Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for April, 2013

Please Pray and Be of Whatever Help You Can Provide


Losing a Son to P.T.S.D. Suicide; A Mother’s Tale

Posted by    http://joeforamerica.com/2013/04/losing-a-son-to-p-t-s-d-suicide-a-mothers-tale/

 

The war on terror has seen the advent of many new realities in modern warfare and its aftermath. The protective gear of our soldiers has advanced, as have our technological protective mechanisms such as signal jamming devices that prevent I.E.D.s from exploding within damage range of our personnel carriers and other vehicles. Medical advancements and the preparedness of our combat medics has progressed to where soldiers who would have died from the injuries they’ve been sustaining in this war in wars past have been coming home alive.

Most would agree that these are good things. However, in spite of these advancements on the battlefield that have come during a war in which it can be agreed that there are no clearly drawn front lines, and the enemy wears no standard uniform, we’ve had little focus and very few advancements on post- combat casualties, namely, P.T.S.D. and the veteran suicide epidemic we’re seeing in the U.S. as a result of it.

The latest numbers released by the U.S. Government show that 22 U.S. veterans a day are committing suicide. This is up from the previous numbers released, which stood at an already record high of 18 suicides a day.

On the morning of June 21, 2012, Sheri Johnson walked into the garage of her Fulda, Minnesota home to find something no mother should ever find. Her son, Trever Gould, had hanged himself by an electric cord, and he was dead.

Sheri Johnson and her son Trever Gould

Sheri Johnson and her son Trever Gould

Trever was only twenty five years old, and he had served honorably in Mosul, Iraq with the U.S. Army as a mechanic. Part of his responsibilities in Iraq included manning recovery trucks that went outside of the Green Zone to retrieve other coalition trucks that had broken down or had been destroyed or disabled by enemy fire or explosives.

“It’s something you never want anyone to go through,” Sheri says of the experience. “I knew my son was depressed, but I never knew he was that depressed. It tears a parent up to know that your baby was hurting that bad.

“I’d come home from work the night before after eleven thirty, and I just had a gut feeling that something was wrong,” she says, retelling the terrible tale. “I noticed that the air conditioner wasn’t running, but I told myself that the night was sort of cool, so that was okay. I just couldn’t sleep, and I didn’t fall to sleep until after five in the morning.

“When I woke up around ten thirty, I walked into the kitchen, and I saw that Trever’s work things were still on the bench. I thought ‘oh, no,’ and I started looking for him. I checked his car, which was in the driveway, and he wasn’t in it. Then I crawled upstairs to check his bedroom, but he wasn’t there either.

“I kept looking for him, and I noticed that there was something funny about the garage door. I had to pry it open because it had been blocked. When I opened the door, there he was, hanging. I touched him. I closed his eyes. I kept saying, ‘Oh my God. Oh my God.’ And then I called dispatch.”

Sheri’s story is not new, and it’s one that is being shared by too many mothers and wives and significant others around the country, yet one that is not receiving the level of attention that it should be within the ranks of the military, the aisles of Congress, or within the Veterans Affairs Administration. Rarely is the issue emphasized by the mainstream media.

“No one cares, because it doesn’t affect them,” Sheri says of the suicide epidemic among U.S. Veterans. “My experience has cost me friends. My best friend has two sons, and she doesn’t even talk to me now, because she doesn’t want to look at the fact that it could happen to one of her sons.”

Sheri speaks of the stares she often receives from strangers and acquaintances alike when she’s in public, because of the stigma of suicide and what she’s been through. “Would you like to discuss it?” she says to many of those who gawk.

Perhaps the most painful aspect of the entire situation is in knowing that people who were in a position to do something to help Trever did nothing.

“He asked his leadership for help,” Sheri says of Trever’s chain of command at Fort Hood, Texas. “They called him names, and said he just wanted out, and made things even harder on him.”

After Trever’s death, Sheri gained access to his Army records and those records amazingly show that Trever had actually discussed his suicidal thoughts with U.S. Army medical care providers at Fort Hood.

“He even told them how he was going to do it… that he was going to hang himself,” Sheri says. “That’s in his records.”

Sheri says that it is also in the records that Trever had reported that his dad had committed suicide a little more than a dozen years before. Statistics show that children whose parents commit suicide have a twenty five percent greater chance of committing suicide themselves, yet in spite of this knowledge, Sheri feels the people within the organization of the U.S. Army who could have done something, chose to do nothing.

Trever, like many veterans and civilians alike who suffer from P.T.S.D. turned to alcohol and drugs to self-medicate his condition. He would later fail a required drug test and be chaptered out of the Army.

“They made the problem all his,” Sheri says. “They even tried to say that during his pre-deployment screening they’d found that he had a ‘personality disorder,’ yet that didn’t stop them from sending him to Iraq. It was only an issue for him when he came back and was seeking help. Then, instead of helping him, they just booted him out when he slipped up.”

Sheri says that Trever never sought help through the VA once he was out of the Army, and she feels that the negative treatment he received from those within the Army at Fort Hood was a large part of the reason he did not seek further help. “They’d left him an empty shell of a human being,” she says.

Trever had been attending college at Minnesota State University, Mankato, where he had been focusing on studies in business, and had been home for the summer working a summer job at the time of his death. Ironically, and showing how insidious the suicide epidemic among our veterans in the U.S. has become, one of Trever’s instructors at his college, Professor Peter Linnerooth, who was also an Iraq Veteran, committed suicide as well. Linnerooth had been an Army psychologist and had gone to Iraq to help soldiers dealing with P.T.S.D., only to come home and lose his own battle with the illness seven months after Trever lost his.

Linnerooth, who had been a Captain in the Army, was a Bronze Star recipient and had been honorably discharged in 2008. In his post military life, he became critical of the military’s limited work on providing mental healthcare to soldiers, particularly to those suffering from P.T.S.D. He spoke out about the issue through major U.S. media outlets such as the New York Times and Time Magazine.

Capt. Linnerooth was buried with full military honors at Fort Snelling National Cemetery in Minneapolis, MN. Trever Gould, having been ‘other than honorably discharged’ for having gotten into trouble for self-medicating with alcohol and illicit substances due to his seeming inability to get the help he needed, even after having gone to his chain of command at Fort Hood to get it, was not buried with full military honors.

Today, Trever’s mother Sheri is reaching out to other parents who have lost a son or daughter to suicide. She speaks at retreats, and has volunteered with emergency help lines, and she is planning on taking this cause to Washington once she builds enough of a supportive following. She is honoring Trever’s memory and reaching out to others with a memorial she’s started in Trever’s name. You can get involved and offer Sheri support on the Trever Gould Memorial Facebook page.

Sheri now sits on the Board of Directors of Operation:I.V., a Nonprofit founded by Gold Star Mother, Roxann Abrams, who also lost her son to P.T.S.D. induced suicide. Operation:I.V. provides specialized treatment for P.T.S.D. combat veterans and referrals of help to their families. There is no long approval period required, such as the case is with the V.A., where many of our veterans are literally dying before being seen. You can get in touch with Operation: I.V. to make a donation or to seek treatment through their website.  The organization also has a supporting Facebook page.

“People within the military need to be held to account for these suicides,” Sheri says in closing. “We’ve all heard it said that ‘sh#* rolls downhill.’ Well, it’s been rolling down on these guys for too long, and it needs to start rolling back up! There needs to be accountability for the higher ranking officials who are doing nothing.

“It’s terrible for any parent to lose a child under any circumstances,” she says, “but there is a different kind of deep for the pain when your child takes their own life. As a parent, we’re supposed to take all of our children’s pain away. That’s supposed to be my job as a mother.”

Somewhere in America there are 22 mothers a day who are feeling this deep pain. There are children, who at some point were happy that their mothers and fathers had made it back from war, who are now finding their mothers and fathers dead. Lovers are walking into bedrooms and garages and backyards to find that their love is gone forever.

This issue is not warm and fuzzy, but it’s the ‘new normal’ in a war that can boast fewer casualties on the battlefield because of advancements in technology, protective gear, and the medical preparedness of combat medics. However, we desperately need to catch up with mental healthcare advancements on the home front, where we are seeing that any pluses in the number of lives saved on the battlefield is merely being negated later at the hands of P.T.S.D. induced suicide.

Kevin E Lake is an Iraq War veteran and author of the book “Off Switch” which raises awareness of the rampant rate of suicide among our soldiers and veterans in the U.S. It is available on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Off-Switch-ebook/dp/B009Q3MSK2

 

Low Life Gay Radicals Send Profanity Laced Screeds to Two Girls


clash_logo

By / http://clashdaily.com/2013/04/low-life-gay-radicals-send-profanity-laced-screeds-to-two-girls/

Screen Shot 2013-04-08 at 9.01.50 AMWilliam Bigelow of Breitbart.com is reporting that there have been two targeted attacks of young girls in the past two months by homosexual activists who were upset by the girls’ stance in favor of traditional marriage. The first victim, 11 year-old Grace Evans, received some “rather colorful comments” from activists upset with her bold testimony before the Minnesota House Committee on Civil Law in February.

“Since every child needs a mom and a dad to be born, I don’t think we can change that children need a mom and a dad. I believe God made it that way,” Evans said during her testimony. “I know some disagree, but I want to ask you this question: Which parent do I not need – my mom or my dad?”

She paused, waiting for one of the members of the Committee to answer. When no one did, she asked the question again.

Evans then said, “I’ll ask again, which parent do I not need – my mom or my dad?” She paused again, only to be met by silent stares from the lawmakers.

Evans concluded, saying, “I hope that you can see that every child needs a mom and a dad. Please don’t change your law on marriage to say otherwise.”

Unfortunately, the House eventually voted for the same-sex marriage law they were deliberating at the time and allowed it to move to the full House.

The attacks came almost at once, with people referring to her as an “11 year-old bigot.”

“We haven’t had any physical threats, but we’ve had some rather colorful comments about my 11-year-old,” said Grace’s father, Jeff Evans. “I’ve been monitoring it to keep my family safe and have a heads up on it. It’s really shameful the things that people will say, hiding behind an Internet alias. We see it as more representative of where political discourse is in our country, where you can’t take a position without receiving a great deal of flak, which is unfortunate.”

Sarah Crank, 14, had it even worse. She actually received death threats after testifying before the Maryland state senate during their contentious deliberations over a same-sex marriage bill in January.

“I really feel bad for the kids who have two parents of the same gender. Even though some kids think it’s fine, they have no idea what kind of wonderful experiences they miss out on. . . . People have the choice to be gay, but I don’t want to be affected by their choice. People say that they were born that way, but I’ve met really nice adults who did change.  So please vote ‘no’ on gay marriage. Thank you.”

A YouTube video of Sarah’s speech went viral on homosexual websites where she received threats such as “If I ever see this girl, I will kill her. That’s a promise.” Another said her parents “should be exterminated” while someone else said that to “kill this child and his [sic] parent, for my 11 birthday would be a wonderful gift, thanks.”

Read more: womenofgrace.com

A Fragile History


Monday, 4/8/2013 – Today’s Devotional by Dr. David Jeremiah – April 8“You saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron.” – Daniel 2:41

Recommended Reading: Daniel 2:40-45;

 

40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron-for iron breaks and smashes everything-and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. 41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.

44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands-a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.
“The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and the interpretation is trustworthy.” – (NIV)

The second chapter of Daniel has been called the alphabet of biblical prophecy. It provides the building blocks for understanding subsequent portions of Scripture about the Last Days. The chapter describes a great statue representing the ensuing empires that will dominate world history. But the feet and toes of this statue are brittle, part clay, part iron. Verse 42 uses the word “fragile” to describe the governments of the world at the end of time. According to Daniel 2, history is top heavy, and one day soon the entire structure will come crashing down. Then “the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed” (verse 44).

With North Korea testing long-range missiles, Iran developing nuclear bombs, China becoming the world’s banker, Israel facing existential threats, Russia growing increasingly belligerent, and the United States increasingly secular, we don’t need additional evidence that history is fragile or that the end is coming.

“Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him … Even so, Amen” (Revelation 1:7).

”Studying and understanding the events of tomorrow, as outlined in Scripture, will help you live with confidence and hope today.” – David Jeremiah

© 2013 Turning Point

Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone — that they have not first taken away from someone else.


NORTH BOUND ON I-5

You want to see something better than Burma Shave? These are on Northbound I-5 (88 miles south of Seattle).

The federal government is now petitioning to have these signs removed or Washington state will be denied additional monies for interstate highways.

The State of Washington replied, they will secede from the Union rather than be intimidated. These are a matter of free speech paid for by a private citizen.

It seems the Obama government uses intimidation and ignores the first amendment when they want to silence someone.

These signs are priceless. Bravo for the state of Washington and the person who posted and paid for them!!!

Obama 1 Obama 2 Obama 3 Obama 4 Obama 5 Obama 6 Obama 7 Obama 8 Obama 9

A Real Life Example


I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the coming implementation of the health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued: They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard a young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick.”

A young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market wouldn’t work for health care.”

Another said, “The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so  they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate.”

At this, I had more than enough. I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. “Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?”

They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.

“I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?”

They looked at each other in astonishment. “Why would you do something like that?” asked a young man, “There isn’t anything for free in this world.” They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point.

“I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money whatsoever. Anyone interested?”

In unison, a resounding “Yeah” fills the room.

“Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money-free bargain.”

I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust.

“I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules.”

Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces.

The perky young woman asked, “What are the rules?”

I smiled and said, “I don’t know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you.”

They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of  which said, “What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man.”

I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. “I am serious, this is a legitimate offer.”

They gaped at me for a moment.

“I’ll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?” boasted the youngest among them.

“Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?” I asked.

The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table. “Oh yeah! Where do I sign up?”

I took a napkin and wrote, “I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction.”

I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature.

“Where are the keys to my new house?” he asked in a mocking tone of voice.

All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.

“Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere to from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys.” I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumbfounded.

“Are you out of your mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?” the young man appeared irritated.

“You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement.”

The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people.

“You can shove that stupid deal up your a** old man. I want no part of it!” exclaimed the now infuriated young man.

‘You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends. You cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master.”

At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.

After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent.

“What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn, and for that which you did not earn, you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it to you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away. Therefore, it is not freedom at all.”

With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. “This is the nature of your new health care legislation.”

I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation — and was surprised by applause.

The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, “Thank you, Sir. These kids don’t understand Liberty.”

He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, “You earned this one. It is an honor to pick up the tab.”

I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country.

  1. Remember… Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
  2. THIS SHOULD GO AROUND THE UNITED STATES SO PEOPLE CAN SEE JUST WHAT IS GOING ON. MAYBE EVEN THE POLITICALLY BLIND ONES WILL LEARN SOMETHING FROM IT.

 

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the American Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian.” Henry Ford

 

Here is evidence of What Homeland Security is Doing with All Those Military Vehicles and Ammo


Police Militarization, Abuses of Power, and the Road to Impeachment

 

These are trying times. Never in the history of this country have we been so weakened and polarized by what many view as deliberate government policy. Now anti-gunners in the U.S. Congress, the Obama administration, and legislatures across the country are seeking to exploit the Newtown tragedy to promote their “gun control” agenda that envisions federal, universal background checks on gun purchases, and that could lead to gun registration and confiscation.

At the same time, the increasing militarization of law enforcement, most visibly demonstrated by the growing use of massive, SWAT-type raids on businesses and individuals, sometimes with federal involvement or authorization, is heightening concerns that this country is moving toward a police state.

Mountain Pure SWAT Raid: The Movie

Mountain Pure Water, LLC is headquartered on Interstate 30 just outside the town of Little Rock, Arkansas. The company manufactures and distributes beverage containers, spring water, fruit drinks, and teas. In January 2012, about 50 federal agents, led by Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) Special Agent Cynthia Roberts and IRS Special Agent Bobbi Spradlin, swooped in, guns drawn. Without explanation they shut down plant operations, herded employees into the cafeteria, and confined them to the room for hours. They could not so much as use the bathroom without police escort. Cell phones were confiscated and all Internet and company phones were disabled.

Plant Manager Court Stacks was at his desk when police burst through his office door, guns drawn and pointed at him—a thoroughly unprofessional violation of basic firearms discipline in this circumstance, and the cause of numerous accidental SWAT killings.

storm damaged barnAccording to Mountain Pure CEO John Stacks, the search warrant was related to questions about an SBA loan he secured through the Federal Emergency Management Agency to recover tornado losses to his home, warehouse, and associated equipment. Mr. Stacks says the SBA apparently doesn’t believe that assets listed as damaged in the storm were actually damaged.

The search warrant was extremely vague and some agents’ actions may have been illegal, according to company attorney, Timothy Dudley. Comptroller Jerry Miller was taken to a private room and interrogated for over three hours by SBA Special Agent Cynthia Roberts, the raid leader. He requested an attorney and was told “That ain’t gonna happen.” According to Miller, the SBA unilaterally changed the terms of Stacks’ loan. He says he asked Roberts what gave the SBA authority to do that, and she responded, “We’re the federal government, we can do what we want, when we want, and there is nothing you can do about it.” Miller said during the raid Roberts “strutted around the place like she was Napoleon.”

Stacks said the company has had three IRS audits in the past three years, including one following the raid, with no problems. The SBA has still not filed any charges, continues to stonewall about the raid’s purpose, and refuses to release most of the property seized during the raid.

Quality Assurance Director Katy Depriest, who doubles as the company crisis manager, described agents’ “Gestapo tactics.” She added that they confiscated CDs of college course work and educational materials for a class she had been taking that resulted in her flunking the course. Those materials have not yet been returned.

Attempts were made to contact Ms. Roberts for this article, but she is no longer employed by the SBA. Questions were directed to the Little Rock, Arkansas U.S. Attorney’s office. The USA’s public affairs officer had no comment; however they have convened a grand jury to evaluate the case.

Because law enforcement refused repeated requests to respond for this article, we have only Mountain Pure’s side of the story, but they make a compelling case:

  • Many company employees were willing to discuss this raid on the record.
  • Mountain Pure and several employees have sued Special Agents Roberts and Spradlin.
  • Mr. Stacks commissioned a video about the raid, reproduced here.

The video includes testimony from Henry Juszkiewicz, CEO of famed Gibson Guitar Corp., which suffered two such raids, and another raid target, Duncan Outdoors Inc. The video does not attempt to establish anyone’s guilt or innocence, but rather highlights law enforcement’s heavy-handed tactics in executing SWAT-style search warrants against legitimate businesses. Gibson has settled with the Justice Department in a case fraught with legal ambiguities, while Duncan has been indicted for violations of currency transaction reporting requirements.

Mr. Stacks claims he has gotten calls from many companies that have suffered similar raids, but they are afraid to speak out. Here are a few examples that have made national news:

  • FDA officials, U.S. Marshals, and the Pennsylvania State Police raided an Amish farm in 2011 for selling raw milk.
  • A Department of Education SWAT team raided a man’s home, “dragged him out in his boxer shorts, threw him to the ground and handcuffed him” in front of his three young children. They were looking for evidence of his estranged wife’s financial aid fraud.
  • 66 year-old George Norris spent two years in jail following a USFWS raid that nailed him for filing incorrect forms on imported orchids.
  • A Fairfax, Virginia optometrist being served a warrant for illegal gambling was killed by a SWAT team member whose firearm accidentally discharged. He answered the door in his bathrobe, unarmed and unaware that he was even under investigation.

War on Small Business?

In 2006, the IRS announced it would shift its focus to audit more small businesses. IRS data on tax audits seems to bear this out. Between the first and second half of the last decade, the audit coverage rate on businesses with assets between $10 and $50 million increased by 42 percent. Between 2001 and 2005 an annual average of 13,549 returns were audited for businesses with assets less than $10 million. Between 2006 and 2011, the average was 19,289, an increase of over 42 percent (pdf).

This has paid off in increased enforcement revenues, but are massive SWAT raids an essential part of this new strategy? In addition to the potential dangers and the outrage of having company employees treated like drug dealers or terrorists, the cost of these raids is staggering. Agents told Mountain Pure employees they had flown in from all over the country.

The Sharpsburg Raid

Sharpsburg, Maryland, population 706, is a quiet little town bordering the Antietam National Battlefield in rural Washington County. On Thursday, November 29, 2012 at about 12:30 pm, the quiet was shattered by an invasion of over 150 Maryland State Police (MSP), FBI, State Fire Marshal’s bomb squad, and County SWAT teams, complete with two police helicopters, two Bearcat “special response” vehicles, mobile command posts, snipers, police dogs, bomb disposal truck, bomb sniffing robots, and a huge excavator. They even brought in food trucks.

A heavily armed MSP Special Tactical Assault Team Element (STATE) executed a no-knock search warrant, smashing through the reportedly unlocked door with a battering ram. They worked until after 7:30 p.m., ransacking a modest, 20 ft. by 60 ft. single-family home for weapons, and searching for its owner, one Terry Porter. For hours, neighbors were left worrying and wondering, while countless police blanketed the area.

Local resident Tim Franquist described the scene:

“The event, or siege as we are calling it, involved convoys of police speeding to the area, two helicopters, armored vehicles, command centers, countless police cruisers and officers. They blocked off the roads and commandeered a campground as their staging area.”

Terry Porter is married with three children, has lived in the town all of his life, and owns a modest welding business. He is also a prepper. His preparations include an underground bunker, buried food supplies, and surveillance cameras. Porter really doesn’t like Obama, and tells anyone who will listen.

Unfortunately, one listener was an undercover officer for the MSP. The police had become interested in Porter through an anonymous caller who claimed that Porter “had been getting crazier and crazier…” and that he had “10 to 15 machine gun-style weapons, six handguns and up to 10,000 rounds of ammunition…” The MSP performed a background check and discovered Porter had a 20-year-old charge for aiding marijuana distribution, a disqualification for firearms ownership.

MSP detailed an officer to visit Porter’s shop on November 16th posing as a customer. The officer said Porter “openly admitted to being a prepper.” Not a crime. Porter also allegedly claimed to have a Saiga shotgun, and was willing to use it “when people show up unannounced.” Based on the Russian AK-47 design, some Saiga variants are fully automatic. On November 27th MSP obtained a search warrant.

Two days later they appeared at Porter’s door but could not find him. Porter later disclosed he “left out the back door.” Where he went has not been disclosed. However, local blogger Ann Corcoran, who lives nearby and followed the issue closely, claims he hid out in fear for his life. Given highly publicized, accidental shootings involving SWAT teams and the overwhelming force present, that’s a reasonable assumption.

The following day Porter turned himself in and took the police through his property. The raid produced a total of four shotguns, a 30-30-caliber hunting rifle and two .22-caliber rifles. He was charged with firearms possession violations and released on a $75,000 bond.

The raid was one of the largest in recent U.S. history, twice the size of the 1993 Branch Davidian raid in Waco, Texas, which initially involved 76 ATF agents. It almost rivaled the recent 200-strong statewide manhunt for California cop-killing cop, Christopher Dorner. Yet only a few local stories emerged and those presented a hysterical portrait of Porter while largely underreporting the police presence.

Why the Raid?

The MSP did not notify town officials or Washington County Sheriff Douglas Mullendore, who learned of the raid after it began, when they requested the use of his SWAT Team and Bearcat. The MSP also set up a command center at a campground within the national park without notifying the Park Police. Bills have since been introduced in the Maryland legislature by Washington County Delegate Neil Parrott (HB 0219) and State Senator Chris Shank (SB 0259) to require notification of local law enforcement before any outside agency serves a warrant.

A meeting following the raid attracted 60 concerned Sharpsburg citizens and leaders. Sharpsburg Vice Mayor Bryan Gabriel characterized the raid as “overwhelming,” and said it “could have put a lot of people at risk.” Erin Moshier, a citizen who attended the meeting added, “We all felt there was excessive force involved, and we felt that a member of our community was victimized and we wanted to get to the bottom of it and get some answers.” Both Gabriel and Sheriff Mullendore have issued statements of support for Porter, who they know personally. Citizens created a “Friends for Terry” website to help with his legal costs.

When asked why the police did not simply detain Porter in town or at a traffic stop, MSP Hagerstown Barracks Commander, Lt. Thomas Woodward said the police only had a property search warrant and had no authority to arrest Porter. However police do have authority to “detain the property owner for 24 hours” when executing a search warrant, so Porter could have been intercepted elsewhere, but they chose to execute that authority as part of the raid.

Lt. Woodward said that the state police have a good working relationship with Sheriff Mullendore. If that is the case, why didn’t they consult the sheriff first? If Porter were really that dangerous wouldn’t it be helpful to get more information from a trusted source better acquainted with him? Mullendore said they usually do give notice. Reportedly several state police who personally know Porter reside in Sharpsburg. Why were they not consulted?

Does the MSP detail SWAT automatically for gun search warrants? Some other police forces do. For example, in one fatal Florida SWAT shooting, a 21-man SWAT team was called in merely because the target had a concealed-carry permit. Are SWAT raids to become the order of the day for gun owners?

If Mr. Porter is indeed adjudicated a felon in possession of firearms, then he was in violation of the law. He didn’t help his case by bragging to the undercover officer about his doomsday preparations, especially the Saiga—which turned out to be nonexistent.

There is nothing wrong with being prepared, or even describing the actions you might take in a hypothetical “doomsday” situation, but in fairness to police, with all the lunatics coming out of the woodwork these days, and the heightened atmosphere of mutual distrust between law enforcement and citizens, the MSP might be excused for presuming the worst. But 150 police?

Recent events such as the kidnapping/bunker standoff in Alabama, and cop-killer Dorner, provide apt examples. Police never know what to expect. Still, in this case at least, it seems a little more investigation and consultation with local authorities could have resolved this issue quietly and with much less risk and cost.

Cost of the Operation

Neither the FBI nor the MSP have publicly disclosed how many of their officers were involved in the raid. However, Senator Shank and Delegate Parrott were told in a meeting with top MSP officials that the total, including federal, state, and local police, exceeded 150. From public information requests we know that the Washington County Special Response Team (SRT) sent 17, including four snipers, two medics, and their Bearcat driver. Only two of these actually participated, the driver and a sniper who accompanied him.

The FBI personnel were training nearby and when their assistance was requested, many, if not all, chose to participate. A witness on the scene guessed there were approximately 40 officers at the campground where the FBI staged. If we assume a total of 150, that would leave 93 MSP. The following table, based on police salaries gleaned from public sources provides a rough estimate of the personnel cost for this operation.

sharpsburg raid cost table

The MSP argued that only variable costs—those directly related to the operation—are relevant. By this logic, the operation cost very little, as salaries and other fixed costs are incurred anyway. But the personnel and resources involved would otherwise have been engaged elsewhere: tracking down criminals, enforcing other laws, and assisting in emergencies. There are clearly other, potentially more beneficial activities they could not simultaneously perform. This is called opportunity cost and must be considered.

This raid cost approximately $11,000 per hour, which dramatically illustrates one reason government spending is so wildly out of control. If agency managers considered the true cost of their decisions, they might work harder to prioritize their activities and not waste valuable resources on errands of questionable value.

High visibility events like the Sharpsburg raid present a one-sided picture of police as out-of-control, wasting time on seeming trifles. But their daily efforts, which go largely unreported, paint a much more balanced picture. For example, the MSP Gang Enforcement Unit has aggressively investigated violent street gangs, one of the largest sources of gun violence.

Between 2010 and 2012 alone, the Gang Unit made 621 gang arrests and seized 94 firearms. This does not include their extensive work with multi-agency task forces. Here, they have participated in successful operations against such violent gangs as the Crips & Bloods, Wise Guyz, B-6, the Black Guerrilla Family, Juggalos, the Dead Man Incorporated crime syndicate, and others, and have brought many of these offenders to justice.

Militarization of Police

crime down but police militarizeThe SWAT concept was popularized by Los Angeles Police Chief Darryl Gates in the late 1960s in response to large-scale incidents for which the police were ill-prepared. But the use of SWAT teams has since exploded. Massive SWAT raids using military-style equipment are becoming routine methods for executing search warrants. One study estimates 40,000 such raids per year nationwide:

“These increasingly frequent raids… are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers.”

John W. Whitehead writes in the Huffington Post, that “it appears to have less to do with increases in violent crime and more to do with law enforcement bureaucracy and a police state mentality.”

The ACLU recently announced its intention to investigate the militarization of law enforcement. Ironically, despite the perception of heightened gun violence due to incidents like Newtown, ACLU points out that both crime rates and law enforcement gun deaths have been declining for decades (see chart).

Yet police forces are becoming increasingly militarized due to huge subsidies provided by the federal government:

“Through its little-known “1033 program,” the Department of Defense gave away nearly $500 million worth of leftover military gear to law enforcement in fiscal year 2011… The surplus equipment includes grenade launchers, helicopters, military robots, M-16 assault rifles and armored vehicles… Orders in fiscal year 2012 are up 400 percent over the same period in 2011…”

Congress created this provision in 1997 for drug and anti-terrorism efforts. It has since provided over 17,000 agencies $2.6 billion worth of equipment at no charge. One local agency now owns an amphibious tank, while another obtained a machine-gun-equipped APC.

governor omalley bearcatAdditionally, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants have allowed state and local agencies nationwide to purchase Bearcats. These 16,000 pound vehicles are bulletproof and can be equipped with all kinds of extra features.

Ironically, while SWAT teams probably got their biggest boost initially from conservatives, many fear law enforcement is becoming a tool to enforce leftist ideology. University criminal justice programs turn out graduates indoctrinated in liberal theology, which carries into modern law enforcement bureaucratic culture.

Today this trend is reflected in reports coming out of the Department of Homeland Security, the military, and various law enforcement “fusion” centers, that identify gun-owners, patriots, ex-military, Christians, pro-life activists, and tea party members as “potential domestic terrorists (pdf).”

The perpetrator of last summer’s attempted mass shooting at the Family Research Council headquarters now admits he was prompted by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Hate Watch” list. The radical leftist SPLC is now “consulting” with the FBI and DHS regarding “rightwing hate groups.” The group labeled AIM’s Cliff Kincaid a member of a sinister group of “Patriots” for writing critically of the United Nations, President Obama, and the homosexual lobby, among other things. Ironically, the SPLC “Teaching tolerance” project ran an article praising unrepentant Communist terrorist bomber Bill Ayers as a “civil rights organizer, radical anti-Vietnam War activist, teacher, and author,” with an “editor’s note” going so far as to say that Ayers “has become a highly respected figure in the field of multicultural education.”

Ammo, Military Equipment and Domestic Drone Use

The Internet is abuzz with news that the Department of Homeland Security is purchasing over 1.6 billion rounds of pistol and rifle ammunition, 2,700 Mine Resistant Armored Vehicles (MRAP), and 7,000 fully-automatic “personal defense weapons.” Some of this is worthy of concern, some maybe not so much. Meanwhile, the expanded use of aerial drones within the continental U.S. has created anxiety among the public and political leaders alike.

Ammo

Reportedly, the order for 1.6 billion rounds of pistol and rifle ammunition would fulfill DHS requirements for the next five years, or 320 million rounds per year. DHS has 55,471 employees authorized to carry firearms, which comes to about 5,800 rounds per year, per employee. For perspective, during the first year of the war on terror, approximately 72 million rounds were expended in Iraq and another 21 million in Afghanistan by an estimated 45,000 combat troops. This amounts to about 2,000 rounds per war fighter.

Yet the requisition may not be unreasonable. The largest order, 750 million rounds, came from DHS’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) for training. FLETC Public Affairs Director Peggy Dixon said that the purchase request was “a ceiling. It does not mean that we will buy, or require, the full amounts of either contract.” Another 650 million rounds are being purchased by Inspections and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to cover the next five years.

Since these are maximum figures, it is difficult to conclusively evaluate the purchase. Some have asserted that the practical effect—if not the deliberate intent—is to dry up the private market for ammunition. Congressmen are now demanding answers from DHS regarding these purchases. But most ammunition shortages are likely due to civilian demands. Obama and the Democrats’ palpable hostility to gun owners has caused ammunition and firearms purchases to skyrocket.

There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. If each just purchased 100 rounds of ammo—enough for one afternoon at the range—that would equal 8-billion rounds. Many are purchasing significantly more.

Instead of asking why DHS needs 1.6 billion rounds of ammo, the real question we should be asking is, “Why does DHS need 55,000 law enforcement officers?”

MRAPs & Submachine Guns

The original story regarding a purchase of 2,700 MRAPs s was in error. The confusion centers on a 2011 order from the U.S. Marines to retrofit 2,717 of its MRAPs with upgraded chassis.

DHS has been using MRAPs since 2008 and currently has a fleet of 16 received from the Army at no cost. They are used by DHS special response teams in executing “high-risk warrants.”

Similarly, the purchase of 7,000 “Personal Defense Weapons” is not extraordinary for an agency of this size.

Drones

DHS’s Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) has been operating Predator drones since 2005, with a current fleet of nine. Some in Congress seek to expand their use. In February of 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, which includes a provision for commercial drone regulations. The FAA projects that up to 30,000 drones could be flying by 2020. A requisition memo describes these requirements for drones operated by CBP against border incursions by frequently armed drug traffickers and coyotes, but concern exists that this use will extend to U.S. citizens inside the border.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) filibustered the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director, in order to obtain answers about lethal drone use against American citizens within the U.S. Holder finally sent Paul a letter, which said:

“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”

Paul said they had been asking Holder for about six weeks. But Holder didn’t answer the question at all. Paul did not specify Americans “engaged in combat on American soil.” He asked about attacks against any Americans on U.S. soil. Holder had said in earlier testimony that the President did have the authority to kill Americans on American soil in certain circumstances.

Given the Obama administration’s contempt for the Constitution and its broad definition of “domestic terrorists” to include pretty much anyone they don’t like, there is cause for genuine concern.

Gun Control 

The Sharpsburg raid occurred prior to the Newtown tragedy, but nonetheless reinforced the widespread impression that MSP is an anti-gun organization. Did the MSP decide to make an example of Porter to send a message to Maryland gun owners, or were they genuinely afraid that Porter was about to go postal? That question is unclear, but a Maryland law enforcement source who has attended briefings on the subject said that state police are “gearing up for confiscation.”

In 1989 Patrick O’Carroll of the Centers for Disease Control, stated:

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities” (emphasis added).

The CDC further revealed its strategy in 1994:

“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly, and banned.” Dr. Mark Rosenberg, Director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention. Washington Post, 1994 (emphasis added).

Do these themes sound familiar? They represent a single component of a vast effort by media, politicians, Hollywood, educational institutions, and professionals to vilify gun ownership. One left-wing organization, Third Way, created a “messaging strategy,” encouraging the term “gun safety” because “gun control has become a loaded term that leads voters to believe that the candidate supports the most restrictive laws.”

Since Newtown, however, the anti-gunners have pretty much dropped any pretense. Here is a small sampling of recent anti-gun lunacy:

  • Florida Democratic state Senator Audrey Gibson has proposed a bill requiring anger management classes for would-be ammo purchasers.
  • Colorado State Senator Evie Hudak told a rape victim testifying against gun control that having a gun was a waste of time as the rapist would have killed her with it.
  • A Democrat activist says we should train rapists not to rape, rather than using guns to stop them.
  • A Baltimore, MD seven-year old was suspended from school for two days for biting a pastry into a shape that looked like a gun.
  • A five-year old was suspended from school and branded a “terrorist threat” for telling a classmate she was going to shoot her with her Princess “bubble gun.”
  • A Philadelphia 5th grader was called “murderer” by classmates and yelled at by her teacher for having a piece of paper cut into a shape that looked vaguely like a pistol.
  • A New Jersey family was visited by police and the Department of Youth and Family Services because of a photo of their 11-year-old son posing with a rifle.

In an unguarded moment recently, U.S. Rep Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) revealed the Democratic intentions:

“We want everything on the table…This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it…We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the—you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”

Conclusion

The increased militarization of police forces and the associated use of SWAT teams for routine law enforcement are a dangerous trend. Given Obama’s seeming willingness to abuse the power of his office on so many fronts, it is reasonable to expect more, not less, of the kind of abusive police overreach described in this report, while police forces and capabilities will continue to grow.

Obama’s obvious hostility to gun owners is fueling legitimate fears of gun confiscation, furthering an atmosphere of mutual distrust and paranoia between police and civilians. This raises the specter of armed confrontations should there be attempts to confiscate firearms. As one law enforcement official said at a recent gun hearing, “Good people are going to die trying to take these guns and good people are going to die trying to keep them.”

Ironically, despite its professed commitment to stopping “gun violence,” the Obama Administration authorized gun-running to Mexican drug cartels and Jihadists in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East. Some hearings and investigations have been held into these schemes but there has been little accountability for this “gun violence.”

At an AIM conference before the 2012 presidential election, impeachment proceedings against President Obama were discussed. Citing his experience with the Clinton impeachment, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), then-chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, talked about hearings held by his committee featuring constitutional experts who said “no other administration has ignored laws like this administration…” In regard to impeachment, however, he said that the standard was extremely high, and the process long and involved. He concluded, “I really think the better answer is to turn the attention to the American people and saying, ‘If you feel that strongly about the President, one way to register that discontent is to vote for the other person.’”

In the end, of course, Obama won re-election, and the abuses continue. However, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX), has suggested impeachment may be an option if the President continues to govern through unilateral executive orders and attempts to impose his anti-Second Amendment agenda through such measures.

 

Ninety million Americans are no longer in the workforce.


We Are Living in a Dying Country

April 05, 2013  http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/04/05/we_are_living_in_a_dying_country

Listen to it Button

By Rush Limbaugh

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Folks, I don’t know how else to categorize this.  We are living in a dying country.  I don’t know how else to categorize what’s happening — 88,000 new jobs.  The unemployment rate, because of a terrible statistic, is down to 7.6%.  The number of people in this country who are not working is shameful.  Ninety million Americans are no longer in the workforce.  Ninety million.  People not in the labor force grew by 663,000, and now 90 million.  That’s the labor force participation rate.  This is 1979 levels.  The only difference is that we don’t have an election around the corner to fix it like we did in 1979.  We had that election last November, and we blew it.

In addition to payrolls only adding 88,000 jobs, an additional 81,800 went on disability in March.  We’re now up to 8.8 million Americans on disability.  We had nearly as many people go on disability in March as people who found jobs.  I think it’s official.  We have a dying country.  There is literally no way that our entitlement programs and our safety net and our absorption of immigrants, legal or otherwise, can be supported this way.  This simply cannot be sustained.  I don’t know how else to describe this.  The unemployment rate of 7.6% is ridiculous.

The U-6 unemployment rate is still around 15%.  That is the unemployment rate you get if you add people who are out of work and looking for a job and people who are out of work and have given up looking.  Those people have been out of work for a long time.  They’ve had 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, and they’ve given up looking, so they’re not counted in the reported unemployment percentage of 7.6%.  If they were counted, the number would be 15%.  And if there were not the demographic weighting — the 7.6% number is arrived at by estimating certain factors as being in existence or being true based on demographics. There are assumptions made about employment, unemployment in the Hispanic community, with women, black community so forth.

This is from Jim Pethokoukis, our buddy at the American Enterprise Institute.  If you take out all of the demographic weighting — let me give you another example of weighting.  Let me use radio numbers for it.  In local markets, there are minority-owned-and-operated radio stations.  This goes way back, by the way.  For the purposes of affirmative action, the audiences of minority stations were always bumped a little beyond what the actual ratings were.  It was part and parcel of recognition of past discrimination. It was part of making amends. It was part of affirmative action, and it was accepted.  Nobody complained about it.  It’s the way it was.  People did business that way, but nevertheless it existed.  You agree with me on this?

(interruption)

What?  Well, there’s a whole bunch of reasons.  Yeah, the ratings didn’t reach minority people, was one of the explanations, the old diary system. Now it’s the one-eyed, one horned flying purple people meter, whatever it is, but they didn’t reach these people.  So it was just estimated that audiences to minority radio stations were much higher than they actually ended up being reported as being.  That’s called weighting.  Well, the same thing is done in employment, unemployment numbers.  And Mr. Pethokoukis’ point is if we just dealt with what the real numbers are, as Bob Johnson was the other day, unemployment in the black community, 15%, black teenagers, 25%, if you deal with those numbers, his point is that the U-3 number or the 7.6% number would actually be 9.9.

If we just took the data and just reported the data as it is without any demographic weighting, then we’d be at 9.9%, not 7.6%.  It’s like yesterday we had the report on the number of applications for unemployment compensation, which skyrocketed back up 388,000.  Much higher than what was expected by the experts.  And, of course, that number will be revised upward even more in a couple of weeks.  You have to work really hard to find that revised number, but it will be around 400,000.  In the meantime, while all this is going on, the regime’s running around talking about our economic recovery and why we’ve gotta start making loans to people that can’t pay ’em back again to boost the home market that’s recovering.

It really is obscene.  There is no housing market recovery to speak of.  There is no recovery anything to speak of here.  Now we’re gonna start making loans to people who can’t pay ’em back.  Banks are being forced to do this by the regime so those people are not left out of this housing boom.  Folks, it’s utterly ridiculous, 7.6% unemployment weighed against 90 million Americans not working.  The labor force participation rate also includes the number of jobs that have disappeared.  They’re no longer in existence.  They’re not there to be filled by anybody.  The regime does that to get that number down to 7.6%.  If the universe of jobs available shrinks, then the percentage of people out of work will be smaller, by definition.  I can’t tell you how many months I had to go through fisticuffs, practically, to get people who are telling me I didn’t know what I was talking about, to convince them that I did. But if your universe is a hundred percent and your unemployment rate’s 7.6%, then what do you figure?  You got 93% or whatever of the people working.

Well, what if your universe shrinks to 80% but you still call it a hundred percent?  That’s what’s happening here.  There aren’t a hundred percent anymore.  It’s shrunk.  The number of jobs that are available, the number of businesses which are open, the number of businesses which have jobs to fill, plummeting.  We’re a dying country.  Everybody knows it.  Even Ichabod Goolsbee, who is a former economics guru in the regime, now in the private sector making legitimate money, Ichabod Goolsbee said, “This is like a punch to the gut.”  And we’ve got some sound bites and news stories here where all these experts just can’t believe this.  Why, this doesn’t make any sense, and of course they’re blaming the sequester for this.  Oh, yeah.  Oh, yeah, the sequester, because that means it’s the Republicans.  Except the sequester’s got nothing to do with this.

This all started January 21st, 2009.  That’s when the intense trend began with the immaculation of Obama and the mythical stimulus package.  We’re a country in decline, and the president is presiding over a country in decline.  So he’s gotta budget that he’s gonna be presenting soon, we’re told, and one of the things that the president is going to do to generate revenue — ’cause, see, that’s the problem.  Do you know in the midst of all this what the big problem is?  The government does not have enough money.  It’s not that the country doesn’t have enough jobs. It’s not that the people of this country aren’t earning enough salary, wages, whatever.  No, no.  The problem is the government doesn’t have enough money.

So the president is going to trying to get more money by placing a $3 million upper limit on tax preferred retirement accounts.  So he’s going to take even more money from the so-called rich under the guise they’re not paying their fair share.  Because the government’s running out of money, and we cannot have that.  So payrolls grow by 88,000.  Eighty-two thousand new Americans on disability in March.  A total of 8.8 million Americans on disability, and every damn one of them feels justified.  And I’ll tell you something else.  All of the people — 90 million Americans — ladies and gentlemen, 90 million Americans are not working, but they are all eating, and they’re all using cell phones.  And they are all watching television.  And most of them are driving.

I don’t know how this can be sustained.  A blogger at ZeroHedge.com, a guy named Tyler Durden, which is a stage name, says things just keep getting worse for the American employee, and by implication, the US economy, where, as we’ve shown many times before, it pays just as well to sit back and collect disability and various welfare and entitlement checks than to work.  The best manifestation of this, the number of people not in the labor force, which in March alone grew by 663,000.  They want to tell us that there were 88,000 new jobs in March, when the number is 663,000.  Over a half million people dropped out of the labor force.  That means they either lost their jobs or stopped looking for one.

What is this 88,000 people found work?  Compared to the 663,000 who dropped out.  A record 90 million Americans are no longer even looking for work.  I don’t even want to get into whether it’s their fault or not.  Folks, everybody has to eat, and they are.  The Democrat Party’s seen to it.  This was the biggest monthly increase in people dropping out of the labor force since January of 2012, when the Bureau of Labor Stats did its census recast of the labor numbers.  Even worse, the labor force participation rate plunged to the lowest level since 1979.

But, in a perverted way, that many people leaving the workforce shrinks the universe, and it makes it possible to say that unemployment’s improving.  I’m not kidding you.  Even Mr. Durden makes the point.  If you shrink the universe, then the percentage of people not working gets smaller, and you can say, “We added 88,000 jobs, not like we want, but we’re working at it. We’re adding 88,000 jobs. The unemployment number is coming down.”  And as far as low-information Americans are concerned, that’s it, and that’s all there is to know.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The Drive-By Media, State-Controlled Media is either pretending that the March jobs report is good news — some of them are. Some of them out there are actually trying to pump up 88,000 new jobs as a sign of Obama’s robust recovery and his expertise. Others are saying it’s bad news and it’s the fault of the sequester. If you want to say it’s the fault of anything and you want to get that specific, you’d have to look at the payroll tax holiday ending first.

But this is all happening because of the policies the president. There’s no argument about that. I mean, I know that people still want to blame Bush, and I know that the president — the Limbaugh Theorem — is running around still trying to fix all this. None of this is his. People don’t attach his policies to this. Amazingly, the low-information population still views the president as working tirelessly to fix all this, trying to come up with something that’ll work, ’cause he cares about everybody. But this has nothing to do with sequester. It has nothing to do, really, with the payroll tax cut.

END TRANSCRIPT

Click here to find out more!

Representative Jackie Speier Wants to Make California Equal to Sodom and Gomorrah


Pedophilia Is A Sexual Orientation Under CA Bill[?]

pedophilia is a sexual orientation

UPDATE 4/5/13: Please see our apology and explanation here.

UPDATE 4/4/13: After being contacted by a representative for Jackie Speier, we were “strongly urge[d]” to edit the content in this piece, and we have made adjustments accordingly. More info to follow. Comments will remain closed.

California Congresswoman, Rep. Jackie Speier CA (D), wants to federalize a state law to prohibit counseling to change a person’s sexual orientation.

Under the bill’s language, a mental health counselor could be sanctioned if there was an attempt to get a gay individual to change his or her behavior or speak negatively about their behavior as it relates to sexuality.

The bill calls on states to prohibit efforts to change a minor’s sexual orientation, even if the minor requests it, saying that doing so is “dangerous and harmful.”

The text of the legislation doesn’t specifically ban “gay” conversion therapy. Instead, it prohibits attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation.

“Sexual orientation change efforts’ means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation,” the bill says.

In regards to California state law SB 1172, which was initiated to ban conversion therapy in California, there were questions regarding the text of the bill.

“This language is so broad and vague, it arguably could include all forms of sexual orientation, including pedophilia,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “It’s not just the orientation that is protected—the conduct associated with the orientation is protected as well.”

Who Cares If Pedophilia Is A Sexual Orientation?

It also means that, if pedophilia is a sexual orientation, that discrimination laws also apply to pedophiles. That means you cannot block a pedophile from being a preschool teacher or any other high-risk occupation.

Recently, a United States District Court Judge, William Shubb, sided with Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) by granting their plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against the legislation, which is known as California SB 1172.

“Because the court finds that SB 1172 is subject to strict scrutiny and is unlikely to satisfy this standard, the court finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims based on violations of their rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment,” wrote Judge Shubb.

“This victory sends a clear signal to all those who feel they can stifle religious freedom, free speech, and the rights of parents without being contested,” said PJI President, Brad Dacus. “We at PJI are ready to fight this battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

“This will be a long, grueling battle with tremendous consequences for generations to come. We are grateful to those who are willing to support us in this critical time to preserve our freedoms and protect our children,” he continued.

Thankfully, for the time being, this legislation has been blocked, but many questions still remain.

This bill establishes a dangerous precedent for normalizing the behavior of pedophiles while stripping parents of their rights and peace of mind.

One can certainly make the argument that homosexuals are “born that way,” and we generally would not dispute that. However, when we have legislators that are, by default, leaving the door open to extend the “born that way” defense to pedophiles, this crosses a very dangerous line.

Whether a pedophile is born that way or not, it still does not make their behavior acceptable in any way.

If so, then you could declare rapists are “born that way.” They can’t help that they need to rape! Poor them!

Let’s be real.

Sex between an adult and a child too young to understand what is going on is not the same thing as sex between two consenting adults.

The operative word here is “consenting.” Children—by both law and basic common sense—cannot “consent.”

What liberals conveniently ignore is the fact that all societies who participated in pedophilia—such as the Hittites, Canaanites, Greeks, and Romans—eventually caved in on themselves due to corruption and depravity.

Further, let’s not also forget that their favorite form of entertainment was watching people get torn to shreds by lions, hacked to death, and burned alive.

Recognizing sexual ‘orientation’ is walking a razor’s edge. Unlike gay-oriented legislation, pedophilia has victims who must be protected.

We don’t put pedophiles in prison to make them stop being pedophiles; we put them there because they threaten the safety of the most vulnerable people in a society.

Amen!


Dear Left-Wing Bigot

Posted by  http://joeforamerica.com/2013/04/dear-left-wing-bigot/

This is an open letter to the left wing bigots who call us racist, sexist, homophobic pigs because we won’t hide in the shadows, shut our mouths and pretend to agree with them.

bigot-sign

From Beaglescout,

Dear Unbearably Self-Righteous, Left-Wing, Race-and-Class-Warfare-Waging, Republican-Scapegoating, Closed-Minded, Racialist Democrat Bigot,

I hope you don’t mind if I just call you “Bigot.” It fits you. It’s been a long time since we talked. I haven’t missed it really, since every time we talk it quickly becomes unbearable. I say something innocent, you get offended, and then you call me a racist. Or sexist, ageist, ableist, homophobic, islamophobic, reactionary, cruel, brutal, and a hater. It’s hard to take all the hate in fact. It isn’t any hate I might hold for you, since I have none. But your hate for me and anyone else who doesn’t agree with you… that’s hard to take.

You have called me racist often enough that I am used to it. After all, every common sense idea that comes out of my mouth is, according to you, so hidebound and fossilized it doesn’t and cannot possibly account for the reality of the world today. When I say that one out of three black children in America is killed in the womb by abortion doctors, by far the leading cause of death for black Americans, you call me racist.

2 + 2 = 4
Your turn to
call me racist

I state a fact you dislike but can’t dispute. You call me racist. See how it works?

I suppose I am racist since I like the human race. That includes even innocent babies who never hurt anyone and haven’t yet been born. I don’t see any other race that really matters. Skin color doesn’t make a race. It’s just a look, like Emo or Goth or Camouflage. We’re all a bloody mess of tissues and bones under the skin. But you say I’m racist when I speak facts, then you follow up saying the concept of facts is racist. I’m not the racist here. I’m a human just like every member of the human race, and I love that race. The racist is the one who (1) believes race is a meaningful distinction, (2) sees everything through the prism of race, and (3) acts based on the claimed racial differences. I believe race is pseudo-scientific crap that was invented by eugenicists and other progressives back in the 19th century, about the same time that Madame Blavatsky invented Theosophy. I don’t believe it’s meaningful. We’re all human. That’s more important.

Shakespeare said it best in Shylock’s monologue from The Merchant of Venice

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal’d by the same means, warm’d and cool’d by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that.

The Merchant Of Venice Act 3, scene 1, 58–68

I’m not a Jew, but I bleed. I’m not crippled, or differently abled as you would say it. But I have hands and eyes. If you tickle me, I laugh. But I am conservative, so you hate me and project your hate on me.

We abandoned Theosophy ages ago, but the Democrat Party, the party of war against native Americans, of slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK, never abandoned race. They just changed the target of their race weapon.

What does it mean to be conservative, to have traditional values and principles? I can’t speak for all conservatives, but I can speak for me.

I believe that over tens of thousands of years of human societies we whose ways came from the English speaking peoples of Europe have tried and discarded most of the really bad ideas that existed and focused our rules down to a traditional core of good ideas. It was a million “survival of the fittest” scenarios. The really bad ideas doomed the societies that held them. The really good ideas and the societies that held them survived and created traditions. These traditions passed the test of time. These traditional ways freed the slaves in England and the United States. Slavery still exists, is legal, in other societies. But it is not legal here. The English, Christian traditions that formed the foundation for America make for a happy and cooperative civilization that allows everyone to live together in harmony. When those traditions are thrown away society suffers, which means that people suffer. Traditions are not fossilized ideas. They are the tested and proven result of the longest chain of scientific experiments ever attempted: The end link of a very long chain of hypothesis, antithesis, synthesis cycles. Traditions are the science of human harmony.

And because I believe in this science of harmonious human living, in your eyes I’m a racist, sexist, homophobic, intolerant pig. Because I believe in facts and science, you say I advance a racist, sexist system. Because I believe in God you say I believe in nonsense, as you believe in the pseudo science of global warming, racism, Marxism, the Roswell UFO theory, horoscopes, the Illuminati, the Mayan calendar, feng shui, numerology, Kabbalah, Keynesian economics, that Watergate was a bigger scandal than Benghazi, and you believe in the infinite perfidity of the wicked stupid chimp genius George W. Bush. Because you believe in nothing, you will fall for anything. Who knows, you might even still believe in theosophy.

Plus you think Starbucks makes good coffee. Wrong! They burn the beans.

Dear Bigot, the problem isn’t me. It’s you. Racist, sexist, homophobic and your other insults have no power, no meaning left. You used them up. You think you control everything, every lever of power and the culture, but to every thing there is a season and yours will end, just as my tolerance for you and your ways has ended.

In a thousand years, the memory of a movement that believed in nothing but fell for everything will not be a generous one.

Vive la Résistance!

Why Violate The Language to Engineer Our Society


Equality: “I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means…”

By http://clashdaily.com/2013/04/equality-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/

inigo-montoya-650-75 (1)Tolerance. Diversity. Poverty. The Rainbow. Leftists are exceptional at taking concepts, stripping out the entrails, stuffing it like a sausage with their own utopian brain-farts, and then beating us over the head with it until the concept loses all vestige of original meaning. It’s like that game you used to play as a kid on road trips where you’d repeat the same word over and over until it sounded unrecognizable to your own ears and everyone else in the car was ready to give you a wood shampoo.

They demonstrate Tolerance and Diversity by chastising and ostracizing anyone who disagrees with them. They agitate for more wealth confiscation from the rich so that Americans on welfare don’t have to choose between keeping their cable and getting a new cell phone. A new cell phone, by the way, manufactured in Chinese factories where the working conditions are deemed so terrible that people are committing suicide in order to bring attention to the plight of their fellow workers, in other words made by folks who are actually poor(1).

How pervasive is American poverty when 92% of poor households (as described by the Census Bureau) have a microwave? 31% have 2 or more automobiles. Nearly 2/3rds of them have cable TV or satellite and 1/3rd have LCD televisions.

This is poverty? Our poor would be considered wealthy in half the countries around the world. On a side note, why do we only compare ourselves to the rest of the world in hand-picked situations? If we have to hear about how much better Costa Rica is because of their eco-tourism and commitment to green initiatives, why don’t we talk about the fact that their GDP is ranked #82 in the world, behind countries like Myanmar and Sudan?

Let’s not forget the most popular banner under which the Left marches today: the Rainbow. Its original purpose was to serve as a covenantal reminder between mankind and God that He would never send torrential rains to wipe out the entire human population, as He nearly did during Noah’s time. In a twist of biting irony, the rainbow now serves as a battle standard for the very forces which led to the flooding of the earth in the first place. One can almost see the former residents of Sodom and Gomorrah gleefully marching in today’s Pride Parades under the banner signifying God’s eternal forbearance.

But why stop there? Why not continue the adoption of ironic symbols, so as to stick the thumb further into God’s eye? Forget the Ground Zero Mosque, we should build the Ground Zero Tower of Babel.

Let’s design mobiles for infant cribs. Instead of falling asleep to gently rotating stars and a moon, your baby can drift off to slumber while sleepily watching plush cut-outs of fire and brimstone circling above her head, signifying how proud and tolerant Dad and Dad are.

How about an awards show, called The Salties where salt-pillar trophies are given to the members of the Christian community who made the most difference on behalf of the LGBTQWFNXAIR community over the past year. It sure would be a nice way to say thank you to the hapless Christians who know better than God and can’t be troubled to turn their Bibles to Romans 1.

But there are few concepts which have suffered a worse drubbing than Equality. It is almost Orwellian how gruesomely the Left has twisted the concept of Equality. No one has described it more aptly than LBJ: “[F]reedom is not enough… [T]he next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights is not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result… To this end, equal opportunity is essential, but not enough.” – President Lyndon B Johnson, Howard University 1965

Apparently, the Founding Fathers were slack-jawed idjits. “Equality as a right is so-so”, is what he’s saying. But what he’d really like to see is equality as a result and a fact. So what he and his fellow Progressives have been doing ever since is trying to reverse-engineer our society to arrive at the desired result. This is their playbook. They pick a goal and then twist the existing framework to try to artificially manufacture their desired goal.

They did this with our housing market by punishing banks which refused to lend to sub-prime borrowers. Why? Because that’s how they planned to reach their goal of increasing home ownership amongst the poor. They did this with our currency when they created the Federal Reserve system, which allows them to tinker with interest rates and money supply to achieve their ideological goals. Time and again, they have refused to let natural forces operate and have forced us to suffer through the inevitable course corrections.

There is no way to achieve “equality is a fact” or a “result” without abandoning equality to get there. And what good is achieving something you have to violate to obtain? The first mistake is expecting Leftists to adhere to the laws of logic. The second is expecting them to see beyond their myopic, Machiavellian machinations. In their brilliance, our Founding Fathers realized that no man-made government could achieve equality of results and so they crafted a system that recognized the equal value of each American citizen and offered them an equal opportunity at success and happiness.

The American Dream is not wealth, success, and happiness. Many are born with that in this country or exert little effort to obtain it. No, the American Dream is found in the space between that equal opportunity and achieved success. It is the ability to make the journey, not the destination itself.

(1) The author is well aware that there are Americans who are desperately poor and is sensitive to their plight. He also understands that the number of truly poor Americans is dwarfed by the number of Americans who are perfectly capable of working and perfectly comfortable not working. These are the people who soak up available tax revenues which should be going to those who are truly in need.

Cats chased off men trying to force her to marry


Ethiopian girl reportedly guarded by lions

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia  — A 12-year-old girl who was abducted and beaten by men trying to force her into a marriage was found being guarded by three lions who apparently had chased off her captors, a policeman said Tuesday.

The girl, missing for a week, had been taken by seven men who wanted to force her to marry one of them, said Sgt. Wondimu Wedajo, speaking by telephone from the provincial capital of Bita Genet, about 350 miles southwest of Addis Ababa.

She was beaten repeatedly before she was found June 9 by police and relatives on the outskirts of Bita Genet, Wondimu said. She had been guarded by the lions for about half a day, he said.

“They stood guard until we found her and then they just left her like a gift and went back into the forest,” Wondimu said.

“If the lions had not come to her rescue, then it could have been much worse. Often these young girls are raped and severely beaten to force them to accept the marriage,” he said.

‘Some kind of miracle’
Tilahun Kassa, a local government official who corroborated Wondimu’s version of the events, said one of the men had wanted to marry the girl against her wishes.

“Everyone thinks this is some kind of miracle, because normally the lions would attack people,” Wondimu said.

Stuart Williams, a wildlife expert with the rural development ministry, said the girl may have survived because she was crying from the trauma of her attack.

“A young girl whimpering could be mistaken for the mewing sound from a lion cub, which in turn could explain why they didn’t eat her,” Williams said.

Ethiopia’s lions, famous for their large black manes, are the country’s national symbol and adorn statues and the local currency. Despite a recent crackdown, hunters kill the animals for their skins, which can fetch $1,000. Williams estimates that only 1,000 Ethiopian lions remain in the wild.

The girl, the youngest of four siblings, was “shocked and terrified” after her abduction and had to be treated for the cuts from her beatings, Wondimu said.

He said police had caught four of the abductors and three were still at large.

Kidnapping young girls has long been part of the marriage custom in Ethiopia. The United Nations estimates that more than 70 percent of marriages in Ethiopia are by abduction, practiced in rural areas where most of the country’s 71 million people live.

As For Me and My House, We will Serve the Lord and His Word.


The Bible vs. Heart

By: Dennis Prager

I offer the single most politically incorrect statement a modern American — indeed a modern Westerner, period — can make: I first look to the Bible for moral guidance and for wisdom.I say this even though I am not a Christian (I am a Jew, and a non-Orthodox one at that). And I say this even though I attended an Ivy League graduate school (Columbia), where I learned nothing about the Bible there except that it was irrelevant, outdated and frequently immoral.

I say this because there is nothing — not any religious or secular body of work — that comes close to the Bible in forming the moral bases of Western civilization and therefore of nearly all moral progress in the world.

It was this book that guided every one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, including those described as “deists.” It is the book that formed the foundational values of every major American university. It is the book from which every morally great American from George Washington to Abraham Lincoln to the Rev. (yes, “the Reverend,” almost always omitted today in favor of his secular credential, “Dr.”) Martin Luther King, Jr., got his values.

It is this book that gave humanity the Ten Commandments, the greatest moral code ever devised. It not only codified the essential moral rules for society, it announced that the Creator of the universe stands behind them, demands them and judges humans’ compliance with them.

It gave humanity the great moral rule, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

It taught humanity the unprecedented and unparalleled concept that all human beings are created equal because all human beings — of every race, ethnicity, nationality and both male and female — are created in God’s image.

It taught people not to trust the human heart, but to be guided by moral law even when the heart pulled in a different direction.

This is the book that taught humanity that human sacrifice is an abomination.

This is the book that de-sexualized God — a first in human history.

This is the book that alone launched humanity on the long road to abolishing slavery. It was not only Bible-believers (what we would today call “religious fundamentalists”) who led the only crusade in the world against slavery, it was the Bible itself, thousands of years before, that taught that God abhors slavery. it legislated that one cannot return a slave to his owner and banned kidnapping for slaves in the Ten Commandments. Stealing people, kidnapping, was the most widespread source of slavery, and “Thou shall not steal” was first a ban on stealing humans and then on stealing property.

It was this book that taught people the wisdom of Job and of Ecclesiastes, unparalleled masterpieces of world wisdom literature.

Without this book, there would not have been Western civilization, or Western science, or Western human rights, or the abolitionist movement, or the United States of America, the freest, most prosperous, most opportunity-giving society ever formed.

For well over a generation, we have been living on “cut-flower ethics.” We have removed ethics from the Bible-based soil that gave them life and think they can survive removed from that soil. Fools and those possessing an arrogance bordering on self-deification think we will long survive as a decent society without teaching the Bible and without consulting it for moral guidance and wisdom.

If not from the Bible, from where should people get their values and morals? The university? The New York Times editorial page? They have been wrong on virtually every great issue of good and evil in our generation. They mocked Ronald Reagan for calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” More than any other group in the world, Western intellectuals supported Stalin, Mao and other Communist monsters. They are utterly morally confused concerning one of the most morally clear conflicts of our time — the Israeli-Palestinian/Arab conflict. The universities and their media supporters have taught a generation of Americans the idiocy that men and women are basically the same. And they are the institutions that teach that America’s founders were essentially moral reprobates — sexist and racist rich white men.

When the current executive editor of the New York Times, Jill Abramson, was appointed to that position she announced that “In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion.” The quote spoke volumes about the substitution of elite media for religion and the Bible in shaping contemporary America.

The other modern substitute for the Bible is the heart. We live in the Age of Feelings, and an entire generation of Americans has been raised to consult their heart to determine right and wrong.

If you trust the human heart, you should be delighted with this development. But those of us raised with biblical wisdom do not trust the heart. So when we are told by almost every university, by almost every news source, by almost every entertainment medium that the heart demands what is probably the most radical social transformation since Western civilization began — redefining marriage, society’s most basic institution, in terms of gender — it may be wiser to trust the biblical understanding of marriage rather than the heart’s.

My heart, too, supports same-sex marriage. But relying on the heart alone is a terribly flawed guide to social policy. And it is the Bible that has produced all of the world’s most compassionate societies.

This, then, is the great modern battle: the Bible and the heart vs. the heart alone.

History’s a great teacher


Most People Don’t Know Much About Second Amendment History

The first line to Sam Cookes’ song “Wonderful World” goes like this: “Don’t Know Much about history.” And that’s the way liberals want to keep most of the nation. History’s a great teacher, but too many of us found it boring. But it comes in handy when we’re trying to protect our freedoms.

Knowing some history about what our founders thought about what it means to “bear arms” can go a long way to shut the mouth of someone who does not know much about history.

In 1999, Texas U.S. District Judge, Sam Cummings ruled in a domestic abuse case that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual the right to keep and bear arms.

There was naturally blowback from this decision. His detractors claimed he neglected to follow usual judicial practice. You see, his sin was not citing legal precedent to support his decision.

That one sentence clearly defines a major problem in this country, run by pinhead lawyers — so full of arrogance that they think themselves and their court decisions superior to the Constitution and the founders. By citing only court precedent instead of original intent one bad decision leads to another and so on.

Some legal pinheads might cite the Supreme Court case U.S. v Miller (1939) wherein the court ruled the Second Amendment’s “obvious purpose . . . was to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the state militia.” In the early 1980s, the Illinois Supreme Court as well as the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there was no right for individuals to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment.

I’m no constitutional scholar or great jurist with an army of researchers, but I can read.

So did the framers intend the Second Amendment to encompass an individual’s right to carry guns for self-protection? It turns out they, the founders, had plenty to say on the subject.

The first state Declaration of Rights to use the term “bear arms” was Pennsylvania in 1776: “that the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state.” Pretty clear. No ambiguity there.

Noah Webster of dictionary fame was certainly in a position to know what the Second Amendment phrase “bear arms” meant. A prominent Federalist, he wrote the first major pamphlet in support of the Constitution when it was proposed in 1787, in which he stated:

“[B]efore a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed.”

Again, pretty straightforward, but one might expect that of a wordsmith.

In fact, in Webster’s famous dictionary, first published in 1828, “bear” is defined as “To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat.”

Continuing to the word “arms,” we find this definition: “weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.” So according to Webster, “bear arms” is to carry or wear weapons openly or concealed. Further, Webster defines “pistol” as a “small firearm, or smallest firearm used… small pistols are carried in the pocket.”

I bet most Americans don’t know this much about gun history in America.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/04/most-people-dont-know-much-about-second-amendment-history/#ixzz2PXMZEhiC

Five Gay Marriage Myths


The following article is very long, yet well worth your time to read. It is written in the form a academia, yet understandable by anyone.
Jerry Broussard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Posted by Robin Phillips – April 02, 2013

Myth #1: Marriage is fundamentally a voluntary union of persons in a committed relationship

We tend to think of language as something posterior to thought. A thought comes into your mind and then you find the right words to express it. Anthropologists and neuroscientists are currently doing some fascinating work on the relationship between thought and speech and have discovered that things are a little more complicated. Speech does not merely proceed from our thoughts like a one-way street. Rather, researchers have been finding that there is also traffic flowing in the other direction: how we speak affects how we think about the world on a level that our conscious minds may never even be aware. As psychologist Lera Boroditsky put it in a Wall Street Journal article summarizing some of this research, “the structures in languages (without our knowledge or consent) shape the very thoughts we wish to express”.

There are fascinating examples of this from all over the world, but the phenomenon is just as evident close to home. In the last forty years, we’ve seen how the way people speak about unborn children (i.e., calling them “foetuses” or “lumps of tissue” instead of babies) has had an unconscious effect on how so many people think about the ethics of abortion. Or again, how we think about homosexuality has been enormously influenced by pairing homosexuality with words that already had a positive semantic range, such as gay. In David Kupelian book The Marketing of Evil, he showed that these and many other language shifts did not just happen, but arose out of a deliberate strategy for changing the way Westerners perceive certain key issues.

By introducing changes in how we speak, the media often changes how we think.

The same thing is now occurring in the debate over same-sex marriage. Almost without anyone taking notice, our society has begun to talk about marriage as a voluntary union of persons in a committed relationship, rather than a union of a man and a woman. Never before has marriage been spoken about in this way and the implications are profound. Because of how the brain works, this shift in how we talk about marriage has been attendant to a shift in how we think about marriage. Unconsciously we begin wondering: if marriage is really the union of persons in a committed and loving relationship, why shouldn’t gay people be allowed to participate in this institution?

As same-sex marriage was discussed in the public discourse of various English-speaking countries (first Canada, then Britain, and now America), it was almost universally taken for granted not simply that marriageought to refer to the union of persons, but that the essence of marriage always has been the union of persons. As a result, less and less people, even among the Christian community, understand marriage to be intrinsically and inviolably heterosexual.

Let’s consider what it would mean if marriage has always been the union of two persons, with the gender of those persons being accidental in an Aristotelian sense. We are then claiming that the union of a man and woman has always been a variant of the union of persons, that biology and the possibility of reproduction were never at the core of what marriage is but additions to it, that consummation was never central to the completion of a marriage since only practical when the “union of persons” happened to be members of the opposite sex, that “man and wife” were never something that made a relationship a marriage but were always a species of the genus “union of persons.”

The only problem with construing marriage in these terms is that this has never been how it was understood, even among cultures like ancient Rome which might have been most inclined to understand marriage as the union of persons. Those who take this view are thus pushed into the corner of having to acknowledge that throughout most of human history the laws, customs, culture and language built up around marriage was based on a misunderstanding of what marriage actually was, for until recently no one understood that marriage has actually always been the union of persons.

Fewer and fewer people, even among the Christian community, understand marriage to be intrinsically and inviolably heterosexual

Now let’s be clear: the fact that marriage has never been understood as a union of persons does not itself prove the new concept to be faulty. However, at a minimum it does establish that it is a new concept, a novel definition that is discontinuous with the institution of marriage as it has been understood and practice for thousands of years. This is something the champions of gay marriage are reluctant to acknowledge, since their case for “equal access” depends on maintaining some degree of continuity with the norms of an existing institution. This pretence of continuity enables them to form their arguments in quantitative terms, as if they were merely expanding the pool of people who can get legally married, rather than qualitatively altering the very essence of what marriage is.

Myth #2: Gay marriage legislation would remove the ban on same-sex couples getting marriage

The issue of same-sex marriage is often framed in terms of a choice between either preventing or allowing gay people to get married. When the issue is framed in these terms, that is usually a good indication that the person has fallen victim to another key myth. The reality is that legislation to introduce gay marriage would not remove a ban on same-sex couples getting married because no such ban exists. There is no more of a ban on same-sex couples getting married then there is a ban on two-wheeled unicycles or square triangles. The very nature of what marriage is necessarily excludes same-sex unions.

Now government could always change the definition of marriage. However, as I pointed out in my earlier article, ‘Apples, Oranges and Gay Marriage‘, few people on the other side of the debate are upfront that this is what they are pushing for. Instead they will almost always frame the question in terms of giving same-sex couples access to an existing institution. The reality—which Douglas Farrow drew attention to in his book Divorcing Marriage—is that a ban on same-sex couples getting married only exists if you first start out by assuming that marriage is a union of persons rather than a union between a man and a woman. But to assume this is already to presuppose the conclusion of one side of the debate, which is why most arguments for same-sex marriage are ultimately circular.

There is more going on here than merely a lapse in logic. By framing the issue in terms of a supposed “ban” on same-sex marriage, the media has followed the gay-rights lobby in subtly altering the categories in which the debate is taking place. This is analogous to the way the media altered the terms of the abortion debate by deliberately framing the issue in terms of ‘choice.’

Myth #3: Gay marriage is the most tolerant option

Senator Rob Portman is among the growing contingent of Republicans who believe gay marriage to be the most tolerant option

The small but growing wing of the Republican Party that supports same-sex ‘marriage’ is trying to package it within the context of a libertarian political philosophy.Senator Rob Portman reflected this move when he wrote, “We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people’s lives.”

The problem with this argument from liberty is not simply that it is false, although it is. The problem is that it is the exact opposite of the truth, as I have already suggested in my article ‘Will the Real Enemies of Liberty Please Stand Up!’ It is those who oppose same-sex marriage who are the true champions of liberty. Indeed, if gay “marriage” is ever legalized, it is likely to result in unprecedented restrictions on freedom of speech and even thought. This was a point that S. T. Karnick drew attention to back in 2008. The Director of research for The Heartland Institute pointed out that,

The issue, it’s important to remember, is not whether society will allow homosexuals to ‘marry.’ They may already do so, in any church or other sanctioning body that is willing to perform the ceremony. There are, in fact, many organizations willing to do so: the Episcopal Church USA, the Alliance of Baptists, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Unity School of Christianity, the Unitarian Universalists, the Swedenborgian Church of North America, the Quakers, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, and the United Church of Christ, among others. Such institutions either explicitly allow the consecration or blessing of same-sex ‘marriages’ or look the other way when individual congregations perform such ceremonies.

No laws prevent these churches from conducting marriage ceremonies—and nearly all Americans would agree that it is right for the government to stay out of a church’s decision on the issue. Further, any couple of any kind may stand before a gathering of well-wishers and pledge their union to each other, and the law will do nothing to prevent them. Same-sex couples, or any other combination of people, animals, and inanimate objects, can and do ‘marry’ in this way. What the law in most states currently does not do, however, is force third parties—individuals, businesses, institutions, and so on—to recognize these ‘marriages’ and treat them as if they were exactly the same as traditional marriages. Nor does it forbid anyone to do so.

An insurance company, for example, is free to treat a same-sex couple (or an unmarried two-sex couple) the same way it treats married couples, or not. A church can choose to bless same-sex unions, or not. An employer can choose to recognize same-sex couples as “married,” or not. As Richard Thompson Ford noted in Slate, ‘In 1992 only one Fortune 500 company offered employee benefits to same-sex domestic partners; today hundreds do.’

In short, individuals, organizations, and institutions in most states are currently free to treat same-sex unions as marriages, or not. This, of course, is the truly liberal and tolerant position. It means letting the people concerned make up their own minds about how to treat these relationships. But this freedom is precisely what the advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ want to destroy; they want to use the government’s power to force everyone to recognize same-sex unions as marriages whether they want to or not.

The effects of such coercion have already been felt in some places. Adoption agencies, for example, like any other organization, ought to be able to choose whether to give children to same-sex couples, or not. But in Massachusetts, where same-sex ‘marriage’ has been declared legal, these agencies have been forced to accept applications from same-sex couples or go out of business.

What’s at issue here is not whether people can declare themselves married and find other people to agree with them and treat them as such. No, what’s in contention is whether the government should force everyone to recognize such ‘marriages.’ Far from being a liberating thing, the forced recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ is a governmental intrusion of monumental proportions.

Myth #4: Gay marriage will bring greater equality

Throughout this year there have been near-daily reports of prominent folks coming out for marriage “equality.” The basic idea is simple: if heterosexual couples can get married, isn’t it simple fairness that homosexual couples can also get married?

The idea that gay marriage will bring greater equality is a total myth. The reason it is a myth is because it is not true, and the reason it is not true is because it is based on a meaningless idea and only meaningful statements can have a truth value.

In order to demonstrate the meaningless of the above idea, I’d like to consider the nature of equality. In order for something to be equal, three things are necessarily required:

  1. Thing A
  2. Thing B to which A is equal
  3. Quality C that A and B share in common which renders them equal.

Consider the case of the pencil on my desk. I could say, “This pencil is equal to this pen with respect to its length” or I could say “this pencil is equal to my other pencil in respect to its pencil-ness.” Both of these statements are meaningful because the statements identify two objects that share a quality in common which renders them equal. But if I were to simply pick up the pencil and declare “This pencil is equal” or “this pencil brings equality”, I would be uttering a meaningless statement.

It is also meaningless to simply announce “gay marriage will bring equality” without specifying (A) that to which gay marriage is equal to, and (B) the quality shared in common by gay marriage and that to which it is equal. However, these variables are rarely identified.

The most obvious thing someone could say is that gay marriage will make homosexuals and heterosexuals equal with respect to the ability to marry. That is, both groups should have equal access to the institution of marriage.

The problem with this position is that it again assumes the myth that homosexuals are not allowed to marry. The reality is that no one is stopping homosexuals from getting married, since they are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. The fact that they do not want to do this is no more relevant to the question than whether the pope wants to marry. Just as it would be absurd to change the definition of marriage to include celibacy so that the Pope can have “equal access” to the institution, so it is absurd to change the definition of marriage so that homosexuals can begin to want access to it.

(As an interesting aside here is that for nearly all of human history, homosexuals would have been adverse to the idea of same-sex marriage. Gay scholars have often warned us not to assume that just because something works in a heterosexual context that it can therefore by transplanted into a homosexual context and still work. This is a fallacy they have referred to as the “error of heterocentrism.” Realizing that not all relationships are equal with each other, some homosexuals have been openly opposing same-sex ‘marriage.’)

Myth #5: Gay marriage will not undermine the traditional family

The Republicans who now support gay marriage have been keen to emphasize that it is consistent with “family values” and that it will strengthen rather than undermine the institution of marriage. Senator Rob Portman reflected this idea when he came out for gay marriage. During his CNN interview, Portman said he now accepted same-sex marriage “for reasons that are consistent with my political philosophy, including family values, including being a conservative who believes the family is a building block of society, so I’m comfortable there now.” Portman echoed these thoughts in his article for the Columbus Dispatch, saying,

“One way to look at it is that gay couples’ desire to marry doesn’t amount to a threat but rather a tribute to marriage, and a potential source of renewed strength for the institution…. the experience of the past decade shows us that marriage for same-sex couples has not undercut traditional marriage…. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society.”

It is, in fact, a myth that gay marriage will not undermine the traditional family. The reason this is a myth is because, once again, it is the exact opposite of the truth.

By making marriage simply the formalization of an intimate relationship between two adults, same-sex marriage does two things. First, it undermines the organic connection between marriage and child-bearing; second, it undermines the centrality of sex in marriage, including sexual faithfulness. Both of these things have profound ramifications for how we understand the relationship between the family and the state, ultimately undermining the integrity of the traditional family and, consequently, “family values.”

I take it as self-evident that gay marriage would undermine the organic connection between marriage and child-bearing, but how will it undermine the centrality of sex in marriage? The answer to this question has profound ramifications on the relationship between the family and the state.

A recurring theme in all the literature about gay marriage is that marriage is first and foremost a loving relationship, a bond of commitment and affection between two adults. It is first about the communion of souls in a committed and affectionate relationship and only secondarily about the acts those people might or might not perform with their bodies. You can find statements like this scattered throughout the gay and lesbian literature, and this is why I have argued elsewhere that same-sex marriage carries with it many Gnostic assumptions about the body.

The de-emphasis of the physical dimensions of marriage has resulted in the UK government announcing that the concept of consummation and non-consummation will be inapplicable to ‘marriages’ conducted by homosexuals. When the news surfaced that the government had decided that both consummation and adultery couldn’t be committed by two people of the same sex, many people puzzled at this, even though it was the logical outworking of the sex-less descriptions of “union” propagated amongst the agitators for gay marriage. You see, once our understanding of “union” in marriage is reduced to “a loving relationship between two committed adults”, then what two people do with their bodies becomes extrinsic rather than intrinsic to that union. But in that case, it is possible, in principle, for gay marriages to occur between two people who are celibate. By contrast, for a heterosexual marriage to be “consummated” (that is, to be a fully complete marriage), there is an act the husband and wife must perform with their bodies.

Now notice the difference between defining marriage as “A union between one man and one woman” vs. defining it as “a committed and loving relationship between two adults.” In the first definition, since “union” is implicitly understood to involve a sexual component, there is an empirical reality we can point to when establishing whether a relationship is really a marriage. But there is no corresponding empirical reality that can constitute what it means to be in a marriage regulated by the second definition. Indeed, a person might have a “committed and loving relationship” with any number of other persons without it being marriage. Because of this, the only way that a committed and loving relationship can be upgraded into marriage is if the state steps in and declares that relationship to be a marriage, in much the same way as the state might declare something to be a corporation or some other legal entity. By contrast, traditional marriages have and could exist without the state’s recognition because it is fundamentally a pre-political institution. Marriage is pre-political in the sense that it has intrinsic goods attached to it, not least of which is the assurance of patrimony and thus the integrity of inheritance. Such goods do not exist by the state’s fiat even though the state may recognize, regulate or protect them.

An imaginary example should make my meaning clear. If an unmarried man and a woman are shipwrecked on an island together with no one else around, and they decide to be husband and wife, it is meaningful to talk about them getting married and having a family even in the absence of a civil government. To be sure, a legitimate marriage almost always involves recognition by the wider community, but because the community is recognizing something that is existentially independent to itself, there can and have been situations in which the recognition of the community is posterior in time to the marriage itself. This is why the type of families created by traditional marriage have an a priori claim on the state. By contrast, one cannot say the same about two homosexual men or two homosexual women on an island who decide to get “married”. Without the mechanisms of the state to confer the status of marriage upon two members of the same sex, there are no acts that organically mark the relationship out as being marriage within a state of nature. Indeed, the philosophy behind same-sex marriage is one which makes both marriage and family entirely the construct, and therefore the province, of positive law.

The only way that a committed and loving relationship can be upgraded into marriage is if the state steps in and declares that relationship to be a marriage. Without the mechanisms of the state to confer the status of marriage upon two members of the opposite sex, there are no acts that organically mark the relationship out as being marriage within a state of nature.

Now let’s take my island scenario one step further and imagine a scenario involving three persons: a 35-year old man named George, an 18-year old girl named Mary, and a 40-year old man named Kevin. George and Mary have a sexual relationship with each other and perhaps they even have children, while George also enjoys a homosexual relationship with Kevin. Now, looking at this situation from the outside, there are a couple possibilities. One possibility is that George and Kevin are in a gay marriage, with Mary being their adoptive daughter whom George is pursuing an incestuous relationship with. But a second possibility would be that George and Mary are husband and wife, with George simply being unfaithful to Mary by having a relationship with another man (or even acting with Mary’s consent because she understands her husband’s bisexual urges). Now here’s the important point: without the state there to declare one of these relationships to be ‘marriage’, we simply can’t say which of these two options are correct. Looking at the situation from the outside, there is just no way to tell who is married to whom. Unlike heterosexual marriage, which has an existential fixity that can be recognized within a state of nature, gay marriage is meaningless without the mechanisms of government to legitimize it.

Someone may object to my example by pointing out that similar confusion would abound if there was a heterosexual married couple on the island and one of the spouses engaged in illicit sex with a third party. For in that case, looking at it from the outside, we wouldn’t be able to tell who was married to whom. Very well then, let’s modify my second example so that George and Mary are still having a sexual relationship but George and Kevin are not. You might think that this would simplify things by removing the possibility that George and Kevin are in a gay marriage. However, since sex is not a necessary condition for gay marriage (for remember, gay marriage is usually described merely in terms of “a committed and loving relationship between two adults”) it is impossible to know that George and Kevin are not married merely because they are not having sex with each other. The only way we could know whether or not they were married would be for there to be civil government on the island to confer the status of marriage upon them.

My thought experiments have been complex, but my basic point is very simple: without the intervention of government, there is no a priori existential state of affairs that marks certain types of same-sex relationships out as being marriage within a state of nature. Unlike heterosexual marriage, which exists in nature and is then recognized by the state, homosexual marriage is an abstract legal entity with no natural or existential existence. Now to be sure, within the paradigm of traditional marriage there are sometimes hard cases and it is not always clear whether something can count as a marriage, but at the centre there is a recognizable reality that is pre-legal, and the hard cases arise by virtue of how far removed we are from the centre. But there is no comparative ‘centre’ for determining what a normal same-sex marriage would be within a state of nature. Indeed, what counts as “a committed and loving relationship” is incredibly vague and open to any number of interpretations or further applications. Indeed, once marriage is divorced from nature like this, then in principle there is no limit to the types of relationship that can have the status of ‘marriage’ or ‘family’ conferred on it by the state.

All this has enormous implications for how we understand the relationship between the family and the state, to return to my point that gay marriage undermines the traditional family. By rearranging the very nature of what it means to be married, gay marriage raises the question of whether family and marriage can be considered pre-political institutions on the basis of natural and biological realities and intrinsic goods. This is because such natural and biological realities are being expunged from the essence of what we are now told marriage is and always has been, namely the union of persons through a committed and loving relationship.

Since consummation is unnecessary for a same-sex union to be called a complete marriage (even putting aside the question of what would count as consummation within a same-sex context), then what determines whether or not a heterosexual marriage is complete? Either we can have two separate non-equal definitions of marriage, or we can realize the logical consequence of same-sex marriage and say that the only thing left to determine what actually makes something a complete marriage or a legitimate family is the law itself. But have we really considered the implications of saying that traditional marriages and families are entirely the construct of the state?

There is no escaping from this problem. If homosexuals and heterosexuals are really “equal” before the law, then logically heterosexual marriage must collapse into being little more than a legal construct as well. Indeed, marriage and family become mere adjuncts of the state after the removal of the de facto conditions that make the traditional family a pre-political institution in the first place. No longer is family something that, in the words of Douglas Farrow, “precedes and exceeds the state.” No longer is the family a hedge against the totalitarian aspirations of the state because no longer is the family prior to the state.

This is not mere hypothetical speculation about what ‘might’ happen if same-sex marriages are legalized. Canadian theologian Douglas Farrow has shown that after Canada legalized same-sex marriage, even traditional marriage began to be spoken about as little more than a legal construct. In his book Nation of Bastards, Farrow criticized warned that by claiming the power to re-invent marriage, the Canadian state “has drawn marriage and the family into a captive orbit. It has reversed the gravitational field between the family and the state… It has effectively made every man, woman, and child a chattel of the state, by turning their most fundamental human connections into mere legal constructs at the state’s disposal. It has transformed those connections from divine gifts into gifts from the state.”

Most people are not aware of how gay marriage will undermine the traditional family because it does so in ways that are subtle and ubiquitous.  However, once gay marriage is introduced into a nation, it undermines the integrity of every family and every marriage in the nation. It does this by rearranging the family’s relationship to the state. The state which legalizes gay marriage is a state that has assumed the god-like power to declare which collections of individuals constitute a ‘family.’ But by this assumption government declares that both marriage and family are little more than legal constructs at best, and gifts from the state at worst. In the former case, marriage and family lose their objective fixity; in the latter case, we become the wards of the state.

Portions of this article will be appearing in the monthly magazine of Christian Voice, a UK ministry whose website is http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/. The article is published here with permission of Christian Voice.

– See more at: http://instantanalysis.net/afa-blogs/2013/04/02/five-gay-marriage-myths#sthash.b9b3ypb2.Y5rtpwvx.dpuf

The kids are the founders, and “it” is massive gun control.


Obama: Government Tyranny Impossible Because ‘Government Is Us’

In his big pitch in Colorado on Wednesday for further gun control, President Obama made an astonishing statement about gun rights advocates’ fears of governmental gun seizures. He said that such worries would just feed “into fears about government. You hear some of these folks: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government. We can’t do background checks because the government’s going to come take my guns away.’ The government’s us. These officials are elected by you … I am constrained as they are constrained by the system that our founders put in place.”

There are two odd angles to this statement. The first is Obama’s overarching theme: government violation of rights is impossible because “the government is us,” and we can’t violate our own rights. Were this true, we could do away with the Constitution altogether. We would also never have to worry about democracies turning tyrannical, or electing tyrannical rulers. In this odd vision, Germany, Italy, and Spain remained liberal democracies throughout the twentieth century, World War II never happened, and Egypt, the Gaza Strip, and Turkey are all thriving centers of freedom.

The government is most assuredly not us – at least not all of us – which is why our system of government is designed to protect the rights of minorities while still allowing majorities to legislate without violating those rights. Obama’s defense to charges of incipient tyranny is that tyranny can never happen here. Which, of course, makes it more likely that tyranny will happen here.

Truth be told, even Obama does not believe that the “government is us.” If he did, he would never worry about pro-life legislation (he does, and would challenge such legislation in court), heterosexual marriage legislation (he does, and challenges such legislation in court), or anti-Obamacare legislation at the state level (he does, and will likely challenge such legislation in court). Even in Obama’s vision of rights, populism is limited, although his vision of rights is skewed.

The second odd angle is Obama’s insistence that the Constitution constrains him. The natural inference seems to be that if it were not for the Constitution, Obama would indeed pursue a federal gun seizure. Like the villain at the end of every Scooby Doo cartoon, Obama’s offhand protest suggests that if it weren’t for those darn kids, he would have gotten away with it. Except that the kids are the founders, and “it” is massive gun control.

Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).

15 Year Old Girl Leaves Anti-Gun Politicians Speechless


15 Year Old Girl Leaves Anti-Gun Politicians Speechless 15 Year Old Girl Leaves Anti-Gun Politicians Speechless

This fifteen year old absolutely gets it!

She crushes the logic of anti gun politicians in the Maryland state legislature.

If only our politicians were as smart as this fifteen year old girl we might actually be taking steps to reduce violence that DON’T include attacking inanimate objects.

She points out the fallacy of strict gun control by using the model of modern gun control, Chicago, as an example of what happens when you disarm the general populace, leaving them at the hands of criminals and gang members.

“A nation that does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do”


by 

Know Your History America

Study The Past  – Inscription on the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

Love him or hate him, President Woodrow Wilson rightly stated, “A nation that does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we have come from, or what we have been about… America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the tenets of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.”

Recently, while doing a radio interview I was asked what my opinion was concerning immoral issues that are taking place in our country. I said, “My ‘opinion’ doesn’t matter anymore than your ‘opinion’ does.” I said, “It is OK for us to have different opinions as long as we are rooted in the same principles.”

And herein lies America’s problems.

When we are no longer rooted in the same principles, corruption seeps in and begins to divide and conquer through outlets such as the media, public schools and colleges.

For example, most young people think America is a democracy. Yet, when saying the Pledge of Allegiance, you recite, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the UNITED States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, indivisible (cannot be divided, separated or broken), with liberty and justice for all.”

President Andrew Jackson said, “The Bible is the rock upon which our republic rests.” And these are the principles that keep us united.

I can just now hear the media, the teacher, the “well-educated” college professor or the philosopher (using big words with common-sense meanings) decry, “We are not a Christian nation.” They then complain about the government that will not be ruled by Law (God gave government through Moses – Exodus 18:21).

In their confusion they blurt out the truth: They would rather listen to man’s 10,000 commandments than to God’s Ten Commandments, which only produce liberty when you love God with your whole heart, mind, soul, and strength.

In essence, the unprincipled in America are at war with God and His Law, which commanded we should not kill, commit adultery, steal, lie or covet. They seem to forget that “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins”… and tyranny is what you are dealing with today, because most people do not know their history.

America, how is it that the left (as it is called) knows how to lie better than the right knows how to tell the truth?

The remedy: know your history

The University of Houston political science professors searched to find where the Founding Fathers chose their ideas:

  • They assembled 15,000 writings from the era of the founders.
  • They researched for 10 years, isolated 3,154 direct quotes and identified the source of the quotes:

     

  • 8.3 percent were quotes from Baron Charles de Montesquieu;
  • 7.9 percent were quotes from Sir William Blackstone;
  • 2.9 percent were from John Locke;
  • 34 percent of their quotes came directly from the Bible – and when researching where Montesquieu, Blackstone and Locke got their ideas, they found that theirs came from the Bible as well.

 

Here is the correlation between the Constitution and the Bible concerning America’s Christian heritage:

  • Separation of powers: Jeremiah 17:9; The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?  (NIV)
  • Immigration laws: Leviticus 19:34; The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God. (NIV)
  • President must be natural born citizen: Deuteronomy 17:15; be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. (NIV)
  • Witness and capital punishment: Deuteronomy 17:6; On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. (NIV)
  • Three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22;  For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us. (NIV)
  • Tax exemptions for churches: Ezra 7:24;  You are also to know that you have no authority to impose taxes, tribute or duty on any of the priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers, temple servants or other workers at this house of God.
    (NIV)
  • Republicanism: Exodus 18:21;  But select capable men from all the people — men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain — and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.  (NIV)

Watch the undisputable symbolism of America’s Christian Heritage below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkRxTa1a7qc&feature=player_embedded

Watch the https://shop.youcanruninternational.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=94″ target=”_blank”>prayer that literally rocked the Capitol as Bradlee lays out our foundation to the Minnesota State Legislature:

United Nations Passes Gun Control. Registration ALWAYS Leads to Confiscation.


Gun rights advocates fear U.N. treaty will lead to U.S. registry

** FILE ** The United Nations building is reflected on the window of the U.S. mission to the U.N. as portraits of American President Barack Obama, left, Vice President Joseph R. Biden, and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hang in the lobby, Saturday, Sept. 18, 2010, in New York. (Associated Press)

The U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday approved a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty aimed at regulating the estimated $60 billion international arms trade, brushing aside gun rights groups’ concerns that the pact could lead to a national firearms registry in the U.S.

The long-debated U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons.


SPECIAL COVERAGE: Second Amendment and Gun Control


The treaty also provides that signatories will not violate arms embargoes or international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to countries where they could be used for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.

“This is a good day for the United Nations, and a good day for the peoples of the world,” said Australian Ambassador Peter Woolcott, the lead negotiator during the process.

With the Obama administration supporting the final treaty draft, the General Assembly vote was 155-3, with 22 abstentions. Iran, Syria and North Korea voted against the proposal.

U.S. gun rights activists say the treaty is riddled with loopholes and is unworkable in part because it includes “small arms and light weapons” in its list of weaponry subject to international regulations. The activists said they do not trust U.N. assertions that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.

One provision requires participating countries to keep records of arms exports and imports, including the quantity, value, model/type, and “end users, as appropriate” for at least 10 years.

Gun record-keeping is a thorny issue in the U.S., where similar questions have stalled a debate over expanding background checks to include all private gun sales.


SEE RELATED: Texas AG to Obama: I’ll sue if U.N. Arms Treaty is ratified


Second Amendment supporters worry that such records eventually will pave the way for a national firearms registry, currently prohibited by federal law.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott wrote a letter to President Obama on Tuesday saying he would sue to block the treaty if it is ratified. It “appears to lay the groundwork for an international gun registry overseen by the bureaucrats at the UN,” the letter said.

The Senate last month also signaled its aversion, voting 53-46 to oppose the treaty in a nonbinding test vote as part of the budget debate. Eight Democrats joined all 45 Republicans in opposing the treaty.

Sen. Jerry Moran, Kansas Republican, said Tuesday that it made no sense to pass a treaty that will bind the U.S., while Iran, Syria and North Korea will ignore it.

“The U.S. Senate is united in strong opposition to a treaty that puts us on level ground with dictatorships who abuse human rights and arm terrorists, but there is real concern that the administration feels pressured to sign a treaty that violates our constitutional rights,” Mr. Moran said.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that the White House was pleased with the outcome, but “as is the case with all treaties of this nature, we will follow normal procedures to conduct a thorough review of the treaty text to determine whether to sign the treaty.”

Amnesty International and the Arms Control Association hailed the U.N. vote.

Under the treaty, countries must consider whether weapons would be used to violate international humanitarian or human rights laws and facilitate acts of terrorism or organized crime.

“The treaty’s prohibition section, if it were in force today, would prohibit the ongoing supply of weapons and parts and components to the Assad regime in Syria,” said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the ACA, a national group that works on arms-control policies.

The American Bar Association released a white paper arguing that the treaty would not affect Second Amendment rights.

The U.N. vote clears the way for countries to add their signatures to the treaty starting June 3. The treaty will take effect 90 days after 50 nations sign it.

Within one year of signing on, each country must submit a report outlining the steps it has taken to comply. But more specifics on the implementation, enforcement and possible punishment for violations of the treaty remain to be seen. Countries have the right to withdraw from the treaty, but are not, as a result, excused from obligations they had while participating.

“This is a very good framework, I think, to build on — it’s fair, I think it’s balanced, and it’s strong. But it’s only a framework,” Mr. Woolcott said. “And it’ll only be as good as its implementation.”

More rule-making is to be delegated to a conference of participating countries, to convene within one year after the treaty goes into effect to review its implementation and consider amendments.

Proponents hoped that the treaty could be ratified by acclamation at a final negotiating conference last week, but Syria, Iran and North Korea objected.

Some abstaining countries, including India and Egypt, said the treaty did not go far enough on its language regarding terrorism or human rights.

© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC.

Why Can’t I Get a Job?


Why Can’t I Get a Job?  Because Capitalism Sucks and America, Too!

By / http://clashdaily.com/2013/04/why-cant-i-get-a-job-because-capitalism-sucks-and-america-too/

The following is satire.

Lord_of_the_Rings__MAIN_HEADER (4)by Trevor Abrahams,
Ellicott City, MD

Dear America,

I’m going on welfare.  I’ve been looking for a job now for over two years, and I have had it.   I’m sayin’ screw it!   Ya hear me, America?  And not just screw looking for a job and keep getting turned down, failing and failing again and again, but screw the whole system, man!  To hell with this whole American capitalist bullcrap.
Maybe if I could get hired if I wouldn’t feel this bitter.   But I gotta tell you, America, this whole not-being-able-to-find a job crap is really making me doubt your whole “you can make it in America” crap, and the whole “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” crap you feed us from the moment we’re born.  So I’m giving up.  I’m going on public assistance.

In case you haven’t noticed, I’m a conservative, upstanding guy.   I just have a different way of expressing myself.   You can probably guess that my childhood was completely tranquil and that I was raised by responsible parents to be a real go-getter.  I’m 26 years old.   I’m the perfect guy you’d want your daughter to bring home for dinner.  I’m the perfect guy you’d want teaching your 1st grader the laws of arithmetic and about the founding of America and the true meaning of Thanksgiving.   You want a competent guy standing in front of your nine-year-old telling them about the true meaning of Christmas and why 2 x 3 equals 6…?  Look no further.

But am I recommended for the job?   No.  Have I been turned down from countless teaching jobs even though I have an education degree from 2008?   Yes!   And it’s just not fair!

Yeah, America…ungrateful, lying, inconsiderate America, the only job I’ve held since my college graduation and my 22nd of 48 body piercings and hoops has been at Slick Willy’s Adult Video & Novelty store on Route 40 in Ellicott City, Maryland!  Why?  WHY, AMERICA?

I just can’t understand it:  why can’t people just accept me for who I am?  Can’t people just accept my own expression of my individuality?   Apparently not, which is quite hypocritical for our society.  After all, aren’t we all told to “go off and be ourselves;” be our own man or woman?  Well, this is how I’ve chosen to express myself.  It’s my choice, and I’ve chosen to choose that choice.  And if you don’t like it then screw you, America, and all you stand for!

So I’m done with it.  I’m done with going into grammar schools with my bachelor’s degree in education and being ordered to leave.   I’m done going to the troubled youth centers and being told that I’ll only make the kids wanna do drugs more.   I’m sick of going to work at homeless shelters and told I’d scare the residents back out into the streets!  I’m even tired of going to apply at tattoo and piercing parlors only to be told that “I’m just too much for customers to bear,” and then asked to leave under police threat.  So I’m just sick of all of it – all the lies of this country’s promises, all the while simply expressing my inner self.  Screw it!  I’m so done!

asian_piercing_FINAL_LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLI was raised to believe this country was founded under “individual freedom.”  HA!  Whata’ joke!   I was raised to think I could be (and look) like anything in this society and yet have a chance.  After all, have not so many been denied rights and first class status based on their looks?   Well, what’s the difference in my case?!   I have all the qualifications, the perfect upbringing and all the degrees, yet I am unable to find any job other than that of a grave hour shift at a damn porn store.  WHY?!

Oh, America, you and all your phony “be yourself” bull%$#@.  It’s pathetic, America, and all your damned “dreams.”  If you can’t see beyond the half-inch rings in my nose and the three-inch rings in my earlobes and my eye, nose, lip, chin, cheek, nipple, naval, and penile studs and countless face, neck and body tattoos and how I’ve basically made myself look like a monster, and see me for who I really am, then the hell with you, America!

I was raised to believe anyone can make it in America, regardless how they look.   Well, this is me, Trevor Abrahams, expressing myself, showing the world who I really am inside by showing them what that looks like on the outside.  But that isn’t “suitable” for you, CAPITAIST America, with your prejudices and your standards and cultural and class distinctions.  I guess I just don’t present the right “class” of person the rest of you wanna deal with.

But hey, that’s your loss, ain’t it, because now I have no recourse but to go on welfare.   And by now, I’m proud to be on welfare, living off people who couldn’t accept my individuality.

So I hope you don’t get too angry, America. I hope you don’t get too mad at this bright, shining specimen of virtue and productivity you have shunned.  And while I say “screw you all,” I will be saying it while still looking for a job.  At least you’ll still find that “acceptable” in your compartmentalized capitalist confines.   I think my next application will be to that daycare center down the street.

—Cheers, heartless, capitalist ***holes!

Trevor Abrahams,

Ellicott City, MD

The preceding is satire.

A Refreshing Video of Faith, Hope, Humility and Strength


Ronald Reagan Speaks Boldly of His Christian Faith Ronald Reagan Speaks Boldly of His Christian Faith

Pro-Abortionists Make Death Threats Against ND Governor for Signing Pro-Life Bills


by 

Last week, North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple signed three anti-abortion/pro-life bills into law.

“HB1305 places a ban on abortions that are performed solely because the baby has a genetic disorder or because they are not the desired sex wanted by the parents.  Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life, praised the signing of the bill saying:

“A civil society does not discriminate against people – born and unborn – for their sex or for disability.  We should be celebrating diversity, not destroying it.”

“Women in particular have been targeted for death in the womb, and we’ve also seen dramatic abortion rates for children with disabilities which put them at risk for extinction. Gov. Jack Dalrymple, Rep. Bette Grande and the legislators in North Dakota have shown courageous humanity in passing this legislation.”

“HB 1456 places a ban on all abortions once a fetal heartbeat has been detected.  In signing this bill into law, Dalrymple stated:

“I have signed HB 1456 which would ban abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat.   Although the likelihood of this measure surviving a court challenge remains in question, this bill is nevertheless a legitimate attempt by a state legislature to discover the boundaries of Roe v. Wade.”

“Because the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed state restrictions on the performing of abortions and because the Supreme Court has never considered this precise restriction in HB 1456, the constitutionality of this measure is an open question.”

“SB 2305 places strict guidelines on anyone performing an abortion requiring them to have hospital privileges.  In signing this bill, Dalrymple commented:

“I have signed SB 2305 which requires admitting and staff privileges at a nearby hospital for any physician who performs abortions in North Dakota. The added requirement that the hospital privileges must include allowing abortions to take place in their facility greatly increases the chances that this measure will face a court challenge. Nevertheless, it is a legitimate and new question for the courts regarding a precise restriction on doctors who perform abortions.”

Soon after signing the bills, the governor’s office began receiving phone calls and emails.  Not all of the communications were supportive of the governor’s actions.  Reports indicated that Dalrymple had received some death threats from pro-abortionists.

Once word of the threats got out, the leader of one of the state’s pro-abortion groups posted on their Stand Up for Women ND page:

“We have received word that Governor Dalrymple is receiving death threats.  Please, friends, do not make these inappropriate threats against ANYONE, and please urge your friends to do the same.”

“PLEASE NO CRIMINAL THREATS! NO VIOLENCE! We want stoic, respectful solidarity or we will not be taken seriously. Thank you!” (Emphasis in original.)

Incredibly, some pro-abortionists accused pro-lifers of making the threats just to make the pro-abortion people look bad.  However, state authorities have verified that at least one genuine threat had been made and that the threat originated from somewhere in Richland County.  The threat is being investigated by authorities

This only supports my view that abortion is very much like evolution in that it is a religion of death.  Kill unborn babies and threaten to kill anyone who tries to save the lives of the unborn.  Even though making a death threat against a public official, especially a governor is a felony offence, preserving the ability to kill the innocents is all that matters to them.  Many of them even endorse assisted suicide, euthanasia, infanticide and the termination of the severely physical and mentally disabled.

Ironically, many of the same people are against the death penalty for murderers and they advocate saving whales, owls and rare darter fish.  They have no qualms killing unborn children up to the moment of birth and sometimes immediately after being born, but they’ll protest against any form of hunting animals or logging part of a forest.  Their values are warped when they value the lives of animals more than they value the lives of people.

Backstabbing Schumer Negotiates “Immigrant Prevailing Wage” To Solve His Immigration Failures


by 

Democrat Senator, Chuck Schumer of New York, has over 30 years of sleazy experience in the art of political espionage. Schumer has a well documented history of voting to weaken immigration laws and contributing to the explosion of illegal immigration and drug trafficking crime plaguing America today. Yet once again, he wants Americans, and his naïve Senate colleagues, to take him at his word that this time he is going to get it right and honor his commitments.

Let us take a gander at Senator Schumer’s honorable record on U.S. Immigration and Border enforcement policies and his new “immigrant prevailing wage” agenda.

In 1986, then Congressmen Chuck Schumer, a protégé of liberal Senate lion, Ted Kennedy, voted in support of the Democrat praised Reagan era “Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)”. The 1986 IRCA made historic changes to existing U.S. immigration law and granted citizenship to an underestimated 3 million illegal aliens. This amnesty, offered as an attempt to curb illegal immigration, allowed illegal aliens living and working in the US to apply for lawful permanent residency if they filed 3 years of back tax returns and paid their back taxes. In turn, our government, Republicans and Democrats, promised to work to secure the U.S. southern border with Mexico, and pursue legal penalties against American businesses who continued to employee undocumented alien workers.

Almost immediately after voting for the IRCA, Schumer went to work betraying his word to his colleagues, and more importantly the American people through his attempts to have the IRCA’s illegal alien tax filing obligations undone in another historic piece of legislation, the “Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA)”. Although Schumer was unsuccessful in forcing amendments to the TRA to abate the IRCA’s immigrant tax filing/paying requirements, Schumer eventually voted in support for the passage of the legislation.

Shortly after passage of the TRA, Schumer began pressuring the U.S. Treasury to issue an independent regulation, exempting illegal alien citizen candidates from the tax filing provisions of the IRCA reconfirmed in the 1986 “Tax Reform Act” Schumer supported. In a letter to the Treasury, Schumer argued that Congress “did not intend” to subject amnestied aliens to the tax disclosure and payment requirements he voted for 2 weeks earlier. According to Schumer : “Obviously, we could not have a successful legalization program if by submitting an application an alien became vulnerable to an enforcement action by the IRS.”

The IRS never issued the regulation requested by Schumer, however, in 1988 Congress issued 499 pages of new tax legislation entitled the “Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988“. Buried deep inside this piece of legislation was one sentence absolving illegal aliens of their past tax filing and debt obligations. So much for “shared responsibility.”

Fast forward to 2006, when President Bush signed the token border security law we know as the “Secure Fence Act (SFA),” The SFA’s goal was to secure the U.S. southern border with Mexico to decrease illegal entry, drug trafficking, and security threats, by building 700 miles of fence and authorizing funds for more vehicles barriers, checkpoints, lighting and an increase in the use of advanced technologies like cameras, satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce infrastructure at the border. Senator Schumer tried to filibuster the 2006 Secure Fences Act and has also opposed all border security infrastructure spending, choosing instead to support the liberal position that building border fences is not an effective deterrent to illegal border traffic.

Opponents of the SFA claimed border fences have the potential to damage U.S./Mexico relations, disrupt the environment, and inhibit natural animal migration patterns. Further, liberals claim that border fences increased the risk to illegal workers, who used to return home after pursuing seasonal work and fences might force them to bring their families with them and remain permanently in the United States. I’m not making this up.

Chuck Schumer has vigorously opposed every single piece of legislation designed to commit resources to improving US border security and slowing the growth of illegal immigration. During a recent trip to the Arizona/Mexican border, Schumer was heard to express his reservations about the federal government’s ability to secure our southern border given the ineffectiveness of currently available technology. Would this be the very same technology that he has consistently opposed funding for over two decades? Or is this the technology he lavishly praises for improving border security under the stewardship of the Obama Administration?  That is, before he actually visited the border, and then recently condemned it? Oh brother.

Now we hear that Senator Schumer has brokered a backroom deal between Richard Trumpka’s AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to establish as part of proposed Immigration Reform legislation, an immigrant “prevailing wage” plan. I won’t bore you with the details, since the specifics of this new Democrat idea—much like the details of bio-metric worker I.D. cards—have yet to be made public. However, it is in your best interest to read up on this garbage, because you’ll be paying for it.

Funny, I don’t remember electing Richard Trumpka or the US Chamber of Commerce to anything, so why are they involved in government efforts to curb illegal immigration, reduce immigrant entitlement dependency, and control the growth of Mexican gang violence and drug trafficking in America? More importantly what does an “immigrant prevailing wage” have to do with border security and decreasing illegal immigration? I guess it must be that old campaign contribution thing popping up AGAIN. Either way, there goes all that cheap illegal immigrant labor right into the ranks of the Obama loyal SEIU.

Chuck Schumer wants nothing more than to increase the size of his loyal Democrat voting entitlement dependent constituency. The only thing you can trust about Senator Schumer, is his history of going back on his word, and his use of political sleight of hand and outright criminal deception to get what he wants. If Mr. Schumer, and his gang bangers of 8, are working on legitimate and trustworthy immigration reform efforts, why is it that everything must be done in secret, behind politically expedient closed doors?

Jesus: The True ‘Political Outcast’


Many families will gather together on Sunday to celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is nothing short of miraculous that anything that happened 2000 years ago is even remembered, let alone celebrated. But what is often overlooked in this event—the most important one in world history—is the political nature of the death and resurrection of Christ. Jesus was a “political outcast” of the first degree. His execution was, of course, a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, reaching all the way back to the Garden of Eden, but it was also a judgment of the entrenched political atmosphere that existed in first century Jerusalem.

Now before you accuse me of teaching a “social gospel,” please understand that the Gospel (the good news of Jesus’ kingship and kingdom) does have political consequences. Herod understood this, and so did Pontius Pilate. Herod, as the “king” of the Jews, knew that Jesus’ proclamation of the “kingdom of God” was a direct assault against his own imagined authority; likewise Pilate recognized that letting Jesus live, against the wishes of the chief priests and who were stirring up the people, could very well incite an insurrection. In Jesus, Herod saw a threat to his rule, while Pilate saw a liability; neither was able to give Jesus a truly fair trial.

In many Easter sermons, the impression is often given that the crowds were aligned against Jesus and crying for His death. While this is technically true, it doesn’t tell the full story. Matthew 27: 20 says that “the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to put Jesus to death.” The political and religious leaders were stirring up the people against Jesus, so much so that they were willing to trade a real murder and insurrectionist for a perceived one (see Mark 15:7) and condemn themselves and their posterity: “And all the people said, ‘His blood shall be on us and on our children,’” a self-condemnation which God honored less than 40 years later in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The Gospel of John is crystal clear about what the Jewish leaders and priests thought of Jesus and His promised kingdom: “Pilate said to them, ‘Shall I crucify your King?’ The chief priests answered, ‘We have no king but Caesar’” (John 19:15, see also Acts 9:14 to see that this attitude persisted well after Jesus’ Resurrection). They rejected God’s own Messiah for a pretend political messiah in Rome.

Our own modern celebrations of Easter are a reinforcement of the fact that Jesus changed everything. It is a rather bold statement to have ham on the plate when celebrating the life, death, and resurrection of the Jewish Messiah. The pig was (and still is by modern Jews) considered to be an unclean animal because it does not chew its cud (Leviticus 11:7–8; Deuteronomy 14:8). Eating pork to celebrate the risen King of the Jews is a proclamation that God has made all things clean in the death and resurrection of His Son. As Peter finally came to understand, Jesus did indeed make all things new (Acts 10:9–16; see also Revelation 21:1–5).

Communion is another aspect of Jesus flaunting Jewish tradition and giving it an entirely new meaning. During the Last Supper in the upper room, Jesus and the disciples were settled in for the traditional Passover meal of lamb with unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Exodus 12:8). Sometime after they began eating, Jesus passed around bread and wine; He called the bread “His body” and the wine “His blood.” Prior to this Last Supper, at an earlier Passover—in what is known as the Bread of Life discourse—Jesus had told the Jewish leaders in the synagogue in Capernaum that if they didn’t eat His flesh or drink His blood they could have no part in Him.

Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” (John 6:52–58)

This command by Jesus is in direct conflict with Leviticus 17, where eating or drinking blood is expressly forbidden. In other words, Old Testament law says, “Do not eat the blood,” and Jesus, in the New Covenant in His blood, says, “You must eat the blood.” As the atoning sacrifice Himself, Jesus is drawing a distinction between Himself as the Lamb of God and a regular Passover lamb. The lamb pointed to the Lamb, and now that the Lamb is here, not drinking his blood is a denial of His being the once-for-all Atonement (see Hebrews 9:28). It was a subversion of sorts, which is to say that the chief priests and Jewish leaders were correct to understand it as such, but they were wrong to think that this subversion was not of God. It was, in reality, the final divine statement regarding Israel’s rejection of God as their King for a human tyrant (see 1 Samuel 8:7).

So when you eat your ham and drink your wine, remember that Jesus did change everything: politically, socially, religiously, and culturally, and this change came about because of what He did covenantally; He obeyed God rather than men, and so did his first century disciples. And as a result, they were accused of “turning the world upside down” because they “acted contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:6–7). May we all be accused of being such political outcasts in the days, weeks, and years to come. Happy Easter to all! He is risen indeed!

Tag Cloud