What Is An 'Anti-American?'

An anonymous poster in the comments section of this blog took me to task over referring to former Democratic Presidential candidates George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, and John Kerry, and the present candidate Barack Obama, as anti-American.

I stand by the charge.

Thus, what is the definition of an 'anti-American?'

An anti-American is one whose political ideology is diametrically opposite of that which is embodied in the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution is our final authority in all matters of law and governance.

Thus, one cannot be for robbing citizens of their right to own, bear, and use firearms for defense and protection, and then claim to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The two are mutually exclusive.

One cannot promote measures that limit free speech, free exercise of religion, a free press, or the freedom to assemble, and claim to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The two are blatantly incongruent.

And it really doesn't matter how much time such persons may have spent in the military. Some have even gone to war. While that is admirable, such acts of service to one's country do not automatically make them pro-American if they turn around and trash the Constitution in their political beliefs.

This is why in the United States of America one can be a true patriot even if they never served in the official, government-sanctioned military. And serving in that military does not automatically make one a patriot.

It is all about beliefs, ideology, political philosophy.

And this is precisely why I will fight tooth and toenail against those who self-righteously claim to be 'patriots' who love their country but who nonetheless work to rob citizens of their Constitutional rights, condone the killing of unborn infants and even those who survive attempts to kill them (this is barbarism every bit as dangerous as the Nazis and Communists), and who in the name of religion seek to steal from ordinary citizens through taxation to pay for programs that government has no business implementing in a free society.

In short, I don't give a damn what your military service has been if your views are more in line with Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, and Karl Marx than with Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Patrick Henry.

As the old saying goes, 'Just because a mouse gets into the cookie jar doesn't make him a cookie.'

Too Much, Too Late

Like a man who suddenly realizes that he has stepped into quicksand, Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama was doing the fancy dance on Friday and Saturday, repeatedly denouncing and repudiating the man whom he has consistently described as his close friend, spiritual advisor and mentor, and Pastor.

But clearly this is a case of too much too late.

As indicated by the Shakespearean phrase, 'Methinks thou doest protest too much,' Obama's repeated attempts over the past 2 days to distance himself from his Pastor and spiritual guide of 20 years appears highly disingenuous and indicative of a man who has been caught in his own web of deceit.

If the Senator thought that the statements of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright were 'repugnant,' 'inflammatory,' and 'appalling,' then why did he not say so when the statements were first spoken?

The Reverend Wright has a long history of making anti-American and inflammatory statements. For Obama to suddenly claim, only now, that Wright's statements are to be repudiated and condemned smacks of political opportunism at its worst.

Obama has been caught with his pants down, and now he hopes no one noticed anything underneath as he quickly, with a magician's touch, claims nothing happened.

The fact is, however, that millions of Americans have seen the goods, and they ain't pretty.

For Obama to denounce and repudiate the views, beliefs, and statements of his spiritual advisor and Pastor after 20 years of attending his church and sitting under his tutelage is one of the most ridiculous displays of deception that we have ever witnessed in politics.

During the 20 years that Obama sat under the almighty wisdom of the Reverend Wright, he has been treated to a regular diet of anti-Americanism (Wright once stated from the pulpit 'God damn America'), fixing blame for AIDS and the 9/11 attack on the U.S. Government, anti-Semitism (he claims the U.S. is evil for supporting Israel over the Palestinians), and perhaps the most damning statement of all, insisting that those who attacked us on 9/11 acted appropriately and justifiably in retaliation against American foreign policy.

Never once did Barack Obama repudiate any of these statements...until the mess hit the fan last week with widespread news reports concerning Wright's 'controversial' views.

It was then and only then that the candidate decided it would be best to publicly denounce the man he has always described in glowing terms.

To put it in the modern vernacular, 'This AIN'T gonna cut it.' And Americans are already seeing right through it.

In one single 24-hour period, according to the Rasmussen poll which monitors these things on a daily basis, Barack Obama's support has fallen 5 percentage points. Hillary Clinton's support has risen by 4 percentage points. And John McCain has now surpassed both Obama and Hillary in head-to-head matchups, beating Obama by 5 points and Hillary by 4 points.

Although it is still way too early to tell, perhaps voters are seeing that the halo they have placed around Obama is crooked and has holes. The one thing the candidate had going for him was his supposed lack of any semblance of disingenuousness, dishonesty, or 'dirty politics.'

One thing is for sure whether the voters get it or not, Obama can no longer claim clean hands.

Symbols Mean Something, Senator

Senator Barack Obama took off his American flag lapel pin.

Stating that from now on he will speak about the meaning of the flag rather than wear it, the Democratic Presidential hopeful has obviously failed to grasp the importance of symbols, particularly on the part of one who would be President. Wearing the flag, it would seem, would present even MORE opportunities to explain what the flag means than taking it off.

In fact, the candidate symbolically declared today why he is unfit to be President in one simple symbolic act.

Men who would be President of our country do not shun symbols of our flag but embrace them.

What does this act say, for example, to Kim Jong Ill, or Fidel Castro and the oppressed who live under Cuban Communism, or to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? A would-be President of the United States expresses disdain for wearing the symbol of his country? No doubt the act gives rise to the notion on the part of the tyrants of the world that Obama is ashamed of America's symbol.

There is but one reasonable explanation for Obama's actions. He feels it is much more important to appease the extremists who have seized control of the Democratic Party than to express allegiance to his country. He would rather please anti-war activists who have spit on the flag and burned it, referred to our troops in Iraq as murderers, and who have denigrated our military in general by referring to one of its top commanders, General Petraeus, as a traitor, than to overtly and proudly display the world's number one symbol of freedom.

George Soros, Moveon.org, and Media Matters are very proud, I am sure.

Thus, here is yet one more example of the swiftness with which Democrats embrace symbolic, anti-American gestures. The Dems can't appear too patriotic lest they alienate their main donor base.

The actions of Barack Obama hearken back to another era in America, during and after the Viet Nam War when the Democratic Party increasingly came under the influence of anti-war activists. At the 1972, 1976, and 1980 Democratic National Conventions the American flag was basically nowhere to be seen.

In fact, one commentator commented that the Democrats had so alienated the American public by shunning the flag that in 1984 they basically wrapped themselves in the flag in a last-ditch effort to try to defeat Ronald Reagan.

Americans saw through the ruse and elected Ronald Reagan to a 2nd term in one of the biggest landslides in American history.

The Iraq War has once again pushed to Democrats to the far-Left, so far, in fact, that Americans are beginning to wake up. The Democratic controlled Congress certainly inspires no confidence among the public with its dismal and historic low public approval rating of 11%.

Perhaps Americans will connect the dots and see that the same disease that infests Congress also infests the Democratic Presidential candidates.

It is possible, of course, that Obama unconsciously recognizes that the positions he espouses are a desecration to the flag and the liberty it symbolizes. In that case, it is better to take the flag off in order to espouse anti-freedom than to wear it as a hypocrite.

San Francisco Snubs Navy's Blue Angels

San Francisco (TLS). In a tradition dating back to 1981, the U.S. Navy's Blue Angels have put on a spectacular aerial show in San Francisco that has drawn visitors from coast-to-coast, pumping millions of dollars into the local economy.

So-called 'peace activists,' however, are mounting strong opposition to San Francisco hosting the show for yet another year, claiming it glorifies 'militarism' and war.

Blonde Sagacity has written an excellent piece on this yet another example of the anti-Americanism of San Francisco:
http://mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com/2007/06/blue-angels-not-welcome-in-san-fran.html

The Fall of American Protestantism

Washington, DC (TLS). American Protestantism as we once knew it is dead. What was known as 'mainline Protestant denominations' in America have fallen so far away from their spiritual heritage that it is a mistake to refer to their present ideology as 'spiritual' or 'Christian.' A new book that is making its rounds in certain circles should put to rest any doubt that mainline Protestantism is gone.

A book entitled 'American Empire and the Commonwealth of God' has been published by John Knox Press, the publishing arm of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. The book refers to America as 'demonic' and proceeds to direct every single term of derision known in the English language against the United States. In fact, the authors claim that the U.S. is a Nazi nation and poses the single biggest threat to the security of the world on the planet.

In spite of the fact that the book purports to be written by 'theologians' and 'scholars,' one is hard-pressed to believe it since they are so obviously out of touch with the real world. Apparently these Einsteins have never heard of Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or Hezbollah.

Oh, I forgot. The common stance among America's so-called 'intelligentsia' today is that Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization but a group of 'freedom fighters.'

And I suppose they would think that Hitler was just a nice guy who happened to like skeletons.

For a group that claims to be among America's finest intellects to suggest that America is more dangerous to the world than the individuals and groups listed above should be enough not only to dismiss the entirety of their work but to issue an urgent appeal for them to be evaluated by a psychiatric professional. Their charge is so far over the top that serious-minded people will find it difficult to lend credibility to anything they say.

And hence, the fall of American Protestantism. Mainline Protestant churches for years have fallen victim to every single Leftwing extremist contention known to mankind. In fact, when one visits the average congregation among the mainline churches, one is apt to hear a sermon about how dreadful America is, how government needs to expand to take care of the 'poor, needy, and sick,' and that anytime we defend ourselves against thugs who wish to blow up the world we are 'warmongering.' Precious little of the Christian Gospel that was once preached from these very pulpits in the 18th, 19th, and even part of the 20th centuries is heard today in these churches.

Since the mid-1960s it has been widely speculated that one of the key reasons for the massive decline in membership among mainline Protestant churches is their close association with Liberal politics. As more religious propaganda began to pour from the mouths of pulpiteers who equated the teachings of Christ to the politics of the extremist Left, more and more members headed for the hills. For example, from 1965 until 1985, the United Methodist Church lost upwards of 9 million members. The United Presbyterian Church, which merged with the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. to form the Presbyterian Church, USA, has lost over 5 million members. The declines are also most pronounced in the United Church of Christ (to which Barack Hussein Obama belongs), the Disciples of Christ, and the Episcopal Church.

The rank and file members of these extremist Leftwing religious organizations apparently had no stomach for the liberal political propaganda they were hearing week by week.

Interestingly, while the mainline Protestant churches were in a free-fall in membership, evangelical Christian groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the Assemblies of God, the Presbyterian Church in America (the conservative Presbyterians), and Charismatic and Pentecostal groups grew like wildfire.

The situation within the United Methodist Church became so critical that the denomination began to try various means, beginning in the late 1980s, to stem the tide of membership losses. Interestingly, one of the top suggestions that came from the lay people is that less power needed to be concentrated in the clergy and more power given to the laity, which would result in a much more conservative church. From the point of view of the laity, clergy persons who had been educated at the denomination's ultra-liberal seminaries and theological schools were the ones responsible for the decline--because they preached purely a social gospel based upon Leftwing politics.

Interestingly, one of the authors of 'American Empire and the Commonwealth of God' is a professor at Drew University and Theological Seminary--a United Methodist institution. The book was on sale by the United Methodist Publishing House at a national conference on evangelism last month, but the overwhelming majority of United Methodists who attended passed up the book and opted instead to buy material that was more in line with a traditional understanding of the faith.

This is not at all surprising, given the fact that the authors of the book explicitly gave their support to any cause that would bring about the demise of the 'evil American fascist empire,' such as Cuba, Iran, and Venezuelan Communist dictator Hugo Chavez, who referred to President Bush as 'the devil.' Apparently the authors of this book agree with him.

No longer can the citizens of this country sit still while subversive Leftists who infest the faculties of America's theological schools, and their churches, mount a continued assault on American liberty, free-thought, and free enterprise in the name of religion. The Liberty Sphere believes that ultimate evil is embodied in anti-freedom. Thus, if there is any evil afoot in America today, it is the propaganda of America's mainline Protestant churches that espouse a Liberal, Socialistic Communist political agenda in the name of the Lord.

That, my friends, is blasphemy.

For more information on this story, the book and its authors, click here:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26887