Archive for 04/11/2010

(SPPI Blog)

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Bonn

There are not many empty seats in the dismal, echoing conference chamber in the ghastly concrete box that is the Hotel Maritim here in Bonn, where the UN’s latest attempt to maneuver the 194 States Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change gets underway today.

The “international community”, as it is now called, is here in full force, in the shape of expensively-suited, shiny-shod bureaucrats with an urbane manner and absolutely no knowledge of climate science whatsoever.

However, one empty chair is a pointer of things to come. The Holy See – a tiny nation in its own right, with a billion citizens around the world – has left its chair empty. And that is significant. If “global warming” still mattered, the Vatican would make sure that its representatives were present throughout this gloomy gathering of world-government wannabes.

This emergency conference, called by the UN’s bureaucrats because they were terrified that Cancun this December might fail as spectacularly as Copenhagen did last year, is a much quieter affair than Copenhagen. Not only has the air of triumphalism gone, after the scandals of Climategate, Himalayagate, Amazongate and so forth, but the belief that “global warming” is a global crisis has largely gone too.

There are a few true-believers left among the national delegates, but more of them than before are open to discussion of the previously-forbidden question – what if the climate extremists have made the whole thing up?

The Chinese Xinhua News Agency, for instance, came up to the table manned by the environmental campaigners of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which takes a hard-boiled, cynical view of the notion that a tiny increase in the atmospheric concentration of a trace gas is likely to cause a thousand international disasters.

The reporters were genuinely interested to hear that there is another side to the story. Huan Gongdi, the Agency’s senior correspondent in Germany, asked me what I thought of the Copenhagen accord (a waste of time), what was happening in Bonn (a desperate attempt to ram through a binding Treaty that can be put in front of the US Senate before the mid-term elections make Senate acceptance of any such treaty unthinkable), and whether or not there was a climate crisis anyway (there isn’t).

I explained to Mr. Huan that even if the UN had not exaggerated the warming effect of CO2 many times over there was still nothing we could do about the supposed “crisis”, because we were emitting so little of the stuff in the first place.

For the record, I did the sum in front of him. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 today is about 388 parts per million by volume. However, we are adding just 2 ppmv a year to the air. So the warming we cause each year, even if one believes the UN’s wild exaggerations of CO2’s warming effect, is just 4.7 times the natural logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration from 388 to 390 ppmv.

Thus, 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.043 Fahrenheit degrees – less than a twentieth of a Fahrenheit degree of “global warming” every year. That is all. Putting it another way, it would take almost a quarter of a century with no carbon-emitting activity at all – not a single train, plane, automobile, or fossil-fueled power station – to forestall just 1 Fahrenheit degree of “global warming”.

That is why no Treaty based on controlling the amount of carbon dioxide the world emits can possibly work. And that is why there is no hurry anyway. The only reason for the UN’s sense of urgency – a panic no longer felt by the majority of the delegates here – is that the bureaucrats know the game is up. Opinion polls throughout the free world show that no one now believes a word of the climate extremists’ nonsense any more. If they can’t get a binding treaty this year, they won’t get one at all, and they know it.

I shall be reporting frequently from the conference as events unfold. Check back often at


(Stand By Liberty)

I just heard this and wanted to get the entire story before saying anything about it. Sheriff Arvin West of Hudspeth County, the third largest county in Texas has told his citizens to arm themselves, that he can no longer provide protection for them against spillover violence in the border areas. I’m sure the sheriff did not take this lightly, the violence pouring over the Mexican/American border is rapidly getting beyond what local and state authorities can contain. The sheriff made the statement at a town hall meeting. Governor Rick Perry has already activated the Texas border violence spillover contingency plan, in which he requested federal aid.

There is no doubt that Texas is a robust state to say the least, the shame here is that they have been abandoned by the federal government and the entire Obama administration including Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Home Land Security. Texas is not alone, New Mexico and Arizona are also in the line of fire, literally. All three states have requested federal assistance in deployment of National Guard troops to the border regions and in keeping with true Obama fashion, they either received no answer or were turned down. This issue is starting to take on a political look, these states don’t seem too friendly towards Obama and he is doing nothing for them in return. The difference between the two is that Obama swore an oath to protect and defend the United States. An oath he is violating in more ways than just with the border, but in this case he is showing no honor what so ever.

Dumping national security issues onto the states is unheard of. Make no mistake about it, this is a national security issue. Obama wants Mexican votes so he is playing politics. What this does is give people one more reason to vote Democrats out this November. The border states have even a more compelling reason, the Obama administration is leaving them hung out with no help coming. The American people need to get behind this issue, the main stream media is keeping this very low profile because they know what the outcome will be. Any Democratic lawmaker in any western state should be asked what the hold up is with the federal government doing its job? Democrats are backing Obama on this, just as they are with his blatant abusive behavior toward Israel.

The sheriff repeated an old line,” I rather be judged by 12 than carried by 683;. If that attitude spreads, as maybe it should, it could be a long hot summer at the border. And it could be a cold day in hell when the Democrats gain any power again in Washington. I think Ted Nugent is in Texas these days, I heard he is a pretty good shot. Watch your six my friends.

‘Professor’ Obama? Title never granted

Posted: 04/11/2010 by Lynn Dartez in WND

Barack, Michelle not licensed to practice law

Posted: April 10, 2010
10:55 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Michelle Obama became “voluntarily inactive” as a lawyer in 1993, one year after her marriage to Barack Obama

Are attorneys Barack and Michelle Obama currently licensed to practice law?

Was Barack Obama ever a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago?

In recent days, these questions have once again gone viral on the Internet.

WND has traced the current controversy to Doug Ross and a March 1 posting on his asserting the Obamas are no longer lawyers registered to practice law in Illinois and that claims President Obama was a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago are “a sham.”

This current round of the controversy harkens back to the 2008 presidential campaign when Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton made nearly the same charges in a March 25, 2008, “Hillary for President” press release entitled “Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama’s Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements.”

After stating Barack Obama was not a law professor at the University of Chicago, the Clinton press release insisted: “He (Barack Obama) is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there’s a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter. Professors have tenure while lecturers do not.”

Obamas registered to practice law in Illinois?

On March 1, Ross examined the record at the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, or ARDC, and found out that Barack Obama “voluntarily retired” and is not currently authorized to practice law.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

As WND reported last year records at the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois show in 1993 Michelle Obama’s status became “voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law.”

Jim Grogan, spokesman at ARDC, confirmed to WND that neither Barack nor Michelle Obama is currently licensed to practice law.

He further said there was no information at ARDC that would confirm the accusation leveled by Ross that Barack Obama voluntarily withdrew from practicing law to avoid charges that he lied on his bar application by stating he had never used an alias, including the name Barry Soetoro.

Grogan further said there was no information at ARDC that would support insinuations Michelle Obama voluntary surrendered her license to practice law to avoid ethics charges involving government grants obtained through the influence of her husband, when he was a state senator and she was an administrator at the University of Chicago Hospitals.

“If there were serious ethics or criminal charges against either Barack or Michelle Obama, voluntary surrendering their licenses would not have been sufficient to escape legal consequences of the charges,” Grogan said.

Was Barack Obama ever a law professor?

Ross wrote on his blog that he “spent some time” with an unnamed professor who was “the highest tenured faculty member” at the University of Chicago who claimed Obama “applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered.”

“A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find [Barack Obama] an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach,” Ross continued. “The board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.”

Ross further claimed other professors “hated” Obama because “he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool.”

On March 28, 2008, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Lynn Sweet wrote in the Chicago Sun-Times that Barack Obama was a lecturer at the University of Chicago law school between 1992 and 1996 while he was an attorney at the law firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland. In 1996, Sweet wrote, Obama was appointed senior lecturer, a position he maintained at the law school until 2004, when he resigned to run for the U.S. Senate.

Sweet further noted that during his first year of teaching, Barack Obama taught only one course and that in 1996, his teaching load increased to three courses a year, “less than the load of a professor.”

Sweet also quoted Marsha Ferzigner Nagorsky, an assistant dean for communications and a lecturer in the law school, who insisted there is “a major distinction” between lecturer and “senior lecturer,” though both are not full-time positions.

Nagorsky, Sweet wrote, “said the status of a senior lecturer is ‘similar’ to the status of a professor and Obama did teach core courses usually handled only by professors. While Obama was also part of the law school community, his appointment was not part of an academic search process, and he did not have any scholarly research obligations which professors often do.”

As the controversy over Obama’s faculty status developed during the 2008 presidential campaign, the University of Chicago published a statement on its website claiming that from 1992 until 2004, “Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School.”

While “professor” was not capitalized in this statement as “Senior Lecturer” was, the University of Chicago further stated: “Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”

“The University of Chicago did Obama no favor by saying he was a law professor when he wasn’t,” Sweet wrote. “The parsing is not necessary. There is nothing degrading about being a senior lecturer and bringing to students the experience of a professional in the field.”

The distinction between the not capitalized “professor” and the capitalized terms “Lecturer” and “Senior Lecturer” in the University of Chicago statement was intentional, University of Chicago spokeswoman Sarah Galer told WND

“Barack Obama’s official titles were Lecturer and Senior Lecturer,” Galer said. “These are adjunct positions on the University of Chicago faculty, not full-time tenure-track positions.”

Related offers:

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

Get the most comprehensive special report ever produced on the Obama eligibility issue.

Previous story:

What happened to Michelle Obama’s law license?

Posted by Europe on Apr 09, 2010 

Listen to this article. Powered by

A new report circulating in the Kremlin today authored by France’s Directorate-General for External Security (DGSE) and recently “obtained” by the FSB shockingly quotes French President Nicolas Sarkozy [photo top right with Obama] as stating that President Barack Obama is “a  dangerous[ly] aliéné”, which translates into his, Obama, being a “mad lunatic”, or in the American vernacular, “insane”.

According to this report, Sarkozy was “appalled” at Obama’s “vision” of what the World should be under his “guidance” and “amazed” at the American Presidents unwillingness to listen to either “reason” or “logic”.  Sarkozy’s meeting where these impressions of Obama were formed took place nearly a fortnight ago at the White House in Washington D.C., and upon his leaving he “scolded” Obama and the US for not listening closely enough to what the rest of the World has to say.

Apparently, as this report details, the animosity between Sarkozy and Obama arose out of how best the West can deal with the growing threat posed by rising Islamic fundamentalism. Both Sarkozy and his European neighbors had previously been supported in their efforts by the United States in forming an alliance to strengthen the integration of Muslim peoples into their societies, and has including France and Belgium moving to ban the wearing of burqa’s.

European fears over their growing Muslim populations appear to be valid as the growing immigration and birth rates of these Islamic peoples are warned is causing the “Eurabiazation” of the Continent and within a few generations will see them become the majority of nearly all of the EU Nations.

The greatest threat to these Western Nations posed by the Muslim peoples becoming the majority of their populations lies in their likelihood of destroying the Global Banking System which according to their faith is firmly rooted in “satanic” evil and “must” be replaced by an Islamic one.

[Note: Islamic banking refers to a system of banking or banking activity that is consistent with the principles of Islamic law (Sharia) and its practical application through the development of Islamic economics. Sharia prohibits the payment or acceptance of interest fees for the lending and accepting of money respectively, (Riba, usury) for specific terms, as well as investing in businesses that provide goods or services considered contrary to its principles (Haraam, forbidden).

Obama, on the other hand, doesn’t share the views of his European allies and has, instead, embarked upon a course of embracing the Muslim peoples of the World and to the shock of all has overturned the Bush era ban on the radical Swiss born Muslim Cleric Tariq Ramadan from entering the United States, last year ordered the US government bailed out General Electric Capital Corporation to became the first Western multinational to issue an Islamic bond, and this past week commanded that all of his governments security documents eliminate the words “Islamic extremism” and “jihad”.

Sarkozy in these reports further warns that by Obama’s “unrestrained” and “destabilizing” actions an already tense Global situation is growing ever more catastrophic as America’s once stalwart allies are being cast aside in favor of a New World Order where instead of the United States securing its vital energy future through conquest and war it will now do so by appeasement to some of the most violent and radical regimes on Earth, and as we can see exampled:

In Egypt…where the 30-year reign of the stalwart US ally President Hosni Mubarak is being allowed by Obama to fall so that this most vital of Middle Eastern countries can be ruled by the former head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency,  Mohamed ElBaradei, who allowed through his appeasement the Persian Nation of Iran to gain the knowledge, equipment and expertise needed to build an atomic bomb.

In Turkey…where Obama in failing to stop, like all American Presidents before him, his Congress from passing a law blaming that critical Eurasian Nation for the 1915 Armenian genocide left Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan no choice but to recall his ambassador to the US.

In Kyrgyzstan…where Obama failed to stop a revolution against the American installed President thus allowing Russian Prime Minister Putin to achieve his goal of revolutionary change for that critical Central Asian Nation and putting in jeopardy the United States war in Afghanistan as the new Kyrgyz government prepares to throw the Americans out of their country thus depriving them of their main air supply route to their already undersupplied troops battling the Afghan Taliban.

In India…where by Obama’s failing to support the Indians fight against Pakistani backed Muslim terrorists has caused the second most powerful Asian Nation to turn towards Iran rebuffing all Western attempts to isolate them and instead of their participating in Obama’s Global Nuclear Summit have, instead, agreed to attend the Iranians.

In Pakistan…where just this week Obama gave this vital American ally a “public slap on the wrist” by denying to them the same nuclear deal he had previously given to India thus insuring the Pakistani military will cease their support for American troops in Afghanistan battling the Taliban.

In Afghanistan…where Obama has engaged in a public war with his ally President Karzai who because so enraged he threatened this past week to change his allegiance from the Americans to the Taliban.

In Israel…where Obama has so demoralized and demonized their once most reliable ally that Prime Minister Netanyahu has just announced he will not attend Obama’s Global Nuclear Summit because of his fears that the American President will not keep Egypt and Turkey under control thus threatening the Israelis nuclear supremacy over their Middle Eastern enemies who have sworn to destroy them.

In Brazil…where Obama has ordered his Defense Secretary Robert Gates to sign an historic defense agreement with this South American nuclear power whose President, Lula da Silva, has praised Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, slammed Israel, and has announced his intentions to visit Iran next month.

To all of these actions (and too many more to mention in this short report) Russian Military Analysts warn that Obama has pushed our world towards total global war more than any single leader since Nazi Germany’s Adolph Hitler, to which Russia and China are, likewise, preparing to confront to stop the Americans.

Most unfortunately for those Americans living under the Obama regime is that their attempts to stop the radical socialism he has pushed upon them from destroying their once great Nation has failed as new reports from the United States are showing that in under two years Obama and his cohorts have succeeded in making nearly 50% of these people support the other 50% who aren’t working. (And which really should surprise none of them as during his campaign for the Presidency he openly vowed to “redistribute the wealth”, but which history has always shown makes everyone a pauper, except for the elites that is.)

For any of the few Americans left daring to oppose Obama we had previously warned about the massive death camps he is preparing for them, but which these most strange of peoples continue to deny the existence of in their naïve belief that if they choose not to believe a thing it makes it not true. (If this behavior sounds familiar it is only because Obama and his cohorts have, literally, used the same playbook used by the Nazis against the once free German people.)

And for those even daring to expose the truth of what is being done to the American people Obama took the unprecedented step this week of authorizing for the first time in American history his secret government intelligence services to assassinate one of their own citizens without benefit of trial leaving every human rights organization in the World in shock, including Tina Foster of the US-based International Justice Network who said, “I am in shock that they would do this. It is shocking that our Government would go to these extremes, even depriving someone of their life without a legal process.

Now to if Sarkozy’s grim and dire assessment of Obama is true or not it is not in our knowing, nor do these reports say.  But, it is important to note that nearly all of the longstanding allies of the United States Obama has turned his back on are, admittedly, some really bad (to say the least) leaders who no one in their right mind would want to live under.

And too Obama’s apparent appeasement of Islamic terrorists there is growing evidence of his maybe throwing all his marbles (so to speak) in “one fell swoop”, and as evidenced by the 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs he last month authorized Florida based Superior Maritime Services Concord to “immediately” ship from California to the massive US Air Force base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which is in striking distance of Iran and if all of them were dropped on the Iranians would, literally, destroy them.

In finding the deliberately hidden clues as to what will happen as The Great Game nears its inevitable climax all caution must be taken, including to whom you might tell your most secret of thoughts, and as evidenced in the United States this past week should NEVER be voiced to your children, and as we can read as reported by the Info Wars News Service:

“A family in Williamson County, Austin have lost custody of their 7-year-old son as part of a Child Protective Services investigation because the parents taught their children to mistrust the government, an action that deemed them to be “unsuitable parents,” according to charges leveled by police officers in CPS documents.”

And to those still mocking the truths of these times, who continually fail to see what lies before them, we can only say you’re being the good and obedient lemmings you were brought up to be.  So go back to sleep and dream the sweetest dreams you can, because before you know it you’ll be awakening in a living nightmare as those as ignorant as you, throughout all of history, have learned to their peril and loss.

To everyone else in America we can only advise you to begin stocking up for the End of the World….you won’t be alone.

Posted: 04/11/2010 by Lynn Dartez in 2011

by Becky Akers
by Becky Akers
Recently by Becky Akers: Ship of State

Listen to the drums beating the Dead March as the American Empire chugs into totalitarianism’s next terminus: execution of citizens without trial.

“The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen,” the New York Times reports. And yes, those are cheers you hear over the drums, erupting from the same neocons who applauded torture and Gitmo. That’s because the intended victim is “the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki…who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam” but who is now “hiding in Yemen.”

“Extraordinary,” indeed. Once upon a time we required a trial; in fact, the Constitution still does. The State must present and prove its charges to an “impartial jury” before it takes a man’s life. True, politicians and bureaucrats often rig those trials, while cops and prosecutors tamper with evidence, but what else would we expect from government? Yet Leviathan now dispenses with that pretense, too, as it has with search warrants, habeas corpus, presumption of innocence, motive, and other such quaint necessities.

Even the Times, which leads the pack of “mainstream” (sic for “considerably to the left of Pravda“) media in its animosity to liberty, is appalled enough to quote anonymous “officials” who admit that this is “extremely rare, if not unprecedented.”

What has our fellow-citizen done to merit such attention? The Feds allege a great many foul deeds, though I’m hard-pressed to find one that threatens us nearly as much as the average Congressional act. Our Rulers “[believe]” Anwar is now “participating directly” in attacks on Americans rather than simply “encouraging” them. They’ve “linked” him to bad guys like the Underwear Bomber and the Ft. Hood Shooter. “Counterterrorism officials” who, curiously enough, battle those inept bad guys instead of the horrifically successful ones in Congress, claim he’s a member of al Qaeda.

“‘Awlaki is a proven threat,’ a US official told Reuters news agency” – just not in court. Far be it from the Feds to convict their suspect at trial, however easy it would be given Anwar’s patronage of prostitutes and a system that punishes vice as crime. No, we’re simply supposed to trust Our Rulers. After all, paranoid nuts who add motherly doctoral students from Stanford University, famous singers, and 4-year-old boys to their silly blacklists couldn’t possibly make another mistake, could they?

For all his sleaze, Anwar eschews the secrecy our supposedly open government craves. He’s outspoken and honest about why he left his native country. “I lived in the U.S. for 21 years,” he says on a tape CNN “obtained” but could not “authenticate” last month. “America was my home. I was a preacher of Islam involved in non-violent Islamic activism. However with the American invasion of Iraq and continued U.S. aggression against Muslims, I could not reconcile between living in the U.S. and being a Muslim.”

Anwar isn’t the only “terrorist” to sing this song. Indeed, it’s become the usual refrain. Over and over, Moslems that the Feds dismiss as terrorists blame American foreign policy for reactions the Feds dismiss as extremism. “Any state that does not mess with our security, has naturally guaranteed its own security,” Osama himself advised us in 2004. “…We fought you because we are free … and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours…While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon [during the Israeli invasion American busybodies encouraged in 1982], it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women…God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind.”

You might think the sense of this so self-evident that even the Feds would listen. After all, lex talionis, tit-for-tat, what-goes-around-comes-around has reigned internationally for millennia; that’s one reason George Washington recommended “extending our commercial relations” with “foreign nations” while forming “as little political connection as possible.” Attack a country by outright invasion (even when euphemized as “liberation”) or by meddling in its affairs, and sooner or later, its residents will defend themselves. Nevertheless, Our Rulers play checkers with the Middle East, manipulating peoples, governments, and whole countries to satisfy American politicians, special interests, or corporations.

DC’s thugs will see us all die in more 9/11’s rather than admit their culpability and cease their anti-Constitutional forays overseas. That’s because ending the War on Terror would cancel all those lucrative, cozy contracts belligerent bureaucracies from the Pentagon to the Transportation Security Administration hand out; “targeting” Anwar instead funnels billions of our taxes into corporations’ coffers and from thence to politicians’ campaign chests. No wonder yet another nameless “official” sniffed to the New York Times, “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual – through his own actions – has become one. … None of this should surprise anyone.” Especially those who understand corporatism and the transformation of a republic into a fascist empire.

Meanwhile, there’s this from Rep[ulsive] Jane Harman (D-Israel – whoops, I mean CA), neoconservative chair of “a House subcommittee on homeland security”: Anwar is “probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us.”

Don’t you hate false modesty?

April 10, 2010

Becky Akers [send her mail] writes primarily about the American Revolution.

Copyright © 2010 by Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Best of Becky Akers

The Sacrifices of the Religion of Liberalism

Posted: 04/11/2010 by Lynn Dartez in CFP

By Kelly O’Connell  Sunday, April 11, 2010

Why is it that leftist regimes always demand the same type of illogical and damned-to-fail policies? Most people see socialist programs as “goal oriented” in terms of outcomes, and of course this is how they are sold to the public. But, at a deeper level and given their ill-fated nature, there must be a unifying theme connecting all the different leftist plans. In fact, what is proposed here is a schemata tying together all the socialist, Marxist and leftist notions.


The fact is policy outcomes are not nearly as important as the sacrificial religious element found within. In brief, neo-liberalism is a humanistic religion, with its chief ideas stolen from Christianity, which encourages its adherents to see themselves as a small band of self-proclaimed geniuses. It instructs its immodest adherents to look down on non-leftists, and do anything possible to force the blinded masses into a liberal paradise on earth. This is essentially Barack Obama’s world view.


According to Eric Voegelin in various works, the fundamental design of leftism was hammered-out upon the anvil of religion by the post-French Revolution socialists, using the bible’s messianic redemptive outline of history. This intellectual germ was further influenced by the tripartite nature of history proposed by rogue medieval priest Joachim of Floris. Then was added the humanistic eschatology of the Middle Eastern pagan Gnostics whose Eastern understanding of religion filtered into the writings of early collectivists.

There is no doubt what is now called socialism or Marxism takes its elan, its joi de vivre, its essential life force, not from humanism, but from stock biblical themes. Some will understandably ask – How is this possible when all mature leftist regimes seek the conversion or demise of Jewish and Christian sects? The answer is the antagonism is caused not by disbelief, but results from envy. Such familial jealousy disputes the right to hold ground usually assumed by the church. In other words, Marxism and socialism seek to supplant true religious movements with a zombified doppelganger, or a malignant, evil-minded twin.

As such, modern neo-liberalism has been erected as a massive religious forgery, a titanic heretic cult. Modern “liberalism” itself began as a fraud movement when socialists changed their name to “liberals” when they realized they could never outstrip classical liberalism for its legendary reputation in helping build the West. So early 20th century progressives simply decided to steal the name and re-brand their undertaking.


In analyzing modern liberalism, we must begin with the preliminary premise that leftists see the secular state as not only godlike, but literally assuming all authority previously held by any religion. To point out the obvious, the assumed power and authority of the modern liberal state create a dangerous, pseudo-religious heresy. As a blind, humanistic replacement for traditional Christianity, modern liberalism has revealed itself as a murderous fraud that brooks no opposition, allows no human rights, and accepts no deviation from its manipulative and simplistic creed.

Specifically, neo-liberalism stands for certain propositions about the nature of reality. The claims: First, there is no God. Second, humans evolved and are therefore on our own and so we must create our own standards. Third, there is no soul, or attendant human nature. Fourth, since there is no God, no afterlife exists, and therefore all reward and punishment occur on earth. Fifth, it is the job of the small number of elites to create paradise and then drive the dull-minded masses into this earthly heaven. Any means of doing this are perfectly acceptable. Sixth, all warfare and weaponry is wrong. The only excuse for such is to defend socialist states, or to force other countries to accept reality – that the only moral government is collectivist. Sixth, all we can measure life by is the holding of material wealth, since no other humanistic standard exists. Seventh, the real work of mankind is building a human paradise that will protect all people, even via theft, fraud, propaganda, or at the end of a gun. The stakes are too high to accept any compromise on this last point.


The essential spirit of modern scholarship could be described as what happens when radical skepticism meets “scientific” dogmatism. The philosophy of modern liberalism is neo-positivism, being a supposed empirical approach to intellectual ideas. Science itself is therefore the only supposed arbiter of values, creating an alarmingly vapid circular model. That neo-liberalism has completely commandeered and derailed many “scientific” endeavors is a foregone conclusion after the exposure of the astounding socialist hoax called Global Warming. But such dishonesty will continue to be sold in the name of various studies, such as Evolution, environmentalism, and the like. It is no coincidence that Marx claimed all his ideas were the quintessence of science, which he appears to have done merely to push his theories past any criticism. But science’s formerly pristine method has been handed over to the godlike State so that order and values can be instilled in the blind masses.

The Hive

Meaning and secular salvation come to people from having a group identity. Liberals believe the only hope for mankind’s future lies in joining forces in the socialist group, much like how ant hills or bee hives survive. All authority is vested in the government. Antiquated cliques such as churches must be discouraged so that all humans can be on the same page, making decisions that benefit everyone, not just the few rich or powerful. So the notion of free will and rugged individualism, for so long a linchpin of American exceptionalism, must be sacrificed to the deified State so that all may be equally exceptional.

Bill of Rights

It goes without saying that the Bill of Rights must be handed over to the deified State so that all may be saved en mass, and live in peace. There can be no “individual rights” if salvation is only offered to the group, as pointed out by Igal Halfin in “From Darkness To Light: Class, Consciousness, and Salvation in Revolutionary Russia.” The Anglo-American legal heritage itself has been debased from its common law roots, and is likewise now simply a tautological undertaking known as positive law. This can only end in catastrophe. For example, that marriage is being remade without any regard for the natural law is itself a staggering failure to keep intellectual rigor. But law itself must be sacrificed to debase the population of any claim of fictive natural rights so people can be properly processed as mere automatons in the State’s self-articulative process into godhood.


In a perfect world, there would be no such thing as “taxes,” since the State as god would rightly own all wealth, wisely distributing it. But since America is not communist, a short-term compromise is found in collecting ever increasing levels of taxes until the capitalist society collapses and becomes Marxist. Because only a socialist society can truly make good decisions based upon the welfare of the whole, and not simply selfish, capitalist greedy ones. People ought not worry about building a vain empire for themselves on earth, but instead about the welfare of their fellow man. So, in offering up taxes, the people proffer a worthy material sacrifice to the god of materialistic government.


Liberals claim a delusion the notion that any parent has a natural right to direct their family outside of the State’s protocols. The “family” is now simply a subset of government, who properly holds all authority over it, such as in decisions for how to educate children. Leftists claim the family-cult is a root of much ignorance, selfishness, and dangerous fundamentalism. Christian fixations can only hamper the prophesied evolution of society as it moves from self-centered individualism into a group-oriented pod. Government-directed schooling, based upon John Dewey’s savage humanism, has achieved terrific socialist progress. Easy, no-fault divorces, unfettered abortion rights, and youth encouraged to amorally experiment with various partners without any regard to marriage, and with complete disregard to gender, all help plant future seeds of confusion and instability. The deified State erases timeless norms via lax laws and mindless propaganda campaigns, supplanting fatherhood by disdain and welfare support, in its bid to claim status as the only dependable human reality.


Whether to choose an abortion is a decision putatively belonging to the mother, which secular society itself ceaselessly promotes, upon the back of innumerable canards. The government has a vested interest in keeping down fertility rates so the planet does not get despoiled by Global Warming and overconsumption. A fetus has no rights, but even the rights of its parents are fictive. The State always has the option of preempting individual choices to make sure the group survives. In ancient societies, it was acceptable to leave children outside and allow them to die of exposure. Further, ancient religions, like the omnipresent Baal cult also had rites where children were incinerated or put to the sword as a sacrifice to the gods.


Liberals have a nuanced approach to the military. For America, they demand a decrease in armed forces spending, as well as disarmament because the US has too much power and so forces political and economic decisions upon weaker regimes. But for communist countries its argued they should be allowed to build up their arsenals, as illustrated in the atomic treason of the Rosenbergs. So why the seeming contradictory standards? In part, it is due to the influence of the historic peace churches, such as the Quakers, who helped develop the modern idea of pacifism later borrowed by neo-liberalism. From this angle, all violence is evil, even defensive. But when discussing the colossal militarism of the USSR, for example, unspoken concessions are made for the notion that to reach a one-world government, or socialist regime, some eggs will have to be broken. From this view, an army is allowed if it is used to coerce others into a socialistic, pacifist world, where the deified State can therefore more properly be acknowledged and accepted.


Capitalism is a profound evil because its manner of building wealth is based upon theft. The stages of economic history go from feudalism to capitalism, then from socialism to finally communism. Only in a communist country can true justice be achieved. The sacrifice of capitalism by the middle class and wealthy pleases the deified state since no longer will problems caused by greed, envy, or poverty.


The purpose of modern education is not to teach children how to think, because then they might go off on tangents and develop anti-social theories, like demanding “freedom.” Instead, the purpose of learning is to inculcate youth into the “truth,” and so prepare them to fit into a vertical command matriarchal society. Socialism must be the bottom line value, because therein lies the only hope of escaping capitalistic folly, menacing militarism, or the murderous evils of individualism. In the USSR the New Man was to be constructed through the university system, according to Halfin. But the god of the secular State must be worshiped via education, or all else will be lost.


To a socialist, religion is merely the illusion of a God who cares, or will intervene in human affairs. But instead of being a harmless delusion, religions are extremely detrimental because they distract and mislead the masses. Contra, people need to direct their gaze towards the government and put their faith in the political leadership. The trashing of traditional religion is the best sacrifice to the deified State imaginable.


The government itself is the only real God, according to genuine Marxists. This is why, even if liberals are involved in a “church,” their doctrines are debased into socialist programs that emphasize redistribution of wealth, and racial remunerations. Many Christians now declare the final age at hand, the so-called eschaton, ie “last days.” Liberals instead declare this as a secular apocalypse, where all that will remain is government and its authority. Any individual human rights will be extinguished. There will be no more wars, as all wealth will be owned by the deified State, and distributed for the good of all. Finally, happiness will reign for all people as mankind achieves its ultimate potential.


We must finally confront the vicious humanist creed of neo-liberalism. Modern leftism, aka socialism, ie Marxism, proposes a state that is indistinguishable from God. It is therefore owed every kind of sacrifice and allegiance typically demanded by the most deranged and aggressive cults. Marx borrowed the idea from Hegel that the government is the only approximate deity. Hegel had joined philosophy with the Christian religion and placed both in a German context for his deified State, according to Karl Lowith in “From Hegel to Nietzsche.” Hegel was merely moving along Spinoza’s theory that God was not a personality, but was the universe itself. This soulless entity gained voice via the political process of the government. In doing this, Spinoza was no mere modernizer, but a subtle advancer of the classical world’s idea of the deified State. In other words, Spinoza brought ancient Greek and Rome paganism into the modern world via his radical humanism.

It is now time to confront the fact that leftist speculative philosophy has overrun its bounds and is again menacing the entire West. One would think that communism’s murder of at least 150 million innocent souls in the last century would awaken the most indifferent American to the dangers we face in Obama’s infatuation with Marxism. Instead, we are reaping the rewards of several generations of desultory education of our youth. Now it is up to the remaining few patriots to once again rouse the countryside, like Paul Revere, to warn our people that our freedoms, and in fact our very lives are menaced by self-righteous and angry brainwashed collectivists. Let’s also hope the warning comes not too late to save ourselves.

CFP Post Today

Posted: 04/11/2010 by tpgow in 2011

Posted on April 11th, 2010

By Bill Turner

Under the rule of B. Hussein Obama, America, Americans, the economy, our Constitution, our freedom and our liberty are all worse than they were before. President Obama is an epic failure. The people that Generalissimo Obama has chosen to surround himself with are failures of epic proportions. An assault of unprecedented magnitude is taking place upon America and it is being driven by B. Hussein Obama. Listed below are just a few of the failures, mistakes, and assaults upon America committed by Obama and his minions, since January 20th 2009, when he took office:

Obama & China: Hey, let’s fly the Chinese flag at the White House, what could be the harm? What message could it send?

Government sanctioned desecration of bodies: Hey, why not take the organs without asking? Godless.

John Holdren: Forced sterilization, mandatory abortion and so much more. Nazi Germany brought to America.

Kevin Jennings: Fisting and your children, what could go wrong? How about allowing the man behind Fistgate to be Safe Schools Czar?

Van Jones: Avowed communist, radical, and racist put in charge of creating green jobs. He does, overseas. Oh, and he blames America for 9/11, calling it an inside job.

9/11: We will not honor the fallen from the attack upon America. Obama proclaims it interfaith day and honors Islam, the ones who attacked America.

Obama: Refuses to provide information about his past, raising major questions about his birth, his college days and why he surrendered his law license when charged with crimes. Nice.

Lockerbie: Obama knew of and allowed the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Who is now a hero, and still alive. Epic failure.

Bill Ayers: Frequent White House visitor, unrepentant terrorist and friend of Obama’s helping shape the brainwashing of America’s young.

Thug Politics: Muscling in on the banking, finance and auto industry is not presidential, it is communist, Un-Constitutional and immoral.

Free Speech: Obama declares war on free speech.

Off Drilling: It is good for everyone but America. In fact, Obama gives Soros two billion dollars to drill off shore, elsewhere.

Turbo Tax Timmy: Wonder boy, tax cheat, liar and fraud. Economy is still collapsing under the weight of his ignorance.

Scare Force One: Generalissimo Obama & the Air Force One joy ride around New York. How soon we forget his poor judgment started almost immediately, upon birth.

Nuclear Weapons: Obama decides Iran can have them and America cannot. What could go wrong?

Jihad: Obama lies, ignores and allows his Muslim brothers to run amok. Radical Islam removed from government language in the hopes it will be removed from America.

Homeland Insecurity: Multiple epic failures on behalf of DHS & Napolitano, making America un-safe once again.

Cap & Trade: Unemployment is high, the economy is poor, lets kill jobs & raise taxes. What could go wrong? We aren’t a third world country yet.

Health Care: Obama lies. Bill passes. We are finding out about the contents of the bill, including little things like no coverage for pre-existing conditions for children, and huge taxes on businesses, causing them to lay more people off.

Killing American Citizens: President Obama has authorized the intentional killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, of al Qaeda, because he is a security concern. He is an enemy combatant. He is also an American citizen. Think about that.

Where in the Constitution does it say that an American President (or Kenyan born American President) can order the execution of an American citizen because they are a security threat? Yes, he is a major pain in the posterior and an embarrassment to America. No, it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if he was killed in military action, he is, after all, fighting against America. But, for the President to direct American forces and/or intelligence agencies to assassinate an American citizen without due process is not acceptable.

Once a president crosses the line and orders the execution of a citizen, without due process, it opens the door to abuse. Who is to say that Obama will not order the execution of a conservative blogger, activist, or politician? What would stop a conservative president from ordering the execution of some liberal? Worse yet, once that wedge is in place between the citizens of America and the government, what would prevent a citizen or group of citizens from turning the tables, since the government decided to start knocking off the opposition? This move by Obama is part of the unraveling of America.

It should not matter which party you are in or what your political philosophy is on this one issue. We should all agree, this is a dangerous path for America to go down, we are not a third world country yet, despite what our tin pot dictator believes. We are Americans in America and are still afforded protections under the Constitution.