Monday, September 30, 2013

How to Hear From God Constantly

by Gloria Copeland
11:00AM EDT 9/24/2013
Charisma Magazine

“I just can't hear God; I know He speaks to some people, but He just doesn't speak to me!”
If that's your situation, there are several possible reasons for it. First, to hear His voice and be sensitive to His promptings you need to have a relationship with the Lord, which means spending quality time with Him on a regular basis. It could be that you have neglected your fellowship with Him.
Second, you may be walking in doubt and unbelief. Jesus said plainly, “'My sheep hear My voice'” (John 10:27, NKJV). If you are a born-again child of God, you can hear God-and should expect to. Begin to confess and believe Scriptures such as this one about being led by the Lord.

Sunday, September 29, 2013

How to Guard the Glory

By Matt Sorger
2:00PM EDT 9/25/2013
Charisma Magazine 


We guard the habitation of God’s glory in our lives by making the right choices.


For years, my heart longed for more than just a temporary visitation of God's presence in a church service or private prayer time. Momentary encounters were not enough. I wanted visitation to become habitation.


In time, God began to answer my heart's cry, and I learned that when we prepare a place for His glory in our hearts He will show up at the most unexpected moments. This is because God longs to fill us with His Spirit on a continual basis. He wants us to live in His glory.


Scripture bears out this truth. Jesus told His Father: "The glory which You gave Me I have given them" (John 17:22, NKJV). The apostle Paul wrote to the Colossians about "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col. 1:27). He encouraged the Ephesians to "be filled with the Spirit" (Eph. 5:18). And he exhorted the Galatians, "If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit" (Gal. 5:25).


As we learn to walk in the Spirit we develop a continual awareness of God's presence. After all, we are the house of God and His glory has taken up residence in us. We just need to train our spirits to be in constant communion with the Holy Spirit.


Read more of this exciting article. . . .


7 Steps to Being Spirit-Filled 

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Jefferson Smith Lifts a Thought Up Off the Ground

I'm gettin' out of this town so fast and away from all the words and the monuments and the whole rotten show.  —Jefferson Smith, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington


            Obama's 'Fake' Twitter Followers Explained
By Daren Jonescu
September 27, 2013
Barack Obama has 36.9 million Twitter followers, 19.5 million of whom, it turns out, are fake. This is a very disturbing sign for Obama's opponents, as it demonstrates just how much appeal the president still has with his key support base, namely those who identify most closely with him on a personal level -- fake people.
The Daily Mail Online has analyzed the numbers and discovered that among U.S. political figures, the four Twitter accounts with the most fake followers -- that is, followers who don't really exist -- are those of Barack Obama (by a landslide), Joe Biden, Michelle Obama, and the White House communications department. Those who would laugh this off as evidence of a pathetic progressive attempt to manipulate public perceptions are perhaps missing the point. Americans who care about the downfall of their country ought to be most concerned about the trend indicated here. A hitherto negligible segment of the population, nonexistent humans, has found in the present U.S. administration a powerful reason to emerge from the shadows at last and become fully engaged participants in the political process. There is no clearer indication of the dangers facing America than this surge in political activity among people who do not exist, especially when one considers that this group vastly outnumbers the existent.

Friday, September 27, 2013

It Doesn't Matter If the Obamacare Defunding Gambit Fails

By Matthew Vadum
September 27, 2013
American Thinker

The current campaign to deprive President Obama's health care leviathan of the life-sustaining tax dollars it needs for full bureaucratic metastasis is what left-wingers call a consciousness-raising exercise. 
It matters next to nothing if current Republican efforts succeed in immediately defunding Obamacare.  That's because this is just the opening round of what promises to be a protracted struggle to restore sanity to the American health care system.  A temporary defeat at one juncture on the road to repeal isn't really a defeat at all, provided that it serves a larger purpose.  Obamacare, after all, wasn't enacted in a day and it won't be repealed in a day.
Both the Ted Cruz talkathon and the brinksmanship over the stop-gap government funding measure (called a "continuing resolution") epitomize purposeful political theater. 
Ignore the blatherskite spewing from GOP establishment talking heads like Karl Rove:  there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing political things strictly for public consumption even when there is a less-than-direct or less-than-obvious relationship between the things done and the desired results.  It's not somehow dishonest or dishonorable to do this, contrary to the protestations of the pompous pundits who suck up air in the Washington echo chamber.

Ted Cruz Reveals that the Republican Establishment Despise Their Own Base

By Karin McQuillan
September 26, 2013
American Thinker

The Revolutionary War was a rebellion against Britain, but it first required a battle between Tories and Patriots.  Ted Cruz is fighting for the honor of leading the conservative movement.  The main goal is to give the American people a voice, defeat the Democrat Party, and take over Congress and the White House, so we can shrink our federal government back to constitutional limits.


The battleground of the moment is ObamaCare.  But the first adversary that must be defeated is the Republican establishment.  Is it any wonder that the Republican leadership is working to make sure the defunding effort fails?


Ted Cruz is pinning his ambitions to the big reality the Tea Party represents: conservatives really are fed up with both parties in Washington, D.C.  The Republican base allowed Obama to be re-elected when an estimated five million of us stayed home in the 2012 election.  It may not have been wise, but it happened for a very good reason: they didn't see the Republican Party representing them. 


The D.C. establishment, and this includes both parties, is doing very well, thank you.  The suburbs around Washington are the wealthiest in the nation.  They and their families were untouched by the Obama economic meltdown.   A huge government, spending a quarter of our nation's wealth, with almost half the populace dependent on their largesse, is good for them.  It is not good for us.


READ MORE. . . .


Thursday, September 26, 2013

Why Freedom of Religion?

Dr. David Curry, Open Doors USA
September 17, 2013

There’s a growing undercurrent of political word-smiting regarding freedom to be a Jesus follower in the culture today. It’s a movement to narrow and marginalize people of faith who have opinions, want to be heard and who want to participate in the debate that is at the intersection of culture, politics and faith.


Those attuned to the habit of political groups adopting talking points to help reframe our understanding of particular issues will notice that politicos are actively affirming our “right to worship” freely rather than the “freedom of religion.” The biographer/apologist/thinker Eric Metaxas addressed this very topic here.


The “right to worship” argument essentially seeks to give people the freedom to preach, commune and practice in whatever way they choose, so long as it doesn’t cross a boundary into culture and politics. The reasoning goes something like this: “You have beliefs and that’s okay, but it’s not okay to bring those beliefs into the national discussion.” It’s a tangent of the tolerance debate, wherein moral discussions are dismissed as intolerant, and people of faith are marginalized and stamped with a large “WACKO!” on their head.


Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Common Core Curriculum: A Look Behind the Curtain of Hidden LanguageCommon Core Curriculum: A Look Behind the Curtain of Hidden Language

By Rachel Alexander, CP Op-Ed Contributor
March 18, 2013|9:43 am
The Christian Post

Conservatives are in an uproar over Common Core, an educational curriculum being forced upon the states by the Obama administration, which is scheduled to be mostly implemented this year in the 46 states that have adopted it. Common Core eliminates local control over K-12 curriculum in math and English, instead imposing a one-size-fits-all, top-down curriculum that will also apply to private schools and homeschoolers.


Superficially, it sounds good. It creates universal standards that supposedly educate all children for college. But along with the universal standards come a myriad of problems, which the administrators of Common Core are disingenuously denying. The American Principles Project released an analysis last year of Common Core, exposing the duplicitous language. Common Core describes itself as "internationally benchmarked," "robust," "aligned with college and work expectations," "rigorous," and "evidence-based." None of this is true.


Tuesday, September 24, 2013

The Feet of Yeshua: A Fivefold Scriptural Meaning

10:00AM EDT 9/17/2013
Asher Intrater/
Charisma Magazine


The expression “feet of Yeshua” has a fivefold meaning in the Scriptures, parts of it present, past and future.


1. Devotional intimacy. Perhaps the most well-known meaning today comes from the special, intimate, devotional expression we find in Miriam (Mary), one of Yeshua's closest disciples.


Luke 10:39: Miriam sat at Yeshua's feet and heard His word.


John 12:3: Miriam took very costly oil, anointed Yeshua's feet and wiped His feet with her hair.


By positioning herself at Yeshua’s feet, Miriam serves as an exquisite model for us not only of devotion and intimacy but also of humility and vulnerability.

READ MORE. . . .

Monday, September 23, 2013

The Bigotry of the Chattering Classes

By Richard Winchester
September 23, 2013
American Thinker

When Barack Obama was campaigning for the Democrat Party's presidential nomination in 2008, he spoke to a group of wealthy donors in San Francisco and uttered the "bitter clinger" comment to describe many small-town residents in Pennsylvania. According to Dear Leader -- speaking, so he thought, off-the-record -- small-town Pennsylvanians who have been bypassed by U.S. society grow "bitter," and "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."


Dear Leader's prejudiced comments about small-town Pennsylvanians are akin to the bigoted remarks that members of America's "chattering classes" utter about ordinary Americans on an almost daily basis. Mild as Dear Leader's comments may seem in comparison with snarky statements by such "chatterers" as Bill Maher, David Letterman, Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, and Joy Behar -- just to name five more or less at random -- observations like these coming from America's chattering classes reveal just how bigoted they are.


Isn't it ironic that these people who never miss an opportunity to rail against prejudice and bigotry -- provided, of course, that it's directed against individuals and/or groups they favor -- are bigots themselves? It's just that the chatterers' antipathy is directed toward the "right" kind of folks.


Who are the right kind of people (for the chattering classes to slur)? Let's start with white southerners, preferably if they're from small towns or rural areas. Let some white southerner such as Paula Deen admit to uttering the "N-word" decades ago, and the chattering classes land on her like a ton of bricks. The late Senator Robert E. Byrd (D, WVA), on the other hand, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, uttered the N-word, albeit while talking about whites, in a televised interview with the late Tony Snow in 2009, and no one batted an eye. Better yet, perhaps, if a black rapper uses the N-word, the chatterers are full of complements.


Sunday, September 22, 2013

David Brooks' Lame Trashing of Sen. Cruz

David Brooks
By David Limbaugh
Jewish World Review Sep 17, 2013 / 13 Tishrei, 5775

New York Times columnist David Brooks argued on PBS' "NewsHour" Friday night that "Sen. Ted Cruz and similar legislators" are obstructionists who care more about undermining the Republican establishment than advancing legislation.


Note that I didn't use "conservative" to modify "columnist" or "David Brooks," though the Times and other mainstream media outlets routinely bill Brooks as conservative. Featuring a left-leaning moderate and depicting him as a conservative is a clever technique the liberal media employ to discredit conservative ideas.


Not to mention any names, but we see this technique in practice daily on NBC's deranged stepchild, MSNBC, where a former Republican congressman habitually impugns conservatives in the name of conservatism.


But let's not dwell too much on whether these liberal-enough-to-be-hired-by-bigshot-liberal-media-outlets-as-conversative-commentators are bona fide conservatives.


Instead, let's take a look at what Brooks is asserting. Does it have validity? It's important to quote a substantial segment to get the thrust of Brooks' remarks and his accompanying attitude.


Saturday, September 21, 2013

Former Special Forces Commander: Now It's Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell for Christians

By Michael W. Chapman
September 20, 2013 - 2:40 PM

Many commanders in the Department of Defense are violating the religious rights of service members, forcing them to be quiet about their moral opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage, for instance, and, in effect, imposing a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy on Christians, said Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William “Jerry” Boykin, the former commander of the U.S. Special Forces Command.


In an interview, asked Gen. Boykin, now the executive vice president of the Family Research Council (FRC), “Given the violation of religious liberties that have been going on, do you think that, ironically, Christians are being forced into the closet? Being forced to basically Don’t Talk, Don’t Tell, if they’re a Christian?”



Friday, September 20, 2013

Court Rules for Hobby Lobby in HHS Mandate Case, Supreme Court Next?

by Ken Klukowski 19 Jul 2013

Home-retailer Hobby Lobby—owned by the Green family, who are devout Christians—just dealt the Obamacare HHS mandate a devastating one-two punch. It’s likely the Obama administration will have no choice but to now petition the U.S. Supreme Court—where President Barack Obama's signature legislation is in danger of suffering a humiliating defeat.

The HHS mandate is not in the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare); it’s a regulation implementing a plain-vanilla section of the ACA requiring “preventive services”—and requires all employers to cover abortion-related services.  


Many of the lawsuits brought against the HHS mandate represent religious entities like my alma mater, the University of Notre Dame, but others have been brought by for-profit businesses wholly-owned by Evangelicals, Catholics, or others whose religious faith rejects abortion as a sin and the taking of an innocent human life.


Related Story
Supreme Court to Consider New Obamacare Case


Thursday, September 19, 2013

Lords of the Underclass

September 18, 2013
American Thinker

For over 100 years the key to the success of the Democrat party has been Democrats destroying the economic hopes of whole groups of people and then convincing the victims that the Republicans did it.


The current immigration extravaganza is a repeat of the only successful play in the Democrat party playbook; create an underclass of Americans who will vote Democrat -- or not vote at all -- while being blissfully unaware that the reason they are at the bottom of the ladder is Democrat policies.


After the Civil War, Democrats, and Democrat spinoffs like the KKK, stayed in power in the South, even though they were racists and there were lots of potential black voters, by using the strong arm of bigoted laws to keep Blacks where Democrats thought they should be. Democrats got the support of the non-racist whites by painting Blacks as dangerous and too stupid to be left to their own devices.


When the Great Depression started, Democrats feverishly leveraged what they'd learned and figured out an even better way to effectively exploit a whole class of Americans. By demonizing the people who'd brought about the U.S. post-WWI prosperity and by convincing enough Americans that FDR was all that kept them from starving, Democrats managed to get Roosevelt elected 3 times even though the economy didn't get any better -- we can write off his fourth election to the war.


The Democrats convinced Americans that without FDR the country would get even worse; and we all know it's always possible for things to get worse. They made a new underclass, something unheard of in America, who felt that they were entitled to being bailed out not by their fellow Americans but by the government.


It also taught them that a lot of Americans were just as willing to buy the big lie -- without FDR you'd be dead and Republicans only care about the rich -- as the relatives they'd left behind in Europe.


Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Memo to Hillary Clinton: What a Difference, at This Point, a Year Makes

By Daren Jonescu
September 18, 2013
American Thinker

*       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *

They will continue to mouth the words of progressive manipulation, as will their bootlickers in the media.  But those words can no longer sustain the aura of doublethink and self-justification.  American progressives are people who, like Clinton and Obama, were forced to make a choice this year, a choice between admitting they have lost the narrative and simply carrying on with acknowledged lies.  A choice between admitting to themselves that their actions have become unmoored from any semblance of human decency and doubling down on a life lived according to sociopathic principles.  A choice between defending their petty self-interest at all costs and confessing their undeniable culpability.  They chose evil. 


America's progressives have lost the tether of well-controlled lies and public perceptions that anchored their decisions in cool calculation.  The underlying truth has not changed, but its uncontrolled release is irradiating the progressive psyche.  There is a very big difference between believing that your corrupt deeds are concealed and knowing they are fully visible to anyone who bothers to look.  Suddenly, keeping up appearances is no longer enough; distracting people from looking at what is no longer hidden becomes the overwhelming goal. 

*       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       * 


Tuesday, September 17, 2013

After Re-election, 'More Flaccidity'

By Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison
September 17, 2013
American Thinker

President Obama's whispers to Russia's then-President Dmitri Medvedev were picked up on a hot mic. "This is my last election," the president confided to the Russian under his breath, "after my election, I'll have more flexibility." ABC's Jake Tapper reported that exchange in March, 2012, at a G-20 Summit in Seoul, South Korea.
It remains one of the most shocking incidents in the history of U.S.-Russian relations. Medvedev quickly chimed in to say: "I understand." And he promised to carry the president's words to Russia's real strong man, Vladimir Putin.
What President Obama calls "flexibility" soon translated into flaccidity. The Russians have always been sensitive to weakness in their opponents. Nikita Khrushchev bullied the young, inexperienced Jack Kennedy at Geneva, in 1961. Kennedy would later tell associates, candidly, that Khrushchev "beat the hell out of me." Seizing the initiative, Khrushchev soon erected the Berlin Wall and took the alarming step of placing Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs) in Cuba. Kennedy had to bring America and the world to the brink of nuclear war to re-establish American leadership.



Monday, September 16, 2013

In Defense of Diana West

By M. Stanton Evans
September 14, 2013


Especially galling to West's critics is her contention that Washington in the war years was so riddled with Communists and Soviet agents as to be in effect an "occupied" city  -- an image that seems to have sparked the greatest anger and most denunciation of her thesis.

By using the "occupied" image, Ms. West is of course not saying Soviet tanks were patrolling the streets of Washington, or that Red martial law was imposed on its cowering citizens.  What she is arguing instead is that Soviet agents, Communists and fellow travelers held official posts, or served at chokepoints of intelligence data, and from these positions were able to exert pro-Soviet leverage on U.S. and other allied policy.  Though ignored in many conventional histories, the evidence to support this view is overwhelming.

It is for instance abundantly plain, from multiple sources of Cold War intel, that Communist/pro-Soviet penetration of the government under FDR was massive, numbering in the many hundreds.  These pro-Red incursions started in the New Deal era of the 1930s, then accelerated in the war years when the Soviets were our allies and safeguards against Communist infiltration were all but nonexistent. The scope of the problem was expressed as follows in an FBI report  to Director J. Edgar Hoover:

"It has become increasingly clear... that there are a tremendous number of persons employed in the United States government who are Communists and who strive daily to advance the cause of Communism and destroy the foundations of this government. Today nearly every department or agency is infiltrated with them in varying degree.. To aggravate the situation, they appear to have concentrated most heavily in departments which make policy, or carry it into effect..."


Sunday, September 15, 2013

How Satan Entices People Into Sin

10:34AM EDT 9/13/2013
Os Hillman
Charisma Magazine

Have you ever thought about how Satan entices human beings into sin?

When we are tempted by a particular thing, it seems natural to engage. We believe that by engaging with that temptation, it will give us something. It might make us feel good, meet a perceived need or be pleasurable. Eve thought God was holding out on her when she wanted to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. She didn't believe God's warning when He set a boundary and placed the garden as off-limits.

The word Satan means "deceiver." Other attributes given to Satan is that he kills, steals and destroys human beings. He wants you to impugn the nature of God. He wants to cause war in heaven and bring all humans to revolt against God the Father.

 I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

We Are All Sinners.
The Bible tells us there is only one human who did not sin. That was Jesus.
“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:23-26).

They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying,
Is this the man that made the earth tremble, that did shake kingdoms?

But we believe there will be no consequences.

One of Satan’s ploys is to convince us that there is no consequence to our sin. However, clearly there are lasting consequences that include the following:
  1. Separation from God
  2. Shame
  3. Guilt
  4. Compromise leads to deceit in our lives
  5. Lost confidence in the spiritual dimension of our lives


Saturday, September 14, 2013

Christian Liberties, the Stepchild of Today's 1st Amendment

David Limbaugh | Sep 13, 2013

You may say that there is no discrimination against Christians in America or casually dismiss it because Christians need no protection here because this is allegedly a Christian nation.

But there is plenty of such discrimination, as I documented in my book "Persecution" a few years back.

During the publicity tour for the book, I had a mini-debate with Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz on CNN, as I recall. Dershowitz, who was very respectful and who is unquestionably quite intelligent, advanced a curious argument that night.

If memory serves, he suggested that it is absurd for me to argue that Christians face any real discrimination, because the overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian. I found this bizarre, as the majority of Americans are also women, and the last time I looked, no one ever challenges the women's rights movement on the basis that majorities are inherently insulated from discrimination.
Our laws don't say that everyone except for members of majority groups is entitled to equal protection of the laws. They don't forbid discrimination against only members of minority groups.



Friday, September 13, 2013

The Legacy of Iraq: America's Credibility Was Lost Years Ago

By Lauri B. Regan
September 13, 2013
American Thinker

How many times will Americans be told that "the legacy of Iraq" has taken its toll on a war-weary country and stymied our ability to project strength and determination in the Mideast generally and military intervention in Syria specifically?  Since I have yet to hear someone articulate what that legacy is, it is difficult to give credence to the concept that Bush's "wrong war" has intimidated the Obama administration into utter incompetence and complete fecklessness.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal on the twelfth anniversary of 9/11, William Galston posited:

Through [the] fog of confusion [pertaining to the decision to attack Syria], we can discern some large truths. The legacy of Iraq is powerful, in political parties and in the citizenry. Most people would welcome a resolution of the Syrian crisis achieved without American military power.

The third sentence is simply a truism.  We would be hard-pressed to find a significant number of Americans who relish the thought of military intervention when alternative and viable non-violent solutions are available.  When civilized people go to war, they do so because attempts at diplomacy and other means to reach a peaceful resolution have failed.  American military power is the last resort, not the Plan A.  It never has been, including when America went into Iraq under the leadership of George W. Bush.

Galston instead falsely puts forth the notion that his second sentence is a truism (and, in his view, a large one).  But he fails to articulate what the legacy of Iraq is.  It cannot be that people would prefer a resolution to conflict that does not involve military power, since we have already established that that is a trait of civilized nations.  So on what do he and others base this narrative that if it were not for our intervention in Iraq, we would invade Syria with the shock and awe required to bring down Assad?

When the U.S. began the military campaign against Saddam Hussein, America was united.  I recall an impassioned debate with a French friend who is a career U.N. peace-keeper.  He questioned the American government's commitment to see the war through and worried that we would simply dethrone Saddam and exit the battlefield, leaving the country in ruins.  I argued that President Bush would ensure not only that we would win the war, but also (rightly or wrongly) take on the task of nation-building prior to pulling our troops out.  Perhaps Bush was idealistic, but the hopes of bringing democracy to the region proved possible -- until he left office.


Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Echoing Miley, President Obama Twerks America

September 11, 2013
James Simpson
American Thinker

He lies, denies, smears and defies America. He sticks his tongue out at our laws, our institutions, our traditions and our noble heritage. His one-man wrecking crew policies have spiked gas prices and government debt to unprecedented levels, and promise to destroy healthcare. Unemployment remains high, and has only declined due to discouraged workers leaving the labor force entirely. He undermines national defense with agreements that benefits our enemies at our expense, demands confiscatory taxes and illegally legislates through regulation and executive orders. He bans White House visits, then jets off on end-to-end exorbitant vacations.

He glorifies perversion while punishing morality. His foreign policies have caused the murder of American citizens overseas, which his own spokesman calls old news. His defense policies have caused the needless deaths of American servicemen - including the horrifying, inexcusable killing of the Extortion 17 SEAL team - while insuring that the conflicts for which they paid the ultimate sacrifice will be lost. His arrogant, revolting display of contemptuous, conceit is more obscene than a year's worth of Anthony Weiner tweets. He is presiding over the premeditated destruction of American society.

Yet now Obama wants -- nay insists -- that we follow him into Syria. Is he insane? Or maybe we should ask, has our entire DC establishment gone insane?

Congressmen and Senators from both sides of the aisle treat his infantile proposals as though they were the Ten Commandments being delivered by Moses himself. John McCain and Lindsay Graham demand our participation, while John Kerry with his characteristically affected elitist airs issued one gaffe after another. Even the Washington Post, normally a reliable PR outlet for Democrats, couldn't resist cataloging Kerry's endless display of stupidity:

Saturday, September 7, 2013

The Ruling Elite Settles In

By J.R. Dunn
September 6, 2013
American Thinker


. . . In fact, the major impetus to the current progressive program isn't political at all—it's a combination of economics and pseudoscience. The ruling class believes that we are on the verge of an environmental collapse, triggered by "climate change." They intend to keep their toys and privileges no matter what. The rest of us will have to do without—no heat, bad food, no transport, all of life's luxuries (and freedoms)—vanished with the snows. They will retain all this and more in well-protected enclaves, keeping a careful eye on the proles with their drones and PRISM-derived surveillance systems. The American ruling class will by this means join the transnational elites living the same way—as in many areas, among them Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America, they do already.

Anyone who doubts this can take a look at the works of John Holdren, Obama's science czar, or the actions of former EPA chief Lisa Jackson, or the HUD programs going under the name "Regionalism," which intends to turn Americans out of their wasteful private homes and automobiles into vertical slums patterned after 1960s high-rises, where they will be allowed to work only at jobs within walking distance.

We are to become crowded, hungry, cold, stupid, and poor, our transportation limited to bicycles (registered with the block authorities, needless to say, on the North Korean model), our access to information controlled by the same filtering systems that Google developed for the Chinese. Education will be limited to such an extent as to make the goofball stoonts of today seem like the protégés of Socrates.

If you want to see the American future from the point of view of the ruling class, look at Detroit -- a once mighty city that now features packs of wild dogs roaming through overgrown lots in abandoned neighborhoods. There are photos of Detroit that hauntingly resemble third-world slum metropolises—vast stretches of neglected, collapsing housing with the skyscrapers of the rulers looming in the misty distance. This is what the Obama future looks like. This is what the elite is willing to accept on our behalf.