Obama's Multi-Culturalism as dangerous as Islamic Extremism...Impacto de Obamacare...God vs Climate Change!!!

The Only Thing as Dangerous as Islamic Extremism Is Obama's Extreme Multi-Culturalism

BY JULIE ROYS , CP OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

December 10, 2015|7:12 am

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about counter-terrorism and the United States fight against Islamic State during an address to the nation from the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, December 6, 2015.

Today, we face an enemy that has killed about 60,000 U.S. and allied troops in the past decade — and just last month, killed more than 5,000 innocent civilians.

Yet Sunday night, President Obama assured the American people that Islamic extremism represents only a "tiny fraction of Muslims." And, he argued that his policies, which have allowed this enemy to grow exponentially, will somehow "achieve a more sustainable victory."

image: https://securepubads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/adview?ai=B_slTiutqVqCwHtbMpgP6zKXQDMijiJsHAAAAEAEgsNnrGjgAWNiJ_JGYAmDJhoCA5KTAE7IBFXd3dy5jaHJpc3RpYW5wb3N0LmNvbboBCWdmcF9pbWFnZcgBCdoBHWh0dHA6Ly93d3cuY2hyaXN0aWFucG9zdC5jb20vmAK4F8ACAuACAOoCJC83MjQxL2NocmlzdGlhbnBvc3Qvb3Bpbmlvbi9hcnRpY2xlc_gC9NEekAPoApgDpAOoAwHgBAGQBgGgBiDYBwA&sigh=MvZp5iLJcuU&cid=5GiAkTxMOf9IpaSmIyXzbAyo&adurl=

Julie Roys is host of a national talk show on the Moody Radio Network called "Up For Debate."

Increasingly, this president is showing himself to be completely out of touch with reality. Does anyone besides Bernie Sanders actually believe Obama's claim that gathering to discuss Climate Change last month served as a "powerful rebuke to jihad terrorists"? Certainly, no one in their right mind still believes Obama's assertion that terrorists pose "no specific or credible threat to the United States." Nor, do they believe his delusion that ISIS is "contained."

Americans are not reassured by Obama's dismissive attitude or lectures on Islamophobia; they're terrified by them. Quite frankly, the only thing as scary as radical Islamic terrorists is the leader of the free world denying their expansive reach and influence. This is why Donald Trump is gaining so much support for his extreme immigration stance, despite the fact that it negates the religious freedom conservatives hold dear.

The terrorist threat is not imagined; it is not tiny; and it is absolutely an outgrowth of a particular religious ideology. If Obama would simply recognize this reality and take appropriate action, people would not reactively embrace the opposite extreme. But, President Obama cannot bring himself to recognize this truth because it negates his entire worldview.

Obama's Extreme Multi-Culturalism

What is clear from Obama's speech and actions is that he interprets the world through a thoroughly post-modern, multi-culturalist lens. As Nancy Pearcey writes in Total Truth, multi-culturalists believe that "truth is relative to particular interpretive communities" and "knowledge claims are at best social constructions" and at worst "power plays." In other words, multiculturalists believe truth is nothing more than a convenient fiction that each community — based on gender, race, sexuality or religion — creates to serve its own interests. And, since each community's fiction is equally valid (after all, they're all made up) — trying to impose one community's fiction on another community is simply an attempt to dominate (which is wrong, even though there is no wrong).

For example, when he ran for office in 2008, he said he believed marriage was the union of one man and one woman. Then, due to his views "evolving," he switched and not only embraced gay marriage, but boldly promoted it.Over the past seven-and-a-half years, President Obama's relativistic worldview has become painfully obvious.

Similarly, he was incapable of determining if taking the life on an unborn baby was wrong, saying the question was "above his pay grade." But, he's had no qualms about supporting a women's right to kill her unborn child and has actually funded it.

And now, when faced with radical Islamic terrorism, President Obama seems incapable of naming this nemesis or calling it "evil." Instead, he continues to make apologies for Islam, insisting — despite the evidence— that it is a peaceful religion.

Obama must continue to spin the myth that all religions say basically the same thing and that none could actually be evil — especially one embraced by 1.5 billion people. After all, if a world religion truly perpetuated objective evil, his entire worldview would crumble. So, despite the facts, he perpetuates a myth.

A case in point was last Thursday, at the annual tree lighting ceremony.

There, Obama said, "That's the message of the child whose birth families like mine celebrate on Christmas — a prince born in a stable who taught us that we should love our neighbors as ourselves ... These are the lessons of Jesus Christ. But they're also the bedrock values of all faiths."

Unfortunately, though, it's not just President Obama who's promoting this myth. Recently, a pastor I know posted a video of Iranian-American writer, Reza Aslan, to Facebook, calling his analysis "spot on." In the video, Aslan asserts that "Islam doesn't promote violence or peace. Islam is just a religion. And, like every religion in the world, it's what you bring to it. If you're a violent person, your Islam, your Judaism, your Christianity, your Hinduism is going to be violent."

So apparently, even to a Christian pastor, all religions are basically equal. And, Islam isn't inherently violent; some people are just inherently violent. And, for some strange reason, a large proportion of them live in Muslim countries.

This is sheer lunacy. Christians aren't suicide bombers because we don't believe in jihad. Ideas matter — and religious ideas, because they tell us who we are and why we're here — matter most of all.

The Truth About Islam

Though it's true that many Muslims practice their faith in a peaceful way, the message Muhammad taught is incredibly violent and imperialistic. In the Quran 2:191-193, it says, "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out." Similarly, Quaran 8:12 reads, "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Many will argue that the Old Testament has equally violent texts. However, the violent texts in the Old Testament are constrained to a very specific historical context — the ancient Israelite conquest of Canaan. However, these verses in the Quran are open-ended and believed by many Muslims to be as relevant today as they were when they were first penned.

This is why so-called radicalized Muslims are not a "tiny minority." According to a 2015 Pew Poll, 63 million Muslims support ISIS in the 11 countries polled. Now, that may be a minority, but it's certainly not tiny. What's equally troubling is that if one takes into account those who are undecided about ISIS, the number climbs to 287 million! And, in Pakistan, a state with nuclear weapons, only 28% of the public view ISIS unfavorably.

Other surveys show that anti-Semitism runs rampant in Muslim countries too — a whopping 74% among North African and Middle Eastern residents, including 92% in Iraq. Many Muslims also support the death penalty for those who leave Islam. According to the Washington Post, 88% of Muslims in Egypt support the death penalty for converting, and 62% in Pakistan.

These are the actual facts of Islam, not the sanitized fiction President Obama perpetuates. Though many Muslims practice a gentler, kinder form of this religion, Islam is inherently violent and intolerant. Instead of pretending it's not, we need to expose it, address it, and recognize its link to jihadist behavior.

Ideas matter and evil exists. Obama's multi-culturalism, on the other hand, is a dangerous fantasy.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/barack-obama-islamic-extremism-quran-multiculturalism-152095/#Ozsi7hvRTBqD98VJ.99

Obamacare

El sistema de salud de Estados Unidos necesita una buena reforma, pero no la clase de cambios decretados por la nueva ley de atención médica.

La Ley de Protección al Paciente y Cuidado de Salud Asequible (PPACA), comúnmente conocida como “Obamacare”, arrastra a nuestro sistema de salud en la dirección equivocada.

Esta ley tan impopular impone control federal sobre beneficios y financiación de la atención médica, establece un complejo sistema de salud de modelo único y centraliza las decisiones de la atención médica de América en Washington.

En lugar de eso, el Congreso debería transformar el sistema de salud en uno que empodere a personas y familias – no a Washington – para controlar un mayor número de decisiones respecto a su atención médica.

En Heritage Libertad lo mantendremos al día con información actualizada sobre Obamacare. Aquí ponemos a disposición del lector una explicación en profundidad del tema a través de los trabajos de investigación elaborados por expertos de la Fundación Heritage que exploran el impacto de cambiar nuestro sistema de salud y proponen soluciones efectivas a problemas específicos. Igualmente, ofrecemos breves artículos de opinión para el lector que busca una lectura rápida y concisa sobre Obamacare.

– El impacto sobre los no asegurados	–  El impacto sobre los estados
– El impacto sobre las familias	–  El impacto sobre las empresas
– El impacto sobre los mayores	–  El impacto sobre su futuro
– El impacto sobre los médicos	–  Derogar Obamacare

Continue leyendo.... http://libertad.org/obamacare

Inhofe: Climate Change Science Ignores God's Power

SUBMITTED BY Brian Tashman on Wednesday, 12/2/2015 11:30 am

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., a vocal climate science denialist, criticized President Obama’s participation in a Paris summit to address climate change yesterday, saying that climate science ignores the role of God in determining global temperatures.

Inhofe told Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on his “Washington Watch” program that Americans simply don’t care about the issue anymore and that there is nothing the U.S. government can do to reduce carbon dioxide emissions anyway.

“I know there are some out there, probably a couple hundred people, who actually believe that the world is coming to an end and man-made global warming is going to cause it, so I just want to give them the assurance that if they’re right and we are wrong, [proposed climate policies are] not going to reduce but it will increase CO2 emissions,” he said.

“They don’t understand,” he added. “God’s still up there and there’s a reason for this to happen.”

Inhofe went on to argue that human activities cannot affect the climate as the atmosphere naturally fluctuates between cooling and warming periods.

FILED UNDER

- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/inhofe-climate-change-science-ignores-gods-power#sthash.O3TYfaCu.dpuf

Then we ask: why GOD?...Peligra el estado Laico si hablamos de nuestra fe?....Democrats and Infanticide!

DOJ Defunds Youth Programs that Reference God

by Warner Todd Huston 

The Department of Justice has summarily removed federal funding from two Louisiana youth programs because a local official refused to sign a pledge stating he would require the programs to ban mentions of God.

Julian Whittington, the sheriff of Bossier Parish, LA, told Fox News that Obama's Justice Office of Civil Rights de-funded the Young Marines chapter and another youth program over mentions of religion. In the case of the Young Marine program, chartered in 1965, the funding was cut off because the group features an oath that mentions "God." In the other case, it was because a program for at-risk youth featured a voluntary, student-led prayer session as one of its activities.
Sheriff Whittington says that the DOJ withdrew a combined $30,000 from the programs because the groups refused to remove God from their activities. The sheriff said this was evidence of the government's "aggression and infringement of our religious freedoms."
Whittington told Fox, "We were informed that these are unacceptable, inherently religious activities and the Department of Justice would not be able to fund the programs if it continued. They wanted a letter from me stating that I would no longer have voluntary prayer and I would also have to remove ‘God’ from the Young Marine’s oath."
The oath from the Young Marine organization reads:

From this day forward, I sincerely promise, I will set an example for all other youth to follow and I shall never do anything that would bring disgrace or dishonor upon God, my Country and its flag, my parents, myself or the Young Marines. These I will honor and respect in a manner that will reflect credit upon them and myself. Semper Fidelis

Both the U.S. Army enlistment oath and its commissioning oath end with "so help me God."
As to the at-risk youth program, Whittington said,"We're not promoting any specific religion, this is just voluntary prayer, mention of God, how offensive and bad can that be?"
In response to the DOJ’s message insisting that he sign the anti-God pledge, Sheriff Whittington sent a letter of his own to LA Governor Bobby Jindal.
"As a Christian, Sheriff and American citizen, I am writing to express my frustration and concern over the persistent aggression and infringement of our religious freedoms which have been imposed upon the law enforcement grant programs, specifically related to the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement,” wrote the Sheriff.
In cutting off the funding, the DOJ claimed it was a violation of Church and State rules for the government to fund any group that mentions God.
Fox's Todd Starnes says that, "Both youth programs have been hailed as a successful way to reach at-risk young people. Since 2002 more than 1,000 young people have graduated from the program, directed by a Bossier Parish deputy who is a former U.S. Marine."
Like Sheriff Whittington, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) was troubled by the DOJ's actions.

"There is a very wide effort coming out of the administration that seeks to stamp out freedom of expressions – particularly religion and especially freedom of Christian expression," Fleming said. "They are willing to throw the youth overboard and remove the funding just in the name of making this an atheist, agnostic, secular organization."
"They (DOJ) don’t want anything to have any sort of religious support – even down to prayer," Fleming said. "It’s sad and it’s inconsistent with the intentions of the framers of the Constitution."

Sheriff Whittington is not taking this lying down. "When something is not right and you know it’s not right and you keep bowing down, nothing is ever going to change," he said.

¿Peligra el Estado laico?

Cuando las autoridades expresan su fe en los actos públicos

San Cristóbal de las Casas, 30 de junio de 2013 (Zenit.org) Felipe Arizmendi Esquivel

SITUACIONES

Por el hecho de que algunas autoridades municipales y estatales, católicas y protestantes, han expresado en actos públicos su fe cristiana, confiando su territorio al reinado de Jesucristo, de inmediato han surgido voces de alerta, diciendo que se violaron las leyes, que estos son intentos de dar marcha atrás a la laicidad oficial, que son muestras de incapacidad de esas autoridades para gobernar y que se les debiera hacer un juicio político para destituirles. No les pareció bien que el Presidente de la República se haya hecho presente al inicio del ministerio del Papa Francisco, porque alegan que eso es no respetar el carácter laico del Estado.
Estamos en fin de cursos en las escuelas, privadas y públicas. Muchos nos solicitan una Misa de acción de gracias, sobre todo quienes terminan una etapa, desde kínder hasta universidad. La piden los alumnos, los mismos maestros o los padres de familia. ¿Esto es contrario al laicismo de artículo tercero constitucional, en que se afirma que la educación pública debe ser laica?

En varias comunidades, no sólo indígenas, cuando una autoridad civil va a iniciar su cargo, es costumbre que participe en una celebración religiosa en forma oficial, no privada. En otros países, juramentan sobre la Biblia, van a un Te Deum en las fiestas nacionales, o manifiestan su fe religiosa, y nadie se extraña por ello.

ILUMINACION

¿Qué pasa en nuestro país? Las leyes sobre la materia son bastante restrictivas. Dice la Ley de Asociaciones Religiosas y Culto Público: “Las autoridades federales, estatales y municipales no podrán asistir con carácter oficial a ningún acto religioso de culto público, ni a actividad que tenga motivos o propósitos similares” (Art. 25). Y su respectivo Reglamento: “Se exceptúa de lo previsto en el párrafo anterior, al servidor público que asista a título personal a los actos religiosos de culto público o actividades que tengan motivos o propósitos similares. En dichos actos o actividades, el servidor público en ningún momento podrá ostentarse o hacer manifiesto su carácter oficial, ni actuar en el ejercicio de las atribuciones que legalmente le corresponden. En caso de incumplimiento a lo dispuesto en este artículo, el servidor público de que se trata, será sujeto de las responsabilidades y sanciones previstas en las leyes aplicables” (Art. 28).

Se acaba de aprobar, después de varias inexplicables resistencias, esta reforma al artículo 24 de nuestra Constitución: “Toda persona tiene derecho a la libertad de convicciones éticas, de conciencia y de religión, y a tener o adoptar, en su caso, la de su agrado. Esta libertad incluye el derecho de participar, individual o colectivamente, tanto en público como en privado, en las ceremonias, devociones o actos del culto respectivo, siempre que no constituyan un delito o falta penados por la ley. Nadie podrá utilizar los actos públicos de expresión de esta libertad con fines políticos, de proselitismo o de propaganda política”.

Esto no es nuevo, sino apenas la aplicación de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, firmada en 1948, que en su artículo 18 establece: “Toda persona tiene derecho a la libertad de pensamiento, de conciencia y de religión; este derecho incluye la libertad de cambiar de religión o de creencia, así como la libertad de manifestar su religión o su creencia, individual y colectivamente, tanto en público como en privado, por la enseñanza, la práctica, el culto y la observancia”.

En esta Declaración de la ONU, ratificada por nuestro país, no se hace restricción alguna para que las autoridades civiles manifiesten su propia fe, en público y en privado.

COMPROMISOS

Ya es tiempo de poner nuestras leyes más acordes con los tratados internacionales, y no seguir haciendo una dicotomía entre la vida pública y la privada en las autoridades. Esa distinción es una ficción legal; en la práctica, no es posible separarlas. Lo que no debe permitirse es usar la religión con fines partidistas, pues los partidos parten y dividen a los pueblos; la Iglesia está para unir a los que están partidos y divididos.

Cruz: Democrats Don't Care About Infanticide

by Tony Lee 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) denounced Democrats for not caring about infanticide in a speech to the National Right to Life convention on Friday in Texas. 

According to LifeNews, Cruz said Senate Democrats do not think abortionists who kill born-alive babies like Kermit Gosnell and Douglas Kerpen, a late-term abortion doctor in Houston, are doing anything wrong.
Cruz said he was proud to support a bill in the Senate that would ban abortions after 20 weeks, which did not make it to the floor, and compared his fight in the Senate to the fight to ban such abortions in Texas, which Democrats, led by State Senator Wendy Davis filibustered last week. Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry has called another special session on Monday in order to get the bill passed.

“Democrats stood together embracing the policy of abortion no matter what the consequences,” Cruz said, according to LifeNews. “When Austin Democrats filibustered, they were filibustering to protect late-term abortions.”
He blasted Senate Democrats for defending abortions up until birth and not taking Gosnell's clinic--and others like it--seriously.
He said Senate Democrats wanted a resolution that condemned unsanitary health clinics," but were only "fine with any resolution as long as it didn’t mention abortion. A clinic passing on a disease in their minds is morally equivalent to Gosnell killing babies outside their mothers womb.”
Cruz said he was also proud that Texas "led the states" while he was Solicitor General on banning partial-birth abortions and "applauded the courts for defending Texas’ right to de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business."

Cruz reportedly also spoke about forced abortions in China and "lamented that pro-abortion groups don’t speak up more against the grisly practice that has killed millions of babies in China." He also "bashed President Barack Obama for repeatedly voting against the Born Alive bill in Illinois, which would stop infanticides."
He then "condemned news outlets that ignored Gosnell" and thanked pro-life advocates for not only pressuring the mainstream media to cover the Gosnell trial but to fight for pro-life causes "despite the ridicule of the mainstream media."
“Without life there is no liberty, there is no pursuit of happiness. The ability to take life is the ultimate power and the ultimate deprivation of our God-given rights," Cruz said. “I have been honored to have the opportunity to defend life.”

Why is The Democratic Party loosing support?

Artur Davis, Former Black Caucus Member, Switches to GOP

 

Artur Davis was first elected to Congress from Alabama in 2002. The Harvard Law School grad was quickly tapped as a rising star among Democrats. He became a Senior Whip for the caucus, co-chair the New Democrat Coalition and even headed up the Southern region for the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee. His eight years in Congress showed him to be a thoughtful, independent and energetic member. Yesterday, he announced he is now a Republican.

Davis made the announcement on his blog. His own words speak louder than anything I could write.

But parties change. As I told a reporter last week, this is not Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party (and he knows that even if he can’t say it).  If you have read this blog, and taken the time to look for a theme in the thousands of words (or free opposition research) contained in it, you see the imperfect musings of a voter who describes growth as a deeper problem than exaggerated inequality; who wants to radically reform the way we educate our children; who despises identity politics and the practice of speaking for groups and not one national interest; who knows that our current course on entitlements will eventually break our solvency and cause us to break promises to our most vulnerable—that is, if we don’t start the hard work of fixing it.

On the specifics, I have regularly criticized an agenda that would punish businesses and job creators with more taxes just as they are trying to thrive again. I have taken issue with an administration that has lapsed into a bloc by bloc appeal to group grievances when the country is already too fractured: frankly, the symbolism of Barack Obama winning has not given us the substance of a united country. You have also seen me write that faith institutions should not be compelled to violate their teachings because faith is a freedom, too. You’ve read that in my view, the law can’t continue to favor one race over another in offering hard-earned slots in colleges: America has changed, and we are now diverse enough that we don’t need to accommodate a racial spoils system. And you know from these pages that I still think the way we have gone about mending the flaws in our healthcare system is the wrong way—it goes further than we need and costs more than we can bear.

Taken together, these are hardly the enthusiasms of a Democrat circa 2012, and they wouldn’t be defensible in a Democratic primary. But they are the thoughts and values of ten years of learning, and seeing things I once thought were true fall into disarray. So, if I were to leave the sidelines, it would be as a member of the Republican Party that is fighting the drift in this country in a way that comes closest to my way of thinking: wearing a Democratic label no longer matches what I know about my country and its possibilities.

Do read the whole thing.
Barack Obama campaigned on changing politics in America. He certainly succeeded, but not in the way he or his supporters envisioned. Over the past decade, the progressive left has pulled off a hostile takeover of the Democrat party. Today's party is not the one of just a generation ago.
Artur Davis didn't leave the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party left Artur Davis.

Read Artur Davis complete post

We are GOOD .... The left wants to tell us different!

Couple gives Houston waiter $5,000 tip

HOUSTON (KTRK) -- While most people had three days off this weekend for Memorial Day, one waiter is very glad he was working.

That's because one of his customers left a tip of more than 18,000 percent.
"I'm just humbled by it, that's all," D'Amicos Italian Cafe waiter Greg Rubar said.
Rubar still can't believe how his bad luck turned into good fortune.
"I think it was three or four weeks ago, it was a Friday night, it was raining really hard," he said.
Rubar was heading home a few weeks ago when high water ruined his car.
"The way I work, hours I work, it was very hard to take the bus, I was taking a cab a lot," he said.
Rubar has worked at D'Amicos for 16 years and one couple in particular have become very good customers over the past eight years. Rubar told them about his car problem but never expected what would happen this past Saturday.
"They just came in and gave me money to buy a car, told me to go buy a car with it," Rubar said.
Those longtime customers gave Rubar an envelope, filled with $5,000 in cash.
"It's enough money to go buy you a nice car. I didn't even look at it. I was hesitant about it, but he said, 'No you take it and buy you a car!'" Rubar said. "People can be generous, you know? They told me they felt like I deserved this."
Rubar says no one has ever done anything like this for him. His boss is overwhelmed at the generosity of the two customers.
"And also that we have staff that our customers feel so close to that they could willingly and wantingly do something like that for them," the restaurant's VP Brina D'Amicos said.
Rubar says another customer is helping him select a used vehicle to buy. He also has a message for his two special friends.
"Thank you very, very much. I mean I did need it and I'm gonna buy a car with it; that's what that money's gonna go to -- every cent," he said.
The two customers wish to remain anonymous. Rubar has not seen them since they gave him the money. Rubar says he plans to get his new vehicle soon.

(Copyright ©2012 KTRK-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.) 

Check out Colombia and the new Free Trade Agreement...Reach Out 

90,000 Murdered for Being Catholics!!! All being covered up and rarely mentioned

Bozell Column: Viva Cristo Rey!

By Brent Bozell | May 29, 2012 

When I first heard For Greater Glory (originally titled Cristiada, which I prefer) was being shot I was stunned – and skeptical. It could never be produced by Hollywood. In fact, it wouldn’t be a theatrical release, maybe a short documentary, certainly with a small budget. On the former I was correct: it was made in Mexico. On the latter I was wrong. It’s a full-fledged, major motion picture, with grade-A talent. And it’s wonderful.

The cast includes Andy Garcia, Eva Longoria, Peter O’Toole (in a cameo role as a murdered priest, the octogenerian is splendid), Ruben Blades and Mexican star Eduardo Verastegui. This is serious stuff.
The movie depicts the Mexican Cristero uprising against the military dictatorship of President Plutarco Calles between 1926 and 1929. Calles was an ardent anti-Catholic in a nation dominated by Catholics. At his command Catholic churches were ordered shuttered, the Mass outlawed and many priests murdered.

The most famous moment in the struggle, not depicted in the film, was the martyrdom of Padre Miguel Pro, ordered shot by firing squad by Calles in 1927, with the heart-wrenching final moments (Pro kneeling in prayer, then standing, his arms extended in the sign of the cross as bullets shatter him, Pro shot point blank when the fusillade didn’t kill him) photographed by order of the Presidente. Padre Pro was beatified by Pope John Paul II the Great in 1988.

I was shown the early trailers because of the family connection. My grandfather Will Buckley Sr. was a strong supporter of the Cristeros. A devout Catholic with business interests in Mexico and an ardent love of that country, so much so that he planned to move his family there, Buckley provided materiel aid to the impoverished peasants. Some things we know to be true. He was targeted for assassination; his oil leases were expropriated by the government; he was expelled. Others are in question: that there was actual attempt to kill him (another version has it that the assassins turned and offered him assistance should he want someone capped); that a train he hired to smuggle in arms from El Paso (maybe) became lost, wandered about at night, ultimately found its way back to El Paso and the weapons were confiscated; and that his heirs were also banished but don’t tell my cousin who has been practicing law there for decades.

You know nothing of this uprising? Not to worry, virtually no one does. That included the primary actors. Garcia tells the Huffington Post he knew nothing, but understands it, given that the same catastrophe befell native Cuba, where it “was not only the taking away of religious rights, they curtailed and took away all rights.” Even Verastegui, a fervent Catholic, admits he was ignorant of this struggle because of the Mexican public school system. That has changed now thanks to the soft-spoken and elegant Mexican real estate developer-turned-producer Pablo Jose Barroso.

Much is being written about the timing of the movie’s release in the wake of the Obama administration’s anti-religious mandate and on the eve of the bishops’ planned “Fortnight for Freedom” June 21 through July 4. The timing is extraordinary but fortuitous. The movie was planned before President Obama’s assault against the Catholic Church.

But just the idea of the connection brings out the worst in the secularist press. Slant magazine pans it as a film “that gives the screen epic a bad name.” It attacks the “solemn speechifying,” the “overstuffed cast of characters,” the “half-baked material,” and given “this religion is specifically Catholic… [the movie] …makes the material a tough sell.” When Garcia’s character ultimately converts to Christianity, “we’re back to embracing a worldview where the implied mandate to practice Catholicism feels near as onerous as the inability to do so.”


READ MORE