Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent, responds to Glenn Beck when asked if the nation is facing more or fewer dangers than in the past…
Let me say this plainly: This president is not failing; he is succeeding! He knows exactly what demographic he should go to; the older generation has not yet figured out this method. He is going to the younger generation, where the real battle is being waged; and that is where America must go if we are to win the future.
A recent poll out from the Washington Examiner stated that President Barack Hussein Obama is seen as America’s biggest “failure” among modern presidents.
Oh, how little the American people know about the history of tyrants and dictators like Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, etc.
The American people look at this president as if he does not know what he and his criminal administration are doing. Friends, he knows exactly what he is attempting to do! Barack Hussein Obama has already stated that he was out to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” If he is out to destroy what America is, then he is in fact not a failure, but rather a success.
For example: It was not too long ago that I heard many in the older age demographic saying they believed that this president made a huge mistake because he had so many people on government entitlement programs. Little did they realize that this was not a failure on the behalf of this president and his criminal administration; it was a total success.
He needed dependents; therefore, he created dependents. Those dependents were sure to keep him in office, and keep him in office they did. Was this a failure on his behalf, or a success? Who are a good majority of the dependents? I’ll tell you who they are: the up-and-coming generation.
What would you say if I told you that over 700,000 of the up-and-coming generation graduating from public schools in America each year cannot even read their own high school diplomas? This, in fact, is true. They cannot.
Is this a failure or a success on the behalf of those who wish to stupefy the next generation (Hosea 4:6)? Of course … a success!
On Dec. 4, 2013, the Obama administration announced that it would hold a special “youth summit social” for the “people who engage” the White House on social media.
The White House also requested that participants ages 18-35 (in 2008, 68 percent of those who voted for Barack Hussein Obama were in the age demographic of 18-33) are eligible to apply to attend this “White House event,” stated the White House in a blog post. “After you sign up, spread the word! Let your followers know that you applied to attend the #WHYouth social.”
The summit aims to educate young voters on the supposed benefits of enrolling in the Affordable Care Act.
Who else could they win over to their unconstitutional and unlawful “Affordable Care Act” except those who do not know the difference?
I have for the last 19 years spent my life reaching out to our posterity, who are now becoming our present leadership. Either America will take up the mission of reaching out to them, or you can rest assured this administration will. If this happens, American Christians and patriots will wish they had listened. There is still time (Deuteronomy 1:39).
The Church Militant:
Think the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman case was bad? You should see what MSNBC and Rachel Maddow did to Bradlee Dean. Help in his lawsuit against them. Stand for America and get your free gift.
It is easy to forget past beliefs that were held and then rejected. Then, when you encounter them again, stumbling over them like a child’s sneakers lurking in the dark hallway, it is hard to fathom that you once held such beliefs. I recently had just this experience when I recommended The Cider House Rules to my wife on movie night. Originally published in 1985, it is one of America’s most-celebrated author’s best-known books. It spawned a stage play and a film of the same name. The film, chock-full of stars like Michael Caine, Toby Maguire, Paul Rudd, and Charlize Theron, garnered 2 Academy Awards from 7 nominations.
I read the book in college and had kept the film in my queue for seemingly a decade, always intending to watch it at some point. When asked what sort of film it was, I positively affirmed to my wife that it was indeed a “chick-flick”. (Author’s note: I am not a glutton for punishment. I do not seek out opportunities to inflict the cinematic equivalent to waterboarding on myself. However, knowing that Christmas approaches and a Die Hard marathon is right around the corner, I saw the opportunity to pay it forward by pre-loading some chick-flickery onto the account.) What quickly became apparent was that The Cider House Rules is not a chick-flick…or an anyone-flick, for that matter. It’s a steaming pile of moral relativism, served up on a hot plate of self-righteous liberalism, delivered by a hatchet-faced waitress with a mole that would make Uncle Buck blanch.
The story takes place in Maine during the first half of the 20th century. The story centers around a young man, Homer Wells, who grows up in an orphanage without being adopted. He is mentored by the head of the orphanage, a doctor who is an ether addict and teaches Homer his craft (when he isn’t sleeping with one of the head administrators.) Homer is horrified by the doctor’s casual willingness to perform secret abortions on the girls who visit his orphanage for that purpose. Homer’s assertion that perhaps the women should have chosen not to engage in activity that could lead to pregnancy is ridiculed as naïve.
Homer makes friends with a young couple who come to receive the doctor’s services; and the man, an Air Force pilot headed shortly to the brewing conflict in Europe, offers Homer a job at his mother’s apple orchard. Over the next couple years, Homer is gradually corrupted by the world to the point that he steals his friend Wally’s girl while he is fighting Nazis overseas. When word comes back that Wally’s plane was shot down and he is now paralyzed from the waist down, Homer still wonders if his tryst might be able to continue. Homer also comes to realize that he has been given the power to perform abortions in order to Do Good in the world, and that his previous stance on personal responsibility and moral certitude was rubbish. In order to save the day, he performs an abortion and replaces his mentor as the head of the orphanage, when the doctor dies from an ether overdose.
I’m lucky we’re married. If this was a date, she would’ve gotten up and walked out (rightly so). As it was, we couldn’t even finish the film and turned it off midway through. I was stunned. Here was a vestigial remnant from my bleeding-heart days, staring me in the face. How could I have ever thought this was good?? The plot was teeming with obvious contrivances, meant to tug on emotions and discourage critical thinking. The moral (as funny as that sounds) seemed to be “Everyone is an icky bastard and so are you. Let’s party.”
I was fascinated, thinking how my moral trajectory developed in the exact opposite manner of Homer’s. I began as a moral relativist, steeped in the worldliness around me, eventually finding in God’s absolute morality what relativism could never provide. Homer began with an absolute view of morality and personal responsibility, bolstered by his upbringing in a house of unwanted byproducts of casual sexuality, and found more comfort in the quicksand of relative morality with its ever-shifting boundaries. The difference appears to be that Homer’s absolute morality was based in experiential truths, while mine is founded on the eternal truth of the one true God.
Supporters of abortion must value experience over innocence. They must view the cumulative life experience of the mother to be of more worth than the innocence of the life inside her. In a tragic way, it makes sense. Given that the pro-abortion crowd is forced to deny the intrinsic worth of human life, they frequently invalidate or minimize the existence of God and spirituality. And if existence has no spiritual component, then the Existentialists were right; and all meaning and worth is to be determined by acts of Will and the experiences we leave behind. Thus in one fell swoop, by aborting her child, a mother affirms her existence with a tragic act of Will and preserves her ability to live life on her terms, unencumbered by the consequences of her actions.
The one touching part of The Cider House Rules is when we see the impact that the love and care of Homer and the orphanage staff has on the younger orphans. The love of that community is portrayed as a gleam of hope in an uncertain world; yet no mention is made of all those souls who weren’t given the opportunity to experience that love, buried as they are in the small, cold graveyard behind the house built to shelter and protect unwanted children.
Photo credit: Hutson H (Creative Commons)
The South African Communist Party is admitting Nelson Mandela was a high-ranking member. Will the media report these facts? Or will the “myth” continue to prevail?
My friend Victor Lasky used to write books about liberal or left-wing figures that carried the name of the person and the subtitle, “The Man and the Myth.” He would compare the coverage of a political figure with the truth. The coverage of the death of Nelson Mandela has focused mostly on the myth. Key facts are being omitted, including Mandela’s secret membership in the South African Communist Party (SACP), which may shed light on the future of South Africa.
It’s very rare in all of the coverage, from Fox News to MSNBC, to find any reference to the central role that communism played in Mandela’s life. The evidence shows not only that he was a secret member of the South African Communist Party, but that he continued to deny membership in the party throughout his life. The cover-up is relevant to South Africa’s future and the role the SACP plays in the current government.
Mandela is being credited with trying to avoid a bloodbath after the black majority took power. But his denial of membership in the South African Communist Party, which turned out to be a lie, deserves attention and comment. What was he trying to hide? And was there more to it than mere membership in the SACP?
The SACP itself is not hiding the truth. In a tribute to “a true revolutionary,” its website declares, “At his arrest in August 1962, Nelson Mandela was not only a member of the then underground South African Communist Party, but was also a member of our Party’s Central Committee. To us as South African communists, Cde [Comrade] Mandela shall forever symbolize the monumental contribution of the SACP in our liberation struggle. The contribution of communists in the struggle to achieve the South African freedom has very few parallels in the history of our country. After his release from prison in 1990, Cde Madiba became a great and close friend of the communists till his last days.”
As president of South Africa, Mandela spoke to the South African Communist Party on its 75th anniversary, referring to its “alliance” with the African National Congress and others ruling South Africa.
Some of the truth about Mandela’s secret life as a communist has emerged in various books over the years.
In Mandela: The Authorized Biography, Anthony Sampson writes that Mandela started out as an anti-communist but “was impressed by The Communist Manifesto and by the biographies of South African Marxists like Paul Bunting and Bill Andrews.” Sampson went on to write, “He was struck by the Soviet Union’s support for liberation movements throughout the world, and by the relentless logic of dialectical materialism, which he felt sweeping away the superstitions and inherited beliefs of his childhood…” One of those beliefs was Christianity, and Sampson writes that Mandela “experienced some pangs at abandoning the Christian beliefs that had fortified his childhood…”
A photo in the book shows Mandela and his second wife, Winnie, at a 1958 wedding ceremony “attended by a few close friends, including the communist writer Michael Harmel.”
Harmel “joined our Party in 1939 and for the rest of his life the Party was his master,” states a tribute on the website of the South African Communist Party. It goes on, “As a dedicated internationalist he saw anti-Sovietism as a deadly weapon of the most reactionary circles; a weapon which imperialism, and its ally Zionism, use in their frenzied efforts to undermine and disrupt the underlying unity of national liberation movements and the Socialist countries…”
Mandela, Sampson wrote, studied communist revolution. “But it was the Cuban revolution which most inspired him and many of his colleagues.”
Sampson says that Mandela “recruited” Joe Slovo to Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the armed wing of the African National Congress, for a “campaign of sabotage” in South Africa. Slovo, in turn, “brought in a small group of communist experts” who knew about explosives. Slovo, a white communist, was dubbed “the KGB colonel” by those who considered him an agent or member of Soviet intelligence.
In the 2010 book Young Mandela: The Revolutionary Years, David James Smith writes about Mandela being “present at a secret meeting of the Communist Party in December 1960 when it decided to begin its own armed struggle, six months before Mandela even raised the subject with the ANC [African National Congress].” In 1961, he continued, the South African Communist Party “was still accepting funds from Moscow, using a Johannesburg travel agent as a conduit for the money. Mandela himself never fled from communism, though neither does it appear he was ever actually a party member…” He added, “One or two people have claimed he actually joined the party but Mandela himself always denied it…There is no doubt, however, that Mandela embraced communism and communists, considering them among his closest friends and political allies…”
Stephen Ellis, author of the 2012 book External Mission, found minutes of an SACP meeting at which a member of the central committee, John Motshabi, reminisced about Mandela’s recruitment. He also reported, “Evidence of Mandela’s SACP membership includes his participation in the Party’s December 1960 conference, where the decision was made to launch the organization later known as Umkhonto we Sizwe. Furthermore, at least seven prominent members of the SACP, in addition to Joe Mathews, have testified to Mandela’s party membership.”
Now, of course, we have the SACP itself admitting Mandela’s membership in the party and its important central committee.
But that’s not the message Mandela himself was sending just a few years ago.
President Barack Obama wrote the foreword to the 2010 book Nelson: Conversations with Myself, by Mandela. The book includes dialogue with Richard Stengel, the former editor of Time magazine who is going to work full-time at the Obama State Department. Mandela once again denied being a Communist Party member or being sympathetic to communism in any way. He told Stengel he had been “anti-communist” and only went to the SACP meetings because he was “invited.” He said he “attacked the communists,” and “I thought Marxism was something that actually was subjecting us to a foreign ideology.”
Now we know all of this was a lie, designed to fool foreign audiences and create the myth of Mandela. Our media have been part of the deception. Will they now correct the record and tell the truth before the communists acquire even more power in South Africa?
Interestingly, President Obama used the foreword to describe Mandela as “a liberation figure” who worked for “equality, opportunity, and human dignity.” But he said Mandela had acknowledged “that he has not been a perfect man” and had “his flaws.” Obama says the lesson is that we have to be “honest with ourselves” in the personal and political realms.
Clearly, Mandela was not honest with the public about his deep involvement with communism, including membership in the South African Communist Party. Then again, Obama was never honest with the American people about his mentor, Communist Party operative Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Soviet espionage apparatus in Hawaii.
Do we see a pattern developing here?
This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.
Photo credit: Paul Jacobson (Creative Commons)
I had lived on two farms by the age of 12. My dad made $100 a week. We paid no rent, the utility bills were small, and we grew much of our food. We went into town mainly to buy what we needed in the grocery store, send letters at the post office, and check out books at the library. If we needed clothes and “luxuries,” we drove to Warsaw, or Wabash, or Fort Wayne. We often went to Fort Wayne for glasses and usually stopped off to eat at an Azar’s Big Boy Restaurant. It was fast food; but since we could go inside, it was like a regular restaurant to me.
Even back then, I knew I wasn’t going to live the rest of my life on the farm. I was interested in science fiction and the future. I imagined and then drew what I called a stack farm back around 1966. It was over 40 stories tall and let sunlight in to shine on the crops. Hydroponics could be used, and nutrients plus water would be pumped past the roots in the walls to help the plants grow. A 100 story-tall stack farm might be located on an acre of land and produce like a 19,800 acre farm.
By and large, farmers are the forgotten Americans. When you consider the rate of inflation and the farm prices plus the expenses of farming, many farmers made out better a century ago than they do today. FDR tried to “help” farmers by having them kill livestock, dump milk, smash eggs, and plow under crops to jack up the prices. My grandparents hated Roosevelt for that because people were starving in America, and perfectly good food was being destroyed. But it is still done today. Trucks loaded with oranges will be dumped in an orchard, and the fruit will be allowed to rot instead of turning the oranges into juice and fertilizer for the orchard. Irradiation of fruits, vegetables, and meats could extend their shelf-life.
There is a farm bill being stalled in Congress and the Senate. Food stamps are the big sticking point. Republicans want them to be dealt with separately to indicate how bad poverty is, and I’m sure Democrats want to unionize farms and not give corporate welfare payments to corporate farms and those who aren’t farmers, yet benefit from subsidies. I have a friend who has been farming most of his life, and he told me that the government should let farmers grow what they want and cut back on the subsidies. He is a third-generation farmer and will probably farm until he can’t climb aboard a tractor. He keeps in shape by hammering iron on the old anvil and selling things at crafts markets. He was probably at Gettysburg this year shoeing horses as a blacksmith. He mainly raises hogs and hopefully made enough to put his two daughters through college. (But I haven’t talked with him for years, and I don’t know the situation.)
If the farm bill isn’t passed, inflation could rise a bit because commodity prices may soar if there are no price caps. A gallon of milk may go for over $5; and with a hard winter that has been predicted, livestock will die (and the price of your fast-food hamburger may rise by over 20%.) With the government having farmers grow corn for ethanol production, foods that have corn and corn syrup in them have already been priced higher. And where there used to be wheat fields, corn fields have replaced them (which drives up the price of food made from wheat.) Yet most people forget that 10% or more of the liquid that goes into their gas tank was once grown by farmers. And if you consider that more energy is used to grow and process corn than what comes from corn, using it as fuel doesn’t make much sense.
If the government wants to help farmers, it could let them grow what they want to grow, raise what they want to raise, and process what they can process. There are at least two plants in the nation that turn animal carcasses into fuel oil that can be used in Diesel engines and other engines that use my plasma igniters. Farmers should process dead animals to produce fuel. Genetically altered plants and animals could help farmers produce more food. And instead of throwing away blemished fruit, they should process it into juice. And once the honey bee blight is ended, farmers could have fields of clover that could be “processed” into honey. Genetic modification over the millenniums transformed corn from a grass into what we eat today, so don’t put down genetic modification in all cases.
Protein diversification would allow farmers to raise fish in ponds and grow bacteria and yeast to transform plant material into food. Corporate farms will still produce more food than family farms. But if the Agriculture Department cared about family farms, it would help them with research programs and government contracting so that American farmers could be paid to help farmers around the world. Until food replicators are perfected to turn sticks and stones into something similar to food, we’ll need our farmers to be able to make a living as farmers instead of farming being the death of them.
Photo credit: iluvcocacola (Creative Commons)
Webcams, a product that just a few years ago was a component consumers could purchase in addition to their home computers, are now ubiquitous across all technological platforms. While the inclusion of a convenient camera makes video chatting and photo sharing that much easier, it also gives the federal government another tool with which it can spy on citizens.
Although computer hackers have long been able to clandestinely access computer users’ cameras, a former Federal Bureau of Investigations official confirmed that agency is employing the same tactics to record private situations.
Marcus Thomas, who once served as the FBI Operational Technology Division’s assistant director, recently told the Washington Post that the bureau has the capability of turning on a person’s webcam without alerting the target whatsoever. Without even activating the light indicating a camera is recording, he explained agents have been able to access real-time personal activity without the consent of those being watched.
“Because of encryption and because targets are increasingly using mobile devices,” he continued, investigators have tried to stay ahead of the curve.
“There’s the realization out there that they’re going to have to use these types of tools more and more,” he concluded.
When whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed the National Security Agency collects records pertaining to countless phone conversations in the U.S., many considered him a hero for exposing the practice. As it turns out, phone calls represent just one aspect of our intrusive government’s spying program.
Though officials have continually denied agencies maintain widespread databases containing actual phone conversations, one wonders why the FBI would need access to webcams if not to capture private conversations.
In generations past, Americans enjoyed a level of confidence that their personal data would remain as such. Technological advances combined with an ever more intrusive federal government, however, leave little room for blind trust today.
It is becoming impossible to completely disengage from the network of computers controlling our modern world, which means government spies can and will snoop on anyone they choose.
–B. Christopher Agee
Have an idea for a story? Email us at email@example.com
A sophomore class at Palatine High School in Illinois recently received an English assignment designed to explore a controversial topic. Students were reportedly encouraged to tackle one of several topics for the research paper, though Abigail Cornejo said she was only allowed to explore one side of her chosen issue.
The pro-life student wanted to approach abortion from her own point of view, she explained, but was told she could only write on the subject if she advocated for what she considers murder.
The teacher, David Valentino, “originally told the class we may not do abortion, euthanasia, or legalization of marijuana,” she confirmed.
When she asked why abortion was off the table, Cornejo said Valentino responded, “I’ve read too many papers on it. I don’t care anymore.”
An instructor’s level of personal interest should have no bearing on whether a student is allowed to explore at topic; however, that is far from the most disturbing aspect of this story.
“The next day,” Cornejo continued,” for my controversial topic I wrote down abortion and he refused to approve my topic.”
She reported Valentino told her that if she wrote on the topic that she will “get an F” and “fail this class and have to retake it in the summer or next year.”
He then threatened to call her parents, she said, without explaining why her chosen topic was denied in the first place. Cornejo was not concerned, however, noting she was confident her parents would support her stance.
“I replied, ‘I’m against killing babies!’” she exclaimed. “He then said, ‘All right. You can do abortion if you write for it.”
Naturally, she refused, indicating she was “[a]ppalled at the thought of advocating for murder….”
Though she was ultimately forced to scrap her original idea, the principled student might just have the last word. She decided to write about stem-cell research, a topic Valentino approved, from her own perspective, confirming “this is just the beginning.”
Despite the best efforts of leftist educators, this student proves indoctrination and propagandistic lessons cannot negate the morality instilled into children by caring parents.
–B. Christopher Agee
Have an idea for a story? Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org
Photo Credit: -nanio- (Creative Commons)