HE IS AT WAR WITH US

 

He is at war with us.

By Mario Murillo

 

The American pastor Saeed Abedini–held hostage by Iran was set to fly to freedom but they had to wait for another plane to arrive from America first.  That plane was most certainly carrying $400 million in cash sent from Obama to Iran.  There is also great reason to believe that money will end up in the hands of those who would destroy Israel and America.

In an interview about his release Saeed Abedini was asked, “Were they effectively waiting for the money to come in before they then let you take off?” He answered, “Yeah. They didn’t talk about money. They just told us about the — they told me about the plane. … So, the reason that they said you’re here in the airport is — was just because we are waiting for another plane.”

The Wall Street Journal says “But U.S. officials also acknowledge that Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange said they wanted the cash to show they had gained something tangible.

How can this be happening without criminal charges?  Because the White House has rigged the system. Obama is at war with us.  Hillary will continue his war on us.

However, this article is not about Obama. He is mentioned in it.  He is accused in it—he is the villain of it—but it is not about him.  This article is about you and me.  It is about facing the most horrible fact—we have had to face—since the Civil War.

The man who occupies the White House is at war with us.  He is not at war against ISIS.  He is not at war against black poverty.  He is not at war against unemployment.  He is not at war against anything that threatens you.  He is at war with you.

The man who has the most power over Americans is actively working to destroy Americans.  That is a bitter pill to swallow—but swallow it we must.

But how do I convince you that he is at war against us?  I struggled with this for a long time. Then I found an analogy that explains Obama’s destructive style.  He acts like a man that has murdered his wife and is trying to cover it up.

The husband is always the first suspect—no matter what.  Detectives use a different set of eyes than you and I.  The adoring faithful husband is defended by family, friends and neighbors.  He has the perfect alibi.  He has no history of violence.

However, the police will not rule him out if he begins to act strangely.  Say, he shows little sense of loss.  He talks more about himself than he does his dead wife.  If she is missing, he seems to be going through the motions of trying to find her.

Obama’s reaction to the mass murder in Paris is a perfect example.  It is the same, tired, brain-numbing non response to terror.  He is sorry, but not really.  He keeps up the appearance of a caring husband who—having done away with his wife—feigns sorrow.   He has done this after every terror attack.

Obama-Paris-Shooting-1-620x400

Sherlock Holmes said, “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”   When you eliminate the impossible about Obama here is what is left: He is motivated by hate.  He hates America.  He hates Christianity.  He hates Israel.

All of his policies carry this one universal criterion: How much it will damage the people I hate.  Use that formula and all of the lights will suddenly go on.  He blocks energy independence, a secure border, a jobs program or anything else that would better our lives.

His foreign, environmental, economic, immigration, and educational, policies fail by design—not incompetence.  He ruined our healthcare; enflames racial division; foments student unrest, and endangers the lives of police officers by design.

He bullies Israel but gives billions to her mortal enemies.

Here is what is really chilling: Even after it was proven that the killers in Paris were Syrian refugees, he will still force us to take in 100,000 Syrian refugees. Is he actually working toward terrorism here at home?

His zeal to end America Israel and Christianity is so great—I seriously believe he would wreak havoc—declare martial law, stay in office beyond his current term—to finish the job.

If you are a true Christian and you want to stop Obama…then stop doing these things:

1.Stop denying that he is at war against you and your children’s future. Face it! How can you do what Christ wants you to do against this evil if you will not admit the evil?

We cannot stop Obama unless we face the fact that he is at war with us. All God-fearing, freedom-loving people must unify against him.  The unity and resolve required to stop him can come only after we face the ugly truth.

2. Quit saying all we need to do is pray.   No one ever prayed like Jesus.  No one ever understood prayer Like Jesus.  No one valued prayer like Jesus.  And yet, He did not just pray.  He went forth in the power of the Spirit.  He rebuked the king—He turned over the tables of the money changers and He verbally blistered the Pharisees.  He did not just pray—He acted on His prayers.

Well,of course we need to pray. I intercede daily.  But to say that all we should do is pray is a cop out.  If you believe that the sole response to Obama should be prayer then you are doing a disservice—not only to America—but to prayer.   Prayer always ends in acts of obedience.

In Acts 4:29 Peter prayed “Lord look on their threats and grant to your servants that with all boldness we may speak Your Word.”  Try this the next time you pray—Ask for boldness and guidance.  Ask to know your place in stopping the war on Israel, Christianity and everything that made America great.  After you pray…you have to take a stand.

slander3. Stop supporting Christian compromise. Why your pastor refuses to preach against the crimes of Obama is not the question—why you still attend that church is the question.

 (Special note: I do not believe that the Sunday pulpit should be a constant flow of tirades against Obama.  It should be well-placed and relevant to the instruction of the people.  It should be done to inform believers about why we believe what we believe so they can answer the persecution of the culture.   What I am saying is that it is odd if you do not know where your pastor stands on these issues.)

Your time, talent and money should not be going to the compromised church.  Shift your support. Begin to strengthen the arm of those who are risking all to oppose this tyrant.

4. Stop abusing love. It is not hateful to oppose Obama—it is love. To be silent in face of hatred is hatred itself.  When we remain silent we do not practice love; we hate God’s Word; we hate holiness; we hate truth; we hate sacrifice and courage.

Stop worrying about what millennials think.  Stop worrying about our public persona.  When the truth comes out a grateful generation will thank us for intervening against destruction.

5. Quit saying “I am not going to do anything because it won’t make any difference.” Revivals can be traced to a single person. Do not say that great movements cannot begin with small groups in unpromising circumstances.  Indeed, that is exactly how all great movements have been born.

You have come to the kingdom for such a time as this.  You cannot waste one more moment in fear or self-pity.  God can take your simple prayer and willingness and add His amazing power and wisdom to your endeavors.

What if God has been waiting a hundred years for you to come along—discard fear and doubt—take up the sword of the Lord—and plunge it into the heart of darkness?

Government sponsored Riots?

Local

Sheriff: ‘I Was Sick To My Stomach’ After Being Told To Stand Down

WASHINGTON, USA - APRIL 27: Police retreat from the hulks of burned out cars in the middle of an intersection during riots in Baltimore, USA on April 27, 2015. Protests following the death of Freddie Gray from injuries suffered while in police custody have turned violent with people throwing debris at police and media and burning cars and businesses. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON, USA – APRIL 27: Police retreat from the hulks of burned out cars in the middle of an intersection during riots in Baltimore, USA on April 27, 2015. Protests following the death of Freddie Gray from injuries suffered while in police custody have turned violent with people throwing debris at police and media and burning cars and businesses. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

NorrisDavis_200x200The Norris and Davis Show

BALTIMORE (CBS BALTIMORE) — A Maryland sheriff who traveled to Baltimore to help law enforcement stop Monday’s riots told 105.7 The Fan that he was stunned when officers alerted him of the orders to stand down.

Michael Lewis is the Sheriff in Wicomico County, and was also a Sergeant with the Maryland State Police. He joined Ed Norris and Steve Davis on Thursday to talk about the alleged controversial orders the police were given during the riots.

Lewis said it wasn’t his intention to come to Baltimore, a drive of about two hours, but he felt it was his duty to help.

“I hadn’t planned to go to Baltimore at all. I watched the events unfold Saturday night like we all did, and was very concerned about what I saw, and the the lack of response Saturday night,” he said. “I immediately rallied up the troops. We made sure our MRAP was prepared and ready. … We were assigned to assigned to protect Baltimore City Police headquarters, all of E. Fayette Street up to City Hall, to include City Hall. There wasn’t a whole lot of activity taking place at all. We could smell that putrid smell of burning tires and a city on fire when as we came into the city. Had lots of concerns like everyone else. We maintained our post all night long until we were relieved.”

But what shocked him the most, he said, was when city police told him not to confront and accost the rioters.

“I was sick to my stomach like everybody else. … This was urban warfare, no question about it. They were coming in absolutely beaten down. The [city officers] got out of their vehicles, thanked us profusely for being there, apologized to us for having to be there. They said we could have handled this, we were very capable of handling this, but we were told to stand down, repeatedly told to stand down,” he said. “I had never heard that order come from anyone — we went right out to our posts as soon as we got there, so I never heard the mayor say that. But repeatedly these guys, and there were many high-ranking officials from the Baltimore City Police Department … and these guys told me they were essentially neutered from the start. They were spayed from the start. They were told to stand down, you will not take any action, let them destroy property. I couldn’t believe it, I’m a 31-year veteran of law enforcement. … I had never heard anything like this before in my life and these guys obviously aren’t gonna speak out and the more I thought about this, … I had to say a few things. I apologize if I’ve upset people, but I believe in saying it like it is.”

Lewis said though he didn’t hear the order to stand down come from the mayor, he did hear it from police officials.

“I heard it myself over the Baltimore City police radio that I had tethered to my body-armor vest, I heard it repeatedly. ‘Stand down, stand down, stand down! Back up, back up, retreat, retreat!’ I couldn’t believe those words. Those are words I’ve never heard in my law enforcement vocabulary,” he said. “Baltimore City police, all law enforcement agencies are very capable of handling that city. They’re trained to handle that city. These guys were hearing words that had never been echoed in their lives, in their careers.”

Lewis claims after the riots many officers told him they were done being cops in the city and how heartbroken they are that they were not allowed to defend their city and stop businesses from burning.

AL SHARPTON DODGES RACISM DEBATE AT OXFORD

AL SHARPTON DODGES RACISM DEBATE AT OXFORD UNION, WILL DELIVER PREPARED SPEECH

This Friday, the Oxford Union in London will hold a debate about race relations in the United States. MSNBC host Al Sharpton accepted an invitation to the event, but after confirming he would be one of the participants to propose the motion that the United States is “institutionally racist,” he did an about face, shocking his esteemed hosts.

Sharpton was supposed to defend his proposition along with Black Panther leader Aaron Dixon and liberal blogger Mychal Denzel Smith, while SiriusXM host, Breitbart News, and Fox News Contributor David Webb; conservative commentator Joe R. Hicks; and BBC radio host Charlie Wolf would oppose the motion in a structured Oxford-style debate.

wolf-web-hicks

The Oxford Union has committed to continue with the debate, which will be held this Friday, January 23rd. The debate details are on their website at oxford-union.org.

Sources have indicated that Sharpton, who is an informal adviser to both President Obama and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, has asked Oxford for an opportunity to speak but not debate the counter argument. “He wants to control the event, because he won’t debate the facts and the real issues including how his own conduct impacts race relations in the U.S.,” stated Webb. “He doesn’t want to be exposed for what he really is – a shakedown artist and racial coward. After years of conning people into giving him money by fanning the flames of racism, he’s just too afraid to have a civil, fact-based conversation about the issues of race in America.”

Oxford will allow Sharpton to speak for 20 minutes before the debate but will also have to answer questions from the audience, Webb, Hicks, and Wolf. The Oxford union, to its credit, is attempting to keep its history of fair debate intact. Webb was assured by the Oxford Union president Lisa Wehden that the opposing side will have an opportunity to ask questions of the Sharpton following his structured remarks. “It would be wrong to allow Sharpton to get away with just his usual thin, inflammatory rhetoric when this is supposed to be a substantive discussion,” said Webb.

Sharpton had a rough year in 2014, with criticism coming from all sides. Most recently, Sharpton’s comments following the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases came under fire for creating a racially charged environment in New York and elsewhere that has pundits and citizens have alleged led to more violence against police across America. The New York Times investigated the long-rumored issue of tax evasion, claiming that Sharpton owes more than $4 million in back taxes. And, while Sharpton railed against law enforcement, The Smoking Gun reported that he was a paid FBI snitch in the 1980s.

The debate will be taped and aired on David Webb’s SiriusXM Patriot radio show Monday, January 26 at 9PM Eastern time. Additional coverage by Breitbart News, Fox News Network, and worldwide media is expected. The Oxford Union YouTube channel will have the full debate following its conclusion.

The real racial bias: Cops more willing to shoot whites than blacks, research finds

The real racial bias: Cops more willing to shoot whites than blacks, research finds

‘Counter-bias’ rooted in concerns over social and legal consequences

Despite national media fixation on white-on-black police shootings, a new study finds “significant bias favoring blacks where decisions to shoot were concerned.” (Associated Press) 
 THE REAL RACIAL BIAS: COPS MORE WILLING TO SHOOT WHITES THAN BLACKS, RESEARCH FINDS
Published: January 9, 2015
 SOURCE: WASHINGTON TIMES

It’s widely assumed that white police officers are more likely to shoot black suspects as a result of racial bias, but recent research suggests the opposite is true.

An innovative study published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology found that participants in realistic simulations felt more threatened by black suspects yet took longer to pull the trigger on black men than on white or Hispanic men.

“This behavioral ‘counter-bias’ might be rooted in people’s concerns about the social and legal consequences of shooting a member of a historically oppressed racial or ethnic group,” said the paper, which went practically unnoticed when it was published online on May 22, but took on new significance in the wake of a series of high-profile police-involved shootings involving black victims over the summer.

The results back up what one of the researchers, University of Missouri-St. Louis professor David Klinger, has found after independently interviewing more than 300 police officers: While they don’t want to shoot anybody, they really don’t want to shoot black suspects.

“Across these 300 interviews, I have multiple officers telling me that they didn’t shoot only because the suspect was black or the suspect was a woman, or something that would not be consistent with this narrative of cops out there running and gunning,” said Mr. Klinger, a former cop and author of “Into the Kill Zone: A Cop’s Eye View of Deadly Force” (2006).

“When it comes to the issue of race, I’ve never had a single officer tell me, ‘I didn’t shoot a guy because he was white.’ I’ve had multiple officers tell me, ‘I didn’t shoot a guy because he was black,’ ” Mr. Klinger said. “And this is 10, even 20 years ago. Officers are alert to the fact that if they shoot a black individual, the odds of social outcry are far greater than if they shoot a white individual.”

In fact, he said, officers involved in shootings have told him that they were actually relieved that the person they shot was white, not black.safe_image

“The second things is, I’ve had multiple officers tell me they were worried in the wake of a shooting because they shot a black person, and I’ve had multiple officers tell me that they were glad that the person they shot was white,” Mr. Klinger said. “Because then they knew they weren’t going to have to be subject to the racial harangue.”

The interviews, which he conducted for a book he’s planning to finish this year, run directly counter to the prevailing view pushed by social justice groups, politicians and others: that shooting victims such as 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson were victims at least in part of racial discrimination against blacks among cops.

“Police officers — at least the ones I interviewed — are very sensitive to the race issue, but not in the way this popular narrative is running, i.e., cops are out there trying to find young black men who don’t have guns so they can shoot them down like dogs in the street,” Mr. Klinger said. “That just isn’t anything I’ve found in any of the research that I’ve done.”

The study, “Racial and ethnic bias in decisions to shoot seen through a stronger lens: experimental results from high-fidelity laboratory simulations,” was conducted by Mr. Klinger and Washington State University assistant research professor Lois James and criminal justice and criminology professor Bryan Vila.

For their research, the authors used a pioneering WSU simulation involving full-size, high-definition video instead of photos and handguns modified to shoot infrared beams instead of the “shoot” buttons typically used in deadly-force studies.

About a third of the scenarios in the study were “no shoot” situations in which perpetrators of different races held cellphones or wallets, while the rest were “shoot” situations in which suspects were armed with knives or guns.

The study found that the 48 participants waited longest before firing on black suspects in “shoot” scenarios, even though the participants exhibited “stronger threat responses” when facing black suspects than with white or Hispanic suspects.RACISM

Eighty-five percent of the participants were white, and none was a police officer. At the same time, a 2013 study led by Ms. James using active police, military and the general public found the same phenomenon: All three groups took longer to shoot black suspects, and participants were also more likely to fire on unarmed whites and Hispanics than blacks.

“In other words, there was significant bias favoring blacks where decisions to shoot were concerned,” the 2013 study said, according to WSU News.

The findings challenge not only popular assumptions but also previous social science research suggesting that whites, including police officers, have an “implicit bias” against blacks. The drawback with such implicit-bias studies is that they use the push-button model and less realistic scenarios, said Mr. Klinger.

“That’s important research. It’s good research,” Mr. Klinger said. “The problem is it bears absolutely no relationship with actual shooting events. And people are not reading all the caveats that the authors put into the article saying, ‘This is not real life, this is a laboratory, we don’t know about external validity,’ and so on.”

So why are blacks shot more often by police? While the FBI’s national database has been widely criticized as incomplete, data compiled by Mr. Klinger in St. Louis over the past decade shows that 90 percent of police shootings involve blacks, even though they only make up 49 percent of the city’s population.

At the same time, he said, that figure is commensurate with the percentage of blacks involved in violent crime. Roughly 90 percent of those killed each year in St. Louis are black, and 90 percent of them are shot by other blacks, he said.

Lying

What’s more, he said, black SWAT officers make up about one-third of the St. Louis force — and they commit on average about one-third of the shootings each year.

“And this is consistent with every other study that’s ever been done,” said Mr. Klinger, who, as a rookie officer in Los Angeles, fatally shot a black man armed with a knife who had stabbed his partner, Dennis Azevedo, in the chest.

“Once you start looking at levels of violence, levels of threat, blacks are not shot in manners that are disproportionate to their involvement in illegal activity,” he said. “And it doesn’t matter if the cop is black, white or Hispanic, police officers presented with deadly threats use deadly force. Period, paragraph, end of story.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/5/police-officers-more-hesitant-to-shoot-black-suspe/?page=2#ixzz3P16eH0eT
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Franklin Graham: Both Obama And Bush ‘Have Done A Great Disservice,’ Calling Islam Peaceful

Franklin Graham: Both Obama And Bush ‘Have Done A Great Disservice,’ Calling Islam Peaceful

“Mr. President—followers of a peaceful religion do not cut off the heads of innocent people.”

In a commentary for Decision magazine, evangelist Franklin Graham calls out both President Obama and President Bush for defending Islam as a religion of peace.

Graham is reacting specifically to Obama’s speech before the U.N. in September in which the president said, “Islam teaches peace,” and also to George W. Bush, who, days after 9/11, said, “Islam is peace.”

Graham writes:

Both men have done a great disservice to the American public by not understanding Islam and its teaching in the Quran.

The day after Obama addressed the U.N. in September, Graham recalls that he stood across from the White House in Lafayette Square with the hope that the president would hear his message in praying for the release of imprisoned Iranian-American Christian Saeed Abedini:

Mr. President—followers of a peaceful religion do not cut off the heads of innocent people in the barbaric fashion the world has watched recently.

Mr. President—believers in a peaceful religion do not kidnap 300 young schoolgirls as Boko Haram did in northeastern Nigeria in April and reportedly [sell] them to men to be sex slaves.

Mr. President—men who practice a peaceful religion do not detonate bombs on an American street during a marathon race to kill and maim innocent people.

Mr. President—no one who belongs to a peaceful religion would even consider hijacking jet airliners and flying them into buildings occupied by thousands of innocent people beginning their workday, as happened in this country and in this city on 9/11.

Mr. President—no peaceful religion would tolerate, let alone practice, female circumcision, require a woman to have her husband’s permission to leave her home and take up employment, and restrict her ability to receive justice in the case of sex crimes.

Mr. President—a peaceful religion would not condone and allow a father to drown a daughter in a swimming pool in front of the family in the name of family honor because she might have stayed out late in the evening with her boyfriend.

Mr. President—why haven’t the 3.5 million Muslims in North America rejected this gross, barbaric and despicable behavior by their fellow Muslims on American soil?

And that is Graham’s question left unanswered. He adds: “Why haven’t many, if not most, of the 1.6 billion Muslims around the world condemned these violent crimes against innocent humanity as they have occurred? Why would 23 percent of the world’s population stand by and allow their fellow Muslims to define them by violent behavior if this is truly a religion of peace?”

Christians, Graham affirms, “quickly and unanimously rise together to condemn” violent acts in the name of Christianity. “I cannot recall a single instance of violent behavior supposedly done in the name of Christianity that was not immediately repudiated by the Christian community,” he writes.

Graham calls Islam a “false religion…guided and characterized by treacherous deceit.” Furthermore, he concludes that a false religion can never be a true religion of peace. Only true religion that reconciles “a holy God and sinful man” can “bring lasting peace.”

He is not implying every false religion engages in “barbaric behavior,” but none of them, he says, “can deliver from the damning power of sin:”

Christ alone, the Son of God, saves from sin, Satan and death. He died on the cross for our sins, was buried and rose again from the dead.

My earnest prayer is that the Lord will use the chaotic and frightening events we see happening on the world stage to drive people, including followers of Islam, to the only solution—personal, transforming faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace.

Pastors are now Attacking Conservative Christians. Are they right?

 right

Pastors are now Attacking Conservative Christians.  Are they right?

By Mario Murillo

A new book by a well-known pastor says that there is “the tendency on the right and on the left to conflate the kingdom of God with a particular political party. “Many conservative Christians have made the mistake of substituting America for the Israel of the Old Testament, failing to realize the danger of adopting Old Testament principles that were never affirmed in the New Testament. Their message has sometimes been harsh and legalistic, making it difficult for them to proclaim a gospel of grace. Even though there is a great deal of emphasis on the Bible in such churches, it can often be the wrong emphasis.”

What possible fault could you or I find with these words?  At first nothing but a second look reveals plenty.  

1.The author does not balance his criticism.  He only singles out Conservative Christians.  He never uses the term “Liberal Christians”…with good reason, because, in this current manifestation of liberalism, Liberal Christian is a mind-numbing oxymoron.   And who can say with a straight face “I have conflated the Kingdom of God to the Democratic Party?”

Democrats roundly booed God and Israel at their last convention and essentially told the believers among them “pick up your Bible and get out.”  They are the party of abortion, atheism, Islam, and same sex marriage.  And then there is their long list of antis’:  Anti-police, anti-constitution, anti-church, anti-Israel, anti-military and anti-free speech for any voice that disagrees with them.

2.Even Paul understood that he had to make a choice even when it is not a perfect choice.  In Acts 23 he faced a death sentence and stood between two political parties:  The Sadducee who sincerely believed in wrong things and the Pharisees who hypocritically believed in right things.

Verse 6 says “But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducee and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!”  With these words Paul clearly sided with the Pharisees.

Matthew Henry said of this moment in Paul’s life “His own prudence and ingenuity stand him in some stead, and contribute much to his escape. His being a citizen of Rome saved him in the foregoing chapter from his being scourged by the chief captain as a vagabond, and here his being a Pharisee saved him from being condemned by the Sanhedrim, as an apostate from the faith and worship of the God of Israel. It will consist very well with our willingness to suffer for Christ to use all lawful methods, nay, and arts too, both to prevent suffering and to extricate ourselves out of it.”

In plain terms, the Republican Party is as bad as the Pharisees but like the Pharisees they are our best choice at this time to escape the disastrous policies that Obama has set in motion that will not only dismantle our freedoms but will drive the church underground.

However, I can tell you with great assurance that many Conservative Christians are displeased with the Republican party and will bail on them if they do when they assume control of the Senate is to  mirror the other party.

3. Conservative Christians do not believe America is modern Israel.  They believe America is a modern miracle.  The author continues his attack on Conservative Christians by saying ““Many conservative Christians have made the mistake of substituting America for the Israel of the Old Testament.”

I can only speak for myself and the multitude of Christian leaders I know.  We do not believe that America is modern Israel we believe America is a modern miracle –a miracle worth fighting for.  We believe that it was a miracle that we defeated England.  We see divine wisdom is in the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution.

4. Who is being harsh?  The writer finishes his attack on Conservative Christians by saying “Their message has sometimes been harsh and legalistic, making it difficult for them to proclaim a gospel of grace.”  When I read this part, I said a big “HUH?”

As I look around me, I see nothing but grace being preached.  In fact, I see it being exalted even above God’s rightful demands for holiness.  I see a bevy of preachers on talk shows back peddling, parsing words and obsequiously kowtowing to the media.  It would have been more accurate for this writer to say “there are a few pockets left here and there of preachers who are still not preaching grace.”

Don’t ask me who this author is.  I admire him and respect his ministry.  My object in writing this is not to keep you from reading his book but to point out the mistake of trying to be neutral on an issue that is so painfully clear.  Oh, and also, I am saying to any pastor, don’t be a traitor to your brethren just so the world will like you better.

It sounds so spiritual to say “I am not right wing or left wing; I am out of the political arena all together.”  This is especially for urban pastors who face brutal persecution for opposing Obama and for other ministers who wish to appear progressive.

We are in a battle for America and everyone has to choose sides. You either believe that America became great by our own wits or it was God that made us great.  Once you settle that question, you will know what to stand for and what to preach.

Holder and Obama are making race relations worse, inflaming hatred

Holder and Obama are making race relations worse, inflaming hatred

Attorney General Eric Holder insisted to MSNBC earlier this month that “we are in a better place than we were before” in race relations since Barack Obama was elected president.The president doubled down in an interview with NPR last week. Asked if race relations were worse since he took office, he said, “No, I actually think that it’s probably in its day-to-day interactions less racially divided.”But that’s not what the American people see.

A Pew Research Center poll found that only 40% of Americans approve of the way Obama is handling race relations. Black approval is down to 57%, while approval among whites is down to 33%.More young people under age 30, the age group who were most enthusiastic about electing the nation’s first African-American president, now disapprove of his performance on racial issues than approve. And Eric Holder has one of the lowest approval ratings of any public official.Law-enforcement officials are appalled at the way the Obama administration exploited tragedies in Ferguson, Mo., and New York City to appeal to its political base. David Clarke, a Democrat who is the African-American sheriff of Milwaukee, doesn’t mince his words.“The thing that disappoints me the most is some very powerful people in this country — the president of the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York — have created a pathway that contributes to an unjustifiable hatred of law enforcement officers across the country,” he told WMAL radio in Washington, DC. “They trashed an entire profession with a broad brush because it was politically expedient for them to do so.”

Civil rights activist Al Sharpton speaks at the National Action Network in Harlem, New York
Holder, who thinks we are “a nation of cowards” on race, has infused the Justice Department with the “racial justice” movement that falsely argues the police “subconsciously” discriminate through the use of “disproportionate” means such as traffic stops. It has forced 15 cities into consent decrees to end such practices, for which it has almost no evidence.Take Seattle, where Justice claimed that “Biased policing is not primarily about the ill-intentioned officer but rather the officer who engages in discriminatory practices subconsciously,” adding that even a well-meaning cop can violate the civil rights of black suspects by operating “on implicit biases that impact that officer’s behavior or perceptions.”Even though DOJ admitted it couldn’t verify the supposed bias, in 2012 it ordered Seattle to weaken its use-of-force rules while disciplining officers engaged in “implicit bias.”

A lawsuit by Seattle police officers against Justice charges that the new policies have led to “hesitation and paralysis” in officers being able to carry out their duty to protect the public from criminals. The suit notes that crime rates have climbed in Seattle — with aggravated assaults up 14%, car theft up 44% and murders up 21%. It is those trends that should scare New Yorkers about the Obama-Holder approach to law enforcement.

Even honest liberals agree that Holder’s Justice Department has been confrontational and polarizing. Juan Williams of Fox News, the author of “Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Years,” laments that “the Justice Department has devolved into the heart of Washington darkness, the absolute pit of modern political polarization in my lifetime.”

One reason for that is that, thanks to direct support from Holder and Obama, Al Sharpton has now become the nation’s leading civil-rights leader. Far from becoming the “refined agitator” his apologists now claim him to be, Sharpton is the same racial charlatan and rabble-rouser of the past using slightly new tricks.

Sheriff Clarke says the Obama administration set a pattern early on that it would ignore bad behavior and bad actors if it suited their political purposes and their warped racial ideology.

King-Samir-Shabazz_thumb copy

In 2009, it dropped charges against the New Black Panther Party for intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place because the defendants were black. In 2013, the Inspector General of the Justice Department filed a report criticizing its Civil Rights Division for allowing the harassing and bullying of conservative employees. No disciplinary action was taken. And Holder has filled the ranks of the office at DOJ responsible for policing the police with radical lawyers hostile to law enforcement.

In 2013, a federal judge ordered a new trial for five New Orleans police officers convicted of a shooting during Hurricane Katrina because of “grotesque prosecutorial abuse.” Judge Kurt Engelhard slammed the “skullduggery” and “perfidy” of Justice Department prosecutors in engaging in a PR campaign to inflame public opinion and sway the jury through anonymous postings on a newspaper website. The judge suggested that Holder “seriously consider appointment of an independent counsel” to investigate the scandal. Holder has ignored the judge’s recommendation and instead recently moved to have the judge removed from the case.

For Sheriff Clarke, all of this fits into a pattern. “I think these two [President Obama and Attorney General Holder] have indicated their dislike of the police even if it’s in coded language.” He notes that in the wake of the killing of two cops last weekend in New York, Mayor de Blasio and others are now issuing “contrite statements about how they respect and admire our law enforcement officers. I think it’s hollow. I don’t accept it.”

Since President Obama took office, “racial justice” ideology has been allowed to trump common sense. Saying we “are in a better place” when it comes to race relations may be true for the Al Sharptons of the world but not for ordinary Americans.

John Fund is the national affairs correspondent for National Review and Hans A. von Spakovsky is a former Justice Department official. They are co-authors of “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department” (HarperCollins/Broadside), out now
.