Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. Political Discussion
  3. Ben Carson - a chance ObaMao will impose martial law

Ben Carson - a chance ObaMao will impose martial law

Political Discussion
109 12 1.9k

  • http://www.redstate.com/diary/davenj1/2015/07/10/war-christianity-surely-jest/

    The claim that Christianity is under attack in America is not a new one. This line of thought has been used since prayer was taken out of public schools and today forms the substrate of the so-called “culture wars.” To the Left, for example, opposition to abortion is an imposition of religious beliefs upon others. They are ignorant of the fact that a lot of secular law draws upon religious doctrine itself. The Ten Commandments, although clothed in religious terms, proscribes a set of values and rules on a secular society. And there begins the problems in this area. As the Left pushes the United States to a strictly secular country, secular laws inevitably will come into conflict with God’s laws. Many of those who believe that Christianity itself is not under attack will nevertheless argue the underlying beliefs are under attack. And interestingly, our Founders realized that there would be this conflict which is why they wrote the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses into the First Amendment. However, they never meant for the free exercise of religion to stop at the church door.
    Of course, compared to other countries one can say that Christianity in America is not under attack. But it is a question of degrees. The American Left is more subtle in their attack since they use the secular laws to negate Christian beliefs. In the United States, no machete carrying secularists are slaughtering Christians such as what is happening in Nigeria. No one is bombing Easter services such as what has happened in Pakistan. Physical churches are not being destroyed or desecrated such as what is happening in Iraq and Syria and did happen in Egypt under Morsi’s rule. And no American secularist is threatening an occupation of Rome such as the comments made by leaders in ISIS. But make no mistake- the aims of secularists in America are the same as those of Islamic terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere: to drive Christianity out of public life.
    Thus, you will often hear comments to the effect that they (secularists) are not attacking religion or Christianity. You are free to believe whatever you want, or even not to believe. Hence, they are invoking the Free Exercise Clause. However, those beliefs stop at your house or church door. At that point, the Free Exercise Clause magically mutates into the Establishment Clause according to this secularist view. But that illustrates a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals- to insist that one’s religion be a private matter necessarily means that one’s faith be compromised. The other option to exclusively private religion is that religious beliefs be socially irrelevant. This is why liberals try to rewrite history by declaring our Founders non-religious, or removing references to the fact that many of the original colonists left Europe in search of religious freedom. To the extent they leave those facts in, there is always the inevitable caveat about how bad these colonists became by wiping out Indians and imposing their religion on the colonies.
    But they do not stop there. Besides insisting that religious doctrines should not influence society or the law, they then demand religion to embrace society’s beliefs. In effect, the government becomes a religion in and of itself and true religion (particularly Christianity) must become subordinate to this new religion. How is that different from anything ISIS is doing in the Middle East? A perfect example is the contraception mandate in Obamacare where failure to abide by those secular rules reached the Supreme Court. Yet there are other areas where there is conflict. In Illinois, the Catholic Church ceased a highly successful adoption service rather than bowing down to the government over gay marriage. Religious counselors have been penalized for refusing to counsel a gay couple. A photographer gets sued for refusing to photograph a gay wedding. The Left argues that if you are going to enter the world of commerce, or health care, or adoption, or anything else, then your religious beliefs have to be laid aside and subordinated to the secular rules of the game. Our Founders would be rolling in their graves if they knew the First Amendment was being so perverted.
    These actions- be it a baker, photographer, florist, etc.- are being prosecuted under state anti-discrimination laws. They are being told that they must lay aside their religious beliefs as a price to pay for entering the world of business. Some even go so far as to say that if someone believes so strongly in the concept of traditional marriage based on their religious beliefs, then they should stay out of the business world. In other words, your religious beliefs should remain private and if they enter the public realm, then secular law must prevail. But if we take this further, one can argue that religious worship services are public events. Using the Left’s logic, does this give government the right to “regulate” the content of those services? Logically-speaking the Left’s argument is obviously inconsistent.
    Furthermore, the Left’s position is rife with hypocrisy and nowhere is that more evident than with the treatment of Christianity versus the treatment of Islam. The ACLU is at the forefront of this battle. Being a firm opponent of school prayer, they have nevertheless fought for the rights of Muslim students. In 2001, a California school embarked on a 3-week Islam awareness program where students adopted Muslim names and immersed themselves in Islamic beliefs and practices. When there were protests, the Left sided with the school. Suddenly the Establishment Clause disappeared. In 2004, the ACLU defended the actions of schools in San Diego to allow Muslim students a 15 minute period for praying. In Dearborn, Michigan the Left has defended Muslim prayer periods and ignoring unexcused absences for Muslim holidays. Yet when Muslim parents complained about permission slips being distributed for an after-school Bible study group, suddenly the Establishment Clause reappeared. In 2009, the courts declared that the instrumental performance of “Ave Maria” at a “winter” school concert was a violation of the Establishment Clause. Clearly, there is a separation of church and state, but no separation of mosque and state. To wit, a school trip to a local mosque in Boston was fine even though the students were taught and participated in Muslim prayers. Can you imagine the uproar over a school trip to the National Cathedral in DC?
    To see this hypocrisy in action, look at the reaction to some recent Supreme Court cases. The Left is still railing about the Hobby Lobby decision insisting it is allowing businesses to discriminate against women. They frame the discussion in legal terms, but underneath there is that disdain towards the religious beliefs that led some business owners to contest the contraceptive mandate. Conversely, the recent decision to allow Muslim prisoners to grow beards and the Abercrombie decision regarding a female Muslim’s head scarf went by with no negative word from the Left. That is because they are under the erroneous belief that the Free Exercise Clause applies only to minority religions.
    No analysis would be complete without mention of the Left’s poster boy du jour- Barack Obama. Unlike some, this writer does not believe Obama is a closet Muslim. But, neither do I believe he is a Christian. At best, he is a deist. Obama’s antipathy towards Christianity runs the gamut from the subtle to the almost profane. In the subtle area, Obama has now given six Thanksgiving addresses to the Nation with nary a mention of God. White House Christmas cards are exclusively secular in nature. (News flash: it is alright to mention Jesus Christ on a day that celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ.) When sequester budget cuts went into effect at the Pentagon, one of the first casualties was the Eucharist for Catholic service members. Because someone may have supported a traditional view of marriage in their past, they have been excluded from presidential events. At a prayer breakfast, Barack Obama used the opportunity to revisit the the Crusades and the Inquisition. He already apologized for American foreign policy; now he saw the need to apologize for Christianity. No religion is without sin at some point in its past, but Christianity is about 600 years ahead of Islam at this point, yet it is Christianity that is dragged through the mud of history. Obama’s comments come as no surprise since they reflect an underlying belief of the Left: religion is an inconvenience in the way of an agenda. Since Christianity is the predominant religion in America, Christianity and its beliefs are the biggest inconvenience.
    Instead, we should remember the words of the great Alexis de Toqueville who was fascinated by the role religion (Christianity) played in the early days of our Republic:
    …there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility and its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.
    To the Right, the religion clauses of the First Amendment are a shield against government control and domination of religious beliefs and practices- public and private. To the Left, these very same clauses have become a sword to eradicate religious beliefs and practices from the public square. From the subtle to the profane, from the obvious to the not-so-obvious, the Left will not stop trying to eradicate this “inconvenience” which de Toqueville found so profound, important and unifying. They will attack it from within and without using every tool at their disposal from infiltration to marginalization to denigration. In that light, obviously there is a Leftist war on Christianity in the United States.

  • Well, that's definitely easier than thinking for yourself.

    Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody!

  • http://www.bookwormroom.com/2013/04/29/the-reason-that-liberals-hate-christianity-but-ignore-islam/

    The reason that liberals hate Christianity, but ignore Islam
    APRIL 29, 2013 BY BOOKWORM 94 COMMENTS
    One of the things that’s frustrating for non-liberals and non-Progressives is Leftists’ refusal to look Islam in the face (so to speak). Yes, there are crazy people who are Christians and there are entire Christian sects that are crazy (such as the Westboro Baptists or Warren Jeffs’ polygamist Mormon cult). The fact remains, however, that Christians as a whole, whether they belong to big churches or small ones, do not embrace or practice terrorism to achieve their political or religious goals.
    Muslims, by contrast, routinely practice terrorism to achieve goals that are simultaneously religious and political, owing to Islam’s fusion of God and state. Even though it’s remarkably simple to tie Islam to terrorism (9/11, the underwear bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, the attempted Portland Christmas tree massacre, the Boston Marathon bombing), Leftists scurry around like cockroaches exposed to the light in their desperate attempt to avoid acknowledging Islam’s violent heart.
    Today, I read one thing and wrote another, both of which address Leftist hatred for Christianity, even though modern Christianity and genuine Judaism (as opposed to the hard Leftism that masquerades as “reform Judaism”) are the most humane, civilizing forces the world has ever seen. With their focus on justice and grace, they rid the world of slavery, ended child labor, advanced women’s status and, in Israel’s case, fought a 60-year war without sinking to the level of her enemies. But the Left truly hates them and seeks to undermine them at every turn.
    The article I read on this subject is Benjamin Wiker’s “Why aren’t liberals more critical of Islam?” In it, he posits that, because secularism arose within and in opposition to a Christian Europe and America, Christianity was its original enemy. Giving proof, however, to my repeated claim that “Progressives” are actually profoundly “regressive,” secularists (i.e., Leftists) continue their battle with Christianity despite that particular war having ended long ago. Judaism and Christianity absorbed the better parts of secularism while holding on to their core religious principles.
    Because they are locked forever in an ideological time warp, says Wiker, liberals (or Progressives or Leftists or whatever else they call themselves to avoid the taint their ideas leave behind) cannot contemplate the possibility that there is another enemy, greater than their old foe Christianity. Which brings me to a post I did today for Mr. Conservative. It concerns Michael ‘Mikey’ Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and one of the most rabid anti-Christians you will ever meet.
    When I wrote the post this morning, it made me uncomfortable that such a venomous man is somehow Jewish, whether genetically or in actual practice. I hate to see that kind of hatred emanate from a group with which I’m affiliated. However, having read Wiker’s essay, I realize that my concern is unfounded. Weinstein’s hostility to Christians isn’t because he’s Jewish, it’s because he’s a Leftist. (Not all Jews are Leftists, and not all Leftists are Jews, but those Jews who are Leftists are amongst the most extreme Leftists. Mikey’s in that category.)
    Here’s my Mr. Conservative post. See what you think:
    SECNAV prayers with Marines and Sailors at Fallujah in 2006
    The Obama government sure knows how to pick ‘em. Right now, the Pentagon is concerned about religious intolerance in the American military. When people who are neither Leftists nor career politicians in thrall to the White House think of intolerance in the military, they think of Major Nidal Malik Hasan who went on an “Allahu Akbar” shooting spree at Fort Hood, killing 13 people and injuring more than thirty. The Pentagon, though, isn’t fooled by these false trails. It knows who the really intolerant people in the military are: Christians.
    To that end, the military has brought in Michael Weinstein, Esq., a “religious tolerance” specialist and the man who founded the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (“MRFF”). Michael knows all about tolerance. Or at least, he knows all about tolerance in the Obama era. To Michael (or “Mikey” as he likes to be known), a good way to express tolerance is to call Christians “monsters” or, even better “bloody monsters.”
    According to Mikey’s tolerant world view, Christians who serve in the American military are “well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces.” And that’s just Mikey’s throat-clearing.
    Troll through an article Mikey wrote in The Huffington Post to justify his tolerant attack on alleged Christian intolerance in the American military, and you’ll learn quickly that the people he’s out to destroy (tolerantly, of course) are “evil, fundamentalist Christian creatures.” They are “bandits” who “coagulate their stenchful substances” in religiously-based organizations that support traditional marriage and oppose abortion. Don’t be fooled by these old-fashioned values, though. In fact, says Mikey, “The basis of their ruinous unity is the bane of human existence and progress: horrific hatred and blinding bigotry.”
    What inspired Weinstein’s apopletic rage is the fact that conservatives took offense when the military piggy-backed on a delusional Southern Poverty Law Center screed and identified conservative Christians as the greatest terrorist threat in America. Because these groups use hate-filled language, Mikey says, such as “God Hates Fags” or “Thank God for IEDs,” they’re obviously one step away from committing a bomb attack in a major American city. (It’s so magical. It’s as if 9/11, Fort Hood, and the Boston bombing never happened!)
    If Mikey is correct, that toxic, hate-filled rhetoric is all one needs to prove that a person or organization constitutes an imminent danger, then Mikey better start looking over his shoulder. Considering the “evil, fundamentalist Christian creatures,” “bandits (who) coagulate their stenchful substances,” and “monsters” who inhabit his rhetorical world, he looks like he’s ready to blow.
    What Mikey can’t comprehend is that, while mainstream Christians and conservatives routinely condemn and distance themselves from organizations such as the Westboro Baptist Church, Mikey gets to disseminate his particular brand of hate-filled, toxic intolerance at a major Progressive internet outlet.
    Even worse than the applause he’s getting from the mainstream Left is the fact that he’s been taken on by the Pentagon as a consultant to help develop new policies on religious tolerance in the military. These new policies will include rules for court-martialing military chaplains who use the Christian gospel when they counsel the American troops under their care. Or, as MRFF Advisory Board member Larry Wilkerson told The Washington Post, they essentially sexually assaulting the troops with their God talk.
    No kidding. Wilkerson says that “Sexual assault and proselytizing are absolutely destructive of the bonds that keep soldiers together.” Lest there be any misunderstanding, Mikey clarified to The Post what Wilkerson really meant:
    This is a national security threat. What is happening [aside from sexual assault] is spiritual rape. And what the Pentagon needs is to understand is that it is sedition and treason. It should be punished.
    Mikey hates everything. Or at least he hates everything that has to do with Christianity. He foams at the mouth, spittle flying, when he talks about Christians, imagining them guilty of the most heinous crimes. The problem is that it’s not Christians committing the crimes he imagines. The major terrorist crimes come from the Islamists, something that Mike and his friends on the Left refuse to acknowledge. It’s bad when even arch-liberal Bill Maher calls this denial “liberal bullshit.”
    Speaking of committed, though, in a sane world Mikey’s delusions would have him being checked out by psychiatrists as a clear and present danger. In our insane world, psychiatrists are used to disarm our veterans and the delusional, hate-filled, spittle-flecked Mikey gets to work with the Pentagon to create a tolerance policy that ensures that military chaplains will be court martialed for doing their jobs.
    If troops are indeed being punished or ostracized because they don’t embrace a particular form of Christianity, the military has to address that. But Mikey makes it clear that, for him, being Christian is the real problem. In that regard, he’s the typical Leftist who says that the First Amendment, rather than giving people the right to worship, means that the Christian religion must be erased from America.
    (End of the Mr. Conservative article, beginning of my last comment on the subject.)
    As for me, I think that people who are willing to fight and die for their country in a constitutionally-bound military run by civilians, in a nation controlled by the First Amendment, should be allowed to practice their religion without Leftists denying them the comfort of knowing that, as they go into battle, God walks at their side.

  • My god cal really does have beastiality on the brain. No one anywhere is talking about it. But every other post he brings it up.

  • in any case i'm still waiting for you to accept the bet cal. Or acknowledge that the probability Obama imposes martial law before the election is as probable as a meteor landing on you tonight while you sleep.

  • more probable than a meteor, and your "bet" is stupidass, and I don't bet

    anyways, especially WITH a stupidass.

  • Howvis my bet "stupidass"? The stupidass part came when you posted a link to another bigger stupidass claimimg martial law was around the corner. So i threw the flag on it to test your own conviction on the matter.....and we see how little you have. I offered you probably the most lopsided bet ur "ever" going to even hear about. It literally wouldnt have cost you dick either, 3 months of no thread starting vs like 10 years of no posting period on my part. Woody really broke my balls there........anyway, you have zero conviction in your own narratives. They are supplied to you every morning exactly as i have suspected.

  • I know you get those chain mails.....ive seen the trash my parents get. Every morning its a trumpet call for something anti obsma that ur supposed to head out and regurgitate

  • a small chance of something very bad, is a bad small chance. That's all

    it is.

    You are fighting another windmill, Cleve.

  • So tje ssme small chance that libs attributed to bush?

  • no, the chance that Bush would ever have done that is nonsense.

    Never did it over 9/11, right? He never fought against our Constitution anyways.

    But ObaMao has fought against it. and has widely opened our borders, like the libs

    dont' want our borders to exist anymore.

    and caused serious division in our country on racial, religious, class and moral levels.

    that is a significant small chance validation.

  • C calfoxwc

    no, the chance that Bush would ever have done that is nonsense.

    Never did it over 9/11, right? He never fought against our Constitution anyways.

    But ObaMao has fought against it. and has widely opened our borders, like the libs

    dont' want our borders to exist anymore.

    and caused serious division in our country on racial, religious, class and moral levels.

    that is a significant small chance validation.

    @calfoxwc said:

    no, the chance that Bush would ever have done that is nonsense.

    And the chance Obama does is nonsense as well. That's the point.

    Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody!
    C C 2 Replies
  • MLD WoodyM MLD Woody

    @calfoxwc said:

    no, the chance that Bush would ever have done that is nonsense.

    And the chance Obama does is nonsense as well. That's the point.

    @mld-woody said:

    And the chance Obama does is nonsense as well. That's the point.

    Oooffff that was so butch! I was trying the henrler approach, the slow reveal. Likely wouldnt have worked though

  • C Clevfan4life

    @mld-woody said:

    And the chance Obama does is nonsense as well. That's the point.

    Oooffff that was so butch! I was trying the henrler approach, the slow reveal. Likely wouldnt have worked though

    @clevfan4life said:

    Oooffff that was so butch! I was trying the henrler approach, the slow reveal. Likely wouldnt have worked though

    Neither will this

    Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody!

  • Wtf did my phone do? The henrier approach? Dafuq is wrong with these things

  • MLD WoodyM MLD Woody

    @calfoxwc said:

    no, the chance that Bush would ever have done that is nonsense.

    And the chance Obama does is nonsense as well. That's the point.

    @mld-woody said:

    And the chance Obama does is nonsense as well. That's the point.

    but it isn't a valid point.

    Obamao has very dim regard for our Constitution. In his words, he's let it be known.

    Martial law sets aside the Constitution.

    Bush never had reps calling for him to declare martial law.

    Bush never once criticized our Constitutional freedoms. Obamao has.

    Obamao is very much a pro-socialist/racist/class warfare divider, and a creator

    of serious repercussions on the religious community.

    Bush was not. Not ever.

    Obamao openly talked about wanting his OWN national "security force"... it certainly seems

    like he's fostering division and violence, and crime by illegals, to show he needs what he said he needs.

    Of course, Bush never said that. NEV-ER.

    Obamao promised to "transform America". He's changed it for the worse. Note - he never said he wanted to

    IMPROVE America... Transform. That means to completely take America and make it completely something else.

    catapillar --> butterfly........ metamorphasis. There is a whole LOT of circumstantial evidence that Obamao

    is quite capable and maybe apt to consider it seriously. Not likely, sure. But even the possibility is a serious

    red flag on Obamao's lack of respect for who we are, basically, as a free country, and for our Constitutional

    guarantees.

    When a -president of the U.S. - talks about needing his OWN "security force" ..."well equiped and funded as our military"...

    what are we supposed to think that means? It isn't nonsense to suspect that ObaMao has ulterior motives, and martial

    law becomes a suspicion with some evidence to support it - as much as it is a small chance.

  • None of what ur writing even remotely proves theres an inc in chance obama would impose martial law. Ur basically just spouting off cal. But if u think im wrong, well theres s bet waiting for you. Now maybe if woody would get in on this action maybe the pot would be sweeter for you? Maybe we can convince gft on a hot foursome......now ur looking at nailing 3 birds with one stone. You cant pass that up, u just cant you know that right?

    gftChrisG 1 Reply

  • forget it, I'm straight and happily married. Go bitch at Dr. Ben Carson, and maybe

    you will listen to him.

    would you have thought never in a million years there would be a chance that

    the nazis would take over Germany, and a lot of Europe, and murder millions of

    Jews?

    Martial law has been declared in the U.S. in the past....

  • Black conservative leader Mychal Massie warns that a pandemic caused by the Obama ... an executive order for federal Martial Law in 2016 for the sheer ...

    Will Obama attempt to declare martial law before...
    www.westernjournalism.com/will-obama-attempt-to-de...

    Western Journalism. RSS Feed. Back. News; ... Will Obama attempt to declare martial lawbefore November ... Martial law will be declared by an appropriately ...

    Will Obama Declare Martial Law Before 2016 ...
    thetraderswire.com/will-obama-declare-marti...

    Will Obama Declare Martial Law Before 2016? on March 4, 2014. ... Barack Hussein Obama is making power grabs more and more; ...

    A Storm is Brewing on the Horizon – Will Obama ...
    freedomoutpost.com/storm-brewing-horizon-will-obama.....

    ... Will Obama Declare Martial Law Before 2016? Home; News. US News; World News; Politics; Constitution; ... Check out Freedom Outpost's Polls on LockerDome on ...



  • Obama Could Declare Martial Law - The Common Sense Show
    www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/10/15/black-conservative...



    ... Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show ... Obama Could Declare Martial Law, Cancel 2016 Elections | Dave Hodges – …. […] Comments are closed.





    Obama Could Declare Martial Law, Cancel 2016...
    tatoott1009.com/2014/10/14/obama-could-dec...



    Obama Could Declare Martial Law ... coming from the Obama administration ... secure the borders could lead to martial law being declared and the ...



Log in to reply