Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots
Part 2 – The Foundation
The 1st Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The church’s responsibility is to inform the public as to the qualifications required of our leaders. In Exodus 18:21, God spoke to Moses through the wise counsel of his father-in-law, Jethro, saying, “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:”. These “rulers” were to settle minor disputes themselves, but would bring major issues to Moses for final judgment. Those men became the government of the nation of Israel.
Until 1954 we could “name names” and compare candidates or office holders to each other and to Biblical standards. Now we can only generalize. The changes to the IRS tax codes that Congress passed in 1954 prohibited the church from informing the people of the character of a political candidate. That change to tax laws prohibited the free exercise of religion and directly violates the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Public schools were originally established and funded by tax dollars so that the people would be taught to read and understand the Word of God with the Bible being its main source for information. If government tried to pass legislation that was contrary to God’s Word the people would know it and then take action to stop it. We have allowed our government to redefine our Constitution and read things into it that our Founding Fathers would never have allowed. We have allowed activist judges to read into our Constitution the “right to privacy” by which a woman can obtain an abortion at any time for any reason.
To fully understand just what the role of the church is supposed to be in this nation we have to look at the role of the church before our independence, during our fight for independence and up until 1954 when the church was taken out of the political arena. Many of you will be surprised to learn how deeply involved the church and the Word of God was in the drafting of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. I know that there will be many pastors that will be shocked at the church’s involvement in the development of our government. Too many pastors believe that the church shouldn’t be involved in politics at all. What this book will reveal will be unfamiliar to many pulpits. Revisionist historians have taught what THEY want you to believe instead of what the real history actually is.
There was a book printed that contained the writings of George Washington on four different areas of life. The original book contained comments by his contemporaries. The book is now being printed again. However, the comments are now by revisionists and they have left out almost all of the religious references from the original book and all of the commentaries of his contemporaries and refer to him as a deist. How you can print a book that is full of outright lies and call it historically accurate is beyond me.
Our Founding Fathers took their faith very seriously but many today would like you to believe differently. When the Massachusetts Bay colony was established in 1620, the “pilgrims” established why they were there before they got off of the boat. They wrote the Mayflower Compact.
“In the Name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, or England, France and Ireland, King defender of the Faith,
Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid;”
The “Ends aforesaid” was the advancement of the Christian faith. Our Founding Fathers lived their faith. Most churches today have a 30 minute message ending with “Call our office Monday-Friday between 9-5 if you want to get saved.” Most modern Americans couldn’t handle the church services in those days. They usually lasted from 4-6 hours and most of the town would attend. It was a firm belief of our Founding Fathers that to serve in public office you had to be a Christian.
We generally understand and agree that the primary purpose and function of the United States Supreme Court is to decide if the laws that are passed by Congress fall within the parameters set out by the Constitution. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court stated, “Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers. It is the duty as well as the privilege and the interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians as their rulers.”
Another of our Founding Fathers was Patrick Henry. His most famous (shortened) statement was ”Give me liberty or give me death.” This is not being taught in schools any more. It promotes patriotism and self-worth and that causes problems with dictating what some people want you to believe. Another statement he made which I assure you will never be taught in public schools is this one: “It can’t be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded NOT by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.” The revisionist historians want you to believe that Patrick Henry was a deist. (A deist generally believes a supreme being created the universe and that this truth can be known without either faith or organized religion. In most cases, a deist also rejects the idea that God intervenes in human affairs.) The revisionists want you to believe that most of the Founding Fathers were deists, even though ALL evidence proves otherwise. People simply don’t research anything out for themselves. There were 55 signers of the Constitution- 29 were Episcopalians, several were Methodist, and some were Baptist. There was only one alleged deist and that was Ben Franklin, but even he had enough sense to know that Providence should be called upon at times. Members of the Constitutional Convention had spent weeks debating key provisions of the Constitution without making any progress. During that time of intense debate, Franklin addressed the Convention on June 28, 1787. A part of that speech reads, “All of us who were engaged in this struggle must have observed frequent instances of superintending Providence in our favor.” So, that statement by Ben Franklin effectively destroys the revisionist’s theory about him. The next few sentences of his speech “seals the deal” on refuting his so-called deism:
“To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting, in peace, on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend, or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see this truth, that God governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”
Following that speech, our Founding Fathers spent four hours in prayer. In a public facility, our government officials had prayer and then followed that with preaching - the message was so moving that John Adams wrote to his wife about how important it was. From that moment on the Constitution began to come together with surprising ease.
Thirteen years earlier, Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence who would become the governor of Massachusetts, wrote; “We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient, He reigns in heaven from the rising to the setting of the sun. Let His kingdom come.” He also made this statement: “Pray that the light of the gospel and the right of conscience may be continued to the people of the United America and that His Holy Word may be improved by them so that the Name of God will be exalted and their liberty and happiness be secure. That He would be pleased to bless our federal government.” The Foundation is laid.
© Pastor Roger Anghis
Monday, November 8, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots Part 1- The Beginning
Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots
Part 1- The Beginning
The religious roots of our nation go very deep. Over the last 50-75 years we have lost a tremendous amount of truth: the history of how Christian religion not only governed the daily lives of our Founding Fathers but how that same faith was always a major factor in the politics of this nation.
In his seminal work, Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler stated that the bigger the lie and the more often that it is told the easier it is to get the masses to believe it. In the 30’s and 40’s Hitler did just, that and the result was a world war that cost the lives of over 60 million people.
In 1947 our Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment had erected a “wall of separation” between the church and state, and it had to remain impregnable. There was no preceding evidence of this “truth” in any court ruling for over 170 years, and not even in the first Supreme Court was the church/state position challenged. Yet, the Supreme Court of 1947 decided that our Founding Fathers were uninformed as to the meaning of the 1st Amendment. The 1947 Supreme Court for the first time used ONLY the phrase “separation of church and state” instead of the whole context of that sentence which is not found in any of our founding documents, but in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. A letter was written to then President Jefferson because they had a concern that the US might try to establish a state church as had been done in England. The state ran the church and taxed the people to support the church. When you read the entire letter that Jefferson wrote you will find that he does use the statement “separation of church and state” but it is easily understood that what he is talking about is keeping the government out of the affairs of the church, not keeping the church completely out of the government. In other words the ‘separation’ was an institutional separation not an influential separation. The Supreme Court decision of 1947 by liberal judges put on the Supreme Court by FDR, completely redefined the 1st Amendment. In that day 97% of the people of this nation declared an allegiance to God and in a nation where the majority rules, the 3% of our nation that did not believe in God ruled over the 97%.
In the early 1950’s one of the Supreme Court justices warned that we had better STOP using the phrase “separation of church and state” without it’s proper context or people would begin believing that it was part of our Constitution. Most of the people I talk to today about the so-called “separation of church and state” do believe that it is part of our Constitution. The bigger the lie and the more you tell it makes it easier for the masses to believe it.
Preachers today don’t believe that the church is supposed to be involved in the political arena. Because the church does not address this part of American life we have politicians that won’t protect our borders, we have politicians that believe that it is a woman’s right to destroy her unborn child and we have politicians that refuse to support our troops fighting the war on terror. The Bible teaches us that however the church goes, the nation goes. Preachers today don’t have a problem with how the government has taken our right to be involved in the politics of this nation away from us. Without the church’s influence our politicians have begun to take this nation down a path of destruction. And because pastors are afraid of losing their 501(c)3 tax-exempt status, they won’t stand up for their rights.
I have tried to help pastors educate their people as to what they can and should be doing in terms of their involvement with political issues, and the typical response is, “We don’t do anything political”. I invited 200 pastors to a meeting concerning this and only one pastor showed up! Some pastors won’t even take a side on abortions and same-sex marriages for fear of losing members or their coveted 501(c)3. They claim that it is a political issue. It has become a political issue but more importantly it is a moral issue that the church should be addressing. Half of the people sitting in the pews are living together without the benefit of marriage but the church won’t preach against it for fear of offending someone. One pastor I talked to felt “comfortable” with the American church’s present lack of involvement in the political arena. I used to feel the same way until one day the Holy Spirit asked me, ‘What if I’m not comfortable with the lack of involvement of the church in the political arena?” That is the question that pastors must ask themselves. Is God happy that the church is absent from the political arena and from the government?
There was a point in time in this nation when you couldn’t get elected UNLESS you confessed Jesus as Lord and had a record of attending church regularly. Religion was very important during the days of our Founding Fathers. One man was fined $500 for using the Name of the Lord in vain. That was over a year’s wages at the time. Today you hear people inside the church building using language that reminds you of a drunken sailor. I even heard the son of a pastor who could cuss better than some on the streets. Just a short while ago a man in a public meeting cursed and was arrested and jailed. When he got before a judge, the judge told the police that they had violated his right of free speech. What kind of place have we come to in the church and in our nation?
Today’s churches preach a lukewarm message not wanting to offend anyone. Any time you teach the truth somebody is going to be offended. Lukewarm messages have never built a strong church. Revelation 3:16 “So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew you out of My mouth.”
Many of the preachers that I talk to don’t believe that the church is supposed to be involved in the political arena. But in the Bible God ALWAYS had a man or woman of God close to the king, ALWAYS! Saul, Israel’s first king had Samuel the prophet. Every king, whether they were godly or not, had a man of God to influence them. Even our presidents have had godly men to influence them. One man, Billy Graham, has counseled and prayed with every president since Harry Truman. Eleven presidents have been blessed by Dr. Graham’s prayer and influence. Every president we have had has had a man of God to advise him and pray for him. Our presidents have not always taken the advice of these godly men just as the kings in the Old Testament didn’t always take heed to the advice of the prophets. We have seen some presidents ignore the godly principles of our Founding Fathers and take our nation down a path that leads away from the things of God. One such president was Woodrow Wilson. He was a racist and a progressive with beliefs that were closely akin to Marxism. Later, we had Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the White House. He set this nation on the road to socialism and there are many today in that same political party that are hell-bent on finishing that journey. They support forcing religious organizations to hire homosexuals. They passed “hate crimes” legislation that could make preaching the Biblical view of homosexuality against the law. Over the years, they have supported the removal of religion from the public view including displays of the Ten Commandment, pictures of Jesus and the removal of prayer from government meetings.
The church has to stand up for its rights or we will lose all of our rights. Many pastors say that we have to abide by the laws. But when the laws of man violate the laws of God, Christians, and especially preachers of the gospel, are required to obey God! When John and Peter were brought before the Sanhedrin and told to no longer speak in the Name of Jesus, Peter refused to follow that order: Acts 4:18 “And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
(19) But Peter and John answered and said unto them, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye”.
(20) For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”
Until 1954 the church leaders could talk about political candidates from the pulpit openly, and whether the individuals and their words and actions were godly or ungodly. We could talk about political parties and whether their platforms and candidates stood for godly things or ungodly things. In 1948, Lyndon Johnson won his first election to the senate by a total of only 87 votes. He had a lot of political connections and was able to stop every attempt at a recount. During the 1954 senatorial campaign, this information was leaked to two 501(c)3 non-profit organizations that then began to inform the public about a possible rigged election. As a result, Johnson had language inserted into the IRS codes that barred any 501(c)3 from supporting or opposing a political candidate or a political party. Johnson was able to silence his opposition. The church had been silenced ever since.
© Pastor Roger Anghis
Part 1- The Beginning
The religious roots of our nation go very deep. Over the last 50-75 years we have lost a tremendous amount of truth: the history of how Christian religion not only governed the daily lives of our Founding Fathers but how that same faith was always a major factor in the politics of this nation.
In his seminal work, Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler stated that the bigger the lie and the more often that it is told the easier it is to get the masses to believe it. In the 30’s and 40’s Hitler did just, that and the result was a world war that cost the lives of over 60 million people.
In 1947 our Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment had erected a “wall of separation” between the church and state, and it had to remain impregnable. There was no preceding evidence of this “truth” in any court ruling for over 170 years, and not even in the first Supreme Court was the church/state position challenged. Yet, the Supreme Court of 1947 decided that our Founding Fathers were uninformed as to the meaning of the 1st Amendment. The 1947 Supreme Court for the first time used ONLY the phrase “separation of church and state” instead of the whole context of that sentence which is not found in any of our founding documents, but in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. A letter was written to then President Jefferson because they had a concern that the US might try to establish a state church as had been done in England. The state ran the church and taxed the people to support the church. When you read the entire letter that Jefferson wrote you will find that he does use the statement “separation of church and state” but it is easily understood that what he is talking about is keeping the government out of the affairs of the church, not keeping the church completely out of the government. In other words the ‘separation’ was an institutional separation not an influential separation. The Supreme Court decision of 1947 by liberal judges put on the Supreme Court by FDR, completely redefined the 1st Amendment. In that day 97% of the people of this nation declared an allegiance to God and in a nation where the majority rules, the 3% of our nation that did not believe in God ruled over the 97%.
In the early 1950’s one of the Supreme Court justices warned that we had better STOP using the phrase “separation of church and state” without it’s proper context or people would begin believing that it was part of our Constitution. Most of the people I talk to today about the so-called “separation of church and state” do believe that it is part of our Constitution. The bigger the lie and the more you tell it makes it easier for the masses to believe it.
Preachers today don’t believe that the church is supposed to be involved in the political arena. Because the church does not address this part of American life we have politicians that won’t protect our borders, we have politicians that believe that it is a woman’s right to destroy her unborn child and we have politicians that refuse to support our troops fighting the war on terror. The Bible teaches us that however the church goes, the nation goes. Preachers today don’t have a problem with how the government has taken our right to be involved in the politics of this nation away from us. Without the church’s influence our politicians have begun to take this nation down a path of destruction. And because pastors are afraid of losing their 501(c)3 tax-exempt status, they won’t stand up for their rights.
I have tried to help pastors educate their people as to what they can and should be doing in terms of their involvement with political issues, and the typical response is, “We don’t do anything political”. I invited 200 pastors to a meeting concerning this and only one pastor showed up! Some pastors won’t even take a side on abortions and same-sex marriages for fear of losing members or their coveted 501(c)3. They claim that it is a political issue. It has become a political issue but more importantly it is a moral issue that the church should be addressing. Half of the people sitting in the pews are living together without the benefit of marriage but the church won’t preach against it for fear of offending someone. One pastor I talked to felt “comfortable” with the American church’s present lack of involvement in the political arena. I used to feel the same way until one day the Holy Spirit asked me, ‘What if I’m not comfortable with the lack of involvement of the church in the political arena?” That is the question that pastors must ask themselves. Is God happy that the church is absent from the political arena and from the government?
There was a point in time in this nation when you couldn’t get elected UNLESS you confessed Jesus as Lord and had a record of attending church regularly. Religion was very important during the days of our Founding Fathers. One man was fined $500 for using the Name of the Lord in vain. That was over a year’s wages at the time. Today you hear people inside the church building using language that reminds you of a drunken sailor. I even heard the son of a pastor who could cuss better than some on the streets. Just a short while ago a man in a public meeting cursed and was arrested and jailed. When he got before a judge, the judge told the police that they had violated his right of free speech. What kind of place have we come to in the church and in our nation?
Today’s churches preach a lukewarm message not wanting to offend anyone. Any time you teach the truth somebody is going to be offended. Lukewarm messages have never built a strong church. Revelation 3:16 “So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew you out of My mouth.”
Many of the preachers that I talk to don’t believe that the church is supposed to be involved in the political arena. But in the Bible God ALWAYS had a man or woman of God close to the king, ALWAYS! Saul, Israel’s first king had Samuel the prophet. Every king, whether they were godly or not, had a man of God to influence them. Even our presidents have had godly men to influence them. One man, Billy Graham, has counseled and prayed with every president since Harry Truman. Eleven presidents have been blessed by Dr. Graham’s prayer and influence. Every president we have had has had a man of God to advise him and pray for him. Our presidents have not always taken the advice of these godly men just as the kings in the Old Testament didn’t always take heed to the advice of the prophets. We have seen some presidents ignore the godly principles of our Founding Fathers and take our nation down a path that leads away from the things of God. One such president was Woodrow Wilson. He was a racist and a progressive with beliefs that were closely akin to Marxism. Later, we had Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the White House. He set this nation on the road to socialism and there are many today in that same political party that are hell-bent on finishing that journey. They support forcing religious organizations to hire homosexuals. They passed “hate crimes” legislation that could make preaching the Biblical view of homosexuality against the law. Over the years, they have supported the removal of religion from the public view including displays of the Ten Commandment, pictures of Jesus and the removal of prayer from government meetings.
The church has to stand up for its rights or we will lose all of our rights. Many pastors say that we have to abide by the laws. But when the laws of man violate the laws of God, Christians, and especially preachers of the gospel, are required to obey God! When John and Peter were brought before the Sanhedrin and told to no longer speak in the Name of Jesus, Peter refused to follow that order: Acts 4:18 “And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
(19) But Peter and John answered and said unto them, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye”.
(20) For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”
Until 1954 the church leaders could talk about political candidates from the pulpit openly, and whether the individuals and their words and actions were godly or ungodly. We could talk about political parties and whether their platforms and candidates stood for godly things or ungodly things. In 1948, Lyndon Johnson won his first election to the senate by a total of only 87 votes. He had a lot of political connections and was able to stop every attempt at a recount. During the 1954 senatorial campaign, this information was leaked to two 501(c)3 non-profit organizations that then began to inform the public about a possible rigged election. As a result, Johnson had language inserted into the IRS codes that barred any 501(c)3 from supporting or opposing a political candidate or a political party. Johnson was able to silence his opposition. The church had been silenced ever since.
© Pastor Roger Anghis
Friday, October 29, 2010
Time to reunite church and state
John Adams, our second U.S. president, famously observed: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The U.S. Constitution, indeed our entire republican form of government, was crafted by deeply pious men who were overwhelmingly Christian. It was fashioned within the context and framework of the Judeo-Christian zeitgeist of the time and was further intended to function in harmony with a Judeo-Christian worldview – period. Though leftists may deny this reality, it remains indisputable fact. The historical record is unequivocal.
Patrick Henry said this: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"
George Washington agreed:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. … [R]eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
I'll say it: I agree with George Washington. Those godless, postmodern secular-socialists, who, today, hold the reins of government, are unpatriotic. Fringe leftists like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seek to "subvert" Washington's "great pillars" of "religion and morality" and are distinctly un-American for it.
Part and parcel of Obama's agenda has been to push, at a fever pitch, the most extremist pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-Christian agenda in American history.
Indeed, in contrast with the deeply held religious and moral values embraced by our Founding Fathers, today's America is governed by an "immoral" and "irreligious" chief executive. Barack Obama is the high priest of secular-socialism.
He seeks to undermine – if not altogether dismantle – the American exceptionalism that, hitherto, has been fundamentally woven throughout our national fabric.
He aspires to the lowest common denominator. He seeks to uproot Ronald Reagan's "shining city on a hill" and relocate the "land of the free and the home of the brave" to a much lower altitude, alongside those Euro-Marxist nations he so admires and wistfully desires to emulate.
The U.S. Constitution was neither intended to, nor can it, work in harmony with the postmodern secular-socialist worldview embraced by those on the political left. Such a worldview is, by its very nature, counter-constitutional.
Whereas the Constitution was intended to guarantee individual liberty and justice, limit the size and scope of the federal government and secure freedom of speech and religious expression; the goal of the secular-socialist is to control nearly every aspect of an individual's life, to massively expand the size and scope of the federal government and to suppress – if not altogether smother – freedom of speech and religious expression.
To the secular-socialist, the Constitution is a relevant document only insofar as it constitutes an encumbrance to "progress." It must be circumvented and overcome at all cost, and by any means available. Why else do you suppose President Obama has called our original "contract with America" – the U.S. Constitution – an "imperfect document," a "living document … that reflects some deep flaws in American culture ..."?
Rather than properly viewing our Constitution as a God-inspired tool to be used in furtherance of Washington's "indispensable supports" of "religion and morality," this arrogant little man, with singular resolve and discipline, forges ahead with his thinly veiled, yet wholly destructive left-wing political agenda: Namely, to "fundamentally change America" to reflect his own secular-socialist self-image.
Au contraire, Monsieur le Président.
Enter the tea-party revolution (a national clamoring for a return to our nation's founding principles). America has coldly and quite vocally rejected Obama's anti-American agenda.
You've heard it said, but I'll say it again: People with conservative values – particularly Christians – need to take back America. We must take charge of government at every level from the municipal hall to the White House.
It's time for men of the cloth – as they did during the first American Revolution – to exercise true leadership, return to the pulpit and call for national revival, both spiritual and political. As George Washington so astutely observed, the notion that political issues, and those of "religion and morality," are somehow mutually exclusive, is patently absurd. They are one in the same.
Am I calling for a theocracy? Of course not. Am I calling for men and women of strong faith to retake control of all high-level positions of influence in government, academia, media and entertainment? Absolutely.
The late, great Rev. Jerry Falwell perhaps said it best: "I'm being accused of being controversial and political. I'm not political. But moral issues that become political, I still fight. It isn't my fault that they've made these moral issues political. But because they have doesn't stop the preachers of the Gospel from addressing them."
Pastors, priests and rabbis: It's up to you to address, head-on, these moral issues. Don't be intimidated by anti-theist groups like the ACLU, American's United for Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way and the like. These hard-left outfits engage in dishonest letter-writing schemes and file frivolous threats with the IRS in hopes of silencing you. Don't be silenced.
Guess how many churches have been penalized, or have lost tax-exempt status due to even one of these complaints: Exactly zero. To call these groups "paper tigers" is too strong. They're paper kittens.
Pastors: You have an absolute constitutional right, if not a duty, to stand at the pulpit and educate your flock about the hot-button political/moral issues of the day. You also have an absolute right to tell your flock exactly where candidates stand on these issues. You can even, as an individual, publicly endorse candidates. Most importantly, you have an absolute right to encourage parishioners to vote in accordance with their faith.
Biblical values must once again guide our political and cultural decisions and discourse, or tragically, this great American experiment – having survived longer than any governmental system in existence – may be at its twilight.
Still, I somehow doubt that the sun has set on this, the greatest nation on Earth. To borrow from a truly great president, Ronald Reagan, come Nov. 3, I suspect, instead, we'll once again awaken to a bright new future. We'll once again awaken to "morning in America."
Christians: Make it happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book "The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War" and serves as director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net / Facebook.com/jmattbarber / Twitter @jmattbarber (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)
John Adams, our second U.S. president, famously observed: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The U.S. Constitution, indeed our entire republican form of government, was crafted by deeply pious men who were overwhelmingly Christian. It was fashioned within the context and framework of the Judeo-Christian zeitgeist of the time and was further intended to function in harmony with a Judeo-Christian worldview – period. Though leftists may deny this reality, it remains indisputable fact. The historical record is unequivocal.
Patrick Henry said this: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"
George Washington agreed:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. … [R]eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
I'll say it: I agree with George Washington. Those godless, postmodern secular-socialists, who, today, hold the reins of government, are unpatriotic. Fringe leftists like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seek to "subvert" Washington's "great pillars" of "religion and morality" and are distinctly un-American for it.
Part and parcel of Obama's agenda has been to push, at a fever pitch, the most extremist pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-Christian agenda in American history.
Indeed, in contrast with the deeply held religious and moral values embraced by our Founding Fathers, today's America is governed by an "immoral" and "irreligious" chief executive. Barack Obama is the high priest of secular-socialism.
He seeks to undermine – if not altogether dismantle – the American exceptionalism that, hitherto, has been fundamentally woven throughout our national fabric.
He aspires to the lowest common denominator. He seeks to uproot Ronald Reagan's "shining city on a hill" and relocate the "land of the free and the home of the brave" to a much lower altitude, alongside those Euro-Marxist nations he so admires and wistfully desires to emulate.
The U.S. Constitution was neither intended to, nor can it, work in harmony with the postmodern secular-socialist worldview embraced by those on the political left. Such a worldview is, by its very nature, counter-constitutional.
Whereas the Constitution was intended to guarantee individual liberty and justice, limit the size and scope of the federal government and secure freedom of speech and religious expression; the goal of the secular-socialist is to control nearly every aspect of an individual's life, to massively expand the size and scope of the federal government and to suppress – if not altogether smother – freedom of speech and religious expression.
To the secular-socialist, the Constitution is a relevant document only insofar as it constitutes an encumbrance to "progress." It must be circumvented and overcome at all cost, and by any means available. Why else do you suppose President Obama has called our original "contract with America" – the U.S. Constitution – an "imperfect document," a "living document … that reflects some deep flaws in American culture ..."?
Rather than properly viewing our Constitution as a God-inspired tool to be used in furtherance of Washington's "indispensable supports" of "religion and morality," this arrogant little man, with singular resolve and discipline, forges ahead with his thinly veiled, yet wholly destructive left-wing political agenda: Namely, to "fundamentally change America" to reflect his own secular-socialist self-image.
Au contraire, Monsieur le Président.
Enter the tea-party revolution (a national clamoring for a return to our nation's founding principles). America has coldly and quite vocally rejected Obama's anti-American agenda.
You've heard it said, but I'll say it again: People with conservative values – particularly Christians – need to take back America. We must take charge of government at every level from the municipal hall to the White House.
It's time for men of the cloth – as they did during the first American Revolution – to exercise true leadership, return to the pulpit and call for national revival, both spiritual and political. As George Washington so astutely observed, the notion that political issues, and those of "religion and morality," are somehow mutually exclusive, is patently absurd. They are one in the same.
Am I calling for a theocracy? Of course not. Am I calling for men and women of strong faith to retake control of all high-level positions of influence in government, academia, media and entertainment? Absolutely.
The late, great Rev. Jerry Falwell perhaps said it best: "I'm being accused of being controversial and political. I'm not political. But moral issues that become political, I still fight. It isn't my fault that they've made these moral issues political. But because they have doesn't stop the preachers of the Gospel from addressing them."
Pastors, priests and rabbis: It's up to you to address, head-on, these moral issues. Don't be intimidated by anti-theist groups like the ACLU, American's United for Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way and the like. These hard-left outfits engage in dishonest letter-writing schemes and file frivolous threats with the IRS in hopes of silencing you. Don't be silenced.
Guess how many churches have been penalized, or have lost tax-exempt status due to even one of these complaints: Exactly zero. To call these groups "paper tigers" is too strong. They're paper kittens.
Pastors: You have an absolute constitutional right, if not a duty, to stand at the pulpit and educate your flock about the hot-button political/moral issues of the day. You also have an absolute right to tell your flock exactly where candidates stand on these issues. You can even, as an individual, publicly endorse candidates. Most importantly, you have an absolute right to encourage parishioners to vote in accordance with their faith.
Biblical values must once again guide our political and cultural decisions and discourse, or tragically, this great American experiment – having survived longer than any governmental system in existence – may be at its twilight.
Still, I somehow doubt that the sun has set on this, the greatest nation on Earth. To borrow from a truly great president, Ronald Reagan, come Nov. 3, I suspect, instead, we'll once again awaken to a bright new future. We'll once again awaken to "morning in America."
Christians: Make it happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book "The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War" and serves as director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net / Facebook.com/jmattbarber / Twitter @jmattbarber (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
“LIVABLE COMMUNITIES” is a SOCIALIST TRAP
“LIVABLE COMMUNITIES” is a SOCIALIST TRAP!
Another power grab by the dirtbags in Washington.
By Tom DeWeese
Senator Christopher Dodd has introduced a bill to enforce UN Agenda 21 policy on your community. It’s called the “Livable Communities Act” (S.1619). It will destroy your community. Here’s why:
S. 1619 “Livable Communities” act is on a fast track to passage!
S.1619 is a blueprint for the transformation of our society into total federal control.
S.1619 will enforce federal Sustainable Development zoning and control of local communities.
S.1619 will create a massive new “development” bureaucracy --
(development Czar?)
S.1619 will drive up the cost of energy to heat and cool your home.
S.1619 will drive up the cost of gasoline as a way to get you out of your car.
S.1619 will force you to spend thousands on your home in order to comply.
S.1619 is NOT Voluntary – it will set up $4 billion in grants (TAX MONEY WE DON’T HAVE) that will force your community to comply.
Here are the facts:
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) has authored a bill S.1619 titled the “Livable Communities Act.” It is one of the most dangerous bills to ever threaten our liberty. Worse even than the Obamacare scheme.
S.1619 creates a new permanent federal office: The Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities" for the enforcement of this bill the "Development Czar" if you will.
Sen. Dodd is lying when he says S.1619 is purely voluntary. The $4 billion in grants will be used by radical green groups (who helped write it) to force your city council to comply. If our city says no to the pressure to take the grant money – the radical greens will tell your citizens that their city officials are losing them millions of dollars that is owed to the community. Then, when the council caves into the pressure and takes the money, it will force compliance. THAT IS NOT VOLUNTARY – IT IS BLACKMAIL.
Senator Dodd will tell you that the bill is simply about uniformity to control development to save energy and to preserve rural areas. That is not true. After 15 years of fighting Sustainable policy I can assure you it is about control. Sustainablist policy focuses on three things: land use, redistribution of wealth, and population control.
S.1619 sets up a system for federally mandated housing uniformity, forcing homeowners to put on new roofs and windows, new “energy efficient’ appliances, etc. (Which could cost each homeowner upwards of $35,000.00)
- S.1619 will establish top down control that turns our communities into little soviets, driven by non-elected boards, councils and regional governments.
- As it reduces the amount of land available for homes (smart growth) S.1619 will have to lead to the establishment of federally mandated family planning for population control.
- And of course: it will raise taxes.
The nation is on the verge of bankruptcy from massive federal spending. This is certainly not the time to create new bureaucracies and spending boondoggles – even if Sustainable Development was an honest concern over environmental protection – WHICH IT IS NOT!. Sustainable Development is a blue print for top-down control of our communities, using enforcement by non-elected boards, councils and regional government to transform our local control into a little soviet run by untouchable bureaucrats.
S.1619 is the first federal Sustainable Development law to enforce the UN’s Agenda 21. It must be stopped now – or every single community in America will be forced to comply with UN policy.
S.1619 has already been passed out of the Senate Banking Committee and is headed for a floor vote.
Another power grab by the dirtbags in Washington.
By Tom DeWeese
Senator Christopher Dodd has introduced a bill to enforce UN Agenda 21 policy on your community. It’s called the “Livable Communities Act” (S.1619). It will destroy your community. Here’s why:
S. 1619 “Livable Communities” act is on a fast track to passage!
S.1619 is a blueprint for the transformation of our society into total federal control.
S.1619 will enforce federal Sustainable Development zoning and control of local communities.
S.1619 will create a massive new “development” bureaucracy --
(development Czar?)
S.1619 will drive up the cost of energy to heat and cool your home.
S.1619 will drive up the cost of gasoline as a way to get you out of your car.
S.1619 will force you to spend thousands on your home in order to comply.
S.1619 is NOT Voluntary – it will set up $4 billion in grants (TAX MONEY WE DON’T HAVE) that will force your community to comply.
Here are the facts:
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) has authored a bill S.1619 titled the “Livable Communities Act.” It is one of the most dangerous bills to ever threaten our liberty. Worse even than the Obamacare scheme.
S.1619 creates a new permanent federal office: The Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities" for the enforcement of this bill the "Development Czar" if you will.
Sen. Dodd is lying when he says S.1619 is purely voluntary. The $4 billion in grants will be used by radical green groups (who helped write it) to force your city council to comply. If our city says no to the pressure to take the grant money – the radical greens will tell your citizens that their city officials are losing them millions of dollars that is owed to the community. Then, when the council caves into the pressure and takes the money, it will force compliance. THAT IS NOT VOLUNTARY – IT IS BLACKMAIL.
Senator Dodd will tell you that the bill is simply about uniformity to control development to save energy and to preserve rural areas. That is not true. After 15 years of fighting Sustainable policy I can assure you it is about control. Sustainablist policy focuses on three things: land use, redistribution of wealth, and population control.
S.1619 sets up a system for federally mandated housing uniformity, forcing homeowners to put on new roofs and windows, new “energy efficient’ appliances, etc. (Which could cost each homeowner upwards of $35,000.00)
- S.1619 will establish top down control that turns our communities into little soviets, driven by non-elected boards, councils and regional governments.
- As it reduces the amount of land available for homes (smart growth) S.1619 will have to lead to the establishment of federally mandated family planning for population control.
- And of course: it will raise taxes.
The nation is on the verge of bankruptcy from massive federal spending. This is certainly not the time to create new bureaucracies and spending boondoggles – even if Sustainable Development was an honest concern over environmental protection – WHICH IT IS NOT!. Sustainable Development is a blue print for top-down control of our communities, using enforcement by non-elected boards, councils and regional government to transform our local control into a little soviet run by untouchable bureaucrats.
S.1619 is the first federal Sustainable Development law to enforce the UN’s Agenda 21. It must be stopped now – or every single community in America will be forced to comply with UN policy.
S.1619 has already been passed out of the Senate Banking Committee and is headed for a floor vote.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots Part 1- The Beginning
Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots
Part 1- The Beginning
The religious roots of our nation go very deep. Over the last 50-75 years we have lost a tremendous amount of truth of how religion governed not only the daily lives of our founding Fathers but how it was always deeply involved in the politics of this nation.
In Hitler’s Mein Kompf, he states that the bigger the lie and the more often that it is told the easier it is to get the masses to believe it. In the 30’s and 40’s he did just that and the result was a world war that cost the lives of over 60 million people.
In 1947 our Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment had erected a wall of separation between the church and state and it had to remain impregnable. Even though there was no evidence of this in any court ruling for over 170 years, not even in the first Supreme Court was the church/state position challenged, yet somehow, the Supreme Court of 1947 decided that our Founding Fathers were uniformed as to the meaning of the 1st Amendment. The 1947 Supreme Court for the first time used ONLY the phrase “separation of church and state” instead of the whole context of that sentence which is not found in any of our founding documents, but in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. A letter was written to then President Jefferson because they had a concern that the US might try to establish a state church as had been done in England. The state ran the church and taxed the people to support the church. When you read the entire letter that Jefferson wrote you will find that he does use the statement “separation of church and state” but it is easily understood that what he is talking about is keeping the government out of the affairs of the church, not keeping the church completely out of the government. The Supreme Court decision of 1947 by liberal judges put on the Supreme Court by FDR, completely redefined the 1st Amendment. In that day 97% of the people of this nation declared an allegiance to God and in a nation where the majority rules, the 3% of our nation that did not believe in God ruled over the 97%.
In the early 1950’s one of the Supreme Court justices warned that we had better STOP using the phrase “separation of church and state” in the context that it was being used or people would begin believing that it was part of our Constitution. Most of the people I talk to today about the so-called “separation of church and state” do believe that it is part of our Constitution. The bigger the lie and the more you tell it makes it easier for the masses to believe it.
Preachers today don’t believe that the church is supposed to be involved in the political arena. Because the church does not address this part of American life we have politicians that won’t protect our borders, we have politicians that believe that it is a woman’s right to destroy her unborn child and we have politicians that refuse to support our troops fighting the war on terror. The Bible teaches us that however the church goes, the nation goes. Preachers today don’t have a problem with how the government has taken our right to be involved in the politics of this nation away from us. Without the churches influence our politicians have begun to take this nation down a path of destruction. And because pastors are afraid of losing their 501 (c) 3 rating, they won’t stand up for their rights.
I have tried to help pastors educate their people as to what they should be doing as far as their involvement even with political issues, and the typical response is, “We don’t do anything political”. I invited 200 pastors to a meeting concerning this and one pastor show up! Some pastors won’t even take a side on abortions and same-sex marriages for fear of losing members or their coveted 501 (c) 3. They claim that it is a political issue. It has become a political issue but more importantly it is a moral issue that the church should be addressing. Half of the people sitting in the pews are living together without the benefit of marriage but the church won’t preach against it for fear of offending someone. One pastor I talked to felt comfortable with the present lack of involvement of the church in the political arena. I used to feel the same way until one day the Holy Spirit asked me, ‘What if I’m not comfortable with the lack of involvement of the church in the political arena?” That is the question that pastors must ask themselves. Is God happy that the church is absent from the political arena and from the government?
There was a point in time in this nation when you couldn’t get elected UNLESS you confessed Jesus as Lord and had a record of attending church regularly. Religion was very important during the days of our Founding Fathers. One man was fined $500 for using the Name of the Lord in vain. That was over a year’s wages. Today you hear people inside the church using language that reminds you of a drunken sailor. I have even heard the son of a pastor who could cuss better than some on the streets. Just a short while ago a man in a public meeting cursed and was arrested and jailed. When he got before a judge the judge told the police that they had violated his right of free speech. What kind of place have we come to in the church and in our nation?
Today’s churches preach a lukewarm message not wanting to offend anyone. Any time you teach the truth somebody is going to be offended. Lukewarm messages have never built a strong church. Revelation 3:16 “So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.”
Many of the preachers that I talk to don’t believe that the church is supposed to be involved in the political arena. But in the Bible God ALWAYS had a man or woman of God close to the king, ALWAYS! Saul, Israel’s first king had Samuel the prophet. Every king, whether they were godly or not, had a man of God to influence them. Even our presidents have had godly men to influence them. One man, Billy Graham, has influenced and prayed with every president since Harry Truman. Eleven presidents were counseled and prayed with by him. Every president we have had has had a man of God to advise him and pray for him. Our presidents have not always taken the advice of these godly men just as the kings in the Old Testament didn’t always take heed to the advice of the prophets. We have seen some presidents ignore the godly principles of our Founding Fathers and take our nation down a path that leads away from the things of God. One such president was Woodrow Wilson. He was a racist and a progressive which beliefs are equal to Marxism. Then we had FDR. He set this nation on the road to socialism and there are many today in that same party that are hell bent to get us there. They are supporting the forcing of religious organizations to hire homosexuals. They passed hate crimes legislation that would make preaching the gospel concerning the Biblical view of homosexuality against the law. They have supported over the years the removal of religion from the public view including the Ten Commandment displays, pictures of Jesus and the removal of prayer from government meetings.
The church has to stand up for its rights or we will lose all of our rights. Many pastors say that we have to abide by the laws. But when the laws of man violate the laws of God Christians, especially preachers of the gospel, are mandated to obey God! When John and Peter were brought before the Sanhedrin and told to no longer speak in the Name of Jesus, Peter refused to follow that order: Acts 4:18 “And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
(19) But Peter and John answered and said unto them, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye”.
(20) For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”
Up until 1954 the church could talk about political candidates from the pulpit and whether they were godly or ungodly. We could talk about political parties and whether they stood for godly things or ungodly things. In the early fifties Lyndon Johnson won election to the senate by a total of 87 votes. He had a lot of political connections and was able to stop every attempt at a recount. This information was leaked to a 501 (c) 3 that began to inform the public about a possible rigged election. When this information was released by non-profits Johnson had an addendum attached to an IRS bill that barred any 501 (c) 3 from supporting or opposing a political candidate or a political party. Johnson was able to silence his opposition. The church had been silenced.
© Pastor Roger Anghis
Part 1- The Beginning
The religious roots of our nation go very deep. Over the last 50-75 years we have lost a tremendous amount of truth of how religion governed not only the daily lives of our founding Fathers but how it was always deeply involved in the politics of this nation.
In Hitler’s Mein Kompf, he states that the bigger the lie and the more often that it is told the easier it is to get the masses to believe it. In the 30’s and 40’s he did just that and the result was a world war that cost the lives of over 60 million people.
In 1947 our Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment had erected a wall of separation between the church and state and it had to remain impregnable. Even though there was no evidence of this in any court ruling for over 170 years, not even in the first Supreme Court was the church/state position challenged, yet somehow, the Supreme Court of 1947 decided that our Founding Fathers were uniformed as to the meaning of the 1st Amendment. The 1947 Supreme Court for the first time used ONLY the phrase “separation of church and state” instead of the whole context of that sentence which is not found in any of our founding documents, but in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. A letter was written to then President Jefferson because they had a concern that the US might try to establish a state church as had been done in England. The state ran the church and taxed the people to support the church. When you read the entire letter that Jefferson wrote you will find that he does use the statement “separation of church and state” but it is easily understood that what he is talking about is keeping the government out of the affairs of the church, not keeping the church completely out of the government. The Supreme Court decision of 1947 by liberal judges put on the Supreme Court by FDR, completely redefined the 1st Amendment. In that day 97% of the people of this nation declared an allegiance to God and in a nation where the majority rules, the 3% of our nation that did not believe in God ruled over the 97%.
In the early 1950’s one of the Supreme Court justices warned that we had better STOP using the phrase “separation of church and state” in the context that it was being used or people would begin believing that it was part of our Constitution. Most of the people I talk to today about the so-called “separation of church and state” do believe that it is part of our Constitution. The bigger the lie and the more you tell it makes it easier for the masses to believe it.
Preachers today don’t believe that the church is supposed to be involved in the political arena. Because the church does not address this part of American life we have politicians that won’t protect our borders, we have politicians that believe that it is a woman’s right to destroy her unborn child and we have politicians that refuse to support our troops fighting the war on terror. The Bible teaches us that however the church goes, the nation goes. Preachers today don’t have a problem with how the government has taken our right to be involved in the politics of this nation away from us. Without the churches influence our politicians have begun to take this nation down a path of destruction. And because pastors are afraid of losing their 501 (c) 3 rating, they won’t stand up for their rights.
I have tried to help pastors educate their people as to what they should be doing as far as their involvement even with political issues, and the typical response is, “We don’t do anything political”. I invited 200 pastors to a meeting concerning this and one pastor show up! Some pastors won’t even take a side on abortions and same-sex marriages for fear of losing members or their coveted 501 (c) 3. They claim that it is a political issue. It has become a political issue but more importantly it is a moral issue that the church should be addressing. Half of the people sitting in the pews are living together without the benefit of marriage but the church won’t preach against it for fear of offending someone. One pastor I talked to felt comfortable with the present lack of involvement of the church in the political arena. I used to feel the same way until one day the Holy Spirit asked me, ‘What if I’m not comfortable with the lack of involvement of the church in the political arena?” That is the question that pastors must ask themselves. Is God happy that the church is absent from the political arena and from the government?
There was a point in time in this nation when you couldn’t get elected UNLESS you confessed Jesus as Lord and had a record of attending church regularly. Religion was very important during the days of our Founding Fathers. One man was fined $500 for using the Name of the Lord in vain. That was over a year’s wages. Today you hear people inside the church using language that reminds you of a drunken sailor. I have even heard the son of a pastor who could cuss better than some on the streets. Just a short while ago a man in a public meeting cursed and was arrested and jailed. When he got before a judge the judge told the police that they had violated his right of free speech. What kind of place have we come to in the church and in our nation?
Today’s churches preach a lukewarm message not wanting to offend anyone. Any time you teach the truth somebody is going to be offended. Lukewarm messages have never built a strong church. Revelation 3:16 “So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.”
Many of the preachers that I talk to don’t believe that the church is supposed to be involved in the political arena. But in the Bible God ALWAYS had a man or woman of God close to the king, ALWAYS! Saul, Israel’s first king had Samuel the prophet. Every king, whether they were godly or not, had a man of God to influence them. Even our presidents have had godly men to influence them. One man, Billy Graham, has influenced and prayed with every president since Harry Truman. Eleven presidents were counseled and prayed with by him. Every president we have had has had a man of God to advise him and pray for him. Our presidents have not always taken the advice of these godly men just as the kings in the Old Testament didn’t always take heed to the advice of the prophets. We have seen some presidents ignore the godly principles of our Founding Fathers and take our nation down a path that leads away from the things of God. One such president was Woodrow Wilson. He was a racist and a progressive which beliefs are equal to Marxism. Then we had FDR. He set this nation on the road to socialism and there are many today in that same party that are hell bent to get us there. They are supporting the forcing of religious organizations to hire homosexuals. They passed hate crimes legislation that would make preaching the gospel concerning the Biblical view of homosexuality against the law. They have supported over the years the removal of religion from the public view including the Ten Commandment displays, pictures of Jesus and the removal of prayer from government meetings.
The church has to stand up for its rights or we will lose all of our rights. Many pastors say that we have to abide by the laws. But when the laws of man violate the laws of God Christians, especially preachers of the gospel, are mandated to obey God! When John and Peter were brought before the Sanhedrin and told to no longer speak in the Name of Jesus, Peter refused to follow that order: Acts 4:18 “And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
(19) But Peter and John answered and said unto them, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye”.
(20) For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”
Up until 1954 the church could talk about political candidates from the pulpit and whether they were godly or ungodly. We could talk about political parties and whether they stood for godly things or ungodly things. In the early fifties Lyndon Johnson won election to the senate by a total of 87 votes. He had a lot of political connections and was able to stop every attempt at a recount. This information was leaked to a 501 (c) 3 that began to inform the public about a possible rigged election. When this information was released by non-profits Johnson had an addendum attached to an IRS bill that barred any 501 (c) 3 from supporting or opposing a political candidate or a political party. Johnson was able to silence his opposition. The church had been silenced.
© Pastor Roger Anghis
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Communist Scum In Congress
American Socialists Release Names of 70 Congressional Democrats in Their Ranks
by Jim Hoft
The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus.
This admission was recently posted on Scribd.com:
American Socialist Voter–
Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy
Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez,
Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].
Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)
by Jim Hoft
The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus.
This admission was recently posted on Scribd.com:
American Socialist Voter–
Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy
Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez,
Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].
Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)
Obama's Land Grab
How Obama Is Locking Up Our Land
By Michelle Malkin
Have you heard of the "Great Outdoors Initiative"? Chances are, you haven't. But across the country, White House officials have been meeting quietly with environmental groups to map out government plans for acquiring untold millions of acres of both public and private land. It's another stealthy power grab through executive order that promises to radically transform the American way of life.
In April, President Obama issued a memorandum outlining his "21st century strategy for America's great outdoors." It was addressed to the Interior Secretary, the Agriculture Secretary, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. The memo calls on the officials to conduct "listening and learning sessions" with the public to "identify the places that mean the most to Americans, and leverage the support of the Federal Government" to "protect" outdoor spaces. Eighteen of 25 planned sessions have already been held. But there's much more to the agenda than simply "reconnecting Americans to nature."
The federal government, as the memo boasted, is the nation's "largest land manager." It already owns roughly one of every three acres in the United States. This is apparently not enough. At a "listening session" in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of private forest land throughout the New England region. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack crusaded for "the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund -- and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund."
Property owners have every reason to be worried. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a pet project of green radicals, who want the decades-old government slush fund for buying up private lands to be freed from congressional appropriations oversight. It's paid for primarily with receipts from the government's offshore oil and gas leases. Both Senate and House Democrats have included $900 million in full LWCF funding, not subject to congressional approval, in their energy/BP oil spill legislative packages. The Democrats have also included a provision in these packages that would require the federal government to take over energy permitting in state waters, which provoked an outcry from Texas state officials, who sent a letter of protest to Capitol Hill last month:
"In light of federal failures, it is incomprehensible that the United States Congress is entertaining proposals that expand federal authority over oil and gas drilling in state water and lands long regulated by states... Given the track record, putting the federal government in charge of energy production on state land and waters not only breaks years of successful precedent and threatens the 10th Amendment to the United Sates Constitution, but it also undermines common sense and threatens the environmental and economy security of our state's citizens."
This power grab, masquerading as a feel-good, all-American recreation program, comes on top of a separate, property-usurping initiative exposed by GOP Rep. Robert Bishop and Sen. Jim DeMint earlier this spring. According to an internal, 21-page Obama administration memo, 17 energy-rich areas in 11 states have been targeted as potential federal "monuments." The lives of coyotes, deer and prairie dogs would be elevated above states' needs to generate jobs, tourism business and energy solutions.
Take my home state of Colorado. The Obama administration is considering locking up some 380,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management land and private land in Colorado under the 1906 Antiquities Act. The Vermillion Basin and the Alpine Triangle would be shut off to mining, hunting, grazing, oil and gas development and recreational activities. Alan Foutz, president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, blasted the administration's meddling: "Deer and elk populations are thriving, and we in Colorado don't need help from the federal government in order to manage them effectively."
Indeed, the feds have enough trouble as it is managing the vast amount of land they already control. As the Washington, D.C.-based Americans for Limited Government group, which defends private property rights, points out: "The (National Park Service) claims it would need about $9.5 billion just to clear its backlog of the necessary improvements and repairs. At a time when our existing national parks are suffering, it doesn't make sense for the federal government to grab new lands."
The bureaucrats behind Obama's "Great Outdoors Initiative" plan on wrapping up their public comment solicitation by November 15. The initiative's taxpayer-funded website has been dominated by left-wing environmental activists proposing human population reduction, private property confiscation, and gun bans, hunting bans and vehicle bans in national parks. It's time for private property owners to send their own loud, clear message to the land-hungry feds: Take a hike.
By Michelle Malkin
Have you heard of the "Great Outdoors Initiative"? Chances are, you haven't. But across the country, White House officials have been meeting quietly with environmental groups to map out government plans for acquiring untold millions of acres of both public and private land. It's another stealthy power grab through executive order that promises to radically transform the American way of life.
In April, President Obama issued a memorandum outlining his "21st century strategy for America's great outdoors." It was addressed to the Interior Secretary, the Agriculture Secretary, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. The memo calls on the officials to conduct "listening and learning sessions" with the public to "identify the places that mean the most to Americans, and leverage the support of the Federal Government" to "protect" outdoor spaces. Eighteen of 25 planned sessions have already been held. But there's much more to the agenda than simply "reconnecting Americans to nature."
The federal government, as the memo boasted, is the nation's "largest land manager." It already owns roughly one of every three acres in the United States. This is apparently not enough. At a "listening session" in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of private forest land throughout the New England region. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack crusaded for "the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund -- and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund."
Property owners have every reason to be worried. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a pet project of green radicals, who want the decades-old government slush fund for buying up private lands to be freed from congressional appropriations oversight. It's paid for primarily with receipts from the government's offshore oil and gas leases. Both Senate and House Democrats have included $900 million in full LWCF funding, not subject to congressional approval, in their energy/BP oil spill legislative packages. The Democrats have also included a provision in these packages that would require the federal government to take over energy permitting in state waters, which provoked an outcry from Texas state officials, who sent a letter of protest to Capitol Hill last month:
"In light of federal failures, it is incomprehensible that the United States Congress is entertaining proposals that expand federal authority over oil and gas drilling in state water and lands long regulated by states... Given the track record, putting the federal government in charge of energy production on state land and waters not only breaks years of successful precedent and threatens the 10th Amendment to the United Sates Constitution, but it also undermines common sense and threatens the environmental and economy security of our state's citizens."
This power grab, masquerading as a feel-good, all-American recreation program, comes on top of a separate, property-usurping initiative exposed by GOP Rep. Robert Bishop and Sen. Jim DeMint earlier this spring. According to an internal, 21-page Obama administration memo, 17 energy-rich areas in 11 states have been targeted as potential federal "monuments." The lives of coyotes, deer and prairie dogs would be elevated above states' needs to generate jobs, tourism business and energy solutions.
Take my home state of Colorado. The Obama administration is considering locking up some 380,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management land and private land in Colorado under the 1906 Antiquities Act. The Vermillion Basin and the Alpine Triangle would be shut off to mining, hunting, grazing, oil and gas development and recreational activities. Alan Foutz, president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, blasted the administration's meddling: "Deer and elk populations are thriving, and we in Colorado don't need help from the federal government in order to manage them effectively."
Indeed, the feds have enough trouble as it is managing the vast amount of land they already control. As the Washington, D.C.-based Americans for Limited Government group, which defends private property rights, points out: "The (National Park Service) claims it would need about $9.5 billion just to clear its backlog of the necessary improvements and repairs. At a time when our existing national parks are suffering, it doesn't make sense for the federal government to grab new lands."
The bureaucrats behind Obama's "Great Outdoors Initiative" plan on wrapping up their public comment solicitation by November 15. The initiative's taxpayer-funded website has been dominated by left-wing environmental activists proposing human population reduction, private property confiscation, and gun bans, hunting bans and vehicle bans in national parks. It's time for private property owners to send their own loud, clear message to the land-hungry feds: Take a hike.
Mosques and the Islamization of America
Mosques and the Islamization of America
By Amil Imani
Disguised as religion, Islam has penetrated democracies with the aim of replacing civility and liberty with the barbarism of 7th century Islamic theocracy and Sharia law. Islam’s multi-pronged attack aims to destroy all that liberty offers.
America, with a long tradition of protecting religious freedom, still clings to the “hands off” practice of leaving alone any doctrine or practice billed as religion. A thorny problem is in deciding what constitutes a religion and who is to make that call. We must keep in mind that to be a loyal and faithful Muslim, a Muslim must adhere to and perform many obligatory acts, as specified in the Quran by Allah and the Hadith/Sunna, during his entire life.
The mosque serves as a house where Muslim devotees gather together for salat (prayer) and worshiping Allah and his messenger, the prophet Muhammad. Aside from worshiping Allah, a mosque is used for a variety of reasons. These meeting places are perfect warehouses of not only indoctrination, but future terrorists, who are made to read and understand the principles of Jihad, martyrdom and Dar ul Harb (“land of war”—any place not Islamacized.) Mosques cost money, and the money for these warehouses of intolerance is coming straight from Saudi Arabia, the number one terrorist state in the world.
These mosques are being infused with an activist strain of Islam, Wahhabism. If you have to ask where the Saudi’s are getting their money, you are not paying attention...it's coming from you. Not to mention, the current U.S. administration in its continuous war against the American people, is doing everything it can to accommodate the “Cordoba Initiative” project at taxpayers’ expense “that is spearheading plans to build a $100 million Islamic center at Ground Zero, the site where nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by jihadists on 9/11.” The recent CNN Poll shows 68% of American voters oppose the Ground Zero Mosque.
Those useful idiot non-Muslims who support the building of the mosque near the 9/11 site or anywhere else by invoking the ideal of religious freedom, are empowering a creed that is devoted to stamping out freedom of religion or any other form of freedom.
In this relentless campaign, the Islamists have a vast cadre of “experts,” “talking heads,” and for-purchase politicians who keep endlessly broadcasting the false mantra that Islam is a religion of peace. This latter bunch is criminally complicit in making the populace complacent and furthering the work of the Islamists.
When mosques are built, imams, mullahs or mosque elders tend to be sent to the U.S. with one clear mission: Make Islamic religion, laws, and life supreme within the United States, using any and all tactics necessary. Next, from within the safety of their local mosques, they begin to use their revolting practices, riotous youth, and wild sermonizing to force the genteel Americans to relocate to safer, less threatening neighborhoods and cities. Of course, not all Americans will move or can afford to do so. And to take control of a town, Muslims will not need to evict everyone. They probably need about 25% in order to make life very unpleasant for those who do not go along with their demands.
They will elect Muslims to all positions of local influence, who will create and enforce policy according to the Sharia law. Once they have control over a town, they will begin to establish informal Sharia, and there’s nothing the government can (or will want to) do about it.
Sharia is the brutal means by which Islam controls its populations by force, intimidation, and punishments for offenses to Allah. Already in many European countries, national governments have, out of fear, given Islamic fascists the right to establish their own shadow governments within the borders of countries like Sweden and England, where they can control their own populations without accountability. Proposals for Sharia are being taken seriously by many western countries.
“According to early Muslim historians, towns that surrendered without resistance and made treaties with the Muslims gave the Muslims permission to take their churches and synagogues. One of the earliest examples of these kinds of conversions was in Damascus, Syria, where in 705 AD Umayyad caliph Al-Walid I bought the church of St. John from the Christians and had it rebuilt as a mosque in exchange for building a number of new churches for the Christians in Damascus. Overall, Abd al-Malik (Al-Waleed's father) is said to have transformed 10 churches in Damascus into mosques.”
“The process of turning churches into mosques was especially intensive in the villages where most of the inhabitants converted to Islam. The Abbasid caliph al-Ma'mun turned many churches into mosques. Ottoman Turks converted nearly all churches, monasteries, and chapels in Constantinople, including the famous Hagia Sophia, immediately after capturing the city in 1453, into mosques. In some instances mosques have been established on the places of Jewish or Christian sanctuaries associated with Biblical personalities who were also recognized by Islam.”
Again, Muslims first make their mark by establishing mosques in as many towns and cities as they can. These mosques range from the ostentatious, such as the one in Washington D.C., to the academically-cloaked university Islamic centers, to the innocuous storefront types and even prison chapels. One and all have the same aims: Hold the faithful in line, recruit as many new adherents by any and all means, and indoctrinate one and all in the imperative of Islamic conquest.
It is in these Islamic places that the impressionable young and the fanatical adults are drilled with the duty to carry out Jihad against the Dar ul Harb (“land of war”—anyplace not completely under the rule of Islam.)
Operating this vast network of Islamism requires significant financing. Saudi Arabia has spent over $80 billion for these operations since 1970. The other Persian Gulf States, with their treasuries flush with oil money, have done and continue to do their share of financing.
Not to be out-done by the virulent Wahhabism of the Saudis and their co-sectist Sunnis, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been bank-rolling its own array of clientele in the Middle East, much of Africa, and as far away as Southeast Asia and Latin America in a push for Shiism. The-non-Muslim world is literally caught in a pincer of the two rabid Islamic forces.
There are those who still delude themselves by preferring to believe that Islam has not made as many inroads into the United States as it has in other parts of the world, such as Europe. Facts prove otherwise.
According to a National Portrait, a survey released in April 2001, there were at least 1,209 mosques in the US. According to the latest report, this number has sky-rocketed to as many as 6,000 mosques in 2008.
The official Saudi website reported a donation of $6 million, also in 1995, for a mosque in Cincinnati, Ohio. The website further stated, in 2000, "In the United States, the Kingdom has contributed to the establishment of the Islamic Center in Washington DC; the Omer Bin Al-Khattab Mosque in western Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Islamic Center, and the Fresno Mosque in California; the Islamic Center in Denver, Colorado; the Islamic center in Harrison, New York City; and the Islamic Center in Northern Virginia."
This entire guesstimate aside, a recent report from the FBI estimates that of the 2000 mosques in the United States, 10% preach Jihad. Welcome to the religion of peace as it is invading the land of the free to make it the land of submission. This is not some Islam-hating crackpot group reporting. It is the FBI, an agency known for its bending backward to be politically correct in tune with the rest of the administration.
In addition to the mosques already built in the land of the free, Islam is advanced by a large cadre of auxiliaries. Dr. Paul Williams (former FBI consultant, best-selling author and investigative journalist) reports that many Muslim businesses around the country conduct their regular businesses during the day and in the evening they turn their stores into Islamic gathering places. There are several thousands of these make-shift “Takeyehs”.
If only the masses of Muslims arise and carry out the orders of Allah, then we would have the promised paradise of Islam on earth as exemplified by such rules as that of the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Somalia, and of course the Shiite nirvana of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In these model Islamic societies, freedom of expression, worship, and assembly are taken away. Women are treated as chattel. Young girls are subjected to barbaric genital mutilation to make them sex slaves and birth channels without the ability to enjoy intercourse. Minors are executed, adulterers are stoned to death, thieves have their limbs amputated, and much much more. Isn’t that everyone’s idea of paradise?
What a travesty and how ironic indeed to have as many mosques as we already have in the U.S., yet, we intend to help the Islamists, building more training camps for future suicide bombers and endangering the safety of the American people and generations to come. With the average citizen, and not the devious and for-purchase-politicians, rests the solemn obligation to act, and act now, to compel our government to stem the tide of Islamism before it is too late.
It is tragic indeed that while our courageous service members are losing life and limbs in far and away places fighting Islamism, useful idiots and servile politicians of the highest rank at home bend backward to accommodate, even promote, Islamism.
There is a glimmer of hope that the American people are finally waking up to the deceit and the menace of the creed called Islam. Their opposition to the building of the mosque shows that the creeping Islamization of America is indeed something to stand against and prevent before it is too late.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and a pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com. Amil Imani is the author of Obama Meets Ahmadinejad.
By Amil Imani
Disguised as religion, Islam has penetrated democracies with the aim of replacing civility and liberty with the barbarism of 7th century Islamic theocracy and Sharia law. Islam’s multi-pronged attack aims to destroy all that liberty offers.
America, with a long tradition of protecting religious freedom, still clings to the “hands off” practice of leaving alone any doctrine or practice billed as religion. A thorny problem is in deciding what constitutes a religion and who is to make that call. We must keep in mind that to be a loyal and faithful Muslim, a Muslim must adhere to and perform many obligatory acts, as specified in the Quran by Allah and the Hadith/Sunna, during his entire life.
The mosque serves as a house where Muslim devotees gather together for salat (prayer) and worshiping Allah and his messenger, the prophet Muhammad. Aside from worshiping Allah, a mosque is used for a variety of reasons. These meeting places are perfect warehouses of not only indoctrination, but future terrorists, who are made to read and understand the principles of Jihad, martyrdom and Dar ul Harb (“land of war”—any place not Islamacized.) Mosques cost money, and the money for these warehouses of intolerance is coming straight from Saudi Arabia, the number one terrorist state in the world.
These mosques are being infused with an activist strain of Islam, Wahhabism. If you have to ask where the Saudi’s are getting their money, you are not paying attention...it's coming from you. Not to mention, the current U.S. administration in its continuous war against the American people, is doing everything it can to accommodate the “Cordoba Initiative” project at taxpayers’ expense “that is spearheading plans to build a $100 million Islamic center at Ground Zero, the site where nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by jihadists on 9/11.” The recent CNN Poll shows 68% of American voters oppose the Ground Zero Mosque.
Those useful idiot non-Muslims who support the building of the mosque near the 9/11 site or anywhere else by invoking the ideal of religious freedom, are empowering a creed that is devoted to stamping out freedom of religion or any other form of freedom.
In this relentless campaign, the Islamists have a vast cadre of “experts,” “talking heads,” and for-purchase politicians who keep endlessly broadcasting the false mantra that Islam is a religion of peace. This latter bunch is criminally complicit in making the populace complacent and furthering the work of the Islamists.
When mosques are built, imams, mullahs or mosque elders tend to be sent to the U.S. with one clear mission: Make Islamic religion, laws, and life supreme within the United States, using any and all tactics necessary. Next, from within the safety of their local mosques, they begin to use their revolting practices, riotous youth, and wild sermonizing to force the genteel Americans to relocate to safer, less threatening neighborhoods and cities. Of course, not all Americans will move or can afford to do so. And to take control of a town, Muslims will not need to evict everyone. They probably need about 25% in order to make life very unpleasant for those who do not go along with their demands.
They will elect Muslims to all positions of local influence, who will create and enforce policy according to the Sharia law. Once they have control over a town, they will begin to establish informal Sharia, and there’s nothing the government can (or will want to) do about it.
Sharia is the brutal means by which Islam controls its populations by force, intimidation, and punishments for offenses to Allah. Already in many European countries, national governments have, out of fear, given Islamic fascists the right to establish their own shadow governments within the borders of countries like Sweden and England, where they can control their own populations without accountability. Proposals for Sharia are being taken seriously by many western countries.
“According to early Muslim historians, towns that surrendered without resistance and made treaties with the Muslims gave the Muslims permission to take their churches and synagogues. One of the earliest examples of these kinds of conversions was in Damascus, Syria, where in 705 AD Umayyad caliph Al-Walid I bought the church of St. John from the Christians and had it rebuilt as a mosque in exchange for building a number of new churches for the Christians in Damascus. Overall, Abd al-Malik (Al-Waleed's father) is said to have transformed 10 churches in Damascus into mosques.”
“The process of turning churches into mosques was especially intensive in the villages where most of the inhabitants converted to Islam. The Abbasid caliph al-Ma'mun turned many churches into mosques. Ottoman Turks converted nearly all churches, monasteries, and chapels in Constantinople, including the famous Hagia Sophia, immediately after capturing the city in 1453, into mosques. In some instances mosques have been established on the places of Jewish or Christian sanctuaries associated with Biblical personalities who were also recognized by Islam.”
Again, Muslims first make their mark by establishing mosques in as many towns and cities as they can. These mosques range from the ostentatious, such as the one in Washington D.C., to the academically-cloaked university Islamic centers, to the innocuous storefront types and even prison chapels. One and all have the same aims: Hold the faithful in line, recruit as many new adherents by any and all means, and indoctrinate one and all in the imperative of Islamic conquest.
It is in these Islamic places that the impressionable young and the fanatical adults are drilled with the duty to carry out Jihad against the Dar ul Harb (“land of war”—anyplace not completely under the rule of Islam.)
Operating this vast network of Islamism requires significant financing. Saudi Arabia has spent over $80 billion for these operations since 1970. The other Persian Gulf States, with their treasuries flush with oil money, have done and continue to do their share of financing.
Not to be out-done by the virulent Wahhabism of the Saudis and their co-sectist Sunnis, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been bank-rolling its own array of clientele in the Middle East, much of Africa, and as far away as Southeast Asia and Latin America in a push for Shiism. The-non-Muslim world is literally caught in a pincer of the two rabid Islamic forces.
There are those who still delude themselves by preferring to believe that Islam has not made as many inroads into the United States as it has in other parts of the world, such as Europe. Facts prove otherwise.
According to a National Portrait, a survey released in April 2001, there were at least 1,209 mosques in the US. According to the latest report, this number has sky-rocketed to as many as 6,000 mosques in 2008.
The official Saudi website reported a donation of $6 million, also in 1995, for a mosque in Cincinnati, Ohio. The website further stated, in 2000, "In the United States, the Kingdom has contributed to the establishment of the Islamic Center in Washington DC; the Omer Bin Al-Khattab Mosque in western Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Islamic Center, and the Fresno Mosque in California; the Islamic Center in Denver, Colorado; the Islamic center in Harrison, New York City; and the Islamic Center in Northern Virginia."
This entire guesstimate aside, a recent report from the FBI estimates that of the 2000 mosques in the United States, 10% preach Jihad. Welcome to the religion of peace as it is invading the land of the free to make it the land of submission. This is not some Islam-hating crackpot group reporting. It is the FBI, an agency known for its bending backward to be politically correct in tune with the rest of the administration.
In addition to the mosques already built in the land of the free, Islam is advanced by a large cadre of auxiliaries. Dr. Paul Williams (former FBI consultant, best-selling author and investigative journalist) reports that many Muslim businesses around the country conduct their regular businesses during the day and in the evening they turn their stores into Islamic gathering places. There are several thousands of these make-shift “Takeyehs”.
If only the masses of Muslims arise and carry out the orders of Allah, then we would have the promised paradise of Islam on earth as exemplified by such rules as that of the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Somalia, and of course the Shiite nirvana of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In these model Islamic societies, freedom of expression, worship, and assembly are taken away. Women are treated as chattel. Young girls are subjected to barbaric genital mutilation to make them sex slaves and birth channels without the ability to enjoy intercourse. Minors are executed, adulterers are stoned to death, thieves have their limbs amputated, and much much more. Isn’t that everyone’s idea of paradise?
What a travesty and how ironic indeed to have as many mosques as we already have in the U.S., yet, we intend to help the Islamists, building more training camps for future suicide bombers and endangering the safety of the American people and generations to come. With the average citizen, and not the devious and for-purchase-politicians, rests the solemn obligation to act, and act now, to compel our government to stem the tide of Islamism before it is too late.
It is tragic indeed that while our courageous service members are losing life and limbs in far and away places fighting Islamism, useful idiots and servile politicians of the highest rank at home bend backward to accommodate, even promote, Islamism.
There is a glimmer of hope that the American people are finally waking up to the deceit and the menace of the creed called Islam. Their opposition to the building of the mosque shows that the creeping Islamization of America is indeed something to stand against and prevent before it is too late.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and a pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com. Amil Imani is the author of Obama Meets Ahmadinejad.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tea Party Defined
Tea Parties – Same Song, Second Verse
By David Barton
America's first Tea Party in 1773 was not an act of wanton lawlessness but rather a deliberate protest against heavy-handed government and excessive taxation. Its leaders took great care to ensure that nothing but tea was thrown overboard – no other items were damaged. The "Indians" even swept the decks of the ships before they left.
Tea Parties occurred not only in Boston but also in numerous other locales. And those who participated were just ordinary citizens expressing their frustration over a government that had refused to listen to them for almost a decade. Their reasonable requests had fallen on deaf ears. Of course, the out-of-touch British claimed that the Tea Parties were lawless and violent, but such was not the case.
Interestingly, in many ways, today's Tea Parties parallel those of long ago. But rather than protesting a tax on tea, today they are protesting dozens of taxes represented by what they call the Porkulus/Generational Theft Act of 2009 (officially called the "American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act"). For Tea Party members (and for most Americans), that act and the way it was passed epitomizes a broken system whose arrogant leaders often scorn the concerns of the citizens they purport to represent.
Tea Party folks agree with the economic logic of our Founders.
* "To contract new debts is not the way to pay off old ones." "Avoid occasions of expense...and avoid likewise the accumulation of debt not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions...to discharge the debts." George Washington
* "Nothing can more [affect] national credit and prosperity than a constant and systematic attention to...extinguish the present debt and to avoid as much as possible the incurring of any new debt." Alexander Hamilton
* "The maxim of buying nothing but what we have money in our pockets to pay for lays the broadest foundation for happiness." "The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." Thomas Jefferson
These are not radical positions – nor are the others set forth in the Tea Party platform – that Congress should: (1) provide the constitutional basis for the bills it passes; (2) reduce intrusive government regulations; (3) balance the budget; (4) limit the increase of government spending to the rate of population growth; (5) and eliminate earmarks unless approved by 2/3rds of Congress. Are these positions dangerous or extreme? Certainly not. In fact, polling shows that while Americans differ on the way they view the Tea Parties, they support these Tea Party goals by a margin of two-to-one.
Citizens are angry about the current direction of government. As John Zubly, a member of the Continental Congress in 1775, reminded the British: "My Lord, the Americans are no idiots, and they appear determined not to be slaves. Oppression will make wise men mad." But does that anger automatically equate to violence? Of course not. It does equate to action, however; but instead of throwing tea overboard, modern Tea Parties are throwing out-of-touch politicians from both parties overboard.
The Tea Parties represent much of what is right in America – citizens reacquainting themselves with the Constitution and holding their elected officials accountable to its standards. Two centuries ago, Daniel Webster could have been talking to today's Tea Party rallies when he said: "Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution!"
By David Barton
America's first Tea Party in 1773 was not an act of wanton lawlessness but rather a deliberate protest against heavy-handed government and excessive taxation. Its leaders took great care to ensure that nothing but tea was thrown overboard – no other items were damaged. The "Indians" even swept the decks of the ships before they left.
Tea Parties occurred not only in Boston but also in numerous other locales. And those who participated were just ordinary citizens expressing their frustration over a government that had refused to listen to them for almost a decade. Their reasonable requests had fallen on deaf ears. Of course, the out-of-touch British claimed that the Tea Parties were lawless and violent, but such was not the case.
Interestingly, in many ways, today's Tea Parties parallel those of long ago. But rather than protesting a tax on tea, today they are protesting dozens of taxes represented by what they call the Porkulus/Generational Theft Act of 2009 (officially called the "American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act"). For Tea Party members (and for most Americans), that act and the way it was passed epitomizes a broken system whose arrogant leaders often scorn the concerns of the citizens they purport to represent.
Tea Party folks agree with the economic logic of our Founders.
* "To contract new debts is not the way to pay off old ones." "Avoid occasions of expense...and avoid likewise the accumulation of debt not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions...to discharge the debts." George Washington
* "Nothing can more [affect] national credit and prosperity than a constant and systematic attention to...extinguish the present debt and to avoid as much as possible the incurring of any new debt." Alexander Hamilton
* "The maxim of buying nothing but what we have money in our pockets to pay for lays the broadest foundation for happiness." "The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." Thomas Jefferson
These are not radical positions – nor are the others set forth in the Tea Party platform – that Congress should: (1) provide the constitutional basis for the bills it passes; (2) reduce intrusive government regulations; (3) balance the budget; (4) limit the increase of government spending to the rate of population growth; (5) and eliminate earmarks unless approved by 2/3rds of Congress. Are these positions dangerous or extreme? Certainly not. In fact, polling shows that while Americans differ on the way they view the Tea Parties, they support these Tea Party goals by a margin of two-to-one.
Citizens are angry about the current direction of government. As John Zubly, a member of the Continental Congress in 1775, reminded the British: "My Lord, the Americans are no idiots, and they appear determined not to be slaves. Oppression will make wise men mad." But does that anger automatically equate to violence? Of course not. It does equate to action, however; but instead of throwing tea overboard, modern Tea Parties are throwing out-of-touch politicians from both parties overboard.
The Tea Parties represent much of what is right in America – citizens reacquainting themselves with the Constitution and holding their elected officials accountable to its standards. Two centuries ago, Daniel Webster could have been talking to today's Tea Party rallies when he said: "Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution!"
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
UN Global Gun Grab
Understanding the United Nations and US Gun Control
by Jennifer Kendall
On Monday, June 28, 2010, The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Second Amendment during the trial of McDonald vs. Chicago. The 5-4 ruling confirmed that neither a state nor city, acting under a grant of authority from the state, could deny a person the right to possess a firearm. This was seen as a victory for gun rights activists, but with the United Nations Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) treaty looming in the near future, this fight is far from over.
The U.N. program of action concerning SALW includes restrictions on the manufacturing, storing, transferring and possession of firearms and ammunition if it is not adequately marked. It ensures that once SALW’s program is enacted all licensed manufacturers must apply a unique marking identifying the country of manufacture, manufacturer and serial number of the weapon. Weapons that lack this unique marking that are confiscated, seized or collected will be destroyed. (No compensation for confiscated guns) These restrictions will be enforced on a national, regional and global scale.
Once the treaty is signed, if you happen to own a gun that was manufactured without this “unique marking,” you are in violation of the law and must turn over your weapon to authorities. This includes guns that were obtained legally. With gun laws in the U.S. that already place many restrictions on the sale of personal firearms, the adoption of this treaty would further infringe on the Second Amendment of the Constitution. When the founding fathers of the U.S wrote that, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” they made no mention of unique markings.
John Bolton, US Representative to the UN under the George W. Bush administration, says, “The [Obama] administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt--as was the case back over a decade ago--that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
The U.N.’s reasons for planning to draft stricter gun laws in the future are mostly related to stopping the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons. However, the President of the Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, Camilo Reyes Rodriguez of Colombia, in July 2001, stated his disappointment on the “inability to agree… on language recognizing the need to establish and maintain controls over private ownership of these deadly weapons and the need for preventing sales of such arms to non-State groups.” Rodriguez said that these steps were “two of the most important.”
The U.N. shows “overwhelming support” for such measures, according to Rodriguez. The U.N. claims these gun laws would help to lessen gun violence, but statistics foretell a different outcome. A survey by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) in 2001 found that the top three states with the most gun ownership in America were Massachusetts, Connecticut and Kentucky (in descending order). Another study, by Statehealthfacts.org in 2002, ranked the states with the least gun related deaths per 100,000 people. Hawaii had the least gun-related deaths followed by Massachusetts and Connecticut. The District of Columbia had the most gun related deaths and conversely the least amount of guns owned.
Worldwide gun-related deaths also don’t show any support for more restrictive gun laws. The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems in 2002 found that South Africa, Columbia and Thailand topped the list of countries with the most murders by firearms per capita. Yet when 178 countries were ranked in descending order by which had the most civilian firearms per 100 people, South Africa came in 50th place, Columbia was 91st and Thailand was 39th.
You can’t argue that stricter gun control and fewer guns owned by citizens would diminish gun violence when looking at the facts. If a country were to confiscate its citizen’s guns by national law, it would leave guns in the hands of only the government and criminals. I’m not sure which group is more terrifying. When criminals are the only people who possess handguns, law-abiding citizens are powerless to defend themselves. This makes non-criminals easy targets and gun crimes rise respectively.
This was proven to all countries when England enacted a ban on ownership of handguns in 1997. Two years after the gun ban had gone into effect the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting found that the use of handguns in crime had risen 40%.
David Bredin, the director of the campaign, said, “It is crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place.” The reason stricter gun control did not mean less violence, the campaign concluded, was “existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.”
If gun control does not coincide with a safer society, then the U.N. has no ground for declaring controls on private ownership would help solve the illegal trafficking of firearms. In fact, if prohibition taught us anything, it is that restrictions do not decrease demand, but only cut supply. When supply drops and demand stays the same, prices rise and incentives lead to added underground crime rings. The U.N. should drop the gun laws, pick up some history books and take a few notes. Maybe then they could focus on something useful like stopping Iran’s nuclear program.
by Jennifer Kendall
On Monday, June 28, 2010, The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Second Amendment during the trial of McDonald vs. Chicago. The 5-4 ruling confirmed that neither a state nor city, acting under a grant of authority from the state, could deny a person the right to possess a firearm. This was seen as a victory for gun rights activists, but with the United Nations Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) treaty looming in the near future, this fight is far from over.
The U.N. program of action concerning SALW includes restrictions on the manufacturing, storing, transferring and possession of firearms and ammunition if it is not adequately marked. It ensures that once SALW’s program is enacted all licensed manufacturers must apply a unique marking identifying the country of manufacture, manufacturer and serial number of the weapon. Weapons that lack this unique marking that are confiscated, seized or collected will be destroyed. (No compensation for confiscated guns) These restrictions will be enforced on a national, regional and global scale.
Once the treaty is signed, if you happen to own a gun that was manufactured without this “unique marking,” you are in violation of the law and must turn over your weapon to authorities. This includes guns that were obtained legally. With gun laws in the U.S. that already place many restrictions on the sale of personal firearms, the adoption of this treaty would further infringe on the Second Amendment of the Constitution. When the founding fathers of the U.S wrote that, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” they made no mention of unique markings.
John Bolton, US Representative to the UN under the George W. Bush administration, says, “The [Obama] administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt--as was the case back over a decade ago--that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
The U.N.’s reasons for planning to draft stricter gun laws in the future are mostly related to stopping the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons. However, the President of the Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, Camilo Reyes Rodriguez of Colombia, in July 2001, stated his disappointment on the “inability to agree… on language recognizing the need to establish and maintain controls over private ownership of these deadly weapons and the need for preventing sales of such arms to non-State groups.” Rodriguez said that these steps were “two of the most important.”
The U.N. shows “overwhelming support” for such measures, according to Rodriguez. The U.N. claims these gun laws would help to lessen gun violence, but statistics foretell a different outcome. A survey by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) in 2001 found that the top three states with the most gun ownership in America were Massachusetts, Connecticut and Kentucky (in descending order). Another study, by Statehealthfacts.org in 2002, ranked the states with the least gun related deaths per 100,000 people. Hawaii had the least gun-related deaths followed by Massachusetts and Connecticut. The District of Columbia had the most gun related deaths and conversely the least amount of guns owned.
Worldwide gun-related deaths also don’t show any support for more restrictive gun laws. The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems in 2002 found that South Africa, Columbia and Thailand topped the list of countries with the most murders by firearms per capita. Yet when 178 countries were ranked in descending order by which had the most civilian firearms per 100 people, South Africa came in 50th place, Columbia was 91st and Thailand was 39th.
You can’t argue that stricter gun control and fewer guns owned by citizens would diminish gun violence when looking at the facts. If a country were to confiscate its citizen’s guns by national law, it would leave guns in the hands of only the government and criminals. I’m not sure which group is more terrifying. When criminals are the only people who possess handguns, law-abiding citizens are powerless to defend themselves. This makes non-criminals easy targets and gun crimes rise respectively.
This was proven to all countries when England enacted a ban on ownership of handguns in 1997. Two years after the gun ban had gone into effect the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting found that the use of handguns in crime had risen 40%.
David Bredin, the director of the campaign, said, “It is crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place.” The reason stricter gun control did not mean less violence, the campaign concluded, was “existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.”
If gun control does not coincide with a safer society, then the U.N. has no ground for declaring controls on private ownership would help solve the illegal trafficking of firearms. In fact, if prohibition taught us anything, it is that restrictions do not decrease demand, but only cut supply. When supply drops and demand stays the same, prices rise and incentives lead to added underground crime rings. The U.N. should drop the gun laws, pick up some history books and take a few notes. Maybe then they could focus on something useful like stopping Iran’s nuclear program.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Gay Takeover Of Our Schools
Napoleon and the Gay Samoans
By Sandy Rios
”If education were a product we would be suing,” wrote the mother of a 2010 high school graduate. Her e-mail was so eloquent, it warrants no editing:
“Today I asked my son what country Napoleon was from. He said Rome.
He just finished 12 years of public schooling in what has been called one of the top high schools in the nation. Although he’s not a bookworm, he is a decent student. He has better than a B average.
He doesn’t know which country Napoleon was from – let alone what he did. I don’t think he was sick that day.
On the other hand, I’m going through his Social Study papers and see that he did learn that homosexual men in Samoa may perpetuate gay genes by being good uncles…
Twelve years. If education were a product we would be suing.”
But the suit would likely be lost. Reason left the classroom and the courts long ago. And homosexual apologetics have been promoted so aggressively through the National Education Association, that faculty or staff dare not express an objection. Public school hallways display rainbows and trumpet Gay Pride and Days of Silence, while renderings of the Ten commandments are forbidden. In Deerfield, Illinois, a required Freshman orientation class features gay, straight, lesbian and bi-sexual students telling 14 year olds the ins and outs of homosexual sex with their young audience strictly forbidden to tell their parents. In schools across the nation homosexuality is taught in every discipline from the use of math word problems related to same gender sex to the science of non-existent gay genes to history claiming Abraham Lincoln had a love affair with his law partner, Billy Herndon.
In Alabama an entire prom was cancelled because a lesbian student was not allowed to bring her girlfriend. And in that rare case where homosexual students aren’t allowed to bring their partners to proms, local houses of worship are hosting gay proms in church basements.
Massachusetts, Vermont and California have blazed the trail on these matters…providing co-ed bathrooms in schools and allowing students even in some grade schools to alter their gender if so led.
After the legalization of Civil Unions in Vermont, Outright Vermont, a homosexual advocacy organization hosted a weekend seminar funded by tax dollars that taught middle schoolers about a violent homosexual act called “fisting” and girls how to remove healthy breasts if they preferred to be boys…complete with photos and live demonstrations.
In California, a group called “Gender Spectrum” recently sent out a flyer to announce a conference to students 13-18:
Come join other transgender, gender bending, gender noncomforming teens, children and families for three days of celebrating individuality, making new friends and having fun. Meet other trans and gender nonconforming teens and adults, hang out, and explore different topics on gender: school, making friends, dating.
Montana has joined the gay chorus…with a newly proposed sex curriculum to begin in kindergarten so that little Montanans can know about all the ways to have sex with anyone in any combination. Then State Senator Barack Obama advocated the same in Illinois, but was defeated.
It IS that bad. And deny it all they want, parents are beginning to realize what the concerned mom above discovered in despair: Children aren’t learning how to read, spell or punctuate. They don’t know the nation’s history…its leaders or its constitution…nor anything about the God of their fathers, but they do know about homosexual sex.
And when they get to college, there will be no one to tell them otherwise. Consider the case of University of Illinois professor Ken Howell who was just fired after nine years of teaching “Introduction to Catholicism” for writing an e-mail to students explaining that Catholic Teaching on homosexuality derives itself from moral law. A student forwarded the e-mail to the head of the Religion Department and Howell was removed from the faculty for “violating university standards of inclusivity.” A Catholic fired for actually believing and teaching Catholic doctrine on homosexuality in a class on Catholicism.
So what are we to do? Get tough. Take a stand. Make the hard choices. Speak up and take your licks. The sexual anarchists are free to practice their anarchy, but they cannot have our kids. Any government that promotes or says they can and bars parents from their rightful influence must be opposed fiercely.
Fellow angry citizens: Let’s get busy. Let’s move our kids to private schools…private cooperatives…homeschool them. The public school must either clean up its act or risk losing its power. The radicalism in Providence, Massachusetts, for example has resulted in such a reduced student population, they are closing their high school doors. Good.
We send our children to school to learn the great disciplines of English, history, math, and science...presented factually and diligently. We don’t send them to be turned over to sexual activists willing to sacrifice their young minds to achieve their own narrow agenda.
Away with the gay Samoans and up with Napoleon!
By Sandy Rios
”If education were a product we would be suing,” wrote the mother of a 2010 high school graduate. Her e-mail was so eloquent, it warrants no editing:
“Today I asked my son what country Napoleon was from. He said Rome.
He just finished 12 years of public schooling in what has been called one of the top high schools in the nation. Although he’s not a bookworm, he is a decent student. He has better than a B average.
He doesn’t know which country Napoleon was from – let alone what he did. I don’t think he was sick that day.
On the other hand, I’m going through his Social Study papers and see that he did learn that homosexual men in Samoa may perpetuate gay genes by being good uncles…
Twelve years. If education were a product we would be suing.”
But the suit would likely be lost. Reason left the classroom and the courts long ago. And homosexual apologetics have been promoted so aggressively through the National Education Association, that faculty or staff dare not express an objection. Public school hallways display rainbows and trumpet Gay Pride and Days of Silence, while renderings of the Ten commandments are forbidden. In Deerfield, Illinois, a required Freshman orientation class features gay, straight, lesbian and bi-sexual students telling 14 year olds the ins and outs of homosexual sex with their young audience strictly forbidden to tell their parents. In schools across the nation homosexuality is taught in every discipline from the use of math word problems related to same gender sex to the science of non-existent gay genes to history claiming Abraham Lincoln had a love affair with his law partner, Billy Herndon.
In Alabama an entire prom was cancelled because a lesbian student was not allowed to bring her girlfriend. And in that rare case where homosexual students aren’t allowed to bring their partners to proms, local houses of worship are hosting gay proms in church basements.
Massachusetts, Vermont and California have blazed the trail on these matters…providing co-ed bathrooms in schools and allowing students even in some grade schools to alter their gender if so led.
After the legalization of Civil Unions in Vermont, Outright Vermont, a homosexual advocacy organization hosted a weekend seminar funded by tax dollars that taught middle schoolers about a violent homosexual act called “fisting” and girls how to remove healthy breasts if they preferred to be boys…complete with photos and live demonstrations.
In California, a group called “Gender Spectrum” recently sent out a flyer to announce a conference to students 13-18:
Come join other transgender, gender bending, gender noncomforming teens, children and families for three days of celebrating individuality, making new friends and having fun. Meet other trans and gender nonconforming teens and adults, hang out, and explore different topics on gender: school, making friends, dating.
Montana has joined the gay chorus…with a newly proposed sex curriculum to begin in kindergarten so that little Montanans can know about all the ways to have sex with anyone in any combination. Then State Senator Barack Obama advocated the same in Illinois, but was defeated.
It IS that bad. And deny it all they want, parents are beginning to realize what the concerned mom above discovered in despair: Children aren’t learning how to read, spell or punctuate. They don’t know the nation’s history…its leaders or its constitution…nor anything about the God of their fathers, but they do know about homosexual sex.
And when they get to college, there will be no one to tell them otherwise. Consider the case of University of Illinois professor Ken Howell who was just fired after nine years of teaching “Introduction to Catholicism” for writing an e-mail to students explaining that Catholic Teaching on homosexuality derives itself from moral law. A student forwarded the e-mail to the head of the Religion Department and Howell was removed from the faculty for “violating university standards of inclusivity.” A Catholic fired for actually believing and teaching Catholic doctrine on homosexuality in a class on Catholicism.
So what are we to do? Get tough. Take a stand. Make the hard choices. Speak up and take your licks. The sexual anarchists are free to practice their anarchy, but they cannot have our kids. Any government that promotes or says they can and bars parents from their rightful influence must be opposed fiercely.
Fellow angry citizens: Let’s get busy. Let’s move our kids to private schools…private cooperatives…homeschool them. The public school must either clean up its act or risk losing its power. The radicalism in Providence, Massachusetts, for example has resulted in such a reduced student population, they are closing their high school doors. Good.
We send our children to school to learn the great disciplines of English, history, math, and science...presented factually and diligently. We don’t send them to be turned over to sexual activists willing to sacrifice their young minds to achieve their own narrow agenda.
Away with the gay Samoans and up with Napoleon!
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Gun Confiscation Training
Polish Troops Train To Take On American ‘Terrorists’
By Paul Joseph Watson
Law enforcement and military officials were keen to play down the presence of Polish troops during the recent Operation Vigilant Guard exercises in Chicago, but claims that the foreign personnel were there merely as “observers” were proven incorrect after they were filmed participating in drills which revolved around terrorism and mass casualty disasters.
Infowars reporters Rob Dew and Jason Douglass traveled to Chicago to document the increasing integration of foreign troops with American military and civilian authorities.
At a National Guard exercise being held in Toyota Park, a soccer stadium, Colonel Johnny Miller, the head of the drill, told Dew and Douglass, “Our partner country with Illinois is Poland, so we’ll have Polish military folks here,” adding that Polish law enforcement agencies, Polish FBI, as well as Latvian forces, would also be in attendance.
Miller said that the Polish personnel would be there merely as observers to incorporate what they had witnessed into their own counter-terror and law enforcement programs, a claim later disproved when the troops were seen participating in the programs.
Moving on to Elk Grove Village for day 3 of the exercise, SFC Mark Ballard of the Illinois National Guard said that the Polish forces would be “integrating into some of the civil military units that are participating in this exercise” as part of Illinois’ partnership with the Republic of Poland, a relationship based around “integrative training” and blending military and civilian forces in the event of a national emergency, as well as making this process of integration with foreign troops more “visible”.
The claim that the Polish forces were merely present at the exercises to observe was again proven false during a Homeland Security drill in Bensenville that revolved around a meth lab takedown.
Polish Major Lesniak said that the exercise represented “the next step” in the Polish military’s cooperation with the Illinois National Guard, adding that American forces in Poland were not engaged in similar exercises, thus confirming that these drills are solely aimed at preparing Americans to accept the sight of foreign troops conducting law enforcement duties.
On day 4, volunteers from Boy Scouts of America were brought in to take part in the exercises. This is telling given last year’s announcement of how Homeland Security is training boy scouts to take on and disarm “disgruntled veterans” who are described as “terrorists”. This is when it became apparent that gun-toting Polish BOA forces were directly participating in the exercises, something that the military officials had earlier mischaracterized.
During a subsequent exercise in the Chicago subway, Jose Santiago, Executive Director of Emergency Management and Communications, was keen to stress that the Polish forces were “observers” only, even after the Infowars film crew had recorded them directly participating in previous disaster exercises.
Operation Vigilant Guard reveals the on-going effort to not only destroy Posse Comitatus — once upon a time designed to prevent the military from working with state and local law enforcement — but the globalist effort to incorporate foreign “partners” into any future effort to impose martial law and gun confiscation in response not only to hurricanes but a contrived terrorist event.
“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful,” the high level globalist minion Henry Kissinger purportedly said in an address to the Bilderbergers at Evian, France, on May 21, 1991.
Is it possible after the next manufactured terror event they will also be grateful for the armed presence of soldiers from Poland and Latvia?
Alternatively, simply login via the home page at http://prisonplanet.tv and then go to the MEDIA tab and then select VIDEO REPORTS to watch the video.
Expired members – did you know you can quickly and simply renew your old subscription by visiting http://prisonplanet.tv/component/user/login.html – simply login with your old account details and then click on “My Membership Info” at the top of the screen to add a new subscription to your existing account! You can also recover your old user name and password via the link if you have forgotten it.
Gun Confiscation
By Paul Joseph Watson
Law enforcement and military officials were keen to play down the presence of Polish troops during the recent Operation Vigilant Guard exercises in Chicago, but claims that the foreign personnel were there merely as “observers” were proven incorrect after they were filmed participating in drills which revolved around terrorism and mass casualty disasters.
Infowars reporters Rob Dew and Jason Douglass traveled to Chicago to document the increasing integration of foreign troops with American military and civilian authorities.
At a National Guard exercise being held in Toyota Park, a soccer stadium, Colonel Johnny Miller, the head of the drill, told Dew and Douglass, “Our partner country with Illinois is Poland, so we’ll have Polish military folks here,” adding that Polish law enforcement agencies, Polish FBI, as well as Latvian forces, would also be in attendance.
Miller said that the Polish personnel would be there merely as observers to incorporate what they had witnessed into their own counter-terror and law enforcement programs, a claim later disproved when the troops were seen participating in the programs.
Moving on to Elk Grove Village for day 3 of the exercise, SFC Mark Ballard of the Illinois National Guard said that the Polish forces would be “integrating into some of the civil military units that are participating in this exercise” as part of Illinois’ partnership with the Republic of Poland, a relationship based around “integrative training” and blending military and civilian forces in the event of a national emergency, as well as making this process of integration with foreign troops more “visible”.
The claim that the Polish forces were merely present at the exercises to observe was again proven false during a Homeland Security drill in Bensenville that revolved around a meth lab takedown.
Polish Major Lesniak said that the exercise represented “the next step” in the Polish military’s cooperation with the Illinois National Guard, adding that American forces in Poland were not engaged in similar exercises, thus confirming that these drills are solely aimed at preparing Americans to accept the sight of foreign troops conducting law enforcement duties.
On day 4, volunteers from Boy Scouts of America were brought in to take part in the exercises. This is telling given last year’s announcement of how Homeland Security is training boy scouts to take on and disarm “disgruntled veterans” who are described as “terrorists”. This is when it became apparent that gun-toting Polish BOA forces were directly participating in the exercises, something that the military officials had earlier mischaracterized.
During a subsequent exercise in the Chicago subway, Jose Santiago, Executive Director of Emergency Management and Communications, was keen to stress that the Polish forces were “observers” only, even after the Infowars film crew had recorded them directly participating in previous disaster exercises.
Operation Vigilant Guard reveals the on-going effort to not only destroy Posse Comitatus — once upon a time designed to prevent the military from working with state and local law enforcement — but the globalist effort to incorporate foreign “partners” into any future effort to impose martial law and gun confiscation in response not only to hurricanes but a contrived terrorist event.
“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful,” the high level globalist minion Henry Kissinger purportedly said in an address to the Bilderbergers at Evian, France, on May 21, 1991.
Is it possible after the next manufactured terror event they will also be grateful for the armed presence of soldiers from Poland and Latvia?
Alternatively, simply login via the home page at http://prisonplanet.tv and then go to the MEDIA tab and then select VIDEO REPORTS to watch the video.
Expired members – did you know you can quickly and simply renew your old subscription by visiting http://prisonplanet.tv/component/user/login.html – simply login with your old account details and then click on “My Membership Info” at the top of the screen to add a new subscription to your existing account! You can also recover your old user name and password via the link if you have forgotten it.
Gun Confiscation
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Tyranny at Home
Drones Over America: Tyranny at Home
By John W. Whitehead
"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home."—James Madison
The U.S. government has a history of commandeering military technology for use against Americans. We saw this happen with tear gas, tasers and sound cannons, all of which were first used on the battlefield before being deployed against civilians at home. Now the drones—pilotless, remote controlled aircraft that have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan—are coming home to roost.
Drones, a $2 billion cornerstone of the Obama administration's war efforts, have increasingly found favor with both military and law enforcement officials. "The more we have used them," stated Defense Secretary Robert Gates, "the more we have identified their potential in a broader and broader set of circumstances."
Now the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is facing mounting pressure from state governments and localities to issue flying rights for a range of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to carry out civilian and law-enforcement activities. As the Associated Press reports, "Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars' license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing suspects." Unfortunately, to a drone, everyone is a suspect because drone technology makes no distinction between the law-abiding individual and the suspect. Everyone gets monitored, photographed, tracked and targeted.
The FAA, citing concerns over the need to regulate air traffic and establish anti-collision rules for the aircrafts and their operators, has thus far been reluctant to grant broad approval for the use of UAVs in American airspace. However, unbeknownst to most Americans, remote controlled aircraft have been employed domestically for years now. They were first used as a national security tool for patrolling America's borders and then as a means of monitoring citizens. For example, back in 2006, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was testing out a SkySeer drone for use in police work. With a 6.5-foot wingspan, the lightweight SkySeer can be folded up like a kite and stored in a shoulder pack. At 250 feet, it can barely be seen with the naked eye.
As another news story that same year reported, "one North Carolina county is using a UAV equipped with low-light and infrared cameras to keep watch on its citizens. The aircraft has been dispatched to monitor gatherings of motorcycle riders at the Gaston County fairgrounds from just a few hundred feet in the air—close enough to identify faces—and many more uses, such as the aerial detection of marijuana fields, are planned." In 2007, insect-like drones were seen hovering over political rallies in New York and Washington, seemingly spying on protesters. An eyewitness reported that the drones "looked kind of like dragonflies or little helicopters."
Drone technology has advanced dramatically in the ensuing years, with surveillance drones getting smaller, more sophisticated and more lethal with each evolution. Modeling their prototype for a single-winged rotorcraft on the maple seed's unique design, aerospace engineering students at the University of Maryland have created the world's smallest controllable surveillance drones, capable of hovering to record conversations or movements of citizens.
Thus far, the domestic use of drones has been primarily for surveillance purposes and, as far as we know, has been limited in scope. Eventually, however, police departments and intelligence agencies will make drones a routine part of their operations. However, you can be sure they won't limit themselves to just surveillance.
Police today use whatever tools are at their disposal in order to anticipate and forestall crime. This means employing technology to attain total control. Technology, which functions without discrimination because it exists without discrimination, tends to be applied everywhere it can be applied. Thus, the logical aim of technologically equipped police who operate as technicians must be control, containment and eventually restriction of freedom.
In this way, under the guise of keeping Americans safe and controlled, airborne drones will have to be equipped with an assortment of lethal and nonlethal weapons in order to effectuate control of citizens on the ground. The arsenal of nonlethal weapons will likely include Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs), which are used to break up protests or riots by sending a piercing sound into crowds and can cause serious hearing damage; high-intensity strobe lights, which can cause dizziness, disorientation and loss of balance and make it virtually impossible to run away; and tasers, which administer a powerful electric shock.
Since June 2001, over 350 people, including women, children and elderly individuals, have died in the U.S. after being shocked with "non-lethal" tasers. "Imagine how incidents would skyrocket," notes Paul Joseph Watson for PrisonPlanet.com, "once the personal element of using a Taser is removed and they are strapped to marauding surveillance drones, eliminating any responsibility for deaths and injuries that occur."
"Also available to police," writes Watson, "will be a drone that can fire tear gas as well as rubber pellets to disperse anyone still living under the delusion that they were born in a democratic country." In fact, the French company Tecknisolar Seni has built a drone armed with a double-barreled 44 mm Flash-Ball gun. The one-kilo Flash-Ball resembles a large caliber handgun and fires so-called non-lethal rounds, including tear gas and rubber impact rounds to bring down a suspect. Despite being labeled a "non-lethal weapon," this, too, is not without its dangers. As David Hambling writes for Wired News, "Like other impact rounds, the Flash-Ball is meant to be aimed at the body—firing from a remote, flying platform is likely to increase the risk of head injury."
One thing is clear: while the idea of airborne drones policing America's streets may seem far-fetched, like something out of a sci-fi movie, it is no longer in the realm of the impossible. Now, it's just a matter of how soon you can expect them to be patrolling your own neighborhood. The crucial question, however, is whether Americans will be able to limit the government's use of such surveillance tools or whether we will be caught in an electronic nightmare from which there is no escape.
By John W. Whitehead
"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home."—James Madison
The U.S. government has a history of commandeering military technology for use against Americans. We saw this happen with tear gas, tasers and sound cannons, all of which were first used on the battlefield before being deployed against civilians at home. Now the drones—pilotless, remote controlled aircraft that have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan—are coming home to roost.
Drones, a $2 billion cornerstone of the Obama administration's war efforts, have increasingly found favor with both military and law enforcement officials. "The more we have used them," stated Defense Secretary Robert Gates, "the more we have identified their potential in a broader and broader set of circumstances."
Now the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is facing mounting pressure from state governments and localities to issue flying rights for a range of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to carry out civilian and law-enforcement activities. As the Associated Press reports, "Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars' license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing suspects." Unfortunately, to a drone, everyone is a suspect because drone technology makes no distinction between the law-abiding individual and the suspect. Everyone gets monitored, photographed, tracked and targeted.
The FAA, citing concerns over the need to regulate air traffic and establish anti-collision rules for the aircrafts and their operators, has thus far been reluctant to grant broad approval for the use of UAVs in American airspace. However, unbeknownst to most Americans, remote controlled aircraft have been employed domestically for years now. They were first used as a national security tool for patrolling America's borders and then as a means of monitoring citizens. For example, back in 2006, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was testing out a SkySeer drone for use in police work. With a 6.5-foot wingspan, the lightweight SkySeer can be folded up like a kite and stored in a shoulder pack. At 250 feet, it can barely be seen with the naked eye.
As another news story that same year reported, "one North Carolina county is using a UAV equipped with low-light and infrared cameras to keep watch on its citizens. The aircraft has been dispatched to monitor gatherings of motorcycle riders at the Gaston County fairgrounds from just a few hundred feet in the air—close enough to identify faces—and many more uses, such as the aerial detection of marijuana fields, are planned." In 2007, insect-like drones were seen hovering over political rallies in New York and Washington, seemingly spying on protesters. An eyewitness reported that the drones "looked kind of like dragonflies or little helicopters."
Drone technology has advanced dramatically in the ensuing years, with surveillance drones getting smaller, more sophisticated and more lethal with each evolution. Modeling their prototype for a single-winged rotorcraft on the maple seed's unique design, aerospace engineering students at the University of Maryland have created the world's smallest controllable surveillance drones, capable of hovering to record conversations or movements of citizens.
Thus far, the domestic use of drones has been primarily for surveillance purposes and, as far as we know, has been limited in scope. Eventually, however, police departments and intelligence agencies will make drones a routine part of their operations. However, you can be sure they won't limit themselves to just surveillance.
Police today use whatever tools are at their disposal in order to anticipate and forestall crime. This means employing technology to attain total control. Technology, which functions without discrimination because it exists without discrimination, tends to be applied everywhere it can be applied. Thus, the logical aim of technologically equipped police who operate as technicians must be control, containment and eventually restriction of freedom.
In this way, under the guise of keeping Americans safe and controlled, airborne drones will have to be equipped with an assortment of lethal and nonlethal weapons in order to effectuate control of citizens on the ground. The arsenal of nonlethal weapons will likely include Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs), which are used to break up protests or riots by sending a piercing sound into crowds and can cause serious hearing damage; high-intensity strobe lights, which can cause dizziness, disorientation and loss of balance and make it virtually impossible to run away; and tasers, which administer a powerful electric shock.
Since June 2001, over 350 people, including women, children and elderly individuals, have died in the U.S. after being shocked with "non-lethal" tasers. "Imagine how incidents would skyrocket," notes Paul Joseph Watson for PrisonPlanet.com, "once the personal element of using a Taser is removed and they are strapped to marauding surveillance drones, eliminating any responsibility for deaths and injuries that occur."
"Also available to police," writes Watson, "will be a drone that can fire tear gas as well as rubber pellets to disperse anyone still living under the delusion that they were born in a democratic country." In fact, the French company Tecknisolar Seni has built a drone armed with a double-barreled 44 mm Flash-Ball gun. The one-kilo Flash-Ball resembles a large caliber handgun and fires so-called non-lethal rounds, including tear gas and rubber impact rounds to bring down a suspect. Despite being labeled a "non-lethal weapon," this, too, is not without its dangers. As David Hambling writes for Wired News, "Like other impact rounds, the Flash-Ball is meant to be aimed at the body—firing from a remote, flying platform is likely to increase the risk of head injury."
One thing is clear: while the idea of airborne drones policing America's streets may seem far-fetched, like something out of a sci-fi movie, it is no longer in the realm of the impossible. Now, it's just a matter of how soon you can expect them to be patrolling your own neighborhood. The crucial question, however, is whether Americans will be able to limit the government's use of such surveillance tools or whether we will be caught in an electronic nightmare from which there is no escape.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Remember the Price of Freedom
What Price Freedom?
By John W. Whitehead
Let me tell you about 56 men who risked everything—their fortunes and their lives—to take a stand for truth. These men laid everything on the line, pledged it all—"our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor"—because they believed in a radical idea: that all people are created to be free. They believed that freedom is a spiritual concept in that the rights we possess are, in their words, given to us by the Creator. Let me emphasize: at the heart of these rights is a radical freedom—the freedom to speak, to dissent, to protest and to seek relief, if necessary, against an unjust government—that is, one that won't listen to the people.
Labeled traitors, these men were charged with treason, a crime punishable by death. For some, their acts of rebellion would cost them their homes and their fortunes. For others, it would be the ultimate price—their lives. Yet even knowing the heavy price they might have to pay, these men dared to speak up when silence could not be tolerated.
Their signatures, famously scribbled on a piece of parchment, expressed their unfettered willingness to speak out against the most powerful empire in the world. These 56 men were the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
Some we remember for their later accomplishments—such as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, both of whom went on to serve as American presidents. But there were others—such as Lewis Morris, Carter Braxton, Thomas Nelson and Richard Stockton—who do not often get mentioned, who sought not glory but rather a cause. They knew that sacrifice was necessary to secure freedom, and they were willing to make the sacrifice.
Lewis Morris lost his entire estate. The British ravaged and destroyed it, sending his family fleeing in desperation with nowhere to go.
Carter Braxton's entire career and way of life were decimated. Losing his ships to the British Navy, his shipping company was forever lost and he was never able to revive it.
Thomas Nelson's price for liberty was to the tune of $2 million—and that was in 1776. He ran up the $2 million credit debt for the "Patriots' Cause." In the end, repaying the debt cost him his entire estate. He died bankrupt and was buried in an unmarked grave.
Richard Stockton paid dearly also. Once a prominent judge, he gave up his cherished seat on the bench to fight for liberty. For his decision, he was dragged from his bed and tortured by British soldiers.
All in all, of those 56 signers, 9 died during the Revolution, 5 were captured by British soldiers, 18 had their homes looted and burned by the Red Coats, 2 were wounded in battle and 2 lost their sons during the war. Remarkably, these men—who were community leaders, business owners, judges, lawyers and inventors—sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor so that you and I could live freely in a nation where we have the right to stand up and speak out.
There are many more stories of heroic patriots throughout American history who have risked it all to preserve the freedoms we possess. Most of them have come from radically different walks of life—different upbringings, different educations, different ideas. But the one thing that unites them is their love of and commitment to freedom and their willingness to stand up and speak out, no matter the cost. Although many of them lost everything, they were willing to sacrifice in order to raise their voices in truth. They put freedom before their own interests. Because of their bravery in speaking truth to power and their commitment to unwavering principles, history has judged them to be extraordinary.
Thus, it is only right that we should still honor them every Fourth of July. Yet how do we do so? We go through the motions, spouting patriotic sentiments and putting on displays of national pomp and circumstance that at the end of the day mean nothing. Sadly, as a nation, we have become jaded and apathetic, content to celebrate our independence with cookouts and fireworks but little else.
America, we must remember, is a concept. We must earn our right to be American. What does that mean? First of all, it means learning the core principles of citizenship that are laid out in the Constitution. Any person in this country who cannot list from memory the rights enshrined in those 462 words that make up the Bill of Rights is not a true American. Unfortunately, this applies to the great majority of the populace. Second, it means taking a stand on those principles and fighting to keep the freedoms that are being stripped from us on a daily basis. This may well mean grabbing a picket sign and taking to the streets.
The bottom line is that we owe it to those who have put their lives on the line for our freedoms to make our citizenship count for something. We need to take responsibility for what's going on around us. And we need to stand up and support those who refuse to remain silent when they see an injustice and who, like those 56 brave men, dare to put it all on the line in order to speak truth to power.
By John W. Whitehead
Let me tell you about 56 men who risked everything—their fortunes and their lives—to take a stand for truth. These men laid everything on the line, pledged it all—"our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor"—because they believed in a radical idea: that all people are created to be free. They believed that freedom is a spiritual concept in that the rights we possess are, in their words, given to us by the Creator. Let me emphasize: at the heart of these rights is a radical freedom—the freedom to speak, to dissent, to protest and to seek relief, if necessary, against an unjust government—that is, one that won't listen to the people.
Labeled traitors, these men were charged with treason, a crime punishable by death. For some, their acts of rebellion would cost them their homes and their fortunes. For others, it would be the ultimate price—their lives. Yet even knowing the heavy price they might have to pay, these men dared to speak up when silence could not be tolerated.
Their signatures, famously scribbled on a piece of parchment, expressed their unfettered willingness to speak out against the most powerful empire in the world. These 56 men were the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
Some we remember for their later accomplishments—such as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, both of whom went on to serve as American presidents. But there were others—such as Lewis Morris, Carter Braxton, Thomas Nelson and Richard Stockton—who do not often get mentioned, who sought not glory but rather a cause. They knew that sacrifice was necessary to secure freedom, and they were willing to make the sacrifice.
Lewis Morris lost his entire estate. The British ravaged and destroyed it, sending his family fleeing in desperation with nowhere to go.
Carter Braxton's entire career and way of life were decimated. Losing his ships to the British Navy, his shipping company was forever lost and he was never able to revive it.
Thomas Nelson's price for liberty was to the tune of $2 million—and that was in 1776. He ran up the $2 million credit debt for the "Patriots' Cause." In the end, repaying the debt cost him his entire estate. He died bankrupt and was buried in an unmarked grave.
Richard Stockton paid dearly also. Once a prominent judge, he gave up his cherished seat on the bench to fight for liberty. For his decision, he was dragged from his bed and tortured by British soldiers.
All in all, of those 56 signers, 9 died during the Revolution, 5 were captured by British soldiers, 18 had their homes looted and burned by the Red Coats, 2 were wounded in battle and 2 lost their sons during the war. Remarkably, these men—who were community leaders, business owners, judges, lawyers and inventors—sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor so that you and I could live freely in a nation where we have the right to stand up and speak out.
There are many more stories of heroic patriots throughout American history who have risked it all to preserve the freedoms we possess. Most of them have come from radically different walks of life—different upbringings, different educations, different ideas. But the one thing that unites them is their love of and commitment to freedom and their willingness to stand up and speak out, no matter the cost. Although many of them lost everything, they were willing to sacrifice in order to raise their voices in truth. They put freedom before their own interests. Because of their bravery in speaking truth to power and their commitment to unwavering principles, history has judged them to be extraordinary.
Thus, it is only right that we should still honor them every Fourth of July. Yet how do we do so? We go through the motions, spouting patriotic sentiments and putting on displays of national pomp and circumstance that at the end of the day mean nothing. Sadly, as a nation, we have become jaded and apathetic, content to celebrate our independence with cookouts and fireworks but little else.
America, we must remember, is a concept. We must earn our right to be American. What does that mean? First of all, it means learning the core principles of citizenship that are laid out in the Constitution. Any person in this country who cannot list from memory the rights enshrined in those 462 words that make up the Bill of Rights is not a true American. Unfortunately, this applies to the great majority of the populace. Second, it means taking a stand on those principles and fighting to keep the freedoms that are being stripped from us on a daily basis. This may well mean grabbing a picket sign and taking to the streets.
The bottom line is that we owe it to those who have put their lives on the line for our freedoms to make our citizenship count for something. We need to take responsibility for what's going on around us. And we need to stand up and support those who refuse to remain silent when they see an injustice and who, like those 56 brave men, dare to put it all on the line in order to speak truth to power.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Government Kisses Illegals Butts
Club Fed for Illegal Aliens
by Michelle Malkin
Thanks to their international "human rights" advocates, Gitmo detainees receive art therapy, movie nights and video games at their U.S. taxpayer-funded camp in Cuba. Now, the left's bleeding heart lobby wants to provide similar taxpayer-sponsored perks to illegal alien detainees on American soil. Welcome to the open-borders Club Fed.
According to an internal Department of Homeland Security e-mail obtained by the Houston Chronicle, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency plans a radical overhaul of the immigration detention system. No, the reforms will not increase the nation's measly, chronically underfunded detention bed capacity -- fewer than 35,000 beds last fiscal year to cover an estimated illegal alien population of between 12 million and 20 million. The Obama ICE leadership is headed in the exact opposite direction.
Rush Limbaugh
ICE chief John Morton -- the same man who signaled last month that he may refuse to process illegal aliens sent to him by Arizona law enforcement officials -- has already eliminated 50 detention facilities. This despite a DHS inspector general report released last spring exposing the federal government's bipartisan failure to expand detention space capacity to end the dangerous game of illegal alien "catch and release."
Instead, among the p.c. makeover measures under consideration or about to be made by Obama's ICE agency in the next 30 days:
-- "Softening" the physical appearance of privately contracted detention facilities with "hanging plants."
- Giving illegal alien detainees e-mail access and free Internet-based phone service.
- Abandoning lockdowns, lights-out, visitor screening and detention uniform requirements.
- Serving fresh veggies and continental breakfast and providing Bingo sessions, arts and crafts classes, and, yes, movie nights.
Ensuring humane treatment of detainees is one thing. This, on the other hand, is beyond ridiculous. Detention centers should be clean, safe and temporary way stations for illegal immigrants on their way out the door. These proposals turn the immigration detention centers into permanent Dave & Buster's-style comfort zones for illegal aliens biding their time until the next amnesty. Dancing lessons? Game halls? This is an invitation for abuse -- and a recipe for exploitation by smugglers and drug cartels. Open-borders and civil liberties activists will end up endangering DHS/ICE workers -- and the rest of us -- under the guise of "immigrant human rights."
The left-wing campaign by the American Civil Liberties Union, change.org and illegal alien activists targeting our detention system began in earnest after 9/11. Under the Bush administration, hundreds of illegal aliens of Arab descent were detained and questioned as "material witnesses" in counterterrorism probes. The use of immigration laws in the war against Islamic jihadists became a rallying point for the open-borders propagandists.
The New York Times hysterically reported that most of these post-9/11 detainees were held for months without charges. In fact, 60 percent of the 762 immigrants detained after the 9/11 attacks were charged within 72 hours. And the Justice Department inspector general found that there were legitimate reasons for delay in the remaining cases, including logistical disruptions in New York City after 9/11, such as electrical outages, office shutdowns and mail service cancellation that slowed delivery of charging documents. Immigrant abuse charges were hurled recklessly by the likes of Al Gore, who slandered DHS's detention program during a paid appearance in Saudi Arabia -- despite the DOJ's failure to find any such patterns.
The truth got lost along the way. So did common sense. Allowing illegal alien terror suspects to roam free in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks would have been a dereliction of duty. And countless homeland security experts and DHS inspector general reports have repeatedly spotlighted lax enforcement in the detention safety net over the past decade.
Hundreds of thousands of "absconders" remain on the loose because of failure (or refusal) to detain them. The immigration lawyers' racket has lobbied for compassionate "alternatives" to detention that routinely result in deportation fugitives simply ditching the process and disappearing.
Their goal is not to improve detention. Their goal is to sabotage it -- all while law-breakers munch on croissants and joyfully shout "BINGO!"
by Michelle Malkin
Thanks to their international "human rights" advocates, Gitmo detainees receive art therapy, movie nights and video games at their U.S. taxpayer-funded camp in Cuba. Now, the left's bleeding heart lobby wants to provide similar taxpayer-sponsored perks to illegal alien detainees on American soil. Welcome to the open-borders Club Fed.
According to an internal Department of Homeland Security e-mail obtained by the Houston Chronicle, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency plans a radical overhaul of the immigration detention system. No, the reforms will not increase the nation's measly, chronically underfunded detention bed capacity -- fewer than 35,000 beds last fiscal year to cover an estimated illegal alien population of between 12 million and 20 million. The Obama ICE leadership is headed in the exact opposite direction.
Rush Limbaugh
ICE chief John Morton -- the same man who signaled last month that he may refuse to process illegal aliens sent to him by Arizona law enforcement officials -- has already eliminated 50 detention facilities. This despite a DHS inspector general report released last spring exposing the federal government's bipartisan failure to expand detention space capacity to end the dangerous game of illegal alien "catch and release."
Instead, among the p.c. makeover measures under consideration or about to be made by Obama's ICE agency in the next 30 days:
-- "Softening" the physical appearance of privately contracted detention facilities with "hanging plants."
- Giving illegal alien detainees e-mail access and free Internet-based phone service.
- Abandoning lockdowns, lights-out, visitor screening and detention uniform requirements.
- Serving fresh veggies and continental breakfast and providing Bingo sessions, arts and crafts classes, and, yes, movie nights.
Ensuring humane treatment of detainees is one thing. This, on the other hand, is beyond ridiculous. Detention centers should be clean, safe and temporary way stations for illegal immigrants on their way out the door. These proposals turn the immigration detention centers into permanent Dave & Buster's-style comfort zones for illegal aliens biding their time until the next amnesty. Dancing lessons? Game halls? This is an invitation for abuse -- and a recipe for exploitation by smugglers and drug cartels. Open-borders and civil liberties activists will end up endangering DHS/ICE workers -- and the rest of us -- under the guise of "immigrant human rights."
The left-wing campaign by the American Civil Liberties Union, change.org and illegal alien activists targeting our detention system began in earnest after 9/11. Under the Bush administration, hundreds of illegal aliens of Arab descent were detained and questioned as "material witnesses" in counterterrorism probes. The use of immigration laws in the war against Islamic jihadists became a rallying point for the open-borders propagandists.
The New York Times hysterically reported that most of these post-9/11 detainees were held for months without charges. In fact, 60 percent of the 762 immigrants detained after the 9/11 attacks were charged within 72 hours. And the Justice Department inspector general found that there were legitimate reasons for delay in the remaining cases, including logistical disruptions in New York City after 9/11, such as electrical outages, office shutdowns and mail service cancellation that slowed delivery of charging documents. Immigrant abuse charges were hurled recklessly by the likes of Al Gore, who slandered DHS's detention program during a paid appearance in Saudi Arabia -- despite the DOJ's failure to find any such patterns.
The truth got lost along the way. So did common sense. Allowing illegal alien terror suspects to roam free in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks would have been a dereliction of duty. And countless homeland security experts and DHS inspector general reports have repeatedly spotlighted lax enforcement in the detention safety net over the past decade.
Hundreds of thousands of "absconders" remain on the loose because of failure (or refusal) to detain them. The immigration lawyers' racket has lobbied for compassionate "alternatives" to detention that routinely result in deportation fugitives simply ditching the process and disappearing.
Their goal is not to improve detention. Their goal is to sabotage it -- all while law-breakers munch on croissants and joyfully shout "BINGO!"
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Mob Rule From SEIU
Obama's Brown Shirts
Does belonging to the service workers' union give you the right to invade private homes, terrorize children and smear anyone questioning such tactics? Apparently so, based on recent events in Maryland.
On May 16, Washington, D.C., police escorted 14 busloads full of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members at least part of the way to storm the Chevy Chase, Md., home of Bank of America's deputy legal counsel, Greg Baer.
Some 500 protesters affiliated with SEIU and their allies in the community organizing group National Political Action (NPA) trampled his lawn, blocked his doorway to his home and screamed "greed." Legally, it was burglary, trespassing and, possibly, assault.
But Maryland cops didn't enforce the law. And Baer had to brave the insult-hurling mob alone to rescue his 14-year old son who, home alone, had locked himself in the bathroom in fear.
But there was one thing these thugs didn't count on — a credible journalist next door who reported what happened.
Fortune Magazine's Nina Easton wrote about what happened and asked SEIU spokesman Stephen Lerner to explain.
His response was chilling: "People in powerful corporations seem to think they can insulate themselves from the damage they are doing," Lerner said, implying that physical intimidation was indeed the intent.
Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. Aggressive, personalized protests have been a fact of life in the world of unions and community organizers influenced by the radical philosophy of Saul Alinsky.
But they're now growing in frequency as SEIU officials top the White House visitors' list and union influence grows.
It started in earnest last year, when SEIU thugs gave a "beat down" to a black trinket seller at a tea party protest — with no consequences.
It also was seen when the SEIU teamed up with its community-organizing ally Acorn to set up bus harassment tours of AIG executives' homes during last year's insurance bailout.
In recent weeks in New York and Washington, SEIU and NPA protestors invaded and shut down banks, frightening customers.
What's important here is that these mobs act with near impunity and lash out at critics like Easton. What Stern calls "the persuasion of power" is identical to the violent means of maintaining political order in Cuba and Venezuela.
It's going full blast in the U.S. now as the party in power loses popularity. That's a bad sign that democracy itself is under attack.
Does belonging to the service workers' union give you the right to invade private homes, terrorize children and smear anyone questioning such tactics? Apparently so, based on recent events in Maryland.
On May 16, Washington, D.C., police escorted 14 busloads full of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members at least part of the way to storm the Chevy Chase, Md., home of Bank of America's deputy legal counsel, Greg Baer.
Some 500 protesters affiliated with SEIU and their allies in the community organizing group National Political Action (NPA) trampled his lawn, blocked his doorway to his home and screamed "greed." Legally, it was burglary, trespassing and, possibly, assault.
But Maryland cops didn't enforce the law. And Baer had to brave the insult-hurling mob alone to rescue his 14-year old son who, home alone, had locked himself in the bathroom in fear.
But there was one thing these thugs didn't count on — a credible journalist next door who reported what happened.
Fortune Magazine's Nina Easton wrote about what happened and asked SEIU spokesman Stephen Lerner to explain.
His response was chilling: "People in powerful corporations seem to think they can insulate themselves from the damage they are doing," Lerner said, implying that physical intimidation was indeed the intent.
Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. Aggressive, personalized protests have been a fact of life in the world of unions and community organizers influenced by the radical philosophy of Saul Alinsky.
But they're now growing in frequency as SEIU officials top the White House visitors' list and union influence grows.
It started in earnest last year, when SEIU thugs gave a "beat down" to a black trinket seller at a tea party protest — with no consequences.
It also was seen when the SEIU teamed up with its community-organizing ally Acorn to set up bus harassment tours of AIG executives' homes during last year's insurance bailout.
In recent weeks in New York and Washington, SEIU and NPA protestors invaded and shut down banks, frightening customers.
What's important here is that these mobs act with near impunity and lash out at critics like Easton. What Stern calls "the persuasion of power" is identical to the violent means of maintaining political order in Cuba and Venezuela.
It's going full blast in the U.S. now as the party in power loses popularity. That's a bad sign that democracy itself is under attack.
Friday, May 21, 2010
All Carbon Cemeteries are already Full
“Carbon Capture & Burial – all Carbon Cemeteries are already Full.”
Link: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/carbon-capture.pdf
The Carbon Sense Coalition today called for an end to the colossal waste of community resources and energy on research and development for “Carbon Capture and Burial”.
The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that billions of dollars are being wasted on sacrifices to the global warming god - endless bureaucracy, politicised research, piddling wind and solar schemes, roof insulation disasters, ethanol subsidies, carbon credit forests, carbon trading frauds and huge compliance costs.
“But perhaps the biggest waste of all is the futile quest to capture carbon dioxide from power stations, separate it, compress it, pump it long distances and force it down specially drilled bore holes, hoping it will never escape.
“The effect of CO2 on global temperature, if it exists, is so small that no one has been able to demonstrate or measure it. The touted effect exists solely in computer models whose forecasts to date have all failed. Therefore there is ZERO proven benefit for mankind in trying to capture harmless CO2 in order to bury it in carbon cemeteries. Worse, it is removing valuable plant food from the biosphere – a step towards global food suicide.
“For every tonne of coal burnt, about 11 tonnes of gases are exhausted – 7.5 tonnes of nitrogen, 2.5 tonnes of CO2 and one tonne of water vapour. These are all harmless and valuable natural recycled atmospheric gases. Life on earth would be impossible without them.
“Normally these harmless gases are vented to the atmosphere after filters take out nasties like soot and noxious fumes. To capture the CO2 would require additional energy to collect the 11 tonnes of gases and separate the 2.5 tonnes of CO2 for every tonne of coal burnt. Then even more energy would be required to compress this 2.5 tonnes of CO2 and pump it to the burial site.
“All of this is possible, but the capital and operating costs will be horrendous. It is estimated that 30% - 40% of the power currently generated will be used just on carbon capture, compression and pumping. More energy still is required to produce and erect the steel for all those pumps and pipes and to drill the disposal wells. All this will chew up more coal resources and produce yet more carbon dioxide, for no benefit.
“But the real problem starts at the burial site.
“There is no vacuum occurring naturally anywhere on earth – every bit of space is occupied by solids, liquids or gases. Thus to dispose of CO2 underground requires it to be pumped AGAINST the pressure of whatever is in the pore space of the rock formation now – either natural gases or liquids. These pressures can be substantial, especially after more gas is pumped in.
“The natural gases in rock formations are commonly air, CO2, methane or rotten egg gas. The liquids are commonly fresh or salty water or, very rarely, liquid hydrocarbons.
To find a place where you could drive out oil or natural gas in order to make space to bury CO2 would be like winning the Lottery – a profitable but very unlikely event. Pumping air out is costly, pumping CO2 out to make room for CO2 is pointless and releasing large quantities of salty water or rotten egg gas would create a real surface problem, unlike the imaginary threat from CO2.
“In normal times, pumping fresh water out would be seen as a boon for most locals, but these days it is probably prohibited. Naturally, some carbon dioxide will dissolve in groundwater and pressurise it, so that the next water driller in the area could get a real bonus – bubbling Perrier Water on tap, worth more than oil..
“Regulating carbon dioxide is best left to the oceans – they have been doing it for millions of years. It’s time for tax payers and shareholders to protest this gigantic waste of money, energy and coal resources on fantasies like carbon capture and burial.
“Because, no matter where we look for space for carbon dioxide burial, we will find signs saying:
“All carbon cemeteries are already full”.
Link: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/carbon-capture.pdf
The Carbon Sense Coalition today called for an end to the colossal waste of community resources and energy on research and development for “Carbon Capture and Burial”.
The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that billions of dollars are being wasted on sacrifices to the global warming god - endless bureaucracy, politicised research, piddling wind and solar schemes, roof insulation disasters, ethanol subsidies, carbon credit forests, carbon trading frauds and huge compliance costs.
“But perhaps the biggest waste of all is the futile quest to capture carbon dioxide from power stations, separate it, compress it, pump it long distances and force it down specially drilled bore holes, hoping it will never escape.
“The effect of CO2 on global temperature, if it exists, is so small that no one has been able to demonstrate or measure it. The touted effect exists solely in computer models whose forecasts to date have all failed. Therefore there is ZERO proven benefit for mankind in trying to capture harmless CO2 in order to bury it in carbon cemeteries. Worse, it is removing valuable plant food from the biosphere – a step towards global food suicide.
“For every tonne of coal burnt, about 11 tonnes of gases are exhausted – 7.5 tonnes of nitrogen, 2.5 tonnes of CO2 and one tonne of water vapour. These are all harmless and valuable natural recycled atmospheric gases. Life on earth would be impossible without them.
“Normally these harmless gases are vented to the atmosphere after filters take out nasties like soot and noxious fumes. To capture the CO2 would require additional energy to collect the 11 tonnes of gases and separate the 2.5 tonnes of CO2 for every tonne of coal burnt. Then even more energy would be required to compress this 2.5 tonnes of CO2 and pump it to the burial site.
“All of this is possible, but the capital and operating costs will be horrendous. It is estimated that 30% - 40% of the power currently generated will be used just on carbon capture, compression and pumping. More energy still is required to produce and erect the steel for all those pumps and pipes and to drill the disposal wells. All this will chew up more coal resources and produce yet more carbon dioxide, for no benefit.
“But the real problem starts at the burial site.
“There is no vacuum occurring naturally anywhere on earth – every bit of space is occupied by solids, liquids or gases. Thus to dispose of CO2 underground requires it to be pumped AGAINST the pressure of whatever is in the pore space of the rock formation now – either natural gases or liquids. These pressures can be substantial, especially after more gas is pumped in.
“The natural gases in rock formations are commonly air, CO2, methane or rotten egg gas. The liquids are commonly fresh or salty water or, very rarely, liquid hydrocarbons.
To find a place where you could drive out oil or natural gas in order to make space to bury CO2 would be like winning the Lottery – a profitable but very unlikely event. Pumping air out is costly, pumping CO2 out to make room for CO2 is pointless and releasing large quantities of salty water or rotten egg gas would create a real surface problem, unlike the imaginary threat from CO2.
“In normal times, pumping fresh water out would be seen as a boon for most locals, but these days it is probably prohibited. Naturally, some carbon dioxide will dissolve in groundwater and pressurise it, so that the next water driller in the area could get a real bonus – bubbling Perrier Water on tap, worth more than oil..
“Regulating carbon dioxide is best left to the oceans – they have been doing it for millions of years. It’s time for tax payers and shareholders to protest this gigantic waste of money, energy and coal resources on fantasies like carbon capture and burial.
“Because, no matter where we look for space for carbon dioxide burial, we will find signs saying:
“All carbon cemeteries are already full”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)