Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Accounting for the 4 Fundamental Laws of Logic

The laws of logic are not relative conventions (or agreed upon principles).
  • They are absolute because they are NOT subject to "vote".
  • They are NOT based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory.
  • They are NOT derived through observing natural principles found in nature.
  • They are conceptual realities (they only exist in the mind).
  • They do not describe physical behavior of things since behavior is action and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth.
  • One has to use logic to try to disprove, refute, or even deny it.
  • Logic is necessary or indispensable in life. One literally can not live without it!
Logic or reason is undeniably true, unavoidable, self-evident and applicable to all coherent discussions. That is, one cannot NOT use logic (at least not so and engage in an intelligible discussion at the same time). Logic is a necessary precondition of all intelligible thinking.

The following are the four primary laws of logic:

1- The Law of Non-Contradiction:
Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time in the same way and in the same sense. (A cannot be A and not A at the same time.)

2- The Law of Excluded Middle:
A statement is either true or false. Thus the statement "A statement is either true or false" is either true or false. A is either A or not A. (See, e.g., Matthew 12:30.)

3- The Law of Identity:
Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature. A is A or A is identical with A. (e.g., the Christ of the Bible is not the "Christ" of the cults or the occult.)

4- The Law of Logical or Rational Inference:
Law of Sufficient Reason. There should be sufficeint reason to all happenings.
If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.
For example, the word trinity is not found in the Bible, but the concept is found in the Bible.
(see, e.g., Deut. 6:4; Eph. 1:3; John 1:1; 20:28; Acts 5:3-4; and Mark 12:29-30).

The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.

We are created in the imago Dei--the image of God. This includes, among other attributes, the ability to reason. This entails the value of evidence and reason.

For example, we are told in 1 Corinthians 10:31 "So whether you eat or drink [or think] or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."

We are told in 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." I believe that reasoning well is one of those "weapons."

Israel Defense Forces YouTube initiative: The New Media Offensive

The Israeli army announced yesterday the creation of its own YouTube channel, through which it will disseminate footage of precision bombing operations in the Gaza Strip, as well as aid distribution and other footage of interest to the international community.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

A New Hate Crime Exposed

On October 15, 2008, Brooklyn-raised and Polish immigrant Marine sergeant, Jan Pawel Pietrzak and and his African-American bride of two months, Quiana Jenkins Pietrzak were tortured and killed execution-style in their California home - allegedly by four other Marines under his command. Here's the full story. ABC News video here.

Prosecutors said the motive was robbery but the Marine's mother insisted that it was not about money.

This horrible crime has all the evidence of a hate crime, but the mainstream media won't touch it and law enforcement is afraid of it.
Exit Question: What was it about Jan Pawel and Quiana that inspired such hatred?

The taste of freedom and the barefoot press corps

On December 14, 2008, Muntazer Al Zaidi, an Iraqi journalist working for Al-Baghdadia of Cairo, was frog-marched barefoot from a news conference in Baghdad after throwing his showes at President George W. Bush. He is described to be anti-American and had already been previously arrested by Amercian troops for other reasons. He was also reportedly kidnapped by Shiite militia men last year, only to be released after intervention by his employer.

The mainstream media had a field day reporting this story, how this journalist is now being viewed as a hero of sorts, and how the shoe-mania is spreading across the Muslim world. What I haven't heard from the mainstream press, however, is why this man was permitted to throw his shoes at the American president in the first place.

If it were not for the new freedom bestowed upon the Iraqi people, that Journalist would not have been able to throw his shoes in disgust at a press conference without any fatal consequences. At least he made it out of there barefoot and alive.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Micah 5:2 Pinpoints the Messiah

Micah 5:2 is one of the clearest indicators given in the Hebrew Scriptures for identifying the Messiah, a prophecy which both pinpoints the exact birth location of the Messiah, as well as telling us much about the character and power of this Anointed One.

Micah 5:2 reads, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

Bethlehem Ephratah: Place name used to designate birthplace of new David who would come from Bethlehem, David''s birthplace, and of the clan of Ephratah, that of Jesse, David''s father (1 Samuel 17:12.

Jesus the Messianic King:
He will arise as a shepherd over the flock (Ezek. 37:24), and will establish his kingdom to the ends of the earth (Isa. 9:7).

From Everlasting: To emphasise the eternal pre-existence of divine Wisdom with God.
Jesus had an existence before his temporal birth in Bethlehem.

Reporting the climate crisis: A form of hysteria

Here's another example of a media outlet offering self-evident misinfomation in the face of both the data of the past decade and the immediate experience of people in their daily lives right now.

Despite the nation experiencing its tenth straight year of temperatures cooler than 1998's peak, and much of New England experiencing its worst ice storm in decades (video embedded), the Associated Press published one of the most hysterical articles concerning global warming I've ever seen. In writer Seth Borenstein's view, climate change is "a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid." "Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it."

For those that can stand it, here are some of Borenstein's
disgraceful lowlights.

Actor Gary Sinise: Recipient of the 2008 Presidential Citizens Medal

No Hollywood star has stepped up to support active duty U.S. military personnel and wounded veterans like Gary Sinise.

President Bush presented him with the Presidential Citizens Medal, the second highest civilian honor awarded to citizens for exemplary deeds performed in service of the nation.

He is a humanitarian and a patriot. Working alongside our military and reaching out a compassionate hand to Iraqi children, he is helping a society once brutalized by a tyrant to rebuild and realize the great blessings of liberty. He has also travelled the world to show America’s gratitude to our service members. The United States honors Gary Sinise for his efforts to improve the human condition and his strong commitment to the selfless men and women who devote their lives to military service.

Friday, December 12, 2008

U.S. Two States Away from Constitutional Convention

The American Policy Institute has issued an urgent alert stating that we are only two states away from a Constitutional Convention.

This political meeting is for the purpose of revising our exisitng constitution and probably to include amendments for the separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much more destructive laws, which would impact our way of life.

It's time to take action!

The Truth About the Federal Reserve

Past Presidents warned us about an all powerful central government and the dangers and corruption of a central banking system.

The dangers of central banking may lead to corporate fascism. If there is no accountability, then there would be more potential of corruption from within. Our monetary system becomes hijacked and the nation is controlled by a system of credit. If the central bank can create money out of thin air, then the purchasing power of the dollar decreases.
If the concept of "Savings" ceases to exist, then this can lead to an economic disaster, more government intervention, and eventually, loss of liberty.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

The vacated Senate Seat controversy

When reporters asked Obama what contact he'd had with the governor's office about his replacement in the Senate after Blagojevich was arrested by federal authorities,
Obama replied, "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."

Below are various sources indicating that a meeting between president-elect and Illinois Governor Blagojevish did take place:

On Nov. 23 David Axelrod, said on Fox Chicago: "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them." The Obama campaign is saying this was not correct…you can watch the Nov. 23rd interview here.

The report by KHQA-TV's Carol Sowers originally was posted on the website of the Quincy, Ill., station. The article said "one of Obama's first priorities" on the day after his election was a meeting with Blagojevich planned that afternoon to discuss the Senate seat. Another story by the Quincy station later that week indicated the meeting took place. The station has removed both links to the archived stories.

The Chicago Tribune also reported on an Obama-Blagojevich meeting: Governor mum on Obama seat

Also, a Press Release from the Illinois Government Community news network website provides a hint of a discussion about the Senate Seat.

Chester A. Arthur (21st President of the U.S.)

Chester Arthur concealed he was a British Subject at Birth.
The actual naturalization record for his father, William Arthur is on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.

Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.

He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.

It was also recently uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.

How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.

Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject.
And some of Arthur's opponents circulated the Canada rumor during the 1880 election, but they could not prove it, and no solid proof of this has emerged since.

But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old. That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.

Chester Arthur had something to hide. He had all of his papers burned which was very odd for a President.

Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland. By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.

When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time, the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.

William Arthur was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.

Source: Leo C. Donofrio

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Source: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
U.S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Link to the full printable PDF report.

Republic vs. Democracy

There is a great deal of reference by the mass media and sadly, even by many of our elected officials to 'our democracy' or 'this democracy' when referring to our government. The Founding Fathers of our nation wisely established a Republic, not a Democracy, and there are many important differences.

The differences can be debated and argued in many ways but the best and simplest definition was printed in The Soldiers Training Manual issued by the United States War Department, November 30, 1928. These definitions were published by the authority of the United States Government and are accepted as authentic in any court of proper jurisdiction. These precise and scholarly definitions of a Democracy and a Republic were carefully considered as a proper guide for U.S. soldiers and U.S. citizens by the Chief of Staff of the United States Army.

Shortly after in the 1930's, orders from the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration suddenly demanded that all copies of this book (Training Manual 2000-25) be withdrawn from the Government Printing Office and the Army posts, to be suppressed and destroyed without explanation.

Here are two definitions included in it:

TM 2000-25: 118-120
Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority is derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the people shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation, or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagoguery , license, agitation, discontent, and anarch.

TM 2000-25:120-121
Republic: Authority is derived through election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles, and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

With this little look into the facts', re-read Romans 13 and you'll see the biggest problem in the minds of most Americans - believers and non-believers alike: The only authority above we, the people, is God. Beneath us is the Consitution which is to protect us from our public servants.

Many of F.D.R.'s policies were suggested by his right hand man, Harry Hopkins, who said,
"Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference".

Are we a Constitutional Republic or a Democracy?

By Walter Williams

We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.

The word "democracy" appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution – two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?

So what's the difference between republican and
democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.

In recognition that it's
Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy?
  • James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."
  • At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " ... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."
  • John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
  • Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.

The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in

presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.

Here's my question: Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter.

Friday, December 5, 2008

Hospitals in Hawaii to Obama: You Were Not Born Here!

Hospital after hospital in Honolulu all have NO RECORD of Obama or mother ever being there.

All of these were called or visited from November 20 - December 2nd 2008. It is confirmed, Obama was not born in any hospital in Honolulu County! Hospital employees bribed, some gave info for free.

Hospitals you can check yourself:

You can look at every hospital here and call or visit any of them. You can file freedom of information acts, you can do everything and anything you wish. Barack Obama was never born in a hospital in Hawaii as claimed.

Source: Daman Conners

Legal Battle Across America

Berg v. Obama:
Pennsylvania Democrat and attorney Philip J. Berg filed suit in U.S. District claiming Obama is not a natural-born U.S.citizen.
Now in the United States Supreme Court - Case No. 084340

Donofrio v. Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State:
Leo C. Donofrio files suit in New Jersey - Obama Citizenship Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference by Thomas
Washington Post: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Obama Nationality Case
Now in the United States Supreme Court - Case No. 08A407
The Donofrio "Natural Born Citizen" Challenge

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State:
Cort Wrotnowski suit from Connecticut challenged Obama's Birth Certificate
Now in the United States Supreme Court - Case No. 08A469
Here's an interesting personal letter from the Secretary of State of Connecticut.

Christopher Strunk filed Writ of Mandamus in New York
Now in the United States Supreme Court - Case No. ######

Hunter v. Obama:
Darrel Reece Hunter filed in SCOTUS from Texas - Hunter v. Obama
Now in the United States Supreme Court - Case No. ######

Keyes v. Bowen:
Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes filed writ of Mandate in California - to prove Obama's citizenship
Case No.: 34-200880000096-CUWMGDS

Lightfoot v. Bowen:
On December 3, 2008, Dr. Orly Taitz, DDS Esq filed a second lawsuit in the Supreme Court of California; Lightfoot v. Bowen, docket number S168690. This is a "Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus for Stay". The coversheet with the submission information can be found here.

Below is a link to an outline showing that no matter how this issue is ultimately resolved, you should have legitimate concerns, and that Barack Obama should, simply out of respect for the nation, disclose the sealed vault copy of his birth certificate:
Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Kenyan Ambassador To U.S. Admits Barack Obama Was Born In Kenya

Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, His Excellency Peter Ogego, admitted in this radio interview that Barack Obama was born in Kenya!

When WRIF "Mike In The Morning" Mike Clark (Michigan Radio Talk Show) Co-Host asked Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., Peter Ogego:
"One more quick question, president-elect Obama's birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit where he was born?"

Kenya Ambassador Ogego replied:
"It is already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive."

Radio Co-Host asks again :
"But his (Barack Obama's) birthplace, they will put up a marker there?"

Kenyan Ambassador Ogego replied :
"It will depend on the government. It is already well known."

His Excellency Peter Ogego, Kenyan Ambassador to the United States admitted in this radio interview that Barack Obama was born in Kenya!

Obamas selective service fraud

Did Barack Obama fail to register for the selective service when required by law? Is the the record on file with the Selective Service fraudulant? See the evidence.

Monday, December 1, 2008

Another Barack in the Wall

By Allan J. Favish

Usually, children's books do not scare me. But I just read a children's book entitled "Barack" by Jonah Winter, with illustrations by AG Ford, published on September 30, 2008 by Katherine Tegen Books, an imprint of Harper Collins Publishers. "Barack's" dust jacket states that it is for children ages 4-7. This book scared me very much.

I am scared because of what this book will do to my daughter and other children who read it. My little girl is six and a half years of age. I will not allow her to read this book or have it read to her without my being able to explain to her what was omitted from the book. I will be checking with her school teachers for the next five years or so to make sure that she is not exposed to this book without the material that was omitted. To do otherwise would allow my child to become a victim of political deception.

The entertainment value of "Barack" through an inspirational and abbreviated account of Barack Obama's life leading up to the Presidential election cannot justify the false impression it conveys. "Barack" will create another battle for parents to fight against a culture that teaches their children so much that is wrong.

The dominant media treated the voters like children by omitting and obfuscating significant information about Obama that would have caused him to lose support. Ronald Kessler of Newsmax.com offers some examples. Mark Halperin of Time magazine stated: "Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history . . . . It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war. . . . It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage." The Washington Post's Ombudsman stated after the election:

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

It is wrong for the dominant media to treat the voters like children, but at least some of us have the time and skills to find the truth that is buried out there in less popular media outlets and original sources. Our 4-7 year-olds do not have those skills. They are helpless against political propaganda. It is up to me to protect my child. To help protect your child from "Barack" I present some of the information missing from that book. If your child's school has "Barack" make sure that this missing information accompanies it.

"Barack" states that "no matter where he [Obama] was, the world was his home. And who he was could be summed up in one word: lovable." "Barack" does not tell its little readers that "lovable" Obama voted against state legislation that would have protected newborn infants who had survived abortions from being left to die without food, water and medical care, and then lied about his reasons for doing so. The legislation was adopted at the federal level and finally in Illinois after Obama left the state legislature in 2004. The legislation was called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and resulted from heroic work by Chicago nurse Jill Stanek who helped to publicize this barbaric practice and the need to get it outlawed.

"Barack" does not tell its little readers that on December 21, 1997 "lovable" Obama wrote a short review in the Chicago Tribune of William Ayers' book "A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court", which had recently been published. Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. Stanley Kurtz reported on September 23, 2008 in "Obama's Challenge" in National Review Online, and in "Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism on Schools" in the Wall Street Journal, that Ayers and Obama worked together for several years funding anti-American educational programs.

"Barack" states only this about Trinity Church:

[H]is journey had led him to Trinity Church, surrounded by the people from his neighborhood, including many he had helped. And there, swept up in the waves of their singing, with tears on his cheeks, he knew why he was there. He knew who he was, and he knew where he belonged.

"Barack" does not tell its little readers that Trinity Church has long promoted a message that is anti-American and anti-Israel, as reported here by Ronald Kessler of Newsmax.com. Trinity's pastor for over 20 years until 2008 was Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons were videotaped by Trinity and sold to the public until they were publicized in March 2008 by ABC News here and FoxNews here and here. "Barack" does not tell its little readers that Trinity Church promotes anti-American ideology through its magazine, Trumpet, as Stanley Kurtz wrote about in "Jeremiah Wright's ‘Trumpet'" in The Weekly Standard on May 19, 2008 and in "Left in Church: Deep inside the Wright Trumpet" in National Review on May 20, 2008.

"Barack" does not tell its little readers that Trumpet, gave Louis Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award in 2007 as reported here by Ronald Kessler of Newsmax.com on January 14, 2008, who wrote:

Farrakhan has repeatedly made hate-filled statements targeting Jews, whites, America, and homosexuals. He has called whites "blue-eyed devils" and the "anti-Christ." He has described Jews as "bloodsuckers" who control the government, the media, and some black organizations.

"Do you know some of these satanic Jews have taken over BET [the Black Entertainment Network]?" Farrakhan said in a speech on Nov. 11, 2007. "Everything that we built, they have. The mind of Satan now is running the record industry, movie industry, and television. And they make us look like we're the murderers; we look like we're the gangsters, but we're punk stuff."

"Barack" does not tell its little readers that Obama admitted in his 1995 book "Dreams From My Father" that the first sermon he heard from Wright, which made him want to join Trinity Church, was a sermon in which Wright approvingly used the phrase "where white folks' greed runs a world in need . . . ." (Mickey Kaus discusses this a few screen scrolls down here where the discussion begins with "Page 293 (paperback edition) . . . .").

"Barack" does not tell its little readers that Obama did not state specific disagreement with anything from Trinity Church, Wright or Farrakhan until after this racism and anti-Americanism was given publicity during Obama's presidential campaign. Moreover, as reported by Fred Lucas in "Despite Campaign Claim, Obama Told Paper He Attended Trinity Church ‘Every Week'" for CNSNews.com on November 13, 2008, Obama claimed during his presidential campaign that he did not attend the church frequently despite having stated in an interview in 2004 that he attended services at Trinity Church every week.

Assuming that Obama had no knowledge of Wright's anti-American sermons when they were given over the years, we know that in February 2007 Obama learned that Wright stated: "Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!" "We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!" . . . . "And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS SHIT!" We know this because these quotes from Wright were published in "Destiny's Child" by Ben Wallace-Wells in the February 22, 2007 Rolling Stone. At the April 16, 2008 Democrat presidential candidate's debate Obama admitted he was aware of the Rolling Stone article when it was published. Obama's reaction upon learning this was not to leave Trinity Church or denounce Wright, but to think that the comments "would be a distraction [from his presidential campaign], since he [Wright] had just put them forward." Obama's problem with Wright's comments was not their substance, but that they would distract from his campaign. Also, according to Obama, the comments were a distraction because Wright "had just put them forward". Obama did not say that the comments were a distraction because of their substance. For Obama, the problem was Wright's timing, not his message.

"Barack" quotes Martin Luther King's statement: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." "Barack" then states: "And on the horizon, at the dawn of a new age, there appeared a man who would be the embodiment of King's dream-a presidential candidate whose very being was a bridge that joined nations."

"Barack" does not tell its little readers that in addition to Obama's participation in Trinity Church, Obama has made statements and adopted positions that contradict King's dream. Obama stated in an interview for the December 8, 1995 article "What Makes Obama Run?" by Hank De Zutter in Chicago Reader that he has a "sense . . . that white Americans couldn't care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing." Obama made a racial generalization about whites that did not limit his characterization to some white Americans. Moreover, his generalization imputes a morally repugnant callousness to "white Americans" because it would be wrong for any American, white or otherwise to not care about problems facing African-Americans.

"Barack" does not tell its little readers that, as Ward Connerly wrote in the Wall Street Journal on June 13, 2008, Obama was opposing ballot initiatives that would have inserted the following language into several state constitutions: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin, in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting." King fought long and hard for virtually identical language to be in the federal 1964 Civil Rights Act. Obama's position turns King's dream into a nightmare.

"Barack" describes what was happening in 2005 when Obama became a United States Senator: "He arrived here during a dark time in American history. All across America, people were losing their jobs, losing their houses, losing their sense of hope." It was not as dark as "Barack" states. According to the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual unemployment rate for the country was 5.5% in 2004, having decreased one-half percent from 6% in 2003. The decrease continued throughout 2005 which had a rate of 5.1%.

"Barack" further states that when Obama became a United States Senator: "Many people were tired of a war that had gone on too long." "Barack" does not tell its little readers how wrong Obama has been about how to win the war. "Barack" does not tell its little readers that in a January 2007 CBS News interview Obama stated that he supported a phased withdrawal and opposed the significant change in strategy and increase in troops known as the "surge", that has significantly reduced violence in Iraq and made it possible for the United States to sign an agreement with the Iraq government that calls for American troops to leave Iraq in 2011 under conditions that are expected to leave the democratic government of Iraq in place with the capacity to provide individual liberty to its citizens and defend itself against those who murder in the name of Islam. In a November 2006 speech Obama opposed increasing troop levels in Iraq. "Barack" does not tell its little readers that in addition to opposing the surge, Obama stated in a January 2007 MSNBC interview that the surge would make the situation in Iraq worse, the opposite of what it has done. "Barack" does not tell its little readers that in a July 2008 NBC "Nightly News" interview Obama falsely stated that at the time of the debate about whether to do the surge he stated that the surge would have "an impact," implying that the "impact" would be positive. Obama also falsely stated in a July 2008 NBC "Meet the Press" interview that he had stated during the debate over the surge that "additional U.S. troops could temporarily quell the violence." "Barack" does not tell its little readers that in an ABC News interview in July 2008 Obama stated that even after knowing what he now knows about how the surge has reduced violence, he still would have opposed it.

You can contact the publisher of "Barack" at harpercollinschildrens.com.

Allan J. Favish is an attorney in Los Angeles. His website is allanfavish.com.

The 4 stages of Ideological Subversion

1985 Video Presentation of Marxist Ideological Subversion in U.S. (video embed–very interesting)

The interviewee is Mr. Yuri Bezmenov, a former KGB agent who has an insiders knowledge of the manner in which Marxist/Communist/Socialist ideology is established in a country–that is, by slowly deconstructing values, creating crises, both financial and social, and propagandizing an unsuspecting public.

Ideological Subversion (a.k.a. active measures, or psychological warfare) is a slow and progressive brainwashing process, which can be divided in 4 stages:

Stage 1 — Demoralization:
It takes 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Exposure to true information does not matter any more. A person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing. Even if that person is showered with information and authentic proof, he or she will refuse to beleive it. Not until the military boot comes crashing in, the person will then understand.

Stage 2 — Destabilization:
It takes 2 to 5 years to destabilize a nation. What matters most is the economy, foreign relations & defense systems.

Stage 3 — Crisis:
It may take only up to 6 weeks to bring a country to the verge of crisis. And after crisis, with a violent change of power, structure and economy, you would have a so-called period of normalization. It may last indefinitely.

Stage 4 — Normalization:

Normalization is a cynical expression, borrowed from Soviet propaganda. To promise people all kinds of goodies and a paradise on Earth, to destabilize the economy, to eliminate the principle of free market competition and to put a Big Brother government in Washington DC with benevolent dictators who will promise lots of things, never mind whether the promises are fulfilled or not.
The creation of false illusions that the situation is under control where most of American politicians, media, and the educational system would train another generation of people to think that they are living in a time of peace. But on the contrary, we would be in a state of war. Undeclared total war against the basic principles and the foundations of this system.

Recommendation to the American people:

  • There must be a very strong national effort to educate people in the spirit of REAL patriotism.
  • Teach the real danger of socialist, communist, welfare state, Big Brother government.
  • If people fail to grasp the impending danger; nothing will ever help the United States.
  • We may kiss our freedoms goodbye, including our precious lives.
  • At the moment, at least part of the U.S. population is convinced that the danger is real.
  • We have to FORCE our government, not by sending letters, or signing petitions, or all other so-called noble activity, but by FORCING the U.S. government to stop aiding Communism.