September 2008


A lot of people when countering Christianity and politics say that the founding fathers were “deists”. They go on to use this notion when they argue to eliminate Christian principals from law, or to claim that new laws based on Christian principals are unconstitutional in spirit with the beliefs of the founding fathers.

Let’s examine whether the “Founding Fathers” were not Christians after all. I will use their own words as evidence.

John Adams certainly spoke harshly of anti-Christian propaganda. He said, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue equity and humanity…”  Adams defended the Bible as the basis for government in a Christian nation, he said “Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God…. What a Utopia, what a Paradise would this region be.”

On October 11th, 1798 he also said “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Benjamin Franklin proposed a Day of Fasting in Pennsylvania, which a true separationist would never do. He proclaimed:

“It is the duty of mankind on all suitable occasions to acknowledge their dependence on the Divine Being. . . .”

and he prayed that

“Almighty God would mercifully interpose and still the rage of war among the nations and would put a stop to the effusion of Christian blood . . . [that] He would take this province under His protection, confound the designs and defeat the attempts of its enemies, and unite our hearts and strengthen our hands in every undertaking that may be for the public good, and for our defense and security in this time of danger”

The public nature of Franklin’s prayer runs counter to the ACLU’s version of “separation of church and state,” and no Deist believes that God “interposes” and “confounds” and “defeats” any human undertaking. This is not the act of a Deist (as the word is popularly understood).

In 1749, he wrote:

“History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion. . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.”

Franklin’s words, directed to George Washington as recorded by James Madison during the Constitutional Convention of 1787,

“We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those republics which, having been formed with seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exists. And we have viewed modern states all round Europe, but find none of their constitutions suitable to our circumstances. In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights, to illuminate our understandings—In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain those that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.”

Are these the words of a “Deist”? Certainly not as the word is used today. Note the “Father of Lights” reference is to James 1:17, which states “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.” NKJV Also to note are references, to Psalm 127:1 “Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain”, and Babel in Genesis 11:4.

Samuel Adams said in a speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia, “He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.”

And in October of 1790, “Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.”

John Quincy Adams said during the Forth of July speech at Newburyport, Ma, 1837 “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?” “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity”?

Alexander Hamilton, said that there were two things that made America great.

“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

“For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

“I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.”

John Hancock said on April 15th, 1775, “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.”

Patrick Henry, “Orator of the Revolution” said in a speech to the House of Burgesses in May 1765, “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

John Jay, said ” Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.

“Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab [“Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?” 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson.” [The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p.365]

Thomas Jefferson, said ” The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nation’s capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

James Madison, said “We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

Thomas Paine, who wrote the “Age of Reason” attacking Christianity and religion in general, was still a believer in both God and Heaven.

“I believe in one God . . . and I hope for happiness beyond this life.” (Age of Reason)

” It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”

“The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God–1810”



Myth #1 Rich people don’t pay taxes

Often I’ve heard someone ignorant say “rich people don’t pay taxes.” I guess the question is what defines “rich” and what taxes are you talking about? If you’re talking about adgusted gross income and federal income taxes, then it shows how ignorant that statement really is.

The top 50%    earns    $29,019(avg)   and pays           96.54% of the Income Tax total

 The top 25%    earns    $57,343(avg)   and pays           83.88% of the Income Tax total

 The top 10%    earns    $94,891(avg)   and pays           65.84% of the Income Tax total

 The top  5%     earns    $130,080(avg) and pays           54.36% of the Income Tax total

 The top  1%     earns    $295,495(avg) and pays           34.27% of the Income Tax total


The Bottom 40% of American earnings $36,300 typically paid no income tax and received money back from the Government.  Compare that with the top 50% of Americans who pay 96.54% of all Income Tax.

Myth #2 The Mega Rich pay less taxes

Now let’s look at the mega rich… Do they pay their fair share? Warren Buffet for example, is taxed at a lower rate than most people. Most of Buffett’s income is derived from dividends and capital gains, which are taxed at only a 15% Federal rate, as opposed to a Federal rate more than twice that for ordinary income, bonuses, etc. What did he pay in taxes? In 2003 his company Berkshire Hathaway paid $3.3 billion in tax or about 2.5% of all the taxes paid by all U.S. corporations in 2003. What about personally? In 2006 he paid 17.7 percent of 46 million dollars or about $8,142,000. Now before, we say, that’s not fair. He paid so little percentage wise, only 17.7%. His secretary paid 32% of her money in tax. We’ll I paid 30% as well, and it was still more than $8.1 million less than Mr. Buffet. Why is this important? Does Warren Buffet benefit more for the taxes he pays to Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, etc. than the average person? I can bet that the 40% of the of the population that pay no taxes benefit more for the taxes Mr. Buffet paid.

Myth #3 The Military is bankrupting the country

Let’s look at a breakdown of how the Federal government spends our tax dollars.


Even though these are 2008 numbers, they might not actually reflect the real cost of defense, i.e. some of these costs may be hidden. But still, even going as high as anti-war liberal estimates of 36%, the “socialist” spending is out of control. Medicare, Medicaid, Social security account for 53% of the tax budget, and this is rising due to the aging population and immigration.

Total Government spending, Federal, State and Local:

Here’s another view, considering all levels of government, federal, state, and local spent $4.1 trillion in 2007.

About 66% went to the federal government, and the remaining third going to state/local.

The largest chuck of tax dollars, 22% goes toward income security such as Social Security, welfare, disability payments, and unemployment insurance.

The next 20% goes for health care including Medicare and Medicaid.

That’s right 42% is entitlement programs. So the bottom 50% pay little or no taxes, but 42% of the actual tax payer’s money goes to entitlement programs that don’t really benefit the 50% on top.

Public safety, which includes the Military and Police, Fire Fighters, Prisons, and the court system make up 20%.

Education including primary, secondary, colleges, libraries account for 16%.

The cost of managing all levels of government takes up another 14 % of tax dollars, with the largest portion (63 percent) being the interest paid on borrowing. Other government costs include salaries, expenses, and the cost of actually collecting taxes. Can you say government / bureaucratic waste?

That leaves just 8% of taxes that goes to pay for roads, agriculture, airports, air and water quality, the space program, and recreation.



I ran across this interesting tibit by John Gibson and found it interesting.

“Lehman Brothers collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago.  Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs.  A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama.  Now remember, he’s only been in the Senate four years, but he still managed to grab the No. 2 spot ahead of John Kerry — decades in the Senate — and Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.  Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn’t afford them.  Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration’s White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick — Clinton Justice Department official — worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama’s VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job.  Now remember: Obama’s ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain — Sen. Obama — was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks.  Sen. Barack Obama: No. 2 on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate.  Next time you see that ad, you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem.”

Combine this with the real problem.

Democratic opposition of the Bush Plan to regulate Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in Sept of 2003.  That’s right five years ago Bush proposed a plan for oversight over these two giants, before the mortgage crisis.  Here’s the New York Times article below.

September 11, 2003

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

”There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,” Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration’s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies’ exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration’s proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

”The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,” Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ”We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,” the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

”These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,” he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration’s package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company’s mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

”We welcome the administration’s approach outlined today,” Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company’s 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ”responsible proposal.”

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

”The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,” said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ”Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie’s operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.”

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said. 

Who is Barack Obama? We cannot know for certain what kind of President he will be. However, we can predict what kind of man he is by looking at his past associations, actions, and involvements. He’s been involved with some fairly unsavory characters over the years. He has admitted substance abuse, in his own book “Dreams from My Father”, where he states “Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.” He would reveal these facts on in his book, but not on his Bar application. He also didn’t admit to a 17 year lapse in paying 15 outstanding parking tickets.  He didn’t bother to pay the tickets until the newspaper pointed out that a presidential candidate ought to pay his legal debts and not just ignore them. These were old tickets, but they speak to his character, he racked up 17 parking tickets in two years while attending Harvard Law. So apparently, at Harvard Law, Obama didn’t learn about obeying the law, but rather how to break the law and avoid it for nearly two decades.  Is this the future president of the United States of America?  What kind of message does that send to our youth, to our citizens, to our enemies?  You can be President of the United States of America without having to obey the law.  You can do illegal drugs, and ignore the law, your debts, and lie on your Bar application.  We have to hold the President to higher standards than the average citizen.  This is to be our leader, not our drinking buddy.

Bill Ayers – former Weather Underground member, and unrepentant terrorist bomber, was one of Obama’s earliest political supporters. They have participated in several forums at the University of Chicago together. They also served on the Board of Directors of the Woods Fund, a far left organization. The Weather Underground Organization was an American radical left organization founded in 1969 by leaders and members who split from the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The group organized a riot in Chicago in 1969 and bombed buildings in the 1970s.

In the months before Ayers’ memoir was published on September 10, 2001, the author gave numerous interviews with newspaper and magazine writers in which he defended his overall history of radical words and actions. Some of the resulting articles were written just before the September 11 terrorist attacks and appeared immediately after, including one often-noted article in The New York Times, and another in the Chicago Tribune. Numerous observations were made in the media comparing the statements Ayers was making about his own past just as a dramatic new terrorist incident shocked the public.

Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since the year 2000 stems from an interview he gave to the New York Times on the occasion of the memoir’s publication. The reporter quoted him as saying “I don’t regret setting bombs” and “I feel we didn’t do enough”, and, when asked if he would “do it all again” as saying “I don’t want to discount the possibility.” Ayers has not denied the quotes.

What was Obama doing paling around with an unreconstructed radical who spent 10 years on the run from the FBI and whose views on America or so out of the mainstream as to make him a pariah even among liberals. He must have found something attractive about Ayers to continue what was described by a friend of both men as a “friendship.” He may disavow the tactics used by Ayers but how about his ideology?

Reverend Jeremiah Wright – Supporter of Farrakhan, Anti-American, anti-Semitic, racist believer in Black Liberation Theology. Wright had been Obama’s pastor, inspiration, intimate family friend, and confidante, for 23 years. Inspiring Obama’s books he was Obama’s spiritual leader. Wright is a window into how Obama sees the world; otherwise he wouldn’t go to Wright’s church.

Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago is the one church frequently cited by James Cone as the best example of a church formally founded on the vision of Black liberation theology. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright was introduced to black liberation theology at University of Chicago’s Divinity School. Wright would cite the works of James Cone and Dwight Hopkins who are considered the leading theologians of this system of belief, although now there are many scholars who have contributed a great deal to the field. Wright built up Trinity United Church of Christ with a vision statement based on the theology laid out by James Cone. Asked in an interview which church most embodied his message, Cone replied “I would point to that church (Trinity) first.

James Cone first addressed this theology after Malcolm X’s proclamation in the 1950’s against Christianity as “a white man’s religion”. Later, Cone indicated that Malcolm X was “not far wrong” in stating:

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”

Liberation theology, as it has expressed itself in the African-American community, seeks to find a way to make the gospel relevant to black people who must struggle daily under the alleged burden of white oppression.

Theologians such as theology scholar Dr. Robert A. Morley take a dim view of black theology. Morley’s paper “The Goals of Black Liberal Theology” is one widely quoted paper citing specific criticisms of black theology.

He states that black theology turns religion into sociology, and Jesus into a black Marxist rebel. While making statements against whites and Asians, it promotes a poor self-image among blacks, and describes the black man as a helpless victim of forces and people beyond his control. Black theology calls for political liberation instead of spiritual salvation.

Fundamentally, it is not Bible-based, Christ-honoring theology from this critical viewpoint. Anthony Bradley of the Christian Post interprets that the language of “economic parity” and references to “mal-distribution” as nothing more than channeling the views of Karl Marx.

He believes James Cone and Cornel West have worked to incorporate Marxist thought into the black church, forming an ethical framework predicated on a system of oppressor class versus a victim much like Marxism.

Stanley Kurtz of the National Review criticizes black liberation theology, saying, “A scarcely concealed, Marxist-inspired indictment of American capitalism pervades contemporary ‘black-liberation theology’…The black intellectual’s goal, says Cone, is to “aid in the destruction of America as he knows it.” Such destruction requires both black anger and white guilt. The black-power theologian’s goal is to tell the story of American oppression so powerfully and precisely that white men will “tremble, curse, and go mad, because they will be drenched with the filth of their evil.”

Mohammar Khaddafi financed Obama’s cousin Raila Odinga’s run for president of Kenya. Obama campaigned for Odinga. Odinga lost the election, so the Muslims in Kenya went out and killed about a thousand Christians, because the Sharia law promised for Kenya by Odinga didn’t happen.

Tony Rezko — a Syrian immigrant, political fundraiser, restaurateur, real estate developer in Chicago, Illinois convicted on several counts of fraud and bribery in 2008; this scam artist and crook was also a fund-raiser for Obama. Rezko was one of Barack Obama’s first major financial contributors. In exchange for the money Rezko donated to the Obama senate campaign, Obama would “drop by” to shake hands with potential investors to Rezko’s business plans. After becoming a major contributor to Rod Blagojevich’s successful gubernatorial election, Rezko assisted Blagojevich in setting up the state’s first Democratic administration in 20 years. Rezko was able to have business associates appointed onto several state boards. Rezko and several others were indicted on federal charges in October 2006, for using their connections to the state boards to demand kickbacks from businesses that wanted to do business with the state. While the others plead guilty to the charges, Rezko pled not guilty and was found guilty of 16 of the 24 charges filed against him.

In 1990, Obama took a job with law firm Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, which primarily worked civil rights cases, but also represented Rezmar (Rezko’s company) and helped the company get more than $43 million in government funding and whose former senior partner, Allison S. Davis, later went into business with Rezko and, in 2003, was appointed to Illinois State Board of Investment by Governor Blagojevich at Rezko’s request. On July 31, 1995 the first ever political contributions to Obama were $300 from a lawyer, a $5,000 loan from a car dealer, and $2,000 from two food companies owned by Rezko. Starting in 2003, Rezko was one of the people on Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign finance committee, which raised more than $14 million. Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama, which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with seed money for his U.S. Senate race. Obama has since identified over $250,000 in campaign contributions to various Obama campaigns as coming from Rezko or close associates, and has claimed to have donated almost two thirds of that amount to charity.

Also, in 2005 Obama purchased a new home in the Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (which was $300,000 below the asking price but represented the highest offer on the property) on the same day that Rezko’s wife, Rita Rezko, purchased the adjoining empty lot from the same sellers for the full asking price. Obama acknowledged bringing his interest in the property to Rezko’s attention, but denied any coordination of offers. According to Obama, while the properties had originally been a single property, the previous owners decided to sell the land as two separate lots, but made it a condition of the sales that they be closed on the same date.

After it had been reported in 2006 that Rezko was under federal investigation for influence-peddling, Obama purchased a 10 foot (3.0 m) wide strip of Ms. Rezko’s property for $104,500, $60,000 above the assessed value. According to Chicago Sun-Times columnist, Mark Brown, “Rezko definitely did Obama a favor by selling him the 10-foot strip of land, making his own parcel less attractive for development.” Obama acknowledges that the exchange may have created the appearance of impropriety, and stated “I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it.”

The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama’s new home was purchased. In April 2004, Auchi attended a party in his honor at the home of Rezko. Obama also attended the party and is alleged to have toasted Auchi, according to one guest.

On December 28, 2006, Ms. Rezko sold the property to a company owned by her husband’s former business attorney. That sale of $575,000, combined with the earlier $104,500 sale to the Obama’s, amounted to a net profit of $54,500 over her original purchase, less $14,000 for a fence along the property line and other expenses. In October 2007, the new owners put the still vacant land up for sale again, this time for $1.5 million.

In June 2007, the Sun-Times published a story about letters Obama had written in 1997 to city and state officials in support of a low-income senior citizen development project headed by Rezko and partner Allison Davis. The project received more than $14 million in taxpayer funds, including $885,000 in development fees for Rezko and Davis. Of Obama’s letters in support of the Cottage View Terrace apartments development, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, “This wasn’t done as a favor for anyone; it was done in the interests of the people in the community who have benefited from the project. I don’t know that anyone specifically asked him to write this letter nine years ago. There was a consensus in the community about the positive impact the project would make and Obama supported it because it was going to help people in his district.” Rezko’s attorney responded that “Mr. Rezko never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Senator Obama in connection with that project.

In the South Carolina Democratic Party presidential debate on January 21, 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton said that Obama had represented Rezko, who she referred to as a slum landlord. Obama responded that he had never represented Rezko and had done only about five hours work, indirectly, for Rezko’s firm.

Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, a key adviser to one of the world’s richest men, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, may be the political godfather that sparked the existence of who Barrack Obama is today. A conspiracy that spans at least twenty years, which can be traced back when Obama was applying to Harvard Law. Khalid al-Mansour contacted Percy Sutton, former borough president of Manhattan and founder of Inner City Broadcasting, to write a letter in support of Obama’s application to Harvard Law School. Requesting of his friend “there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?” Sutton said he acted on his friend al-Mansour’s advice. “I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly,” Sutton told NY1. Sutton did not say why al-Mansour was helping Obama, how he discovered him, or from whom he was raising money on Obama’s behalf. The New York Times described how transformative his Harvard experience became for the young Obama: “He arrived there as an unknown, Afro-wearing community organizer who had spent years searching for his identity; by the time he left, he had his first national news media exposure, a book contract and a shot of confidence from running the most powerful legal journal in the country.” The details of Obama’s academic performance are well known: At Harvard, Obama rose to academic distinction becoming the editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduating magna cum laude. Less known are the reasons al-Mansour, an activist African-American Muslim, would be a key backer for a young man from Hawaii seeking to attend the most Ivy of the Ivy League law schools.

This brings me to my final questions. Can good come from evil? Is Obama fruit of the poisonous tree?

The iphone has one really weak feature – the phone. It is great at everything else. But for something that is primarily a phone, apple could have done a better job. First the signal strength is not good. Next it drops calls. It has no signal at home. This really drains the battery.

ssh is an evil of network security. I’m currently onsite at a customer that allows ssh outbound. Why? I’m not sure. But this is not the first customer that I’ve been to that did. Like many others they have sophisticated anti-spam, DLP, content filtering, proxies, firewalls, and ips in place. And then they screw the whole thing up with ssh.

Never allow this.

I’m currently circumventing their anti-spam, DLP, content filtering, proxies, firewalls, and ips by forwarding my traffic through an ssh tunnel I created to my home network. I’m using portable apps to do it, so there should be nothing left behind after I leave. And although my intent is not malicious it shouldn’t be possible. I’ve even got xwindows running from my ubuntu box. So the tunnel runs bi-directional. I could make it permanent. Earlier I was running metasploit through it. This is ridiculous.

Allowing ssh is too trusting. The should just eliminate the anti-spam, DLP, content filtering, proxies, firewalls, and ips and save their money.

I would have to say yes. I think this is partly a technology issue. As information security managers think we can design a system that can be managed by technology. We sit in front of consoles and we feel secure. Physical security requires work that involves people, and not just machines and technology. This process involves education, awareness, and training of actual people. This is something most people in information security don’t like to do. With so much emphasis given to DLP these days, I suspect that physical security will have to be stepped up as well. Most companies I consult with, have separate physical and network security departments. The physical security aspects are never thought about by most network security architects, and in the cases it is, it’s an afterthought. Something else that can be fixed with technology, e.g. video cameras and biometrics.

Next Page »