Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Patriot’

Great Patriotic Video of Johnny Cash – The is a MUST WATCH and SHARE


waving flag

cash

freedom combo 2

 

Politically INCORRECT Images You Might Have Missed


11145072_1039396162787179_6102775264623851703_n 11141175_10204456360142653_6562016361019019734_n 11071607_863055553729867_4007200569723713803_n 10380905_1039394819453980_3180567091956126019_n

wraped up in himself 1978845_721414287918703_5750296752723611696_n 10557360_10153288417563189_8422961868483239679_n Picture6

 

The real object of the First Amendment was…


Obamacare

Post by William J. Federer on October 5, 2014

Read more at http://stevedeace.com/news/real-object-first-amendment/#hE6tZgkrdr0awfBc.99

first amendment flagHis father was a Boston Tea Party “Indian.” He graduated second in his class from Harvard, was a U.S. Representative, then was elected Massachusetts Speaker of the House.

At age 32, he was appointed as the youngest Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

His name was Joseph Story.

Story served on the Supreme Court for 34 years.

He helped establish the illegality of the slave trade in the Amistad case, 1841.

He also helped found the Law School at Harvard, stating in a speech there in 1829:

“There never has been a period of history, in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundation.”

In 1833, Joseph Story commented on the pamphlet ‘The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States’ written by JohnAdamsQuote585Rev. Jasper Adams, President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina:

“Government can not long exist without an alliance with religion; and that Christianity is indispensable to the true interests and sold foundations of free government.”

In Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 1844, Justice Joseph Story wrote:

“Christianity…is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public….

It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of…Deism, or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country…”

Story continued:I am praying America

“Why may not laymen instruct in the general principles of Christianity as well as ecclesiastics…We cannot overlook the blessings, which such laymen by their conduct, as well as their instructions, may, nay must, impart to their youthful pupils.’

Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a Divine Revelation…its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its glorious principles of morality inculcated?”

Story added:

“What is there to prevent a work, not sectarian, upon the general evidences of Christianity, from being read and taught in the college by lay teachers?’

“It may well be asked, what is there in all this, which is positively enjoined, inconsistent with the spirit or truths of the religion of Christ? Are not these truths all taught by Christianity, although it teaches much more?’

“Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?”

Joseph Story’s view on religion is all the more significant as he was appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison.

James Madison was known as the ‘Chief Architect of the Constitution’ and had introduced the First Amendment in the first session of Congress.

Joseph Story wrote in Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, 1840:

“At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the Amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship.’

“An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.’

“But the duty of supporting religion, and especially the Christian religion, is very different from the right to force the consciences of other men or to punish them for worshiping God in the manner which they believe their accountability to Him requires…’

“The rights of conscience are, indeed, beyond the just reach of any human power. They are given by God, and cannot be encroached upon by human authority without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural as well as of revealed religion…”

Justice Story continued:

The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.”

In Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833, Justice Joseph Story explained that the reason the Federal Government had no jurisdiction over religion was because religion was under each individual State’s jurisdiction:

“In some of the States, Episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in other, Presbyterians; in others, Congregationalists; in others, Quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects.’

“It was impossible that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment.’

“The only security was in the abolishing the power.’

“But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion…’

“Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice and the State constitutions.”

Regarding the Second Amendment, Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (3:§§ 1890George Washington regarding 2nd Amandment–91):

“The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted…’

“The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.’

“It is against sound policy for a free people to keep…standing armies in time of peace…from…the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.”

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will…enable the people to resist and triumph over them…”

Story warned further:

“And yet…it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline…that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.”

William J. Federer is a nationally known speaker, best-selling author, and president of Amerisearch, Inc., a publishing company dedicated to researching America’s noble heritage. Bill’s AMERICAN MINUTE radio feature is broadcast daily across America and by the Internet. His Faith in History television airs on the TCT Network on stations across America and via DirectTV.

Dupe and Chains

Article collective closing

Video of the Day


verse

http://faithtap.com/527/marine-sings-forgotten-verse-of-national-anthem/

America the movie with hyperlink

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Article collective closing

Statement From Seattle Hero Jon Meis: A Man of God and Country


meis3

by Rodney Lee Conover:

Below is a statement from Jon Meis, the Seattle Pacific University student who stopped a campus shooter on June 5th in an act of heroism that no doubt saved many, many lives.

He acted without regard to his own life in order to save his fellow man. It does not surprise me that Jon Meis is a man of God and Country.

Bet he’s a Tea Party guy. Where’s the pre-judging mainstream media when you need them?

Where’s the reports of his voter registration guys and gals at the NY Times?

Hey MSNBC – how about his religious affiliation and views on traditional marriage? Where’s the conclusion-jumping? Has Obama called him?

Read this, then get back to me:

Statement from Jon Meis:

To my brothers and sisters at Seattle Pacific University, and my brothers and sisters in Christ throughout the nation and the world,

Words cannot come close to expressing the tragedy that occurred this past week on our campus. Like everyone else, I would hear of these horrible events on the news, but go home knowing that it could never happen to us. On Thursday, my life changed. I was thrown into a life and death situation, and through God’s grace I was able to stop the attacker and walk away unharmed. As I try to return to a normal life in the aftermath of this horrible event, I pray above all things for strength for the victims and their families. While my experience left me in physical shock, I know that many people are dealing with much greater grief than I have experienced, and in honesty I probably would not be able to handle myself right now if I had personally known the victims.

I know that I am being hailed as a hero, and as many people have suggested I find this hard to accept. I am indeed a quiet and private individual; while I have imagined what it would be like to save a life I never believed I would be put in such a situation. It touches me truly and deeply to read online that parents are telling their children about me and telling them that real heroes do exist.

However, what I find most difficult about this situation is the devastating reality that a hero cannot come without tragedy. In the midst of this attention, we cannot ignore that a life was taken from us, ruthlessly and without justification or cause. Others were badly injured, and many more will carry this event with them the rest of their lives. Nonetheless, I would encourage that hate be met with love. When I came face to face with the attacker, God gave me the eyes to see that he was not a faceless monster, but a very sad and troubled young man. While I cannot at this time find it within me to forgive his crime, I truly desire that he will find the grace of God and the forgiveness of our community.

I would like to truly thank the responders who secured the building and the medical staff who looked after myself and those who were injured. After being in this situation myself, it is even harder to imagine what it would be like to have a job where one’s life is willingly put on the line every day. To our police, emergency responders, and armed forces, you have my greatest respect.

I am overwhelmed with the incredible generosity that has been showered upon me. It has been deeply touching to read the comments online and realize that my actions have had such a strikingly widespread effect. Moving forward, I am strongly requesting that any future donations be given to the victims through Seattle Pacific University.

I am grateful for the prayers and support coming from our home city and afar. In these next few days, weeks, and months, please continue to pray for everyone in the Seattle Pacific community. We serve a truly awesome God and I firmly believe that it is through Him alone that we will find the strength to heal from this tragedy.

Jon Meis
Student, Seattle Pacific University

————————

meis2By the way – Jon is requesting privacy and doesn’t want to speak to the media, but I wouldn’t worry Jon, outside of Fox News and Glenn Beck and me – you just jumped off everybody’s radar screen with that whole “God” thing you did there.

Pretty good strategy for anybody that doesn’t want to be bothered by Rachel Maddow when you think of it.

My guess is the line of quality, family-oriented, honest, considerate, conservative and loving friends & family are lined up around the block.

And if Jon has a girlfriend, I’d lock that guy in, honey.

 

-30-

email Rodney Lee Conover: kowenhoven@gmail.com

rodney on tap Sugar? No thanks, I’m sweet enough..

follow Rodney Lee on Twitter @RCCA08

Friend him on Facebookno one refused

www.facebook.com/rodneyleeconover

VOTE 02

Article of the Day


Why Americans must Choose Patriotism over Multiculturalism

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/americans-must-choose-patriotism-multiculturalism/#4C6RdBs0uSlFyF7Z.99

Written on Wednesday, April 30, 2014 by

AmericanPatrioticStatueOfLibertyWallpaper-06

Based on President Obama’s own words and his subsequent actions we concluded at the time that he was not an American patriot and that he did not love America. Perhaps you remember the controversy early in Obama’s presidency that grew out of his refusal to wear an American flag in his lapel. Conservative media outlets called so much attention to his bare lapels that the president was more or less forced to begin wearing a flag pin, but it never has seemed to suit him. We concluded further that no individual who refuses to profess his love for our country and to demonstrate that love by his actions should be allowed to serve as president. This, by the way, was why our Founders built the citizenship clause into the Constitution. They knew that the fastest way to undermine the form of government they had sacrificed so much to establish and the freedom it affords American citizens would be to allow a closet foreigner who does not love our country to serve as president. This would be like giving a fox the keys to the henhouse.

Owing to the efforts of so-called progressives, by the time Barack Obama was elected president, patriotism had become passé in America. The new watchword was multiculturalism, and progressives who had worked so long to undermine the concept of patriotism now had a friend in high places. President Obama wasted no time in setting a multicultural/anti-patriotism tone for America while simultaneously joining with his fellow progressives to denounce our country by claiming America has much to apologize for and by refusing to acknowledge American exceptionalism. Who can forget seeing an American president bow before Arab leaders who smiled to his face but scorned him and our country behind his back? Who can forget hearing President Obama extolling the virtues of socialist European nations while slamming the United States as if it was some other nation that saved Europe in World War II or rebuilt a bombed-out Europe with the Marshall Plan?

“Patriotism is love of country put into action.”

Patriotism is love of country put into action. We show our patriotism by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, singing the National Anthem, honoring our flag, serving in the military, and protecting the sanctity of the Constitution. If we are immigrants who have adopted America, we show our patriotism by doing the things just mentioned and by learning to speak English, adopting long-standing American customs, and inculcating the best of American values. Mutliculturalism, on the other hand, is love of an individual’s cultural heritage over country. There is nothing wrong with Americans of different cultures honoring those cultures, but there is much wrong with people taking advantage of the freedom and opportunities provided by America while becoming citizens in name only; refusing to learn our language, honor our traditions, or respect our values. Multiculturalism is the antithesis of the melting pot theory.

“American patriotism honors those things that make America exceptional”

It is important that Americans—those born here and those who legally immigrate—choose patriotism over multiculturalism. American patriotism honors those things that make America exceptional:

  • freedom,
  • opportunity,
  • liberty,
  • self-government,
  • equality before the law,
  • and the right to rise up out of meager circumstances regardless of one’s social position at birth.  

A desire to have these things is what Americans of all stripes have in common. They are the ingredients that make the melting-pot concept work. Multiculturalism, on the other hand, honors where we came from over where we are now. It keeps us separate by focusing on the language, customs, traditions, and values of where we came from rather than where we are. Multiculturalism says, “I want to enjoy the benefits of America without really becoming an American.  Patriotism leads to the melting pot and common ground. Multiculturalism leads to balkanization and enmity between different cultural groups.

“Patriotism leads to the melting pot and common ground.”

Patriotism does not mean nor has it ever meant that people from different cultures must cast off those cultures and forget where they came from. Growing up I knew many families who had adopted America as their country while still honoring the memories of the country of their forbearers. I have friends now who speak Spanish in their homes, but perfect English when in public. It is one thing to honor one’s cultural heritage. It is quite another to honor one’s cultural heritage to the exclusion of one’s adopted heritage. Patriotism can bring Americans of all stripes together by giving us something in common that transcends cultural differences. Multiculturalism just separates us into divisive clans with nothing in common

My Kind of Patriotic Man


Veteran Cuts Down US Flag Flown Under Mexican Flag in Reno: “I Took This Flag Down in Honor of My Country”

An United States Veteran witnessed a business flying a Mexican flag above the American flag in downtown Reno.  Many people have seen the video from 2007, but many people have not (thus the reason for this post).  The activity of flying the Mexican flag over the US flag, which is illegal, was confronted by the veteran, Jim Brossard, who courageously walked up in front of the business with onlookers standing by and was videoed taking the flags down, cutting loose the American flag and declaring, “I’m Jim Brossard, and I took this flag down in honor of my country with a knife from the United States Army.”

BrossardThe video has been removed several times by YouTube and Facebook and continually reposted.  The current version of the video is posted to my YouTube account.

“I’m a veteran,” Brossard continued.  “I’m not going to see this done to my country.  If they want to fight us, then they need to be men, and they need to come and fight us, but I want someone to come and fight me for this flag.”

“They’re not going to get it back,” he declared before walking off with the US flag tucked safely under his arm.

Brosser has been called a vigilante by some and a hero by others.  One thing is for sure, he is most definitely a patriot.

Following his display of patriotism, Ka-Bar designed a special knife to commemorate his act of patriotism and honor the man behind it.  The US Army Brossard commemorative knife had Jim’s statements and an American flag emblazoned on the blade.

About Tim Brown

Husband to my wife. Father of 10. Jack of All Trades. Christian and lover of liberty.  Residing in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Follow Tim on Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/02/veteran-cuts-us-flag-flown-mexican-flag-took-flag-honor-country/#lY6CpgKrkklLMZMV.99

Is An Executive Order a Law that Must be Obeyed?


Is An Executive Order a Law that Must be Obeyed?

King-Obama_croppedThere’s talk that President Obama will ignore Congress and issue Executive Orders to implement new gun regulations over against the clear reading of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Is an Executive Order a law? Will we be obligated to obey it?

Executive Orders have a long history. Republicans and Democrats have issued them. Only a few of them have been overturned by the courts.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats do much about Executive Orders they don’t like since both parties issue them. This is how the Washington game is played.

Republicans and Democrats like Executive Orders on difficult issues because it stops the legislative process that they’ll have to participate in and eventually vote yes or no. They can always tell the voters back home, “Well, I would have voted against that if the President hadn’t issued an Executive Order. Golly gee willikers, now my hands are tied.” Right.

An Executive Order is only valid if it’s done within the jurisdictional authority of the President’s constitutional authority. To rule against the Second Amendment is not a presidential prerogative. If it is, then the President could turn his attention to the First Amendment and issue an order that newspapers can no longer criticize him. Conservative talk radio would die a quick death if the President issued an Executive Order saying that the freedom of speech had to be limited in several ways, one of which was negative political speech, especially about him.

Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that President Obama would like to do all these things. He’s mad with power. He has a vendetta against America.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC made a statement about how President Obama should have been treated by presidential challenger Mitt Romney in their second debate. It was the fact that Gov. Romney actually challenged the President that led Matthews to go Gestapo on Romney:

“I don’t think [Mitt Romney] understands the Constitution of the United States… He’s the president of the United States. You don’t say, ‘you’ll get your chance.’”

Yes you do. President Obama is an elected official. He’s not a king. The king battle was fought a long time ago at Runnymede in 1215.

If the President and other anti-Second Amendment advocates want to limit our freedoms, then they can go through the amendment process. An Executive Order is the chicken’s way out. It’s also unconstitutional.

The Democrats know this. That’s why they’re sending out Vice President Biden to soften the rhetoric:

“The president is going to act. There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”

Did you see it? “Legislative action that we believe is required.” In terms of the Separation of Powers, the President does not have the constitutional authority to legislate. Of course, that hasn’t stopped him or any other president.

Biden went on to say that “this is a moral issue and that ‘it’s critically important that we act.’” Morally, the President can’t ignore an Amendment to the Constitution. How is banning guns for everyone the moral thing to do when only a tiny fraction use guns illegally? How will banning guns to stop immoral people from using whatever they can find to do harm?

Timothy McVeigh used kerosene and fertilizer to kill 169 people. Abortion doctors use medical instruments to kill pre-born babies? A man was poisoned with cyanide before he could cash in his $1 million dollar lottery ticket.

George Washington Gives Model of Presidential Leadership


– The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation – http://blog.heritage.org

George Washington Gives Model of Presidential Leadership

Posted By Rich Tucker On September 6, 2012 @ 10:48 am In First Principles |

The old joke about baseball in the District of Columbia was that Washington is “first in war, first in peace, and last in the league.” This slyly played off the age-old description of George Washington himself: “First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen.”

This year’s Nationals are running away with their division, so the joke finally feels dated. But George Washington himself remains a timeless hero who still deserves the full devotion of the American people.

First in war? “Through force of character and brilliant political leadership,” writes Heritage’s Matthew Spalding, “Washington transformed an underfunded militia into a capable force that, although never able to take the British army head-on, outwitted and defeated the mightiest military power in the world.” Spalding’s essay about Washington [2] has just been reissued as part of The Heritage Foundation’s series on people who’ve shaped American political thought [3].

First in peace? “As our first President, Washington set the precedents that define what it means to be a constitutional executive. He was a strong, energetic President but always aware of the limits on his office; he deferred to authority when appropriate but aggressively defended his prerogatives when necessary.”

First in the hearts of his countrymen? True then: “The vast powers of the presidency, as one delegate to the Constitutional Convention wrote, would not have been made as great ‘had not many of the members cast their eyes towards General Washington as president; and shaped their ideas of the powers to be given to a president, by their opinions of his virtue.’”

True now, as another presidential election approaches: “We take for granted the peaceful transferal of power from one President to another, but it was Washington’s relinquishing of power in favor of the rule of law—a first in the annals of modern history—that made those transitions possible.”

George Washington twice voluntarily surrendered power to return to a peaceful life on his Mount Vernon estate. The ruler he helped vanquish, King George III, called him “the greatest character of the age.” The capital city he gave his name to is renowned as the defender of freedom and opportunity.

As John Adams put it, Washington’s example “will teach wisdom and virtue to magistrates, citizens, and men, not only in the present age, but in future generations, as long as our history shall be read.”

More than a century after Washington died, Woodrow Wilson [4] attempted to refound the United States on progressive principles. His experiment is still going on today. That explains why Washington remains so crucial: His guiding principles came from the written Constitution and Declaration of Independence, not some unwritten, “living” constitution.

Let us learn the first President’s lessons and move toward a more Washingtonian governance.


Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org

URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/06/george-washington-gives-model-of-presidential-leadership/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/rotunda-capitol-7-1-11.jpg

[2] Spalding’s essay about Washington: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/american-statesman-the-enduring-relevance-of-george-washington

[3] American political thought: http://www.heritage.org/issues/political-thought

[4] Woodrow Wilson: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/07/woodrow-wilson

Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.

 

DNC Observations


If I were a stranger to American history and politics, I would have come away from this weeks speeches with the impression that the Democrats were a group of Freedom Fighters battling dictators, demonic leaders and tormentors who hated women, children, education, the military, freedom, healthcare, poor people, anyone trying to lift themselves up a level in the society hierarchy, rappers of the financial districts and haters of everything and everyone. According to what I heard, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are liars and incapable of telling the truth. According to what I heard the Republican Party want to go backwards to some undetermined era where women had no vote, no health care, no right to her own body, no access to contraceptives and children have to go to schools that are broken down and inadequate.

I also got the impression that all Republicans are so awful that they deserved to be mocked. According to what I heard Republicans have no workable ideas, and have only caused trouble, financial ruin and disasters that the Democrats have to fix. I walked away with the idea that the Republicans could only be conquered by force even if that meant war. I heard every speaker describe a political party that owned all the good answers to life, and without them, the world as we know it would fall apart. Then I heard a commentator actually say that the DNC proved they were the only ones that cared about America’s military.

According to the leader of this DNC, he was hindered by this enemy called Republicans and was unable to fulfill the promises he made about fixing all the Republicans disasters. He claimed he need more time and everyone would have to fight to see to it that he was given that chance. I learned that only he, President Obama, and his Vice President, Joe Bidden, are the only ones possessing the intellect, reason, experience and foresight to finish fixing the malaise created by those horrible Republicans.

The people I was with explained to me that the man who offered up a prayer was a cleric of high importance. He was a Cardinal of a sect known as Catholics, who, among so many other things, have stated publicly that they hate the killing of babies, especially while they are in their mother’s womb. I thought, only monsters would deliberately kill babies. They must be Republicans. Anyway, these people were perplexed that he would honor the DNC with his presence and pray for them because the monsters that kill babies are the DNC, not those pesky Republicans. I’m confused. You American have a strange way to govern your people.

Well, it’s over. I’m told that now these two groups will go out and yell about each other, making all sorts of claims about one another. I am more confused. Why aren’t the electorate more knowledgeable about the issues facing their great nation to be able to decide who is telling the truth? Why are the American people so ignorant about their own national history, issues, reasonable solutions and who is holding to the truth?

Why is there so much hate? Where are the peacemakers? Where are the statesman that can bring peace to the entire electorate? Why all the yelling? What aren’t all the people in prayer, or have they given up on the God they claim to serve? Questions, nothing but questions.

One Man’s Observations


Listening to EX-President Clinton tonight produced many memories and thoughts;

  • I wanted to see a banner across every television in America that read, “WARNING. You are listening to a proven, convicted, disbarred, serial liar.
  • Several times I had to scream out, “Remember Newt Gingrich? All you claimed you accomplished could NOT have happened without partnering with Newt and the Republican House. In reality, the only thing President Clinton could claim as an achievement was that he was smart enough to work with Newt as President Reagan worked with Tip O’Neill.
  • All the “arithmetic” has already been proven as “fussy-math”.
  • Bill Clinton is a gifted speaker and can get any crowd whipped up to a frenzy. Just like President Obama. A gifted speak does not a good leader make.
  • All week I have screamed at the television, especially every time Juan Williams makes that ridiculous statement that Mitt Romney is not presenting the amount of details to his economic plan.
    • “JUAN, HOW MANY SPECIFICS DID CANDIDATE OBAMA GIVE IN 2008? DID HE PRESENT ANY DETAILS? No, Juan, all he said was “Hope and Change”.
    • “JUAN, HOW MANY QUALIFICATIONS DID CANDIDATE OBAMA HAVE PRIOR TO BECOMING PRESIDENT? HOW MANY BUSINESSES DID HE START, BUILD AND RUN? HOW MANY BUDGETS DID HE HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR? HOW MUCH FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE DID HE HAVE? JUAN, NAME ONE ACTUAL QUALIFICATION HE HAD TO BE PRESIDENT?”
  • Weren’t you impressed with Sandra Fluke? She did prove she can become a great Democrat politician because she has mastered the art of “SPIN.”
  • What can be said about Los Angeles Major Antonio R. Villaraigosa? I wonder who he chose to be his escort this time? He can’t claim any victories in Los Angeles, but he is another proven Democrat politician.
  • Elizabeth Warren. A proven liar about her genealogy, a confirmed Socialist believing that the “COLLECTIVE” must really be in power and control. Her speech sounded like the Republican Party and all conservatives hate women, children, clean water, clean air, education, the Middle Class, poor people, old people and puppies. Another proven serial liar thrust upon us by the Democratic Party.

I am actually frightened by this election. After EX- President Clinton spoke and he and President Obama walked off stage hugging one another, I turned to e wife and said, “Wouldn’t it be something if they fired Bidden and replaced him with Bill Clinton?” Her response was, “They would win by a landslide.” I couldn’t disagree.

I cannot find too many around me that are as serious about this election as I am. Apathy has settled over most of America and the Democrats are counting on that to continue. How about you?

 

Interview: Obama Had Marxist Vision For US At Occidental College


I have shared with you some research into words and phrases the Left throws out there hoping no one will look them up to understand the Marxist/Socialist foundational belief system. This is Part One of an article I believe everyone should read. It validates what I sent you about “Social Justice” and Collectivism”. It will take a while to read. Pleas do so with patience and understanding. What you do with it afterward is between you and your conscious.
Jerry Broussard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Interview: Obama Had Marxist Vision For US At Occidental College

obama_youth_09_2Has anyone ever been interested in President Obama’s ideological past? What were Obama’s beliefs while he was at Occidental? Several interviews by Dr. John Drew during the 2008 campaign cycle gave some insight, but few were interested at that time in what Obama really believed when he attended Occidental College. (See “Meeting Young Obama” and “Even Republicans Rejected Info About Obama’s Past” at www.americanthinker.com/john_drew/). Dr. Drew wrote, “Meeting Obama”, about Obama and his ideology about taking the United States over and making it fail so the, “revolution” could in his article “Meeting Young Obama” on February 24, 2011. He clearly remembers what Obama stated, in his own words, “Like it was yesterday”. Obama espoused without hesitation, “There’s going to be a revolution,” saying, “we need to be organized and grow the movement.” This is disturbing due to the fact what our nation is going through right now drives it to the edge of failure; just what the young Obama stated he wanted to accomplish in 1980: the end of capitalism in the United States.

Obama has in the last three years been declaring, the people with money are the problem with the United States. This reflects back to his Marxist/Socialist training while he was at Occidental College. Obama discussed this ideology with young John Drew during a Christmas break when Drew visited his then girlfriend, Caroline Boss. It was during his visit that he met Obama face to Face. Dr. Drew stated the man Obama had shown up with was an individual by the name of; Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, a 21-year-old Pakistani student Obama hung around with along with Chandoo’s girl friend, Margot Mifflin. All of them were fervent with their ideas of Marxist and Socialist ideology. Dr. Drew gave context to his recollections with the observation he had also read other stories about how Obama had dreamed of working to bring the downfall of Capitalism. Today it looks like Obama is working very hard to obtain those 1980 dreams.

In the below interview, Dr. Drew will, of course, refer to Dr. John Drew and LP will refer to the author of this piece, Louis Puissegur.

Dr. Drew began; “I know Stanley Kurtz’s book, Radical in Chief , that Obama has ties with the Midwest Acadamy, kind of like the Socialist training ground for America. I think that most Americans don’t understand that Obama
has a longstanding tie to Marxism, that is even longer then his ties to Reverend Right.”

LP; “That’s right, he(Obama), didn’t go to Reverend Wright until after he was married.”

Dr. Drew; “Right, I mean, the way I look at it, Barack Obama was probably at least a Communist sympathizer when he came out of high school, he was definitely a Marxist revolutionary when I met him in 1980. It doesn’t look like he
changed a bit, he started hanging out with Bill Ayers.”

LP; “You saw him just before Obama went to Pakistan.”

Dr.Drew; “Exactly, the last time I saw Obama was June 1981, we had a graduation party for Occidental College. I guess he left from there and went on this tour in Indonesia, and somehow got into Pakistan, I guess you were not allowed to do that on a United States passport at that time.”

LP; “How long did you have an association with Obama?”

Dr. Drew; “It is kind of complex, the actual time I spent with Obama was sort of brief and limited, but he was part of my social sphere in the sense I knew his roommate at the time, Chandoo, and Obama was a member of the Democratic Socialist Alliance at Occidental and my girlfriend, Caroline Boss was the co-president of that organization.”

LP; “Democratic Socialist Alliance?”

Dr. Drew; “Yes, that was the Marxist student association on campus, Caroline hung up a huge banner of Karl Marx where the students met at the Occidental College Quad. She and I were pretty intense Marxists we had been involved in about a two-year relationship and she was the one who introduced me to Barack Obama, she knew him better then I did. I wouldn’t be saying he was a Marxist/Socialist revolutionary if it was just based with my face to face talk with him, my comments are based on knowing Chandoo, having known Caroline and the Marxist Professors and that whole culture.”

LP; “Another words, the people he was associated with were deep into the Marxist/Socialist ideology?”

Dr. Drew; “Oh yes, I had considered myself as the enemy of the American government at that time.”

LP: “At that particular time? And what made you change?”

Dr. Drew; “Well, the first thing that happened was kind of spiritual change, I just started having the religious experience, I realized that there was something out there which I now call a higher power. That was very inconsistent with Marxist ideology. Because Marxist taught that stuff like that was just the opium of the people, but to me it was very real, so very real. Then my Doctoral research ended up just confirming a lot of Marxist theory which comes to explain how welfare programs and how Capitalism deals with child labor and things like that. My research pulled me out of Marxism fundamentally but what started it was the spiritual change.”

LP; “How many actual face to face meetings did you have with Obama?”

Dr. Drew; “I never had face to face after Christmas and in Partolo Valley California which is near Stanford. I basically spent the day with him, Chandoo, and Caroline Boss, I was visiting Boss from Cornell where I was studying. I graduated ahead of them but I had come back for the trip to be with Caroline. We hung out with Obama and Chandoo for that day and went out to lunch then we ended up arguing pretty late in the evening about Marxist and politics. Whether or not there would be a revolution, a Communist style revolution in the United States. The key takeaway there is that I may have been one of the first people in the world to confront Barack Obama’s kind of silly belief, Marxist idea that there was going to be an inevitable Communist revolution coming to the United States. I feel in my heart that I had persuaded him that that wasn’t in the cards and it wasn’t going to happen and at the end of that time he believed me. I think a bunch of us, Marxist Communist style people were turned off by a Communist style revolution I think that Obama would have heard that from someone else eventually, but from his reaction, I think I was the first person that he could identify as an ally, and a friend and supporter who sincerely believes that there would never be a Communist style revolution. That debate I think helped Obama intellectually, but it helped seal the end of my romantic relationship with Marxist.”

LP; “Obama was a student there the whole time?”

Dr. Drew; “Yes he was a student at Occidental College and he was taking classes from Roger Boesche, who was a political theorist on campus. Roger was definitely a Socialist. Most of the students followed him as a Marxist revolutionary, but he was kind of precise with that and did not see himself as a Marxist. I would say that 100% of the students considered him to be a Marxist/Socialist.”

LP; “Obama had to have some sort of girlfriends, or was he kind of all alone.”

Dr. Drew; “I think this is very unusual but I can say that I saw Barack Obama about 3 or 4 other times on campus and off campus at parties. As God as my witness, I can say that I never saw Barack Obama with a young woman. I never saw any romantic connections with a young woman or even any socializing with a young woman that had a romantic nature.”

LP; “So he was pretty much by himself all the time?”

Dr. Drew; “I am just a small piece of the puzzle, but if I had ever seen him with a girl, I would be happy to say that, but I did not notice that. If anything I thought that the young Obama was kind of the feminine and he seemed to have a very strong emotional tie to Hasan Chandoo.”

LP; “Now did Chandoo have a girlfriend?”

Dr. Drew; “Yes, Chandoo did have a girlfriend, her name was Margot Mifflin. It was kind of interesting that Chandoo had a girlfriend, Margot Mifflin, who is still in the news today, she is a professor at I think NYU. Caroline Boss had a boyfriend, me, and I am in the news about Barack Obama, but there is not a single girl out there that says she was Obama’s girlfriend.”

LP; “I seem to recall an article you wrote about Obama riding in a big fancy car with Chandoo.”

Dr. Drew; “Yes, Chandoo was very wealthy and he drove a very expensive, very nice luxury car. It was ten times better then the normal Occidental student would drive. One of my theories is that Barack Obama had a good time at Occidental College because of the financial generosity of Chandoo. That was one of the places that Obama learned that rich people would give him money just because he was a nice handsome ideologically consistent person.”

LP: “Do you know or did any one say he had a Visa when he was going to Occidental?”

Dr. Drew; “That I don’t have any knowledge of I don’t I called him Barry, but I don’t remember if he was introduced as Barry Soetoro or Barry Obama. I just remember I called him Barry and I don’t know anything about his citizen
status.”

LP; “How long did he hang around with Chandoo?”

Dr. Drew; “Chandoo is a life long friend of Barack Obama. Chandoo attended Obama’s marriage to Michelle, I think that was 1992 or 1993 or something like that. Chandoo was at their marriage and he was also at a recent Ramadan Dinner at the White House. He is one of those $600,000 bundlers for Obama. Chandoo has been a part of Obama’s life at least since 1980.”

LP; “So Chandoo is a bundler for Obama too?”

Dr. Drew; “Yes, Chandoo would go out and raise contributions from people then put all those checks in a bundle, then deliver it over to the campaign headquarters.”

LP:” Is Chandoo a US Citizen or is he a Pakistani?”

Dr. Drew; “He is living in New York, in America.”

LP: “About how many hours had you spent with Obama?”

Dr. Drew; “I would say that altogether it was about 10 to 12 hours.”

LP; “During that time did Obama display the Marxist ideology?”

Dr. Drew; “We were confiding in each other the way people fight with each other people with major historical struggles in communicating, very down to earth, very honest. Like I said, I am ashamed of my Socialist/Marxist past, I have a conversion story which explains how I became a Christian, Constitutional Conservative. Barack Obama has no conversion story. There is a story about how he stopped being a Marxist, if anything his career, life shows an alarming consistency in his ideological extremism.”

LP; “Do you see the same Marxist ideology now with Barack Obama?”

Dr. Drew; “Yes, especially when he talks about the people holding on to their guns and religion because of economic stress. That is a Marxist idea. Everything he says about it being a good idea to spread the wealth around; that is Marxist/Socialist concepts. Some of the statements Obama makes about things inevitably get better, I think that is a Marxist ideological remnants.”

LP; “I noticed in one of your articles you said it would never happen but Obama said yes it will.”

Dr. Drew; “Yes, I remember that very clearly, even some 20 years later because he thought I was nuts. He thought that I was going against everything he had been taught at Occidental College. I persuaded him, I told Obama there has never been a revolution in Italy, France, Germany, why would you expect one here in America? I said revolutions only occur in backwards raring economies, like China, Vietnam or Russia, not in America.”

LP; “How did he accept your idea?”

Dr. Drew; “I think he believed that the economic stresses would pile up worse and worse and after the stresses built up they would just build up to a breaking point where a new group would take over the country. That would be a large group of workers, students, young people, those who were enlightened by Marxist/Socialist ideology would end up running things.”

LP: “Did Obama ever mention Cloward/Pivens?”

Dr. Drew; “No never did, but he might have bumped into her when he was at Columbia because she taught at Columbia. Part of my research disconcerns the Piven and Cloward teachings that welfare programs rise in reaction to violence and rioting from the lower class. I was able to show that that was not true in America. I perceive Obama as being an out and out liar; hiding his real views from the American people. I think those views are deeply objectionable to most people and I am shocked that more media attention hasn’t been focused on vetting Obama and getting down to brass tacks about how he really is.” (see additional information at end.(1))

LP: “Did Obama ever throw money around when he was with Chandoo?”

Dr. Drew; “He hung with Chandoo, but the impression I had with Obama was that they were both very wealthy. I thought that Barack Obama was a descendent from royalty from the way he carries himself. It did turn out that he did spend his summers on the grounds of the palace of the sultan of Jakarta in Indonesia. According to David Remnick,(“The Bridge, Alfred A. Knopf, 2010, page 104”), that is where Obama would spend his summers. So he actually did grow up on the grounds of an Indonesian Palace. Through his step-father, Lolo Soertoro, he actually had ties to the royal family.” (See addition below(2).)

Now with all this stated by Dr. Drew, one has to ask, has Barack Obama moved away from his Marxist, Radical, Socialist Ideology? Has Barack Obama, the man holding the highest office in the United States “hidden” his true agenda, the one he so proudly proclaimed while at Occidental College? One must now consider: just what are the President’s motives behind producing continued debt upon the United States? Is this meant to further what Dr. Drew so clearly remembers: End Capitalism?

These questions should have been asked in 2008. They must be answered in truth today as the American people continue daily to struggle with the Marxist/Socialist ideals foist upon them by Barack Hussein Obama dedicated to them, ideals which have yet to succeed in all of human history. Some pundits state this is a propaganda used historically by Marxist and Socialist regimes, using the single word “forward” as their base. Has Obama finally given America a true reflection of his days as a revolutionary radical Marxist/Socialist?

(1.) My take on Piven and Cloward is included in my published doctoral dissertation in this book, The American Welfare System: Origins, Structure, and Effects. I demonstrated that there was no relationship between street violence or riots and the later rise of the Progressive Era Mothers’ Pensions movement.”

(2.) Information about how Obama’s mother lived on the grounds of the palace of the Sultan of Yogakarta is available in David Remnick’s book, The Bridge, on pages 84-88.

Editor’s Note: This is part one in a series.

Preparing to Vote Number 7


Another term you have heard the Political Left use is “Collective”, or one of its derivatives. You can expect they will continue to use this term because it reflects their committed ideology, philosophy and bases for how they want to run the country.

Here is what they hope you will not find out for yourself;

Collectivism: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture), and stresses the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups (such as an “in-group”, in what specific context it is defined). Collectivists usually focus on community, society, or nation. It is used, and has been used, as an element in many different and diverse types of government and political, economic and educational philosophies throughout history including democracy, totalitarian nationalism, monarchy, socialism, and communism. In modern times, collectivism is sometimes thought to be synonymous with socialism or specifically Leninism, though collectivism more accurately simply means “group oriented” or “group orientation”. Most societies contain elements of both individualism and collectivism.

Collectivism can be divided into horizontal collectivism and vertical collectivism. Horizontal collectivism stresses collective decision-making among relatively equal individuals, and is thus usually based on decentralization. Vertical collectivism is based on hierarchical structures of power and moral and cultural conformity, and is therefore based on centralization. Monarchy is an example of a system that makes use of vertical collectivism. [1]

In political economy, horizontal-collectivism is often associated with the economic theories of socialism, which call for some form of co-operative or collective ownership of the means of production and collective decision-making or worker’s self-management within economic enterprises.[2]

  • Corporatism refers to a form of collectivism that views the whole as being greater than the sum of its individual parts, and gives priority to group rights over individual rights.[3][4]

Politics

According to Moyra Grant, in political philosophy “collectivism” refers to any philosophy or system that puts any kind of group (such as a class, nation, race, society, state, etc.) before the individual.[5] According to Encyclopædia Britannica, “collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism. The least collectivist of these is social democracy, which seeks to reduce the perceived injustices of unrestrained capitalism by government regulation, redistribution of income, and varying degrees of planning and public ownership. In Communist systems collectivist economics are carried to their furthest extreme, with a minimum of private ownership and a maximum of planned economy.”[6]

However, political collectivism is not necessarily associated with support for states, governments, or other hierarchical institutions. There are variants of anarchism, such as collectivist anarchism and anarcho-communism, which are collectivist. Collectivist anarchists, particularly Mikhail Bakunin, were among the earliest critics of authoritarian communism. They agree with communists that the means of production should be expropriated from private owners and converted to common property,[7] but they advocate the ownership of this property to be vested by a loose group of decentralized communes rather than to be held in common by all of society. Nevertheless, unlike anarcho-communists, collectivist anarchists supported a wage system and markets in non-capital goods.[citation needed] Thus, Bakunin’s “Collectivist Anarchism”, notwithstanding the title, is seen as a blend of individualism and collectivism.[8]

Anarcho-communism is a more comprehensive form of collectivism which advocates not only the collectivization of the means of production but of the products of labor as well.[9] According to anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin, “And as long as dwelling-houses, fields, and factories belong to isolated owners, men will have to pay them, in one way or another, for being allowed to work in the fields or factories, or for living in the houses. The owners will accept to be paid by the workers in gold, in paper-money, or in cheques exchangeable for all sorts of commodities. But how can we defend labour-notes, this new form of wagedom, when we admit that houses, fields, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or the nation?”[10]

Economics

Leroy-Beaulieu says that that Albert Schäffle gave the first definition to the phrase “collectvisim”. Collectvism, for them both, is a kind of communism in which quotas are set on quality in addition to those set on quantity. (( Collectivism. 1908.))

Generally speaking, economic collectivism can refer to two distinct concepts: that property (usually in reference to productive property) be owned by all of society in common, or that possessions be owned by collective groups that use the property. The first concept is related to Communism, communalism and some forms of socialism, while the latter concept is related to forms of socialism based on independent cooperative organizations such as Syndicalism, Guild socialism, libertarian socialism and market socialism. Additionally, capitalist systems that largely consist of either cooperative or corporate ownership structures, with ownership being vested in collective entities of legal owners rather than the producers/users of the property, can be characterized as being collectivist to some degree.

Collectivism in the field of economics holds that some things should be owned by all of society and used for the benefit of all rather than being owned by just individuals or private parties. Central to this view is the concept of the commons, as opposed to private property. Early economic systems such as communalism and tribal societies practiced this form of collectivism. Collectivism can also apply to public ownership over the means of production, while others argue[who?] that all valued commodities, like environmental or consumer goods, should be regarded as public goods and placed under public ownership. In health care, collective action by trade unions and other professional bodies throughout Europe in the early twentieth century established mutual sickness funds and contracts with doctors and hospitals enabling workers to be assured of access to health care and sometimes sick pay collectively funded by all the members of the trade union or profession.

Collectivism in economics may or may not involve a state as a manager and steward of collective property. For instance, company property in corporations is usually managed by specialized managers, despite being owned in some cases by hundreds of shareholders. Anarcho-communists, who argue for the immediate abolition of the state, wish to place all goods under communal access without a state or manager. They argue that since the value of labor cannot truly be measured, individuals should be free to produce and consume to their own self-determined needs. In 1876, at the Florence Conference of the Italian Federation of the International, where the principles of anarcho-communism were first laid out, it was stated:

The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity.[citation needed]

Anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin believed that a lack of collectivization of goods would be a dis-service to individuals.[11]

Typology

Collectivism can be typified as “horizontal collectivism”, wherein equality is emphasized and people engage in sharing and cooperation, or “vertical collectivism”, wherein hierarchy is emphasized and people submit to authorities to the point of self-sacrifice.[12] Horizontal collectivism is based on the assumption that each individual is more or less equal, while vertical collectivism assumes that individuals are fundamentally different from each other.[13] Social anarchist Alexander Berkman, who was a horizontal collectivist, argued that equality does not imply a lack of unique individuality, but an equal amount of freedom and equal opportunity to develop one’s own skills and talents, equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. Far from leveling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse, and only the repression of this free diversity results in leveling, in uniformity and sameness. Free opportunity and acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations. . . . Life in freedom, in anarchy will do more than liberate man merely from his present political and economic bondage. That will be only the first step, the preliminary to a truly human existence.[14]

Indeed, horizontal collectivists argue that the idea of individuals sacrificing themselves for the “group” or “greater good” is nonsensical, arguing that groups are made up of individuals (including oneself) and are not a cohesive, monolithic entity separate from the self. But most social anarchists do not see themselves as collectivists or individualists, viewing both as illusory ideologies based on fiction .[15]

Horizontal collectivists tend to favour democratic decision-making, while vertical collectivists believe in a strict chain of command. Horizontal collectivism stresses common goals, interdependence and sociability. Vertical collectivism stresses the integrity of the in-group (e.g. the family or the nation), expects individuals to sacrifice themselves for the in-group if necessary, and promotes competition between different in-groups.[13]

 

DEFIANCE: Standing Up to Christ-O-Phobic Thugs


 

By / 28 August 2012 / 26 Comments

Our nation is totally open to anyone and to anything, that is, unless, of course, you’re a Christian. And if that’s the case, then you’re likely to get more sympathy from a badger with minimal sleep than you will from the liberal left who are hard at work making your life hard.

The liberal, hypocritical, tolerant thought police of the 21st century are about as easy going with Christianity as Ike Turner was with Tina every time she botched a song.

The sport of the Left is Christian-suppression, and man, are they getting good at it. Check it out:

· Liberal, hypocritical, social de-constructors have effectively removed Christianity from our public schools and universities. They have completely deleted the truth concerning the massive role the Christian faith played in our Founding Fathers formulating this great land. And God help you if you, Christian teacher or student, attempt to re-introduce it.

· Liberal, hypocritical Hollywood-en heads routinely show Christians in television and film as cross-eyed morons who are repressed and offensive, buckle-shoed, GED killjoys sporting a 70-plus-pound Bible with a minus-70 IQ.

· Liberal, hypocritical activist judges, tanked up on triple espresso no-foam lattes and Maureen Dowd’s latest tweet, zealously misinterpret and misapply the Constitution to rid from American government and public life, any semblance of Christian thought. They do this with masturbatory preening glee, congratulating themselves for being Titans of religious freedom … protectors of their envisioned nuevo nation.

Hey, ludicrous Left: what’s up with your Christophobia? Why so intolerant, Ms. Tolerance? What are you afraid of? Are you afraid we’re going to bring dignity back to this country? Are you afraid righteousness is once again going to be re-introduced into our land, before you licentiously sink it?

Are you afraid of absolute truth being tabled into the public arena and ruining your randy relativism? Are you afraid of personal accountability and responsibility? Are you afraid that the moral law is going to wreck your amoral life?

Is that it? Is that why you’re working overtime to shut Christianity out of the public arena? Will Christianity ruin your narcissistic fantasy starring you as the center of the universe?

Listen, concerned Christian; even though the times are going to get rougher than Joan Rivers’ morning breath before they get any better in the United States of Liberal Acrimony, we must not acquiesce. It’s time, ecclesiastically and politically, to fight the tolerance movement’s intolerance of our faith, which was the faith of our Founding Fathers and the faith that has sustained our nation’s state of blessedness.

As Christians, we must preserve our rights and freedoms and not allow the Left to shove their Liberal crap down our collective throat. This means we are going to have to get off our collective butts and intellectually fight against the intolerance of Christianity by the “tolerant” liberal and hypocritical Left.

 

Preparing to Vote Number 6


Rejoice! This will conclude the articles of parts of the history of the start of our Nation. There is much that I did not report, miracles of God; great prayers by some of the Founding Fathers and others. I wish to end with some words from some of those early men. You will see that two of them became fearful of the same things that concern a lot of us today. All underlining and bold prints are mine, Benny Broussard (my dad)

On June 29, 1788, George Washington sent a letter to General Benjamin Lincoln, his deputy in the War, who had accepted British General Cornwallis sword at the surrender at Yorktown

“No Country upon Earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings…Much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to, so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass. The Great Governor of the Universe has led us too long and too far….to forsake us in the midst of it….We may, now and then, get bewildered; but I hope and trust that there is good sense and virtue enough left to recover the right path.”

On March 11, 1792, from Philadelphia, President George Washington wrote a letter to John Armstrong:

“I am sure that never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our Revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them.

In 1781, Thomas Jefferson made this statement in ‘Query XVlll’ of his ‘Notes on the State of Virginia’. Excerpts of these statements are engraved on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C.

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

On June 12, 1823, in a letter to Justice William Johnson regarding the meaning to the Constitution., Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

David Josiah Brewer (1837-1910) a Justice of the United State Supreme Court, gave the court’s opinion in the 1892 case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, (143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226): (I, Benny, selected only the portion that encompasses “Christian nation in the case of Vidal v. Girard’s Executors) “……this is a Christian nation….We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.”

John Jay (1745-1829) was the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, having been appointed by President George Washington. He was a Founding Father, a member of the First and Second Continental Congresses and served as the President of the Continental Congress. On October 12, 1816, John Jay admonished:

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) 28th President of the United States. On July 4, 1913, in a message delivered at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, declared: “Here is the nation God has builded by our hands. What shall we do with it?”

Dear readers, very soon we will be choosing a person to be our President for the next four years. Now is the time to pray diligently that we will vote wisely. Here are my personal thoughts;

  • I believe that this could be the last chance to “get it right”. This nation is facing bankruptcy big time. It was reported that during 2013, the U.S.’s debt will be 90 per cent of its GDP. I do not see how we can survive like that.
  • It is time to take a good look at the question that President Woodrow Wilson asked on July 4, 1913, “Here is the nation God has builded by our hands. What shall we do with it?” I admit that neither candidate is all that I desire to be my President. HOWEVER, to refrain from voting is a very poor choice. The way I see it is that one of them is much worse than the other. I will vote for whom I believe is the better of the two.

The ball is in your court, our court, our children’s court. To whom do we pass the ball? Which candidate will govern more like our Founding Fathers? Which one will be far from it?

Preparing to Vote Number 6


I am constantly disgusted with what I hear people say. They either parrot what they have heard someone say, or they have no clue what is really going on in the country. Considering the fact that we average less than 50% of Americans voting, the reasons are becoming more and more evident.

Jessie Waters, of the O’Reilly Factor, does on the street interviews and asks the public questions about our society, politics and entertainment. It astonishes me the number of people who cannot name the President, or know what is really going on in the world, or politics. Yet they can name entertainers, actors, and whatever they are doing. The lack of knowledge is a growing problem in America and one of the main reasons we are experiencing such a rapid decline in our society.

In the book of Hoses, chapter 4, verse 6, God is recorded as saying, “My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.” (NIV). That has prompted me to add to the series of “Preparing to Vote” that my dad has started, and I have shared with you.

Often I ask people around me to define certain terms we hear politicians from the Left using on a regular bases. No one has been able to give a definition, yet they acknowledge they have heard the words or phrases. I believe the Left is counting on people NOT researching these words which unmasks their true intentions and beliefs.

So, in this edition, we will discuss the term, “Social Justice”. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice) “Social Justice” is;

Social justice is justice exercised within a society, particularly as it is exercised by and among the various social classes of that society. A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being.[1][2][3]

Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system. The Constitution of the International Labour Organization affirms that “universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice.”[4] Furthermore, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action treats social justice as a purpose of the human rights education.[5]

The term and modern concept of “social justice” was coined by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in 1840 based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and given further exposure in 1848 by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati.[1][2][6][7][8] The word has taken on a very controverted and variable meaning, depending on who is using it. The idea was elaborated by the moral theologian John A. Ryan, who initiated the concept of a living wage. Father Coughlin also used the term in his publications in the 1930s and the 1940s. It is a part of Catholic social teaching, the Protestants’ Social Gospel, and is one of the Four Pillars of the Green Party upheld by green parties worldwide. Social justice as a secular concept, distinct from religious teachings, emerged mainly in the late twentieth century, influenced primarily by philosopher John Rawls. Some tenets of social justice have been adopted by those on the left of the political spectrum.

Social justice from religious traditions

Judaism

Main article: Tikkun olam

In To Heal a Fractured World: The Ethics of Responsibility, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks states that social justice has a central place in Judaism. One of Judaism’s most distinctive and challenging ideas is its ethics of responsibility reflected in the concepts of simcha (“gladness” or “joy”), tzedakah (“the religious obligation to perform charity and philanthropic acts”), chesed (“deeds of kindness”), and tikkun olam (“repairing the world”).

Christianity

Catholicism

Main article: Catholic social teaching

Catholic social teaching consists of those aspects of Roman Catholic doctrine which relate to matters dealing with the collective aspect of humanity. A distinctive feature of the Catholic social doctrine is their concern for the poorest members of society. Two of the seven key areas[9] of “Catholic social teaching” are pertinent to social justice:

  • Life and dignity of the human person: The foundational principle of all “Catholic Social Teaching” is the sanctity of all human life and the inherent dignity of every human person. Human life must be valued above all material possessions.
  • Preferential option for the poor and vulnerable: Catholics believe Jesus taught that on the Day of Judgement God will ask what each person did to help the poor and needy: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.”[10] The Catholic Church believes that through words, prayers and deeds one must show solidarity with, and compassion for, the poor. The moral test of any society is “how it treats its most vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. People are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor.”[11]

Even before it was propounded in the Catholic social doctrine, social justice appeared regularly in the history of the Catholic Church:

  • The term “social justice” was adopted by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in the 1840s, based on the work of St. Thomas Aquinas. He wrote extensively in his journal Civiltà Cattolica, engaging both capitalist and socialist theories from a natural law viewpoint. His basic premise was that the rival economic theories, based on subjective Cartesian thinking, undermined the unity of society present in Thomistic metaphysics; neither the liberal capitalists nor the communists concerned themselves with public moral philosophy.
  • Pope Leo XIII, who studied under Taparelli, published in 1891 the encyclical Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of the Working Classes), rejecting both socialism and capitalism, while defending labor unions and private property. He stated that society should be based on cooperation and not class conflict and competition. In this document, Leo set out the Catholic Church’s response to the social instability and labor conflict that had arisen in the wake of industrialization and had led to the rise of socialism. The Pope advocated that the role of the State was to promote social justice through the protection of rights, while the Church must speak out on social issues in order to teach correct social principles and ensure class harmony.
  • The encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (On Reconstruction of the Social Order, literally “in the fortieth year”) of 1931 by Pope Pius XI, encourages a living wage, subsidiarity, and advocates that social justice is a personal virtue as well as an attribute of the social order, saying that society can be just only if individuals and institutions are just.
  • Pope John Paul II added much to the corpus of the Catholic social teaching, penning three encyclicals which would deal with issues such as economics, politics, geo-political situations, ownership of the means of production, private property and the “social mortgage“, and private property. The encyclicals of Laborem Exercens, Solicitudo Rei Socialis, and Centesimus Annus are just a small portion of his overall contribution to Catholic social justice. Pope John Paul II was a strong advocate of justice and human rights, and spoke forcefully for the poor. He addresses issues such as the problems that technology can present should it be misused, and admits a fear that the “progress” of the world is not true progress at all, if it should denigrate the value of the human person.
  • Pope Benedict XVI‘s encyclical Deus Caritas Est (“God is Love”) of 2006 claims that justice is the defining concern of the state and the central concern of politics, and not of the church, which has charity as its central social concern. It said that the laity has the specific responsibility of pursuing social justice in civil society and that the church’s active role in social justice should be to inform the debate, using reason and natural law, and also by providing moral and spiritual formation for those involved in politics.
  • The official Catholic doctrine on social justice can be found in the book Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, published in 2004 and updated in 2006, by the Pontifical Council Iustitia et Pax

Please go to the link provided above to read more.

Does this explain why President Obama and the Left say and vote the way they do? Can you get in with them and continue the conversion of the United States of America into a Social Justice Socialist (or worst) nation? Are you planning to vote? Are you going to be an informed voter based on our own research? Are you going to sit back and let it all go to hell? Patriot or Unconcerned, self-absorbed, uncaring human taking up space?

Preparing to Vote Number 5


(To my readers, please note the date of 1777 in the previous article and this one below. In difference that the battle for independence was raging, check this next article to see what was going on ‘back home’…….Benny)

Continental Congress, September 11, 1777, approved and recommended to the people that 20,000 copies of The Holy Bible be imported from other sources. This was in response to the shortage of Bibles in America caused by the Revolutionary War interrupting trade with England. The Chaplain of Congress, Patrick Allison, brought the matter to the attention of Congress, who assigned it to a special Congressional Committee, which reported:

“The use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great that your committee refers the above to the consideration of Congress, and if Congress shall not think it expedient to order the importation of types and paper, the Committee recommends that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the States of the Union.”

Whereupon it was resolved accordingly to direct said Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 copies of the Bible.

Continental Congress November 1, 1777, issued The First National Proclamation of Thanksgiving to all colonies, as a result of their victory at Saratoga. (This was a long, but good, Proclamation. Below is only part of it….Benny)

“…..That with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their Divine Benefactor; and that together with their sincere acknowledgements and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest, supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance;’

“….That it may please Him, to prosper the trade and manufactures of the people, and the labour of the husbandman; that our land may yet yield its increase; to take school and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety, under His nurturing hand, and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth ‘”in righteous, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost”.”

In 1775, John Peter Muhlenberg, who was a pastor like his father, Henry, preached a message on Ecclesiastes 3:1, “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven.” He closed his message by saying:

“In the language of the Holy Writ, there is a time for all things. There is a time to preach and a time to fight.”

He then threw off his robes to reveal the uniform of an officer in the Revolutionary Army. That afternoon, at the head of 300 men, he marched off to join General Washington’s troops.

Why liberals behave the way they do by Ann Coulter


By: Ann Coulter
8/15/2012 05:11 PM

My smash best seller “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America” has just come out in paperback — and not a moment too soon! Democrats always become especially mob-like during presidential election campaigns.

The “root cause” of the Democrats’ wild allegations against Republicans, their fear of change, their slogans and insane metaphors, are all explained by mass psychology, diagnosed more than a century ago by the French psychologist Gustave Le Bon, on whose work much of my own book is based.

Le Bon’s 1896 book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” was carefully read by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in order to learn how to incite mobs. Our liberals could have been Le Bon’s study subjects.

With the country drowning in debt and Medicare and Social Security on high-speed bullet trains to bankruptcy, the entire Democratic Party refuses to acknowledge mathematical facts. Instead, they incite the Democratic mob to hate Republicans by accusing them of wanting to kill old people.

According to a 2009 report — before Obama added another $5 trillion to the national debt — Obama’s own treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, stated that in less than 10 years, spending on major entitlement programs, plus interest payments on the national debt, would consume 92 cents of every dollar in federal revenue.

That means no money for an army, a navy, rockets, national parks, food inspectors, air traffic controllers, highways, and so on. Basically, the entire federal budget will be required just to pay for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — and the cost of borrowing money to pay for these programs.

When Social Security was enacted in 1935, the average lifespan was 61.7 years. Today, it’s almost 79 and rising. But liberals believe the age at which people can begin collecting Social Security must never, ever be changed, even to save Social Security itself.

Mobs, according to Le Bon, have a “fetish-like respect” for tradition, except moral traditions because crowds are too impulsive to be moral. That’s why liberals say our Constitution is a “living, breathing” document that sprouts rights to gay marriage and abortion, but the age at which Social Security and Medicare benefits kick in is written in stone.

Le Bon says that it is lucky “for the progress of civilization that the power of crowds only began to exist when the great discoveries of science and industry had already been effected.” If “democracies possessed the power they wield today at the time of the invention of mechanical looms or of the introduction of steam-power and of railways, the realization of these inventions would have been impossible.”

Liberals exhibit this exact groupthink fear of science not only toward light bulbs and nuclear power, but also toward medical inventions. Thus, when a majority of the country objected to Obamacare on the grounds that — among many other reasons — a government takeover of health care would destroy medical innovation, liberals stared in blank incomprehension.

They believe every drug, every diagnosis, every therapy, every cure that will ever be invented, has already been invented. Their job is to spread all the existing cures, while demonizing and stymieing pharmaceutical companies that make money by inventing new drugs.

Democrats haven’t the slightest concern about who will formulate new remedies because they are enraged at profit making and suspicious of scientific advancement.

Apart from cures that will never be invented, liberal elites will be mostly untouched by the rotten medical care to which they are consigning the rest of us. Note how Democrats’ friends, such as government unions, immediately received waivers from Obamacare. Rich or connected liberals, such as George Soros, Warren Buffett, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, will always have access to the best doctors, just as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez do.

It is similar to the way that Democrats, who refuse to pass school choice, always seem to bypass the disastrous public schools for their own children, who end up at Sidwell Friends or St. Albans.

Democrats don’t worry about how bankrupting Social Security and destroying the job market hurts black people, bitter divorcees and young people, because they can always demagogue these one-party Democratic voters simply by repeating that Republicans are racist, hate women and aren’t cool like Obama.

The truth is irrelevant; only slogans and fear mongering delight mobs.

The rest of us are forced to live in a lawless universe of no new pharmaceuticals, foreign doctors, gay marriage, girl soldiers, a health care system run by the post office, and bankrupt Social Security and Medicare systems, because liberals can’t enjoy their wealth unless other people are living in squalor.

The country will have the economy of Uganda, but Democrats will be in total control.

Preparing to Vote Number 4


The 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence paid a tremendous price for our freedom. 5 were arrested by the British as traitors. 12 had their houses looted and burned by the enemy, 17 lost their fortunes, 2 lost sons in the Continental Army and 9 fought and died during the revolutionary War

On August 27, 1776, British General Howe had trapped General Washington and his 8,000 troops on Brooklyn Heights, Long Island, intending to advance the nest morning to crush them. In a desperate move, Washington gathered every vessel, from fishing boats to row boats, and spent all night ferrying his army across the East River. When the morning came, there was still a large number of his troops dangerously exposed to the British, but in a most unusual change in weather, the fog did not lift from the river. It stayed thick, covering Washington’s retreat until the entire army had evacuated and escaped! Never again did the British have such a rare chance of winning the war. Major Ben Tallmadge, who was Washington’s Chief of Intelligence, wrote of that morning.

“As the dawn of the next day approached, those of us who remained in the trenches became very anxious for our own safety, and when the dawn appeared there were several regiments still on duty. At this time a very dense fog began to rise [out of the ground and off the river], and so very dense was the atmosphere that I could scarcely discern a man at six yards distance…..we tarried until the sun had risen, but the fog remained as dense as ever.”

 In the freezing winter of 1777, General George Washington was burdened with the lack of supplies for his troops camped at Valley Forge, and with the overwhelming superiority of the British forces. Soldiers died at the rate of twelve per day with many not even having blankets or shoes. The Commander-in-Chief himself, records the desperate state:

 “No history now extant can furnish an instance of an army’s suffering such uncommon hardship as ours has done and bearing them with the same patience and fortitude; To see men without clothes to cover their nakedness, without blankets to lie on, without shoes for their feet)…and submitting without a murmur, is a proof of patience and obedience which in my opinion can scarce be paralleled.”

A Committee from Congress reported “feet and legs froze till they became black, and it was often necessaries amputate them..” Sights of bloody footprints in the snow and lack of food and shelter caused the Commander-in-Chief to seek divine assistant. The famous account of his resolution was given by Isaac Potts, who was General Washington’s temporary landlord at Valley Forge.

In 1777 while the American Army lay at Valley Forge, a good old Quaker by the name of Potts had occasion to pass through a thick woods near headquarters. As he traversed the dark brown forest, he heard, at a distance before him, a voice which as he advanced became more fervid and interested.

Approaching with slowness and circumspection, whom should he behold in a dark bower, apparently formed for this purpose, but the Commander-in-Chief of the armies of the United Colonies on his knees in the act of devotion to the Ruler of the Universe!

At the moment when Friend Potts, concealed by the trees, came up, Washington was interceding for his beloved country. With tones of gratitude that labored for adequate expression he adored that exuberant goodness which, from the depth of obscurity, had exalted him to the head of a great nation, and that nation fighting at fearful odds for all the world holds dear…

Soon as the General had finished his devotions and had retired, Friend Potts returned to his house and threw himself into a chair by the side of his wife. “Heigh! Isaac!” said she with tenderness, “thee seems agitated, what’s the matter?”

 “Indeed, my dear”, Quote he, “if I appear agitated ‘tis no more than what I am. I have seen this day what I shall never forget. Till now I have thought that a Christian and a soldier were characters incompatible, but if George Washington be not a man of God, I am mistaken, and still more shall I be disappointed if God does not through him perform some great thing for this country.”

 

Silence is NOT an Option


Home / 2012 Election /

 

Christians, Silence is Not an Option

By / 12 August 2012 / 35 Comments

by Matt Barber

With the exception of one column previously penned, I pray this becomes my most widely read to date.

The secular left has mastered use of the Internet to further its extremist goals. In fact, President Obama’s web-based “Organizing for America” propaganda machine may have given him the 2008 election.

Let’s beat them at their own game.

To that end, I have a strange request. I’m asking each God-fearing, freedom-loving American who reads this column to forward it, post it, tweet it, print it out and give it to every pastor, priest or cleric you know. If you don’t know any, give it to someone who does.

Why? I agree with Barack Obama that November 2012 represents the most important election of our lifetimes – perhaps our history. Of course, that’s where my agreement with Mr. Obama both begins and abruptly ends.

Here’s the operable question: Do we want America “fundamentally transformed” to mirror the secular-socialist ideals of the radical leftist currently “occupying” the White House?

In Barack Obama’s America, individual freedom is trampled beneath jackboots as a matter of course. It’s already happening at an unprecedented rate.

One need only look to the HHS mandate forcing Christian groups – both Catholic and Protestant – to violate, under penalty of law, biblical prohibitions against abortion homicide.

Or consider recent attempts by multiple elected officials, all Democrats, to shutdown Chick-fil-A – a private, Christian-owned business – simply because its leadership holds the biblical view of marriage.

Is this George Washington’s America, or Joseph Stalin’s Russia?

It’s definitely not your father’s USA.

Instead, wouldn’t we prefer the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers? A constitutional republic wherein individual liberty – whether economic, First Amendment or Second Amendment-related – is sacrosanct and off limits?

Pastors, you’re it. You’re our front line of defense. It’s up to you to rally the troops. Now begins the second American Revolution and, as with the first, it’s on you – men of the cloth – to take the lead.

That is, if you hope to remain free to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Speaking of chicken: In recent years there’s been an epidemic of cultural inaction exhibited by far too many ministers of the gospel. It’s fear-based. “Oh, I don’t talk about political issues,” they say. “You know, ‘separation of Church and State’ and all that.”

Baloney.

If this is you – and only you and our Lord know for sure – you’ve been deceived by the enemies of God. You’ve chosen the easy way out – the path of least resistance. This is something Christ, whom all Christians are called to emulate, never did – not once.

So, respectfully, man-up, Padre! Be the “salt and light of the world,” as Christ so admonished.

But you don’t have to go it alone. There are detailed, easily digestible tools available. Civil-rights firm Liberty Counsel, for instance, is distributing more than 100,000 copies of “Silence is Not an Option,” a concise, though comprehensive, DVD and printed material collection informing pastors and churches about what is permissible regarding political activity (Please, get it for your church at LC.org or by calling 1-800-671-1776).

“The church must be empowered to confront the assaults on our culture, our faith, and our freedom,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. ”I don’t want any pastor, church leader or lay person to say, ‘What more could I have done to protect life and liberty?’”

“Silencing people of faith in the public square has always been the goal of those who realize the influence that pastors, churches and people of faith have on elections. I want pastors to remove the muzzle and replace it with a megaphone,” he said. “Pastors and churches have a lot of freedom to address biblical and moral issues, to educate people about the candidates, and to encourage people to vote. Not one church has ever lost its tax-exemption for endorsing or opposing candidates or for supporting or opposing local, state or federal laws.”

Did you get that? Despite hundreds of thousands of threatening letters sent by hard-left groups like the ACLU and Barry Lynn’s Americans United, not a single church has lost tax-exemption for socio-political activity – zip, zero, nada. Not even for endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

Indeed, if these anti-Christian bullies had been around two-and-a-half centuries ago, and our forefathers had paid them any mind, we may never have had the first American Revolution.

Don’t let them halt the second.

We’re on the precipice of the abyss, and, pastors, I think you know it. But know this too: There’s a whole lot relating to both culture and politics you can both say and do, and very little – if anything – you can’t.

Churches can educate about political, moral and biblical issues. These kinds of issues – whether abortion, marriage, feeding the poor or any community issue – are never off limits from the pastor’s pulpit, even if politicians are also talking about them. “Silence is Not an Option” systematically addresses the misrepresentations used to muzzle America’s pastors and Christian leaders.

Leading up to Ronald Reagan’s landslide presidential victory in 1980, Rev. Jerry Falwell captured the crux of the church’s apathy problem: “What is wrong in America today?” he asked. “We preachers – and there are 340,000 of us who pastor churches – we hold the nation in our hand. And I say this to every preacher: We are going to stand accountable before God if we do not stand up and be counted.”

Dr. Falwell’s words ring no less true today.

Imagine the benefit to our culture if thousands of churches across America registered millions of Christians to vote. How about pledge-drives wherein pastors ask tens-of-millions of Christians to simply commit to voting biblical values?
The possibilities are limitless.

Proverbs 4:18 reminds us: “The path of the righteous is like the morning sun, shining ever brighter till the full light of day.”

Shine bright, salt and light. Don’t be choked into dark silence.

Because silence is not an option.

It can’t be.

Matt Barber(@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

 

Preparing to Vote Number 3


Continental Congress March 16, 1776, approved a day of fasting and prayer for the Colonies: “The Congress..Desirous…to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God’s superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely on his aid and direction.. Do earnestly recommend Friday, the 17th day of May be observed by the colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease God’s righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ obtain this pardon and forgiveness.”

Continental Congress July 1, 1776, heard John Adams declare his intentions to the delegates from the Thirteen Colonies: “Before God, I believe the hour has come. My judgment approves this measure and my whole heart is in it. All that I have, and all that I am, and all that I hope in the life. I am now ready here to stake upon it. And I leave off as I began, that live or die, survive or perish, I am for the Declaration. It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God it shall be my dying sentiment. Independence now, and Independence forever!”

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

On July 20, 1775, General Washington issued the order: “The General orders this day to be religiously observed by the forces under his Command, exactly in manner directed by the Continental Congress. It is therefore strictly enjoined on all officers and soldiers to attend Divine service. And it is expected that all these who go to worship do take their arms, ammunition and accoutrements, and are prepared for immediate action, if called upon.”

On July 2, 1776, from his headquarters in New York, General Washington issued this order: “The time is now near at hand, which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them.

The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die.”

 

Preparing to Vote Number 2


 At age 15, George Washington copied, in his own handwriting, 110 Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation. Among them were:

  • 108) When you speak of God, or His attributes, let it be seriously and with reverence. Honor and obey your natural parents although they may be poor.
  • 109) Let your recreations be manful not sinful.
  • 110) Labour to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.

When George Washington was leaving home to begin what would become a lifelong service for his country, he recorded the parting words of his mother, Mrs. Mary Washington:

Remember that God is our only sure trust. To Him, I commend you…My son, neglect not the duty of secret prayer.

 The account of George Washington at the Battle of the Monongahela was included in student textbooks in America until 1934. During the French & Indian War, George Washington fought alongside of the British General Edward Braddock. On July 9, 1755, the British were on the way to Fort Duquesne, when the French surprised them in an ambush attack.

The British, who were not accustomed to fighting unless in an open field, were being annihilated. Washington rode back and forth across the battle delivering General Braddock’s orders. As the battle raged, every other officer on horseback, except Washington, was shot down. Even General Braddock was killed at which point the troops fled in confusion. After the battle, on July 18, 1755, Washington wrote to his brother, John, A. Washington:

 “But by the all-powerful dispensations of Provence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation; for I had four bullets through my coat, and two horses shot under me, yet escaped unhurt, although death was leveling my companions on every side of me.”

 (The next article jumps ahead 15 years, but is germane to the above article. I might add that at the time of the above battle, the Indians joined the French in fighting the English, while Washington joined the English.…..Benny)

……………………………………………………………………

 August 12, 2012

 Fifteen years later, Washington and Dr. Craik, a close friend of his from his youth, were traveling through the same woods, near the Ohio river and Great Kanawha river. They were met by an old Indian chief, who addressed Washington through an interpreter:

“I am a chief and ruler over my tribes. My influence extends to the waters of the great lakes and to the far blue mountains.I have traveled a long and weary path that I might see the young warrior of the great battle. It was on the day when the white man’s blood mixed with the streams of our forests that I first beheld this chief {Washington}’

“I called to my young men and said, mark yon tall and daring warrior? He is not of the red-coat tribe.—he hath an Indian’s wisdom, and his warriors fight as we do—himself alone exposed. ‘Quick, let your aim be certain, and he dies. Our rifles were leveled, rifles which, but for you, knew not how to miss—‘twas all in vain, a power mightier far than we, shielded you.”

“Seeing you were under the special guardianship of the Great Spirit, we immediately ceased to fire at you. I am old and soon shall be gathered to the great council fire of my fathers in the land of shades, but ere I go there is something bids me speak in the voice of prophecy.’

“Listen! The Great Spirit protects that man {pointing to Washington}, and guides his destinies—he will become the chief of nations, and a people yet unborn will hail him as the founder of a mighty empire. I am come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who can never die in battle.”

The famous Indian warrior, who was in that battle, said,: “Washington was never born to be killed by a bullet! I had seventeen fair fires at him with my rifle, and after all could not bring him to the ground.”

A Message From My Dad


I need your prayers. I want to try something very important that I BELIEVE needs to be done now. In a few months we will vote on who we want to lead our Nation as our President. I will not be endorsing any person during these articles. In looking to the future I want to step back into our past. I hope to nourish our love for the USA that will hopefully take you to the voting booth after bathing your choice in prayer. You may have forgotten some of this, maybe some of it will be new, but all will be fantastic reading. Trust me!! Please pray for our Nation and for me.

 

These articles that I will be presenting to you can be proven. After I have concluded these articles, I will provide any requests for information on my sources. Again I will not take any side in the present political debates in these articles. So….here we go. Please give me a week or more to convince you to check these out daily………….

 

Benny

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

 

Congress of Massachusetts, Provincial October 22, 1774 concurred with the declaration of its President, John Hancock:

“We think it is incumbent upon this people to humble themselves before God on account of their sins, for He hath been pleased in His righteous judgment to suffer a great calamity to befall us, as the present controversy between Great Britain and the Colonies, [And] also to implore the Divine Blessing upon us, that by the assistance of His grace, we may be enabled to reform whatever is amiss among us, that so God may be pleased to continue to us the blessings we enjoy, and remove the tokens of His displeasure, by causing harmony and union to be restored between Great Britain and these Colonies.”

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

The First Prayer in Congress offered by Rev. Duche in Carpenter’s Hall, Philadelphia, on Sept. 7, 1774.

 

“Be Thou present O God of Wisdom and direct the counsel of this Honorable Assembly; enable them to settle all things on the best and surest foundations; that the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, Harmony and Peace may be effectually restored, and the Truth and Justice, Religion and Piety, prevail and flourish among the people.

Preserve the health of their bodies, and the vigor of their minds, temporal Blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting Glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Saviour, Amen

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The Library of Congress, from the collected reports of the various patriots, recorded on a famous historical placard the effect of that first prayer upon Congress:

 

“Washington was kneeling there, and Henry, Rutledge, Lee, and Jay, and by their side there stood, bowed in reverence, the Puritan Patriots of New England, who at that moment had reason to believe that an armed soldiery was wasting their humble households. It was believed that Boston had been bombarded and destroyed.

 

They prayed fervently “for America, for Congress, for the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and especially for the town of Boston,” and who can realize the emotion with which they turned imploringly to Heaven for Divine interposition and—“It was enough” said Mr. Adams, “to melt a heart of stone. I saw the tears gush in to the eyes of the old, grave, Pacific Quakers of Philadelphia.”

 

New Rasmussen Survey


As I was watching Meygn Kelly this morning on FOX Cable, she reported on a new Rasmussen Survey that was prompted by something President Obama said. According to the President, government has made America great and always has. The survey asked if you agree, or do you feel the Free Market  system has made America great? The entire discussion made my hair hurt.

How about, “THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING AMERICA GREAT?” The government (OF, BY and FOR the PEOPLE) has a long history of getting in the way of greatness. The greedy part of the Free Market system has made America appear ugly to the rest of the world. We’ve remained strong because of the American people, especially those patriots whose work ethic, pride of country, spiritual strength and unwavering stand for the values that produce lawful, “good citizenship” and caring conduct. These are the core of America that is unaffected by politics and the extreme left main stream media. They are not looking for a handout, and in times of disaster are the first to give of what they can, as well as getting in there and helping their neighbors recover. You usually do not see them demonstrating, or “occupy” anything but their jobs, communities, family and church.

Hey Rasmussen. How about asking some different questions;

  • “Is America greater because of governments determination to re-engineer the American People?”
  • “Is America greater because it has supported those who are here illegally not to learn the language or become an active part of the American community with its customs and traditions?”
  • “Is America greater because of multiple presidential organizations doing nothing about our porous Southern Boarder, and their refusal to deport anyone who is here illegally?”
  • “Is America greater because of the political Lefts creation of the dependant Poor Underclass?”
  • “Is America greater since the political Lefts policies have encouraged almost half of the American population to get on some sort of government assistance, disability or Welfare?”
  • “Is America greater today with Trillions of dollars of debt?”

There are so many more, but time won’t allow me to list any more. They have heard from me, how about you?

 

It’s “Oh, So Clear”, Yet We Are Too Blind as a Nation to See It


The following email goes around about once a year and always need to be read and passed along. I believe it’s one of God’s ways to remind us before it’s too late. Please take the time to read the following;

“In 1887 Alexander Tyler , a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh ,had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, so that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”
The Obituary follows:  Born 1776, Died 2012

It doesn’t hurt to read this several times.  Professor Joseph Olson of Hamlin University School of Law in St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts about the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was  mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low-income  tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the  “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler ‘s definition of democracy,  with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached  the “governmental dependency” phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal  invaders called illegal’s – and they vote – then we can say goodbye to the  USA in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.  If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom..

This is truly scary! Of course we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic .. Someone should point this out to President Obama. Of course we know he and too many others pay little attention to The Constitution. There couldn’t be more at stake than on Nov 2012.”” (Email ended)

As I have said since President Reagan left office that the Political Left has worked overtime to create a “DEPENDENT UNDERCLASS”. President Johnson’s “War on Poverty” was the beginning. They have succeeded in creating a 40%+ part of our Society as members of that  “DEPENDENT UNDERCLASS” That is an extremely large voter base who will NEVER vote to elect anyone that will take that away from them or make them earn it, or take drug test proofing they aren’t using those benefits to support a drug habit.
Changing this will not be easy, or solved with one election. We have to raise up men and women who will risk everything politically damaging to make those changes. Such changes won’t come at a small price, but a price I’m not sure we have enough PATRIOTS to fight the good fight, and sustain that FIGHT through to victory. Are you such a PATRIOT?

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: