Homeland Security – Investigating “Right-Wing” American Citizens – Paranoia Reaches New Heights

Dept. of Homeland Security Terrorists - photo: Midwest Baptist Theological Seminary

The recent “Threat Assessment” issued to local law enforcement by the Department of Homeland Security, focuses on several factors that are, at the very least, a bit ridiculous. To be fair, it is one thing for law enforcement to look at groups such as so called “White-Supremacists”, and keep an eye on say, actual known individuals who may or may not blow up a local government office, (in the report) but their list includes some “criteria” that is insulting to the average citizen, to say the least. Several of those deemed as “possible recruits” (threat to national security) in this report, would be more inclined to form a “revolution at the polling booth” than attack the government. The list includes extremist positions such as those who are pro-life, those who own guns, those who have lost jobs, and might blame the President and icing on the cake, those returning from active duty in the military (they may be in danger of being recruited by one of these “radical groups”). Full Report Here

One would think that a coordinated effort between ACORN and the Department of Homeland Security would be more in order, in the event any of these radicals attempt to vote a particularly left of center government out of office in the 2010.

This report is akin to telling the American populous, “If you hold a belief contrary to the current administrations, you’re being watched.” This is shades of J. Edgar Hoover – in spades, or more to the point, paranoid.

From what this report reads, most of the nation should be under scrutiny – Catholics who are pro-choice, and hunt for example, may be on the list (especially if one blogs or is otherwise vocal in the community), add a recent job loss, or be a returning military, and one might find a green sedan parked outside one’s home from time to time.

Terrorist on US Soil - photo: Militant Islam Monitor.org

Would it not be better, for example, for those in a position to protect American’s from threats, to take a harder look at those groups that are actually terrorists and are actively working in the United States – say Hammas. There are several reports that training camps have been set-up in Virginia, however, due to the fact that these individuals may be of a certain Religious affiliation; to monitor their activity or to release reports to local police regarding their profiles, would be: profiling!

In all seriousness, what the administration has done is give radio talk show hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck, another boost in ratings. In addition, those millions that are being reached each day by the aforementioned will be voting to ensure that the focus of the Department of Homeland Security is on credible threats, not on citizens who may disagree with policy.

Steele’s GOP Promise – Analysis - Reaching Out and Winning over Democrats without Compromising Conservative Principals – His Winning Attributes: The

From Wikipedia: Steele Presents award to USNS Comfort Crew

There is a great deal of excitement among grassroots conservatives over the choice of Michael Steele as Republican National Committee Chair – and most media are either missing the point, or ignoring several facets of Steele’s resume and biography that are critical. First, one has to look at the man in total, the fact that he has been involved in Republican politics since Reagan became an inspiration, having ideals similar to his mother’s, hard-working and principled, Steele did not grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth. Reagan’s appeal to those who traditionally voted with the Democrat Party is apparent in Steele, who personally identifies with those constituents and, by virtue of that fact, invites them back into the party.

One major factor of Steele’s biography that has been somewhat absent (while the focus, of course, is the fact that Steele is an African American - truly a moot point), is his Catholicism. Prior to his graduation from John Hopkins (He went onto Georgetown to earn his Law, Degree) Steele, a devout Catholic, graduated from Archbishop Carrol High School in Washington DC, went onto John Hopkins (Where he earned a B.A. in International Relations), and of import, he attended the Augustinian Friars Seminary at Villanova University for 3 years, prior to his enrollment at Georgetown. .

Steele’s resume is impressive in many ways, yet, why would the fact that he is a Catholic be a bigger factor than, say race? A quick study of the Catholic vote in the United States is in order.
Catholics are primarily working class (union) and vote consistently with the Democrat Party (with exceptions), and against the teachings of the Church (especially as it applies to Abortion). In fact, since 1972 the “white” (here we go, media obsession with race again) Catholic vote (numbered at 20-25 million or as high as 30 million, depending upon the source), has had an impact on the General Election, in fact, they have voted consistently for and with the winning party since 1972 (noted by Washington Post). Keeping that in mind, the Catholic Vote was more responsible for the election of George Bush in 2004 than evangelicals. -Why? They identified with Bush, not as a pro-life protestant, but as the “guy in the work shirt standing atop the rubble of the World Trade Center, when compared to the “elite” John Kerry windsurfing off the Cape, Catholics voted with the guy who most closely resembled their own ideals (not political party).

What happened then with John McCain? Perception: (Aided by an all too willing media) – The choice was clear, you either voted for a guy who didn’t know how many houses he owned, or the guy who was a community organizer and talked the talk of the working man (unless of course, he was out of earshot at a fundraiser in San Francisco . (A fact, which, for some reason, did not trickle down to the rank and file). Additionally, the issue of abortion played a minor role until the last moments leading up to the election (and afterward), when some Catholic Priests began to make a little noise about Obama’s support for partial birth abortion.

A few events have taken place within the Vatican and the Church since the last election that may be worthy of note: One of Obama’s first official acts was to repeal the ban on aid for abortions overseas, a move that prompted a Senior Vatican Archbishop, Rino Fisichella, to call the American President “arrogant”. (Outstanding treatment and article here at “Right Pundits”) The fact should not go unnoticed that an Italian Archbishop (Vatican Politics) making such a statement is more impactful than one coming from an American Cardinal in the same building – it is proximity to the Pope. Almost immediately following the lifting of this ban, the Vatican suddenly went tech – with a dedicated, English only, YouTube Cannel. Although Church’s are in danger of losing Tax-Exempt Status should they preach politics from the pulpit; there is no restriction on speaking out against the act of abortion, or any other topic relevant to the Church’s teaching – additionally, the church has every right to excommunicate or otherwise prohibit Catholics who are pro-choice from participating in church sacraments; given the more involved Vatican, one might anticipate that this trend will continue and increase in scope.

Now enter Steele, a devout Catholic, at the helm of the pro-life party, who can identify (through his own life experience) with the working class (otherwise known as: dedicated Democrat votes). Additionally, the more the media screams (there really is no other word for it) “Race”, the more Steele downplays that aspect (we are all American’s regardless of color, ethnicity and/or gender) and focuses instead on the truism that regardless of the aforementioned, most Americans are center right – the problem has been that, since Reagan, no one has bothered to engage those voters, giving them (and the states in which they reside) up for lost.

As an Evangelical, Spanish Catholic, living in Massachusetts, the election of Steele and his statement, “To my friends in the Northeast: get ready, baby. It's time to turn it on, and work to do what we always do well, and that is win. We're gonna win again in the Northeast. made the mantra: "Hope and Change" a reality - for Conservatives. For far too long, Massachusetts (among other states that were considered “too Blue) have been all but ignored by the national party – Massachusetts, especially, should be given a closer look for the following reasons: a) the states electorate is overwhelmingly independent; with both Republicans and Democrats losing members in the past two election cycles, b)those independents have been responsible for putting Republican’s, when and where available, into the statehouse, the US Senate and the Governor seat. Finally, independents will also give Massachusetts 12 electoral college votes to a Republican - as they did with Reagan – twice.

What has been lacking to date for the conservatives in this state? Effective leadership at both the state and national level; which changed this past week with the election of Jennifer Nassour (her plan for the State Party bears a striking resemblance to Steele’s plan for the national party), and Steele’s understanding that the Blue States are “ripe for the picking”, (There are sufficient grassroots activists (read conservatives of all strips and registered independents) already in place that will work for the party, if asked to the dance. They’ve been asked to the dance.

While, The New York Times, is making Steele’s Chair about “Race”, they did not delve into his “appeal” to the “regular folk”, or the Catholic Vote, which may end up reducing the ranks of their pet party. Steele, no stranger to the media, is characterized as having an ”upbeat image” by the Baltimore Sun, immediately taking control by publicly telling Republican Legislatures to "Stick to their Guns" on the Stimulus package, a fact that did not go “unreported”.

How important is Michael Steele to the Republican Party’s image? Just Google the new DNC chair, former Gov. Tim Kaine (who will, be in the same position as RNC's Duncan was – taking orders from Obama, as the party leader). Steele has the ability to run the RNC his way - without the restrictions of a Party Head. One can draw the conclusion, therefore, with this change of pace, the expectations regarding races on all levels in 2010 has changed.

Monday's Musings - The Left - Using Religion for Politial Purpose

Robert S. McElvaine, History Department Chair at 87th Ranked (Liberal Arts Colleges) Millsaps College in Jackson MI and noted member of “Historians Against Bush”, pimped his new book, “Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America”, in a Huffington Post article he posted July 6, 2008. In his post, he complains about the endorsement of John McCain by the 90 Church Leaders who met in Colorado last week. He dubs these leaders as “Jesus Thieves” as they interpret the Bible somewhat differently than Professor McElvaine. He cries foul that these Leaders had the nerve to hold a conference in Denver, of all places, because that is where the Democrats are holding their convention this year. He does, of course, mention Obama.

In his analysis of these church leaders petition to McCain suggesting he choose Mike Huckabee or someone who has a similar charactor as a running mate, McElvine states: “In short, they don't like Huckabee on precisely those issues where he actually heeds the teachings of Jesus -- and suggests policies that might help the least of these and cut into the profits of the money-changers.”, This is almost praise for Huckabee from one who can be categorized as “Committed Left” but it serves a purpose.

He continues: “ Phil Burress, one of those at the Denver meeting, said that the most important thing is that McCain's running mate be "pro-life and pro-family." Those are, of course, code words for being anti-abortion and anti-gay.
"The only evangelicals that will support Obama are the ones who haven't read their Bible," proclaimed Burress.
These Jesus Thieves must be reading a different Bible from the one I have. In mine, Jesus never mentions abortion or homosexuality. He does, however, talk about loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, helping the poor, and how difficult it is for a rich man to enter heaven.”

Herein lies the problem. The church leaders who met in Colorado are all reading from similar Bibles - Bibles that are in concert with the King James Version or the Catholic Bible, its predecessor, with only modest changes in the language, without any deviation from the original context. In looking at issues held dear by the Left, specifically Abortion, it behooves them to print a newer version. In Matthew 5-17 Jesus commenting on the Law states (paraphrasing): that he did not come to change it but to fulfill it. In all interpretations other than McElvaine’s, Jesus is referring to the Law of Moses - the 10 Commandments, which, if memory serves includes that one biggie: “Thou Shalt Not Murder.”

How far will the Progressives go to subvert Religion? In an attempt to counter the Republican ideology, which does bring God into the public square, the new brand of liberal Christians are doing the same. Isn't this a contradiction of their constant mantra of “Separation of Church and State”? (One can just imagine how McElvine interprets the Constitution!)

Finally, the problem with Mr. McElvines weak thesis is his lack of research. Had he taken the time to actually compare several Bibles, he would have found that, yes indeed, as a Jew, Jesus did conform to the law. Specfically those practices set down by the prophets and he also encouraged those that followed his teachings to keep God’s commandments, forever linking the old to the new testament. In other words, the Church Leaders who met at Denver, as well as the millions of Christians of like mind, including Catholics, do not use pro-life as a code word for Abortion. Code word? They have no need for code-words as they are all reading the non-McElvine’s approved Bible, which is pretty clear on that point. Note of interest, McElvine fails to mention which version of the Bible he prefers.

Obama – on Partial-Birth Abortion – A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing

Barack Obama has recently decided that a woman should not qualify for a late-term (partial-birth) abortion if the only qualifier for the procedure is “mental distress”. There is absolutely no medical reason for a partial-birth abortion, with the exception of “mental distress”. (Physicians for Life) In cases of “Mental Stress” reasons include the development of certain defects in the unborn child, (perhaps it’s not the correct gender), or the emotional distress (becoming a parent may be too much for the woman to stand). Barak Obama, in courting those who are less liberal Christians, has made this concession as he must believe those that are clutching to their guns and bibles were also born yesterday.

In a recent interview with Relevant Magazine, a publication that is focused on God, Life and Progressive Culture, he speaks about his Faith Based Initiative (shades of George Bush!), and why he feels the Congress would pass his version (no need to state the obvious), and goes on to talk about his personal disdain for abortion. Strangely contradicting his reaction last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions - Obama disagreed with the ruling because it was a departure from precedents that safeguard a pregnant women’s health.

He has also defended his opposition to restrictions placed on partial-birth abortions in his political past (one term as a state senator and half a term as a US Senator). He voted against the “Born Alive”Illinois Senate Bill.

Let’s call a “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”, a “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”! Barack Obama accepted NARAL’s all important endorsement, (otherwise known as a key issue when it comes to Democrats seeking election or re-election – they are always “pro-choice” – which, by the by, should be called “pro-abortion”) knowing full well what the qualifiers were for partial-birth abortion, abortion in general and the no-holds barred approach of this particular organization. To learn more about the political arm of NARAL and how they see the differences between John McCain and Obama, visit
Pro-AbortionAmerica.org/Elections Apparently, John McCain is a candidate that is “pro-life” or, “Against Abortion”.

The distinctions between these two candidates were made clear to the 90 Christian church leaders recently in Denver by Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas and 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate. These same leaders met last week to unite behind John McCain’s
(WZMM13) candidacy.

Apparently, Barak Obama’s recent conversions vis-a-vis partial-birth abortion and Faith Based Initiatives have brought to light his support for those things that are anathema to the very people he is desperately trying to pursued. Barack Obama - “less evil”? (Jeff Greenfield, Slate Blog – “How Obama Can Lessen the Opposition”) Perhaps so, or perhaps “less careful” when it comes to fooling all of the people, some of the time.