Posted by: conservativecritic | June 27, 2015

Barack Obama – the mystery man of the century


This came from a union guy in Chicago who didn’t vote for Obama. Very, very interesting perspective that I never thought of in this light. It will be interesting to see what they put in his “Presidential Library” about his early years when he is out of office.

In a country where we take notice of many, many facets of our public figures’ lives, doesn’t seem odd that there’s so little we know about our current president, Barack Obama.

For example, we know that Andrew Jackson ‘s wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery;

Abe Lincoln never went to school.

Jack Kennedy wore a back brace; Harry Truman played the piano.

As Americans, we enjoy knowing details about our newsmakers, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president.

We are all aware of the lack of incontestable birth records for Obama; that document managing has been spectacularly successful.

There are however, several additional oddities in Obama’s history that appear to be as well managed as the birthing issue.

One other interesting thing… There are no birth certificates of his daughters that can be found?

It’s interesting that no one who ever dated him has shown up. The charisma that caused women to be drawn to him so strongly during his campaign, certainly would in the normal course of events, lead some lady to come forward, if only to garner some attention for herself. We all know about JFK’s magnetism, that McCain was no monk and quite a few details about Palin’s courtship and even her athletic prowess, Joe Biden’s aneurisms are no secret; look at Cheney and Clinton, we all know about their heart problems. Certainly Wild Bill Clinton’s exploits before and during his White House years, were well known. That’s why it’s so odd that not one lady has stepped up and said, “He was soooo shy…” or “What a great dancer…”

It’s virtually impossible to know anything about this fellow.

Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen.

Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony. Has anyone talked to the professors? It is odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him.

When did he meet Michele, and how? (p.s….bet you did not know that Michele Obama is really a MAN…and is what they call a “beard” for Obama)…Are there photos there? Every president gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their library, etc. What has he released? Who voted for him to be the most popular man in 2010? Doesn’t this make you wonder?

Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from President Obama’s past saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc?? Not one person has ever come forward from his past. It certainly is very, very strange…

This should be a cause for great concern. To those who voted for him, you may have elected an unqualified, inexperienced shadow man. Have you seen a movie named “The Manchurian Candidate”

Obama the narcissist..."...its all about me, me, me"...

As insignificant as each of us might be, someone with whom we went to school will remember our name or face; someone will remember we were the clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something about us. George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign. He questions why no one has acknowledged the president was in their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos also was a classmate of Obama at Columbia — the class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him.

He is such a great orator? Why doesn’t anyone in Obama’s college class remember him? Why won’t he allow Columbia to release his records? Nobody remembers Obama at Columbia University.

Looking for evidence of Obama’s past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there… but none remembered him.

Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia who also graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, “I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia, ever.”

Nobody recalls him. Root adds that he was also, like Obama, Class of ’83 Political Science, and says, “You don’t get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? ~ Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And ten years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who’s kind of the, as we say in New York, ‘the macha’ who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him.”

Obama’s photograph does not appear in the school’s yearbook and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia . Some other interesting questions:

Why was Obama’s law license inactivated in 2002? it is said there is no record of him ever taking the Bar exam.

Why was Michelle’s law license inactivated by court order? We understand that was forced to avoid fraud charges.


It is circulating that according to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 alias connected to him.

The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is reported to have never lived. And was originally registered to another man(Thomas Louis Wood) from Connecticut, who died in Hawaii while on vacation there. As we all know Social Security Numbers are only issued ‘once, they are not reused’

No wonder all his records are sealed…

Clint Eastwood said his Republican National Convention speech achieved exactly what he wanted it to. He then proceeded to label President Barack Obama a “hoax.”….“President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.


Posted by: conservativecritic | June 26, 2015

Why Workplace Diversity Is A Fraud, Perpetuated by Racists…

Cyberspace and the printed media has been saturated with the idea of diversity within our military, our corporations, and community organizations. We have heard the supposed benefits of diversity and how we are less empowered when we have less diversity than not.

A lack of diversity has been equated with racism, bigotry, ethnic purism, discrimination and a host of other negative connotations that are meant to elicit a sense of disdain.  Example: Jessie jackson threatening demonstrations outside the offices of Facebook, Toyota, Apple, Hilton and others.


While I’m not bagging out the benefits of a certain amount of diversity, nor the perceived problems that a lack of diversity creates, it has become more of a back woods rite of passage…nothing more.

What ruffles my feathers is how diversity has devolved into this tickbox that organizations use to show they are “progressive“. Diversity has become a part of their marketing and recruiting campaigns and diminishes the original need for diversity into nothing more than an HR metric and a really cool definition that’s supposed to make us feel warm, gooey and accepting as if we have reached some imagined state of organizational enlightenment.

Diversity is the what, but without embracing the reason behind the need for diversity, the how and the why of it all go painfully unnoticed. What good is diversity if the things brought to the table by the diverse nature of people has no quantifiable technical or management talent, voice or outlet for expression within an organization?  Why would any reasonable corporation hire people with the proper skills to enhance the companyh image and financial bottom line?

It’s as if there is an assumption that the expression of the diversity we publicly portray as so precious could be in direct opposition to what we want to do and how we want to do it within our organizations. So, these affected corporations produce policies and processes to administrate away the value diversity brings to an organization for the sake of control and perceived safety (read risk management).

What’s the solution? Cultural pluralism. An organization that believes there is absolutely no overlap with the established or desired organizational culture and the personal culture that comes from diversity is quite telling of how far out of touch they are with their workforce.

Why would you recruit such a large number of people that don’t align with your technical, marketing or administrative needs? Oh yeah…its that pesky diversity metric so you appear to be an employer of choice in order to recruit and retain top talent. Anyone else seeing a circular argument forming here?

The only perfect culture is one that understands and embraces the positive contributions from all participating cultures. Taking a cultural elitist position doesn’t do anyone any favors. Just as contemporary art exists and thrives while being made up of a number of different expressions side by side, organizations can benefit from this type of cultural pluralism as well.

Of course there can’t be 100% expression from every single cultural contribution from different people in an organization. There CAN be an opportunity to express those cultural differences within the parameters of a company’s organizational values.

Our respective cultures are intertwined with our identity. To attack or suppress culture is to do the same to an individual. While you may feel justified, you will NOT have engaged employees.

If your employee engagement surveys don’t address the issue of cultural pluralism and employees having a voice based on who they are, not playing the role of a “company man/woman”, then your engagement will suffer because it has the feel of an autocracy. People have to do more than know culture. They have to feel it. Engagement begins when things feel personal and they have a vested interest in things. You don’t get too much more personal than culture.

Lighten up and let people support your culture by expressing theirs.

Most importantly, view diversity through the lens of corporate needs and the  ability to create financial value to  stockholders….otherwise, the process of obtaining “diversity” becomes simply one of smoke and mirrors.

These are the liberal loons that you spend money on when you go to the movies or watch streaming video….all that money goes to promoting homosexuality, same sex marriage and worse….think twice before you pay to go see any of these morally corrupt people on stage, screen, etc.


“Finally And at Last! The Revolution Of Love has Begun!” — Madonna, via Twitter.


“Equality = Freedom. Freedom = Love.” — Pharrell Williams, via Twitter.


“Just woke up to the Good News! Goin’ To The Chapel!” — Bette Midler, via Twitter.


“Times are changing my friends. We have such a long way to go and so much more fighting to do so I hope nobody stops and thinks everything’s ok because it isn’t, BUT it’s days like today, and moments like this that we’ve all gotta have a drink and celebrate how far we have come. I couldn’t be prouder to be gay.” — Sam Smith, via Instagram.


“Same-sex marriage is now legal all across the US! Free to love. Free to marry. Free to be equal!” — Lady Gaga, via Twitter.


“Can’t stop smiling. Today is truly a day in history!” — Emmy Rossum, via Twitter.


“Love won.” — Ellen DeGeneres, via Twitter.


“Never did I dream this day could come…and now it’s here.” — Lee Daniels.


“A beautiful long overdue victory and a day to celebrate. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the constitution guarantees a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.” — Kate Hudson, via Instagram.


“Huge day for America. Happy to see the news. All the love.” — Harry Styles, via Twitter.


“It’s a new day. Thank you Supreme Court. Thank you Justice Kennedy. Your opinion is profound, in more ways than you may know. #huzzah.” — Neil Patrick Harris, via Twitter.


“Happy tears on the eve of my own wedding anniversary that all my friends can know their marriage is respected and protected by the law of the land.” — America Ferrera, via Instagram.


“This is a happy day, not just for LGBT Americans, but for all Americans. It is the beginning of an era where we no longer will speak about same-sex marriage, but of marriage. And one day, we need not speak of LGBT rights, for they simply will be human rights. Across this great land, families are celebrating because we truly are one family.” — George Takei in a statement.


“I have always said that everyone has the right to love who they love and today, with the historic decision from the Supreme Court, I am so happy it is now the law of the land.” — Liza Minnelli in a statement.


“What’s better than a supreme taco from Taco Bell? The Supreme Court of the United States. Thank you for making marriage legal for EVERYONE today. Best birthday gift ever.” — Sean Hayes, via Facebook.


“Congratulations, particularly to those who made the case for equality.” — Ian McKellen, via Twitter.


“Today is beautiful.” — Ann Kendrick, via Twitter.


“Is there a computer genius who can make my GIF dreams come true with Justice Ginsburg on a rainbow clad motorcycle riding into the sunset?” — Audra McDonald, via Twitter.


“#MarriageEquaility!!!! A giant step towards our country being a better place to be!” Shonda Rhimes, via Twitter.


“Love won! Dignity won! Common sense won! SCOTUS is 2 for 2. Bravo.” — Jason Alexander, via Twitter.


“i am so overwhelmed with gratitude for the wisdom of our Supreme Court – and the courage of generations of LGBT crusaders who have fought hard and sacrificed much to lead us to this powerfully emotional and historic moment!!! what an amazing day for our community – and our country!” — Zachary Quinto, via Instagram.


“Hugely emotional that marriage equality has finally come to the U.S. History! Love ALWAYS wins.” — Jesse Tyler Ferguson, via Twitter.


“Ahora en los EEUU no se llamara “matrimonio igualitario” se llamara MATRIMONIO y punto.” (“Now in the U.S. it won’t be “marriage equality” it will only be MARRIAGE.”) — Ricky Martin, via Twitter.


“You never realize how heavy your burden’s been until you lay it down in the promised land.” — Harvey Fierstein, via Twitter.


“Congratulations, Other Team! We all won. #LGBTRights” — Rosanne Cash, via Twitter.


“It would have been better if it was done by 1915, but we worked pretty fast. I’m pretty happy about that. A lot of people I know worked hard on this are celebrating a lot today.” — Penn Jillette, half of Penn & Teller, in an interview.


“I’m so happy I’m crying!!!! #LoveWins” — Kelly Osbourne, via Twitter.



DES MOINES, IA, June 25, 2015 ( — An Iowa Christian couple has lost their livelihood, because they believe in natural marriage.

Richard and Betty Odgaard ran Görtz Haus Gallery in Grimes, Iowa — a beautiful wedding chapel, art gallery, flower shop, and bistro. They had been serving happy customers in the renovated stone church for 11 years.

That is, until homosexuals from Des Moines targeted their Christian business, to use as a tool of the gay agenda. Their plan to attack Christian businesses using same-sex “marriage” as a civil rights issue has worked with Oregon bakers, New Mexico photographers, and New York farmers.

On August 3, 2013, two homosexuals came in to Görtz Haus and asked the Odgaards to host their gay “wedding.” The Odgaards, who are devout Mennonites, politely responded that because of their religious faith, they could not in good conscience facilitate a homosexual ceremony.

Betty told the homosexuals that she would be happy to serve them “in any other way.”

“To us, [marriage] is a sacrament,” she said, that exists only “between a man and woman.”

Immediately, the homosexuals sued the Odgaards, filing a discrimination complaint through the Iowa Civil Rights Commission.

Even though, as Betty later explained to The Blaze, their decision was “totally a faith-based issue,” the Odgaards were forced into a $5,000 settlement, lost business and soon had to close the wedding chapel. “We had to get rid of the wedding business to avoid another complaint and possibly a higher penalty,” Richard explained. “We didn’t have a choice,” Betty said. “We would be targets.”

But the wedding chapel was their mainstay, and their other services at Görtz Haus Gallery floundered under intense negative publicity. Regular customers stopped patronizing their bistro, flower shop and art gallery because the Odgaards were labeled, “bigots.”

The Odgaards received threats and extremely offensive messages. “F–k you, f–k your God, f–k your religion,” wrote one homosexual. “You are mean, rude, selfish, mother f—er racist sons of b—hes from hell.”


Richard, 69, explained that long-time customers “didn’t come in because the people who are against us are more vocal than the people who are in our court.” Betty, 63, said the unjust persecution drove her to depression. “This took me down to the darkest I’ve ever been before,” she told the Daily Signal.

Discrimination claims are judged, not by a jury, but by the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. “This was all administrative judgement,” Richard said. “The [homosexuals] had a platform to file their case and we didn’t get our day in court with a jury of our peers.”

In their year-and-a-half long legal battle, the Odgaards did not have the Constitutional assumption of innocence. “With the discrimination laws and the legality of same-sex marriage in this state, now you have to prove that you didn’t discriminate,” Richard said.



By the end of August, Görtz Haus Gallery will be closed completely. Betty admitted to the Daily Signal, “Telling our family what we are doing, telling vendors the decision that we’ve made, it’s been very tough.”

Richard noted that the homosexuals’ success against them has set a pattern to be repeated throughout the country. “Now the precedent has been set,” Richard said. “The administrative process has demonstrated what it will do if this happens, so it’s a matter of setting somebody up and collecting money. It’s that simple. It’s all they have to do.”

Actually, the “n” word just rolled off his tongue because Obama is NOT black….where such language is not acceptable in today’s society….he is not 50 percent black, not 40 percent black, not 30 percent black, not 20 percent  black and not even 10 percent black… heritage via his  Kenya father, Obama is about 6 percent black….that’s why it was so easy for him  to use the “n”word.  

By  comparison, he can easily quote the Koran verbatum with perfect Muslim diction…again, because he is more than 40 percent Muslim, and not black…

And, he has perfect diction of the king’s english because he is 50 percent white from his mother…

Let’s understand one thing…the media gave him a pass and get out of jail free card when it came to his lineage and their unwavering support to portray him as  a black president….which he is not as we  note above.  Obama needed the  black vote the first time, and the second time, to gain the Presidency of the USA and playing the “black card” got him there with ease.

arab obama





About that Pope Francis ‘interview’ where he denied the existence of Hell


Eugenio Scalfari, the famed atheist, has published a fourth article on a new interview with Pope Francis. The controversial anti-Catholic’s previous ‘interviews’ with Pope Francis were published also on the Vatican’s website and listed as official interviews with the pope.

However, an October 2013 interview created a firestorm after which the Vatican pulled the interview from their site and Scalfari admitted that his writings are reconstructions from memory, as he does not use a recorder or take notes. That interview had Pope Francis saying that the “most serious” evils are “youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old.”

Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi said at the time: “One may consider the interview to be reliable in a general sense but not word for word. This is not an official text of the Holy Father.”

The most recent interview, published March 15, is no exception. In it Scalfari has the pope denying hell. The article says: “What happens to that lost soul? Will it be punished? And how? The response of Francis is distinct and clear: there is no punishment, but the annihilation of that soul. All the others will participate in the beatitude of living in the presence of the Father. The souls that are annihilated will not take part in that banquet; with the death of the body their journey is finished.”

The text does not have quotation marks around any of the statements attributed to the Holy Father. Moreover, the Vatican has not published this latest interview on their website.

Fr. Thomas Rosica, English-language assistant to the Holy See Press Office, told LifeSiteNews, “All official, final texts of the Holy Father are found on the Vatican website,” and since they were never published by the Holy See Press Office they “should not be considered official texts.” They were, said Fr. Rosica, “private discussions that took place and were never recorded by the journalist.”

“Mr. Scalfari reconstructed the interviews from memory,” Father Rosica added.



Judicial Watch reports it has obtained FBI documents that show family members of top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett were “hardcore Communists” investigated by the government.

According to the report, Jarrett’s father, pathologist and geneticist Dr. James Bowman, had a lengthy FBI file showing extensive ties to Communist organizations and individuals. One of those was the Communist-sympathizing group Association of Internes and Medical Students.

Jarrett’s maternal grandfather, Robert Rochon Taylor, had a business relationship with paid Soviet agent named Alfred Stern, according to Judicial Watch. Stern also had a contact with Bowman.

Jarrett’s father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, also has an FBI file, the group reports.

“For a period of time Vernon Jarrett appeared on the FBI’s Security Index and was considered a potential Communist saboteur who was to be arrested in the event of a conflict with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR),” according to Judicial Watch.

“His FBI file reveals that he was assigned to write propaganda for a Communist Party front group in Chicago that would ‘disseminate the Communist Party line among … the middle class.'”

“Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshal Davis, a big Obama mentor and Communist Party member with an extensive FBI file,” the group says on its website.

Posted by: conservativecritic | June 22, 2015

Obama’s lie to black Americans…

Originally posted on Conservative Critic's Blog:


Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. He is the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother’s side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father’s side.

While Barack Hussein Obama’s father was from Kenya , his father’s family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama’s father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father’s birth certificate even states he’s Arab, not African Negro). Go to:<…


Ironically, blacks have been(and continue to be) enslaved by Arabs in the Middle East…

Most black Americans don’t know this story and presume Obama is half  black…which he is not…

Obama…stop lying about your background…and black Americans, remember this at the November polls when you decide whether our…

View original 9 more words

Posted by: conservativecritic | June 22, 2015

Why Jews promote and encourage Homosexuality…



If you still wonder why the Jewish community supports homosexuality and same sex marriage to the extent the above link indicates, read the following blog entry.



We receive a lot of questions regarding the influence of Judaism on the national media and in particular its anti-Christian position on subjects such as homosexuality, pederasty or other sexual deviancies.

These questions arise due to the increasing prevalence of Jewish ownership of media (i.e. LOGO, et al.) which espouse homosexuality as a “normal” sexual condition.

This blog entry is a partial response to these questions, and in particular a look at what in Jewish history and religious documents has led to this extraordinary emphasis on abnormal sexual behavior.

Today, Judaism, more than any religion, has rejected moral judgments against homosexuality, and supports the gay agenda. Reform Judaism, representing 39 percent of American religious Jews, is now in total endorsement of sodomy. It says:

“We hold that homosexuality is no longer {an abomination}; it is not a mental illness or social deviancy; it is not a perversion of the natural order. Homosexuality is not a choice or a preference; it is not something that one decides to do or abstain from doing. It is, like, heterosexuality, the way one is. As such it makes no sense on religious or moral grounds to differentiate between people on the basis of sexual orientation”.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union For Reformed Judaism, concurs:

“For the first time in history, a major rabbinical body has affirmed the Jewish validity of committed, same-gender relationships”. 1

Conservative rabbis, who lead 33 percent of religious Jews, announce they will soon ordain gay rabbis and encourage homosexuality for Jewish men and women who are so inclined. 2

Orthodox Judaism, 21 percent of American religious Jews, has not yet outwardly endorsed homosexuality. In fact, it officially forbids homosexual relations between adults.

But in the Talmud, the highest religious, ethical and legal authority for Orthodox Jews, we find a very different, shocking reality: little boys under the age of nine (delectable objects of homosexual lust) are repeatedly described as incapable of “throwing guilt” on the adult who rapes them!

How does the Talmud reach such a perverted conclusion? The Talmud considers in depth the question: “What disqualifies a woman from eligibility to marry a Jewish priest?” The Old Testament says sexual immorality does. Yet the Talmud repeatedly asserts that a grown-up woman can have sex with boys under the age of nine. There is a difference of opinion among the most eminent rabbis about whether this disqualifies her from being the wife of a priest. Yet all agree that such intercourse is NOT sexual activity(sounds like President Bill Clinton here), and neither she nor the little boy have done anything wrong.

The precedent of women being encouraged into pederasty creates deep moral reverberations: a little boy is without moral protection. His rape is not even a moral issue. It is consequently not hard to imagine how Jewish homosexuals, already lusting after little boys (chickens, in their vocabulary), could find justification in the Talmud’s rationalization.

A rash of teacher/minor student sexual liaisons appearing more and more around the country might make an interesting study of this justification.

So, here’s what the Talmud says. The Talmud teaches that since little boys aren’t sexually mature, molesting them has no moral implications. Because such a minor isn’t a “man” in the mature sense, the boy and his sexual predator are exempted from the Mosaic ban on homosexuality which clearly says in the Old Testament(a document highly revered by many Jewish scholars and laity), “Thou shalt not lie with mankind.” (Lev. 18:29) 3

Sanhedrin 69b summarizes:

“All agree that the connection of a boy age nine years and a day is a real connection; while that of one less than eight years is not.” 4

The majority opinion in Sanh. 55a states:“Rab. said: pederasty with a child below 9 years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that” “Rab. maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty, throw guilt [upon the active offender]; while he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot” 5

The rabbis agreed that a woman could have sexual relations with a young boy without it even being considered a sexual act: “A small boy who has intercourse with a grown-up woman makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood” (Kethuboth 11b). The footnote to this passage says, “Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood” (i.e. she has not sinned, but is perhaps disqualified from marrying a priest). 6

The Talmud discusses such female pederasty ostensibly to determine if a woman, by such intercourse, becomes disqualified to marry a priest. Yet the Talmud opens a wide gate for all Jewish child molesters, male or female, to indulge in sex with boys under nine, free from blame. After all, the Talmud nullifies the Mosaic ban on same-sex with “mankind,” teaching that a sexually immature boy is not a “man.” Is this not a green light for Jewish homosexuals?

Such teaching is not accidental. The ancient rabbis, sexual perverts in many cases, made careful provision for their deviant sexual indulgences. They repeatedly made the Talmud’s text crystal-clear: boys of eight, as minors, can’t “throw guilt” on the Jewish adult who is the active offender against them.

Jewish apologists absurdly argue that these passages, affirming the moral neutrality of sex with little boys, are expressions of concern to maintain the innocence of the eight year old boy who has been raped. The truth is, they mean to preserve pedophiles from guilt!

Isn’t the Talmud Outdated?

It might be objected that, just as there exist outdated practices in the Old Testament such as polygamy and capital punishment to homosexuals, so, isn’t it possible that even though the Talmud sanctions pederasty, this permission is no longer taken seriously by Orthodox Judaism?

If Talmudic Judaism had undergone a new “Age of Grace” (as did Christian Jews), making obsolete primitive, moral behaviors, the above argument might have weight.

But Judaism has not undergone such a revolution. Orthodoxy still considers those who wrote the Talmud, the Pharisees, to be the most transcendent spiritual lights Judaism will ever know. When great rabbis speak, the Talmud teaches, they do so out of memory of what they have learned in previous existence in the presence of God! So morally binding are the decrees of Talmudic sages, that when their Sanhedrin speaks through a majority, even God must go along with their decision. 7

Jesus Christ, in His vitriolic attacks on the founders of Talmudic Judaism, the Pharisees, accused them of “all uncleanness” (Matt. 23:27). By “all,” He may have implied that pederasty, even then, was endorsed and practiced by Pharisees.

Today, while Orthodox Judaism presents itself as taking a strong stand against moral perversion, its most venerated sacred literature, the Talmud, continues to provide Jews a loophole for pederasty.

Anything to Win

For 1700 years, Orthodox-Talmudic Judaism was virtually the only kind of Judaism, including within it, Hassidism or the practice of Kabbalah. In the late 18th century, Reform Judaism emerged and, a century later, Conservative. While Orthodox Judaism may seem to remain a bastion of traditional family values, as we have seen, it is not.

Perhaps it is this double standard within Orthodox Judaism’s most sacred literature that allows Orthodox Jew Abe Foxman (See, “ADL’s Foxman: Man of Faith?”), head of the Anti-Defamation League, to affirm his own moral contradictions. Foxman promotes religious education in Talmud and Kabbalah for Jewish youth. Yet he gives tacit approval to male homosexuals, a high percentage of whom prey on underage boys. The boy-molesting homosexuals of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) are in solid agreement with the Talmud that sex with underage boys is of no moral consequence.How can the evil leaders of Judaism today allow such a contradiction? Answer: they are so consummately evil that they will do anything to destroy Christian civilization and prevail over it-even if it means encouraging their own youth to become homosexual “shock troops.”

Why Does The ADL Support Homosexuality?

ADL knows the fastest way to destroy existing society is through homosexuality. Historically, no nation pervaded by sodomy endured for long. It’s for this reason that Jewish Bolshevik Bella Kuhn, conquering Hungary after the Russian Revolution in 1917, force-fed homosexuality into the curriculum of public education, transforming Hungary’s youth into moral degenerates. The same thing is happening today as ADL promotes homosexuality in our school system, even from the kindergarten level.

Several years ago, through Barnes and Noble bookstores, ADL promoted homosexuality through their “No Place for Hate” program. It encouraged families visiting the bookstores to invite a homosexual couple to their home for an evening. This would teach kids, ADL suggested, that there’s no truth in Christian judgments against sodomy. Gays, ADL says, are some of the nicest, most non-threatening folks your kids can get to know.

In major US cities, ADL indoctrinates city governments, schools, even liberal churches, that Biblical Christians are gripped by a psychiatric disorder: “homophobia.” ADL says bigoted Christians persecute homosexuals, and are motivated by “hate literature,” the Bible.

Outlawing Criticism of Sodomy

Yet ADL wants more than to persuade our children to become homosexuals. It seeks special legal protection for homosexuality, making it a “hate crime” to exhibit bias or discrimination against those who practice it. ADL wants homosexuals protected, not just in housing, employment and same-sex marriage, but even from words! ADL claims it should be illegal to even criticize same-sex behaviors in public.

To create these laws, ADL has contrived a twisted definition of hate: “bias” against homosexuality. In countries such as Canada, thanks to ADL/B’nai B’rith federal and provincial hate laws, public expressions of such bias on the air waves, print media, or even on the street corner, can mean exorbitant fines or imprisonment. If a talk show host even suggests that homosexuals have a higher rate of AIDS, he can be fined and jailed, and the radio station airing his “hate” can lose its broadcast license.

In Canadian hate crime court, only the feelings of homosexuals, not truth, matter. If a homosexual feels “intimidated” by public criticism, he can file hate crimes charges against the critic. The truth will never be allowed in court. If a Christian has been found guilty of hurting a homosexual’s feelings, he can face a $10,000 fine. If he persists in criticizing homosexuals, he may face years in prison.

Ancient Rivalry With Christianity

Why does organized Jewry, whether from Foxman on the Judaic right or Rabbi Eric Yoffie on the left, seem so intent to weaken Christian society?

It’s because Judaism, in all its branches, is but the continuation of a grudge conceived thousands of years ago by the Pharisees against Jesus and His followers. These ancient “blind guides,” the leading elite for Jews to this day, were convinced they had a divine mandate to eclipse Gentile power and dominate the nations. As long as Gentile moral values remain strong, this can never happen.

Yes, Jews could dwell at peace if they followed God’s directive to “seek the welfare of the cities where I have sent you into exile” (Jeremiah 29:7). But rabbinic Judaism wants much more than that. It intends, through eventual, uncontested power, to literally create its own messianic new world order.

Two thousand years ago, Israel rejected and crucified her first spiritual husband and only Messiah, scorning His promise of a spiritual kingdom of God in their hearts. Judaism today awaits a messiah who will share and legitimize an earthly kingdom for Jews in the most global, physical way. That is an impossible dream for a people numbering only about 15 million, unless Jewish energies are carefully focused toward destruction of the two greatest barriers to their success: Christianity and free enterprise capitalism.

Why Are Most Jews Liberals?

It is thus no mystery why Jews are predominantly liberal, Marxist, pro-homosexual, and anti-Christian. This tiny minority of 2.5 percent of the American population have gravitated toward, and succeed in controlling, media, finance, and government. This control is necessary for one great purpose: to fulfill the Talmudic dream of world dominion.

Of course, many liberal Jews are without any conception of being directed toward such global governance. No matter. What is important is that Jewish leadership, especially over the last several centuries, has supplied the premises and propaganda which directs and molds the Jewish masses, even their intellectuals, into liberal ways of thinking and reacting.

In the history of the Jews-whether in ancient Babylon or countries of Europe or the east- lies a consistent cycle of Jews being allowed into Gentile nations, becoming financially oppressive and morally corruptive, and then being expelled.

How do we explain this? Establishment historians say this cycle is entirely due to Gentile (especially Christian) bigotry. Not so. The nations of antiquity would have been just as willing as we to let Jews peacefully coexist among them. Instead, the Jews, forced to obey the overweening dictates of the Pharisees in the Talmud and Kabbalah, were always compelled to attempt to destroy the societies that sheltered them. The leaders of “organized world Jewry,” primarily the World Jewish Congress, then ADL/B’nai B’rith, continues this incitement today.

Jews as Homosexual Activists

Considering the wholesale encouragement of homosexuality, especially in Reform Judaism, it isn’t surprising that Jewish activists have spearheaded the gay rights movement. Jewish homosexuals constitute a disproportionately large percentage of leadership and staff of major homosexual organizations. Here are a few of the largest, and the Jewish-sounding names of those who run them:

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC)

Joe Solomonese* President

Board of Directors:  Mike Berman, Marty Lieberman, Andy Linsky, Dana Perlman, Scott Weiner

Lara Schwartz, Senior Counsel

Human Rights Campaign Foundation Board: Jay Oppenheimer, Hilary Rosen, Marty Lieberman, Andrea Sharrin*

Board of Governors: Fritz Beesemyer, AJ Bockelman, Cathy Ebert, Don Epstein, Patty Fink, Glen Freedman, Christopher Stenger, Brian Stranghoner, Brian Suber, Michael Lappin, Lisa Zellner, Molli Levin

Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)

Board of Directors: William Weinberger (Treasurer), Judy Gluckstern (Secretary),

GLAAD Members: Ilene Chaiken, Tanya Grubich, Mark Reisbaum, Carol Rosenfeld, Steve Seidmon, Jeffrey Sosnick, Jeff Soukup, Steven Rozencraft*

Jennifer Oritz, Assoc. Director of Special Events

Jillian Waldman, Major Gifts Officer, LA

Jennifer Glenhorn,* Communications Director

Parents and Families of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)

Ron Schlittler, Deputy Executive Director

Craig Ziskin, Development Director

Staff Counsel: Lara Schwartz

Directors: Carole Benowitz, Dody Goldstein, David Horowitz, Rebecca Shiff, Daniel Tepfer

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

Jeff Soref, Chair

Marsha Botver, Vice Chair

Roberta Achtenberg, Senior Advisor to CEO

Loren S. Ostrow, Attorney

Paula Redd Zenan, Human Resources Commissioner

Michael Aller, Director of Tourism and Convention

Allan Horowitz, Coordinator, Out For Equity Progress

Sandi Greene, Chief Operations Officer

Roberta Sklara, Director of Communications

Monique Hoeflinger, Organizing and Training Director

Becky Levin, Senior Strategist

  1. T. Cohen, Phillipe Leber, Alex Breitman, Development Interns

Todd Kimmelman, Shavla Sellars, Major Gift Officers

The Mystery of Israel

Nineteen hundred years ago, Jesus Christ characterized Jerusalem as “Sodom and Egypt” (Rev. 11:8). “Sodom” is synonymous with homosexuality.

Judaism’s false messiah, anti-Christ, in the book of Ezekiel, is described as the “profane prince of Israel” (Ezek. 21:25). He is also described as “having no regard for the desire of women” (Dan. 11:37). As Christ was celibate, so this diabolical mimic of all of Christ’s attributes will abstain from sex with a woman-yet for the wrong reason: he likely is a Jewish homosexual.

Judaism’s dalliance with homosexuality has existed for a long time, and will continue, until “Sodom and Egypt” of the future, like Sodom of the past, will be desolated by fire (Rev. 17:16).

Yet, from the unspeakable wickedness of liberal Jewish activism today, Christ will raise up a purified remnant of Jews who will trust in Him as passionately as their fathers reviled Him.

Most Christians know that in rejecting and crucifying Jesus Christ, Israel fell from grace into apostasy. What they don’t comprehend is the abysmal depth and darkness of that apostasy! They do not really perceive what Christ meant when He said to the Jews, “Your house is left unto you desolate” (Matt. 23:38).

At the same time, the mortal mind can’t truly comprehend the astounding grace of Christ to redeem and resurrect the descendants of today’s anti-Christ Jewish activists.

St. Paul calls the whole saga of Israel a “mystery” (Rom. 11:25). God hasn’t allowed Judaism to become so evil in order to confirm the claim of anti-Semites-that Jews are the most degenerate of races. Rather, the “mystery” of their apostasy, and eventual redemption, testifies to His astonishing mercy.

If He will someday resurrect a whole nation from the most abysmal spiritual darkness, then who are you and I to think our sins too black for Him to cleanse? As He will restore the repentant remnant to His favor for a thousand years (See, “Bible Prophecy Made Simple”), each one of us, though we may have alienated Him very deeply, can find intimate friendship with Him now and for eternity. How? By repenting and trusting Him for the rest of our lives.

This is the whole purpose of our existence-to discover the One who created us and become His friend forever.

Someday, the Jewish remnant will indeed come to Christ, after enduring the greatest suffering in the history of mankind.

That’s not necessary for you. You can trust Him now.

Tomorrow may be the last day of your life on this earth  - where will you spend eternity?

Tomorrow may be the last day of your life on this earth – where will you spend eternity?


*Likely but not certain to be a Jewish name


Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) Responsum, 1996, plus comment by Rabbi Eric Yoffie, quoted by Religious Action Center of Reformed Judaism.


Forward, “Key Rabbis Say Conservative Judaism Will Lift Gay Ban,” Jennifer Siegel, Aug 25, 2006.


Sanhedrin 52b asserts that sex with a minor is exempt from punishment.


Sanhedrin 69b says sex with a boy of younger than eight is not really sex.


Sanhedrin 55a says pederasty with a boy younger than nine is morally neutral.

6 Kethuboth 11b states underage boys can’t throw guilt on those who sexually assault them.


The Talmud relates how Moses ascended to heaven and there beheld Rabbi Akiba (still unborn) expounding the Torah “in a wondrous manner” (Menachoth 29b). By majority decision, the most eminent Talmudic rabbis could overturn anything Moses said. If a particular rabbi was acclaimed by his fellow Pharisees as the greatest of that generation, then “he is, by virtue of his position as chief of the courts of justice, invested with the same authority as Moses (Sifra, Deut. 1:53; R. H. 25ab). Even when they decide that left should be right, or right left, when they are mistaken, or misled in their judgment, they must be obeyed (R. H. 25a). Heaven itself kneels to the authority of the earthly court of justice” (“Authority,” Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 337).

Posted by: conservativecritic | June 19, 2015

Pope Francis – now a wanna-be scientist…and full time Socialist

Pope Francis’ leaked encyclical: the good and the bad


Officially speaking, the original Italian version of Laudato Si’, which had been placed between covers, sent to the Vatican publishing house for printing in different languages, and was rolling off the presses sometime last week does not exist.

Nor, any longer, do the press credentials of the renowned Vaticanist Sandro Magister. In a stunning disciplinary action by the Vatican Press Office, they were revoked after he leaked a copy of the ill-fated “draft” to the press (there not yet being any embargo in effect).

Whatever the reason for the unprecedented reported destruction of a papal encyclical in the process of being printed, the document is essentially a matter of purely historical interest that may or may not be substantially superseded by the corrected final version. Only a line-by-line comparison will tell. Meanwhile, however, the document is as unprecedented in content as the manner in which it was recalled and expunged.

Before we do that, we point out that EVERY(that’s EVERY) statement the Pope made regarding science and the environment has been shown to be false… see



It is impossible to provide an adequate synthetic description of Laudato Si (LS) because it is effectively a composite of multiple documents between the same covers, running to book length. In its six chapters, LS attempts to combine numerous disparate elements under the theme of an “ecological crisis”:

An assessment of alleged environmental problems around the world which descends to an astonishing level of detail regarding technical and scientific matters never before discussed in a papal encyclical, producing a veritable environmentalist essay (Chapter 1).

“Judeo-Christian” Biblical exegesis concerning the unity of creation, stewardship of the Earth and the value and interconnectedness of all created things (Chapter 2).

Condemnations of globalism, technocracy and modern anthropocentrism (Chapter 3).

The presentation of “an integral ecology” embracing all facets of life and society and producing a more just distribution of wealth and resources along with protection of the environment to remedy “planetary inequity” (Chapter 4).

Proposed lines of action for environmental protection and the remediation of “inequality,” including global, national and local regulation by authorities able to impose sanctions for non-compliance (Chapter 5);

An outline of “ecological education and spirituality” aimed at “ecological conversion.” (Chapter 6).

In terms of the details there is good news and—as widely feared—a great deal of bad news.

First the bad news: in LS Francis has committed himself to the “climate change” narrative and its related dubious science. There is simply no question of this. In Chapter 1, and thematically throughout its 184 pages of main text, LS accepts as established fact that human activity is primarily responsible for, among other things:(STOP…most of the following items have not been proven beyond a doubt and many, such as the first and  second items below are simply false)

a rise in atmospheric greenhouse gasses;
global warming;(both this and the above item were falsely inserted into the first UN document on global warming…this can be proven by written documentation)

the melting of the polar ice caps, glaciers and other masses of ice;(this is a natural, cyclic phenomena which is  ignored by the rabid environmental movement)

the release of methane gas from decomposing matter uncovered by the melting of ice packs;(this is really reaching for straws)

a rise in ocean levels;(no such rise, at least to the degree forecasted, has been observed….people living in Florida, on the Gulf coast, for example, have not observed even  quarter inch of  ocean rise in 40 years).

an increase in ocean acidity;(due to disposal of land-based waste materials, not carbon dioxide as claimed)

the decline of the barrier reefs and their life forms;(no link has been established for this issue)

a threat to the existence of plankton;(again, no studies have linked this to fact)

species extinction and the destruction of biodiversity, including not only mammals, but fungi, algae, worms, insects, reptiles, “innumerable varieties of microorganisms” and mangrove trees (Cf. ¶¶ 20-50).(amazing – most of these people are evolutionists who believe in the survival of the fittest…)

As Francis opines (¶ 24-25): “If the current tendency continues, this century could bear witness to unheard of climate changes and unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with grave consequences for all of us. … Climate changes are a global problem with grave environmental, social, economic, distributive and political consequences, and constitute one of the principal current challenges for humanity.”

Francis is relying on bad scientific information and promoting global socialism instead.

In related bad news, Francis endorses the climate-change establishment’s demand for the elimination of the use of fossil fuels (¶¶ 26, 165) and declares the existence of a moral obligation to reduce greenhouse gasses (¶169). He also endorses such secularist-globalist environmental manifestos as the Earth Summit (¶ 167), the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol regarding the supposed threat to the ozone layer (¶ 168), and the Earth Charter (¶ 207), all of which favor the expansion of governmental power to no good effect on the environment.

Worse, as concerned Catholics feared, LS, citing the failure of world leaders to act decisively on climate change and “global inequality,” explicitly calls for the creation of global authorities with enforcement powers to address these putative crises:

“there are necessary global regulatory frameworks that impose obligations and prevent unacceptable actions, such as the fact that more powerful countries dump industrial waste and extreme pollutants in others” (¶ 173);
to “eradicate poverty” and “safeguard the environment” there must be “development of stronger international institutions with designated authority [and] the power of sanction,” meaning a “true world political authority” (¶ 175, citing and quoting Benedict XVI, Caritatis in veritate).
There is bad news on the theological front as well. This description of man (¶ 81) is troubling to say the least:

The human being, supposing also evolutionary processes, involves a novelty not fully explainable by the evolution of other open systems. Every one of us has in itself a personal identity able to enter into dialogue with others and with God Himself. The capacity for reflection, reasoning, creativity, interpretation, artistic elaboration, and other original capacities demonstrate a singularity that transcends the scope of the physical and biological. The qualitative novelty involved in the emergence of a personal being within the material universe presupposes a direct action of God, a peculiar calling to life and to the relation of a Thou to another you.
There is no reference anywhere in the 246 paragraphs of the main text to the rational soul of man, which is what sets him apart from, and places him above, all the lower animals and invests him with dominion over the Earth. (Only footnote 141 mentions the soul in passing.) This view of man as a “qualitative novelty” that has “emerged” from the evolution of “other open systems” lends itself to an ecology that displaces his God-given dominion in favor of a subtle subordination to the created order, with the traditionally understood divinely conferred dominion now to be considered “simplistic” (¶ 69).

More thematically, the posited “ecological crisis”—broadly defined to include not only the environment but also social, political and economic “inequality”



and a generalized ethical malaise arising from rampant consumerism and self-centeredness—is nowhere clearly linked to a civilization-wide abandonment of the life of the Christian oriented to eternity and submissive to the Church. LS’s call for the novelty of “ecological conversion” (¶¶ 216-221) does not propose a civilizational return to the Law of the Gospel as counseled by the Church’s social teaching spanning centuries.

The Church’s role in LS is that of a provider of polite, non-religious suggestions about what men and nations should do, with Francis even posing the question: “Why insert in this document, addressed to all persons of good will, a chapter related to the convictions of faith?” That Francis views “the convictions of faith” as an “insertion” into a papal encyclical is a rather telling indication of the state into which the Church has fallen.

This approach is in stark contrast to the social encyclicals of former Popes, which resoundingly affirmed the indispensable role of the Church and the Gospel in preserving civilization. For example, as Pius XI declared in his landmark encyclicals:

“Wherefore,” to use the words of Our Predecessor [Leo XIII], “if human society is to be healed, only a return to Christian life and institutions will heal it.” For this alone can provide effective remedy for that excessive care for passing things that is the origin of all vices; and this alone can draw away men’s eyes, fascinated by and wholly fixed on the changing things of the world, and raise them toward Heaven. Who would deny that human society is in most urgent need of this cure now? (Quadragesimo anno [1931], n. 129)

Because the Church is by divine institution the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of Christ, she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the state….

The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the “true spirit of brotherly love”…. Finally, the Church is able to set both public and private life on the road to righteousness by demanding that everything and all men become obedient to God “Who beholdeth the heart,” to His commands, to His laws, to His sanctions. (Ubi Arcano Dei [1922], nn. 41-42).
And yet, that said, the final eight pages of LS present an admirable discourse on the Holy Eucharist as a cause of unity among men, the signs of the Holy Trinity in Creation, and the Reign of Mary as Queen of Heaven. But the impression, sad to say, is that of a Catholic spiritual “supplement” appended to a thematically humanist document eschewing any explicitly Catholic approach to the “ecological crisis.” This is seen even in the closing prayers: a non-denominational prayer for “Our Earth,” followed by a “Christian Prayer with [?] Creation,” which begins: “We praise You, Father, with all of your creatures…”

But now the good news, which is not inconsiderable:

Condemnations of abortion (albeit in an ecological context of disregard for nature in a “throwaway” culture as opposed to the murder of an innocent) (¶¶ 117, 123).
Rejection of gender theory (¶155).
Defense of the family as “the primary cell of society” (¶ 157).
Criticism of ecological movements that are devoted to the preservation of the environment but “do not apply the same principles to human life” (¶136).
No trace of the population control agenda, but on the contrary a rejection of Malthusianism: “demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and solidaristic development” (¶ 50).
Rejection of a radical environmentalism that sees man as “only a threat to compromise the worldwide ecosystem, who should reduce his presence on the planet” (¶ 61).
Recognition of the right to private property in keeping with prior social teaching, which has never accepted the notion of an “absolute” property right (¶ 93).
Nods to distributism, including the desirability of small producers (¶¶ 94, 129).
Perfectly legitimate criticisms of hyper-capitalism and globalization, boundless technocracy, orgiastic consumerism, and the disastrous impact on social life of the digital culture.
There are other serious issues with this massive text, both theological and political (e.g., presentation of “biological evolution” as fact, a nod to the evolutionary eschatology of Teilhard de Chardin, vague calls for “new models” of development, production and even culture), but these are for another time and another forum.

All in all, however, it has to be said that the world will ignore the good elements in LS and proclaim a great victory for climate change fanatics—a victory Francis will undoubtedly have given them unless the final official version of LS departs substantially from the mysteriously withdrawn and destroyed “draft.”

Older Posts »



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.