Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Tyranny’

The Drums of “Civil War” Are Growing Louder.

50,000 Strong – Oklahoma Militia Pledges to Support Cliven Bundy

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/oklahoma-militia-pledges-50000-troops-support-cliven-bundy/#tHJ4qZ0FpwwgrDW2.99

Reported by Dean Garrison 11 hours ago

“You’ve got a bunch of people there trying to take the law into their own hands and they shouldn’t be doing that. And the Bureau of Land Management is not government-owned, it’s publicly owned. There’s a big difference there. I blame both sides. “-Jim Inhofe, Republican U.S. Senator from Oklahoma

I’m not even sure what Jim Inhofe is talking about. The Bureau of Land Management has a government website (www.BLM.gov) and is part of the Department of Interior. As far as being publicly owned, if he is trying to say that the BLM answers to the public then that is supposed to be the case with our entire federal government, of which he is part. I am unsure what “government-owned” is supposed to mean, quite frankly, because “We the People” own this government.

They work for us.

Period.

On Easter Sunday, a story broke from the “Sooner State” that the main stream media was, as usual, not quick to cover. It seems that the Oklahoma Milita has pledged their support to Cliven Bundy and vows to take up arms against the BLM if needed. Several members of the Oklahoma Militia are already in Nevada and the members at home are seeing a similar BLM land grab developing along the Red River.

News Channel 4-Tulsa reports:

OKLAHOMA CITY – A land dispute in Nevada between rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government began decades ago.

The Bureau of Land Management says Bundy was allowing his cattle to graze illegally which triggered a round-up of about 400 head of cattle last week.

Bundy claims his family’s cattle have grazed on the land since 1870 without interference from the government.

However, the Bureau of Land Management says Bundy hadn’t paid his grazing fees since 1993.

Over time, officials say those fees have amounted to more than $1 million.

As authorities herded the cattle, a standoff was sparked with members of the militia.

Organizers with the Oklahoma Militia say they have members in Nevada who claim Bundy’s cattle were unlawfully herded by the bureau.

The Oklahoma Militia says it is made up of nearly 50,000 volunteers.

Members say they are taking Bundy’s side and fear this practice could spread to the Sooner State.

Scott Shaw said, “Evidently in America we don’t actually own the property anymore if you ever did.”

Shaw says Oklahoma Militia members are ready to take up armsagainst the federal government if needed.

Nearly 50,000 members? That’s a lot ofrifles.

There are a lot of elected servants out there who are not understanding the seriousness of this situation. This is not about stuffy meetings and government red tape. We are not operating by the rules of bureaucrats anymore. The American people have seen another case of lawlessness and intimidation, and they have reacted.

I guess Harry Reid can add 50,000 new domestic terrorists to his growing list.

The federal government needs to be extremely thoughtful of how they might proceed with the Bundy situation because things could explode with the slightest misstep.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Mayor ordering raid on Twitter troublemaker riles free speech defenders

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/22/mayor-ordering-raid-on-twitter-troublemaker-riles-free-speech-defenders/?intcmp=HPBucket

Published April 22, 2014

FoxNews.com

<<<<<Ardis at a City Council meeting in Peoria, Ill.AP

A police raid to learn who was behind a Twitter account that mocked an Illinois mayor has so far resulted in one arrest, but officials said Monday the investigation continues, as free speech advocates express concern.

The account — @Peoriamayor — was created about nine weeks ago and had about 50 parody tweets, mostly about Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis supposedly using illegal drugs and associating with prostitutes, before Twitter suspended it in mid-March.

The Star Journal of Peoria reports the warrant and raid were ordered by Ardis, who is now facing a public backlash, largely on social media and in editorial pages where he is being accused of trying to step on First Amendment rights.

A resident of the home told the newspaper that police seized computers and smart phones in the raid, in an apparent attempt to learn who was behind the Twitter account.

The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $2,500 fine and one year in jail.

Three people at the home during the raid were taken to a police station for questioning. Two other occupants were visited at their workplace, then taken in for questioning.

A Peoria Police Department spokesman confirmed to FoxNews.com that one resident was charged in connection with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. However, the investigation is ongoing, which prevents officials from discussing whether police will make additional arrests, he said.

“I find it very troubling,” said Angela Campbell, a professor at Georgetown University Law School. “It chills people’s First Amendment rights to criticize officials … whether it’s through parody or just calling somebody a jerk.”

Campbell, a First Amendment specialist, also questioned whether the charge of unlawfully impersonating a public official applies, since its intent is stop somebody from, for example, posing as a police officer to extract money or sex in exchange for ignoring a traffic violation.

Aaron Caplan, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, raised similar concernsabout free speech and the impersonation issue.

“This absolutely raises concerns for me,” he said. “Under the Constitution, you can criticize people in power. It’s how you can tell the difference between a democracy and a police state. And you can do it through humor.”

However, he also has concerns about First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment issues regarding the search warrant.

Caplan says executing a search warrant is unusual in the case of a misdemeanor, although he is not an expert on Illinois state law.

“I need more facts, but it smells a little like retaliation,” he said.

Peoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard told the newspaper the intent of the account, which also included tweets about Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, was not clearly identified as satire.

“In fact it appears that someone went to great lengths to make it appear it was actually from the mayor,” he said.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

The Increasing Desperation of Democrats

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376128/increasing-desperation-democrats-john-fund

April 20, 2014 7:00 PM

Slanders and lies may be part of a deliberate strategy to drive up turnout in November.

By John Fund

Senate majority leader Harry Reid

John Fund

Harry Reid isn’t backing down from his claim that rancher Cliven Bundy’s supporters are “domestic terrorists.”

It’s astonishing rhetoric given the White House’s characterization of the mass shooting by a genuine terrorist, Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 Americans at the Fort Hood Army base after yelling “Allahu Akbar!” (God is great.) Rather than labeling Hasan’s actions “domestic terrorism,” the Obama administration is prosecuting him for having committed “workplace violence.”

Democratic rhetoric is become ever more desperate and overheated as we approach the November midterm elections. Last week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that GOP positions on immigration were motivated by racism. She was followed by Representative Steve Israel, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who said, “To a significant extent, the Republican base does have elements animated by racism.” Even some leftists, such as Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post, have rebuked the excess of these attacks. Referring to Democrats’ use of the “equal pay” issue to buttress claims that Republicans are waging “a war on women,” Marcus wrote, “The level of hyperbole — actually of demagoguery — that Democrats have engaged in here is revolting.” What is going on? Increasingly, journalists who cover the White House are concluding that the smears are part of a conscious strategy to distract voters from Obamacare, the sluggish economy, and foreign-policy reverses; the attacks are intended, the thinking goes, to drive up resentment and hence turnout among the Democratic base.

Major Garrett, the CBS White House correspondent, has talked with White House aides who confirm that the administration is working from the theory of “stray voltage,” as developed by former White House senior adviser David Plouffe. “The theory goes like this,” Garrett wrote. “Controversy sparks attention, attention provokes conversation, and conversation embeds previously unknown or marginalized ideas in the public consciousness,”

Deliberately misstating information about key issues in order to keep certain issues before the public is often a premeditated strategy. “The tactic represents one more step in the embrace of cynicism that has characterized President Obama’s journey in office,” John Dickerson wrote at Slate. “Facts, schmacts. As long as people are talking about an issue where my party has an advantage with voters, it’s good.”

Frank James of NPR is another mainstream journalist who has concluded that the use of incendiary rhetoric is part of an electoral strategy. “Social scientists who have studied voters have found that voter participation rises when voters are emotionally engaged,” he noted. “For some voters, suggestions that some of the opposition to Obama and his policies is more than just honest disagreement — and is indeed racially based — could help do the trick.”

I’m not so sure. Democratic consultants may not care in the short term that such tactics diminish the office of the president and undermine trust among the American people. But Dickerson suggests that presidents are right to “worry that people won’t think they aren’t honest or trustworthy if they keep using facts that don’t pan out.” A new Fox poll finds that 61 percent of Americans now believe that President Obama lies some or all of the time on “important matters,” while only 15 percent say Obama never lies. But among his base voters, 37 percent of African Americans and 31 percent of Democrats say he never lies: These are the people Democrats hope can be brought to the polls with overheated rhetoric.

The White House, of course, denies that deliberate deception is its strategy. But they’ve been caught too often in the web of their own cynicism. Recall President Obama’s statement “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan. Period.” The White House tried to blame insurers, even though it was Obamacare that had forced them to end their policies, and it kept up that fiction even after it was revealed that the Department of Health and Human Services had predicted plans would be canceled within weeks of Obamacare’s passage. The Obama administration was left with the lame claim that, in effect, its left hand hadn’t known what its extreme left hand had decided were the facts.

Some political scientists think the White House is playing a clever game, but not necessarily a successful one. Michael McDonald, an expert at George Mason University on voter turnout, is dubious that Democrats can successfully drive base voters to the polls by cherry-picking Dem-friendly issues. “They’re basically trying to reengineer the electorate,” McDonald said last week. “History is not on their side.” Indeed, in special election after special election this year, Democratic turnout has been down and Republicans have won surprising victories — from San Diego to Connecticut to Arlington, Va. As Abraham Lincoln is credited (probably erroneously) with saying: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Democrats may not be able to fool enough of the people this time — we’ll find out in November.

— John Fund is national-affairs columnist at National Review Online.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

BLM Claims 90,000 Acres Does Not Belong To Texas, Attempts To Seize Ranch

http://www.inquisitr.com/1211766/blm-claims-90000-acres-does-not-belong-to-texas-attempts-to-seize-ranch/#Dyod5ACy3QEp64fL.99

red river BLM

The BLM removed armed federal agents from Bunkeville and near the Bundy ranch, but another possible “land grab” or range war appears to be brewing in Texas. Fellow rancher Tommy Henderson has been fighting the BLM for 30 years, and appears to be losing yet another round in the battle.

Tommy Henderson is locked in a property rights fight with the BLM. Although many students are taught in geography class that the border between Texas and Oklahoma is the Red River, the issue is far more complicated than that, according to the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM used an ongoing debate over the border to nab 140 acres of land Henderson’s failed lawsuit against the agency three decades ago.

BLM is now using the Tommy Henderson lawsuit ruling as a precedent to seize even more of his land along a 116-mile stretch of the river which the agency claims never belonged to Texas in the first place. Henderson holds a deed to the 90,000 acres, but such a legal document did not prevent him from losing the 140-acre parcel he had labored over and paid property taxes on for years.

Henderson had this to say about the emerging Red River range war in Texas:

“They’re wanting to take the boundaries that the courts placed here and extend those east and west to the forks of the river north of Vernon and east to the 98th Meridian which is about 20 miles east of us.”

If the BLM is successful in its bid to seize the 90,000 owned by the Texas rancher, it would substantially alter the boundaries between the two states. The fight boils down to the difference between avulsion and accretion. The river has moved over time and the boundary is supposed to be noted as the vegetation line along the south side of the waterway. Both states use different semantics to define the boundary, according to the Americas Freedom Fighters website. The BLM has allegedly been able to capitalize on the confusion in the bid to seize Henderson’s land. Oklahoma state statute defines avulsion in a different manner than both the United States government and Texas.

A statement from the BLM about the possible land seizure in Texas reads:

“BLM officials believe they have a responsibility to manage land they believe is federal which includes an estimated 90,000 acres along 116 miles of the Red River. If the land is found to be public, BLM officials say they have three options: leave the land open, closed, or open with limitations.”

The BLM also contends that in the Red River there is always accretion – the gradual accumulation of sediment, to the south. The federal agency also stated that avulsion, the rapid formation of a new river channel, occurs on the north side of the river. The Bureau of Land Management believes that since the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma only moves in one direction – and that direction has not favored the ranchers working the land along the Red River. If the agency is able to redraw the Red River boundary it will include Tommy Henderson’s 90,000 acre ranch. If the BLM seizes the land, claiming that is should never have been privately owned due to the boundary dispute, grazing of cattle could still be an option – but will come at a price.

Tommy Henderson also had this to say about the very real possibility of losing his ranch:

“How can BLM come in and say, ‘Hey, this isn’t yours.’ Even though its patented from the state, you’ve always paid taxes on it. Our family paid taxes for over 100 years on this place. We’ve got a deed to it. But yet they walked in and said it wasn’t ours. Originally, here the river was out there where it is now and it eroded and accreted up to here, and then it eroded and accreted back. Well, their interpretation is that it eroded up to here but avulsed back. So when you listen to them it is always erosion to the south because the property line follows it then, but it’s always avulsion when it goes north. So the boundary can move south but it can never move back north.”

A boundary change could land families who have be considered Texans for generations on the other side of the line and actually suddenly find themselves Oklahoma residents.

How do you feel about the ongoing actions by the BLM which could impact Texas ranch owned by Tommy Henderson?

[Image Via: Google Maps]

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

Reid knows Terrorist

Posted on April 19, 2014

High-level Democrats positioned to profit from ‘green’ projects

Published: 1 day ago

James Simpson

James Simpson is an investigative journalist, businessman and former economist and budget analyst for the White House Office of Management and Budget. Best-known for his exposé on the Cloward Piven Strategy of Manufactured Crisis, Simpson’s work provided background for Glenn Beck’s groundbreaking TV series on the subject. He is a frequent guest on radio talk shows and is featured in Curtis Bowers’ award winning documentary “Agenda: Grinding America Down.”

After a weeklong confrontation between protesters and armed agents of the Bureau of Land Management, events at the Bundy ranch in Bunkerville, Nev., came to an abrupt end Saturday when the BLM suddenly threw in the towel and left.

Speaking to a local TV news program Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada declared: “This isn’t over.” And he is certainly correct. The showdown between BLM and Cliven Bundy – the last rancher in Clark County, Nev. – was but the latest battle in a long-running conflict.

Supposedly at issue was the desert tortoise, a reptile on the endangered species list that purportedly could not coexist on the land with Bundy’s cattle. But why, many asked, would the turtle suddenly be threatened by animals it had cohabited with for the 100-plus years the Bundy ranch has been in operation?

A BLM document unearthed last week discusses mitigation strategies for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, just southwest of the Bundy ranch. The “mitigation strategy” proposed to use the grazing lands near the Bundy ranch as a kind of sanctuary for the desert tortoise, because the entire region is slated for a large number of solar, wind and geothermal energy generation facilities.

The solar projects will obliterate most of the turtle’s natural habitat.

Bloggers quickly made a connection between the effort to remove Bundy’s cattle and a solar energy project in Southern Nevada financed by the communist Chinese energy firm ENN. It was to be the largest solar farm in the U.S.

Reid had lobbied heavily for the company’s business, even traveling to China. Reid’s son, Rory Reid, formerly a Clark County commissioner, became a lobbyist for ENN, and the Senate majority leader’s former senior adviser, Neil Kornze, now leads the BLM.

But the solar energy complex financed by the communist Chinese was not at the heart of the Bundy Ranch fiasco after all. The project died last year.

However, the BLM’s library of renewable energy projects revealed it was only one of more than 50 solar, wind and geothermal projects planned for Nevada, California, Arizona and other Western states. Reid was focused on at least one, and maybe more, of the projects, much closer to the Bundy ranch.

He was at the work site on March 21 to help break ground on the Moapa Southern Paiute Solar Project. A close inspection of the project reveals why there is so much interest in the area and why the BLM, presumably at Reid’s urging through his former aide, Kornze, is so intent on getting Bundy off the land.

The leaseholder for the project is K Road Power, LLC, a New York City-based energy company. An examination of its website finds the business development manager to be none other than Jonathan Magaziner.

Magaziner was formerly an associate at the Clinton Climate Initiative of the William J. Clinton Foundation. He is also the son of Ira Magaziner, former senior policy adviser for President Bill Clinton. The elder Magaziner now works for the Clinton Foundation on health and environment issues. There are likely other connections to Democratic insiders.

But that is not all. A company called First Solar is listed on a BLM renewable energy project map of southern Nevada, one of 11 sited in Clark County. Additionally, the map shows six wind projects in Clark County and also lists the K Road Moapa project under “transmission projects.” In other words, there is a lot more going on than media have reported.

First Solar investors comprise a who’s who of Democratic insiders, including major Obama campaign bundlers, billionaire investor Paul Tudor Jones, Al Gore, Ted Turner and Goldman Sachs. First Solar’s CEO is Michael Ahearn, former fundraiser for both Obama and Harry Reid.

First Solar has at least three other solar projects in California. So it becomes apparent why the BLM, Reid and many other interested parties have such an intense interest in the desert tortoise.

The lucrative business opportunities explain both why Cliven Bundy has been facing such intense intimidation and why all the other ranchers have been chased out. Bundy represents a financial threat not merely to Reid, but a whole gamut of Democrats tied to Obama, Clinton and Gore.

This is what has been discovered by examining only a few of the 50-plus projects. Doubtless there are similar stories behind some, if not all, of the others.

If Democrat-linked entrepreneurs plan to turn the West into a massive arena for green projects, the implications are disturbing. The projects will eventually go as all others have gone before: failing as the unsustainable costs, maintenance problems and unseen environmental catastrophes they create become intolerable. The true goal of “green” energy, say cynics, is to make these people wealthier, not to save the environment.

Whether that turns out to be the case or not, the Bundy story needs far greater and deeper media scrutiny.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Thought police on patrol

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-thought-police-on-patrol/2014/04/10/2608a8b2-c0df-11e3-b195-dd0c1174052c_print.html

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: April 10

Two months ago, a petition bearing more than 110,000 signatures was delivered to The Post, demanding a ban on any article questioning global warming. The petition arrived the day before publication of my column, which consisted of precisely that heresy.

The column ran as usual. But I was gratified by the show of intolerance because it perfectly illustrated my argument that the left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition.

The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.

Sometimes the word comes from on high, as when the president of the United States declares the science of global warming to be “settled.” Anyone who disagrees is then branded “anti-science.” And better still, a “denier” — a brilliantly chosen calumny meant to impute to the climate skeptic the opprobrium normally reserved for the hatemongers and crackpots who deny the Holocaust.

Then last week, another outbreak. The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage. Just as the science of global warming is settled, so, it seems, are the moral and philosophical merits of gay marriage.

To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally.

Like the CEO of Mozilla who resigned under pressure just 10 days into his job when it was disclosed that six years earlier he had donated to California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

But why stop with Brendan Eich, the victim of this high-tech lynching? Prop 8 passed by half a million votes. Six million Californians joined Eich in the crime of “privileging” traditional marriage. So did Barack Obama. In that same year, he declared that his Christian beliefs made him oppose gay marriage.

Yet under the new dispensation, this is outright bigotry. By that logic, the man whom the left so ecstatically carried to the White House in 2008 was equally a bigot.

The whole thing is so stupid as to be unworthy of exegesis. There is no logic. What’s at play is sheer ideological prejudice — and the enforcement of the new totalitarian norm that declares, unilaterally, certain issues to be closed.

Closed to debate. Open only to intimidated acquiescence.

To this magic circle of forced conformity, the left would like to add certain other policies, resistance to which is deemed a “war on women.” It’s a colorful synonym for sexism. Leveling the charge is a crude way to cut off debate.

Thus, to oppose late-term abortion is to make war on women’s “reproductive health.” Similarly, to question Obamacare’s mandate of free contraception for all.

Some oppose the regulation because of its impingement on the free exercise of religion. Others on the simpler (nontheological) grounds of a skewed hierarchy of values. Under the new law, everything is covered, but a few choice things are given away free. To what does contraception owe its exalted status? Why should it rank above, say, antibiotics for a sick child, for which that same mother must co-pay?

Say that, however, and you are accused of denying women “access to contraception.”

Or try objecting to the new so-called Paycheck Fairness Act for women, which is little more than a full-employment act for trial lawyers. Sex discrimination is already illegal. What these new laws do is relieve the plaintiffs of proving intentional discrimination. To bring suit, they need only to show that women make less in that workplace .

Like the White House, where women make 88 cents to the men’s dollar?

That’s called “disparate impact.” Does anyone really think Obama consciously discriminates against female employees, rather than the disparity being a reflection of experience, work history, etc.? But just to raise such questions is to betray heretical tendencies.

The good news is that the “war on women” charge is mostly cynicism, fodder for campaign-year demagoguery. But the trend is growing. Oppose the current consensus and you’re a denier, a bigot, a homophobe, a sexist, an enemy of the people.

Long a staple of academia, the totalitarian impulse is spreading. What to do? Defend the dissenters, even if — perhaps, especially if — you disagree with their policy. It is — it was? — the American way.

Read more on this topic: Charles Krauthammer: The myth of ‘settled science’ Ruth Marcus: Democrats’ revolting equal-pay demagoguery Dana Milbank: Republicans kiss votes from women goodbye Deval Patrick: Gay marriage and the right to be ordinary

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA: The Exclusion of Equal Rights

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/the-exclusion-of-equal-rights/#u3ILphchZpHkfizI.99

Exclusive: Ben Kinchlow ponders ‘gay’ and lesbian inability to ‘reproduce their species’

Ben Kinchlow is a minister, broadcaster, author and businessman. His latest book is “Black Yellowdogs.” He was the long-time co-host of CBN’s “The 700 Club” television program and host of the international edition of the show, seen in more than 80 countries. He is the founder of Americans for Israel and the African American Political Awareness Coalition, and the author of several books.

In the words of one American president (whom many remember, one way or another), “Let me make this perfectly clear …” the homosexual community is not striving for equal rights, they are driving for special rights applicable only to them, to the exclusion of equal rights for others.

A prime example of that is what recently happened to the CEO of Mozilla Firefox (an Internet browser that I am removing from my computer today). Apparently, he committedthe horrifically “anti-gay” act of donating $1,000 to support Proposition 8 in 2008. Proposition 8 took the apparently viciously anti-homosexual position that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Gasp! How dare they?! Of course, in other rulings, liberal judges have decided that only homosexuals – not Christians – are entitled to their beliefs and opinions (but we won’t mention the 33 other states with laws similar to Proposition 8 in place and the 52 percent of Californians who supported the constitutional amendment).

You will notice from reading, watching or listening to our totally unbiased mainstream media that only homosexuals are allowed to freely express their deeply held opinions. People who dare to have any reservations about making bedroom behavior a standard for morality are immediately assigned “right-wing nut-case” status. Christians are not allowed to hold to transcendent biblical principles that proffer such old-fashioned, outmoded concepts as marriage being between a man and woman, and bedroom behavior being a private matter. If you want to sleep with your cocker spaniel while dressed in flaming yellow fluorescent pajamas on bright green bed sheets, that is your choice, but don’t impose that on me.

Let us clarify something, and let us, like them, leave the Bible completely out of the discussion. Purely for the sake of this argument, let us accept evolution as real and the controlling factor in human development. Evolution teaches that something evolved from something and became something – us. Consequently, sex, or the breeding of species by male and female of a particular species, produces offspring. This is “natural” and cannot be circumvented except by “unnatural” means. In other words, according to science (and please pardon a biblical reference), everything reproduces “after its own kind.”

Take mules, for instance. Mules are not an evolutionary byproduct; they are “created” by injecting the sperm of a male jackass into a female horse (a mare) by natural or medical means. The result of this crossbreeding produces the mule, a sterile creature that cannot reproduce itself, even though male and female mules exist (something to do with chromosomes and stuff like that). Everything that occurs “naturally” in nature can, all things being equal, reproduce itself.

Now, consider human beings. There are those who today still object strenuously to interracial marriage. They are convinced that, while extramarital or purchased sex may be permitted in secret, marriage should be strictly confined to “like marrying like.” White should marry whites, blacks-blacks, yellows-yellows, etc. There are even Christian churches (so-called) who vehemently object to, and refuse to perform, such “ungodly” unions. (But, I forgot, we are supposed to leave God and the Bible out of the discussion.)

OK, as “Mom” (the mother of a dear friend of mine), a lovely – dare I say it – white woman, used to say, “Here’s what do.”

Pro-homosexual advocates would have us believe that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon and should be accepted as such. So, “here’s what do.” Since, according to its advocates, homosexuality is a normally occurring phenomenon, then nature should support it with naturally occurring actions. Granted, I am not a scientist, so I will defer to the reader’s judgment in this matter.

Here is the scientific experiment:

A) Mix, and maroon, any number of black, white, red, yellow, brown men and women on a deserted island in the Pacific and come back 30 years later.

B) Do exactly the same with an equal number of homosexual males, or lesbian females, and maroon them (separately) on deserted islands in the Atlantic, and come back 30 years later.

What would you find?

If homosexuality and lesbianism are naturally occurring phenomena, and everything reproduces “after its own kind,” then there should be a population increase in both Atlantic and Pacific islanders. If not, then one of the groupings violates “natural law,” evolution’s process of reproducing after its own kind. If homosexuality/lesbianism is “natural,” then like all other species, they should, within the arena of sexual activity, reproduce their species.

But then, as I earlier confessed, I am not a scientist, so I must be content with my own nonscientific judgment. Homosexuality is not “natural.”

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact media@wnd.com.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Gun-free zones and progressives’ insanity

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/gun-free-zones-and-progressives-insanity/#x75TGdcBeeuiZzuW.99

Exclusive: Matt Barber implicates Obama administration in latest Fort Hood attack

Written by Matt Barber

Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war.

They say that lightening never strikes twice in the same place. Not true. It does if you stand high atop a cliff’s edge with a lightning rod above your head during a thunderstorm. In fact, in the unlikely event you survive the first strike, it’ll keep right on striking until you climb down.

So-called “gun-free zones” are lightning rods for mass murder. It’s time we climbed down from cliff’s edge.

This week America mourns yet another needless and preventable mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. When will gun-grabbing liberals learn?

In a blunt and provocatively titled, though well-reasoned post, submitted shortly after Wednesday’s shooting, Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft charged: “Obama Is Responsible for Latest Fort Hood Murders – Still a Gun-Free Zone.”

Wrote Hoft:

“In 2009 Islamist killer Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others at Fort Hood, Texas. Fort Hood was a gun-free zone.

“Hasan reportedly screamed, ‘Allahu Akbar!’ as he committed his mass murder. …

“Barack Obama termed this Islamic terrorist attack – workplace violence. Complete lunacy.

“After the first mass killing nothing changed. Fort Hood is still a gun-free zone. President Bill Clinton’s gun-free policies are still in place.

“Today there was another mass shooting at Fort Hood. Soldiers were told to take cover and hide like cowards as a crazed gunman shot at least 14 Americans on base. The shooter, Ivan Lopez, then shot himself in the head.

“These deaths are the result of failed policies. These deaths are the result of a dangerous ‘gun free zone’ policy.

“The Obama administration is responsible for this mass shooting. They witnessed this before. They didn’t learn a thing. Gun-free zones are death zones,” concluded Hoft.

Of course, no one but Ivan Lopez is responsible for his own criminally horrific actions. Still, this Obama administration is likewise responsible for its own criminally horrific incompetence.

By maintaining his demonstrably failed “gun-free zone” policy at Fort Hood (anywhere for that matter), Obama may as well have beaconed: “Hey, would-be mass murderers, we’ve still got some unarmed soldiers here. Come and finish ‘em off!”

This president is undeniably culpable. His reckless insistence upon preserving this obtuse, liberal – but I repeat myself – gun-grabbing policy rendered defenseless, once again, the fine servicemen and women of Fort Hood. It kept in place the same mass-murder-rich environment in which Nidal Malik Hasan committed the first Fort Hood “fish-in-a-barrel” soldier hunt.

And the only people surprised are you gun-control nutters.

Here’s the thing about liberalism, which is really cultural Marxism, euphemistically tagged “progressivism”: It’s never worked and it never will. It can’t. It’s a material impossibility. “Progressivism” can no more work than can one answer a nonsense question like, “How big is blue?” As with all similar such humanistic efforts to achieve a man-made earthly utopia, “progressivism” is a hopeless non-starter.

Why? Because “progressivism” is utterly detached from reality. There’s truth, and then there’s “progressivism.” Central to every single “progressive” policy, without exception, is the fatally flawed denial of the existence of sin – of man’s fallen nature. There’s also a stupidly stubborn refusal to acknowledge the reality of moral absolutes. “Progressivism” is built upon a utopian, relativist house of cards; and when that house comes crashing down, the results are often deadly.

On Wednesday America witnessed liberalism’s deadly results first hand. A public policy that intentionally disarms American citizens – much less American soldiers – is a policy that creates a pond full of sitting ducks; this, whether we have a terrorist behind the trigger, or a government with designs on tyranny.

Notice a trend here? What do;

Sandy Hook Elementary,
Aurora Colorado’s Century 16 theatre,
Columbine,
Fort Hood No. 1 and
Fort Hood No. 2 all have in common?

They’re all “gun-free zones.”

Oh, that rather than “gun-free zone,” each of these terror sites had a sign reading: “Staff heavily armed and trained. Any attempts to harm those herein will be met with deadly force.”

Might some of those beautiful souls have yet died before one or more well-armed good guys could take out the well-armed bad guys? Perhaps. But how many precious lives could have been saved?

Albert Einstein famously quipped that the definition of “insanity” is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” In that sense, “progressives” are insane.

Or are they? “Crazy like a fox” maybe?

Either way, they’re certainly no Einsteins.

Even so, I’ll admit that many “progressives” are generally well-meaning and decent people. I even have a handful of “progressive” friends who’ve yet to see the light. I love ‘em, but they just want what they can’t have – at least not until that glorious last trumpet.

They want heaven on earth.

It’s not for a lack of sincerity that “progressives” are destroying America.

It’s for a failure to grasp reality.

Media wishing to interview Matt Barber, please contact media@wnd.com

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Franklin Graham: Obama is Waging an “Anti-Christ” War Against God

http://conservativetribune.com/obama-war-against-god/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

We’ve reported extensively on Christian leaders’ comments on Barack Obama and his war on the Christian faith.

The Vatican has been a vocal opponent of Obama’s policies on life, marriage, and religious liberty. The pope chewed Obama out over these issues when they met last week, and the Chief Justice of the highest court of the Vatican said that Obama was waging war on “Christian civilization.”

In the evangelical world, Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, has been going after Obama’s pushing the gay agenda down everyone’s throats. He said that he and Holder have “turned their backs on God and His standards.” He has also reiterated that despite becoming a minority in his views on homosexuality, he won’t cave, no matter the consequences.

Graham recently discussed how Obama has been pushing the gay agenda down the throats of the military, even threatening them with their jobs if they don’t accept gays. This is part of a larger effort by some in the White House to secularize the military and push chaplains out of their former roles as ministers to soldiers. He said that Obama’s administration is “anti-Christ” in what it says and does.

Via CNSNews.com:

Franklin Graham made his comments during a Mar. 24 interview with Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, which published an updated report on religious persecution in the U.S. armed forces this month.

During the interview on Washington Watch Weekly, Perkins asked Graham, “I would have to believe you’re also tracking, in fact I know you’re tracking because you were a part of it – when you were scheduled to speak at the Pentagon a few years ago they disinvited you – are you concerned about this intense religious hostility that we see manifesting in our nation’s military?”

Graham said, ““No question. And my son just got back from his seventh [military] tour this weekend. So, I love the military. There has been huge pressure on the chaplains in our military – and our chaplains have been a wonderful thing for the military. But there is a move to get rid of the chaplains in our country, and to completely secularize our military. Actually, they are hostile to Christians.

“A lot of this is coming from this administration and is being pushed by people within the White House,” said Graham. “And when I say White House, I’m not saying the president, because I’m not sure how much of this he’s aware of. But it’s people that work for him that have power, that are sitting in offices, and they are hostile to Christ.”

“They are anti-Christ in what they say and in what they do,” said Graham. “And they are pushing this agenda into the military. It’s scary.”

These are some bold statements from a prominent Christian leader. Too often, we see theologians and pastors rationalize what’s happening in culture, whether it’s gays or other cultural trends, rather than taking a prophetic approach and speaking out against our increasingly destructive society. Good for him for standing up for Obama and going after liberals for shoving their social agenda down the throats of Americans.

Category:

Spiritual

Tagged with:

Obama Told Military Leaders: Accept Gays In Military Or Step Down, Admiral Says

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/obama-told-military-leaders-accept-gays-in-military-or-step?sub=3128182_2704196

In a 2010 meeting in the Oval Office, the president told service chiefs they could “go do other things” if they didn’t support abolishing DADT, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert Papp said.

posted on March 31, 2014 at 6:37pm EDT

Ellie Hall BuzzFeed Staff posted about 3 days ago

<<<<<File: August 2010 / Pool / Getty Images

In a meeting with the heads of the five service branches in 2010, President Obama offered the leaders a choice: Support my efforts to end the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, or resign, the Commandant of the Coast Guard said.

In a video obtained by BuzzFeed via a Freedom of Information Act request, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert Papp revealed that Obama was unwilling to compromise with service leaders over DADT during a meeting in 2010. “We were called into the Oval Office and President Obama looked all five service chiefs in the eye and said, ‘This is what I want to do.’ I cannot divulge everything he said to us, that’s private communications within the Oval Office, but if we didn’t agree with it — if any of us didn’t agree with it — we all had the opportunity to resign our commissions and go do other things,” he said.

Papp talked about the meeting during a Q&A session with U.S. Coast Guard Academy cadets following a leadership address to the corps on Jan 8. The admiral was asked how officers should respond to policies that they disagreed with but were required to enforce. “If I disagree morally with [a policy], it’s my obligation to voice that, regardless of the risk it might give my career,” he said. “I’ve been in those situations. I’ve been fortunate to have good leaders that have appreciated that.” Using himself as an example, Papp said it was OK for leaders to “not be thrilled” with a certain regulation, but if they didn’t “see anything terribly wrong with it,” it was their job as officers to support and enforce it.

The admiral, who will be retiring from active duty on May 30, added that he thought the U.S. military made the right decision by abolishing DADT.

In a 2008 interview, then-Senator Obama told The Advocate that he wouldn’t make support of DADt’s repeal “a litmus test” for his military leaders. “What I want are members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are making decisions based on what strengthens our military and what is going to make us safer, not ideology.”

SEE RECORDING OF Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert Papp;

BuzzFeed has reached out to the White House for comment.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

I Just Uninstalled FIREFOX Because of the Following Report. How About You?

Mozilla Chief Learns, if You Don’t Support Gay Marriage, You Don’t Deserve a Job

http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2014/04/04/mozilla-chief-learns-if-you-dont-support-gay-marriage-you-dont-deserve-a-job-n1818885/page/full

Todd Starnes | Apr 04, 2014

As we enter this golden age of tolerance and diversity, the nation’s gay rights community is sending a warning message to Americans: If you don’t support gay marriage, you don’t deserve a job.

Apparently, Brendan Eich did not get that message. He’s the former chief executive officer at Mozilla, the technology group that gave us the Firefox Web browser.

Eich resigned under a firestorm of controversy after it was revealed he had donated $1,000 in support of California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that protected traditional marriage.
It’s unclear who outed Eich. But that really doesn’t matter. Once his donation was revealed, supporters of gay marriage launched all-out war.

The Wall Street Journal reported that OKCupid, the popular online dating website, asked its followers to stop using Firefox. The wireless company Credo Mobile gathered more than 50,000 signatures on a petition calling for Eich to resign.

OKCupid posted a letter denouncing the Mozilla CEO, The New York Times reported.

“Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame and frustration are our enemies and we wish them nothing but failure,” the letter stated.

Why not demand that those who oppose gay marriage relinquish the right to own property?

Why not take away their right to vote?

Why not take away their children?

Why not just throw them in jail?

Why not force them to work in chain gangs?

Why not call for public floggings?

Or better yet, let’s just strap them down on gurneys, stick a needle in their arm and rid the world of these intolerant anti-gay bigots once and for all.

Eich won’t say he was forced to resign, but based on the company’s press release, it’s safe to say his days were numbered.

“Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,” Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker wrote in a statement;

“We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.”

She went on to opine about freedom of speech and equality. In her estimation, one trumps the other.

“Equality is necessary for meaningful speech,” she wrote. “And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”

No, not really, Ms. Baker. Our Founding Fathers sort of worked that out in the Bill of Rights.

I write about this very issue in my upcoming book, “God Less America.” There are pages and pages filled with stories of workers and business owners who’ve either lost their jobs or faced public floggings for their support of traditional marriage.

The left does not believe people who oppose gay marriage should be allowed to engage in the democratic process. And they have a proven track record of intimidating and bullying those who do.

Just ask Angela McCaskill, the chief diversity officer at Gallaudet University. She was suspended after she signed a petition in her church to put a gay marriage referendum on the ballot in Maryland.

Just ask Scott Eckern, the former artistic director of California Musical Theatre. He resigned under pressure after he gave money to support Prop 8. As one activist told The New York Times, “I do believe there comes a time when you cannot sit back and accept what I think is the most dangerous form of bigotry.”

Just ask our nation’s top military officials. They were called into President Obama’s office and told that if they could not support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” they should resign their commissions.

“We were called into the Oval Office and President Obama looked at all five service chiefs in the eye and said, ‘This is what I want to do,’” said Coast Guard Adm. Robert Papp in remarks reported by Buzzfeed.

The road to political correctness is littered with the bodies of folks like Brendan Eich sideswiped by the tolerance and diversity bus.

I trust there are rational and reasonable individuals within the gay rights community who understand the dangers of stifling free speech and expression. But the voices that are winning the day are those who believe gay rights trump everyone else’s rights.

I know this may sound old-fashioned, but gainful employment should not be determined by where you put your reproductive organs.

Tolerance is a b*tch, ain’t it?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

The Left’s New Zero Tolerance Policy

Daniel J. Schmid

on 28 March, 2014 at 06:40

http://barbwire.com/2014/03/28/lefts-new-zero-tolerance-policy/#KgAJ89ji3h69Ctmj.99

The watchword of modern liberals is “tolerance.” Since when did this become our highest ideal and an expression of society’s core aim and belief? Without question, it certainly should not be — at least not under the current understanding of the word.

The fundamental problem with this otherwise decent notion becoming the gravamen of society is that, under current understanding, it is nothing more than a pretext for those claiming to be tolerant to impose outright hostility and explicit intolerance on those whom they have neither the inclination nor desire to tolerate. The examples of this are best understood in a specific context.

For those with sincerely held religious beliefs that homosexuality is a disordered, unnatural, and sinful behavior, i.e., a choice, these examples will be unsurprisingly and unfortunately familiar. Those who are diametrically opposed to a religious worldview — a worldview held by all major religions and representative of the Biblical truth accepted since time immemorial — simply cannot stand for anyone with any influence to embrace, express, or espouse a contrary view. Notably, these are the same individuals now preaching tolerance of all manner of deviant and disordered behavior. The frightening truth behind these examples is that they represent the most intolerant and indefensible worldview that has ever been presented in modern policy arguments, and it has been building for many years.

First, take the example of the tolerance-first crowd’s mandate for students who seek to become mental health professionals. In today’s “tolerant” world, they must subscribe to the notion that same-sex behaviors, attractions, and identity are to be accepted, affirmed, and encouraged, regardless of an individual client’s desires and self-identity.

In Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, a Christian student pursuing a mental health counseling education was dismissed from the postgraduate program for her refusal to submit to a remediation program designed for nothing more than to impose the liberal officials’ view of “tolerance.” The remediation program included, among other things, attending gay pride parades, reading ten articles articulating a “tolerant” viewpoint, and submitting a two-page summary outlining her increasing “tolerance” from her participation in these mandated activities with homosexual activists. If the last one reminds you of being invited to self-criticize before the homosexual politburo, then you are not alone.

Indeed, this young woman’s university also mandated that she attend and thereby lend her personal imprimatur to a number of activities, including a “gay pride” parade, that are fundamentally at odds with her religious beliefs. After that, she was to outline the number of ways she previously displayed “intolerance” and provide her self-critique describing how she had wronged those whom she would never encounter. Does that sound like tolerance of all belief systems to you? Sure it does, unless, of course, your religious beliefs reflect Biblical truth. After all, the “tolerant” crowd simply cannot tolerate the “intolerance” handed down by a just and holy God.

Second, consider the current influx of legislation designed to remove all licensed mental health professionals from their profession if they fail to worship at the altar of “tolerance.” In California and New Jersey, the tolerance police have gone to extensive lengths to ensure that all viewpoints are acceptable in mental health counseling, unless, of course, that viewpoint accepts the fundamental principle of mental health counseling that the client has the right to self-determination. Indeed, the good ol’ tolerant folks in these states — and in a number of others now — are willing to subscribe to that age-old principle of self-determination only as long as the client’s goals are shared by the homosexual activists imposing these mandates.

Even when the client has unwanted same-sex attractions, these laws mandate that licensed mental health professionals ignore and reject the client’s wishes. After all, how can anyone have such goals in their counseling? Is that tolerance? The answer is simple: certainly not.

There is little doubt about the disturbing basis for these laws. Unfortunately for the tolerance police, the Keeton case came too late, and some mental health professionals were able to obtain licenses without being forced to attend remediation (read “reeducation”) programs or self-criticize before the homosexual politburo. So, what can the tolerance police do with those who received a license before they could be denied entrance into the profession? Well, in California and New Jersey, the answer is to categorize these licensed mental health professionals as “unprofessional,” and subject anyone who dares to mention that change is possible for those who sincerely seek it to professional discipline, including stripping them of their professional license. In other words, the tolerance police have decided that anyone espousing a contrary view is unworthy of the profession.

It would be one thing if scientific evidence supported such a claim, but this is simply not true. As Dr. Nicholas Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association, has explained, he personally counseled hundreds of clients that were successful in reducing or eliminating their unwanted same-sex attractions. Indeed, Dr. Cummings explained that the basis for these laws is a “distortion of reality” and that such laws ignore patient choice. One would think with such a grand ideal of tolerating all views, those preaching it the loudest would accept other points of view on this issue. Nevertheless, as you have probably discovered, this has never been about tolerance, but rather about silencing dissent in a totalitarian manner.

Notwithstanding the substantial number of “intolerant” people who would be removed from the marketplace of ideas under the previous two solutions, there are still too many avenues for the intolerant to espouse their “hatred” and “bigotry.” So, what shall the tolerance police do with the few remaining intolerant among us who have not yet been silenced? Well, of course, demonize them and ignore their fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. To handle this problem, the tolerance police have developed another solution: call these parents hateful, intolerant bigots unworthy of any parental rights — and take their children away.

This is not a hypothetical scenario to make a point, but is actually what the sponsor of the New Jersey legislation banning change counseling espoused openly about his motives. Assemblyman Tim Eustace, the sponsor of the bill, stated that any parents who would allow their child to obtain counseling to align their attractions and feelings with their religious beliefs are abusing their child, and the state should remove the child from the home. Of course, for those most tolerant among us, these children must be removed from these bigots’ homes lest Biblical truths continue to be taught.

The teaching of Biblical truths to the next generation is a serious problem for the tolerance police, and they intend to minimize it with another strategy: giving homosexual activists priority in the adoption process. Certainly any two loving people are capable of raising a child. Right? After all, as one of the “tolerant” among us, MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry stated last year, “the children belong to us all.” Surely we cannot place those children in homes full of religious intolerance.

So, how do they effectuate providing children to those whose lifestyle choices have made natural procreation impossible? Well, quite simple: prohibit any religious entity from participating in the adoption system if they do not submit to the “tolerant” view that children should be placed in the homes of homosexuals.

Theoretical, this is not. The Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the oldest and most respected adoption agencies in the country, experienced this exact prohibition in recent years. When it refused to place children in the homes of homosexuals, a refusal deeply grounded in the religious teachings of the Catholic Church, the state refused to continue to grant that charitable organization a license to provide adoption services in Massachusetts. How better to provide those “tolerant” people with children to indoctrinate than to remove them from their abusive, religious parents and force them into the “tolerant” homes of those who will not “abuse” them with religious teaching. Never mind the fact that many of those “tolerant” homosexuals to whom these children will be provided will inflict tremendous abuse on the children.

In short, the false prophets of tolerance are now seeking to impose a new zero tolerance policy in the marketplace of ideas aimed at nothing more than silencing the views of anyone who will not bow to the altar of “tolerance.”

May God help us.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Homeland Security Exercise Targets “Free Americans Against Socialist Tyranny”

http://www.infowars.com/homeland-security-exercise-targets-free-americans-against-socialist-tyranny/

Leaked documents reveal plan to counter online dissent during martial law

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
March 24, 2014

Leaked Homeland Security documents obtained by Infowars reveal details of a joint DHS/FEMA national exercise set to take place this week, one of the components of which revolves around an effort to counter online dissent by a group called “Free Americans Against Socialist Tyranny,” which is disgruntled at the imposition of martial law after an earthquake in Alaska.

Image: DHS (Wiki Commons).

The document again underscores the federal government’s obsession with characterizing libertarians and conservatives as some kind of extremist radical threat.

The document (PDF) was leaked by an individual affiliated with Stewart Rhodes’ Oathkeepers organization and passed on to Infowars. It is entitled National Exercise Program – Capstone Exercise 2014 – Scenario Ground Truth.

The document is intended for “U.S. Department of Homeland Security Trusted Agents Only” and is “disseminated only on a
need-to-know basis.” Even the role players involved in the exercise itself are prohibited from seeing the files.

The exercise is designed to evaluate readiness in preparation for a catastrophic incident, natural disaster or major act of terrorism. Some of the scenarios which will be in play during the exercise include a series of earthquakes, tsunamis and a nuclear weapons accident.

On page 125 of the document, a scenario is outlined whereby a group calling itself “Free Americans against Socialist Tyranny” responds to “The U.S. Northern Command mission of Defense Support to Civil Authorities” (or the imposition of martial law) by launching a protest campaign on social media and potentially engaging in cyber attacks.

According to the scenario, the campaign is driven by suspicion that “the government is responsible for the Alaska earthquake and a “hacktivist” manifesto.”

“The U.S. Northern Command mission of Defense Support to Civil Authorities has led to increased activity by some anti-government organizations,” states the document. “Currently, the most vocal organization is Free Americans against Socialist Tyranny; using social media, they advertise anti-U.S. rhetoric focusing on the Department of Defense as well as to recruit like-minded individuals to join their “cause”.

“While some Free Americans against Socialist Tyranny members are capable of conducting adverse cyber operations, the greatest threat is current government employees sympathetic to their cause,” the document adds. “It is believed that there are employees within US Northern Command, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, National Guard, and Defense Information Systems Agency that may support Free Americans against Socialist Tyranny doctrine based on individual comments on social media sites. Free Americans against Socialist Tyranny sympathizers may include both former and current members of the military with training on satellite communications, computer network defense, network operations, as well as military command and control.”

The scenario also suggests that Northern Command members sympathetic to Free Americans Against Socialist Tyranny may attempt to hack the North American Aerospace Defense Command as a form of retaliation.

This is by no means the first time that the Department of Homeland Security has characterized anti-big government Americans as domestic extremists.

A study funded by the Department of Homeland Security, details of which emerged in 2012, characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

As we have exhaustively documented on numerous occasions, federal authorities and particularly the Department of Homeland Security have been involved in producing a deluge of literature which portrays liberty lovers and small government advocates as extremist radicals.

The document also mentions the threat posed by “disgruntled military and Department of Defense civilians,” which ties into the talking point, repeatedly promoted by the DHS and other federal agencies, that returning veterans pose a major domestic terror threat.

The Capstone Exercise 2014 document makes it clear that a key part of the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA’s preparation for the aftermath of major catastrophic incidents in the United States is centered around combating online dissent which will be sparked as a result of federal authorities and military assets instituting martial law, or what the document refers to as “Defense Support to Civil Authorities”.

This is particularly chilling given reports that emerged in 2006 concerning a nationwide FEMA program under which Pastors and other religious representatives were trained to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to “obey the government” in preparation for a declaration of martial law, property and firearm seizures, and forced relocation.

The fact that the DHS is focusing its cyber security efforts during a major national exercise not on targeting foreign state actors or terrorists but on combating online dissent by conservatives is sure to increase concerns that the federal agency once again has libertarians, patriots and small government activists in the crosshairs.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

What Happened to Uncle Sam?

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/what-happened-to-uncle-sam/

Mar. 21, 2014 9:30am

Molli Nickell

Molli Nickell is the author of “Uncle Scam Want$ Your Money & Your Country,” a collection of Politically Incorrect Fables. Her daily rants and fables also are available at her blog where she writes as a Granny Guerrilla to entertain and enlighten low-information voters, amuse patriots, and piss off progressives.

Once upon a time, in a country of good and hardworking people, everyone felt a kinship with Uncle Sam who represented a supportive, benevolent, and trustworthy government. No matter what the circumstances, We-the-People knew we could count on Uncle Sam who honored the Constitution, and always represented our best interests.

In those not-so-long ago days, America’s brave warriors had fought against tyranny and for freedom in Europe and Asia. We prospered with manageable taxes, smallish government, and opportunities galore to launch and expand business. Jobs and career opportunities were plentiful. Parents socked dollars away for retirement and college funds for their children. American students BDE (Before the Department of Education) consistently placed #1 in worldwide rankings of academic achievement.

We-the-People continued to trust Uncle Sam to protect our best interests and make correct decisions about when and where to send our brave warriors to help other countries fight for freedom on their soil.

Does this sound like never-never land? It wasn’t. These were the “good old days,” before progressive liberals came into power.

This was America at a time when it seemed our best days stretched out into the future, toward an endless horizon of possibilities. Safe, secure and comfortable, We-the-People shifted into snooze control.

Zzzzzzz.

We failed to notice how our values, formerly shared with Uncle Sam, no longer were quite so shared.

We failed to notice the gradual erosion of adherence to our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Rule of Law.

We failed to notice destructive actions being taken by our elected representatives who:

Tossed aside campaign promises and supported policies that enhanced their personal wealth but diminished it for everybody else.
Broke into grandma and grandpa’s piggy banks and stole Social Security and Medicare dollars to redistribute to “favored” supporters.
Shifted allegiance to new “best” friends (special interest groups) who supported re-election campaigns to keep their bought-and-paid-for representatives in positions of power for happily ever after.
Turned our government into an uncontrolled debt machine.
Passed legislation that chip-chip-chipped away at our Judeo/Christian traditions.
Promoted involvement in foreign wars with no clear cut objective or end plan that squandered blood and treasure, and resulted in defeat and retreat.
Supported intervention of teachers’ unions and federal regulations that dumbed down our education system and trapped America’s children in government-controlled “flunk factories.”

How could this have happened?

While We-the-People were snoozing, Uncle Sam was shoved over a cliff and replaced by his evil twin, Uncle SCAM, the poster child for something gone terribly wrong in America.

He and his cohorts represent the most powerful, ruthless, and corrupt political machine seen in our recent history. Their goal? The fundamental transformation of our country, by hook or by crook (mostly the later).

Those who comprise Uncle SCAM’s corrupt core occupy our White House and include Chicago socialist liberals, left-wing, current-and-former congress people, community organizers, Ivy League endowment babies, heads of powerful commissions and congressional committees, bureau chiefs, lobbyists, advisors, bankers, socialists, labor union thugs, and a communist or two: all of whom hate unlimited freedom for anyone but themselves.

Their agenda involves control over everything from freedom of speech to education to healthcare. They rub their greedy hands together in glee with “Mawwaaaahahaha” (evil laugh), as they snatch power and become more entrenched as the “political elites.”

America’s president and his misses are perfect examples of this privileged class. The “first couple” enjoy luxurious, taxpayer-funded vacations for themselves and friends in Hawaii, Spain, Africa, Ireland, China, Mexico, etc. They throw lavish parties for celebrity pals and foul-mouth rappers, but lock the doors of our White House to keep out We-the-Riffraff. (The reason for the lockout? Budgetary concerns. Really? The cost to keep the White House open for one year is $2 million dollars: less than the cost of a typical Obama family-and-friends vacation.)

You gotta’ hand it to Uncle SCAM. His minions have been quite successful in achievement of fundamental transformation. Their programs of redistribution of wealth, esteem-based education, free food, free cell phones, free contraceptives, free abortions, politically correct speech, promotion of class, race, and gender warfare, and penalties for success drag America down to the lowest common denominator.

Their shining accomplishment is almost complete. We-the-people have been duped.

We’ve lost our doctors and healthcare we could afford. Our 1st Amendment to freedom of religion is being destroyed. Sad to say, Uncle SCAM’s promised solution to fix America’s economic and healthcare woes is doing just the opposite (which was the plan all along). We’ve become a nation of part-time workers, have suffered massive job loss, and millions of families have become enslaved to Uncle Scam’s handouts of welfare and food stamps. But wait, it gets worse, much worse.

The final blow is on the way . . . discover the meaning of worse in “Uncle SCAM, Part II.”

P.S. Want a little more snark in your day? Additional fables are posted on Molli’s blog. You’ll enjoy the story about Prince Hope-n-change and his ascension to the throne. Molli tweets @grannyguerrilla.

P.S. Want a little more snark in your day?

Additional fables are posted on Molli’s blog, www.grannyguerrillas.com.

You’ll enjoy the story about Prince Hope-n-change and his ascension to the throne.

Molli tweets @grannyguerrilla.

TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

TPNN EXCLUSIVE: Dinesh D’Souza Calls Out Obama Administration for Mafia-Style Tactics

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/03/19/tpnn-exclusive-dinesh-dsouza-calls-out-obama-administration-for-mafia-style-tactics/

March 19, 2014 By Greg Campbell

Conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, who earned much praise from conservatives for his documentary “2016: Obama’s America” spoke with The Tea Party News Network regarding his current battle with Obama’s Justice Department and the nature of the Obama Administration’s willingness to deal with political dissent through brute force.

In January, D’Souza was indicted for alleged campaign finance law violations. Prosecutors charge that D’Souza used straw donors to provide money to a U.S. Senate candidate in 2012.

TPNN met up with D’Souza and asked about the legal battle and questioned if the indictment was politically-motivated given his outspoken views on President Obama.

D’Souza responded that he is trying to avoid saying anything directly about the pending legal actions, but noted that the Obama Administration has a history of dealing with political dissent with force.

“I do think that Obama was unnerved by ‘2016,’” D’Souza began. “We know that because he had a diatribe about it on his website, BarackObama.com. I can also see from just looking around that the government has been using its power to target its opponents.

This is kind of an Alinsky-ite strategy. [Saul] Alinsky came up in Chicago and Alinsky says that he learned a lot of his tactics from the mafia and he points out that the way to win in politics is not to treat your opponent as a well-meaning good guy, but to make him a bad guy; treat him not as a critic, but an enemy. And that seems to be the modus operandi of this administration.”

D’Souza’s criticism comes as Obama’s IRS remains under fire after it was revealed that for years, the tax-collecting agency targeted Tea Party and conservative groups for harassment prior to and after the 2012 re-election bid.

D’Souza and many other conservatives have long pointed to Saul Alinsky as a model for Obama’s political strategy. Alinsky advocated a radical brand of politics that focuses on seizing and maintaining political power as a means of creating radical change in society and government.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

“A Tool For Tyranny”

Posted on March 19, 2014

Protesters burn gun registration forms

http://poststar.com/news/local/protesters-burn-gun-registration-forms/article_0f9d8442-ad59-11e3-a480-001a4bcf887a.html

March 16, 2014 6:10 pm • MICHAEL GOOT — mgoot@poststar.com

SARATOGA SPRINGS — Nearly a thousand gun registration forms were turned into ashes Sunday.

The forms are used for people to register with New York State Police firearms that meet the state’s definition of military-style assault weapons. The deadline is April 15. Gun rights advocates gathered at the Saratoga-Wilton Elks Lodge 161 to burn the papers in a symbolic protest.

E.J. Stokes, leader of the Warren County chapter of New York Revolution, said he was participating because he believes in the U.S. Constitution.

“Once the Second (Amendment) falls, the rest will go with it. It’s an unconstitutional law, done in the middle of the night with no input from the public,” he said.

The event was organized by the NY2A Grassroots Coalition. NY2A co-founder Jake Palmateer said the goal is for people not to register their assault weapon as an act of civil disobedience.

“We are opposed to registration because the evidence is clear that registration leads to confiscation,” he said.

He and others hope that so few people will fill out the forms, that the registry portion of the SAFE Act “collapses under its own weight.”

He estimates that less than 3,000 New York assault weapons have been registered and he says Sate Police estimated that there are several hundred thousand. The gun industry believes the number may be high as 1.2 million, according to Palmateer.

He added that similar gun control legislation in Canada proved to be unworkable.

The second purpose of the event was to kick off advocacy efforts for the 2014 election. NY2A will be vetting Assembly and Senate candidates for their stance on gun rights.

“Make sure we are putting people in who are pro-civil rights. Ultimately, this is a civil rights issue,” he said.

The SAFE Act infringes on due process rights, the right to privacy and the right to equal protection under the law, according to Palmateer.

About 230 people attended a forum to discuss the issue before the burning. Similar forums held across the state have been well attended, Palmateer said. Gun groups will be holding a big rally April 1 at the state Capitol.

Kevin Sisson, a Carlisle councilman in Schoharie County, said he and others are defending the Constitution.

“We are not extremists,” he said. “We are simply free men who love our country.”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

More Evidence of the Growing Obama Police State

Why Did the Obama ATF Raid This Gun Parts Store?

March 17, 2014 By Greg Campbell

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/03/17/update-judge-reverses-restraining-order-atf-raids-gun-parts-store-for-customers-names/

Last week, TPNN reported that the ATF was demanding that the owner of a gun parts store in California turn over the names of 5,000 customers who bought parts for their AR-15s. The store owner, Dimitri Karras, a former Marine, refused the demand and sought a restraining order to keep the ATF from the records.

However, on Saturday the ATF raided the gun parts store and confiscated computers and other assorted inventory. It’s also been reported that customers who left the establishment have been harassed in the days leading up to the raid with plainclothes officers asking about the nature of the business each customer had with Ares Armor.

The ATF raiders stormed the establishment with automatic weapons drawn and full body armor and rooted through the entire establishment, even cracking open the store’s safe.

Though the store was granted a restraining order, it has been reported that Federal Judge Janis L. Sammartino soon bowed to political pressures and modified her original restraining order to allow the ATF to conduct a raid on Ares Armor and collect the information on thousands of law-abiding customers.

The raid on Ares Armor had been captured on video by patriots and has been shared on YouTube. The ATF also took pictures of the protesters that had accumulated outside the store. (SEE VIDEO OF THE RAID BELOW);

The heavy-handedness of the ATF should serve as a terrifying illustration of tyrannical government to all patriots. The Second Amendment is more than a privilege, it is a guaranteed right that is irrevocable by government thugs.

About Greg Campbell

Greg Campbell A former contributor for The Oregon Commentator, a conservative journal of opinion, Greg is the Chief Political Analyst and Correspondent for The Tea Party News Network and a regular contributor for RightWing News. Greg is an unapologetic defender of Constitutional principles and the free-market system. His area of expertise is firearm and Second Amendment-related issues. He lives in Nevada with his wife, Heather, and enjoys writing, marksmanship and the outdoors.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Obama brings Ukraine war home to U.S.

WWW.WND.COM

Issues order targeting Americans who threaten ‘peace’

http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/obama-brings-ukraine-war-home-to-u-s/#Ho8l3CipcoYgRJS3.99

Published: 21 hours ago

Aaron Klein

Aaron Klein is WND’s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio.

Largely unreported sections of an executive order signed last week by President Obama grant the U.S. government the right to seize property of American citizens determined to be undermining, even indirectly, the democratic processes or threatening the peace in Ukraine.

The executive order does not define which actions constitute a threat to Ukrainian democracy or peace.

It cites the National Emergencies Act, which subjects to revocation the constitutional right to habeas corpus, the requirement to bring an arrested individual before a judge or court.

The text of the executive order extends to the actions of what it calls any “U.S Person.”

Aaron Klein’s “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office” is available, autographed, at the WND Superstore

A “”U.S. Person” is defined by the order as “any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.”

The order freezes property of “U.S. Persons” deemed by the treasury secretary in consultation with the secretary of state to have been “responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly” in the following:

Actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine;
Actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine; or
Misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine or of an economically significant entity in Ukraine.

It’s hardly the first time Obama has issued an executive order extending the National Emergencies Act. The act was cited in previous orders on Russian highly enriched uranium, Iran sanctions and national security threats by terrorists.

Much of the major news media coverage of last week’s executive order focused on the sections that seek to impose restrictions on Russia or foreign interests while scarcely mentioning U.S. citizens are impacted.

Reuters reported that “President Barack Obama on Thursday ordered sanctions on people responsible for Moscow’s military intervention in Ukraine’s Crimea Peninsula, including travel bans and freezing of their U.S. assets.”

CNN led the coverage by quoting senior administration officials telling reporters in a phone call the executive order means to “send a strong message that we intend to impose costs on Russia for this intervention.”

The Guardian newspaper of London ran the headline “U.S. imposes visa restrictions on Russian officials as Obama signs sanctions order.”

The second section of the order clamps down on “unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry” into the U.S. for those deemed to be undermining Ukraine’s democracy.

With additional research by Joshua Klein and Brenda J. Elliot

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

If this is war against tyranny?

If I had the ability to express myself better, it would read like the following article by Dr. Gina Loudon.

Jerry Broussard

WWW.WND.COM

http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/if-this-is-war-against-tyrannical-imperialism/#VeGeVVBEUkpMzf4T.99

Exclusive: Gina Loudon laments, ‘It doesn’t seem many are really willing to fight’

Published: 03/02/2014 at 4:52 PM

Gina Loudon

Gina Loudon, Ph.D., is host of “Smart Life with Dr. Gina” on Money Biz Life Network. She has appeared or been cited by the BBC, ABC, Vanity Fair, Al Jazeera, Huffington Post, CNN, New York Times, Time magazine, Fox News, Fox Business, The Hill, “The Daily Show” with Jon Stewart and many others. Loudon’s new book, “What Women REALLY Want,” co-authored with her fellow Politichicks anchors, will be released later this year. She is credited as one of the “100 founding members” of the tea-party movement, founder of Arizona BUYcott, and originator of the field of policology – the nexus of politics and psychology. Loudon is also the co-author of “Ladies and Gentlemen: Why the Survival of Our Republic Depends on the Revival of Honor.”

See more about Dr. Gina at the end of this article.

Feb. 27 marked the five-year anniversary of the birth of the tea party. March 1 marked the two-year anniversary of the death of a patriot in that movement, Andrew Breitbart. And this week marks the annual convention of conservatives in Washington, D.C., Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. This is an appropriate time to assess the pulse of conservatives.

Conservatives often use the hashtag, #War when tweeting about the tyrannical imperialism they believe has overtaken the culture, but is there really a concerted war, or more of a frenzied disagreement?

War is mental

As I watch what is happening, the term that often comes to mind is “playground politics,” which Dr. Paterno and I covered extensively in our book, “Ladies and Gentlemen.” The child-like behavior has become so pervasive in politics, that it has left otherwise perfectly patriotic people perfectly cynical.

Teddy Roosevelt knew war. He addressed it in his speech, “Citizenship in a Republic,” delivered at the Sorbonne in Paris, France, on April 23, 1910. It seems he knew that most every day enjoyed in the freedom of a republic was likely to be part life, part war.

“The Man in the Arena”:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

War is hell, and though Americans seem to know that on some level, they tend to forget that the battle for the republic will be ugly, painful, unpredictable, tiring, insulting, frustrating, demeaning and that we could lose.

Order Gina Loudon’s book “Ladies and Gentlemen: Why the Survival of Our Republic Depends on the Revival of Honor” – how atheism, liberalism and radical feminism have harmed the nation.

War is expensive

Today, it doesn’t seem many are really willing to fight for the republic. Those who are, are often mocked, scorned and robbed. Most patriots I know give so much of their precious time and resources to the fight, because they recognize that there are more important things than money, and worse things than war.

John Stuart Mill pointed out that while war is an ugly thing, it is not the ugliest of things: “The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

One of the things worse than war is tyranny. And to most who see this as war, that is the target in the crosshairs. To those who know why they fight, tyranny is the threat. This is not about party politics, imposing morality or petty differences to them. To the patriot in the arena, this is a fight for all things sacred, most especially, liberty.

War is personal

First, the tea party was attacked for being violent, though no violence was proven. It was attacked for being radical, but what is radical about demanding that government balances its budget and is limited to its constitutional roles? Tea-party activists scratch their heads, wondering what is so violent and radical about believing one generation has no right to lay the bills for its profligate spending on the next?

Just like the D.C. politicians who may start out as civil servants, tea-party leaders often face similar temptations. As this “war” progressed, some fallible individuals were exposed for having too much focus on personal agendas and were willing to attack those with more patriotic agendas.

Our founders were above that. They made statements about divisiveness and petty jealousies, and they had answers for those who misunderstood or abused the mission.

“We must all hang together or we will certainly hang separately.”

– Ben Franklin

Franklin and others understood that warriors, however passionate, are filled with human frailties. That doesn’t negate the priority of the mission, though.

Some will criticize those who give to the movement for various reasons. I, for one, am encouraged as I have watched patriots rise up to pour out their time and talents, one by one, month after month, year after year.

The bloggers have been the underrated, over-mocked voice of the uprising from the very beginning. Alongside bloggers and other mouthpieces, patriots such as John Hawkins correlate news of other conservatives’ work, and Steven Laboe used his talent of video editing to push out the appearances of other conservatives online. There are patriots who built organizations, and those who push out patriots’ work every day, all day, as a personal mission.

When their work is dignified, even for the other side, those who selflessly give for their vision of the future should be encouraged, I believe.

The passion of such conservatives should inspire those who do see this as war, and who do see this as a battle for the republic. Thousands of patriots give selflessly and tirelessly of their skill. That is the stuff of warriors.

As the war progresses, if this is a real war, the soldiers had best recognize the enemy. Those who do not will be exposed.

“The road to war is paved with arrogance and miscalculation” – Eric Margolis

Just because we have, at times, fought stupidly, doesn’t mean there isn’t time to rise up, recognize the elements of war, and win. But we have to know what we are fighting for.

I asked patriots around the country to answer the question of where we are, if this is #war.

Sly Ocana, a patriot from California, said that first, “It is important to recognize this as a war. We are being assaulted by forces that seek to destroy America and our freedoms. Many do not even see this as a war. It is imperative that we start getting this narrative out there. If you recognize what it is, you can begin to effectively combat it.”

Tom C. Lehner said he believes that patriots are in defense mode, and if they don’t adopt a posture of offense instead, “We are in deep trouble.” He said that right now the battle reminds him of Vietnam, “1,000 battlefields and no plan whatsoever.”

But Chris Babb and Ann-Marie Murrell said it is too early to gauge. Both agreed that this is a long battle, and we are only at the beginning of such a large fight. Babb said, “We are only at the beginning of what will be an equally long road, as the road that brought us to this point. This battle shall be won over time.”

Wayne Scott said in the five years since patriots woke up, some definitions have become very clear: “We now understand the battle lies not between parties, but between two different ideals: Self-governance or nanny state.”

Karin Rosarne feels optimistic: “I can see a huge shift in the grassroots education reform movement. #StopCommonCore groups are getting sick of dealing with politicians. I think they are about to take matters to a whole lot different level,” and she adds for emphasis, “check the ‘opt out movement.’”

War is disillusioning

Orwell assessed the tactics of the propagandists of his time, “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

Tea-party activists fought diligently to avoid the pitfalls common to movements, and one tactic was to avoid conveying their power to a central figurehead. This created confusion as to who spoke for the movement or how to define it, but it also limited the hostile media from being able to make it personal. Today, some who consider themselves “taxed enough already” are beginning to see a Reagan rising from the ashes, perhaps.

“We need another Reagan or Thatcher,” Chris Skates asserted, as he prepares to attend his first-ever CPAC this year. He believes that among others, Ted Cruz holds great promise for a real political pivot.

Many in the patriot movement echo his sentiments about Cruz, but they also believe that the establishment GOP will do all in its power to remove Cruz, because it can’t control him.

War is defining

Kim Paris is one of those who saw the disconnect and started a foundation to help give funding and direction to patriot “boots on the ground.” Her Foundation For Common Sense, she says, “is composed of patriots with different objectives, who will be recognized for their projects that proceed without fanfare, day in and day out … who fund the expenses primarily out of their own pockets, or at otherwise great personal sacrifice.”

Paris made another point about those patriots in question. She said they won’t be at CPAC, because most can’t afford it. “Instead,” she said, “they choose to spend what money they have to continue their work on the homefront.”

War is necessary

Einstein said, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Many in the patriot movement have whispered the question that everyone wonders. When do patriots take to the streets, as they have so many times in history and recently in the Ukraine? When do they have no choice but to become the radicals they have been accused of being for so long? That they have suffered so heavily and maintained civility is a testament to the true character of the average tea partier. Still the questions linger about when that might change.

Is it when they come for our guns? Or have they already?

Is it when they kill our children? Or have they already?

Is it when they deny us health care? Or have they already?

When is that moment?

War is the beginning of the end

I always have my students answer this question, “What do you want your epitaph to say?”

I believe there is power of vision when the end is established, first.

As patriots gather to mourn the anniversary of the loss of one of their own; as they celebrate the birth of their movement, however flawed and capable; as they gather in D.C. to strategize for the road ahead, perhaps they are best to pause and reflect on the final goal.

What is sacred enough to die for?

That is the pulse that patriots ought to take, in this most pivotal moment.

About Dr. Gina

Dr. Gina Loudon has 2 Masters Degrees and a PhD in psychological fields (Psychology [WWU]; Counseling Education [SLU]; Human Development [FGU]; Human and Organizational Systems [FGU]). She is co-author of Ladies and Gentlemen: Why the Survival of our Republic Depends on the Revival of Honor. She is credited as one of the “100 Founding Members” of the Nationwide Tea Party movement, Founder of Arizona BUYcott, and originator of the field of Policology–the nexus of politics and psychology.

Dr. Gina is the host of Smart Life with Dr. Gina on Money Business Life Network. Smart Life focuses on living well, and the psychological aspects of culture.

You can find more of her work at World Net Daily and Politichicks.TV.

When Gina has done her small part to help to save the Republic, she plans to sail around the world with her family (and maybe a camera crew!)

Wife and mother of 5, one with Down Syndrome by the miracle of adoption.

“”One of America’s precious human resources… a Firecracker”
– Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily

“When you’re rushing out to buy my book, don’t miss the Dr. Gina Show every day…”
– Ann Coulter

“Don’t miss the Dr. Gina Show!”
– Michelle Malkin

“Dr. Gina Loudon is a one-woman force of nature!”
– Dr. Milton Wolf, Washington Times Columnist and Barack Obama’s Cousin

“One of the best minds in America today”
– Rev. C.L. Bryant, Creator, Runaway Slave Movie

“Dr. Gina is Awesome!”
– John Stossel

“If you’re diagnosed with liberalism, Dr. Gina will cure you.”
– Dick Morris

“She’s Fabulous!”
– David Limbaugh

“Dr. Gina, you are an Uncle Ted Spirit of the Wild blood brother.”
– Ted Nugent

“Not only [is she] gorgeous, [she is] smart…and fighting hard for all the right things!”
– Governor Sarah Palin

“Even in the midst of total societal collapse, you don’t want to miss the Dr Gina Show. She’s Great!”
– Mark Steyn, Author and guest host for Rush Limbaugh

“An important person to wow.”
– Neil Cavuto

“The gold standard of talk radio”
– Craig R. Smith, Chairman of Swiss America

“The best thing to happen to radio since The Beatles”
– Dr. Milton Wolf, Barack Obama’s Cousin

“[She’s a] troublemaker and TEA party patriot.”
– Andrew Breitbart of Breitbart.com & BigGovernment.com

“Dr. Gina has the cure for big government.”
– Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)

“Listen to the Dr. Gina Show to find out all you need to fight the left and clean up the right”
– Erick Erickson, RedState.com

“The hottest radio broadcaster I’ve ever met!”
– Steven Cruiser, PJTV.com

“Listen to the Dr. Gina Show or the baby seal gets it!”
– Fingers Malloy, FTRRadio.com

“The conservatives’ secret weapon—a double-edged sword. She is adorably disarming, and masterfully brilliant–A rising star in America’s renewal.”
–Wiliam Federer. Author, speaker, historian, American Patriot

“She’s gorgeous! And she fights the good fight!”
-Pamela Geller, founder Atlas Shrugs, author, commentator

“A reliable source of truth…a voice of clarity, wisdom and understanding about [the] issues.”
–Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO)

“[The] Tea Party Titan!”
–Neil Cavuto, on FOX Business

“She not only knows the issues…she lives them!”
–Wendy Wright, Concerned Women for America

“Lovely. Forceful. Accurate.”
–Pat Boone, movie star, author, patriot

“One Fiery Host!”
–Sheriff Joe Arpaio

“A TRUE Conservative…”
–Michael Reagan

* Show host
* National speaker
* Body language analyst
* Writer
* Culture critic
* Policologist, and specialized doctoral professional.

Political Commentator/ Culture Critic, as seen on:

Neil Cavuto (FOX News and FOX Business)
The Willis Report (FOX Business)
Happening Now (FOX News)
America’s Nightly Scoreboard (FOX Business)
Politichicks.tv
On the Record with Greta Van Susteren
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
BBC
Radio Ireland
4FM
FOX News Network (TV, radio and digital)National and Local Public Radio
The St. Louis Post Dispatch
Crawford Broadcasting Company
The St. Louis Beacon
CPAC Radio Row
American Family Radio
KMOX Radio
Donnybrook
Bott Radio Network
PJTV

She has contributed to, or her work has been cited in:

The New York Times
Townhall.com
Breitbart’s Big Outlets (Gov, Peace, Hollywood, Journalism)
Politichicks.tv
The St. Louis Post Dispatch
The St. Louis Beacon
Zeit Magazine
The Los Angeles Times
Daily Caller
The Hill
World Net Daily
CNN International
Huffington Post
The Washington Times
STL Today
National Review
Vanity Fair
Numerous blogs, including Insta Pundit & Gateway Pundit.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Amnesty Is The Knife That Killed Us

www.lastresistance.com

http://lastresistance.com/4901/amnesty-knife-killed-us/#jubFxRFwBm4h1rjE.99

Posted By Frank Camp on Feb 28, 2014

no amnesty sign

“By polluting clear water with slime you will never find good drinking water.” – Aeschylus

Motives are often questioned in politics. In a sense, one cannot question motives, because there is no way to know with certainty what is going on inside the mind of another person. On the other hand, one can—with near certainty—understand motives by studying someone’s past actions. Additionally, motive can be uncovered by studying the nature of man.

The immigration debate has me questioning motives. The reasoning behind amnesty seems obvious to me. For many average American liberals, amnesty is fair. They actually believe that we should grant citizenship to those who have come here outside of the law. However, the elites in Washington know exactly what they want out of amnesty: votes. They want 11 million or so new Democrat voters.

For many countries, the path to citizenship is a difficult one, one that requires skill. These countries want the best and brightest. This makes sense. Allow me to make an analogy. Every year, Ivy League schools across the country wade through thousands of applications in order to decide whom they will allow into their school. They often set very high standards. Many times, not even a high GPA will guarantee a spot. Why do they do this? They do this to make sure that their school remains competitive, and is able to churn out graduates who will excel in their fields of study. If these schools didn’t set high standards, and as a result, admitted nearly anyone who applied, they would no longer remain competitive. Their quality would be greatly diminished. The same applies to citizenship.

The United States seems to be the only modern nation whose immigration policies are scrutinized, and we’re not even close to being the strictest in terms of whom we allow into our country. Why is it that conservatives are constantly being shamed for disagreeing with amnesty? Why is it that conservatives are beaten down for wanting to be competitive? There are a million possible answers, but by understanding past actions, and the nature of human behavior, those possibilities are significantly narrowed.

Democrats, as well as many, many Republicans are smitten with big government. I believe this is because with bigger government comes greater power. Combine a large, matriarchal government with an influx of millions of low-skill workers, and what do you get?

You get a recipe for dependency.
Low-skill individuals are much more likely to need government assistance, and a portion of those recipients will take advantage of that assistance.
Those who take advantage will continue to vote for those who gave them all the free stuff.
If this portion of people is large enough, we will forever fall under one Party rule.

We are already facing a crisis in terms of the percentage of Americans on government assistance. Over the last decade, the number of Americans on assistance has skyrocketed. There are those who deny this theory, who naively believe that very few would ever take advantage of the system. To those people, I say: take a look at the numbers.

Human nature is greedy.
Given this situation, adding millions of new people to the system who will very likely require government assistance,
we would be living in a country in which those who are contributing are outnumbered by those who are taking.

Once the contributors are outnumbered by the takers, we will have reached a tipping point at which time a conservative will never again win a national election. The Democrats want to keep a hold on their power, and the best way to do that is to make sure a conservative Republican never even has a chance. The magic weapon? Amnesty. A flood of low-skill workers. The most absurd part about it is that many Republicans will go along with the plan, because they are afraid of not being liked, or they mistakenly believe that the plan will benefit them as well. These Republicans are staggeringly naïve, and are contributing to the destruction of our country.

Could I be incorrect in my assessment of the motives of the Left? No. I know this because I’m not a moron, and I can see patterns, and I recognize the darkness of human nature. We are dying, and amnesty is the weapon that did us in. 2016 is our last chance to turn this ship around.

Today’s Political Cartoon

“Eating Away the First Amendment”

Posted on February 27, 2014

The Root of Oppression in Venezuela

www.AmericanVision.org

http://americanvision.org/10146/root-oppression-venezuela/#sthash.caCAzkMU.fDyxLldZ.dpuf

by John Crawford

February 24. 2014,

Many of you may have already seen this brief video that went viral. If you have not, watch it.

The title is unpromising. That won’t catch on, you think. But the short film What’s Going On in Venezuela in a Nutshell, posted to YouTube last Friday, has had more than 1.3m views – and brought the plight of student protesters in Venezuela to international notice.⁽¹⁾

The number of views is now over 2.5 million. The creator of the video, Andreina Nash, is a student at the University of Florida here in my hometown. She learned how to use Adobe Premier Pro in one day and the next day she skipped all of her classes and made the video. It went viral.⁽²⁾

A video like this one presents a great opportunity to discuss and better understand the dynamics surrounding any number of similar political and social crises commonly found in news media these days. There could be extended commentary on Venezuela’s history, the late President Chavez, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, or a myriad of facets of the country’s past and present crisis. My comments will be limited and focused on a more fundamental issue. Nash states near the beginning of her video:

“Millions of young students took matters into their own hands by passively protesting the social and economic crisis caused by the illegitimate government Venezuela has today.”

Surely the oppressive government is a central issue. But we must ask ourselves – from where did the oppressive, “illegitimate” government originate?

Anyone who witnesses a video like this, or any number of news stories across our own country, must at some point in his mind think slavery. There may be a difference in degree in any given nation, but slavery and oppression are a reality across the globe. So then, we need to view “what’s going on in Venezuela” with an understanding of the root of such oppression. Augustine states clearly in The City of God,

The prime cause, then, of slavery is sin, which brings man under the dominion of his fellow⁽³⁾

The presence of slavery and oppression is a manifestation of the presence of sin. There are only two possible masters in this life.

Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (Romans 6:16, ESV )

We have only two only two choices. We can be slaves to Satan or adopted sons of Christ.

Ultimately, freedom is impossible over time when a society does not operate according to the Word of God. Put another way, slavery is inescapable in a society that does not acknowledge Christ’s Lordship over every area. Lordship is unavoidable. The question is to whom will we submit?

My sole focus here is not Venezuela. In our own country we have moved from a greater degree of freedom to a greater degree of slavery. Whereas a few generations ago our national shackles were barely noticeable, they are beginning now to get heavy and rub blisters. The discomfort is growing. “Land of the free” has become the land of the rising police state, surveillance and warrantless searches. How does this happen in a nation that many believe was once characterized as “Christian”? How does such a shift occur?

It is simple. God calls his people to govern themselves according to his Word. He also outlines roles and jurisdictions for his divinely ordained covenant institutions of the family, church and state. As Christian people abdicate their individual responsibility of self-government, and the three institutions abdicate their responsibilities over time, a transfer is induced. The transfer is one of responsibility and power. This is because the responsibilities are not relinquished without at the same time calling for them to be picked up by other individuals and institutions. Prime candidates for the other individuals are power-hungry men and women. The primary candidate for the institution is the state.

We all know the phrase, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Power flows to people and institutions that are willing to take responsibility. If a nation’s individuals, families and churches abdicate their responsibilities, then those hungry for power and influence accept it from within the institution of the state. Power flows out from one group of individuals and institutions and power flows into another – the state. The former begin to ask for care and security from the latter. This increases the power of the state. Over time, the once-empowered individuals, families and churches find themselves powerless. And, being out of touch with God’s covenantal framework, they don’t understand that they operate not only as individuals but also from within a corporate reality. Because of their lack of understanding they begin to blame the empowered institution of the state for their plight. At the same time, having abdicated responsibility and turned over their power, they are limited to peaceful demonstrations in protest in hopes of communicating a message but not evoking the wrath of their self-appointed god.

But whereas this increases awareness, it does not solve the primary issue. Nations of individuals that do not govern themselves according to the Word of God cannot expect to live in the freedom that only submission to him provides.

“it is our right as human beings to have freedom of speech, to have freedom in general”

“…peace will prevail”

Peace will never prevail outside of the Lordship of Christ. “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 5:1, ESV ) To the extent we live according to the will of our Creator, is to the extent we will experience the blessing of peace that only he gives. That is not to say that others around us do not benefit from this. Again, this is corporate or covenant reality. But, that is a subject for another day.

The point here is that we should expect neither peace nor freedom where men are not representing Christ’s rule on earth.

In the video Nash comments on the control of TV stations and radio by the oppressive government. She also comments on the “government shutdown” of Twitter, which was the social media of choice for getting the word out. This does not surprise anyone. That said, there is good news in all of this. The word is out. One student, armed with amateur filmmaking, skills in the space of one day created a compelling film that reached millions of people within days.

The Internet is undermining bureaucratic and elitist institutions worldwide. When you think Internet vs. these institutions, think the printing press vs. the Catholic Church during the time of the Reformation. The nation-state in general is being undermined.

The question is, when the word does get out, who has the answer as to the cause of statist oppression? Who has a foundation on which to build a successful society? It is those who have the gospel – the whole gospel.

Since sin is the primary cause, the remedy is evangelism and the work of the Holy Spirit. It is taking the whole gospel in those evangelistic efforts such that converts know how their eternal salvation relates to their temporal living. This includes the life in the civil realm.

Christians that learn to “observe all that He has commanded” will make decisions differently. With the power of the Holy Spirit, they will govern themselves according to God’s Word. As they do this, such submission is manifested among the institutions in their society. The only alternative to Christ’s rule through Godly representatives is Satan’s rule through ungodly representatives. “Choose this day whom you will serve.”

About the Author

John Crawford lives in Gainesville, Florida with his wife Tina and his three children Cade, Lachlan and Aila. He is a graduate of the University of Florida and has partnered in a successful business in Gainesville since 2001. During his time in the Baptist church, John served as a deacon, bible teacher and on the board of an international missions organization. He has spent the last fifteen years studying the covenant and its implications for all of life. He is currently a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and can be reached through his website, CovenantalDivide.com –

See more at: http://americanvision.org/10146/root-oppression-venezuela/#sthash.caCAzkMU.3tMD7Rg0.dpuf

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

7 Amazing Reagan Quotes that Capture America’s Current Condition

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/20/7-Amazing-Reagan-Quotes-that-Capture-Americas-Current-Condition

by Wynton Hall 21 Feb 2014

Ronald Reagan’s prescient words hold striking resonance to the dangers and maladies afflicting America today.

Here are 7 Ronald Reagan quotes that speak to America’s present condition.

On the importance of limited government.

On minority youth unemployment.

On the opportunity-crushing nature of taxes.

On the appropriate purpose of welfare.

On faith.
On government-run healthcare.

On freedom’s future.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

AMERICA!!!!! If We Are Not Vigilant, This Will Happen Here In America

Free Speech Alert: Islam Rips Ever Deeper Into Europe

By Audrey Russo / 16 February 2014

http://clashdaily.com/2014/02/free-speech-alert-islam-rips-ever-deeper-europe/#JKzmhSfEkYEKYfRG.99

As a wild beast would pull its prey closer to guard it from other predators, Islam is sinking its barbed paws ever deeper into the heart of the European Union (EU). Right under the radar of the EU, the European Parliament is considering a proposal that requires the direct surveillance of any EU citizen suspected of being “intolerant.”

The proposal is called, “European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance”, and it intends to compel the governments of all 28 EU member states to create “special administrative units” to monitor individuals or groups expressing views that these self-styled sentinels of European multiculturalism assess to be “intolerant”… an unprecedented threat to free speech in Europe. European citizens are already habitually punished for expressing the “wrong” views, specifically concerning Islam.

Remember, it’s all those citizens “Suspected” of being “intolerant”…I guess it depends on who looks through Allah’s microscope…

For those of us who have our coffee every morning, this was predictable. First we had the establishing of an OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) office in Brussels in June 2013. This placed the influential 57 Muslim country bloc (actually, 56 sovereign states, plus the Palestinian Authority [given State status in the OIC]) at an in-your-face position to the European Parliament.

This is a doubling down of their efforts to control free speech in Europe…and the West. Something the OIC has been working arduously to accomplish at the UN. Since 1999 the OIC has attempted to have the issue of religious defamation included in UN Human Rights Council resolutions. And they’ve been making progress with elitists and fools (as if there’s a difference).

What the Sharia machine of the OIC fails to realize is…the Leftist World media/leaders, the little Islamic helper monkeys walking around with eyes wide shut…are not the only kafir out here. There is a growing number of infidels with eyes wide OPEN, who know what they’ve swept under their magic prayer rugs: Sharia Islamic Law forbids questions or criticism of Islam (including the Quran & Muhammed) of any kind. The idea of “questions or criticism” is intentionally vague and is subjective to the offended Mohammedan. It’s considered blasphemy whether it be committed by a Muslim OR non-Muslim. Sharia also calls for severe punishment, even death, for the offense.

Their issue of including “religious defamation” in the UN’s free speech code, is another way of implementing blasphemy under Sharia…and the world would aid them in their enforcement.

But, while the Ummah (global Islamic community) is busy soothing their wounded feelings, the gravest offense is being perpetrated against the Free World. Our life-blood is in peril: Our freedom of speech. An inalienable right recognized ONLY in the Judeo-Christian world….where skin is not so thin, and the only thing we want to kill is a box of Ho-Hos.

So, Islamic supremacists…be not confused. As you continue to force your camel’s nose under our tent, you will be met with a force that only free men, who have tasted liberty, possess. On either side of the Pond, we will band together and push you back into the caves you find so cozy.

And on this side of the Pond, we’ll do it with lead!

Shalom through strength…

Image: Courtesy of: http://www.flickr.com/photos/radamantis/6845473959

About the author: Audrey Russo

Audrey Russo is the Host of the weekly REELTalk Radio Show and the co-host of WOMANTalk Radio Show. She handles Middle East Issues/National Security/Terrorism for their eZine and writes on foreign affairs for The Examiner.com. She guests on several radio shows including The Rick Amato Show, The Simon Conway Show, The Pat Campbell Show and The Mike Wiley Show. Audrey is the Managing Editor for the online opinion journal Ediblog.com. Her articles can also be read at The Center for Changing Worldviews and the Gold Coast Chronicle as well as other online journals. She is also an active member of the NYC performing arts community as a singer and actor.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Political Cartoon: More From The State Sanctioned Religion of “Climate Change”

Climate Change

Posted on February 17, 2014

Top Liberal Reveals Massive Democrat Secret!

The Marxist/Socialist/Collectivist/Extreme Liberal Left has been building their dependent underclass since President Johnson passed his, “War on Poverty” bill. They DO NOT care about the poor or illegal immigrants. All they care about is getting their votes, because they know that without them, they will not be able to win elections. With their votes they can steal elections so they can destroy our Liberty replacing it with their Marxist/Socialist/Collectivist/Extreme Liberal Left Doctrine, installing a tyrannical European style faux democracy. Then anyone who disagrees with them can silence by whatever means necessary. – Jerry Broussard (MrB)

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

http://lastresistance.com/4627/top-liberal-reveals-massive-democrat-secret/#yM1St8VuH1QcPgfA.99

Posted By Frank Camp on Feb 4, 2014

donna brazile

On a recent episode of This Week, George Stephanopoulos was talking with DNC vice chairwoman Donna Brazile, when she said: “I don’t think you can create two classes of citizens in this society, one with legal status and the right to vote, and one without.”

The Left has a long track record of lying about their intentions. Recently, they have lied about Obamacare, claiming it was meant to give the poor an opportunity at healthcare. We all know there are numerous ways by which the healthcare industry can be fixed without a massive government takeover, but that’s the point. The Left doesn’t care about the poor, they want bigger government. They think it is for the betterment of man that we be under the loving care of a monstrous matriarchal government.

Every effort made by the Left at legislation is designed to push our country toward their ultimate goal: a Marxist paradise. Most of the country doesn’t want to live in soviet Russia, so the Left must disguise their policy as something good and lovely.

The issue at the top of the liberal agenda is immigration. They know that if they can grant amnesty to the millions of illegal immigrants in the United States, those immigrants will eventually be allowed to vote. Guess who they’ll vote for? Yeah, Democrats. Republicans will never again win an election. Liberals have denied on many occasions that their ultimate intention is voting rights. They have claimed many times that the notion that they want illegal aliens to vote is preposterous. They just want “equality.” Finally, someone has said it.

Donna Brazile let the cat out of the bag. This is how they’re going to play the game. They’re going to first ask for legal residency. After that, the Left will rise up, and pretend to feel bad for the apartheid nation we have created, in which some can vote, and others are left in the cold. Then the faux sympathies being projected by the Left will get picked up by the media, and run around the clock, until it somehow seems like a good idea to grant them full citizenship. Then the Left—who once claimed to never ever want illegal immigrants to have voting rights—will have won the game.

The Left will win in part because the Republicans will go along with whatever the Democrats do, thinking it will benefit them. Republicans will follow the Democrats into a hell of the Democrats’ making. There were several ways the voting rights for illegals situation could have gone, but Donna Brazile just revealed the course being taken by the Left. Just wait and see.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Obama’s Police State America – Get Ready For Martial Law

Click on the colored lettering to view links to support the following. – Jerry Broussard

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

http://clashdaily.com/2014/01/obamas-police-state-america-get-ready-martial-law/#CHOyDByP63BzQx63.99

By Allan Erickson / 27 January 2014

Watch what people do, not what they say, especially when it comes to politicians with enormous egos. This president says he loves liberty. He says he upholds the Constitution and the rule of law, according to his oath. He says he understands the Constitution establishes and protects liberty.

But look at what the man does. He violates the Constitution routinely, destroying liberty with each violation.

In a recent press conference he made excuses for NSA surveillance excesses, proposing meaningless reforms. Obviously, he could care less about protecting our constitutional right to be free from illegal government search and surveillance.

He uses the IRS to target conservatives to stifle their right to free speech and assembly. For years Tea Party conservatives have complained they have been denied tax exempt status to operate. The IRS admitted they targeted the Tea Party and other conservatives. IRS officials have testified the White House was involved. Yet recently, the FBI tells us there is nothing to investigate. Just yesterday, it was reported the IRS is now targeting conservatives in Hollywood. Journalists have been targeted, spied upon, their privacy invaded, and their jobs threatened. White House officials have harassed reporters and editors and producers. Even CNN was threatened for covering Benghazi, as was Fox News. AP reporters’ records were taken and examined by DOJ.

The Obama police state emerges. It gets worse. Much worse.

Pushing passage of the National Defense Authorization Act recently in the dark of night, Obama has now set the stage for arresting American citizens without charge and detaining them indefinitely, according to many respected legal experts. Some have sued the government stating in court documents:

The central question now before this court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.

Every item listed is a gross violation of due process as guaranteed by the Constitution. Make no mistake, this so-called president is a control freak, a far left statist and egomaniac, hell bent on establishing centralized authority to control all aspects of life.

Police state. Martial law.

Meanwhile, it’s open season on conservatives, Christians, the Catholic Church, and Christian law firms. Liberty Counsel reports it has been targeted by the IRS. Franklin Graham’s ministry was targeted, as are hundreds of other groups refusing to goose step according to the dictates of Obama’s drum beat. Dr. Ben Carson, following remarks critical of Obama, was audited by the IRS for the first time in his life. Gov. Mike Huckabee is now being misrepresented and assaulted by national media for rightly criticizing the administration on a number of fronts.

No doubt furious over ongoing criticism of ObamaCare and desperate for some power play advantage, Obama has now removed the gloves, no longer restrained by common sense, re-election or regard for his own party.

Notice coordinated attacks on the governors of New Jersey and Virginia. Notice the conservative-condemning remarks by the governor of New York. Notice the arrest and indictment of conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza. Notice harassment of reporters and threats leveled against James O’Keefe. Notice the bold-faced demand by Sen. Chuck Schumer of NY for more IRS harassment and targeting of the Tea Party. He readily acknowledges Congress will not act against his political enemies, so the IRS must be brought in to do his dirty work.

Experienced observers realize that when dealing with the Left, nothing is accidental, all is coordinated and orchestrated.

Recall the White House summoning various media representatives last month coinciding with the appointment of John Podesta to Obama’s inner circle.

Podesta knows how to get things done, one way or the other. He unabashedly recommends the Executive Branch bypass Congress on climate change. A Clintonista from Chicago, Podesta is “admired” for his ability to tamp down scandals and save political fortunes. Certainly, this series of attacks on conservatives is specially designed to distract from Obama’s serial scandals and to turn his poll numbers.

What we are seeing now is a revealed battle plan authored by Podesta and others, and endorsed by this president in league with mass media, all working to centralize power, destroy the Constitution, and establish an oligarchy in America, an oligarchy to be established and preserved by the use of raw military power in a police state environment. The battle plan has actually been revealed for some time given the other devious tactics employed in the overall strategy.

Obama uses the threat of terrorism to concentrate power in the federal government. He uses so-called man-made global warming to concentrate power. He uses the administrative rule-making authority of a vast bureaucracy to enact tens of thousands of job killing regulations. He uses the race card, gun control, same sex marriage, abortion, education reform, immigration, finance reform, healthcare “reform” and discussions about income disparity to concentrate power. He stacks the courts, corrupts the legislative process, and issues executive orders to concentrate power.

And now the full on assault on our basic citizen rights.

If provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) are allowed to stand by the Supreme Court, the American experiment in liberty and the American dream are dead. Obama is the enemy within. Either he is defeated, or America is lost. HRC, Obama’s fraternal twin, must likewise be defeated for all the same reasons. Keep in mind HRC’s “think tank” is the Center for American Progress, a far left group funded by Soros and headed by none other than John Podesta.

The American people have been lied to and fooled by the Poser in Chief, over and over, for years. 2014 and 2016 are their last chance at redemption.

———

PS — After passage by the House, the Senate passed the NDAA 84-15. Here are the names of the patriot Senators who voted NAY on giving the president sweeping powers to deny due process of law and destroy the Constitution: Sessions, Shelby, Paul, Flake, Crapo, Risch, Coburn, Merkley, Wyden, Cruz, Lee, Sanders, Barrasso, Enzi, Corker. All Republicans except for Wyden and Merkley of Oregon, and Sanders of Vermont.

Image: Courtesy of: http://whitelocust.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/what-republic

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

It’s Not Gun Control; It’s Population Control

http://clashdaily.com/2014/01/gun-control-population-control/#8PJ8KTbDIWy0k5om.99

By Jeff Mullen / 26 January 2014

Some public policy issues may be pretty close calls, like sending arms to Egypt. Good conservatives have made equally compelling arguments both for and against. Some say don’t give high-tech weapons to people who hate us. Others say it’s the best antidote to the poison of the Muslim Brotherhood. Reasonable people clearly can and do differ in such areas of gray.

Gun control is not one of those issues. When it comes to the right to bear arms, common sense and centuries of human experience lead inexorably to one black-and-white conclusion: The Founders got it dead right when they drafted the 2nd Amendment, guaranteeing the rights of an armed citizenry.

Have you ever traveled to a Third World country and observed the garden varieties of home protection? High walls. Locked gates. Razor wire. Broken glass. Stay there long enough and when you return to the United States, picture windows begin to strike you as incredibly vulnerable and unprotected. Except for one thing: Guns. It’s a documented fact that burglaries and home invasions are much lower in the United States because perpetrators can’t know which houses on the block might bring them face to face with a Mossberg 930 SPX Tactical Shotgun. Not something thieves have to worry about in Guatemala and other places with a disarmed citizenry.

On the other hand, there’s Jeanne Assam. She’s the volunteer security guard who singlehandedly averted mass slaughter six years ago at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado by taking out a heavily armed killer. This disturbed individual shot and killed four people inside the church and wounded five more before Assam brought him down with multiple shots. Considering the ammo he was packing, it could have been worse—unspeakably worse.

What if there had been a Jeanne Assam at Sandy Hook Elementary School? At the Aurora, Colorado movie theater where so many innocents were gunned down? Or at Fort Hood? What lunacy has made our soldiers on base and our TSA agents at airports defenseless sitting ducks to perpetrators who sneer at gun controls? Answer: Political correctness and perhaps something more sinister—a desire on the part of the ruling class to establish unquestioned control over the governed.

That’s actually the primary reason the Founders penned the 2nd Amendment. They may not have envisioned a Fort Hood or a Sandy Hook situation. But what they did foresee

was the possibility of a government that might forget its proper place
and begin subjugating its citizens all over again,
ramming draconic demands down their throats,
punishing them with confiscatory taxation
and disarming them so as to prevent armed insurrection.

Are you “bitter”? Do you cling to your Bible and your guns? If so, you may be deemed an enemy of the people. But ironically, the truth is quite the opposite: Such a government is the enemy of the people.

Image: Courtesy of: http://bigfaithministries.com/gun-confiscation-as-prelude-to-the-armenian-genocide/

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Freedom or Force? – You Decide

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/freedom-force-decide/#p7Uk2zP1LJufQT3A.99

Posted By Richard Lynch on Jan 21, 2014

Congress-2

Have you ever wondered how it could be “that in the freest land in the world, we find ourselves feeling the chokehold of force draining the lifeblood of freedom more with each passing day?”

I’m going to ask you to bear with me for the next few minutes and open your mind as I put forth a personal hypothesis that addresses this very issue.

If you are convinced individual freedom is a bad thing, my goal is not so much to change your mind but rather have you ask the question “Why is it a bad thing?”

I believe much of our thinking today is heavily influenced by individuals and entities whose ideas and proposals have not been thought through to their conclusion and consequences.

We have come to rely on unsustainable promises and sound-bites, one being the bread and butter of our political leaders and the other the bread-and-butter of the media. As a result of this dependency, we have become complacent and apathetic. We no longer do any soul-searching when confronted with proposals and ideas that on the surface have the appearance of doing great things, but in substance become destructive once they are implemented.

Sadly, once such proposals and ideas are implemented we then find ourselves being subjected to government being used to force us into submission and participation. Our frustrations are only compounded when our pleas for reason and rationale in the application of these ideas fall on deaf ears.

If we choose to speak out in opposition to these proposals and ideas we are labeled racist, isolationists, teabaggers along with some other names that should not be mentioned in mixed company. Is there any wonder why so many have just chosen the route of least resistance?

Consider the following proposal for one second.

Congressman A lives in a very rural district. Most of his constituents must travel 25 to 35 miles each way to go to work. Congressman A decides that a good political move would be to promise his constituents that he will ensure they have good reliable transportation to go back and forth to work. Congressman A decides that a good way to fulfill this promise is to introduce legislation that imposes a tax of $.50 per gallon to be used to subsidize auto purchases for his constituents. This will allow the constituents to purchase a new vehicle every two years thus ensuring good reliable transportation. The bill will be called “Rural Employment Access Means”; REAM for short.

Congressman A realizes he needs cosponsors and approaches Congressman Z who just so happens to represent a large portion of Detroit. Congressman Z, realizing the potential of garnering constituent’s votes through promising guaranteed auto sales, jumps on board right away. Congressman Z feels a better title for the bill would be the Better Urbanization Through Taxation plan; BUTT for short.

I think you know where I’m going with this.

They compromise on the title and give it the acronym BUTTREAM. The bill flies through both houses with hundreds of additions for additional revenue raising schemes each benefiting another politician.

I realize this is an oversimplification of the process, but sadly it is also truly representative of what goes on in Washington. Someone comes up with some grandiose idea or plan that will benefit this group or that group and then proceeds to enlist the government to force their ideas on the people.

While the politicians’ end game is to build up their voter base, the catalyst for most social programs can be found in the altruistic leanings of well-meaning individuals. They fail to see (and most time the voters fail to point out) that good intentions should never require forced participation.

So the next time you hear some politician promising what they are going to do for you, or some well-meaning individual promoting an idea or concept that is good for the general welfare of our nation, ask yourself this question, “Will their proposals be possible without the forced participation of the American people?” It the answer is no, then it is time for you to decide, do you want to live under Freedom or Force?

Thank you and may we never forget, God Has Blessed America

Author: Richard Lynch

Richard Lynch has been married for over 22 years to Laurie Lynch. He is the father of three and grandfather to six. He has retired from manufacturing after 35 years and is currently an inventor and a full-time golf instructor. Richard has run for several offices including Governor of New Jersey, Assemblyman and US Congressman. At this time, Richard is a district director and spokesman for the Fair Tax and he is actively involved with the Tea Party of Greater Gaston County.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Being the Change I want to See

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/change-want-see/#Hilu0hV3wOqPjWtF.99

Written on Saturday, January 18, 2014 by David Risselada

Over the past couple of weeks I have had the opportunity to view into our public education system and see firsthand just how bad our system is failing our children. I mentioned the other day that many children, in high school no less, are having difficulty reading. Not only reading; reviewing what was read in order to study seemed like a lost concept to many of them. I sat in front of a class of high school kids and had to teach them how to correlate a title of a paragraph with review questions at the end of a chapter, in order how to determine how to find the answer. In other words, there was no solid study habits ingrained in many of these kids.

If this isn’t bad enough, I taught at a middle school where clear back packs are issued to the students because of the rampant drug and violence problem among eighth graders. Middle schools with drug problems, that’s the reality of education in America today. Speaking with the students it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that America will be finished as these generations become adults and are completely clueless as to what is going on around them. While there are a handful of kids who show an obvious sense of disdain for what they witness in these classrooms, they are the ones who are truly being left behind as the system has to cater to those who simple y don’t care. It’s reminiscent of the Chicago study I wrote about the other day with the lower achieving math students being placed into a class with the higher achieving students. The results obviously favored the lower achieving as the whole system had to be curtailed to meet their needs, thus leaving those thirsting for knowledge behind. This is happening on a much larger scale as schools are forced to deal with behavioral issues, this leaves the students that do behave in the dust because they are being forced to meet the same standard.

Who would be held responsible for something like this, the teacher, the school district, the DOE? I don’t know, but I think it’s a problem because no one is being held responsible for it. I think on one level you have a deliberate attempt to implement standards that lower academic achievement in order to pursue this abstract concept of “total equality” and create compliant citizens. While on another level you have the teachers who went into the profession for all the right reasons and now have no idea how to even identify what is going wrong in the system. Their hands are tied and their job depends upon their compliance. Not only that; many teachers are completely unaware of many of the topics discussed among conservatives, i.e. the communist infiltration into education etc, etc. It is likely that these teachers are a byproduct of the very system that teaches them just to go along to get along themselves; therefore they are unlikely to buck the system and bring unwanted attention to themselves, which is why it will never change. Folks, we have to buck the system.

If you are a regular reader of my articles, or if you have researched anything about education than you know much of this represents a one hundred year plan to change our culture. John Dewey, Antonio Gramsci and others viewed education as a means of gaining control of the minds of young people so they could control a population. Reversing this is going to require nothing less than that folks. We have to start now, not with the attitude that we are just realizing our country is being taken over, but with one that acknowledges it already has been. Changing our culture back is not going to happen while conservative minded Americans are more concerned about careers, prestige, retirement plans and their next vacation. All of this feeds into the plans of the socialists that control them. That’s right; this system has been controlled by these people for a long time, that’s why so many are afraid to speak up. When you’re afraid to speak up out of fear of losing your job, or fear of standing out, you are not free; you are serving the system that has silenced you.

Winning our culture back will take nothing less than the same dedication that the socialists have displayed in destroying it. Dedicating one hundred percent of your efforts toward influencing the young minds in this country is what it is going to take. This is why fields like education are completely dominated by liberals; they understand their objective, transforming the hearts and minds of your kids so they reflect the ideals of collectivism. While they were doing this everyone else was distracted by the allure of working hard to achieve the unachievable because it was being destroyed right before our very eyes. While you are setting an example for little Johnny by working hard and saving money, the people you send them off to be educated by are teaching them this system is greedy and you are selfish. We simply can no longer sit on the sidelines and claim we need change while allowing the socialists to dominate the fields best suited to implement it.

In the past I have written extensively about being educated on Saul Alinsky and social activism in the college classroom. Social work education, at the bachelor level was nothing short of being taught how to be democratic operatives, or “social change agents.” In other words, colleges are teaching your kids how to be radicals, how to be a boat rocker. Occupy Wall Street was a perfect example of this as many of those people were college students begging for socialism. I tell you this to stress the urgency in which we need to act folks. We have to be the change we want to see and by doing this we have to start becoming the teachers, we have to start becoming the social workers, we have to start showing these kids how the liberals are failing them. We have to take advantage of the dire economic opportunities and use the fact that jobs like teaching and other “social service” related jobs are what is available and stack these positions with motivated conservatives, until; well until one hundred years from now we have changed our culture back.

Maybe I am not saying anything that hasn’t been said before, but after seeing firsthand the extent education in America has been destroyed, from the perspective of a college student arguing with communist professors and as a teacher inside the system, it has to be said again. I can only hope that what I say will resonate.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Know Nothing President Makes Excuses for Wrecking the Fourth

http://www.infowars.com/know-nothing-president-makes-excuses-for-wrecking-the-fourth/

A teleprompter reader left out in the cold as the national security state gains steam

Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com January 17, 2014

Obama’s aides claim he was surprised to learn about NSA surveillance. “Mr. Obama was surprised to learn after leaks by Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, just how far the surveillance had gone,” the New York Times reported earlier this week.

Obama will announce “toothless reforms” and it will be business as usual at the NSA.

Obama’s aides were also surprised. “Things seem to have grown at the N.S.A.,” David Plouffe, Obama sidekick and trusty advisor, told the newspaper, citing the surveillance of foreign leaders’ phones. “I think it was disturbing to most people, and I think he found it disturbing.”

Despite his alleged ignorance of NSA snooping, the Times tells us that as an Illinois senator Obama “supported robust surveillance as long as it was legal and appropriate,” whatever that means (normally it would mean respect for the Fourth Amendment and court-issued warrants), but once in the White House he changed his mind.

Story after story underscore constitutional law professor Obama’s remarkable conversion (in fact, Obama was a constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, not a professor, a useful skill now that he is the federal government’s chief teleprompter reader).

Aides said “his views have been shaped to a striking degree by the reality of waking up every day in the White House responsible for heading off the myriad threats he finds in his daily intelligence briefings,” briefings presented by agencies most involved in surveillance – the NSA, CIA, DIA, FBI, and other members of the intelligence community.

“When you get the package every morning, it puts steel in your spine,” said Plouffe. “There are people out there every day who are plotting. The notion that we would put down a tool that would protect people here in America is hard to fathom.”

A worthless tool, it should be added. Earlier this week we learned that unconstitutional NSA surveillance “has had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism.” Moreover, the White House’s own appointed review group has concluded that the NSA “counterterrorism program” (widespread violation of the Fourth Amendment) is “not essential to preventing attacks” and that much of the evidence it did turn up “could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional [court] orders.”

The review board examined 225 government terrorism cases. A report issued by the New America Foundation cites Najibullah Zazi, the street vendor who supposedly planned to bomb New York’s subway, although investigators admitted important facts were missing, including a specific target, date, and the recruitment of others to facilitate the terrorist attack. Moreover, no operational bomb existed. In other words, the terrorist attack was a fantasy gussied up into a full-fledged national security threat.

Despite the lack of a case and sketchy circumstantial evidence, the leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence committees showcased Zazi as the reason millions of Americans should surrender their Fourth Amendment.

“The instances where [squashing the Fourth Amendment and defecating on the Bill of Rights] has produced good – has disrupted plots, prevented terrorist attacks – is all classified, that’s what’s so hard about this,” said Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat. “So that we can’t actually go in there and, other than the two that have been released, give the public an actual idea of people that have been saved, attacks that have been prevented, that kind of thing.”

As for a number of cases rolled out by the FBI and subsequently used to defend NSA surveillance, see this page. The FBI has spent a lot of time and money grooming agent provocateurs who ferret out primarily witless patsies who are then paraded before the propaganda media as national security threats.

On Friday, Obama will deliver another of his teleprompter speeches and attempt to mollycoddle the American public into thinking the government will reform the NSA.

“President Obama will call Friday for ending the National Security Agency’s ability to store phone data from millions of Americans, and he will ask Congress, the Justice Department and the intelligence community to help decide who should hold these records, officials said,” USA Today reports.

“In his speech Friday on surveillance policy, Obama plans to argue that the metadata program is a major counterterrorism tool, but changes can be made to reassure Americans that it is not being abused.”

Obama, with plenty of help by the establishment media, will undoubtedly get away with this. Now that the government has more or less successfully sold the “only metadata” farce to the American people and successfully hitched this to a few dim-witted would-be terrorists (and others classified) who were steered by the FBI, we can expect the “reforms” announced by Obama today to be of little to no value in protecting the Constitution and our liberties.

The national security state has a keen interest in putting the finishing touches on its high-tech panopticon. The tempest, however minimal, thanks to the wholesale ignorance of the American people and the persistence of a surrealistic terror meme with its pantheon of scary Muslim boogiemen, will be subdued, for now, as the talking heads herald Obama’s “reforms” and move on.

This article was posted: Friday, January 17, 2014 at 10:40 am

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Image

Pathway Around Congress

Written

on January 17, 2014

THE MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLE YOU WILL READ TODAY!

Government Schools: Children Are the Path to Successful Tyranny

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/government-schools-children-path-successful-tyranny/#3uByosEPYjvbtQMl.99

Posted By Michael Peroutka on Jan 15, 2014

You can’t subjugate a Christian people. They won’t stand for it! A Christian culture will recognize and reject tyranny before tyranny can get a foothold. This is because a Biblically-literate and devoted people will not allow their civil government to tyrannically usurp the jurisdictions of self-government, family government, and church government.

A Christian people, by virtue of their understanding of God’s creation, their knowledge of history, their comprehension of the divine origin of law, and their assurance of heavenly citizenship, will never suffer earthly leaders who do not speak and act lawfully. A Christian people would not be so foolish as to allow those who mock law and justice to lead them.

(PLEASE take the time to see this presentation and PLEASE share it with other patriots. MrB)

In order, therefore, to subjugate and enslave a Christian people, you must first de-Christianize them. You must remove, from the culture, that which prevents you from conquering them. Piece by piece, Christian beliefs must be removed, along with the memory of those beliefs, from the minds of the people. This will take time.

You must concentrate on the children. You must take them away from their parents and every day, day by day, indoctrinate them to reject and forget the Christian ideas and habits of their fathers and their mothers, their grandfathers and their grandmothers. This is precisely what government schools were designed to do. This is what they have done and continue to do.

Once the people are de-Christianized, you can take away their rights. You can take away their property. You can take away their weapons. You can tell them lies that they will believe. You can kill them . . . or let them live, if it suits you.

You can’t conquer a Christian people. But if you can steal their children, and train them to believe that there is a wall of separation between God and government, then you can enslave them—or rather—they will have enslaved themselves.

Learn more about your Constitution with Michael Anthony Peroutka and his Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

&lt;img alt=” src=’http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/89a97c081fc6277021c6101f78a331a5?s=60&amp;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D60&amp;r=G’ class=’avatar avatar-60 photo’ height=’60’ width=’60’ />

Author: Michael Peroutka

Michael Peroutka is a Constitutional commentator, former nationally syndicated talk-show host, and founder of the Institute on the Constitution. Combined with his constitutional forefather style of writing, what makes him unique from every other columnist is that he includes a VIDEO for every commentary he posts, blending the new age of video with the traditional written commentary.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Liberty Depends Upon Informed “Consent of the Governed”

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/liberty-depends-upon-informed-consent-governed/#CKQ2ZRgOc13Tp6uO.99

Posted By David Risselada on Jan 15, 2014

DSCN1680

Did anybody ever believe we would see a day when so many people would forsake the liberties our nation has bestowed upon us in favor of false promises of security? With the possibility of a so called “convention of the states’” gaining momentum, this is a question that deserves a great deal of attention. While Benjamin Franklin will always be remembered for his declaration that people who forego liberty for security will end up with neither; it must be remembered that the constitution has within its own mechanisms, the very methods in which the people may abolish it. The constitution is written on the principle that legitimate power of government is dependent on the will and consent of the governed. What this essentially means is that only by a voluntary surrender of our constitutionally derived authority can the people lose it to absolute despotism. This one principle must be remembered as we drive ever closer to the possibility of what is being referred to as an Article V convention. Many scribes have referred to an Article V convention as a fallacy, while others, claiming to be strict constitutional conservatives, hail it as the only way to save the republic. This author intends to research the legitimacy of a “convention of the states” as it is believed that only congress can call a constitutional convention, and as Publius Huldah writes in this article, state legislators can only appeal to the congress and apply for a convention, they can’t run one.

While the possibility of a convention may be appealing on many levels, the very fact that the constitution derives its authority from the consent of the governed could very well cause problems in today’s world. Many millions of people have jumped on board Obama’s magical, fundamental transformation choo choo train, and could very well demand its abolishment. As Publius points out in her article, the method of ratifying the new constitution in 1787 was new and developed as they went. What would stop people who conspire to do away with it from making new rules that support the demands of those, which would be represented as, “consenting to its abolishment?” Or as another author on the subject Robert Broadus asks, “What will stop progressives from taking full advantage of this convention and completely rewriting it in their image?”

When dealing with the “consent of the governed” issue, you have to realize that those seeking to usurp your liberties know full well that only by your “consent” can they place you under their thumb. This surely explains why an education concerning the constitution virtually ends in junior high school. Only a public educated in the science of constitutional government, a public fully aware of their rights and a public with the moral intestinal fortitude to self-govern will maintain their personal liberty. The very idea of freedom is now viewed as a reason our nation has so many problems. The constitution itself has become, in the eyes of those educated in the doctrines of social justice, as “oppressive.” While those espousing the principles of liberty understand the necessity of binding the hands of those that govern, others, having been taught that they deserve an equal share of society’s resources view it as a means of limiting government’s power to provide it for them. The system our founders put in place, as President Obama so often declares, prevents him from establishing the promised Utopian paradise of socialism and therefore, is hampering progress.

In other words, society, through education, is being taught to consent to tyranny. People have been denied an honest education into constitutional government as a means of convincing them of the need for social change. By teaching people that they are oppressed, they are organizing a mass power base in which to carry out their bidding, which when implemented, is actually being done in accordance with the constitution itself. Let’s take the words of Justice Story from “Familiar Exposition of the Constitution.”

We shall treat our constitution, not as a mere compact, or league, or confederacy, existing at the mere will of any one or more of the States, during their good pleasure; but, (as it purports on its face to be) as a Constitution of Government, framed and adopted by the people of the United States, and obligatory upon all the States, until it is altered, amended, or abolished by the people, in the manner pointed out in the instrument itself. (Meese, Spalding & Forte, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, 2005)

As it is clearly stated here, the constitution, being written to instill legitimate powers of government from the consent of the governed, can very well be done away with if that’s what the “governed” consent to. With the progressive left being in control of much of our government and a huge portion of the population completely ignorant on what liberties would disappear with the abolishment of the constitution, perhaps an Article V convention should be viewed as a legitimate way for those seeking total power to obtain it. Before rushing into this potential disaster, perhaps an effort to educate the nation on the constitution is in order. When everyone understands what the constitution really says and why it says it, if they still want a convention, at least it will be by “informed consent.”

Author: David Risselada

David Risselada is a freelance writer and researcher. In addition to contributing to FreedomOutpost.com, he writes at Radical Conservative. Follow David on Twitter.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

The 1600 Pennsylvania Street Gang

http://therealside.com/blog/The-1600-Pennsylvania-Street-Gang

By Joe Messina of TheRealSide.com/blog

January 5, 2014

Many of you know that I grew up in Boston. No, not outside of Boston. Not North of Boston. Not 2 hours from Boston. But in Boston proper. I grew up in the days when the Mafia acted in plain view. They were powerful and didn’t care who saw what. They were above the law and knew it. They owned the law and the people were afraid, some in fear of their lives, some in fear of their welfare.

I’ve been told the Chicago Mafia is much more ruthless and powerful. I can’t imagine. What I grew up with was pretty bad.

You see, they could walk up to a busy intersection, shoot someone in the head, watch him fall to the ground, pop him a few more times for good measure, and through all this, no one would “see anything.” When the police arrived, eventually, and all the local proprietors were questioned, no one ever saw anything, ever! They knew something unspeakable would happen to them and no one could help them.

This is how the American people are feeling about the Obama administration. This “Gang” never stops. This Gang is above the law, with President Obama acting as “Don” or leader and Attorney General Eric Holder as his “Capo” or captain. This Gang has so crippled the people of this country that we have gone from a nation to fear and respect to a nation to be ridiculed and laughed at.

The Gang has ruined our relationships oversees. Nobel peace prize winner and freedom fighter Lech Wałęsa recently said that Mr. Obama has ruined the credibility of America.

Americans should have seen this coming as far back as the 2009 elections. The New Black Panther group intimidates white voters ON VIDEO. Don Obama’s ultimate law officer, Capo Holder, does NOTHING! DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams quit his job because he was basically told to back off. When he wouldn’t let it go, the Gang made it very uncomfortable for him.

Election fraud is not investigated. Tens of thousands of dead and illegals voted in the last presidential election and Capo Holder did NOTHING!

Many states have legalized marijuana, however, it is still against federal law and Capo Holder does NOTHING! The chief law enforcement officer of the United States, Capo Holder, won’t bother the states as long as they adhere to a few guidelines, one being it can’t be sold to minors. Because that law works so well on cigarettes and booze. No minors ever get those. (Yes, that’s sarcasm!)

The Gang won’t enforce a law banning same sex couples from receiving veterans benefits. Capo Holder said that even though it’s the law “Decisions by the Executive branch not to enforce federal laws are appropriately rare,” (though not with this Gang), this one makes sense because the law will eventually change. (Is that how our legal system works now?)

The Gang won’t prosecute Goldman Sachs or its employees for financial fraud. Capo Holder said, “We conducted an exhaustive investigation of allegations brought to light by a Senate panel investigating the financial crisis. And feel there is not enough to prosecute.” Huh? Every other agency but the Gang has found evidence of fraud.

Family members of Don Obama have somehow eluded immigration laws and the DOJ because the Gang has protected them. His uncle in Boston has owned a liquor store, been “technically” deported several times, failed to show up for deportation hearings several times, and been arrested for drunk driving. Even after all that, he is still running around free in this country! His aunt is fleecing welfare and wants more AND she is not even an American citizen.

Fast and furious caused the death of a Border Patrol Officer (at least one officer that we know of, and countless other people) and the Gang refuses to allow the DOJ to investigate.

Meanwhile, the Gang is actively pursuing at least one law-abiding German immigrant family to deport them back to their country of origin. Why? Their visa expired and their reason for seeking political asylum isn’t good enough for the Gang. A judge granted their asylum petition, but Capo Holder’s DOJ takes time out of their busy schedule to overturn the ruling and is deporting them anyway.

Yet the Gang refuses to pursue more pressing issues of national security, immigration, and voting laws and simply enforce the other laws on the books? What does this family have that the others don’t have? It’s actually what they don’t have… a connection to the Gang.

I could write so much more on this. Don Obama issues laws AKA Executive Orders. For someone who was supposed to be a constitutional professor he has no clue as to how a “bill becomes a law” and the checks and balances called out in the Constitution.

He obviously doesn’t understand that the presidency and a dictatorship are NOT one in the same.

People, PAY ATTENTION, the REAL MOB is working the White House. You have to play by their rules. Laws are only for you to follow and them to change on a whim. And should you happen to get in the way… there’s always the IRS.

Wake up America… or you’re going to lose it!

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Exposing the Global Efforts Behind the Homosexual Agenda

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/exposing-global-efforts-behind-homosexual-agenda/#WUv3jL5oMSDVjkZj.99

Written on Monday, January 6, 2014 by David Risselada

Over the past three years, Americans have been witness to vicious media assaults on any group or business that goes against the politically-correct position on same sex-marriage and the gay agenda. Chick- Fil-A and Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson immediately come to mind; however, there have been other instances of state intervention against private businesses refusing to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples as well. To put it simply, there is an obvious effort on the part of the left to demonize anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda and the argument being used is that disagreement with their ideals equates to hatred and bigotry. (I have written other articles describing the tactics employed by the radical homosexual lobby, “Child Sexual Abuse and the Repeal of Age of Consent Laws” and “Sexualizing your Children through Values Clarification Education” which can be viewed here http://radicalconservativerisso.blogspot.com/2013/12/sexualizing-your-children-with-value.html and here http://radicalconservativerisso.blogspot.com/2013/12/child-sexual-abuse-and-repealing-of-age.html These are essentially the same type of civil rights tactics employed in the 1960’s, and looking at how much progress has been made in gaining acceptance of homosexuality, it can be argued they are very successful strategies.

As the battle against political correctness and the gay agenda continues, it should be noted that this is a fight that is occurring on a global scale as well. The New American is reporting on a story from Italy where the media has been exposed as forcing journalists to report on the gay lifestyle in a positive light or perhaps face consequences as harsh as jail time. What is most significant about this development is the fact that these mandates are coming from the superior European Union governing structure; they are being forced onto Italy’s government from a U.N. type global governing body. The Italian government is not taking this lightly and in fact, like many people in America, the parliament are calling the homosexual agenda out for what it is, a fascistic, dictatorial type movement where any disagreement or opposition must be eliminated. That would all be done in the name of fairness, of course. The article can be read here. http://thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/17299-citing-eu-italy-orders-journalists-to-promote-homosexual-agenda

This is similar to the efforts made earlier in the spring of 2013, by the DOJ, to force acceptance of the gay life style in the American work place. While many Americans are simply “O.K.” with people being gay already, as long as they don’t have it shoved down their throats, or as long as their sexual exploits stay where they should, in their private lives; Eric Holder thought this wasn’t “fair enough.” Claiming that a failure to make some sort of positive comment towards a person gay lifestyle was a “sort of discrimination” if you will. The DOJ was insisting that silence signaled disapproval and this would not be tolerated. http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2013/05/20/doj-on-gays-silence-will-be-interpreted-as-disapproval-n1600777/page/full If these two examples of forced compliance aren’t proof of the radical methods employed by the homosexual lobby, than I don’t know what is.

The truth is, the radical homosexual lobby is just another leftist, communist front group dedicated to the destruction of traditional morality and America’s Christian heritage. Communists believe that the only way they can force human beings into subjugation is by destroying any connection to the divine. The first step in doing this is destroying morality. This is done by the promotion of homosexuality as being normal and healthy, exactly what is going on in our schools today. This is actually listed as one of the goals of the Communist Party (Number 26): Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural and healthy.”

By promoting homosexuality as normal, human beings are turned against one of the very purposes of their existence, procreation. It is self destructive because if enough people are encouraged to be gay the growth of the human population would be limited. There is a good chance that the communists seeking to change our culture are fully aware of this as well, which is why they got behind the movement. Is it possible that the teaching of homosexuality is also geared to aid in U.N. population control efforts? Looking at the points made in my article “The Truth of Agenda 21” where the U.N. has been exposed using abortion and family planning to achieve such ends you can’t discount the possibility. Whatever the case may be, the left knew the homosexual movement would tear America apart.

Once Americans are separated from the divine then the idea of God given rights, the idea of “liberty being derived from God” is all but destroyed. Men then become subjects of the state, they look to government to grant them rights, and they look to government to solve their problems. I believe that this is the true motivation behind the gay agenda. If what they believe is normal and acceptable, then why do they feel the need to shove it down our throats? They claim homosexuality is normal because it can be observed in the animal kingdom while marriage is something that is not observed in nature. This, as I have pointed out several other times is a result of Darwinism in our schools. By placing man in a category where he is no different than any other animal, the foundation for separating him from the divine built. No one has to force the idea of men and women being married down society’s throat because there is an obvious reason for the coupling of men and women, the creation and the raising of children. The coupling of same sex couples has no obvious reasoning; therefore it is hard to accept as normal no matter how hard the communist left attempt to normalize it.

Follow me on twitter @jkdriss or visit my blog at www.radicalconservativerisso.blogspot.com

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

9 Things You Didn’t Know About the Second Amendment

http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2014/01/9-things-didnt-know-second-amendment/#4LEYkTWceCc3kJq6.99

By GJWHG / 2 January 2014

1. The Second Amendment codifies a pre-existing right

We hold these truths to be self-evident...inalienable

The Constitution doesn’t grant or create rights; it recognizes and protects rights that inherently exist. This is why the Founders used the word “unalienable” previously in the Declaration of Independence; these rights cannot be created or taken away. In D.C. vs. Heller, the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed … this is not a right granted by the Constitution” (p. 19).

2. The Second Amendment protects individual, not collective rights

Individual exercising 2nd Amendment

The use of the word “militia” has created some confusion in modern times, because we don’t understand the language as it was used at the time the Constitution was written. However, the Supreme Court states in context, “it was clearly an individual right” (p. 20). The operative clause of the Second Amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” which is used three times in the Bill of Rights. The Court explains that “All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body” (p. 5), adding “nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right” (p. 6).

3. Every citizen is the militia

Militia American Revolution

To further clarify regarding the use of the word “militia,” the court states “the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men” (p. 23). Today we would say it is all citizens, not necessarily just men. The Court explains: “’Keep arms’ was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else” (p. 9). Since the militia is all of us, it doesn’t mean “only carrying a weapon in an organized military unit” (p. 11-12). “It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia” (p. 20).

4. Personal self-defense is the primary purpose of the Second Amendment

Self-Defense class

We often hear politicians talk about their strong commitment to the Second Amendment while simultaneously mentioning hunting. Although hunting is a legitimate purpose for firearms, it isn’t the primary purpose for the Second Amendment. The Court states “the core lawful purpose [is] self-defense” (p. 58), explaining the Founders “understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves … the ‘right of self-preservation’ as permitting a citizen to ‘repe[l] force by force’ when ‘the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury’ (p.21). They conclude “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” (p.56).

5. The Second Amendment exists to prevent tyranny

Tyranny

You’ve probably heard this. It’s listed because this is one of those things about the Second Amendment that many people think is made up. In truth, this is not made up. The Court explains that in order to keep the nation free (“security of a free state”), then the people need arms: “When the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny” (p.24-25). The Court states that the Founders noted “that history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents” (p. 25). At the time of ratification, there was real fear that government could become oppressive: “during the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive” (p.25). The response to that concern was to codify the citizens’ militia right to arms in the Constitution (p. 26).

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

One More Step to Usher In the Anti-Christ

Uprising as Obama plans to skirt Congress on ‘New World Order’

http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/uprising-as-obama-plans-to-skirt-congress-on-new-world-order/#tuC8FkgbvBiDX6cx.99

Protest planned against ambitious free-trade agreement

Published: 20 hours ago

Jerome R. Corsi

About Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command.” Corsi’s latest book is “Who Really Killed Kennedy?”

NEW YORK – Can ordinary citizens protesting on the Internet block the Obama administration’s plan to ram through Congress one of the most ambitious globalist, “free-trade agreements” ever negotiated?

Very quietly, opposition is building on the Internet to oppose legislation that may be introduced as soon as Jan. 8. The measure would grant President Obama what is known as “fast track authority” to ram through Congress the Trans-Pacific Partnership with limited debate and no opportunity to propose amendments. The international trade agreement, negotiated largely in secret by the Obama administration, is regarded by globalist free traders as a cornerstone of the emerging “New World Order.”

A Facebook page has been created to call for a “Anti-TPP Twitter Storm” on New Year’s Day beginning at 7 p.m. Eastern Time.

“Anti-TPP Twitter Storm Wednesday 1/1/14 @ 4 p.m. PST/7 p.m. EST, the whole world will tweet and post an ANTI-TPP hashtag (to be announced) with posts about why people should stop the Trans Pacific Partnership,” the Facebook page reads.

“The goal of this ‘hashtag storm’ is to get this hashtag trending on both Twitter and Facebook, so we can inform the public about the dangers of the Trans Pacific Partnership and agitate people to ACT to stop the TPP. Join us and help expose the corporate coup known as the Trans Pacific Partnership.”

Obama’s ‘two –ocean’ free-trade agenda

As WND previously reported, Obama, in his State of the Union address Feb. 12, announced a two-ocean globalist free-trade agenda:

“To boost American exports, support American jobs, and level the playing field in the growing markets of Asia, we intend to complete negotiations on a Trans-Pacific Partnership,” he said. “And tonight, I am announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union – because trade that is free and fair across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs.”

For the first time, a decision by the U.S. Trade Representative within the Executive Office of the President was made public to expand the ongoing negotiations for a free-trade zone with Pacific Rim countries to include a a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with European Union countries.

Now there is no doubt the Obama administration has decided in the second term to double-up on a globalist agenda to develop massive new free-trade agreements across both the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, adding a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TAP, to what is being developed as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP.

Fast-track authority

WND has reported Obama administration plans in development for the past two years are ready be implemented as Democrats in Congress plan to pass the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade agreement with a simple majority vote that would skirt the two-thirds vote in the Senate that the U.S. Constitution requires to ratify a treaty.

The strategy centers on what is known as “fast track authority,” a provision under the Trade Promotion Authority that requires Congress to review a free-trade agreement, or FTA, under limited debate, in an accelerated time frame that is subject to a yes-or-no vote by Congress without any provision for Congress to modify the agreement by submitting amendments. Fast-track authority is also intended to reassure foreign partners that the FTA negotiated by the executive branch will not be altered by Congress during the legislative process.

A report released Jan. 24 by the Congressional Research Service, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Issues for Congress,” makes clear the Obama administration does not have fast-track authority to negotiate the TPP, even though the office of the U.S. Trade Representative is acting as if it were in place:

The present negotiations are not being conducted under the auspices of formal trade promotion authority (TPA) – the latest TPA expired on July 1, 2007 – although the Administration informally is following the procedures of the former TPA. If TPP implementing legislation is brought to Congress, TPA may need to be considered if the legislation is not to be subject to potentially debilitating amendments or rejection. Finally, Congress may seek to weigh in on the addition of new members to the negotiations, before or after the negotiations conclude.

The CRS report states that the TPP is being negotiated as a regional free-trade agreement that U.S. negotiators describe as a “comprehensive and high-standard” FTA that they hope “will liberalize trade in nearly all goods and services and include commitments beyond those currently established in the World Trade Organization (WTO.)”

That the Obama administration is treating the TPP like a TPA and not a formal treaty obligation strongly suggests the Obama majority will seek passage of the TPP by a simple majority vote in Congress.

Still, the impact of the TPP will be equivalent to a formal treaty obligation in that agreements made within the TPP will be designed to supersede U.S. law with the regional authorities as specified within the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

So, the last hurdle the Obama administration faces in making the TPP law is to get Congress to vote fast-track authority as the terms under which the TPP will be introduced to Congress.

As a consequence, one of the few remaining strategies left to opponents of the TPP is to urge Congress to vote against giving the Obama administration fast-track authority when the issue comes up for debate, possibly as early as next week.

Advancing the NWO agenda

The globalists advising the Obama administration appear to have learned from the adverse public reaction to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, during the administration of President George W. Bush. Obama has avoided the leader summit meetings that exposed to a critical alternative news media the international “working group” coordination needed to create international free-trade agreements.

Globalists have learned from the adverse reaction that such internationalist adventures as the Trans-Texas Highway, known as the NAFTA Super-Highway, will only succeed if such initiatives are pursued covertly with a determination to ridicule anyone who dares contemplate its larger purpose of increasing global sovereignty.

The Obama administration has shut down the Security and Prosperity Partnership website, SPP.gov. The last joint statement issued by the newly formed North American Leaders Summit, operating as the rebranded SPP, was issued April 2, 2012, at the conclusion of the last tri-lateral head-of-state meeting held between the U.S., Mexico and Canada in Washington, D.C.

Now, with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Obama administration appears to have leap-frogged SPP ambitions to create a North American Union by including Mexico and Canada in the TPP configuration.

The 10 nations involved in the TPP include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

A graph presented in the CRS report on the first page shows the reach of the agreement across the Pacific, including Peru and Chile in South America; Australia and New Zealand; Malaysia and Vietnam in Southeast Asia; Singapore; and Japan.

As seen in the North American detail below, trade from Canada extends down into roughly Oklahoma in the United States, and trade from Mexico extends north roughly to Colorado.

At the same time, trade from Mexico is seen both as extending up into the United States, reaching across the Pacific Ocean to the Asian and Pacific Rim nations involved in the FTA.

International tribunal dispute resolution

A leaked copy of the TPP draft makes clear in Chapter 15, “Dispute Settlement,” that the Obama administration intends to surrender U.S. sovereignty to adjudicate disputes arising under the TPP to the processes of an international tribunal.

Disputes involving interpretation and application of the TPP agreement, according to Article 15.7, will be adjudicated by an “arbitral tribunal” composed of three TPP members whose purpose under Article 15.8 will be “to make an objective assessment of the dispute before it, including an examination of the facts of the case and the applicability of and conformity with this Agreement, and make such other findings and rulings necessary for the resolution of the dispute referred to it as it thinks fits.”

The TPP draft agreement does not specify that these arbitral tribunals must render decisions in compliance with U.S. law or that the decisions of the arbitral tribunals are invalid should they violate or otherwise contravene U.S. law.

Investment disputes under the TPP appear to be relegated for resolution to the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, an international authority created by 158 nations that are signatories to the ICSID Convention created under the auspices of the World Bank.

The TPP draft agreement specifies that foreign firms from Trans-Pacific signatory countries that seek to do business in the U.S. can apply to the arbitral tribunals to obtain relief under the trade pact from complying with onerous U.S. laws and regulations, including environmental regulations and financial disclosure rules.

Because the TPP agreement places arbitral tribunals created under TPP above U.S. law, the Obama administration appears to be intent on creating a judicial authority higher than the U.S. Supreme Court. The tribunal could overrule decisions U.S. federal courts make to apply U.S. laws and regulations to foreign corporations doing business within the U.S.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Spiritual Warfare

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/spiritual-warfare/#I63uzGzYKFbTfUeE.99

Written on Thursday, December 19, 2013 by David Risselada

It is overwhelmingly obvious to all paying attention that we are being governed by people who absolutely do not share in the traditional values that made this country great. The vast majority of people in this nation; however, still hold the ideal of individual liberty in very high regard as well as the fundamental Christian principles that were the driving force behind the creation of our government and system of laws. People still believe our constitution should remain the law of the land and furthermore many people are becoming increasingly frustrated with the continuous usurpations of power by the current governing body. In fact, many people are fully aware that we are being governed by communists whose number one goal is the destruction of American sovereignty in favor of a global hierarchy in which we find ourselves subservient to the whims of global dictators. In order to overcome this we have to understand it for what it is, spiritual warfare.

Communism is generally understood, at the very least, to be a system of economics in which government controls all aspects of a societies production. This is purported to ensure equality and fairness among the masses. Communist regimes have historically claimed that a utopian, egalitarian paradise awaited the masses that would simply surrender their rights and let government have the necessary power. Others believe communism to be a system of absolute atheism, where the belief in a God other than the state was absolutely forbidden as people who worshipped a God would not offer total subservience to the governing powers. While these descriptions may give someone a basic understanding of what communism is, they are not totally accurate. Communism was actually created for the very purpose of destroying religion and being the anti thesis to western capitalism. Communism itself is a Hegelian dialectic created to cause conflict between two world views, religion and anti religion, which would eventually see the rise of what many people recognize as the New World Order.

In order to gain a better understanding we have to look at Karl Marx, the man who was understood to be the founder of socialism/communism. Though there is reason to believe that Marx was simply financed by others to create this system, it is generally understood that he was an atheist and his lack of religion is what motivated him to create what has become known as the most oppressive governing system known to man. Karl Marx was not an atheist; he was at one point in his life a devout Christian whose knowledge of scripture and Biblical principles were well rounded. In fact the following quote was written by Marx when he was young. “Union with Christ could give an inner elevation, comfort in sorrow, calm trust, and a heart susceptible to human love, to everything noble and great, not for the sake of ambition and glory, but only for the sake of Christ”. http://www.cuttingedge.org/pages/seminar2/MARXPASS.htm

This certainly doesn’t sound like the ramblings of someone who hated or didn’t believe in God. The truth is, at some point in the life of Karl Marx, he became very angry and turned on God. Karl Marx became a Satanist. Why this happened remains unknown but the later of writings of Marx confirmed that he had indeed turned his back on God and became one with God’s adversary. The following quote illustrates this. “…Yet I have power within my youthful arms

To clench and crush you (i.e., personified humanity)

with tempestuous force,

While for us both the abyss yawns in darkness.

You will sink down and I shall follow laughing,

Whispering in your ears ‘Descend,

come with me, friend’”.

For some reason, that again remains unknown, Karl Marx became a man filled with hatred towards God and this is what motivated him to create communism. Though as stated above there is reason to believe that others from a group commonly known as the Illuminati actually paid Marx to create it. Take this quote for example from cuttingedge.org. “We know that, in 1848, a highly select body of secret initiates who called themselves the League of Twelve Just Men of the Illuminati, financed Karl Marx to write the Communist Manifesto.”

This puts our understanding of communism into a different perspective, doesn’t it?

The essential understanding that should be taken from this is that communism wasn’t created as an economic system to create total equality; it was created as a system of governance to be run by Satan in an effort to destroy humanity and mans divine connection to God. That is why it was created as an “Anti-Thesis” to western capitalism. The ideas behind capitalism, liberty, the free market and every other value that made America great all revolve around one spiritual absolute, and that is that man was created with free will. What does socialism and communism always do? They create populations of non thinking people who become totally helpless and dependent on government. Would this happen if they retained their belief in God and operated from the notion they were born with free will? This is why communism seeks to destroy religion, or as Marx described it in The Communist Manifesto “Destroy God in the minds of men.” The purpose wasn’t to create a system full of atheists but to create the conditions that would enable the creation of Satan’s new order. Creating atheism was but a means to an end in the quest to defeat God.

To further illustrate this let’s examine our current presidents continuous assault upon the economy that does little but destroy opportunity, and create dependence. The economy has become so bad we have more people living on welfare than working. This does nothing but enslaves, and destroys an individual’s initiative. Soon, people forget how to care for themselves and they will forego their principles and vote for whomever guarantees to maintain their lifestyle of dependence. By removing opportunities to live self sufficient lives, the Marxists create a system of slavery and convince everyone that it was done in the name of fairness. It’s the same story every time. The question is; can Marxism prevail in the Land of the free? Or, do we still have the moral, intestinal fortitude to stop it?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

This Went Unnoticed: President Obama Added “Living Wages” to the Bill of Rights

independentsentinel.com

http://www.independentsentinel.com/this-went-unnoticed-obama-added-living-wages-to-the-bill-of-rights/

December 16, 2013

By Sara Noble

The White House issued a presidential proclamation declaring December 15th Bill of Rights Day. That’s very nice except that he added Karl Marx’ living wages to his interpretation of the Bill of Rights. He can never simply talk about the US Bill of Rights without adding propaganda.

By doing that, Mr. Obama is attempting to change the meaning our Founding Fathers ascribed to the document.

The proclamation is fine until it the third paragraph (emphasis mine):

We learned that our Nation, built on the principles of freedom and equality, could not survive half-slave and half-free. We resolved that our daughters must have the same rights, the same chances, and the same freedom to pursue their dreams as our sons, and that if we are truly created equal, then the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. Americans with disabilities tore down legal and social barriers; disenfranchised farmworkers united to claim their rights to dignity, fairness, and a living wage; civil rights activists marched, bled, and gave their lives to bring the era of segregation to an end. As we celebrate the anniversary of the Bill of Rights, let us reach for a day when we all may enjoy the basic truths of liberty and equality.

Since when did Thomas Jefferson include a living wage in the Bill of Rights? When Mr. Obama mentions farmworkers, Mr. Obama is referring to people primarily here illegally, also not what the Founders had in mind.

There is nothing in here about entitlements which is what a living wage is:

bill of rights

It might do Mr. Obama some good if he thought about what the Founders actually did say. For instance, they said taxation without representation is tyranny.

Obama is propagandizing the Bill of Rights to convince the American people that a guarantee of living wages is part of our Constitution.

The right to work hard and have equal opportunity is guaranteed, not entitlements.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Gingrich: “Every major city which is a poverty center is run by Democrats.”

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/12/16/gingrich-every-major-city-which-is-a-poverty-center-is-run-by-democrats/

Gingrich: "Every major city which is a poverty center is run by Democrats." By: John Hayward

Courtesy of NewsBusters, here’s one of those heated exchanges that partisans of both Left and Right are bound to view as a slam-dunk in-your-face win for their side, as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Clinton-era Labor Secretary Robert Reich spar over poverty and policy on ABC’s “This Week.”

In the exchange, Reich argues that the War on Poverty was going great until tight-fisted Republicans started interfering with Democrat plans to redistribute even more wealth, and claims “income inequality” has gotten worse under Obama because of Republican resistance to his agenda. This is, quite possibly, the dumbest thing anyone has ever said. Just for starters, it projects staggering ignorance about the War on Poverty. To agree with Reich, you have to be just about completely ignorant of actual history, not only from decades past but from the explosion of wealth redistribution and social welfare spending under the past few Presidents, particularly Obama.

But of course, it’s tedious leftist cant to insist that the only reason their policies fail is that they weren’t given another couple trillion dollars to pursue them more vigorously. Every failure of State control is caused by insufficient State control. The Daily Caller offers a look at how the War on Poverty was going when Reich was on the front lines under Clinton, and his history of deliberately misrepresenting that history:

One thing Reich isn’t taking responsibility for is his own contribution to inequality during his widely regretted stint in the White House. Working as the Clinton Administration’s Labor Secretary from 1993 to 1997, Reich oversaw a substantial hike in the federal minimum wage and implementation of the Family Leave Act. Despite these apparent War-On-Poverty victories, according to inequality.org‘s chart of after-tax income by income group, U.S. inequality during his tenure grew at the fastest rate ever seen up until that time.

Reich left office prior to the late-Clinton-era boom that lifted all wage groups and saw the last balanced budgets in American history. He later slammed his former colleagues in the memoir “Locked In the Cabinet,” which was universally criticized and had to be substantially re-edited in later editions due to Reich’s multiple distortions and outright falsehoods.

Reich is a hardcore socialist, and socialists lie. It’s what they do. It’s baked into the very essence of their being, because their philosophy assumes the absolute primacy of a wise Ruling Class elite that knows how best to arrange society in a “fair” and “just” manner. This involves the use of compulsive force to seize assets and income from their rightful owners, plus a good deal of forcing average citizens to live as the Ruling Class desires.

Unfortunately, the Western socialist lives with the unpleasant reality of popular elections, where the people have a distressing ability to reject the vision of the Ruling Class and insist on their liberties. Therefore, it is inescapably necessary for the great and wise to lie to voters, because they can’t handle the truth. It’s for their own good, so it’s all totally justified. By definition, the common man lacks the vision of the elite, so he cannot be allowed to thwart that vision by voting against it. You will never be granted complete candor by people who believe that you must be forced to do certain things for the greater benefit of society, as they envision it, because such candor would inevitably lead to greater resistance. The path to utopia will require many sacrifices, so the ignorant people must be led down it blindfolded.

Gingrich hits back hard against Reich’s assertion that Republican stonewalling of the Obama agenda is the only reason we haven’t drawn closer to utopia over the past five years, calling it “baloney.” Gingrich shot back: “Every major city which is a center of poverty is run by Democrats. Every major city. Their policies have failed, they’re not willing to admit it, and the fact is, it’s the poor who suffer from bad government.”

Reich stammered something about how outgoing New York mayor Michael Bloomberg wasn’t a Democrat, but aside from Bloomberg’s decidedly government-centered philosophy, the rest of New York’s political machinery has been safely in Democrat hands forever. No one is going to “solve” the poverty debate in an exchange of sound bites, but Gingrich’s point about how badly-run government causes the greatest suffering among the poor is far more solid than anything Reich says, and it’s worth exploring further.

Perhaps the point begins as something of a tautology, because the poor are, by definition, “suffering” worst from a policy standpoint under any system of government. But what Gingrich means is that bad government policies are particularly destructive to the opportunities for employment and stability essential to the climb out of poverty. Reich is an utter fool to believe that these opportunities can be replaced by titanic government spending programs; the Obama years are definitive proof that doesn’t work. As a left-wing propagandist, he might deserve a little applause for having the chutzpah to make his “just give us more money to spend and we’ll get it right” argument in favor of managerial liberalism at the exact moment ObamaCare is crashing down in flames, the most devastating failure of Reich’s ideals since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Over a trillion dollars in “stimulus” spending gave us permanent double-digit real unemployment. Even the heavily cooked unemployment rate popularized by the news media has been stuck over 7 percent for years, and it’s a lot worse in the demographics Gingrich and Reich are discussing. When Obama imposed his stimulus spending agenda, all the “smart people” in his elite team assured us their plans would bring unemployment under 5 percent by the end of the President’s first term. Instead, the job market tracked consistently and significantly worse than the worst-case scare-tactic conditions they warned would occur without their redistribution scheme.

The social pathologies incubated by the Great Society turned cities into blighted war zones, not only because of the corrosive effect cradle-to-grave welfare has on the people it’s ostensibly trying to “help,” but because the cities ruled by Democrats have become the hardest places in America to launch a business venture or hire someone. Their stale political cultures have been very lucrative for the ruling party’s cronies, but smokestacks of despair for everyone else. Knowing that things will never change makes small entrepreneurs – the people who don’t get front-page headline coverage for throwing political fundraisers – depart the dying cities to seek opportunity elsewhere. We’re not talking about a few people bailing out and skedaddling for the burbs just because a couple of elections don’t go their way. We’re discussing cities with generational histories of one-party rule and machine politics. To this day, their ruling political machines have absolutely no idea how to reverse the decline, because everything that might work is completely antithetical to their statist ideology, not to mention their hunger for government revenue.

The day Margaret Thatcher warned about has arrived – the Left has run out of other peoples’ money to spend. Even the vast ocean of federal spending and debt is not bottomless. We’ve arguably passed the point where the geese of industry can be squeezed by the State for more golden eggs, without choking them to death. A great deal of Obama malaise is caused by government overtaxing and over-regulating the private sector far beyond the point where the net result is counter-productive. This economy is begging for pro-growth tax reforms and the privatization of moribund government programs, beginning with ObamaCare, which managed the neat trick of being born moribund. The situation is even more pronounced in the cities Newt Gingrich mentioned, which offer a glimpse into our national future for anyone with the intellectual honesty to look clearly. The private sector needs to get bigger, and fast. It is no longer strong enough to carry the flabby Ruling Class riding on its back.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

First major victim of Harry Reid’s tyrannous Senate majority could be separation of church and state

http://washingtonexaminer.com/first-major-victim-of-harry-reids-tyrannous-senate-majority-could-be-separation-of-church-and-state/article/2540765

By MARK TAPSCOTT

Whereas before 60 votes were required to end debate on a nominee, now only a simply majority of 51 senators can silence opponents and force a final vote for or against confirmation.

The 60-vote threshold forced supporters and opponents of a nomination to temper their views, thus encouraging reasonable compromise rather than straight-up all-or-nothing votes that can enable a majority to tyrannize a minority. That’s the theory anyway.

Late last week, Senate Democrats confirmed Cornelia Pillard to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. “That makes two additional Obama nominees on the court with the lightest workload, and it gives leftists a 6-4 advantage on the court that hears most challenges to executive actions,” according to the Patriot Post.

Pillard, a tenured Georgetown University law professor, is a former Clinton administration Department of Justice political appointee. She is, according to National Review Online’s Patrick Brennan, “probably the most extreme of President Obama’s” many federal judicial nominees.

How extreme is she?

In 2011, Pillard said of a case then before the Supreme Court that the idea that “the Constitution requires deference to Church decisions about who qualifies as a minister … seems like a real stretch.”

The Supremes unanimously disagreed with Pillard and affirmed that the government has no power to tell churches who they can and cannot hire as ministers.

If Pillard’s view prevailed, there would be no such thing as separation of church and state, nor would the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom be anything other than mere words.

Pillard now has power

Pillard is now part of a liberal majority of the appeals court with the most influence on what is commonly referred to as the second most important court in the country.

This comes at a time when, as today’s Washington Examiner editorial points out, liberals are assaulting the traditional understanding of religious freedom on many fronts.

Sooner or later, Pillard’s panel will have to decide a case whose outcome could determine which side wins the liberal war on the First Amendment.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

South Carolina to Nullify Obamacare

http://eaglerising.com/3528/south-carolina-nullify-obamacare/#ZMBUrsMq0CfbmTo1.99

By Onan Coca / 12 December 2013

The “South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act,” or South Carolina’s House Bill 3101, will likely pass through the South Carolina Senate chamber and could effectively eliminate Obamacare in South Carolina. It could also serve as a model that other conservative states could look to when trying to formulate their own plans for eliminating Obamacare in their states.

In all likelihood South Carolina will soon be the first state to exempt their populace from any participation in the Obamacare scheme.

State Senator Tom Davis, who sponsored the bill, says, “It will essentially have five components to it, all of which in my judgment are legal, effective, and within the state’s power to do. What the Supreme Court said in Printz v. United States is that states are not merely political subdivisions of the federal government to carry out what the federal government does; they are sovereign entities. Congress can pass laws, but it cannot compel the states to utilize either their treasury or personnel to implement those federal laws.”

South Carolina’s Senate is dominated by Republicans, but even some of the Democrat members are likely to agree to the bill. Governor Nikki Haley (R-SC) has been an outspoken opponent of Obamacare and will also very likely jump at the chance to be the first Governor in the United States to stand up to the Obama administration by outlawing Obamacare in South Carolina.

Of course, the federal government could enact and handle Obamacare in South Carolina without the state’s help, but given how badly the Obamacare rollout has gone thus far, it’s unlikely they’ll be able to do this effectively. Things will only get worse as other Republican dominated states move forward with similar plans. There is just no way that the federal government can make Obamacare work if some states simply refuse to comply with the law.

The talking heads and political wonks may not believe that nullification still exists… but it does. There can be no real balance of power between the states and the federal government without it. So let’s stand and cheer South Carolina on as they prove a state still has the right to nullify federal law. Way to go, Palmetto State!

About the author: Onan Coca

Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in the Atlanta area with his wife, Leah. They have three children and enjoy the hectic pace of life in a young family. Onan and Leah are members of the Journey Church in Hiram, GA.

Website: http://www.eaglerising.com

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

House Judiciary versus the imperial President

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/12/05/house-judiciary-versus-the-imperial-president/

House Judiciary versus the imperial President

By: John Hayward 12/5/2013 09:42 AM

Fox News relates some stern criticism of our imperial President from this week’s House Judiciary Committee hearings:

Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., says the president, “doesn’t have a debate in the Oval Office about what he wants to do,” adding, “he does what he wants to do, and then you no longer have representative democracy.”

George Washington University law professor and Obama supporter Jonathan Turley says he’s troubled by the expansion of executive power under both President George W. Bush and now President Obama.

“The problem of what the president is doing is that he is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he is becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid: that is, the concentration of power in any single branch,” he said.

Rep. Goodlatte, who called the hearings, appeared on Fox News with Megyn Kelly to discuss them afterward:

The unitary executive had his defenders, too:

Article II of the U.S. Constitution calls on the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Simon Lazarus, Senior Counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center, says that’s exactly what President Obama is doing by modifying the ACA so that the law can be successfully implemented.

Lazarus also testified before the committee.

“I have to say that hyperventilating about how extraordinary and unprecedented and unconstitutional these delays are is just that, it’s hyperventilation and it’s contrary to obvious historical fact,” Lazarus said.

That’s an absurd rationalization, if not downright creepy. Presidents have unlimited power to violate the law in order make sure it’s “faithfully executed?” We had to break the law in order to preserve it. We had to burn the village in order to save it.

What Lazarus presumably means is that the President can do whatever it takes to ensure the “spirit” of a law succeeds, or that it meets its true “goals”… as defined unilaterally by him. Goodbye, separation of powers, checks and balances, Constitutional order, and all the rest of those antique notions from the pre-totalitarian era. The way it works now is, Congress agrees that something wonderful should happen, and the dictator-President makes sure it does. If you don’t like it, you can vote him out of office in four years. Or take it out on his designated successor, in the case of a lame duck like Barack Obama.

Though experts testifying before the committee mentioned impeachment as the ultimate check on executive power, Republicans on the committee gave the idea no real consideration – given that the Senate is controlled by Democrats. They also expressed frustration that under current legal precedent it is virtually impossible for members to sue the executive branch.

The experts seemed unified in expressing to the committee that the one viable solution “comes down to elections.”

What elections? The whole point of the imperial Presidency, and the dissolution of the Republic, is that congressional elections don’t really matter all that much. The lesson of the recent government shutdown is that the House of Representatives is almost entirely symbolic – it has little real power now. Control of the House means you get to hold hearings where experts say it’s a pity the House doesn’t have its enumerated powers any more.

The Senate still has some real power, but you might have noticed that the current Democrat majority has been busy stripping the minority of influence, using the very same maneuvers Democrats denounced as unspeakable offenses to the Constitution and the spirit of 1776 when they were the minority, in opposition to a Republican president. At this point, in all but a few respects, a President whose party commands 51 Senate seats holds virtually unlimited power, except for a few instances – certain to be far more common if Republicans hold the White House and Senate – where strong bipartisan opposition to the President takes shape.

It cannot be said enough that Americans would be absolutely foolish to accept a single presidential vote every four years as an adequate check on power. Obviously the framers of the Constitution didn’t think that was good enough. Too many modern voters have squandered their legacy of limited government because they view the President as the one official “everybody” votes for, so the unitary executive who can supersede or disregard Congress seems reasonable to them… when it’s a Democrat, of course. It seems quaintly amusing today, but liberals were very upset by George Bush’s allegedly unitary powers, back in the day. Their arguments make for hilarious comedy reading in light of the dizzying imperial powers asserted by Barack Obama, with virtually no objections from the people who thought Bush was pushing the boundaries of his office.

We hear a lot of talk about “consensus” and the “will of the people” these days. Not to be overly alarmist, but you will search history in vain for the record of a single tyrant who did not claim to be exercising the will of the people. In the modern American context, it’s foolish to accept the assertion by Obama defenders that a single presidential election expresses “the will of the people” for four years, with opposition becoming tantamount to “sabotage” or “treason.” There isn’t much that a huge, diverse country full of independent people reaches a true “consensus” on. The rough and tumble of congressional debate, complete with all its “stalemate” and “gridlock,” is a more accurate reflection of our national debate about important issues. If we have a Congress that doesn’t get things done, maybe that’s because there aren’t a lot of things we agree, on a national scale, that we want the federal government to do. Elections are not supposed to be punitive exercises against benevolent dictators who didn’t satisfy 51 percent of the electorate.

What Obama has done, particularly with respect to ObamaCare, goes far beyond exercising executive discretion to hammer out a few dents in an otherwise sound, faithfully executed law. He keeps doing things he has absolutely no statutory authority to do, and rarely even bothers to argue to the contrary. His “argument” always boils down to “I think it’s the right thing to do, and I don’t want to argue with Congress about it.”

But “arguing with Congress” is a vital component of the American system. To put it bluntly, if the President’s big brainstorm only works when he can rewrite the law on the fly, his program is garbage that is utterly incompatible with the American system of government. No representative of any party, in either chamber, should vote for a “law” that only “works” if the President can violate it at will. (Or, in the case of Obama’s largely forgotten insurance cancellation “fix” from a few weeks ago, invite other people to violate it, and promise not to prosecute them for a year.)

That’s not a law. It’s an assertion of raw power. There is a difference. American government is supposed to be about law, not power. Laws bind those who pass them. Laws bind the government, as well as the people. There are plenty of reasonable mechanisms for modifying or repealing laws that don’t work as planned. Even the Constitution has an amendment process, which has been used many times.

But following those processes dilutes the power of a dictatorial President and power-hungry party, because it means the opposition party gets to weigh in and extract concessions. Obviously the petulant Obama doesn’t want that. He wasn’t about to submit his proposed delay of the ObamaCare mandate to Congress for proper debate and ratification, so he did what the American system expressly forbids, and made unilateral, arbitrary changes to the law for nakedly political reasons. If the Affordable Care Act actually was “faithfully executed” as written, with the employer mandate kicking in on schedule, the ACA would most likely have been repealed by now, with a veto-overriding bipartisan majority driven by public outrage.

And that’s the way it should be. Presidents and congressional representatives should be afraid to pass laws that could blow up in their faces. They should be afraid of suffering from their hubris and arrogance. If there’s one thing America desperately needs right now, it’s humble government.

But we’re not going to get humble government any time soon, because as the House Judiciary hearings illustrate, there’s really nothing anyone can do about the imperial presidency at the moment. The ugly political genius of Barack Obama involved calling every bluff in the American system, which long ago degenerated past the point where any serious penalties awaited the aspiring dictator. In a real sense, that business about “elections” being the remedy for abuse of power means the media is the only real remaining check against presidential power. If the media doesn’t repeatedly tell people to get angry about something, and keep them good and riled all the way through an election, there’s no price to pay. Obama correctly judged he would never have to face that kind of press coverage.

The polite understandings and gentlemen’s agreements from previous years were swept aside like so many cobwebs by Obama, to replaced by a simple implied challenge: What are you gonna do about it, impeach me? He knows the answer is “no,” so he does as he pleases, with just enough restraint to keep his media allies from growing queasy. That’s not how America is supposed to work, and it’s no surprise that the results have been dismaying.

Update: Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) made some of these points during an interview with Fusion TV:

(Hat tip: Washington Examiner.) Cruz makes an interesting point about dictatorship: it can exist without Castro-style imprisonment of dissidents. Dictators are always interested in suppressing dissent, but there are many less brutal ways of achieving that goal. The dangers of centralized power are not eliminated because it wears velvet gloves. It increasingly seems that Obama apologists make the argument that he’s not a dictator almost entirely based on the absence of gulags, as though any seizure of power that doesn’t involve tossing dissidents into concentration camps is acceptable. And it’s not as if this President has been shy about using the power of government to punish dissident Americans, and their political organizations, in a variety of interesting ways…

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Image

A Hearing You Have Heard Nothing About

Written

on December 5, 2013

New York Gun-Owners Getting Letters Instructing Them To Turn In Their Weapons

For most of the press it is believed, “As goes New York, so goes America”. While I do not believe that is a fact, I do believe that as goes New York, so goes it’s influence on other Liberal cities and states.

This report need to be a warning to the rest of America that we WILL see this law spreading like cancer.

Jerry Broussard

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

http://lastresistance.com/3879/new-york-gun-owners-getting-letters-instructing-turn-weapons/#b7Cp9bL6hDVCXcJF.99

Posted By Philip Hodges on Dec 2, 2013

pointed handgun

Thanks to New York’s gun registry, officials know exactly what kinds of guns residents have and where these people live. Due to changes in New York’s gun laws with the passage of the misnamed SAFE Act, many residents are now in possession of certain “unlawful” firearms which were previously legal.

Kit Daniels of Infowars writes:

The notice provides gun owners, who possess firearms now prohibited under New York’s unconstitutional SAFE Act, the “options” to either surrender their firearms to the police, remove them from the city limits or otherwise render them inoperable…

The SAFE Act, which was passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor on the same day in January, has numerous, draconian provisions including, but not limited to:

Outright ban of magazines holding over 10 rounds 
Restriction on more than seven rounds being loaded into a magazine; the limited exceptions do not include home defense

Mandatory background checks for ammunition 
The creation of a firearms registry for what the state considers “assault weapons” 
A requirement for firearm permit holders to fill out a form to keep the state from publicly identifying them

We always warned that gun registration would lead to confiscation. But the registration part was always touted as a safety measure. They just wanted to make sure that no guns ended up in the wrong hands. So, government officials had to know who had what guns and to whom they were transferred. They needed to be able to track them. If you were a law-abiding gun-owner, then there was no reason for you to worry. They were only looking out for criminals. “No one’s coming for your guns,” they’d say with a wry smile.

Well, yes, they are. Albeit incrementally. They’re coming for them, one law at a time.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Lefty Totalitarianism: Conform or Else!

http://theblacksphere.net/2013/11/lefty-totalitarianism-conform-else/#XVbDwEveEyA6VSv2.99

Recently (or perhaps more accurately, finally), I started reading Mark Steyn’s After America: Get Ready for Armageddon.

While I don’t intend to write a review for a book two years old, After America is increasingly relevant as America slowly slides to its own destruction.

However, something jumped out at me while I plodded through the first 60 or so pages. It’s something that we, as a nation don’t discuss nearly enough. Indeed, in our own hubris, we often fail to recognize its reality.

In the modern era — where we are apparently free and liberated to do what we like, where we like, when we like — America is becoming ever more homogeneous.

We are expected to conform to the liberal worldview.

The government is seen as a cure-all for society’s problems. Massive entitlement programs “ensure” that the poor don’t starve or die in the streets. Those programs protect the wealthiest demographic in America, the elderly, from poverty.

If you believe that government coddling a significant fraction of its citizens, far more than are actually destitute, or spending its way to bankruptcy is wrong, then you hate the poor. You must believe that welfare are good and no dissent will be tolerated.

Science must always conform to the leftist/secularist worldview. Humanity must believe in the reality of man-made global change climate, or whatever moniker they happen to be using this week. We must all believe in the nihilistic evolutionary theory of the origin of life. Not to do so would be anti-science, and we can’t have people who aren’t bound by the laws of what the left deems to be the truth, now can we?

No one should be allowed to openly question Darwinism, lest some start to believe that God created a globe that goes through natural cycles.

Sex, of course, must always be loose and unbound. Otherwise you’re just a square who doesn’t understand that loose trousers and spread legs are the way to truly enjoy life. You have to be some sort of sexually repressed control freak to believe that careless sex leads to disease, emotional trauma and, worst of all, pregnancy. Millions of youth never even saw that last one coming, and were encouraged to sleep around long before they’ve had any real life experience.

Speaking of pregnancy, one must of course conform to the idea that abortion isn’t murder. It’s the woman’s right. She should have the right to choose to have her doctor, CNA, corner store butcher (or whoever California wishes to certify next to perform abortions) plunge a needle into a baby and burn it from the inside out as it is sucked dry of fluid. Or be forcefully dismembered in the womb. Our “betters” tell us it is the humane thing to do.

Let us not leave out the leftist view of race, either. If one does not believe in special treatment for the Black or the Hispanic (not the Asian, though — they often succeed on their own merits), he is a horrible, racist bigot only lacking the pointy white hood. And even then, that’s likely tucked away in some chest buried in the backyard, patiently awaiting the day when it is in vogue again.

It is not like blacks or Hispanics can succeed if they stay out of trouble and work hard. They must be given special dispensation to enter the country’s universities or government jobs. After all, institutional racism abolished fifty years ago is still alive and well.

If there’s a disproportionate number of minorities being disciplined in schools, it must be due to the schools’ disciplinary procedures. If a disproportionate number of minorities get busted for committing crimes, clearly there’s some sort of outside force (likely with lily white skin) that is responsible.

The media, by and large, excepting the odd element like Fox News Channel, is on the left to varying degrees. All try to cover for Obama in one way or another. All celebrate the cause célèbre of the week, whether it’s the latest state to legalize gay marriage or the newest law cementing the protected status of the black man. Indeed, ABC has an entire hidden camera program, “What Would You Do?” dedicated to this self-righteous feel-goodism.

The point of that long list? If you believe some or all of the aforementioned is bad, you are no good to the left. Even if for the barest of seconds you express an opinion that does not conform to the status quo, you are shamed until you believe what the left wants you to believe. Otherwise, you are marginalized for your “backwards thinking.”

We live in a world where free-thought is, in reality, thinly veiled totalitarianism. For without conformity of thought, Leftism cannot thrive.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Image

Tyranny-care

Written

on November 22, 2013

Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Tyranny’

Share this:

Published April 22, 2014

<<<<<Ardis at a City Council meeting in Peoria, Ill.AP

The Star Journal of Peoria reports the warrant and raid were ordered by Ardis, who is now facing a public backlash, largely on social media and in editorial pages where he is being accused of trying to step on First Amendment rights.

“I find it very troubling,” said Angela Campbell, a professor at Georgetown University Law School. “It chills people’s First Amendment rights to criticize officials … whether it’s through parody or just calling somebody a jerk.”

Share this:

April 20, 2014 7:00 PM

Slanders and lies may be part of a deliberate strategy to drive up turnout in November.

By John Fund

Senate majority leader Harry Reid

John Fund

Share this:

The BLM removed armed federal agents from Bunkeville and near the Bundy ranch, but another possible “land grab” or range war appears to be brewing in Texas. Fellow rancher Tommy Henderson has been fighting the BLM for 30 years, and appears to be losing yet another round in the battle.

“They’re wanting to take the boundaries that the courts placed here and extend those east and west to the forks of the river north of Vernon and east to the 98th Meridian which is about 20 miles east of us.”

Share this:

Reid knows Terrorist

Posted on April 19, 2014

Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/04/reid-knows-terrorist/#5EtcG3R3islh4B3u.99

Share this:

High-level Democrats positioned to profit from ‘green’ projects

Published: 1 day ago

However, the BLM’s library of renewable energy projects revealed it was only one of more than 50 solar, wind and geothermal projects planned for Nevada, California, Arizona and other Western states. Reid was focused on at least one, and maybe more, of the projects, much closer to the Bundy ranch.

The lucrative business opportunities explain both why Cliven Bundy has been facing such intense intimidation and why all the other ranchers have been chased out. Bundy represents a financial threat not merely to Reid, but a whole gamut of Democrats tied to Obama, Clinton and Gore.

Whether that turns out to be the case or not, the Bundy story needs far greater and deeper media scrutiny.

Share this:

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: April 10

The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.

Share this:

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/the-exclusion-of-equal-rights/#u3ILphchZpHkfizI.99 Exclusive: Ben Kinchlow ponders ‘gay’ and lesbian inability to ‘reproduce their species’

In the words of one American president (whom many remember, one way or another), “Let me make this perfectly clear …” the homosexual community is not striving for equal rights, they are driving for special rights applicable only to them, to the exclusion of equal rights for others.

Share this:

Exclusive: Matt Barber implicates Obama administration in latest Fort Hood attack

Written by Matt Barber

So-called “gun-free zones” are lightning rods for mass murder. It’s time we climbed down from cliff’s edge.

In a blunt and provocatively titled, though well-reasoned post, submitted shortly after Wednesday’s shooting, Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft charged: “Obama Is Responsible for Latest Fort Hood Murders – Still a Gun-Free Zone.”

“In 2009 Islamist killer Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others at Fort Hood, Texas. Fort Hood was a gun-free zone.

“Hasan reportedly screamed, ‘Allahu Akbar!’ as he committed his mass murder. …

“Barack Obama termed this Islamic terrorist attack – workplace violence. Complete lunacy.

“After the first mass killing nothing changed. Fort Hood is still a gun-free zone. President Bill Clinton’s gun-free policies are still in place.

“Today there was another mass shooting at Fort Hood. Soldiers were told to take cover and hide like cowards as a crazed gunman shot at least 14 Americans on base. The shooter, Ivan Lopez, then shot himself in the head.

“These deaths are the result of failed policies. These deaths are the result of a dangerous ‘gun free zone’ policy.

“The Obama administration is responsible for this mass shooting. They witnessed this before. They didn’t learn a thing. Gun-free zones are death zones,” concluded Hoft.

By maintaining his demonstrably failed “gun-free zone” policy at Fort Hood (anywhere for that matter), Obama may as well have beaconed: “Hey, would-be mass murderers, we’ve still got some unarmed soldiers here. Come and finish ‘em off!”

And the only people surprised are you gun-control nutters.

They’re all “gun-free zones.”

Oh, that rather than “gun-free zone,” each of these terror sites had a sign reading: “Staff heavily armed and trained. Any attempts to harm those herein will be met with deadly force.”

Might some of those beautiful souls have yet died before one or more well-armed good guys could take out the well-armed bad guys? Perhaps. But how many precious lives could have been saved?

Albert Einstein famously quipped that the definition of “insanity” is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” In that sense, “progressives” are insane.

It’s for a failure to grasp reality.

Media wishing to interview Matt Barber, please contact media@wnd.com

Share this:

Share this:

In a 2010 meeting in the Oval Office, the president told service chiefs they could “go do other things” if they didn’t support abolishing DADT, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert Papp said.

posted on March 31, 2014 at 6:37pm EDT

Ellie Hall BuzzFeed Staff posted about 3 days ago

In a meeting with the heads of the five service branches in 2010, President Obama offered the leaders a choice: Support my efforts to end the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, or resign, the Commandant of the Coast Guard said.

SEE RECORDING OF Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert Papp;

Share this:

Mozilla Chief Learns, if You Don’t Support Gay Marriage, You Don’t Deserve a Job

Todd Starnes | Apr 04, 2014

Why not demand that those who oppose gay marriage relinquish the right to own property?

Why not take away their right to vote?

Why not take away their children?

Why not just throw them in jail?

Why not force them to work in chain gangs?

Why not call for public floggings?

Or better yet, let’s just strap them down on gurneys, stick a needle in their arm and rid the world of these intolerant anti-gay bigots once and for all.

No, not really, Ms. Baker. Our Founding Fathers sort of worked that out in the Bill of Rights.

Just ask our nation’s top military officials. They were called into President Obama’s office and told that if they could not support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” they should resign their commissions.

“We were called into the Oval Office and President Obama looked at all five service chiefs in the eye and said, ‘This is what I want to do,’” said Coast Guard Adm. Robert Papp in remarks reported by Buzzfeed.

I trust there are rational and reasonable individuals within the gay rights community who understand the dangers of stifling free speech and expression. But the voices that are winning the day are those who believe gay rights trump everyone else’s rights.

I know this may sound old-fashioned, but gainful employment should not be determined by where you put your reproductive organs.

Tolerance is a b*tch, ain’t it?

Share this:

on 28 March, 2014 at 06:40

May God help us.

Share this:

Leaked documents reveal plan to counter online dissent during martial law

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/the-exclusion-of-equal-rights/#u3ILphchZpHkfizI.99

Exclusive: Ben Kinchlow ponders ‘gay’ and lesbian inability to ‘reproduce their species’

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
March 24, 2014