Absolutely Uncertain! (18-minute mini-documentary)

From video description:

A new, 18-minute mini-documentary follows the journey of Irina, a 23-year-old liberal, Jewish New Yorker who voted for Obama in 2008. Yet as her connection to Israel has grown, and she has learned more about the President’s policies across the Middle East and towards Israel in particular, Irina has come to realize that “when the chips are down,” the President may not “have Israel’s back” as he says.

The short film features:

Exclusive interviews with leading journalists and politicians in Israel

(Bloomberg, London Times, Jerusalem Post, etc.)

Mainstream news reports (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, BBC, etc.),

Clips from longtime Democratic supporters including: Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)

Documentary ~Inside Job~ Critiqued

This documentary will be the talk of the town for a while, so I figured I better give those who wish to judge whether portions of this well done presentation are actually correct or not. There are some great insights presented in this documentary, but all too often people swallow the entire thing rather than parsing what is true in it and what is up for debate. I will start first by some resources I give via a discussion on Facebook I was involved in after the person who watched said, “[I am] done with conservatism.” I will follow that with some points I feel are important for the person who watched the documentary to know:

You would have to start something in order to quit it. It is funny because one of the most conservative radio hosts liked the movie… he isn’t done with conservatism. in fact, he even had the director, Charles H. Ferguson, on to talk about the movie: http://vimeo.com/23844840

  • PART 1

Of course, I think that one of the most budget minded hawks in the Senate who could have been our President may have taken vastly more positive steps in ending this problem than Obama (http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2008/09/clinton-and-housing-mess.html), but that is neither here nor there.

  1. Clinton in his own words:
  2. Democrats in a hearing:
  3. And here is the link to my “tag” on my old site dealing with this issue:
  • PART 2
I have to go to bed, but Bush tried (through his admin) 17-times to regulate Freddie and Fannie. Here is a timeline: http://youtu.be/cMnSp4qEXNM So when you say “deregulation has lost a lot of credibility with me over time, and thats a big part of conservative philosophy to me,” maybe you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. All deregulation is not bad, just like all regulation isn’t either – as Bush tried to do.

I think this is a good response to some of the important miss-truths in the documentary Inside Job, which does reflect some truths in its presentation. This is a good series of commentary and there are not only the critiques I am listing below but also some points explaining some truths found in the documentary. However, for this presentation I cherry picked some of the more important points that needed to be dealt with:

Number 1 of 17:

Claim: “In 2008, the collapse of Lehman Brothers and AIG triggered the crisis.”

On the other hand: The origins of the crisis can be traced back even further, to the implosion of two Bear Stearns hedge funds run by Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin, the Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Fund and the Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Fund.

Cioffi and Tannin invested the funds’ $1.4 billion in CDOs backed by highly rated (meaning that they were meant to be safe, investment-grade) mortgages, aka the top tranch CDOs. In the last two weeks of June 2007, rising defaults by the least credit-worthy borrowers spread from the bottom tranches of CDOs to the top, triggering massive losses in the funds.

Many on Wall Street were surprised that the top tranches were affected, and they became aware of a crisis brewing in the mortgage market. Sophisticated investors became wary of investing in even AAA-rated mortgages, and firms that held them on their books began trying to offload them quickly before they went bad.

(By the way, Cioffi and Tannin were soon bankrupted, charged with defrauding investors and later, acquitted of fraud.) Click here to read more >

Number 3 of 17:

Claim: In the movie, deregulation is synonymous with the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act and the consolidation of the financial industry.

George Soros, for example, likens the consolidation to an oil rig that doesn’t hold oil in a number of separate compartments that will contain an oil spill to one compartment and help prevent draining of the whole supply.

On the other hand: Deregulation is an odd word to use to describe an act that allowed insurance firms, investment banks, and commercial banks to operate as one unit.

Deregulation implies that they’re not regulated as stringently as they were before. Financial firms need more regulation, but there was nothing in the GLB act that said to decrease regulation of these units. The only thing the GLB did about regulation was to establish the Federal Reserve as the regulator of all financial holding companies.

Number 4 of 17:

Claim: “Since deregulation began, banks have been caught cooking their books and defrauding investors again and again.”

On the other hand: Crime on Wall Street seems to have existed almost as long as Wall Street has. Author Steven Fraser writes that it dates back to William Duer in 1792.

According to the SEC, organized crime on Wall Street dates back to the 1970s, before the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act.

Number 7 of 17:

Claim: “Eliot Spitzer’s investigation found analysts were promoting companies that they knew were junk.”

Inside Job provides anecdotal evidence of Wall Street analysts promoting companies while writing emails that called those same companies, “junk.”

On the other hand: Analysts were accused of lying to clients based on edited emails that don’t tell the whole story. When taken in context, the full emails might have provided evidence that actually indicated that the analysts were analyzing the shape of the market and new research. And that might have been all they were doing in those emails: reacting to new research that said, this thing is “junk.” After which, they moved on to finding new evidence by doing their own research and proving it wrong. And THEN they promoted the companies.

Number 8 of 17:

Claim: “Derivatives have no value of their own, yet are a $50 trillion market. Using derivatives, traders can bet on anything.”

Inside Job argues that derivatives have no value of its own because its value is derived from another asset.

On the other hand: A Reuters special report on derivatives has a good argument: Big companies regularly use derivatives as a form of insurance to guard against jumps in the price of everything from cocoa to interest rates. An airline will buy jet fuel derivatives so that if prices spike, the contract helps to make up the difference in price, enabling the carrier to budget and plan ahead. If jet fuel prices fall, the loss made on the derivatives contract is canceled out by savings from cheaper refueling bills. It’s the same with barley for beer or aluminium for cans, or any other commodity you can think of.

Also, the OTC market is a $600 trillion industry, so if you’re going to take issue with something that should be regulated, you might want to take it up with OTC.

Number 9 of 17:

Claim: Derivatives are a destructive market, but no one regulates it.

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act bans all regulation of financial derivatives and exempts them from anti-gambling laws, according to the movie.

On the other hand: S. 3217, which divides the regulation of OTC derivatives between the SEC and the CFTC, assigning the SEC regulatory authority over some – but not all – securities-related derivatives and the CFTC authority for others, such as indexes of those securities, passed the Senate this summer.

But there’s a counterpoint: These new regulations may not even pass, and a senior policy advisor at the SEC says “these regulations are begging to be gamed.” Click here to read more >

Number 10 of 17:

Claim: “The average salary of a Goldman Sachs employee is $600,000”

In 2006, the average salary of a Goldman employee was $622,000.

On the other hand: This year, the average salary of a Goldman employee was $431,000 this year.

Number 11 of 17:

Claim: Dick Fuld earned $485 million

On the other hand: Fuld says his total compensation from 2000 through 2007 was less than $310 million, not $485 million. He explained 85% of his pay was in Lehman stock that had become worthless. “I never sold my shares,” Fuld said at one point. At another, he said he had not sold the “vast majority” of them.

Source: BusinessWeek

Number 14 of 17:

Claim: Wall Street compensation rewards short term goals that will ultimately bankrupt the company.

On the other hand: That’s an overstatement. It’s true that in past years, many employees of financial firms had contracts with their firm that entitled them to profit-sharing agreements. The contracts stipulated that they would earn a share of the profits they earned for the firm that year (encouraging short term profits).

However since the crisis, many firms have increased the proportion of an employee’s bonus that is paid in stock while decreasing the portion that is paid annually. Many employees must now wait around 3-5 years before cashing in their stock.

Research from Harvard, a school which the movie claims is perpetuating the culture of greed by employing teachers and Presidents whom are paid handsomely by the financial services sector via consultancies, suggests that rewarding employees with profits that pay out over the long-term are most beneficial.

Counterpoint: “Clawbacks,” when an executive has had to give back their bonus, have almost never happened. Click here to see 9 execs who had to give back their bonuses >

Numbewr 15 of 17:

Claim: The meltdown was not an accident.

Financiers knew they were selling junk, and knew they would ultimately come out on top and leave the rest of the world in a recession.

On the other hand: There is no proof that it was an accident (and no proof that it wasn’t).

There is a conspiracy theory we’ve heard that says that in the early 1990s, people on Wall Street discovered that triggering a bubble and then going “short” before it blew up could outearn any long-term investment, even investing in Coca-Cola or McDonald’s 50 years ago.

It remains a conspiracy theory for now, and the movie (thankfully) doesn’t touch on it

Number 16 of 17:

Also, unlike the movie suggests, Wall Street has changed a lot since the crisis.

But it’s all relative, considering how ridiculous it was before.

Click here to see 10 crazy tales from the days leading up to the financial crisis >

A Short Review of the Conservative Documentary-Agenda: Grinding America Down (Full Movie Added)

While there is a lot of truth in the movie… there is quite a bit of personal opinion that is just that — opinion.

I watched — over the weekend — a movie called Agenda: Grinding America Down. While this would be one of the better documentaries I have seen (for instance, The Red Line: The Elites New World Order Agenda, is one of those documentaries that is horrible as well as anything from Alex Jones and Prison Planet). There may be some connecting merit in all these documentaries unveiling a supposed secret plan of one-worldism (OW) by quoting people who are against nation states, these documentaries also sully up any credibility by including people who think most major wars and milestones have been engineered by a secret cabal. Agenda is one of these films, sullied by extremists.

Again, there are many truths in this film, but some untruths as well.

Often times the response to this “Agenda” is rooted in a false idea of what government is and isn’t. One person that deals with the view that I wish to ferret out here is theologian Wayne Grudem. He makes an excellent point that I think we — as Christians — should inculcate into our lives rather than merely placate as a term uttered once in a while. Considering our dictate “the Bible interprets the Bible,” let us read Doc Grudem’s input on a verse where he explains it by the rest of the Bible. Obviously the persons this may be directed to do not hold the viewpoint Gregory Boyd does, but the point being made fits well:

Satan’s Authority

1. Support from Luke 4:6

This viewpoint has been strongly promoted by Minnesota pastor Greg Boyd in his influential book The Myth of a Christian Nation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005). Boyd’s views in this book have had a large impact in the United States, especially on younger evangelical voters.

Boyd says that all civil government is “demonic” (p. 21). Boyd’s primary evidence is Satan’s statement to Jesus in Luke 4:

And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours” (Luke 4:5-7).

Boyd emphasizes Satan’s claim that all the authority of all the kingdoms of the world “has been delivered to me” and then says that Jesus “doesn’t dispute the Devil’s claim to own them. Apparently, the authority of all the kingdoms of the world has been given to Satan.”

Boyd goes on to say, “Functionally, Satan is the acting CEO of all earthly governments.” This is indeed a thoroughgoing claim!

2. The mistake of depending on Luke 4:6

Greg Boyd is clearly wrong at this point. Jesus tells us how to evaluate Satan’s claims, for he says that Satan “has nothing to do with the truth” because

“there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44).

Jesus didn’t need to respond to every false word Satan said, for his purpose was to resist the temptation itself, and this he did with the decisive words, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve”‘ (Luke 4:8).

In evaluating Boyd’s claim that “the authority of all the kingdoms of the world has been given to Satan,” we have a choice: Do we believe Satan’s words that he has the authority of all earthly kingdoms, or do we believe Jesus’ words that Satan is a liar and the father of lies? The answer is easy: Satan wanted Jesus to believe a lie, and he wants us to believe that same lie, that he is the ruler of earthly governments.

By contrast, there are some very specific verses in the Bible that tell us how we should think of civil governments. These verses do not agree with Satan’s claim in Luke 4:6 or with Boyd’s claim about Satan’s authority over all earthly governments. Rather, these verses where God (not Satan) is speaking portray civil government as a gift from God, something that is subject to God’s rule (not Satan) and used by God for his purposes. Here are some of those passages:

“The Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men” (Dan. 4:17).

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are the ministers of God, attending to this very thing (Rom. 13:1-6).

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good (1 Peter 2:13-14).

At this point it is interesting that both Paul (in Romans) and Peter see civil government as doing the opposite of what Satan does: civil governments are established by God “to punish those who do evil,” but Satan encourages those who do evil! Civil governments are established by God “to praise those who do good,” but Satan discourages and attacks those who do good. In addition, it would not make sense for Peter to say, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every institution in which Satan is the CEO.” Peter would not want Christian citizens to be subject to Satan’s control and direction.

The point is that Satan wants us to believe that all civil government is under his control, but that is not taught anywhere in the Bible. (Of course, Satan can influence some individuals in government, but he is not in control.) The only verse in the whole Bible that says Satan has authority over all governments is spoken by the father of lies, and we should not believe it. Greg Boyd is simply wrong in his defense of the view that “all government is demonic.”

Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 36-38.

So, what is my point here? That all governments and plots to overthrow them, in the end, are under God’s control. This is something that is missed from documentaries like this. That is: God is Sovereign over everything.


An interesting aspect that I have noticed when I was attending the local John Birch Society meetings and was an avid visitor of the American Opinion Book Store in North Hollywood, the joining idea of most of the Christians that I met in this movement were those of amillennialism. (Please read my “Learning Curves” section ~ pages  7-10 ~ of a chapter from my book for some more info on this subject.) They saw it (at least what I could surmise during the ending prayers) that they were bringing God’s Kingdom fully into the world by opposing Satan’s. What does this have to do, if anything, with the conservative documentary Agenda? One joining aspect in this unhealthy view is based around the book, The Naked Communist. The author (who also penned The Naked Capitalist) was written by W. Cleon Skousen, who’s career is often over-sold, in the end is a Mormon. This may not be important to many but his view of the universe, man, and god’s” place in it are ultimately driven by a polytheistic worldview. This conspiratorial/polytheistic view has deeply infected Glenn Beck (see also) and Mitt Romney. There is an understanding by Skousen — unstated in the Agenda documentary, that god is in fact finite in many ways. So knowing Skousen’s worldview goes a long way in explaining the immediacy that others may not see regarding this problem. A problem, I might add, that has existed for some time.

The introduction of a novel term like “liberal fascism” obviously requires an explanation. Many critics will undoubtedly regard it as a crass oxymoron. Actually, however, I am not the first to use the term. That honor falls to H. G. Wells, one of the greatest influences on the progressive mind in the twentieth century (and, it turns out, the in­spiration for Huxley’s Brave New World). Nor did Wells coin the phrase as an indictment, but as a badge of honor. Progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis,” he told the Young Liberals at Oxford in a speech in July 1932. Wells was a leading voice in what I have called the fascist mo­ment, when many Western elites were eager to replace Church and Crown with slide rules and industrial armies.

(Liberal Fascism, p. 21; more on this can be found in a post entitled, “Mussolini Defines Fascism“)

Read more: RPT Margaret Sanger and the Racist History of Planned Parenthood (Black Genocide)

Begetting Orthodoxy

From the feminist movement in the 20’s to the support by American progressives of the Nazi regime and then the Communist dictatorships afterward. Nothing is new.  Useful Idiots abound, from Eden to Kentucky. In fact, the church in the early 1900s dealt with this liberal intrusion extensively. One of the greatest books written on dealing with this liberalism that has infected the church since its founding is a book by Professor Machen. This was in fact the birth of modern conservative Christianity, which was born out of a systematic refutation of this liberal view of God, man, doctrine, and the like. One church historian makes the point that “heresy can claim greater antiquity than orthodoxy can” (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, p. 70). In other words, orthodoxy was a response to what was obviously heresy.

Skousen also twists facts to make a conspiracy seem plausible when in reality these goals are plain as day. As an example, one theme pushed in all my reading of Skousen and by authors like him is the danger of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and their goals for a one-world government.  A myriad of quotes taken from many of these anti-nation states members, some well-known, are displayed across the pages of these books. What you never-ever hear about is that the CFR has many lovers of nation states in its ranks. These members write and debate and influence the CFR as well. It is similar to when the major prime-time and morning news shows have 157 segments exclusively wanting stricter gun control laws and only 10 with a pro-2nd amendment segments. Something is lost in translation.

Another aspect of this documentary that is puzzling is in regards to liberals not liking the term “liberal” and wishing to be called “progressives” instead is just not true. In fact, they wanted to get away from the term progressive and self-applied “liberal” as part of the idea that they are classical liberals. Which of course is false, but they tried to hijack an understanding of being connected to the Founders in this way. So I prefer calling them “progressives” when I am making a deeper point, “liberal” if I am feeling nice. (Lawrence O’Donnell simply prefers socialist, and Rachel Maddow prefers to be thought of as “to the left of Moa.” [scary])


I can see why many may like this movie. Maybe this is the first time they are seeing some of this information and assume if one part is sound then all of this presentation is sound. A site that has made these connections for years is Discover the Networks, with whom David Horowitz is intimately involved.

Let me say that I agree that this radical arm of the Democratic Party has substantial control now of the public’s trust.  And one of the richest OW’ers is George Soros. Money talks, and Soros gives a lot of it to anti-nation state organizations. Marvin Olasky, senior editor at World Magazine, was key in showing Soros’ influence on a major liberal Christian organization, the Sojourners. However, taking this important information and connecting it to people that believe in massive secret conspiracies and societies in starting WWI, WWII, and the like; pushing authors who believe that all political parties are controlled by this One World cabal makes me stand vehemently against this “documentary.”

I must point out from a post a long-time back that these conspiracy theories that some of the authors and speakers highlighted in Agenda believe in ultimately explains nothing:

I was once the biggest New World Order (NWO) guy there was. Ralph Epperson was a god of conspiracy theories in my view of history. But when I started to draw these conclusions out to their logical ends and started tracking down references used by these writers, I found that this belief is just that, a belief.

Listen, I will give a parallel to one (of the many) reasons I reject Darwinism as a reason that includes the rejection of the conspiratorial view of history.

“The underlying problem is that a key Darwinian term is not defined. Darwinism supposedly explains how organisms become more ‘fit,’ or better adapted to their environment. But fitness is not and cannot be defined except in terms of existence. If an animal exists, it is ‘fit’ (otherwise it wouldn’t exist). It is not possible to specify all the useful parts of that animal in order to give an exhaustive causal account of fitness. [I will add here that there is no way to quantify those unknowable animal parts in regards to the many aspects that nature could or would impose on all those parts.] If an organism possesses features that appears on the surface to be an inconvenient – such as the peacock’s tail or the top-heavy antlers of a stag – the existence of stags and peacocks proves that these animals are in fact fit. So the Darwinian theory is not falsifiable by any observation. It ‘explains’ everything, and therefore nothing. It barely qualifies as a scientific theory for that reason…. The truth is that Darwinism is so shapeless that it can be enlisted is support of any cause whatsoever…. Darwinism has over the years been championed by eugenicists, social Darwinists, racialists, free-market economists, liberals galore, Wilsonian progressives, and National Socialists, to give only a partial list. Karl Marx and Herbert Spencer, Communists and libertarians, and almost anyone in between, have at times found Darwinism to their liking.”

From an article by Tom Bethell in The American Spectator (magazine), July/August 2007, pp. 44-46.

So to is the conspiratorial view of history (Bilderbergers, Council of Foreign Relations, Banking Institutions, Rosicrucians, The Knights Templars, on-and-on). It is used by Marxists to libertarians and anarchists, liberal and conservatives. If someone or something disproves an aspect of this theory that person is a “shill” or the fact has been planted. It explains everything and therefore nothing.


Many a conspiracy folk have inane explanations of the symbols found on the dollar bill. I know because I did it. However, after reading David Barton’s book, The Question of Freemasonry and the Founding Fathers. I highly recommend this book. There are people who dedicate their writings to Lucifer, such as was truthfully pointed out in the first pages of Saul Alinsky’s book which heavily influenced our president and people around him. In the dedication portion of Saul’s book we find this:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer

Many in the media love Saul Alinsky. Chris Matthews for one (see video to the right), the founder of The Daily Kos (a well-known liberal website) wrote the following dedication in his book, Taking on the System: Rules for Radical Change in a Digital Era: “For…. Saul Alinsky.” Then  Markos Zuniga continues in his dedication to this radical a quote from the same, “The tactics may change, but the soul of the radical endures.” The Agenda doesn’t respond to answering these tactics because it corrupts any response it tries with crazy conspiracy nuts (like Skousen) who have said George Bush invaded Iraq because of world bankers wanting him to do so. For instance this from one of Skousen’s classes as recalled by a Mormon student:

There is no denying that the Secret Combination spoken of in Ether Chapter 8 of the Book of Mormon exists today. Dr. Skousen spoke about the “War in Iraq,” informing us that it is unconstitutional and a war the Founding Fathers would have never gotten involved in. He said President Bush is taking orders from a higher power. One lady in the room asked, “who, Heavenly Father?” At that moment I began laughing in my mind, because I knew the truth was completely opposite. Dr. Skousen responded by saying it is the World Banks, the Rothchild’s, Rockefeller’s – the money powers, etc. They are the ones who are really in power. They are the ones who ordered the war.

Skousen believes that we have already lost:

  • “… the New World Order which is in control right now…. You don’t know it, but you’ve lost your country.”

While I disagree with this last statement (see audio to the right), so what? I don’t say this in a way that means I will not fight for one of the greatest nations to grace this earth. I say this only because America is not the Church. There was a promise made and it included the Body of Christ, not a particular nation:

And Jesus responded, “Simon son of Jonah, you are blessed because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven.  And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the forces of Hades will not overpower it. (Matthew 16:17-18)

As Reformational Protestants, we know that the Rock is Jesus. We also know that the Church is not America.  Some say that there are 150-million Christians in China. I wonder if they pray for their government to be more like America, or if they pray like the prayee in the ending verses of the Bible, “He who testifies about these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming quickly.’ Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!” I live in America and I often find myself praying for this!


So what can we do to subvert this inevitable slide? God, family, community. You see it isn’t only communists that want the family to disintegrate and thus rely on government more. It is anarchists, liberals, progressives, Republicans, even anti-communists. It is the negation of one of the first edicts of God to man to leave your mother and father and become one with your wife. You see, there are Christians — people who have become new creatures through the miraculous work of Christ. Then there are pagans. Both are working towards God’s goal. He is sovereign and His will will be done. Whether America is weakened in order for this to be done, or for America to be made more Godly. I will fight for truth and justice as much as I can, and as helpful as some of the information was in Agenda and the excellence of some of those interviewed for the documentary (M. Stanton Evans for instance).

Many of these documentaries make us feel like we are in an irreversible state, morally & spiritually. While I do not necessarily agree with everything in the chapter, I recommend Michael Medved’s last chapter of his book, The 10 Big Lies About America: Combating Destructive Distortions About Our Nation. This chapter is entitled “America is in the Middle of an Irreversible Moral Decline.” In an interview about this book, Medved mentioned this after the initial question:

There are a lot of conservatives out there, probably most of them even, who believe that “America is in the midst of an irreversible moral decline.” Would you disagree with that?

I do. In my book, The 10 Big Lies About America: Combating Destructive Distortions About Our Nation, that’s the 10th big lie and in many ways, it’s the most pernicious — because if our moral decline is irreversible, then America’s weakening and decline is irreversible. That goes against our national ethos. Part of what it means to be an American is that nothing is irreversible for this country. No challenge is too great.

Now, I would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind — particularly dumb — to suggest that everything about American culture is healthy, vital, vibrant, and wholesome. It isn’t. There are a lot of cultural problems in this country and I have written about them very extensively in the past in books like Hollywood vs. America.

The problem with the premise that our moral decline is irreversible is that people have been saying this since the 1640s (laughs)…it simply cannot be true that every single generation of Americans is the worst generation in American history.

In history, remember, there was a time when almost every Democrat wanted to secede, and those who didn’t were segregationists. Yet we overcame slavery against such odds. The 2010 elections were a great leap forwards in regards to correcting what many see having gone wrong in this greatest nation on God’s green earth. Not only this big gain, but since November second we have had 17 Democratic state legislators change their party affiliation to that of Republican. In order to keep this momentum, we need to stay away from complicated themes and zero in on the basics. Do you want big government or small. Its as simple as that. The larger the government, the smaller the individual. Not only is a smaller government a preferable economic position we are in need of desperately,  but smaller government is a moral position.


 photo 48eafee3.jpg  photo French.jpg  photo Fire.jpg
 photo enroute.jpg  photo Morals.jpg  photo Tragedy.jpg
 photo Conspiracy.jpg  photo Brotherhood.jpg  photo Black.jpg
 photo Lost.jpg  photo Shadows.jpg  photo Proofs.jpg
 photo New.jpg  photo TheNew.jpg  photo TheSecret.jpg


The Third Jihad (Documentary)

The Religion of Conquest h/t:

The Hidden War. There’s a war going on and the major battles take place right here in America. It’s a hidden war against the freedom and values we all take for granted. The enemy is taking advantage of our country’s democratic process, and using it to further its own aims. Most people, busy with their daily struggles don’t even realize there’s a war. And that’s just the way the Radical Islamists would like things to remain.

…(read more)…

Darfur-Sudan~The Devil Came on Horseback

I have been following this Black African and Christian genocide in the Sudan since about 1994. Many Christian missions groups have been on the forefront of this alarm since before Hollywood and others have been touting and documenting this horrible travesty. A short documentary was done in 1999 entitled Sudan: The Hidden Holocaust; and Unholy War: Christian Genocide in Sudan. This documentary below, however, goes a step beyond. It is a much watch, but be prepared, you will need a box of tissues.

The Religion of Conquest h/t:

(RoC) I watched this documentary about genocide is Sudan and learning that the slave trade has once again risen up in the world of Islam in Sudan. Even though this documentary is hard to watch, especially when you see the amount of evidence for the mass genocide and learn nothing is being done about it by the US government, the part between 1:00 and 1:35 is very touching for me. Even though most of the aid sent from the US is stolen before it gets to people in need, the only thing these people have comes from America and this man says he is so grateful to the American People and the “free world”. Even though they are Muslims… no help comes from any Islamic countries, and that is because they are black African Muslims which the Arab Muslim controlled Sudanese Government have decided to kill in masses.