Hat tip to Allahpundit that who says:

A constitution is as good as the political culture that surrounds it. Ginsburg would have been better off reminding Egyptian TV of that.

Please! This is one of the main reasons that you need to vote against Obama when it is time. I don’t want him to have the chance to appoint another justice as liberal as this one! Perhaps she should recuse herself from any rulings based on Constitutional grounds since she isn’t so fond of our Constitution. Or maybe she should move to South Africa!

Others: Jeff Goldstein

Skip ahead on the video to 9:28.

(Fox News Latino) A senior member of the Obama administration said Thursday that the administration plans to change a rule to reduce the time the spouses and children of undocumented immigrants are separated from citizen relatives while they try to win legal status in the United States

Currently, undocumented immigrants must leave the country before they can ask the government to waive a three- to 10-year ban on legally coming back to the U.S. The length of the ban depends on how long they have lived in the U.S. without permission.

The official said the new rule would let children and spouses of citizens ask the government to decide on the waiver request before the undocumented immigrant heads to his or her home country to apply for a visa. The undocumented immigrants still must go home to finish the visa process to come back to the U.S., but getting the waiver ahead of time could reduce the time an undocumented immigrant is out of the country.

The waiver shift is the latest move by President Barack Obama to make changes to immigration policy without congressional action. Congressional Republicans repeatedly have criticized the administration for policy changes they describe as providing “backdoor amnesty” to undocumented immigrants.

It’s not so much Obama showing a clear lack of respect for the People’s House, ie, Congress, as it is 1) Obama attempting to create political issues with which to fight the GOP, and 2), and more importantly, the fact that Obama has never been a real leader, has no skills as a leader, and becomes petulant and therefore unwilling to do the hard work necessary to reach across the aisle and make accommodations with the opposition Party, who represent specific parts of the United States as laid out by the Constitution. Every other president has had to do this, and has worked, or at least attempted to work, with the opposition party. That’s too difficult for Emperor Obama. Funny how he keeps calling himself a “Constitutional Professor”: who’s constitution, Venezuela’s? Iran’s?

That said, if the GOP plays their cards right (sometimes a big “if”), they can use Obama’s unilateral extension of unchecked power grabs against him during the General Election, and perhaps tie it in to the Congressional Democrats. Perhaps some videos of Democrats complaining about Bush unilaterally taking on new powers juxtaposed with Obama actually doing just that.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(Washington Times) People monitoring the Occupy D.C. movement tell Inside the Ring that the two encampments are fast becoming health hazards. Numerous protesters also recently were sickened with unusual respiratory illnesses.

The major emerging problem for the leftists camped out in tents at McPherson Square and Freedom Plaza is rats. The rodents appear to be moving into the area by the hundreds, and their numbers are increasing daily.

The McPherson camp appears be where more radical leftists are based. An observer familiar with the McPherson camp said one distinctive smell coming from the park area is that of methamphetamine being smoked.

Among the flags being flown by some protesters are those from the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, the Iranian-backed Hezbollah and al Qaeda.

Such lovely people, aren’t they? Has anyone ever noticed that, despite deeming themselves smarter than everyone else, oh so enlightened, liberals seem to love living in squalid conditions? Come on, a rat infestation? Then there’s the Meth.

Oh, and flying the flags of terrorist organizations is oh so diverse of you, Occupiers. Why not go and try to live with those groups, see what happens.

Abdullah Faaruuq, a Muslim “spiritual advisor” and chaplain from Boston-based Northeastern University, was a key speaker at a fundraiser for al Qaeda’s Ma Barker, the criminal female terrorist named Aafia Siddiqui, also known as “Lady al Qaeda.” This man, Faaruuq, is living off American taxpayers yet advocates for his followers to use “the gun and the sword” to advance Islam in America.

The fundraiser for Siddiqui was held at the Islamic Center of Worcester, Mass. on Dec. 8 with the stated goal of raising $30,000 to assist this female terrorist convicted in 2008 of attempting to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan.

As Steve Emerson of Family Security Matters reports, Abdullah gave Siddiqui high praise.

“What a brave woman she continues to be, and how much her bravery and her faith and her belief warrants our support at this time,” said Faaruuq, an imam at Roxbury’s Mosque for the Praising of Allah. “It is said that we’re trying to raise $30,000 tonight. I would say it’s better that we’ve raised your awareness and raised your ire, as your anger against a government who would level the charges that they have against this woman and they say she is guilty. I would say she’s only guilty of defending herself.”

In addition to lauding Siddiqui’s “bravery,” Faaruuq also condemned American soldiers, the very people who defend America, as “kafirs,” meaning infidels.

“And if my mother was in the same place,” he said, “she would have took (sic) her West Indian machete and cut her way through those kafirs.”

According to the Northeastern University website, “Imam Abdullah serves as Northeastern University’s Muslim chaplain, as well as spiritual advisor to the Islamic Society student group.” Sadly he is advising students at a public university in the ways of violent jihad. And our taxes go to fund his actions.

Imam Abdullah has for some time been a controversial figure. As part of a violence-advocating, jihad-pushing, terror-funding mosque that was helped to come to fruition by public officials and politicians in Massachusetts, Abdullah has been advocating violence against Americans for years.

No wonder radical Islamists think America is the “weak horse” in the world. We are with our own taxes funding our own home-grown terror supporters like Abdullah.

(The Politico) Barack Obama offered a spirited defense of his presidency in an interview that aired Sunday on “60 Minutes,” framing the 2012 election as a “contrast in visions.”

Stressing that the views that got him elected in 2008 still drive him, even as many supporters voice dissatisfaction, Obama said he is still determined to change Washington and to make ordinary Americans’ lives better.

“I didn’t overpromise. And I didn’t underestimate how tough this was going to be,” Obama said in the sitdown with CBS News’s Steve Kroft that was conducted on two days this week, in Washington and also in Osawatomie, Kan., where the president on Tuesday delivered a speech calling this a “make-or-break moment” for working and middle class Americans.

Really? He promised to completely change Washington. He promised to “fundamentally transform America.” His administration promised that the Stimulus would work. He promised to “restore America’s standing in the world (which Democrats had already torn down)”. He promised to have all troops out of Iraq within 16 months. That he would close Guantanamo Bay detention facility. He promised quite a lot of things, and most Obama promises have expiration dates.

The vision he offered in 2008 was something he “always believed … was a long-term project,” Obama told Kroft. “Reversing a culture here in Washington, dominated by special interests, it was going to take more than a year, it was going to take more than two years. It was going to take more than one term.”

The vision was “hope and change”. The policy was reversing a culture that he was part of as a sitting US Senator, and made even worse when he took office. The Stimulus and health care bills, among others, were all about special interests. Special interests show up at the White House on a constant basis. He panders to special interests all the time. What he can’t do is lead.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Like nearly every conservative in America today I am unimpressed by the current crop of GOP nominees for president and feel they all have major flaws — especially the two frontrunners Newt and Romney, both of whom have major deficits as far as staunch conservatives are concerned. But at this point I’ve come to realize that I don’t think I care which one of them is nominated. In fact, I think the White House is not where we should be focusing our intensity in 2012.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not saying we shouldn’t vote for whichever GOP nominee wins the game show plaudits. We should absolutely pick one of them and then we all, conservatives and Republicans alike, should vote for him (or her).

So, what am I saying? I am saying that the White House is less important than people are saying it is. Instead, we need a two-point focus for 2012 that doesn’t include the White House. We don’t need 999 points. Just two. 1). Gaining control of Congress and 2). turning Obama out. The identity and purity of our presidential nominee is the last thing we should be worried about at this point. It is a bit late for that anyway.

Let me assure you that I don’t have a favorite in this GOP race. And I have three real dislikes: Romney, Huntsman, and Ron Paul. This article is no stealth shilling for any particular candidate. I really do have big problems with all of them. But, again, I don’t think it matters which of them we pick if we focus on the two points I note above.

First of all, any of the GOP candidates (yes even the cranky uncle of the GOP, Ron Paul) would be better than Obama. But that goes without saying because I am a conservative that votes Republican. No surprise there, really.

But there are reasons besides blind partisanship that any of the GOP nominees is better than Obama. In fact, it can really be boiled down to but one issue that makes getting rid of Obama imperative: the courts. He has been thoroughly destructive to this country with his judicial picks.

Aside from the courts, of course, Obama has been a very destructive president in many ways — another reason to be rid of him. He’s presided over the continued destruction of our business sector and our economy, we all understand. But there’s more.

Obama has already turned his power to regulate into a tool of Big Labor and United Nations-styled socialism. He’s unleashed his extremist appointees and given them the freedom to push every anti-business, anti-worker, anti-American idea they can possibly get through.

There’s more.

Obama has also created all sorts of extra-constitutional czars and “advisory” committees, the President has issued a slew of dangerous executive orders, and he’s made all sorts of horrible moves in foreign policy. But all this can be quickly negated by a new president — quickly in terms relative to how Washington works, anyway. An active new president could make headway to reverse these Obamanations almost immediately. None of these changes, as bad as they are, have the misfortune of being irrevocably permanent.

But there is great danger that another four years of Obama will create, one that cannot be easily reversed. Obama has been steadily placing radical judges on benches throughout this land. His nominees tend to be abortion activists (not just abortion supporters, but out-and-out activists), Big Labor dupes, anti-Second Amendment activists, and the like. Many are so radical that even Democrats haven’t been able to convince themselves to vote them in.

Let’s just take his latest nominee for the DC Court of Appeals for example. Caitlin Halligan, a close associate of the disgraced Eliot Spitzer in New York, is an extremist anti-Second Amendment activist. If she gets on the bench she will take every opportunity she can to damage the Constitution.

A past example is his attempt to put a radical racemongering ACLU member on the bench in California. Obama’s attempt to place Edward Chen on the bench succeeded, unfortunately.

Let us not forget that the Supreme Court of the United States is already in a delicate balance tipped only barely in favor of conservatives. It is easy to see that with the ages of the current oldest members of the court, the next presidential term will see perhaps as many as three chances to replace retiring justices.

As conservatives we must put our desire for a pure conservative president in second place to the pursuit for the next nominees for the US Supreme Court. The fact is, if Obama gets a chance to put more judges on the bench, especially on the SCOTUS, he will be able to damage this country for decades to come.

I can hear just what you are saying at this point. But Warner, you are saying, if we don’t get a pure conservative president we will still get bad judicial picks, won’t we? If we get an abortion lover like Romney (Or is he? Do you believe his miraculous conversion? I don’t) we’ll still get squishes as judges, won’t we?

I’m hearin’ ya, friends, I’m hearin’ ya.

That is why we desperately need to focus on point two: taking the entire Congress under GOP control. And not just GOP control but conservative GOP control. We have the House now, certainly, but we need to make that control stronger. But more importantly we need to take control of the Senate. Both houses of Congress need to be under GOP control and we need to put conservatives in there to do the controlling.

This is the thing, folks. We need to have the most conservative Congress that we can get. A conservative Congress, you see, will drag the squishy Romney, the unpredictable Newt, the isolationist Paul, or any of the others along behind them whether those folks want to go or not. You see, if we have a more conservative Senate, a president will understand that soft, moderate or leans-left judicial nominees will not be acceptable. A conservative Congress — if we as voters force them to toe the line and get active — will force a president to be more conservative despite his inclinations.

As far as judicial nominees go, even if we do get soft nominees that lean conservative only 70% of the time we will have justices that at least act like Americans! If Obama gets another four years he’ll continue to put people on the bench that despise this country. And these people serve for life, don’t forget, so they will be there to continue destroying this country for decades.

This is something we must work hard to prevent. It is imperative that we deny Obama and his extremist, under-the-table agenda from continuing.

It isn’t a happy predicament to be forced to settle for a less conservative president, to be sure. But that is where we are whether we like it or not. Better than we start to realize where the important matters are located and it ain’t in the presidential election as far as GOP nominees is concerned.

(CNN) Authorities have arrested a man they claim was plotting to detonate pipe bombs in and around New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Sunday night.

The intended targets of Jose Pimentel, 27, were U.S. military personnel who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as U.S. postal facilities and police in New York and Bayonne, New Jersey, according to Bloomberg and New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

The suspect was described by Bloomberg as an “al Qaeda sympathizer,” though he is not believed to have ever worked with or received training from anyone in that terrorist organization.

That’s weird, since the Paper Of Record doesn’t bother mentioning the Islamist connection. I wonder why?

The police commissioner identified the suspect as a follower of Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American-born cleric who rose to become a top figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Pimental allegedly tried to contact al-Awlaki directly, but never got a response. (snip)

“He was a reader of al Qaeda’s slick online magazine Inspire — and inspire him it did,” Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said. “His stated desire to attack our servicemen and women … could have come from an al Qaeda playbook.”

He’s described as a “lone wolf”, and he probably was. But, he was certainly inspired by the more hardcore elements of the Religion of Peace. One of these days, the so-called moderate Muslims are going to have to choose whether they take their religion back, or continue on the road they are currently traveling.

(MSNBC) Police in riot gear clashed with protesters in Oakland in the early morning hours on Thursday, firing tear gas to disperse demonstrators lingering in the streets after a day of mostly peaceful rallies against economic inequality and police brutality.

The clash and standoff came only hours after protesters shut down the Port of Oakland late Wednesday.

The confrontation, which erupted after midnight, appeared aimed at preventing the protesters from expanding their foothold in the streets around a public plaza that has become a hub for demonstrations in the northern California city.

More than 200 officers, some of them ferried in aboard buses, lined up shoulder to shoulder and donned gas masks, then declared the crowd to be an unlawful assembly and fired volleys of tear gas as protesters turned and ran.

Heck, all they were doing was gathering peaceably…..except for that shutting down the Port of Oakland thing. Was there any reason for such a heavy handed response? Well, the accompanying photo at MSNBC should give you a clue, with an Occupier standing on something that looks turned over waving a flag in front of a bonfire in the street.

The nearly 5-hour protest at the port, the nation’s fifth-busiest shipping port, was intended to highlight a daylong “general strike” in the city, which prompted solidarity rallies in New York, Los Angeles and other cities across the nation. Some had marched from the city’s downtown, while others had been bused to the port.

There’s that commie word “solidarity” again. But, consider, they shut down a port where mostly blue collar workers were just attempting to put in a days work and earn some money to take care of themselves and their families. The Occupiers made that rather difficult.

The crowd disrupted port operations by overwhelming the area with people and blocking exits with chain-link fencing and illegally parked vehicles. The demonstrators also erected fences to block main streets to the port. No trucks were allowed into or out of the area.

Doesn’t sound particularly peaceable to me. And by not allowing trucks out, the Occutards were harming people with small businesses, who needed those products. And harming the truck drivers, who do not get paid if they aren’t delivering. So much for caring about the “99%.”

Prior to marching on the port, protesters had blocked the downtown intersection of 14th street and Broadway, where the a former Marine turned peace activist Scott Olsen was wounded on the night of October 25.

These are your folks, Obama and Pelosi: do you still stand by them? Will you call for them to keep it peaceful and stop violating the law?

As protesters left the area on foot some stopped to burn money, others bickered, and one burned an American flag.

Zachary RunningWolf, a well-known Bay Area activist, said he burned the flag “to start an educated discussion among us.”

Well, he got a discussion, one which the Oakland PD won. What better way to get people on to your side than by burning the flag of your country?

What’s missing from the article is the actual damage caused by the Occupiers. Michelle Malkin has many pictures and descriptions of the violence and destruction from the Democrat voting Occupiers, including

A big mob dressed in black is roaming around the streets. They’ve sprayed graffiti on the walls of businesses.

Wells Fargo windows have also been reportedly smashed.

Chase Bank vandalized.

Still supporting this movement, liberals? Another question is, will this be the catalyst for the nationwide violence and destruction we have all been expecting?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.

Before Barack Obama swore to uphold the Constitution and to protect Americans from enemies foreign and domestic, early warnings were pinging about like signals off a cell tower. Predictions: 1.) The economy would nosedive and 2.) America would have a renewed military presence in Africa before the end of Obama’s first term. What was not foreseen was the Obama administration’s fixation on “snitching.” They are for it. Obama brazenly initiated his report-on-your-neighbor, big brother initiative via a White House run “snitch website” called “flag.”

Detecting the distinctively foul objective of creating an Obama enemies list, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) took to the Senate floor to accuse Obama of attempting to shut down political opposition. Cornyn also sent Obama a letter demanding to know the intent of the White House’s snitch site where Obamatrons could routinely rat-out their neighbors who disagreed with Obama’s policies. Main targets were those in opposition to Obamacare, the socialist medical overhaul that will wreck the American economy for decades if implemented. In the face of fascist-laden, unspoken threats of reprisal, red-blooded patriots from across the nation emailed the snitch site and turned themselves in as overt acts of defiance.

Yet, Obama tried it again. With sliding ratings and talk from neighborhoods to water coolers about his failed policies and socialist agendas eroding his base, “snitching” was resurrected. Snitches are now directed to “Attack Watch.” The Obama campaign essentially put Americans on notice: Written criticism or verbally attacking Obama under your 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech is an affront to the regime and could get you reported. Again, patriots across the land mocked the site by reporting “themselves” in further defiance of the site’s intended intimidation and implied retribution.

Attempts to snuff out political dissent have a long history. Obama’s propensity for it puts him in an unsavory club of notorious politicians turned tyrants who cast fear into their opposition and ran their nation by edict or currently, in Obama’s case, by executive order. Politician-turned-tyrant occurs when the people allow the usurpation of power to go unchecked. Obama’s radical abuse of the U.S. Constitution and overriding of the legislative authority of Congress would have our founding fathers boldly decrying a tyranny in the making. Snitching coupled with President Obama wanting his own militia, as well-funded and as powerful as the U.S. military, must give all Americans pause. Weakening America’s military is a standing Socialist goal. The coup d’état is that the Obama militia and U.S. military would report to the same Commander-in-Chief. Prediction #3: Action to establish a presidential/civilian militia will be fast-tracked — should Obama and a majority of his Progressive Democrat Party be reelected in 2012.

In tandem with #3, is Prediction #4 for 2012. Informed minds know that John Kennedy entered the Vietnam War with advisors, a pattern Obama now repeats in Africa. The U.S. military can be weakened or bled-out of funding and personnel in areas of the world such as Africa, where no security threat to the U.S. currently exists. If reelected, Obama’s expansion into Africa is imminent. Having American troops in the region makes Africa a magnet for America’s enemies.

Political leaders turned tyrants, that are armed with civilian militias and legions of snitches used to subdue dissent from the people, fill the history books with names like Stalin, Mao, Hitler and others who began as benign Socialist or Marxist politicians. It is history that exposes or demands comparisons with Obama’s policies. Those tyrants started with civilian militias loyal to them and not the citizenry. Snitching or informing was first encouraged and then government mandated. For some, snitching on their neighbor meant survival for themselves and their families — for a while. In the book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, pages 54-56, there is a telling account by Russian Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn of the brutal results of “snitching” that denied the Soviet citizenry’s’ right to criticize its government.

Prediction #5: The mainstream media will continue to ignore such threats until they realize that their rights to freedom of the press have also been overrun by government edict. Historically, it is the fate of all journalists in Socialist countries worldwide. Snitching is an equal opportunity offender. Though the Black community faces ostracizing by other Blacks if they speak negatively about the destructive policies of the first Black President, many have rejected what they call un-American activities and an assault on freedom and have also turned themselves in to “Attack Watch” in defiance and defense of their Constitutional freedoms.

A government that asks its citizens to snitch on one another cannot itself be trusted. Snitching is about controlling the opposition and eventually the entire populace. The end result is that a penalty is levied whether through suppression of speech or oppression of a people. It is divisive and ultimately dangerous, especially in the hands of leaders with delusions of grandeur or narcissistic personality disorders. Snitching is the worm that decays and weakens a society in preparation for the rot of Socialism and tyranny. Why is it again, that Obama wants Americans to snitch?

During his dedication speech at the Martin Luther King Memorial, Barack Obama could not resist doing some politicking. With the day of remembrance and dedication to Dr. King now rooted in the history of this nation, it is important not to let current political agendas commandeer his memory or purpose.

Dr. King was not only a great leader for black Americans, but for civil rights for all Americans. King was a visionary. King foresaw the day when prejudice was so subdued and irrelevant in America, that a black man would rise through the ranks of opportunities to become President of the United States. What Dr. King could not foresee is that that very first Black President would use race to divide the nation and call on Americans to “snitch” on neighbors who opposed his socialist rooted agendas. (See: LEFT INSULTS BLACK AMERICANS – http://darwinsracists.com/book/?p=111.) It was King who stood in defiance against leaders of the Democrat Party that voted against equality for Blacks. It was Dr. King who cheered on Republican President Dwight Eisenhower for not only pushing through the Civil Rights Act of 1957 over Democrat opposition, but also for sending troops into Arkansas to desegregate schools that cleared the way for national school desegregation. As a life-long member of the Republican Party, Dr. King fought for the republic, its Constitution and its Bill of Rights that formed the very foundations of this great nation.

“When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr. King made no extra-Constitutional guarantees, nor did he seek a circuitous route around hard work and education as goals toward a step-up and not a hand-out. That Black Americans or any Americans should expect a free ride from the labors of their neighbors stood against King’s ethics, his faith and his vision of the American Dream. It stood against all he dedicated his life to and against his vision of individual freedom.

King said: “I have a dream that is deeply rooted in the American Dream.” King valued capitalism and free enterprise and could foresee the day when Blacks were not only part of America’s middle class, but were people of wealth and prosperity due to their own merits, education and hard work. That day has dawned in America, but due to the current economic policies of the Obama administration it is quickly slipping away for people of all colors. Barack Obama made it clear in one of his books that he does not identify with the fates of whites, Hispanics, Asians or other peoples of color.

“I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.” Barack Obama – from his book, Dreams From My Father

The catch for Obama is that his anti-capitalist policies equally impact and devastate the Black worker along with all other Americans. Unlike Obama, King sought justice through equal rights for all through civil law and opportunity and not through the enslavement and nihilism of Socialism. Obama’s “redistribution of wealth” socialist scheme holds all people reliant on and under the control of government. Martin Luther King would find Socialism an anathema to freedom: freedom of will, freedom of aspirations, freedom of self-reliance and freedom of expression whether conservative or liberal. King had a dream and it was not the socialist dream that so consumes Barack Obama. King would note that the poorest cities in the United States have continuously elected Democrats, many of which are Black, who have been the overseers that have plunged Black Americans into ever deepening poverty under Democrat rule. It is Obama and the Democrats’ recklessness that destines this nation into third world status if it is allowed to go unchallenged.

King would be against labor unions crossing the line from being an important organization in support of workers to a corrupt, bloated thuggery that breaks the financial backs of companies that provide jobs for all people — as those unions demand extravagant pensions for its members and labor bosses that most Americans could only dream about. King would be horrified at the heresy of some Democrat Black leaders who wanted the educationally disabling dialect of Ebonics or Black English integrated into course study for black children as a second language posing a clear danger to their futures as productive Americans. He would be horrified that Blacks would accuse educated Blacks of not “being black enough” or “not talking like a black” as if not doing so is a cultural or political impediment. He would admonish a president who told an opposing party that they could ”sit in the back of the bus,” and who, as a political maneuver, threatened vulnerable Seniors of all colors that he might withhold “their social security checks” unless he got his way. King would vehemently oppose a government that ignored threatened violence by Black Panther Party members at the polls. Martin Luther King moved mountains and minds through peaceful means. He, like Rosa Parks (a personal hero) stood up against the wrong thing in the right way.

As all visionaries who are pragmatist at heart, King knew that the government as master came with disheartening and demeaning controls over the lives of individuals. King saw the path to equality through self-determination, getting up and going to work every day, raising families as man and wife, respecting education and seeking God’s wisdom and guidance.

King’s greatest disappointment would be the first Black president’s denigration of people of faith as “clinging to their guns and religion.” King could not foresee a strategic move by a government under Obama to hijack Christianity by attempting to “transform” it into a community-organized, Marxist collectivism based on a substitute gospel of “social justice” of forced seizure of your neighbors’ goods and property. (See: CHRISTIAN PURGE: THE OBAMA FACTOR – PART ONE at http://darwinsracists.com/book/?p=155)

Today, a living reflection of King is his niece, Dr. Alveda King. Though portions of Alveda King’s history is in my book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, her full story is one of deep abiding Christian faith, higher education, an unfailing work ethic, love of country, a strong Constitutionalist and an advocate for people of all colors and backgrounds who are willing to do their share by contributing to the American Dream. It is the same dream her Uncle Martin had of an America where everyone is judged by their character and not the color of their skin. America elected its first Black President. That, America has lost confidence in Obama is not based on his skin color, but the failing of his character and his determined destruction of the American Dream that Martin Luther King lived and died for.