, "don't worry, be happy, don't listen to him cuz he's (fill in the blank.)  The other link below is an article about Van Jones.  I've found other articles stating that Glenn's claim that Van Jones is a radical communist is taken out of context and proves nothing.  What is important is to look at the whole picture of an individuals character.  Have they done or said or supported things in the past that you should be concerned about?  Was there a pivot point in their lives when they disavowed past actions and state clearly what they believe now?

You decide for yourself.  But first you need to learn the language.  You need to understand what a Progressive means when he says "fundamental transformation."  You need to understand what he means by "social justice."  You need to understand what he means by "change the whole system." You need to examine closely where the progressive's plan is leading.  You also have to understand that some of what you hear and read are in some cases misleading and in some cases false.  I am finding that these cases used to be less prevalent than they are now.  You need the whole picture.  I know that takes time, but believe me our life, liberty and our pursuit of happiness depends on us all doing our part.

Who doesn't think hope and change are good things?  I implore you to look closely at what their world view means to our freedom from tyranny.  Don't let anything stop you from pursuing the truth. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Glenn Beck Mocks Obama Daughter; Issues Apology (alternet.org)
• Van Jones Rails Against 'That Little Idiot Box': Fox News (huffingtonpost.com)

What is the definition of "a veteran?"

Image by wallyg via Flickr

I got an email today that includes text from an email from a Recon Marine in Afghanistan, signed as Saucy Jack Recon, Marine in Afghanistan.

Snopes lists it as "false" and Truth or Fiction lists it as "unsubstantiated" which is closer to the truth.  No one has been able to track this to an actual person.  Seems there has been a couple of versions of this email making the rounds since November 2001.

I am writing about this because the version sent to me included the following at the bottom:
"Freedom is not free...but the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share."
and
"A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'  That is Honor and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it."

That really hit home with me.  I would change payable to the USA, to 'payable to the people of the United States of America.

We tend to refer to the USA in a generalized manner that leads us to forget we are all part of this country.  We also talk about "the government" sometimes like it has nothing to do with us.  We talk about what the government should do for us as if we had no power; no say in the decision-making.  In our Constitutional Republic we are supposed to have power and a say in decision-making.  We elect people who are supposed to represent us in Washington, but I think the past year has shown us just how much our views matter, or, more specifically, just how far we have drifted from the form of government our Founders created.

I guess it also hit close to my heart because last week we spent a weekend in San Antonio at the Khe Sanh Veterans 2010 reunion.  Being in the presence of so many people who have helped "pay a portion of my share of freedom"  was humbling to say the least.  Coming to realize that there were thousands of people who were not there because they had died at Khe Sanh was even more humbling.

So, if this email was really written by a soldier in Afghanistan, fine.  But if it was not, and someone used the "cover" of being a soldier to make some sort of political statement, all I have to say is, "you should feel deep shame."

Maybe, just maybe, we should all spend more time educating ourselves about what is happening in our country instead of forwarding all those emails that might make us feel good for a moment because we feel frustrated and powerless.  You are not powerless, the elite want you to believe you are.  They believe you are not smart enough to make good decisions, so they'll just have to make them for you.  So, spend a few of those email moments each day on learning more about how our Constitutional Republic is supposed to work.  And, if you find what you believe to be accurate information that your friends and  family should know, then share it.

And, finally, thank you to all of our armed service personnel who have served and who are now serving.  I will cherish and try to preserve the freedom you bought for me and my family.

What is free will?

Do you remember when it became illegal to use subliminal suggestion to alter people's behavior?  The issue I remember involved advertisements in movie theaters.  The ones you had to watch over and over again until the show began.  It seems that in some of those advertisements, some of which were not even about those refreshments being sold, would flash very quickly the words "Drink Coke" on the screen.  This was done so quickly that the viewer did not even realize they had read it.  Shortly after many of them said. "I'm thirsty, I think I'll go get a Coke."  Well, that was outlawed as a misuse of the power of subliminal suggestion.

The article below by Greg Beato pretty much comes to the conclusion that the use of what is now called "behavior placement" in the media is pretty much nothing to worry about.  I disagree.  As a trained behavior analyst I know that, as with all things, it can be used for purposes that are not at all benign. The world view that concludes that the flaws in human nature are not a result of humans making decisions and acting as real moral agents, but as a result of their response to social, economic and environmental conditions (stimuli.)  B.F. Skinner proposed that these conditioned responses were learned and could be unlearned so that we can all be re-programmed to be happy and living in harmony.  Kinda like a "re-education program." Yes, our upbringing, our social environment, our experiences have profound effects on our behavior, but we are still able to CHOOSE how to respond. 

Eliminating that ability to choose in your world view means that no one is ever responsible for any of the crimes they might commit.  Clarence Darrow in 1902 declared that there is no such thing as a crime as the word is generally understood.  Individuals, according to his world view, end up in jail because they cannot avoid it on account of circumstances which are entirely beyond their control and for which they are in no way responsible.  In other words, "it was because I ate too many Twinkies." (Source of Darrow remarks come from, "How Now Shall we Live" by Colson, who cites "Clarence Darrow, Attorney for the Damned by Arthur Weinberg (1957)

Take the recent Shirley Sherrod incident.  Some reacted to a portion of a video that made Shirley appear racist.  It was taken out of context and you would indeed conclude that she is racist.  However, the portion of the story in question was part of a larger story of a pivot point in her thinking.  She goes on to say it's not race that divides us it's the class system created by the oppressors of the "have-nots."  Saul Alinsky would be proud of her, but I digress.  Shirley goes on to say she took the white farmer in question to a lawyer who was "one of his own kind" to help him.  If you listen to the whole thing you begin to get at the whole truth.  Not the truth presented by the NAACP or Andrew Brietbart but by listening and finding out the whole story.  My question is:  if a white person referred to an African-American  lawyer where they referred an African-American as "one of his own kind" what would your reaction be?

Now to an even more distressing example.  The link provided in the title above takes you to a video that the Center for American Progress (sounds nice, huh?) presented as evidence that the Tea Party is full of racists.  Well, if you search further you find that the 50 second video contained, among other things, a man wearing a swastika and yelling that he is proud to be a racist.  Another Tea Party attendee is seen saying Obama is too black.  The site shows the full story.  The first idiot was a party crasher who was being asked to LEAVE the Tea Party.  The second was referring to the blackness of Obama's heart.  This guy was at the tea party with his African American wife and bi-racial son. 

But the most disturbing issue is that between what appears to be hateful speech a picture of a woman holding a sign is flashed for a few seconds.  Her sign reads:  "Thank God for Glenn Beck." Glenn Beck now becomes associated with the hateful speech that was taken out of context.  Where is the outrage about this?  This is manipulation using a behavioral technique that most of the people watching don't even know about, much less how powerful it is.



A Progressive, Walter Lippman in his book Public Opinion stated:
"The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests remain beyond locality."  He also said: "News and Truth are not the same thing."  Maybe Arianna Huffington should read Lippman.

Edward Bernays of the Committee of Public Information (WW1) in his book Propaganda said:
"It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind....only natural that, after war ended, that intelligent persons should ask themselves whether it was not possible to apply a similar technique to the problems of peace."

Our media is considered the fourth branch of government.  It's job to keep the government inside the bounds of our Constitutional Republic.  So Bernays comment:
 "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.  Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country" is in direct conflict with that notion.  No wonder Goebbels loved his books.

Related articles by Zemanta

• New at Reason: Greg Beato on Subliminal Advertising (reason.com)
• Think You're Operating on Free Will? Think Again (time.com)

What does religious freedom mean?

 I want to state that with any of my posts I do research and find reliable sources before I tell you anything.  If I find I was in error or have misinterpreted something I will correct it.  But I encourage you to get involved and do your own research.  Freedom is a difficult thing to hang on to.  Slavery can be deceptively "comfortable" because it seems to require less effort.  The Israelites even whined to return to slavery in Egypt because the freedom thing was too hard. 

As oft stated, our First Amendment ensures freedom of religion not freedom from religion.  The link above takes you to the "Religious Freedom" page I found recently and have started to explore.  In the introduction it says:
"Social contracts, whether they are based on egalitarian principles or tyranny, are arrangements between human beings.  Covenants, on the other hand, are sacred arrangements between God and God's people.  Covenants transcend social contracts and are believed to endure for all time.  The heavy hand of tyrants, as well as ordinary man-made institutions, may deny the promise of a covenant.  That does not alter the Truth that believers share regarding special arrangements with God (which I would state as "God's Promises.)

So, our founders didn't want a King declaring himself divinely appointed to make and alter at will the social contracts that dictated their daily lives, including their religious practices.  So they very clearly laid out that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights.  Rights that come from God, not from the government.  There was still some religious persecution in those early days and we've continued to struggle to find a balance that frees an individual to worship God as he sees fit while ensuring that someone who worships differently is permitted the same freedom.

So, we're allowed to choose a synagogue, a church, a temple or a mosque.  But are we allowed to practice that religion freely?  Well, I guess we can all agree that if my religion tells me to kill everyone with red hair that is not acceptable in our constitutional republic, nor do I think it's acceptable to God, but that's just me :-)

We can also choose to not worship; to not believe in a creator.  We cannot be forced to accept any specific belief system.  Or, can we?

There seem to be two world views at odds today.  One that says there is a transcendent source of right and wrong; what's good for us and what will hurt us and a world view that says there is not a source of guidance and that we need to determine what is good and what is bad as we go along.  The latter world view believes that man is perfectible and that if we have enough knowledge, the right social programs, and the right kind of people running the government all of our problems will be solved.  In today's language this is communicated as "social justice."

Can these two opposing views coexist?  One that says we are flawed human beings and that we look to a transcendent source, God, to give us direction and help us lead good lives.  The other that says that the problems in the world are caused by the restrictions of the "superstitions" of religion and those pesky "right and wrong" rules.

Some time ago I was being berated for being a hate-filled person for stating that I believed same sex marriage was wrong.  I did clarify that I understood some of the issues at hand and that civil unions or whatever gave these couples the rights that married people had was something that I thought should be supported.  We argued back and forth and I finally came to the conclusion that what the other person wanted was for me to say that same-sex marriage was morally OK and that I approved 100%.  It was not enough to agree that the rights be the same.  I had to say I approved and express NO opposition to the practice.  If I did not, I was labeled a homophobe, a bigot, a hater, and who knows what else.

Is this allowing the free practice of my religious beliefs?  I have no right to harass or harm in any way someone who chooses to practice homosexuality.  I DO have the right to believe that it is wrong and to raise my children with this belief.

That religious freedom is under increasingly aggressive attack.  Examples:

Dr. Kenneth Howell at University of Illinois was recently fired for teaching Catholicism in a class; Introduction to Roman Catholicism.  In particular he was explaining the churches views on homosexuality and how those views are developed and stated.  He was fired (although right now the University is saying he has not been fired, so stay tuned.)  I've read the email in question.  Dr. Howell did not storm though the campus thumping a bible screaming that homosexuals are going to hell.  He explained what the teaching of the Roman Catholic church says about homosexuality.  However, all discourse is shut down.  There can be no opposing views expressed even if they are expressed in "academic" terms.

The other example is even more egregious.  Augusta State University student, Jennifer Keeton, has been told that her Christian beliefs are unethical and incompatible with prevailing views in her Counseling program.  The University has ordered her to undergo a "re-education" program that includes diversity and sensitivity training.  If she does not do this; change her beliefs and become re-educated, she will be expelled.

I believe that these cases are an alarming attack on religious freedom.  If you do some research and find out what the ultimate goal of a world view that leads to these types of situations is you will find that it is to replace the God in your life with the "God State."  The government will be the savior.  The government will decide what the "will of the people" is without the voice of the people.  Individual salvation becomes collective salvation.  And, if in the interest of the "general welfare" individual rights disappear, that's just what has to be.  Stalin an Mao killed millions of people guided by a godless world view such as this. Whether you believe in a creator or not, that should still frighten you.

My husband and I have often "joked" about being able to choose our re-education camp location.  It's not sounding much like a joke anymore.  If you think that sounds ridiculous it was a part of the Weather Undergrounds plan in the 60's.  After they collapsed the government people who resisted were to be sent to re-education camps in the South.  Nuts, huh?  Those people are still around and are in powerful positions.  Bill Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn and a newcomer (more radical Communist than socialist) Van Jones.  If you don't know who these people are find out.

If you don't agree you must be evil, right?

This link leads to an article from The Daily Caller.  I have not heard of this site or of the author of the article, however, the content is worthy of your attention.  In it a "liberal journalist" suggests that the government shut down Fox News.  That alone should get your attention but there is something much more disturbing contained in this article.

http://content.usatoday.com/topics/article/People/Journalists,+Media,+Academia/Rush+Limbaugh/03WPdcx4CweRY/1

Sarah Spitz, a producer for NPR, said that if she observed Rush Limbaugh having a heart attack she would not call 911.  Instead she would "Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out as he writhed in torment."

Tell me again what "hate speech" is?

The article goes on to compare anyone who disagrees with the Progressive opinions and world view to the "brown shirts," Nazis, or fascists.  If you are really honest with yourself you will see beyond the hate and the depiction of Fox News as a whole as "evil" and realize that there is no reasoned debate, no evidence given that people who disagree with them believe any of the things they are accused of.  Are there crazy people?  Yes, and they are on both sides of the argument.

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are under attack.  Even if your world view is the same as Sarah Spitz's you need to be concerned about that fact.  We are no longer allowed to have reasoned debates.  We cannot discuss racism, homosexuality, or immigration without emotional responses that totally shut the dialogue down.  Those who disagree are "hateful" and "evil."  They are the people the Progressives point to as the source of all problems....and if they could just get rid of those folks life would be good.  I think that sounds a bit more fascist than anything Rush Limbaugh has ever said.

What do you think?  Read some history.  Read things from both sides of the argument while you still can.  I invite debate.  Explain to me why Ms. Spitz and her colleagues are doing this and why it is OK to watch someone you disagree with or hate die in front of your eyes while doing nothing but laughing like a maniac.

Seems to me that this shows a tendency to de-humanize those we disagree with so that it is easier to watch them die.  If that's not "Nazi-like" I don't know what is.

Black Liberation Theology

I have been thinking quite a bit about how a human being comes to the point of believing that "killing white cracker babies is OK.  The link above takes you to a segment of the Glenn Beck show that discusses Black Liberation Theology.

I decided to blog on this topic today because a friend sent me a link to a youtube video about the Gospel according to Oprah Winfrey. 

I had a deeper understanding of how Oprah came to these conclusions because I have been researching Black Liberation Theology.  No, she's not advocating killing babies and I doubt she attends a BLT Church like Obama's minister Jeremiah Wright, but the foundation of her views on God, Jesus, and religion seem firmly based in this world view.

I've been saying that forced redistribution of wealth and the concept of "social justice" as that term is used by Progressives today is not to be found in the scriptures.  So the Beck segment helped me put this into context.  If you cannot find it in scripture you need to add a little Marx to the equation.

In a PBS show; This Far By Faith James Cone (founder of BLT) says:

"For me, the burning theological question was, how can I reconcile Christianity and Black Power; Martin Luther King, Jr's idea of nonviolence and Malcolm X's "by any means necessary philosophy?"  (Preface to Black Theology and Black Power, p. viii.)

Christianity, as he understood it, no longer explained or held meaning in the turbulent years of the late 1960's.  "I was within inches of leaving the Christian faith. " If he were to remain a Chrisitian, Cone would have to reinterpret his faith to respond to such demanding times.
website:  www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/people/james_cone.html

At a wikipedia site I found:

Cone's thought....stresses the idea that theology is not universal, but tied to specific historical contexts......interpreting the central kernel of the Gospels as Jesus' identification with the poor and oppressed, the resurrection as the ultimate act of liberation.

This all sounds like relativism to me.  It also shows the scary and dangerous paths it can take you on. 

There is also an interesting article at the Asian Times site written by an unknown person who just calls himself/herself "Spengler" (referring to a German philosopher, Oswald Spengler)  The title is "The Peculiar Theology of Black Liberation."  It's worth reading.
At one point the author states: "In the black liberation theology taught by Wright, Cone, and Hopkins, Jesus Christ is not for all men, but only for the oppressed." 

Sounds like something Karl Marx could agree with if he could bring himself to the point of even mentioning the words theology and Jesus Christ.

In a review of the book, "Is God a White Racist" a reviewer on the Amazon site states: "Jones does have a proposal to get around the possibility of divine racism by seeking to replace the all-powerful God who is actively involved in human events with a God that is not involved and leaves humanity to work its own problems out.  This position is what Jones calls Humanocentric Theism.  God exists, but God ain't involved."

That is not a Christian world view.  Oprah makes it sound so warm and fuzzy.  Cone makes it sound ethnocentric.  The New Black Panther party makes it sound violent and revolutionary.  They all basically believe the same thing.  In particular they believe in collective salvation as does Obama.  Grace has not place in their world view.  Individual salvation has no place in their world view.  Hence, individual rights have no place in their world view. 

Let me know if you would like the links to some of the sites I've mentioned.  I'm having problems inserting them in this post.  Just leave a comment and your email address, or email me directly.

As Pope Benedict XVII has stated in "Truth and Tolerance" (p. 116)
"Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much.  Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic"

As we remain in God's hands,
LB

Divide and Control

The NAACP does not condemn the New Black Panther Party's racist actions and statements, yet they perpetuate the myth that the Tea Party members are all racists that "want to return to a time when they were in power."

Wow, that really gets the anger flowing doesn't it?  This is such a blatant misrepresentation of the majority of the Tea Party that it's almost impossible to respond to.  But, that is what the Progressives want.  They want us divided and "at war" with one another so that they can present themselves as the saviors for the "oppressed."  Tell someone often enough and long enough that they are a victim and they start to believe it.  Point the finger at the opposition to your plans and label them as the enemy and the Progressive elite take control and tell everyone their lives are now better.  Have you read 1984 recently?  Just because someone says shoe production is at an all time high doesn't make the holes in your shoes disappear. Read the book to learn what that means.  Also, if you think the Ministry of Truth is fictional do some homework on Cass Sunstein and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Another divide and control tactic that has bothered me for some time is that of the family; in particular children and their parents.  A number of years ago I began limiting my son's cartoon time.  Yes, getting him more active was part of that but the biggest issue was that most of the cartoons depicted parents as drooling idiots who had to be "saved" by their brilliant children.  I thought that was a dangerous direction to be going with our children and it's gotten even worse.

Consider the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zJ6m-W921E

Generation We.  Young people making it clear that they are smarter than their parents.

Also consider:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9WOod26BH0&feature=player_embedded

This link makes it very clear that these children believe they need to become the "parent" and treat their parents like "children" and have "the talk" with them to tell them how to vote.  And how to vote is purely Progressive in nature.

Did you ever wonder how the "Hitler Youth" movement came about?  A huge part of Progressive/Socialist/Communist strategy is to divide the children from their parents.  The State replaces the parent as the primary caregiver and nurturer.  Children are told to listen to adults, but they have to be the CORRECT adults.  Now, before you get your knickers in a twist thinking I'm comparing Obama to Hitler, that is NOT the point.  The point is that these movements take young children who do not have the broad frame of reference that most adults possess and tell them what to think, NOT how to think.  Al Gore tells a group of 12-13 year olds that they "know more than their parents" and they will have to take the lead.

To top it all off the Progressive playbook controls the information in a myriad of ways (textbooks, media control, etc.) in order to provide their version of the truth.  Which, if you think about it, is sort of ironic because they don't believe truth exists....it's all relative.  They shut down dialogue and debate by labeling a person or a group of people "racist."

Please view video of Arianna Huffington testifying about the "future of journalism."  The last 30 seconds:


  "The mission of journalism has always been 'truth seeking' not as it has too often become striking some fictitious balance between two sides"

Who determines what "truth" is?  Why the efforts to present only one side via "net neutrality" and marginalizing dissenting voices?   WHY did our founding fathers find freedom of speech and freedom of press so important?  If you don't have both sides of the argument you're not making a decision or a choice you are giving up power you don't realize that you possess.  Keep finding both sides of the debate about the type of government we need in order to continue to enjoy the liberties we cherish.  Do it now before it becomes harder or maybe even impossible to find the dissenting voices.

Is this what Social Justice means?

The case of voter intimidation by Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson has been dropped by the DOJ.  If you don't know about this you should. 

Intimidation of black voters in the past by white people was despicable. 

Intimidation of white voters in the present by the New Black Panther party is equally despicable.

In a video clip from National Geographic, Samir Shabazz says he hates "every iota of the white cracker."  He goes on to say that the black community needs to come together to kill some of those "crackers" as well as their "cracker babies."

I wonder if this New Black Panther Party is listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of Hate groups in the US?   Probably not.  I know La Raza is not there.  I know the Muslim Student Association is not there.

William Ayres and wife Bernadine Dohrn (both members of the Weather Underground) represent a radical world view that sees nothing wrong with what Samir Shabazz said.  These people  became convinced that all WHITES are born with the sin of "skin privelege."  Their internalized racial thinking became hatred of their own whiteness.  A Weatherman stated on one occasion that "white babies are pigs." Even white members of their group were told that they had no right to have "pig male white babies."  When asked what they should do, the reply was, "Put it in the garbage."  (source: Liberal Facsism by Jonah Goldberg, page 188)

Racism is racism.  This is NOT justice, it is hate. 

The biggest question you should be asking yourself is, "WHY was this case dropped?" 

One more thought on CPUSA goals

#12  Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party (along with #17)

Consider these goals while reviewing California SB 1322 Senate Bill introduced February 20, 2008 by Senator Lowenthal.

Among other things, this bill states (Section 4)

"Under existing law, public employees are required to answer, under oath, specified questions, including, but not limited to, knowing membership in an organization advocating the forceful or violent overthrow of the government of the United States or of any state.  This bill would delete these provisions."

Why?  I believe it was eventually vetoed by Gov. S.....but why would they want to get rid of this provision?

Also, why is Ron Gochez, a member of La Raza who calls California "occupied Mexico"  and advocates taking it back from "those frail white people", still employed as a teacher in LA?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dgh1mrBTZw&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGqPo5ofk0s&feature=related

Just askin'.......

Google "Communist Education Bill California"  and read what 2010 links you find.

Communist Party USA Goals 1963

Here are some highlights of the CPUSA Goals in 1963.  Read through them and decide for yourself how they are doing:


#3  Develop the illusion that disarmament of U.S.  would be a demonstration of moral strength
#5  Capture one or both of the political parties
#17  Get control of the schools and use them as transition belts for socialism and communist propaganda
#18  Gain control of all student newspapers
#20  Infiltrate the press.  Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making decisions
#21  Get control of key positions in radio, TV, movies
#27  Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with social religion
#28  No prayer in schools as it violates separation of church and state
#29  Discredit the constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, and a hinderance to cooperation between nations on a world-wide basis
#30  Discredit the American Founding Fathers
#36  Infiltrate and gain control of more unions
#37  Infiltrate and gain control of big business
#40  Discredit the family as an institution; encourage promiscuity and easy divorce


You might also check out:
http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm
for further commentary.

You know, youth today did not experience what my generation did.  Do you remember the air raid drills in elementary school?  Even then, as a 6th grader I did not think getting under my desk was going to protect me from the devastation of an attack.  I learned in a variety of ways some of the horrors that socialism and communism can bring.  Our youth and our celebrities today wear slogans and pictures of Mao....wonder if they really know how many people he killed.   Do they know that Stalin starved millions of people in the Ukraine?  Do they know that the individual and individual liberty become non-existent in the mind of the "State?"
Training materials for AmeriCorps include a distinctive "collective" world view.  That sounds good and noble to a young person.  Helping the poor and disadvantaged is not a bad thing to advocate.  Having a political elite decide how and where to "help" IS.

Final thought for today is in regard to #29 above:

In a Wilder Publications edition of our Constitution the following disclaimer is included:

"This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as if it were written today.  Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing their children to read this classic work."

I'm thinking they would probably include a similar disclaimer to the Bible.

The world view of the socialist/communist is that the "State" is god and loyalty to the state is of utmost importance in achieving their goals.  Allegiance to anything else; family or God, is to be discouraged and eliminated as it is a "hindrance."

Have you read Animal Farm by George Orwell?  Read it again and think about how accurately it outlines the progressive/socialist tactics.  The animals begin with a list of rules they are to follow in their new-found freedom.  And one by one the political elite changes or modifies them to suit their purposes.  There are no hard and fast rules for "right" and "wrong."  This just gets in the way of "progress."

Wake up America and ask yourself progress toward what?  And when you get the answer, then decide whether or not you support it.  Get educated. Get involved.  I know you are busy.  I know this takes time and effort, but our constitutional republic is worth it.  We've been asleep too long.