BIBLICAL SEPARATION REQUIRES CHRISTIANS TO SEE EVIL, EXPOSE IT, AND TREAT IT AS AN ENEMY OF THE SOUL
OBAMA IS THAT EVIL
2 Corinthians 6:14-18-"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."
Ephesians 5:5-11-"For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."
ANDY STANLEY'S "PASTOR IN CHIEF" IMPOSTOR, POSING AS ALLEGED CHRISTIAN, BUT REALLY AN APOSTATE, NARCISSIST, LIAR, USER, MANIPULATOR, ISLAMIC TERRORIST, CHRISTIAN PERSECUTOR & AMERICA HATER
http://apprising.org/2013/01/22/andy-stanley-president-obama-should-be-called-pastor-in-chief/
ISLAM DISPLAYS AN "US VERSUS THEM" MENTALITY, FREQUENTLY IN A VIOLENT WAY
ISLAM DISPLAYS AN "US VERSUS THEM" MENTALITY, FREQUENTLY IN A VIOLENT WAY
"Us-versus-them" Obama
Again Slams Christianity
BY SELWYN DUKE
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/21774-us-versus-them-obama-again-slams-christianity; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Some have mockingly called Barack Obama “Dear Reader” for his reliance on a Teleprompter. But considering that while speaking extemporaneously he has uttered comments such as Middle American voters “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them” and women shouldn’t be “punished with a baby,” his recourse to such technology is no mystery. And now we learn that, again, when the Telee's away Obama’s tongue will play.
The latest revelatory comment was made during a conversation the president had with Pulitzer Prize-winning author Marilynne Robinson for a New York Review of Books piece published Monday. While discussing Gilead, the author’s book about a 1950s Iowa pastor, Obama asked, “How do you reconcile the idea of faith being really important to you and you caring a lot about taking faith seriously with the fact that, at least in our democracy and our civic discourse, it seems as if folks who take religion the most seriously sometimes are also those who are suspicious of those not like them?” The president also said, “Sometimes Christian interpretation seems to posit an ‘us versus them [mindset].’”
Perhaps Obama got this impression attending Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years and listening to the man he called his mentor, friend, and uncle — Jeremiah Wright — call our nation the “US of KKKA” and spew venom such as “God d*** America!"? Then again, many critics would aver that Obama was merely projecting.
After all, there was that 2010 Univision radio interview in which the president stated that Hispanic voters needed to say, “We’re gonna punish our enemies.” Even worse, though, was a speech Obama gave to a mainly black audience at Hampton University in Virginia on June 5, 2007. As Dr. Thomas Sowell reported in 2012:
In his speech — delivered in a ghetto-style accent that Obama doesn't use anywhere except when he is addressing a black audience — he charged the federal government with not showing the same concern for the people of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina hit as they had shown for the people of New York after the 9/11 attacks, or the people of Florida after hurricane Andrew hit.
Departing from his prepared remarks, he mentioned the Stafford Act, which requires communities receiving federal disaster relief to contribute 10 percent as much as the federal government does.
Senator Obama, as he was then, pointed out that this requirement was waived in the case of New York and Florida because the people there were considered to be "part of the American family." But the people in New Orleans — predominantly black — "they don't care about as much," according to Barack Obama.
Except that none of this was true. As Sowell explained, “Less than two weeks earlier, on May 24, 2007, the United States Senate had in fact voted 80-14 to waive the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans, as it had waived that requirement for New York and Florida. More federal money was spent rebuilding New Orleans than was spent in New York after 9/11 and in Florida after hurricane Andrew, combined.”
Us versus them?
Yet there’s a kicker, too — and it’s a shocker. As Sowell pointed out, Obama could claim to not have been present in church during even one instance when Wright used hateful rhetoric. But the U.S. Senate actually takes attendance.
And Obama was present for the May 24, 2007 Stafford Act vote.
In other words, either Obama had a serious case of amnesia, or, as Sowell suggests, he was engaging in demagoguery, dividing people, and rubbing resentments “raw” in the name of political power and “fundamental change.” Sowell certainly has drawn his conclusion — he dubbed the president “Phony in Chief.”
Transitioning from how Obama talks to “us” to how he treats “them,” quite telling is a story related by economist and gun-rights advocate Dr. John Lott on Mark Levin’s October 2 radio show. Speaking about the time he and Obama were both in the University of Chicago’s employ, Lott mentioned that Obama didn’t attend the gatherings at which the staff exchanged ideas; he seemed wholly uninterested in what others had to say. The one exception, however, was an instance when he showed up and asked a fairly unintelligible question. Lott then saw Obama after the event and, trying to make friends and conversation, said (I’m paraphrasing), “You know, your question was interesting, but I think more people would have understood it if…” Lott never got to finish.
Because Obama, cold as ice, just turned his back.
Lott reports that when he would occasionally see Obama in the street at future times and extend a greeting, the reaction was the same. For the sin of having disagreed with president-to-be, Lott was dead to him.
Us versus them?
Perhaps Barack Obama has a religion all his own.
_______________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO: http://www.charismanews.com/culture/52654-obama-calls-out-serious-christians-for-us-versus-them-mentality; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
"Obama Calls Out 'Serious' Christians for
'Us Versus Them' Mentality"
Christians in the United States have an "us versus them" mentality and are inherently suspicious, or so Barack Obama ponders in a new interview.
The president sat down with Gilead author Marilynne Robinson in a roles-reversed interview in which Obama asked the questions. Robinson's novel delves into the spiritual battles facing America through the eyes of a Midwestern pastor.
In light of attacks on religious freedom across the country as well as the murder of Christians in Oregon, the president asked the author about a believer's role in democracy: "But you've struggled with the fact that here in the United States, sometimes Christian interpretation (of democracy) seems to posit an 'us versus them,'" Obama says.
"How do you reconcile the idea of faith being really important to you and you caring a lot about taking faith seriously with the fact that, at least in our democracy and our civic discourse, it seems as if folks who take religion the most seriously sometimes are also those who are suspicious of those not like them?"
But inherent Christian values are under fire, even in the land of the free: Gay couples sue private businesses for refusing products so frequently lawmakers scramble to protect religious rights.
Doctors lose their jobs for speaking out, and atheist groups harass schools and teachers into bowing to an anti-God agenda.
According to Robinson, though, those who take their faith seriously should be ready to encounter difficulty.
"I mean, when people are turning in on themselves—and God knows, arming themselves and so on—against the imagined other, they're not taking their Christianity seriously," Robinson says. "I don't know—I mean, this has happened over and over again in the history of Christianity, there's no question about that, or other religions, as we know. But Christianity is profoundly counterintuitive—'Love thy neighbor as thyself'—which I think properly understood means your neighbor is as worthy of love as you are, not that you're actually going to be capable of this sort of superhuman feat. But you're supposed to run against the grain. It's supposed to be difficult. It's supposed to be a challenge."
For Robinson, it appears as if vocal Christianity has no place in the public square.
"Well, I believe that people are images of God," she tells Obama. "There's no alternative that is theologically respectable to treating people in terms of that understanding. What can I say? It seems to me as if democracy is the logical, the inevitable consequence of this kind of religious humanism at its highest level. And it (applies) to everyone. It's the human image. It's not any loyalty or tradition or anything else; it's being human that enlists the respect, the love of God being implied in it."
But according to Emory University Law Professor John Witte, Christianity and democracy complement and challenge each other.
"Christianity provides democracy with a system of beliefs that integrates its concerns for liberty and responsibility, individuality and community," Witte writes. "Democracy's commitment to religious freedom opens new opportunities to Christianity and challenges the church to extend its mission and ministry. Democracy's commitment to religious equality forces Christianity to stand on its own feet and on an equal footing with all other religions."
But is it really "equal footing" when Christian persecution is largely ignored, and when it's brought to the spotlight, the president himself calls them "suspicious"?
________________________________________________________________
Obama Asks Novelist About ‘Suspicious’ Christians with ‘Us Versus Them’ Mentality
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
DES MOINES, Iowa — Following release of interview footage with Barack Obama and Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Marilynne Robinson, some are expressing concern about Obama’s remarks regarding those of the Christian faith.“Tell me a little bit about how your interest in Christianity converges with your concerns about democracy,” Obama asked Robinson, being the interviewer.“Well, I believe that people are images of God. There’s no alternative that is theologically respectable to treating people in terms of that understanding,” the novelist replied. “It seems to me as if democracy is the logical, the inevitable consequence of this kind of religious humanism at its highest level. And it [applies] to everyone. It’s the human image. It’s not any loyalty or tradition or anything else; it’s being human that enlists the respect, the love of God being implied in it.”Obama then cited some of Robinson’s concerns about Christians.“But you’ve struggled with the fact that here in the United States, sometimes Christian interpretation seems to posit an ‘us versus them,’ and those are sometimes the loudest voices,” he said. “But sometimes I think you also get frustrated with kind of the wishy-washy, more liberal versions where anything goes.”The president then asks a question regarding his view that those who take religion seriously are “suspicious” of those with different beliefs.“How do you reconcile the idea of faith being really important to you and you caring a lot about taking faith seriously with the fact that, at least in our democracy and our civic discourse, it seems as if folks who take religion the most seriously sometimes are also those who are suspicious of those not like them?” Obama asked.“Well, I don’t know how seriously they do take their Christianity, because if you take something seriously, you’re ready to encounter difficulty, run the risk, whatever. I mean, when people are turning in on themselves—and God knows, arming themselves and so on—against the imagined other, they’re not taking their Christianity seriously,” Robinson replied.Some note that Obama has made critical statements about Christians on a number of occasions during his presidency, including a comment during a prayer breakfast in April.“I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love. And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less than loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned,” he said.“Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Obama also stated in February.“The Crusades were a defense against Islamic aggression and takeover of [Catholic]-held lands. These were bloody wars that went on for centuries, but not because the [Catholics] liked war—but because the Islamic aggressors would not stop waging war, much like they do today,” Martin Mawyer of Christian Action Network wrote in response at that time.“Did Obama mention the Islamic aggression during the Crusades during Ramadan? Did he ever take the opportunity at a Muslim holiday or gathering to chide the Muslims for getting up on their ‘high horse; about their religion?” he asked. “Of course not. He only tells it like (he thinks) it is when there is a Christian gathering, and only in strident anti-Christian tones.”______________________________________________________________
VIDEOS:
THE "MAC DADDY" BARRY SOETORO" FROM HAWAII:
2013
2013
2015
JEFF RENSE INTERVIEWS MIA POPE 2013
OBAMA SPENT $4.4 MILLION TAX DOLLARS ON GOLF AND PRIVATE FUNDRAISERS IN TWO MONTHS
Documents show astounding cost to Americans of President's jaunts
by STEVE WATSON
SEE: http://www.infowars.com/obama-spent-4-4-million-tax-dollars-on-golf-and-private-fundraisers-in-two-months/; republished below
in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Documents obtained by the political watchdog Judicial Watch this week show that in just two months the President spent close to $4.5 million on golfing and fundraising trips.
The records were obtained from the U.S. Department of the Air Force as part of of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
They reveal that Obama’s February and March golf vacations and fundraisers came to a whopping $4,436,245.50 in travel expenses ALONE.
The security costs of the trips to Palm Springs and Palm City, as well as fundraising trips to Chicago and LA, have not yet been revealed by the Secret Service.
According to Judicial Watch, the documents show:
- Obama’s February 14, 2015, golf outing to Palm Springs required a five-hour flight, costing taxpayers a total of $1,031,685.
- Transportation for Obama’s February 19 day trip to Chicago cost taxpayers $619,011.00.
- Transportation for Obama’s March 2015 fundraising trip to Los Angeles cost taxpayers $1,980,835.20.
- Obama’s March 28, 2015, golf outing to Palm city required a 3.9-hour flight, costing taxpayers $804,870.30.
The report notes that in Palm Springs Obama spent the whole weekend at the luxurious Sunnylands country club, while the trip to LA was mostly about appearing on “Jimmy Kimmel Live” and raking in up to $33,400 per couple for attendance to a private DNC fundraiser.
The two golf outings alone cost taxpayers $1,836,555 in travel expenses. Obama played a total of five rounds of golf, equating to a cost of $20,406 per hole. The two fundraising trips totaled $2.59 million.
“Taxpayers should be outraged that Barack Obama’s wastes 4.4 million of their precious tax dollars on golf vacations and political fundraising,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
“And to make matters worse, the Secret Service has simply refused to respond to our requests for documents about the security costs of these controversial trips. The Obama travel scandal is about abuse of office, abuse of the taxpayer, and contempt for the rule of law.” Fitton urged.
Last year, in the same two months, Obama spent nearly $3 million for flight expenses alone to play golf in Palm Springs and Key Largo.
The Obamas have spent tens of millions in tax dollars to vacation around 40 times in the past six years. To date, the known travel expenses of the Obamas and Vice President Joe Biden exceed $61million, according to Judicial Watch.
New Obama Terror Czar Will Target Conservatives, Christians
BY ALEX NEWMAN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The Obama administration's increasingly controversial Justice Department, in partnership with the ultra-leftist Southern Poverty Law Center, announced the creation of a new czar position to focus on “domestic terrorism” — especially the alleged threat from Christians and Americans with “anti-government” views. While ostensibly created to serve as a coordination office overseeing domestic terror cases, critics and analysts are sounding the alarm, warning that the administration is plotting to go after its political opponents with the full force of the federal government.The impetus for the Obama DOJ's new focus on conservatives, libertarians, Christians, and others appears to be the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), widely viewed as an “anti-Christian hate group” and strongly criticized even by mainstream voices on the Left. Civil rights attorney and Southern Center for Human Rights President Stephen Bright, citing investigations and even a federal judge, lambasted SPLC founder Morris Dees as a “con man and fraud” who takes advantage of “naive, well-meaning people.”Ironically, the SPLC was implicated in an actual domestic terrorism case, one of the few, just over two years ago. The attack involved a deranged homosexual activist, relying on the far-left group's “hate” propaganda, who tried to massacre employees of the Family Research Council, a pro-family group falsely characterized as a “hate group” by the SPLC. “We’ve been pushing for something like this for quite a few years,” declared SPLC mouthpiece Mark Potok about the new domestic terror czar. “We feel like it’s very much a step forward, although we’ll have to see how it plays out.”The announcement of the new domestic extremism czar position was made at George Washington University by Obama's Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Carlin, a Harvard lawyer. “We need to make sure we have the mechanisms in place so that we can continue to remain just as focused on the domestic terrorism threat while addressing the international terrorism threat,” Carlin said in a question-and-answer session after his speech, which was co-hosted by the SPLC. “The new DT [Domestic Terror] Counsel will not only help ensure that DT cases are properly coordinated by will also play a key role in our headquarters-level efforts to identify trends to help shape our strategy, and to analyze legal gaps or enhancements required to ensure we can combat these threats.”What bureaucrat might fill the position was not immediately clear. But when it comes to what the Obama administration is looking for, Carlin offered more details. “Homegrown violent extremists can be motivated by any viewpoint on the full spectrum of hate — anti-government views, racism, bigotry, anarchy and other despicable beliefs,” Carlin explained, without explaining how being opposed to government was hateful or why people's views should concern the federal government. “When it comes to hate and intolerance, no single ideology governs.” But if Carlin's views on what constitutes “hate” and “anti-government” views are anything like the SPLC's, Americans should expect Obama's new terror czar to step up its escalating anti-constitutional attacks and intimidation against Christian groups, forces that stand for traditional (or biblical) marriage, pro-family organizations, pro-life groups, constitutionalist organizations, and more.The SPLC specializes in smearing conservatives and Christians by, among other tactics, sandwiching peaceful activists between National Socialists (Nazis) and Ku Klux Klan groups. The group refers to the John Birch Society, for example, the parent organization of this magazine, as “Chief among the Patriot groups,” with the word patriot, in SPLC-speak, used to connote something negative, namely "anti-government," though the JBS is not anti-government in the slightest, only anti-lawless or -tyrannical government. The SPLC also demonizes as “hate groups” everything from mainstream pro-family organizations to voices that criticize radical Islamism. On top of that, the SPLC has been widely ridiculed for wildly inflating its lists of both “hate” groups and “patriot” groups, even listing defunct websites run by a single person or the “Granny Warriors” as targets in its outlandish propaganda materials.But critics say it is the SPLC and its allies, in fact, that deserve more scrutiny — and not just because the group's hate propaganda inspired terrorist Floyd Corkins to buy a gun and try to murder as many innocent employees of a mainstream pro-family group as possible, and then shove Chi-fil-A sandwiches in his victims' mouths. In fact, the SPLC's views are so radical that the mainstream American Family Association, with millions of supporters, labels it an “anti-Christian hate group,” and numerous prominent voices on the Left have denounced the SPLC as well.While the SPLC's ramblings are occasionally taken seriously by anti-Christian bigots in government and the establishement media, most conservative and libertarian organizations and individuals consider it a badge of honor to be slandered by the SPLC. Still, its methodology has long been the subject of ridicule, and it has become increasingly marginalized as an extremist group among sensible Americans.Despite the stench of the SPLC's reputation — even prominent leftists have blasted the outfit and its founder as money-grubbing scam artists that bilk and terrorize donors while demonizing those whose views it disagrees with — Carlin had nothing but praise for the outfit. Groups like the SPLC, which has long been openly associated with communists, terrorists, and other radicals, “dedicate themselves to examining what the threat is, observing it, and reporting on it,” Carlin claimed, apparently with a straight face. Of course, in reality, the opposite is true, as even other arms of the Obama administration and growing swaths of the establishment media have slowly started to realize. “I can say, based on our briefings, that as I said in my opening remarks, we very much think that the domestic terrorism threat is a real and present threat that demands to be addressed in new, creative ways,” Carlin continued, adding that the “Southern Poverty Law Center and other groups in this space are very important.”Ironically, Carlin also discredited much of his argument about anti-government activists by touting a debunked “study” claiming that alleged “right-wing extremists,” apparently hiding under every bed, have become a bigger threat to America than Islamic terrorists — many of whom have been armed and openly supported by the Obama administration, prompting even retired U.S. generals to argue that Obama had “switched sides” in the terror war. The propaganda “study” in question, produced by the statist George Soros-funded New America Foundation (no link to this magazine), has been widely ridiculed as a pathetic attempt at propaganda on par with Obama administration efforts to demonize conservatives, libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, veterans, pro-life activists, liberty lovers, and more as potential terrorists and extremists in various official reports.A report on “right-wing extremism” produced by Obama's Department of Homeland Security warning of veterans and conservatives was eventually withdrawn after it went public. The DHS was subjected to merciless ridicule once the sources, many of which were known hoax websites, emerged. But other, similar propaganda continues to be pumped out, at taxpayer expense. And the New America report, while not directly affiliated with the administration, has been blasted for major flaws that provide evidence of deliberate manipulation to achieve the desired result — demonizing political opponents.A recent article on Obama's new czar hunting right-wing extremists by Leo Hohmann at WND, for example, pointed out that the New America study cited a mentally ill, drug-abusing, anti-Christian terrorist motivated by National Socialism as an example of “right-wing terrorism.” Other alleged examples of “right-wing terrorism” included a 2004 bank robbery, an armed home robbery in 2009, and a few non-political shootings of police. In all, the “study” managed to find or invent 48 victims of “right-wing terrorism” since the September 11 attacks killed 3,000 Americans. When it comes to Islamist terrorism, though, the “study” failed to include everything from Chattanooga shooter Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez's recent attack that killed five U.S. servicemen to John Muhammad's Washington, D.C., shooting spree that left 10 dead back in 2002. Despite being debunked, the pseudo-study was regurgitated by Carlin and some leftist media outlets without noting its obvious flaws.Critics, though, are already warning that Obama's new domestic terror czar is no joke. Bryan Fischer, writing on the pro-family One News Now site, blasted the president's “abiding hostility to people of Christian faith” — as exemplified most recently by the new terror czar position and Obama's apparent belief that Christians are a threat to national security. “If you are a sincerely devoted follower of Jesus Christ, your president believes you are a potential domestic terrorist,” Fischer wrote, pointing to Obama's new domestic terror czar job and the statements made by Carlin and the SPLC. “And where, pray tell, does this threat come from? From the Muslim Brotherhood, which has a stated goal of exterminating Western civilization and sabotaging our miserable house from within? Nope. From ISIS, which is actively recruiting jihadists in all 50 states? Nope. Jihadists who are sneaking into the United States disguised as Syrian refugees? Nope.”Blasting the “thoroughly discredited” SPLC, “which is so blatantly and maliciously biased against Christians that other parts of Obama's administration – the FBI, the Pentagon, and the U.S. Army – are getting as far away from the SPLC as they can,” Fischer said Obama and his “minions” consider the Family Research Council and the American Family Association to be the “real threat.” He also noted that the SPLC's “intelligence project director,” who teamed up with the DOJ, had admitted to a reporter that the SPLC classifies groups “on the basis of ideology.” “In other words, the SPLC will vilify groups because of what they believe, not because of what they do or because they have demonstrated any propensity toward violence,” Fischer noted, citing the SPLC operative's own admission that the groups demonized by the SPLC are not targeted based on whether they are violent or not, but “on the basis of ideology.”“Do we disagree with the homosexual lobby about homosexuality? Of course. Do we hate them? Absolutely not. Do we advocate violence against them? Never have, never will. We are simply determined to tell the moral, spiritual, and physical truth about non-normative sexual behavior,” Fischer continued, blasting the SPLC's attacks on pro-family groups based on the far-left outfit's own subjective hatred of what those groups say. “Bottom line: disagreement is not hatred, and the truth is not hate speech. Somebody needs to tell that to the president.” Of course, Obama already knows that, yet has demonstrated repeatedly his disdain for Christians — especially those who “bitterly” cling to their guns and Bibles.Indeed, so outrageous and brazen has the administration's anti-Christian bigotry become, that the Obama Defense Department was exposed teaching U.S. troops that Evangelical Christians, Catholics, and Orthodox Jews were “religious extremists” in the same category with Hamas and al-Qaeda. Just last week, Obama and the United Nations launched a global jihad against extremism, promising to stamp out “anti-Muslim bigotry” wherever it may be hiding. Also last week, Obama was again demonizing Christians, suggesting that the most devoted followers of Christ Jesus are actually xenophobes "suspicious of those not like them.”In its final year in office, the Obama administration seems to be becoming a caricature of itself — an angry, petulant, paranoid, anti-American spectacle that would almost appear to be a comedy act if the implications for liberty and constitutional government were not so extreme.Unsurprisingly, the new domestic terror czar announcement, and especially its links to the radical SPLC, has sparked a firestorm of outrage. However, the American people overwhelmingly elected Republicans to Congress so they could stop Obama and his “fundamental transformation” of America. A good place to start would be to examine the DOJ and its latest antics. If they are unconstitutional, or chill free speech in any way, they should be defunded immediately. If lawmakers find that the Justice Department is playing politics and demonizing, spying on, or threatening peaceful Americans for their political or religious views, Congress should start holding those responsible for the scheming accountable. Without congressional action, though, Americans can expect even more attacks on middle America in the coming months as Obama's “fundamental transformation” reaches its climax.Related articles:
