Showing posts with label commie kikes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commie kikes. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
kikes STILL Trying to Pass Faggot Pervert Adoption
'SODOMITE ADOPTION RIGHTS' IN CONGRESS
By Harmony Grant Daws and Rev. Ted Pike
15 Mar 10
A new bill has been introduced into Congress, attractively named the “Every Child Deserves a Family Act.” The goal of HR 3827 is “to prohibit discrimination in adoption or foster care placements based on the sexual orientation, gender identification, or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent.”
The bill reports that “one-third of child welfare agencies in the United States currently reject gay, lesbian, and bisexual applicants, citing a conflict with the religious beliefs associated with the agency, State law prohibiting placement with gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents, or a policy of placing children with married-heterosexual only couples.” It says as many as two million homosexuals may be interested in adopting children and may be rejected because of their orientation. The bill will remove federal funding from any placement agency that “discriminates” on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity of marital status.
This means Christian adoption agencies will be unable to operate according to their founders’ consciences. It means closure of Catholic or Christian agencies which refuse to violate their moral principles of placing children with heterosexual or nuclear families only. Ultimately, this will mean fewer children adopted! After a similar law was passed in Britain, multiple adoption agencies closed. The Catholic Children’s Rescue Service was the first to do so. Rather than allowing the free market to potentially create homosexual-friendly adoption agencies (should there really be such demand), this law strong-arms benevolent religious organizations into violating their own principles in favor of a political agenda.
This bill would not only limit freedom of religion for adoption agencies but also for birth parents. A teen mother won’t be able to find agencies which screen for nuclear, Christian families if those are the qualities she wants for her unborn child.
Inevitably, such agenda-driven legislation is used as a force of discrimination itself. In Britain, pro-homosexual adoption laws were passed and are now used against traditional, religious people seeking to rescue children! In 2008, Daily Mail reported a story of a Christian couple told, “You can’t foster if you think it’s wrong to be gay.” Eunice and Owen Johns, a black couple who have cared for almost 20 children and raised four of their own, would not submit to a new hate law requiring them to condone homosexuality in order to continue rescuing needy kids. Eunice explains that she was told she would have to tell foster children that it’s okay to be homosexual.
“But I couldn’t do that because my Christian beliefs won’t let me,” she says, “Morally I couldn’t do that, spiritually I couldn’t do that.” Her husband says, “I would love any child, black or white, gay or straight. But I cannot understand why sexuality is an issue when we are talking about boys and girls under the age of ten.” Because of their traditional values, the Johns were denied the opportunity to continue saving needy kids.
In 2007, a British woman named Sonia Maples wrote for the UK Telegraph about being denied adoption because of the religious “idealism” she shares with her husband. Maples says their home is not “overtly religious” and they have homosexual friends, but this wasn’t enough to make up for their belief that a nuclear family is best for children.
“Long before the current row over whether church-based adoption agencies should be allowed to set their own rules about accepting homosexual couples on to their books, my husband and I felt the cold breath of discrimination,” says Maples. “It wasn't because of our sexual orientation…we were found wanting because we were Christians and because we hold strong views about the importance of children having both a father and a mother.”
Maples and her husband were investigated for 18 months by social workers full of questions about their religious convictions. They were then refused by the adoption panel because of their religious objection to homosexuality. Maples said, “We later received a letter saying that we had been turned down as adoptive parents, that we were not suitable for any of the children they had to place and that we would have to reconsider our views on homosexuality…We appealed, but in vain. We have since spoken to a fostering agency, which told us that only one or two heterosexual couples get approved by them.”
This anti-heterosexual agenda affects even birth parents who want to keep their own children. In Vermont, ex-lesbian Lisa Miller is currently running from the law with her seven-year-old biological daughter Isabella because custody has been awarded to her previous same-sex partner, who is not legally or biologically related to the child! Miller has become an evangelical Christian and her advocates say this is clearly a case of hard-line “progressives” pushing for pro-homosexual custody rights. Talk show host Wiley Drake, who is familiar with the case, said that after the first court ordered weekend visitation of six-year-old Isabella to her lesbian “mother,” the child returned home to her real mother proudly fondling herself. She related matter-of-factly that she and the lesbian had taken a bath together and watched pornographic movies. She had even been taught how to urinate standing up. Adoptive rights for homosexuals? Such corruption of children by aggressive sodomites will only be expanded to millions of society’s youngest, most vulnerable members if this bill becomes law.
End of Normal Adoptions in America
In the US, the largest adoption agency has already had to pull out of multiple states because of “anti-discrimination” lawsuits. In 2003, Adoption.com was sued by two homosexual men, residents of California, who claim they faced illegal discrimination because the agency won’t serve homosexual couples. The homosexuals won the lawsuit and the agency no longer serves adoptive parents in California. The adoption agency argued it was governed by Arizona law and wasn’t required to violate its own conscience by advertising homosexual couples. But if HR 3827 becomes federal, all agencies will have to submit or close their doors.
To prevent this, one state was proactive. North Dakota, in 2008, passed the “Adoption Agency Freedom to Serve” Act which protects the right of adoption agencies to refuse adoptions that violate their moral or religious beliefs. When the bill was introduced there were six agencies provided licensed services, four of them affiliated with religious organizations. But if HR 3827 passes, this state law will be overturned and North Dakota’s citizens will lose the freedom they have chosen.
Protest to your House member now! Call 1-877-851-6437 toll free 202-225-3121 toll. Also call the crucial members of the House Ways and Means Committee (especially Republicans) demanding they stop the “Every Child Deserves a Family Act.” Names are available HERE at www.truthtellers.org.
Tell House members, “Please do not vote for the ‘Every Child Deserves a Family Act,’ HR 3827. It would force all US adoption agencies to place children with homosexual couples. Many homosexuals prey on children. And this bill would force religious adoption agencies to close. I and my friends will vote out any House member who supports this outrageous legislation.”
Monday, March 8, 2010
ADL Kikes Attack Tea Partiers! They HATE Free Speech!
JEWISH ATTACK GROUPS THREATEN TEA PARTY
By Rev. Ted Pike
8 Mar 10
Last November, the Anti-Defamation League vilified millions of anti-Obama and Tea Party protestors as “conspirators” — part of an unruly, violence-prone movement paranoid about government. The Southern Poverty Law Center, like the Anti-Defamation League, is a 100% Jewish “civil liberties” group dedicated to crushing any sign of Christian, conservative renewal. A year ago, these groups tried to convince Missouri state police to profile patriotic Americans as potential domestic terrorists. Now, SPLC has released a new Intelligence Report and video claiming that potentially violent militia and extremist groups are “cross-pollinating” the Tea Party.
The Tea Party is “shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism,” says SPLC editor Mark Potok. He claims current anti-government rage is “a tinderbox…much like the white-hot period just before [the bombing by Timothy McVeigh in] Oklahoma City.” He says “many in law enforcement are very worried that all it is going to take is some kind of spark to set this thing off.” (If a spark does ignite violence or terrorism, it may well be provided by these very Jewish groups who claim to oppose violence. America’s radical secular Jewish community has a long record of defacing their own synagogues, burning crosses, and covertly distributing “hate” literature to fabricate proof that hate and anti-Semitism are rampant in heartland America.)
SPLC’s report, “Rage on the Right,” is not as extensive or derisive of the Tea Party movement as ADL’s earlier “Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies.” But it is a cannonball across the bow of the explosively growing Tea Party movement. It warns leaders not to let the whole truth about international Zionist control and conspiracy take root, or these super powerful Jewish muscle groups will use their influence to inflame Jewish media, the Congress and law enforcement against them. (See Jews Confirm Big Media Is Jewish)
ADL and SPLC want the Tea Party movement to obediently follow the Democrat and Republican parties down the garden path they blindly enteredthree-fourths of a century ago. They want the Tea Party to accept big Jewish money and advisement and promote Israel-first potential candidates, particularly Sarah Palin. As Israel’s attack dogs, ADL and SPLCspecialize in keeping American conservatism in line. They are intent now on furthering a Tea Party platform that serves Israel and undermines America, favoring even more military intervention on behalf of Israel in the Mideast. Unfortunately, with 85 percent of Americans supporting Israel, their mission should be easily accomplished.
Unless lovers of the whole truth resist, leaders of the Tea Party from Glenn Beck down will cave to these powerful organizations and drive out original thought. Zionists can then co-opt the movement entirely.
At present, Jewish supremacists only fear Tea Party patriots because they could vote out the Democrat majority at midterms and end easy victories for ADL’s pro-homosexual legislation. But the Tea Party should aspire to make Jewish supremacists fear it for another reason: power to eventually forge a foreign policy that adamantly seeks American interests first. This policy would resist further enticement into war and loss of American lives to make the Mideast safe for Israel.
Saving the Tea Party
How can the Tea Party be rescued from inevitable Zionist takeover? Tea Party leaders and members must be educated. One of the best ways is for those who know the whole truth to join Tea Party chapters and begin to speak out. (Tea Party chapters in your area are listed at teapartypatriots.org.) Inform your local Tea Party members that Americans must have all the facts in order to win the war for national survival. If a soldier enters combat noteven knowing who his enemy is, he will become a battlefield statistic.
This is the case with the Tea Party.
The fastest way to begin crucial enlightenment is for Tea Party patriots to view my 60-minute documentary, The Other Israel (Watch it here!). This fast-moving, information-packed film has been viewed by countless lovers of freedom worldwide. It tells the whole truth about the conspiracy of Jewish supremacism. While it spares nothing, it is so Biblically oriented, moderate and documented that another Jewish-dominated attack group, the American Civil Liberties Union, can’t fault it. When The Other Israel was the epicenter of a heated cable-access TV controversy in Fairfax, Virginia, the ACLU was called in to arbitrate. Its verdict? “The Other Israel is not anti-Semitic.”
SPLC is right that a wave of anger is building on the right and prompting many to advocate violent revolution. If this rage is not sublimated by constructive political and legislative protest, then acts of violence like last week’s attack by an anti-government gunman at the Pentagon will undoubtedly increase. This will strengthen ADL/SPLC’s demand that rights to speak freely and bear arms be further restricted. Jewish dominated media will also whip up public revulsion at anti-government “extremism” to a degree unseen since it extinguished a similar Goldwater conservative awakening in the early 1960s.
It is vital now, in the formation of this potentially powerful movement, for patriots to energetically take King Solomon’s advice: “In all your getting, get wisdom.”
~~~~~~~~~
TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this subject. Call (503) 631-3808.
The freedom-saving outreach of Rev. Ted Pike and the National Prayer Network is solely supported by sale of books, videos and your financial support. All gifts are tax-deductible.
NATIONAL PRAYER NETWORK, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015
www.truthtellers.org
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Keep our Honor Clean! No Faggots In the Military
| "TO KEEP OUR HONOR CLEAN!" Why We Must Oppose the Homosexual Agenda for the Military |  |  |
| Written by The American TFP | ||||||||||||||
| Monday, 15 February 2010 20:29 | ||||||||||||||
President Obama promised in his January 27, 2010 State of the Union Address that he would work with Congress and the military to overthrow the current law that excludes homosexuals from the military.[1] A Moral Revolution This move cannot be considered in a vacuum. To understand fully its significance, it must be seen in light of a decades-old homosexual movement that strives to uproot the very foundations of our morality. Thus, homosexual activist Paul Varnell, writing in the Chicago Free Press, affirmed: “The gay movement is not a civil rights movement but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality.”[2] Indeed, the significance of overthrowing the military’s prohibition on homosexuality is well understood by the movement’s leaders. Thus, Thomas Stoddard, former executive director of Lambda Legal, admitted: “This is not a fight about the military. This is a fight of every lesbian and gay American for their place in society.”[3] Similarly, the nation’s largest homosexual rights group, Human Rights Campaign, plans to spend over $2 million on a national lobbying campaign to influence lawmakers whose votes will be needed to overthrow current law.[4]
These activists understand how our military is a powerful symbol in the minds of Americans. William Kristol was correct when he called it the “one major American institution [that] retains citizens’ faith.”[5] Thus, were homosexuals allowed to serve, it would resound throughout all our nation’s institutions. That is one of the many reasons why our military must be defended from ideologues who would sacrifice its effectiveness and honor on the altar of unrestrained license, even at a time when national and global security rests on its successful campaign against terrorism. Exacerbating this danger, many pundits cloud the issue by parroting the homosexual movement’s sophistry. Thus, it is worthwhile to take a closer look at some of the main arguments used to support repeal of the ban. Do Homosexuals Have a Right to Serve? One sophism claims that homosexuals have a right to serve in our Armed Forces. Proponents of this notion often label the current law discriminatory. They compare lifting of the ban to President Truman’s 1948 executive order that desegregated our nation’s military. However, such claims are baseless. First, there is no constitutional “right” to serve in the Armed Forces, nor could there be such a right. Because of its fighting purpose, the military is necessarily a discriminating organization that revokes membership on the basis of age, height, physical infirmity and many other causes. Obviously, these forms of discrimination would not be accepted in civilian society. Similarly, violations of morality such as lying and adultery can result in court-martial.
Additionally, there is no comparison to be made between President Truman’s desegregation of the military and lifting the ban on homosexuals in our Armed Forces. Homosexual behavior is a moral, not a racial issue. It is a personal choice of lifestyle. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell affirmed this,[6] stating: “Skin color is a benign non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”[7] Indeed, current law is not based on who homosexuals claim to be, but on what they do. Would the Presence of Open Homosexuals Harm Unit Cohesion? Another argument claims that the presence of open homosexuals would not harm unit cohesion. Those making this claim state that unit cohesion was unaffected in England, Canada and elsewhere when these nations allowed homosexuals to serve. First of all, it must be noted that these countries are not the United States. Neither Canada nor England has the military commitments or capabilities we do[8] and both have a markedly more liberal view of homosexuality. Indeed, many members of Britain’s Conservative Party, including their leader David Cameron, approve of homosexual adoption and same-sex unions.[9] In America, things are different, even more so on our bases. As Colonel David Bedey wrote: “It is an undeniable fact…that military communities are bastions of traditional values.”[10] This is important to consider because shared values are necessary to unit cohesion. According to Commander of the Army Research Institute William Darryl Henderson: “Common attitudes, values and beliefs among members of a unit promote cohesion…some observers contend that similarities of attitudes contribute to group cohesion more than any other single factor.”[11]
Allowing homosexuals to serve would also break down unit trust, a necessary foundation for cohesion. Vietnam War hero Colonel John Ripley explained this in testimony delivered on May 4, 1993 before the House Armed Services Committee, saying: “No one can trust a leader nor can a leader trust a subordinate if he thinks there are sexual feelings just underneath the surface. It makes no difference if the individual is suppressing those feelings. It makes trust virtually impossible.”[12] Common sense reinforces what Colonel Ripley affirmed. As current law points out, military society is necessarily “characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.”[13] In turn, this leads to high levels of stress. The effect of adding sexual tension to the mix need only be imagined. Perhaps that is one reason why America’s two most prominent veterans groups, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion, whose combined membership exceeds 4 million, have both come out against repeal of the ban.[14] Also, during wartime, men are in continual contact with each other’s blood. Therefore, the well documented increased disease rates of homosexuals would cause them to be perceived as a risk rather than an asset to unit survival. This increased disease rate should not be underestimated. As Colonel Ronald Ray pointed out: “Despite the fact that they account for less than 2 percent of the total American population, a compilation of recent health studies shows that homosexuals account for 80 percent of America’s most serious sexually transmitted diseases.”[15] This increased disease rate has led some to refer to the homosexual lifestyle as a “deathstyle.” Inclusion of this deathstyle in our Armed Forces is a dangerous proposition, indeed. With these factors in mind, it is simply impossible to suggest that openly serving homosexuals would not damage unit cohesion. Current law and many officers corroborate this affirmation.
Among them is General Norman Schwarzkopf, who affirmed: “…in my years of military service, I’ve experienced the fact that the introduction of an open homosexual into a small unit immediately polarizes that unit and destroys the very bonding that is so important for the unit's survival in time of war.”[16] Last, the current law, which was passed with a veto-proof majority in both houses of a Democrat-led Congress, states: “The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence…would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”[17] At a Time of War, Can We Afford to Lose Capable Servicemen? Opponents of current law also claim that we cannot afford to expel any trained personnel during our present military engagements. In this line, the media often claim that over 300 language experts, including over 50 fluent Arabic speakers, have been discharged from the military under the current law. These claims are based on exaggerated and misrepresented information. In her July 23, 2008 testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Elaine Donnelly, president and founder of the Center for Military Readiness, noted that 9,501 homosexuals were discharged from our military in the 11 years between 1993-2004, a yearly average of 864.[18] While this may seem like a lot, it is relatively few compared with the number of servicemen who were dismissed for other reasons. For example: 36,513 enlisted personnel were removed during the same time period for having gained too much weight, 26,446 were removed for becoming pregnant and an additional 20,527 for parenthood, while nearly 60,000 were removed for drug use.[19] If we were to stop removing homosexuals from our Armed Forces, how could we continue to dismiss those whose only offense is having too hearty an appetite? Furthermore, if we concede to lower standards for the sake of quantity, where will we next draw the line? Also, claims that 300 language “experts,” and over 50 “fluent” Arabic speakers have been discharged from our military because of their homosexuality is based on a 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study. However, the GAO document clearly states: “Relatively few of these separated servicemembers had proficiency scores in listening to, reading, or speaking…that were above the midpoint on DOD’s language proficiency scales.” Among the 54 “fluent” Arabic speakers, only 20 had recorded scores, of which none scored above midpoint for speaking proficiency. Furthermore, 59% of these discharged language “experts” had served for two and a half years or less.[20] Furthermore, we must consider the loss of manpower that would result from lifting the ban. There is convincing evidence to show that these losses would greatly outweigh the number of homosexuals removed under current law. A 2008 survey done by the Military Times showed that nearly 10% of respondents claimed they would “not re-enlist or extend” their service if the homosexual prohibition were lifted, while an additional 14% reported that they would “consider not re-enlisting or extending” their military careers.[21]
As Mrs. Donnelly pointed out, if we assume that these numbers represent the views of all active and reserve forces, repeal of the ban could result in a loss of between 228,600–527,000 servicemen (depending on the final decision of those considering termination of their careers). These numbers are astounding considering that there are currently around 200,000 active duty Marines.[22] Similarly, a 2006 Zogby poll showed that 10% of those who had served in the last 14 years would probably not have even enlisted had there been open homosexuals serving. An additional 13% were undecided.[23] Therefore, if we are concerned about diminishing our ranks at this critical moment, we must maintain, not lift, the ban on homosexuals in the military. Over 1,100 Flag and General Officers Support the Ban In addition to all the practical arguments we make in favor of current law, there is a voice of experience that speaks more loudly than ours. It is that of our military leadership whose years of service at the highest levels of command have given them the wisdom to understand the issue and all of its implications. That is why Congress should heed a statement signed by 1,152 retired flag and general officers, strongly urging them and President Obama to uphold the ban on homosexuals in our military.[24] Their statement is as urgent as it is unequivocal and includes the following passage: Our past experience as military leaders leads us to be greatly concerned about the impact of repeal [of the ban] in morale, discipline, unit cohesion, and overall military readiness. We believe that imposing this burden…would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all echelons… and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force…As a matter of national security, we urge you to support the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military (Section 654, Title 10), and to oppose any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal or invalidate the law.[25] The signatories of this message include 51 four-star officers, our nation’s highest peacetime rank. And to Keep Our Honor Clean… These practical arguments are helpful, but they do not constitute the most important component of the issue. The core of the matter touches on a higher reality in which the very identity of the American soldier is at stake. To be successful, a military must incorporate two seemingly incompatible values. On one hand, it must enforce the highest moral principles of discipline, valor and uprightness and simultaneously inculcate the desire to destroy the adversary. Indeed, the very existence of the military proclaims that evil exists and, at times, must be confronted. It represents the strength of truth and uprightness and is a symbol of that species of good that fearlessly defies wickedness. Thus, a successful military must operate in an atmosphere in which good and evil are clearly defined and relativism has no place. The military also personifies self-sacrifice. As the great Catholic thinker, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, wrote, the military profession proclaims “the existence of values worth more than life itself and for which one must be willing to die.”[26]
It is these values of uprightness, self-sacrifice and strength that project the military into a superior order of things. In a word, they confer an honor upon it, which is so identified with the archetype of the American soldier that our nation’s highest military decoration is called the Medal of Honor. However, homosexual vice represents the opposite of this military honor. It violates natural law, epitomizes the unleashing of man’s unruly passions, undermines self-discipline and has been defined as “intrinsically evil” by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on numerous occasions.[27] That is why, in order to advance, the homosexual movement must blur the distinctions between virtue and vice; truth and error; good and evil. If this vice is imposed on our Armed Forces, it will necessarily bring this relativistic spirit with it. In turn, this mentality would undermine the direct and straightforward mindset, so necessary to the military.[28] It would sully the honor of all who serve and weaken society’s notion of the incompatibility between good and evil, so well represented by our Armed Forces. In this light, we understand why homosexual ideologues doggedly insist on effecting this transformation within our military. However, it also gives us powerful motives to resist their plans. We must urge Congress to block any efforts to overthrow current law and insist on the ban’s continued strict enforcement. Colonel Ripley well understood the dangers of abandoning our current law in this respect. That is why he finished his 1993 testimony to the House Armed Services Committee beseeching Congress to maintain the ban on homosexuals serving in the military in the following moving words: “I implore you, as an American and as a Marine who has fought for his country and loves his Corps and country more than life itself, not to lead us into this ambush from which we can never recover.”[29] On his behalf, we should derive encouragement from the words of the Marines’ Hymn that apply to all the branches of our military as they confront this perilous issue: “We fight our country’s battles In the air, on land and sea; First to fight for right and freedom And to keep our honor clean…”
February 11, 2010 Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes |
Monday, February 15, 2010
ADL attacks Tea Party, claiming they are terrorists!
Typical Kike Bahaviour!
ADL BLASTS 'PARANOID' RIGHT:
By Rev. Ted Pike
The ADL proves that American Jewry is not a monolith: some, for instance, are really, really stupid -http://www.adl.org/special_reports/rage-grows-in-America/
Are you aware that the super powerful Anti-Defamation League is attacking the Tea Party movement, claiming that millions of anti-Obama Americans are now "conspirators"? You can read ADL's 27-page attack at ADL.org (http://www.adl.org/special_reports/rage-grows-in-America/). Also read Orthodox Rabbi Nachum Shiffron's explosive article against ADL at Newswithview.com (http://newswithviews.com/Shifren/nachum100.htm). Shiffron says ADL is trying to destroy America's freedoms and values so that ADL can help bring about a one-world government. This is a very real and very frightening threat which the Tea Party should be well aware of.
I have included Rev. Ted Pike's article (http://truthtellers.org/alerts/adlblastsparanoidright.htm), alerting the nation to this threat, which was also published at News With Views . This is an extremely real threat. The ADL is trying to squelch this movement! They are trying to make us be quiet so that they can continue to take away our freedoms! Please take the time to read this very important expose of ADL's sinister goals!
Thank you for your time,
Christina Elford
ADL BLASTS 'PARANOID' RIGHT:
Are Millions of Anti-Obama Protestors 'Conspirators?'
By Rev. Ted Pike
23 Nov 09
The Anti-Defamation League likes to describe itself as a "civil liberties" watchdog group that is ever alert to warn of dangerous "conspiracy theories," particularly those that are anti-semitic.
While deploring the conspiracy theories of others, ADL has produced a 27-page special report entitled "Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies," -- a conspiracy theory of its own! It charges that a number of right wing media leaders are conspiring to lie and distort facts in order to incite tens of millions of Americans against Pres. Obama. ADL further alleges that those who receive such disinformation, such as tea party and town hall protesters, are also part of the conspiracy. Trampling truth, ADL says, they follow conspiracy theories that "imagine government plots." Ignoring reality, ADL says these millions of lesser conspirators will repeat almost anything necessary to "destroy" their opponents and bring down Obama.
ADL: "Since the election of Barak Obama as president, a current of anti-government hostility has swept across the United States, creating a climate of fervor and activism with manifestations ranging from incivility in public forums to acts of intimidation and violence…Some of these assertions are motivated by prejudice, but more common is an intense strain of anti-government mistrust and anger, colored by a streak of paranoia and belief in conspiracies…Ultimately, this anti-government anger, if it continues to grow in intensity and scope, may result in an increase in anti-government extremists and the potential for a rise in violent anti-government acts."
In reality, Obama has outrageously gone out of his way to offend the values and commonsense of heartland America by promoting a big-spending, socialist, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-hate law agenda. Obama's far-left arrogance and excesses and a Democrat Congress which ignores the wishes of their constituents are the real cause of mounting opposition.
Here, from top to bottom, are those whom ADL contends are either architects or accomplices of conspiracies motivated by malice and paranoia, which could plunge America into hate-motivated violence.
- Glenn Beck
ADL says, "The most important mainstream media figure who has repeatedly helped to stoke the fires of anti-government anger is right wing media host Glenn Beck, who has a TV show on FOX News and a popular syndicated radio show…Beck and his guests have made a habit of demonizing Pres. Obama and promoting conspiracy theories about his administration." "…Beck's key role as a 'fear-monger-in-chief,' [involves] using constant laments such as 'I fear for my country,' to create a sense of anxiety about and hostility towards the government in his audience." Regarding the September 12, 2009 Populist rally in Washington, D.C., ADL says Beck "promoted the event. The anger and rage that had been expressed at town hall meetings a few weeks earlier and at Tea Parties across the country became even uglier."
- Joseph Farah and WorldNetDaily
"WorldNetDaily (WND), published by Joseph Farah," ADL contends, "is an online newspaper with a far-right wing, political outlook that often blurs the distinction between fact and opinion, or even fact and fiction. The publication has spearheaded efforts to convince the public that Obama does not have a legitimate birth certificate." ADL says, "One of the main reporters for WND, Jerome Corsi, has been a major promoter of the "birther" conspiracy theory..." that Obama was born outside the US.
ADL says Farah took part in the strongly anti-Obama "How to Take Back America" conference in St. Louis, September 25-26. It was heavily promoted by WND and regular columnist and anti-Obama syndicated talk show host Janet Porter.
ADL describes in detail how, "Two attorneys, Philip Berg, of Pennsylvania, and Orly Taitz, of California, have been particularly active in spreading the 'birther' argument, as has…WND." Filing lawsuits demanding certainty about Obama's citizenship, ADL says, are "Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake, 2008 presidential and vice-presidential candidates respectively for the fringe American Independent party."
- Alex Jones
ADL calls Alex Jones "the Conspiracy King." It says, "If, in mainstream America, Glenn Beck may be the radio talk show host most involved stirring up anti-government hostility and anger, his counterpart on the extreme fringe is Alex Jones…He has…collaborated with celebrity truthers such as actor Charlie Sheen and far right icon Ron Paul, a US Representative from Texas [who] has often been a guest on his show." In March 2008, media figure Lou Dobbs was a guest on Jones' show.
"After the election of Obama, Jones began to develop ties to mainstream conservative media outlets such as FOX News Network." Yet ADL asserts Jones fulfills exactly what it predicts right-wing, anti-Obama hysteria will ultimately lead to: ADL says the April murder in Pittsburgh of three policeman by young Richard Poplawski was under the influence of "Jones and other conspiracy theorists."
- Michael Savage
ADL: "As these conspiracy theories become more popular, they are starting to cross over from the fringes into more "mainstream" venues. On August 14, 2009, for example, right-wing radio talk show host Michael Savage, whose listeners are estimated to number over eight million, proclaimed on his Savage Nation that the government would declare martial law. "Martial law," he announced, "will be declared in this country over a pretext. I think the likelihood is very high that the gang that has taken over this country will declare…a pretext…the equivalent of the Reichstag fire [an event that helped the Nazis take over the German government]…to put in a form of martial law."
- Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Twitter
ADL complains that these internet giants are making possible "viral" proliferation of grassroots American rage and conspiracy theories by providing them an uncensored forum.
- Tea Party protests
ADL says, "Some conservative media outlets, such as the FOX New Network, have also played a role in promoting tea parties." "At these events, and later sequels, anti-government sentiments and conspiracy theories proliferated, with a common theme being that somehow Obama had 'stolen' the country from Americans."
- Town hall meetings
Town hall meetings, which ADL calls "disruptions," are described as the rude, unnecessary interruption of political and social progress, particularly healthcare reform, during this past summer. ADL especially objects to frequent imagery comparing Obama and the Democrat proposal of taxpayer-funded abortions to Nazism. "The widespread use of Holocaust and Nazi analogies and comparisons, which still continue, goes well beyond legitimate or even exaggerated criticism of the Obama administration and its policies." "In these Nazi analogies, Obama and his supporters are being cast as opponents to be destroyed rather than fellow citizens with whom dialogue, debate, and compromise are possible. The ready use of such propaganda is symptomatic of the radicalization of some segments of the American populace, and contributes to a self-perpetuating cycle of radicalization, in which even more extreme ideas seem plausible and acceptable."
- Immigration protest
ADL describes immigration protesters as "xenophobes" -- persons afflicted with an irrational fear of foreigners and those who are different. It is also a movement, ADL claims, which is manipulative. "…continuing its exploitation of hot-button issues to gain a greater following, the anti-immigrant movement is increasingly appropriating anti-government language and events."
ADL may particularly resent ALIPAC, the immigration watchdog group which, this spring, alerted the nation to ADL/Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) attempts in their MIAC document to bias Missouri State Police against a wide spectrum of Christian/conservative and patriotic groups, labeling them potential terrorist threats. ADL says of ALIPAC leader William Gheen that he "has a history of using the tea party movement to serve his own purposes."
What Can We Do?
The Anti-Defamation League is the most powerful, anti-Christian, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion attack group in America. Yet because ADL, like its sister attack group SPLC, is entirely staffed by far left Jews, Christian watchdog groups, such as WorldNetDaily, virtually never criticize it.
This must change. Christian/conservative leaders must recognize that ADL, if further protected from criticism, will only mount even more vicious anti-Christian assaults. In 1939, British diplomats Chamberlain and Asquith hoped that if Western powers remained silent and inoffensive Hitler could be contained. In reality, like a tiger, Hitler could smell their fear. Their appeasement only emboldened him to become more aggressive.
The same will happen if millions of Obama protesters remain silent before ADL's recent attack upon them. Like Hitler's 1939 "war games" in Spain, ADL is now testing the religious and political right to see if it will publicly resist ADL's agenda of bringing persecution to them. Persecution is the whole purpose behind ADL-orchestrated hate crimes laws worldwide. After Pres. Obama's signing of the federal hate law last month, ADL boldly took credit not only for "spearheading" its passage over the past 12 years but also for convincing 45 U.S. states and the District of Columbia to pass some version of its "model hate crime law." (ADL Hails Long Overdue Enactment of Hate Crime Law, October 28, 2009.)
Will conservative leaders even mention ADL's attack on them this week? Since ADL was founded in 1913, none has had the courage to publicly criticize it.
If they did so now, it would be remarkably out of character.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
