When he was elected president, Barack Obama expressed his desire to “fundamentally transform America.” On an economic level, that explains his plans to siphon wealth from productive citizens to the indolent, entrepreneurs to union thugs, and Main Street to Wall Street (and 142nd Street). Spiritually, it means redistributing [...]

Read More and Comment: Obama: Screw Easter, Happy Ramadan!]]> Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

When he was elected president, Barack Obama expressed his desire to “fundamentally transform America.” On an economic level, that explains his plans to siphon wealth from productive citizens to the indolent, entrepreneurs to union thugs, and Main Street to Wall Street (and 142nd Street). Spiritually, it means redistributing respect from America’s majority religion to every splinter religion in the world’s pantheon. Although he could not be bothered to write a presidential statement celebrating Easter or acknowledging the severity of the Armenian genocide, the president of the United States has publicly commended Passover, Nowruz, Diwali, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha. (And he complains when no one believes he is a Christian.) He has praised the concept of umoja (black racial unity) while celebrating the phony, racist holiday of Kwanzaa. Now, he would like you to have a happy Ramadan. The president wrote….

Read more.

A deluded Christian leader predicted the world would end on May 21, but this weekend’s Norwegian terrorist attack has raptured the liberal media into the third Heaven. They exulted that the terrorist, who killed at least 76 people, is a “Christian fundamentalist” and possible “neo-Nazi” with (they repeatedly [...]

Read More and Comment: Norway’s Amazing Pro-gay, Pro-choice, Anti-racist, Masonic, Big Government, Zionist, Agnostic, Breakdancing, “Conservative Christian” Terrorist!]]> Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

A deluded Christian leader predicted the world would end on May 21, but this weekend’s Norwegian terrorist attack has raptured the liberal media into the third Heaven. They exulted that the terrorist, who killed at least 76 people, is a “Christian fundamentalist” and possible “neo-Nazi” with (they repeatedly pointed out) blue eyes. Anders Behring Breivik appears to be precisely the white conservative the Department of Homeland Security has spent two years warning us is the “most likely source of terrorism” in the United States. There’s just one problem: Breivik states he does “not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ or God,” questions “[i]f there is a God,” defines Christianity as as a cultural construct to oppose Islam, favors a “secular” society, supports abortion in many circumstances, describes himself as “pro-homosexual” and “pro-Israeli,” wants to transfer child-rearing from the family to the government, hates Adolf Hitler, belongs to the Freemasons, supports a “New World Order,” wants to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple…and has a soft spot for breakdancing.

As he was about to unleash his deadly assault, Anders Behring Breivik released his 1,500-word manifesto 2083 — A European Declaration of Independence under the pen name Andrew Berwick. Unlike many of the mass media “journalists,” this author has read nearly all of it. It paints a picture of Breivik that shatters the mainstream media template of an angry Christian yokel.

The Rise of the “Christian-Atheist” and “Christian-Agnostic”

To begin with, he does not appear to be a Christian. He insists atheists and agnostics “are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it.” He then asks:

So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians?

If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian (p. 1307).

The Cross, he writes, “should serve as the uniting symbol for all Europeans whether they are agnostics or atheists” (p. 1307).

To facilitate the new Crusades, Breivik and a group of others refounded the Knights Templar in April 2002. On page 817 of his tome, he notes that the 12 founding members included an “English Christian atheist,” a “German Christian atheist,” a “Russian Christian atheist,” a “Dutch Christian agnostic,” and three people with no religious description. That is, seven of the 12 founders do not feign any religion whatsoever.

The Knights’ ranks would be open to atheist recruits, whom he said would fight for secularism:

Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe’s Christian cultural heritage….European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want).

So no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist. (pp. 1361-2, Emphases in original).

For a “Christian fundamentalist,” Breivik skirted the definition of Christianity and diminished the importance of its practice. When describing his preparations for the attack he wrote, “If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. I guess I will find out…If there is a God I will be allowed to enter Heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past” (p. 1345).

However, he seems on thin ice for this belief. On page 1324, he introduces his “Christian justification of the struggle.” It consists of one verse from the Book of Psalms. In a later section on “self-defense” (pp. 1327-1334), he cites a series of Old Testament passages — and the verse in which Christ tells St. Peter to put his sword away, “for all those who take the sword shall perish by the sword” (St. Matthew 26:52-54).

Paganism may have played a greater motivating role than the religion of the Crucified One. Breivik writes, “Odinism is still and will always be an important part of my culture and identity” (p. 1360).

Despite his lack of faith, he has no timidity in planning to transform Christianity — or kill its leaders. Finding the faith of his fathers too passive and “suicidal,” he and his fellow knights “will rejuvenate” the Christian Church “by implementing our reforms” (p. 1307). The Church will always take a second place to secular learning, saying it is “essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings.” Later he says, since Pope Benedict XVI has not called for military coups in Europe, he “has abandoned Christianity” and is “a cowardly, incompetent, corrupt, and illegitimate pope…we will take the necessary steps to eradicate the corruption which is continuing to plague the Church” (p. 1327).

“Church leaders” who disagree with the Knights are listed as “Class B traitors” who will incur the “death penalty and expropriation of property/funds,” although he graciously allows, “Punishment can be reduced under certain circumstances.” He courteously tallied the exact number of Class A and B traitors in each EU country from the most (Germany at 82,820) to the least (Malta at 417).

Although he intends to kill at least some of the Church’s leaders, he does not target many of the issues held as vital by most Christians.

Pro-Gay, Pro-Abortion, Anti-Family “Christian Fundamentalism”?

Traditional Christianity opposes abortion, promiscuous sexual activity, and the homosexual agenda, but Breivik finds himself on the other side of these cultural issues. In an online post, he wrote, “we have to ensure that we influence other culturally conservatives to take our anti-racist[,] pro-homosexual, pro-Israeli line of thought.” Elsewhere, he says we must “Support Israel’s fight against Jihad” (p. 1243).

He assures us the sexual revolution “is not a Marxist concept but rather a liberal one,” and thus one we have to preserve. “So how do we preach chastity to a mob that wants unlimited access to free sex? The answer is that we don’t.” He added it was important not to “ram a puritan and deeply conservative way of life down the throat of everyone” (pp. 1168-9). Instead, he envisions the development of autonomous “liberal zones” similar to Las Vegas, where anything goes.

He allows for abortion ‘in the case of rape…or if the baby has mental or physical disabilities. The liberals zones may be exempt [from] this law” (p. 1179). A “ban on abortion,” he writes, would “strip women or basic rights” (p. 1181).

Many of Christianity’s cultural opponents have sought to redefine marriage. So does Breivik. “Marriage must be based on a specific agreement between a man and a woman who creates [sic.] an advanced pact which must have a limited validity of at least 20 years” (pp. 1176). These contracts fit into his plan to transfer child-rearing from the family to the State.

“Outsource Breeding” for the State

Similar to other totalitarians, Breivik the alleged “Christian fundamentalist” would destroy the family. He proposes what he calls “outsource breeding” by women in “low cost countries,” who would produce babies on demand. The parents could select sex traits via “reprogenics” (pp. 1192-4). Once the engineered babies arrive on shore, Breivik would have “the state, or state funded institutions take on the fostering [of] these children.” This will begin with “kindergarden boarding school” at “age 0,” where they will be “assigned a specific surname,” and continue through college at age 25 (p. 1182-3). The “parents” assigned to them would follow them for at least 25 years and be paid based on “performance” (p. 1196). To ease matters, schooling will be replaced with a “Brain-Computer Interface,” which loads “15-30 years” of learning “from an external device to the brain” (p. 1199).

If Breivik values few Christian conservative issues, he has strong convictions that there are too many people on earth — approximately three billion too many.

Anders Breivik: The John Holdren of Terrorism

Breivik wrote that “Overconsumption, pollution, and overpopulation are the three problems that threaten the future of life on earth” while calling for “global population control” (p. 1200-1). “We should create population capacity guidelines for continents or countries. If starvation threatens the countries who have failed to follow our guidelines, we should not support them…or send them any kind of aid.” “Our planet should not exceed 3 billion individuals so radical policies will have to be implemented” (p. 1202).

An environmentalist campaign of population control hardly sounds Christian or fundamentalist. However, it closely echoes the writings of current Science Czar John P. Holdren, who envisioned a similar scheme in his book Ecoscience.

Breivik appears to be an economic centrist. He wrote, “To my left you will find a socialist, to my right you will find a social democrat” (p. 1355). He favors the “development of alternative energy” to “save the environment” (p. 1199) and argues it is “essential” that “national states have a controlling stake in” multinational corporations (p. 1196).

The Breakdancing Zionist “Neo-Nazi”

The media intimated Breivik may be a neo-Nazi, based on his concern for Europe and, apparently, his blue eyes….

Read more.

Each time President Obama addresses America’s inalienable rights, I get emails. “Did you see Obama left out ‘Creator’ again?” began the latest.

The most recent occasion was a June 17 presidential statement responding to a UN resolution on sexual orientation. Obama stated that “LGBT persons are endowed with the [...]

Read More and Comment: Obama Wants to Cut God Out of Government]]> Dr. Paul G. Kengor, FloydReports.com

Each time President Obama addresses America’s inalienable rights, I get emails. “Did you see Obama left out ‘Creator’ again?” began the latest.

The most recent occasion was a June 17 presidential statement responding to a UN resolution on sexual orientation. Obama stated that “LGBT persons are endowed with the same inalienable rights—and entitled to the same protections—as all human beings.”

I can imagine why Obama and his speechwriters excluded the Creator in this particular statement. To say that “LGBT persons,” meaning lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, have inalienable rights is one thing. After all, in the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson affirmed that “all” human beings are endowed with “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

I take the Founders at their word. “All” means “all.” And this, wrote Jefferson, with the hearty approval of John Adams, Ben Franklin, and the entirety of the Continental Congress, is a “self-evident” truth.

No one should argue that “LGBT persons” don’t have inalienable rights.

And who endows those rights? The Creator does.

President Obama and his speechwriters and staff surely knew that to bring the Creator into this statement on sexual orientation would generate a firestorm over origins—from the origins of man and marriage to the origins of sexual orientation, from the ancient words of Genesis to the modern text of the Defense of Marriage Act.

That said, this is far from the first time President Obama has been selective with inalienable rights and, more tellingly, with their preeminent Author. As CNS News reported, this was the third time this year alone that Obama used the language of “inalienable rights” but omitted the “Creator.”

In fact, this tendency by Obama began literally at the very start of his presidency….

Read more.

Last week – Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner admitted he had “Tweeted” lewd underwear shots of himself to at least six women; yesterday, he resigned for it. Former Senator and Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards was indicted for using campaign funds to hide his mistress (who was then pregnant with his [...]

Read More and Comment: Weinergate: Liberals Create Cultural Rot, and Wonder Why There Are So Many Pigs]]> Don Feder, GrassTopsUSA.com

Last week – Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner admitted he had “Tweeted” lewd underwear shots of himself to at least six women; yesterday, he resigned for it. Former Senator and Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards was indicted for using campaign funds to hide his mistress (who was then pregnant with his child). In a Manhattan courtroom, Socialist one-time IMF head Dominique Strauss-Khan pleaded not guilty to charges of attempted rape and unlawful imprisonment.

And Arnold Schwarzenegger was thanking his lucky stars that the media was momentarily distracted from his scandal – the admission that he had an out-of-wedlock child with a member of his household staff, 14 years ago.

Political sex scandals now cover the spectrum from the criminal to the reprehensible, to the seriously weird. In the midst of the tsunami of political raunch, media elites ask why our leaders are behaving so badly in their personal lives. (Why can’t they content themselves with screwing the voters?) For the answer, “Cherchez le culture,” as the French would say.

Last Saturday, the Queens Congressman (described by the New York Times as “once a rising star” in the Democratic Party) announced he was entering a treatment facility for psychological disorders, after three top Democrats called for his resignation. Obama became the fourth on Monday.

Weiner spokesman Risa Heller chirped that the congressional underwear model would “seek professional treatment to focus on becoming a better husband and a healthier person.” Healthier is here defined as not sending lewd snapshots of himself in an obvious state of arousal to women who’d contacted him through the social media to discuss politics

Speaking at two Planned Parenthood rallies earlier in the year, the pervie pol declared, “My name is Anthony Weiner, and I stand for women.” It now appears he was making a sexual, rather than a political, statement.

To cries of “Shame on you!” from rallying hotel chambermaids, Strauss-Kahn entered a courthouse to plead not-guilty to charges that he tried to rape a maid who had entered his $3,000-a-night suite at the Sofitel Hotel (some socialist).

The incident had French women coming out of le woodwork, charging DSK (as the French media refer to him) had groped, wrestled with them, or tried to rip off their clothes in previous amorous encounters. One (then a 22-year-old reporter whose physical assets Strauss-Khan tried to nationalize in 2002) said the man who was considered a shoo-in for the Socialist nomination for the French presidency behaved ‘like a chimpanzee in rut.”

Edwards (who used to collect $50,000 fees for speeches on fighting poverty) and Schwarzennegger – who championed abortion and gay rights as governor – each had a love child. In a political sense, neither can say, “I’ll be back!”

It was amusing to hear Democrats make morality noises. This was indefensible! Weiner should resign. But wasn’t it just about sex? After all, everybody lies about sex. And it’s none of our business – and other clichés they clung to during the Clinton impeachment. (Why aren’t members of the sisterhood lining up to administer oral gratification, in gratitude for Weiner’s help in keeping abortion “safe and legal”?)

Typical of the establishment media and political elite, Time magazine is perplexed by these sexual escapades. A cover story in the May 19th issue asks….

Read more.

That is the question asked by the left-leaning Christian organization, Sojourners, in its campaign of the same name. It is a most appropriate question given the battle over the budget and given this time of year, not long after the most holy holiday of the year for Christians.

Sojourners claims [...]

Read More and Comment: What Would Jesus Cut?]]> Dr. Shawn Ritenour, FloydReports.com

That is the question asked by the left-leaning Christian organization, Sojourners, in its campaign of the same name. It is a most appropriate question given the battle over the budget and given this time of year, not long after the most holy holiday of the year for Christians.

Sojourners claims that, despite record budget deficits and national debt, reducing subsidies for things like vaccines and bed nets in Africa, school lunch programs, early childhood education, and income maintenance in the United States is immoral. Indeed, such subsidies, Sojourners says, “are dollars we can’t afford to not invest.”

What are we to make of these claims? Certainly we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves and this love, when directed toward the poor and needy, must manifest itself by providing real material help to those who truly need it. It is not enough merely to wish a suffering soul to be warm and well fed. We must be willing to put our money where our mouth is.

It is a mistake, however, to treat as materially poor those who merely have lower incomes than others. For example, the average officially “poor” American has more living space than the average person living in Paris or London. Sixty-two percent of officially poor American homes have satellite or cable television and nearly 75 percent own an automobile. In the United States, what passes for poor certainly does not imply destitution.

Most important, we need to remember that….

Read more.

In a fit of political correctness, a Seattle school now has renamed Easter eggs as “Spring Spheres.” Candy canes sporting the red color of Christ’s blood and the green of the Christian Christmas tress have all but been banned from our schools. As I stood to hear the Palm [...]

Read More and Comment: In Public Schools, Easter Eggs are now “Spring Spheres”]]> Suzanne Eovaldi, FloydReports.com

In a fit of political correctness, a Seattle school now has renamed Easter eggs as “Spring Spheres.” Candy canes sporting the red color of Christ’s blood and the green of the Christian Christmas tress have all but been banned from our schools. As I stood to hear the Palm Sunday sermon in church last week — an account of Our Lord’s Passion and death on the Cross — I grew increasingly angry and hurt. How dare they? How dare they take away our Christmas and Easter holidays?

The world could not fathom the fact that this 75-year-old was allowed to sing Christmas carols in my grade school. Just this week, my daughter called and after two very long phone calls from her in one week, she said at the end, “Mom, I’m afraid.” She and her husband are rearing four boys at home and have another away at the Illinois university I attended.

How dare our Liberal-in-Chief order Georgetown, a putatively Roman Catholic university, to cover its crucifix before he would deign to speak for them? How dare his pastor of 20 years call out from his own pulpit to damn America in the most blasphemous of oaths? How dare Michelle Obama….

Read more.

I never thought I would write these words but — God bless Kim Kardashian. On her website, nestled beneath announcements of Belle Noel’s spring collection and “Jenny McCarthy’s fearless ShoeDazzle Shoe!” is a blog entry entitled, “Time to Recognize the Armenian Genocide.” In it, the reality show star reminds the world [...]

Read More and Comment: Will Obama Betray Armenian Christians on Easter Sunday?]]> Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

I never thought I would write these words but — God bless Kim Kardashian. On her website, nestled beneath announcements of Belle Noel’s spring collection and “Jenny McCarthy’s fearless ShoeDazzle Shoe!” is a blog entry entitled, “Time to Recognize the Armenian Genocide.” In it, the reality show star reminds the world of one of the twentieth century’s earliest, and most ignored, massacres.

Kardashian, who is Armenian, reveals, “Every year, I honor the memory of the martyrs who were killed during the 1915 Armenian Genocide. Even though so many countries around the world recognize the Genocide, the government of Turkey still denies it.” And Ankara is not alone. Kardashian took the opportunity to “urge the United States government to recognize the Armenian Genocide.” Kardashian adds, “There’s going to be a National Day of Prayer in churches across America to celebrate Easter and commemorate the Genocide.”

She is far from alone in asking the U.S. government to recognize historical reality. California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer said earlier this week the refusal to call the Muslim slaughter of 1.5 million Armenian Christians a genocide “is not only an affront to the memory of the victims and to their descendants, but it does a disservice to the United States as it seeks to stand up to those who are perpetrating violence today.”

Although Obama campaigned on a promise to acknowledge the full depth of the atrocities, he broke the promise last year. And he appears to be ready to do it again on Easter Sunday.

Read more.