By Lee Duigon
January 26, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
What is the last defense of public education?
They can’t sell us on the academics anymore. Homeschooled kids run rings around the public-schooled in every standardized test available.
Until recently, the best defense of public education was, “It’s free.” People are beginning to realize this is a lie: it’s paid for by your ever-increasing taxes. And it’s all about teachers’ unions devouring our money—making fabulous salaries, with benefits the rest of us can’t even dream of, and retiring at 55 on lavish pensions. Yes, people have been getting wise to this.
So the defenders of public education fall back on their last redoubt—“socialization.”
Supposedly, schooling your kids at home will make them feral—rather like locking them up in a chicken coop until they’re 21. Sending them to a Christian school isn’t much better: they won’t be exposed to the enlightened teachings of the teachers’ unions. What a handicap!
“Socialization” is the process of learning how to live with other human beings. According to the National Education Assn. et al, this process can only occur in a public school classroom. The fact that public school classrooms did not exist in human history until the middle of the 19th century only goes to show that people weren’t socialized till then.
As the teachers’ unions see it, the only way a human being can be properly socialized is by being confined to a room, or a series of rooms, with no society but that of other children exactly his own age—no younger, no older—under the direction of a union-certified teacher. This is to continue throughout one’s entire childhood, starting with day care and pre-school and going right on up to college, with no time off for good behavior. Incarcerated felons get a better break.
In this scheme of socialization, every child in the classroom is to do the same thing at the same time. When one bell rings, they start. When another bell rings, they stop. And if this makes you antsy, the school nurse gives you Ritalin.
Early on, your age-group peers will become the most important people in your life: what with Facebook and cell phones, and both parents working, now more than ever. Your peers will teach you what is cool and what is not. They’ll teach you who is cool and who is not—and heaven help you if you’re not! By this method, every child is educated socially by the vast experience and wisdom of the other children.
Sounds pretty normal so far, doesn’t it?
We mustn’t forget the role of the teacher. It’s the classroom teacher who will preach to the children, day in and day out, about “gay families” (whatever they are), how to choose your gender, the falsity of the Christian religion, and the despicable influence of America on world affairs. It is the teacher, backed up by the school administration, who will keep the children on the reservation, either through some senseless and draconian “zero-tolerance” policy, or some gentler method like mockery or detention.
More than anything else, the great lesson taught by public education is conformity. How could it be otherwise? If you’re ten years old, no teenager cares what you think, nor will any six-year-old be interested. But no one is as tyrannical as a group of children of the same age. As a group, the other ten-year-olds will insist on your conformity. Very few children get away with being any kind of oddball.
Publicly-schooled children are intolerant of differences; if you’ve ever been one, you know it’s true. The impulse to conform is programmed into them at an early age by “education” experts who’ve had 100 years of practice.
Why the passion for conformity? Well, according to the teachers’ unions and the teachers’ colleges—if you don’t believe me, look it up—classroom teachers are to be “change agents.” Their function is to convince children that everything believed in by their parents and their pastors is stupid, hateful, and wrong. Their mission is to transform America—into what, the Devil only knows—by brainwashing whole generations of children. This mission really can’t be carried out unless the children are first programmed for conformity.
Unionized public school teachers have been getting better and better at this all the time. Visit the union websites and see for yourself what they’re up to.
Are your children being socialized by public school? If so, you really ought to reconsider your position.
Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Duigon/lee132.htm
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Target Date Set for CRC Ratification
Proponents of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) have set a target date by which they would like to see it ratified in the United States: November 20,2012. That date is the anniversary of its adoption by the UN General Assembly back in 1989.
Last month the Child Rights Campaign began pushing online petitions calling on the President to move for CRC ratification. Tuesday, Time ran an online opinion piece by Lawrence Cohen and Anthony Debenedet calling for the United States to ratify by November 20. In the piece, they name our organization and then provide some misinformation to convince readers we are wrong.
Clearly, our opponents have no intention of letting up. They are pressing to make ratification happen before Obama – and their best opportunity – are gone.
That is why we must continue to stand against them. And we need your help.
The CRC purports to protect children, but would replace fit parents with government bureaucrats and judges as the first line of defense for our kids. In addition, it would take family law authority away from our states and make it an international treaty obligation at the federal level.
This is because under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, any ratified treaty becomes the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state are bound by it, regardless of conflicts with federal law or state laws or constitutions.
Cohen and Debenedet cite Reid v. Covert to contend that our concern is false because “no international treaty has the power to override the U.S. Constitution.” But this ignores the fact that parental rights do not appear in the Constitution; they are implied rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court in Reid v. Covert addressed rights not expressly in the Constitution, such as parental rights, thus: “To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their authority to the National Government, and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier” 354 U.S. 1 (1957).
Sadly, the CRC is supported by international organizations with billions of dollars in assets (and with access to outlets like Time magazine), while we must depend entirely on the support of individual donors – people just like you who understand the dangers of letting the government decide whether fit parents are making the best decisions for their children.
We must continue to fight for free families and free U.S. courts, no matter how deep the pockets of those who oppose us.
Last month the Child Rights Campaign began pushing online petitions calling on the President to move for CRC ratification. Tuesday, Time ran an online opinion piece by Lawrence Cohen and Anthony Debenedet calling for the United States to ratify by November 20. In the piece, they name our organization and then provide some misinformation to convince readers we are wrong.
Clearly, our opponents have no intention of letting up. They are pressing to make ratification happen before Obama – and their best opportunity – are gone.
That is why we must continue to stand against them. And we need your help.
The CRC purports to protect children, but would replace fit parents with government bureaucrats and judges as the first line of defense for our kids. In addition, it would take family law authority away from our states and make it an international treaty obligation at the federal level.
This is because under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, any ratified treaty becomes the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state are bound by it, regardless of conflicts with federal law or state laws or constitutions.
Cohen and Debenedet cite Reid v. Covert to contend that our concern is false because “no international treaty has the power to override the U.S. Constitution.” But this ignores the fact that parental rights do not appear in the Constitution; they are implied rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court in Reid v. Covert addressed rights not expressly in the Constitution, such as parental rights, thus: “To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their authority to the National Government, and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier” 354 U.S. 1 (1957).
Sadly, the CRC is supported by international organizations with billions of dollars in assets (and with access to outlets like Time magazine), while we must depend entirely on the support of individual donors – people just like you who understand the dangers of letting the government decide whether fit parents are making the best decisions for their children.
We must continue to fight for free families and free U.S. courts, no matter how deep the pockets of those who oppose us.
Friday, January 13, 2012
AGENDA 21 IN ONE EASY LESSON
by Tom DeWeese
April 6, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
Awareness of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is racing across the nation as citizens in community after community are learning what their city planners are actually up to. As awareness grows, I am receiving more and more calls for tools to help activists fight back. Many complain that elected officials just won't read detailed reports or watch long videos. "Can you give us something that is quick, and easy to read that we can hand out," I'm asked.
So here it is. A one page, quick description of Agenda 21 that fits on one page. I've also included for the back side of your hand out a list of quotes for the perpetrators of Agenda 21 that should back up my brief descriptions.
A word of caution, use this as a started kit, but do not allow it to be your only knowledge of this very complex subject. To kill it you have to know the facts. Research, know your details; discover the NGO players in your community; identify who is victimized by the policies and recruit them to your fight; and then kill Agenda 21. That's how it must be done. The information below is only your first step. Happy hunting.
What is Sustainable Development?
According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.
Social Equity (Social Justice)
Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people "to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment." Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social justice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.
Economic Prosperity
Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government's power of Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies.
Local Sustainable Development policies
Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, "Going Green," Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.
Who is behind it?
ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide "local" community plans, software, training, etc. Addition groups include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.
Where did it originate?
The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN's Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21.
What gives Agenda 21 Ruling Authority?
More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President's Council on Sustainable Development in order to "harmonize" US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort "reinvent" government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation.
Revealing Quotes From the Planners
"Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced… " -Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). Emphases - DR
Urgent to implement - but we don't know what it is!
"The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform - a program that has yet to be fully defined." -The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.
"No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis." -The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.
Agenda 21 and Private Property
"Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social justice." -From the report from the 1976 UN's Habitat I Conference.
"Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…" -Report from the President's Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.
"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable." -Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN's Earth Summit, 1992.
Reinvention of Government
"We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals." -Report from the President's Council on Sustainable Development
"Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective." -Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project
"We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects - we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land." -Dave Foreman, Earth First.
What is not sustainable?
Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment." -UN's Biodiversity Assessment Report.
Hide Agenda 21's UN roots from the people
"Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear 'one-world government' and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined 'the conspiracy' by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth." -J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development.
Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom194.htm
April 6, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
Awareness of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is racing across the nation as citizens in community after community are learning what their city planners are actually up to. As awareness grows, I am receiving more and more calls for tools to help activists fight back. Many complain that elected officials just won't read detailed reports or watch long videos. "Can you give us something that is quick, and easy to read that we can hand out," I'm asked.
So here it is. A one page, quick description of Agenda 21 that fits on one page. I've also included for the back side of your hand out a list of quotes for the perpetrators of Agenda 21 that should back up my brief descriptions.
A word of caution, use this as a started kit, but do not allow it to be your only knowledge of this very complex subject. To kill it you have to know the facts. Research, know your details; discover the NGO players in your community; identify who is victimized by the policies and recruit them to your fight; and then kill Agenda 21. That's how it must be done. The information below is only your first step. Happy hunting.
What is Sustainable Development?
According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.
Social Equity (Social Justice)
Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people "to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment." Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social justice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.
Economic Prosperity
Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government's power of Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies.
Local Sustainable Development policies
Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, "Going Green," Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.
Who is behind it?
ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide "local" community plans, software, training, etc. Addition groups include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.
Where did it originate?
The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN's Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21.
What gives Agenda 21 Ruling Authority?
More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President's Council on Sustainable Development in order to "harmonize" US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort "reinvent" government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation.
Revealing Quotes From the Planners
"Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced… " -Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). Emphases - DR
Urgent to implement - but we don't know what it is!
"The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform - a program that has yet to be fully defined." -The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.
"No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis." -The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.
Agenda 21 and Private Property
"Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social justice." -From the report from the 1976 UN's Habitat I Conference.
"Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…" -Report from the President's Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.
"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable." -Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN's Earth Summit, 1992.
Reinvention of Government
"We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals." -Report from the President's Council on Sustainable Development
"Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective." -Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project
"We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects - we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land." -Dave Foreman, Earth First.
What is not sustainable?
Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment." -UN's Biodiversity Assessment Report.
Hide Agenda 21's UN roots from the people
"Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear 'one-world government' and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined 'the conspiracy' by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth." -J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development.
Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom194.htm
CONSTITUTIONALIST OR RACIST AND ANTI-SEMITE?
By Coach Mitchell Goldstein
January 11, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
Political correctness at its worst
The liberal/fascist press are all agog - 22 years ago, some questionable phrases appeared in four of Ron Paul’s newsletters. I have read the “hate” speech and the racist, anti-Semitic rants of Ron Paul. They amount to nothing! At root, this is a political witch hunt, a liberal lynching, in the best style of Goebbels, Hitler’s master marketing manipulator.
This really comes down to the question of what constitutes racism. Is a statement racist if it is primarily factual but also has a negative overtone? My experience shows that anything liberals/progressives/fascists don’t like will automatically be labeled as racist, fascist, anti-environmental, anti-union, anti-democratic or fattening.
We all lose when perception is seen as reality, when style supersedes substance, when “winning is the only thing.” Yet, sadly, this is Americas political reality is 2011, and 2012 will be even worse.
The examples used in Ron Paul’s newsletters were not racist. It is not racist to state facts or comment on societal impressions related to a particular race or ethnicity.
Truth as Hate Speech
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: African American woman are prone to having illegitimate children.
A. 75% of babies born to African-American woman are illegitimate.
Q. In today’s America, how do you state this fact without being accused of being racist?
Q. As 33% of Caucasian births are illegitimate, is it racist to think or to ask: Have African-American attitudes towards the acceptance of illegitimate babies been adopted into the greater American culture?
Q. Is it racist to ask if the African-American imprint on American culture is primarily: illegitimate babies, gangster rap and young men avoiding their responsibilities to become educated, care for their illegitimate children, and avoid drugs and criminal activity?
Q. If 50% of African-American males are able to avoid arrest, is it racist to ask why the other 50% cannot also act properly?
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: Jews are the biggest thieves on Wall Street.
A. Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky. These are men who defrauded the most or have been fined the most – all were born of Jewish parentage.
Being an American Jew, I will admit that the tone of the statement can be considered troublesome, but so is the fact that many thousands were harmed terribly by Madoff, Milken and Boesky. These criminals deserve all the punishment they receive and more. All their jail time multiplied by 100 will not come close to the angst, disappointment and trauma that these men caused to others. Their ill effect will be felt for generations.
Q. Is it less Anti-Semitic to say, “In Europe, one of the only professions Jews were allowed to pursue was moneylending; therefore, Jews became skilled in finance. A human trait is to manipulate when able and history has shown that a few persons of Jewish descent have been prosecuted successfully for financial crimes.”
The real issue is not the statement; rather, it is the context of the statement and the reaction to the statement.
If one were to say, “Those Jews, they’re the biggest thieves on Wall Street; you can’t trust any of them.” Then that is Anti-Semitic.
Compare the statement above with a recent interview given by “anti-Semitic” Ron Paul
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: Conservatives are Fascists!
A. This is both false and speech that is full of hate. However, because it is stated so often in the left wing press without any push back, it is accepted by the left as being gospel.
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: Liberals are Fascists!
A. This is nominally true and therefore not hate speech. The problem is that liberals do not know that they are fascists because they do not know history nor the proper definition of words.
The actual definition of Fascism: A type of Socialism; an economic system that controls the means of production;
Webster’s Dictionary
1962 edition - before it became politically correct.
The politically correct current left wing propaganda definition of Fascism is: “any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc”
These definitions are far apart from each other. This is a great example of how the Left adulterates language to its own purpose.
To control the workplace via regulation is nominal fascism. You own the factory, but the government controls by telling you how much to pay the workers, the safety equipment required, rules the product must conform to, etc.
This is all done under the banner of safety, i.e. “It is for your own good.” The real question is: who is in control of your property, you or the government? Tort law will repair any negligence in safety.
BTW, it is factually impossible for economic conservatives to be fascists.
We have grown up hearing and believing one of the biggest left wing lies; that the political paradigm is left wing = liberal and right wing = fascist. This is totally incorrect.
Total Government: Socialist/Communist/Fascist Liberal/Progressives
Constitutional Republic: America = just enough government Conservatives
No Government: Anarchy
On the left put 100% government, or some form of collectivism like socialism or dictatorship or plutocracy.
The opposite of 100% government is 0% government, or anarchy.
In the middle is our constitutional republic, rule by moral/freedom oriented law.
Anarchy can never be a form of government because out of the chaos, some men will organize their tribes and rule as mini dictators, e.g. kings, chiefs.
Current events verify and history is replete with those seeking power.
Individual freedom simply does not exist in the manner that allows men to thrive. Americans are on the verge of allowing the virtual annihilation of our G-d given rights to life, liberty and property, and the left cheers this on.
Socialism has many variants, only two of which are Communists and Fascists.
Fabian Socialism is the type that exists in England and in America. Fabian Socialism envisions a slow adjustment of the people and the economy to the constrictions of freedom and the institutionalization of government, with “them” as the rule makers and overseers.
Leninists/Stalinists/Hitlerites/Maoists-Castroites/Sandanista’s/Sadam/Chavez etc. all sought a quick reversion to dictatorial Socialism, typically through revolution.
Socialism is simply the best marketing vehicle available for those with selfish intentions who want to gain and hold sway over the masses. The strategy is to gain control over people by calling for people to be constrained because of safety concerns, e.g. mining, environment, finance, consumer protection, etc. It sounds so nice.
How could anyone possibly be against safety? The answer: the devil is in the details.
How does this relate to Ron Paul?
First, Ron Paul has disavowed these few newsletters, only four letters in several thousand having any questionable passages. The political talking heads have cherry picked a few isolated incidents and paint a false narrative while ignoring 30 years of the candidate’s actions. These jaded “journalists” have to look back over 22 years in order to find dirt on Ron Paul because he has zero skeletons in his closet.
One does not become known as a racist overnight. If one is a racist, then there is a long documented history, e.g. David Duke.
To say, “Ron Paul is a racist,” rates the Orwellian Double-Speak Award for Speech of the Lowest Order.
It is ironic that the only person in the race who wants to stop the US government from killing more “brown people” is being labeled a racist!
This, despite the many instances of free health care Ron Paul has given to “brown people.”
The only member of the Texas congressional delegation to vote for the Martin Luther King national holiday was Ron Paul.
Senator McCain did not vote for the holiday and was not labeled a racist. Ron Paul wants to release all non-violent drug offenders; African-American’s make up the largest segment of offenders.
The double-standard
The left wing/liberal/progressive/fascist press has done all it can to collapse support for Ron Paul. They are unabashed about their partiality, making unfair and prejudicial comments like, “Paul can’t win,” “Paul is crazy,” “Paul’s support is thin,” “His 21% in Iowa is as high as he gets,” “He certainly sounds like a racist.” etc.
However, upon the least blip of support or on any good news, the left wing/liberal/progressive/fascist press goes agog over Obama. We get more accurate news reading Pravda.
Reverend Wright’s anti-American, anti-White, anti-Semitic rhetoric seems to not be taken seriously. Obama’s allegiance to Wright and the brainwashing Obama received over the many years he attended Wright’s church seem to not be an important issue.
Compare Wright’s rhetoric to Ron Paul’s. Wright’s sermons are vitriolic, to the point of actual incitement to violence or at least inciting attitudes in a dangerous direction; Paul’s mild comments in a letter are aimed at fundraising.
Ronald Reagan’s candidacy back in 1980 was endorsed by several KKK groups. Does that mean Reagan was a racist? Some would claim that those endorsements must mean that Ronald Reagan believed in the same things as the KKK. Lunacy.
Ron Paul’s message has been consistent for decades. He’s never been a flip-flopper, unlike Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Gingrich, Romney, and the rest of the GOP field In the newsletter, Ron Paul echoed Jesse Jackson’s statement that he felt fear hearing men walking behind him, fearing they were black, and when he looked back over his shoulder, he felt relief seeing that it was white men walking behind him.
This is understandable because in 2004 African Americans constituted roughly 13.4% of the general population, yet 49% of all murder victims in 2005 were African American. According to “The Color of Crime,” “blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.” Showing a correlation to race within crime rate statistics is not racism, and making unflattering statements about African-Americans is not racism, in and of itself, except to semi-literates.
Racism is pernicious and malicious. And, as many of US know, both of these traits are specialties of the Left. Are we all racists for having genuine human feelings of fear based upon the knowledge that, statistically, African-American males have a higher likelihood of committing a crime? This is the kind of backwards logic that permeates the Left.
Why all the hate speech aimed at Ron Paul?
Left wing/liberal/progressive/fascists feel genuine terror that Ron Paul, if elected, would actually follow through with his campaign promises and reduce government overreach.
The left wing fears that someone who stands for something with a clear message has a chance to break down the status quo in American politics. They fear less government, lower taxes and a country where people are not forced to implement their left wing agenda.
Ron Paul is not some messianic fix-all; but he is a step in the right direction. Ron Paul has voted with an originalist constitutional mindset consistently for the last 30 years. That is not hearsay but 100% fact. He is the only congressman who regularly receives a 100% rating on the Freedom Index. Ron Paul is the boogeyman that haunts big federal government. His sin is that he believes in US as individuals; his congressional colleagues all believe in some level of big federal government.
Paul has an honest, constitutional, pro-American mentality. This is exactly what we need right now. Only an originalist constitutional approach will save our country. However, if Ron Paul is elected, prepare for big fights, as neither Congress nor the bureaucracy is going to allow the implementation of the elimination of subsidies, sweetheart contacts, insider deals, special protections and massive war preparations; the greed is too deeply embedded. They will defend at all costs over 100 years of planning and scheming to insinuate their subservient mindset.
The biggest problems in America today ALL stem from our bloated, overbearing form of Statism. That’s the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. America needs the constitutional restitution that Ron Paul represents and this is exactly what the big corporations that own the major media outlets do NOT want.
Rep. Paul’s message has achieved enough currency that it can no longer be ignored, despite the alarming lack of media coverage. I now expect the Establishment to switch to attack mode.
However, Ron Paul doesn’t have much in his background to attack. His writings and rhetoric have remained consistent. We know that there are no major scandals to uncover or they would have already announced them. He remains faithful to one wife. Ron Paul never dodged the draft and he is the only veteran in the race.
There is only one place to attack and it is tenuous at best. Some of his distant staff wrote some unpopular lines in a few newsletters 22 years ago. The lines fail to match anything in Dr. Paul’s long voting record or anything he’s actually said. Paul clearly states what he believes personally and that his personal views should not matter. Liberty for all means exactly that. Ron Paul’s positions on individual liberty are antithetical to the collectivist notion of racism.
Interestingly, the question of whether Ron Paul is racist has never come up in a political career spanning 30+ years. Were Paul a racist, I would expect many people to come forward with accounts of anti-Semitism and hatred of minorities. However, all we ever hear about are the accounts of minorities getting free healthcare. The lack of proper journalism in the media today is appalling.
These attacks on the only candidate who upholds the Constitution are happening because the military industrial complex and big business do NOT want an end to the status quo of bug business in bed with big totalitarian government.
Don’t be fooled by the mainstream media’s disinformation campaign to marginalize Ron Paul’s anti-war, pro-constitutionalist message.
Full article and additional links:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Goldstein/mitchell106.htm
January 11, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
Political correctness at its worst
The liberal/fascist press are all agog - 22 years ago, some questionable phrases appeared in four of Ron Paul’s newsletters. I have read the “hate” speech and the racist, anti-Semitic rants of Ron Paul. They amount to nothing! At root, this is a political witch hunt, a liberal lynching, in the best style of Goebbels, Hitler’s master marketing manipulator.
This really comes down to the question of what constitutes racism. Is a statement racist if it is primarily factual but also has a negative overtone? My experience shows that anything liberals/progressives/fascists don’t like will automatically be labeled as racist, fascist, anti-environmental, anti-union, anti-democratic or fattening.
We all lose when perception is seen as reality, when style supersedes substance, when “winning is the only thing.” Yet, sadly, this is Americas political reality is 2011, and 2012 will be even worse.
The examples used in Ron Paul’s newsletters were not racist. It is not racist to state facts or comment on societal impressions related to a particular race or ethnicity.
Truth as Hate Speech
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: African American woman are prone to having illegitimate children.
A. 75% of babies born to African-American woman are illegitimate.
Q. In today’s America, how do you state this fact without being accused of being racist?
Q. As 33% of Caucasian births are illegitimate, is it racist to think or to ask: Have African-American attitudes towards the acceptance of illegitimate babies been adopted into the greater American culture?
Q. Is it racist to ask if the African-American imprint on American culture is primarily: illegitimate babies, gangster rap and young men avoiding their responsibilities to become educated, care for their illegitimate children, and avoid drugs and criminal activity?
Q. If 50% of African-American males are able to avoid arrest, is it racist to ask why the other 50% cannot also act properly?
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: Jews are the biggest thieves on Wall Street.
A. Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky. These are men who defrauded the most or have been fined the most – all were born of Jewish parentage.
Being an American Jew, I will admit that the tone of the statement can be considered troublesome, but so is the fact that many thousands were harmed terribly by Madoff, Milken and Boesky. These criminals deserve all the punishment they receive and more. All their jail time multiplied by 100 will not come close to the angst, disappointment and trauma that these men caused to others. Their ill effect will be felt for generations.
Q. Is it less Anti-Semitic to say, “In Europe, one of the only professions Jews were allowed to pursue was moneylending; therefore, Jews became skilled in finance. A human trait is to manipulate when able and history has shown that a few persons of Jewish descent have been prosecuted successfully for financial crimes.”
The real issue is not the statement; rather, it is the context of the statement and the reaction to the statement.
If one were to say, “Those Jews, they’re the biggest thieves on Wall Street; you can’t trust any of them.” Then that is Anti-Semitic.
Compare the statement above with a recent interview given by “anti-Semitic” Ron Paul
- “Any kind of racism or anti-Semitism is incompatible with my philosophy,” Paul said in an interview with Haaretz, conducted by email. “Ludwig von Mises, the great economist whose writing helped inspire my political career, was a Jew who was forced to leave his native Austria to escape the Nazis. Mises wrote about the folly of seeing people as part of groups rather than as individuals,”
- “I supported Israel’s right to attack the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s, and I opposed President Obama’s attempt to dictate Israel’s borders this year.”
- “I do not believe we should be Israel’s master but, rather, her friend. We should not be dictating her policies and announcing her negotiating positions before talks with her neighbors have even begun.”
- “I believe I’m the only candidate who would allow Israel to take immediate action to defend herself without having to get our approval. Israel should be free to take whatever steps she deems necessary to protect her national security and sovereignty.”
- “I am personally against all foreign aid. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her avowed enemies. How does that help Israel? And in return, we act like her master and demand veto power over her foreign policy.”
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: Conservatives are Fascists!
A. This is both false and speech that is full of hate. However, because it is stated so often in the left wing press without any push back, it is accepted by the left as being gospel.
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: Liberals are Fascists!
A. This is nominally true and therefore not hate speech. The problem is that liberals do not know that they are fascists because they do not know history nor the proper definition of words.
The actual definition of Fascism: A type of Socialism; an economic system that controls the means of production;
Webster’s Dictionary
1962 edition - before it became politically correct.
The politically correct current left wing propaganda definition of Fascism is: “any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc”
These definitions are far apart from each other. This is a great example of how the Left adulterates language to its own purpose.
To control the workplace via regulation is nominal fascism. You own the factory, but the government controls by telling you how much to pay the workers, the safety equipment required, rules the product must conform to, etc.
This is all done under the banner of safety, i.e. “It is for your own good.” The real question is: who is in control of your property, you or the government? Tort law will repair any negligence in safety.
BTW, it is factually impossible for economic conservatives to be fascists.
We have grown up hearing and believing one of the biggest left wing lies; that the political paradigm is left wing = liberal and right wing = fascist. This is totally incorrect.
Total Government: Socialist/Communist/Fascist Liberal/Progressives
Constitutional Republic: America = just enough government Conservatives
No Government: Anarchy
On the left put 100% government, or some form of collectivism like socialism or dictatorship or plutocracy.
The opposite of 100% government is 0% government, or anarchy.
In the middle is our constitutional republic, rule by moral/freedom oriented law.
Anarchy can never be a form of government because out of the chaos, some men will organize their tribes and rule as mini dictators, e.g. kings, chiefs.
Current events verify and history is replete with those seeking power.
Individual freedom simply does not exist in the manner that allows men to thrive. Americans are on the verge of allowing the virtual annihilation of our G-d given rights to life, liberty and property, and the left cheers this on.
Socialism has many variants, only two of which are Communists and Fascists.
Fabian Socialism is the type that exists in England and in America. Fabian Socialism envisions a slow adjustment of the people and the economy to the constrictions of freedom and the institutionalization of government, with “them” as the rule makers and overseers.
Leninists/Stalinists/Hitlerites/Maoists-Castroites/Sandanista’s/Sadam/Chavez etc. all sought a quick reversion to dictatorial Socialism, typically through revolution.
Socialism is simply the best marketing vehicle available for those with selfish intentions who want to gain and hold sway over the masses. The strategy is to gain control over people by calling for people to be constrained because of safety concerns, e.g. mining, environment, finance, consumer protection, etc. It sounds so nice.
How could anyone possibly be against safety? The answer: the devil is in the details.
How does this relate to Ron Paul?
First, Ron Paul has disavowed these few newsletters, only four letters in several thousand having any questionable passages. The political talking heads have cherry picked a few isolated incidents and paint a false narrative while ignoring 30 years of the candidate’s actions. These jaded “journalists” have to look back over 22 years in order to find dirt on Ron Paul because he has zero skeletons in his closet.
One does not become known as a racist overnight. If one is a racist, then there is a long documented history, e.g. David Duke.
To say, “Ron Paul is a racist,” rates the Orwellian Double-Speak Award for Speech of the Lowest Order.
It is ironic that the only person in the race who wants to stop the US government from killing more “brown people” is being labeled a racist!
This, despite the many instances of free health care Ron Paul has given to “brown people.”
The only member of the Texas congressional delegation to vote for the Martin Luther King national holiday was Ron Paul.
Senator McCain did not vote for the holiday and was not labeled a racist. Ron Paul wants to release all non-violent drug offenders; African-American’s make up the largest segment of offenders.
The double-standard
The left wing/liberal/progressive/fascist press has done all it can to collapse support for Ron Paul. They are unabashed about their partiality, making unfair and prejudicial comments like, “Paul can’t win,” “Paul is crazy,” “Paul’s support is thin,” “His 21% in Iowa is as high as he gets,” “He certainly sounds like a racist.” etc.
However, upon the least blip of support or on any good news, the left wing/liberal/progressive/fascist press goes agog over Obama. We get more accurate news reading Pravda.
Reverend Wright’s anti-American, anti-White, anti-Semitic rhetoric seems to not be taken seriously. Obama’s allegiance to Wright and the brainwashing Obama received over the many years he attended Wright’s church seem to not be an important issue.
Compare Wright’s rhetoric to Ron Paul’s. Wright’s sermons are vitriolic, to the point of actual incitement to violence or at least inciting attitudes in a dangerous direction; Paul’s mild comments in a letter are aimed at fundraising.
Ronald Reagan’s candidacy back in 1980 was endorsed by several KKK groups. Does that mean Reagan was a racist? Some would claim that those endorsements must mean that Ronald Reagan believed in the same things as the KKK. Lunacy.
Ron Paul’s message has been consistent for decades. He’s never been a flip-flopper, unlike Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Gingrich, Romney, and the rest of the GOP field In the newsletter, Ron Paul echoed Jesse Jackson’s statement that he felt fear hearing men walking behind him, fearing they were black, and when he looked back over his shoulder, he felt relief seeing that it was white men walking behind him.
This is understandable because in 2004 African Americans constituted roughly 13.4% of the general population, yet 49% of all murder victims in 2005 were African American. According to “The Color of Crime,” “blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.” Showing a correlation to race within crime rate statistics is not racism, and making unflattering statements about African-Americans is not racism, in and of itself, except to semi-literates.
Racism is pernicious and malicious. And, as many of US know, both of these traits are specialties of the Left. Are we all racists for having genuine human feelings of fear based upon the knowledge that, statistically, African-American males have a higher likelihood of committing a crime? This is the kind of backwards logic that permeates the Left.
Why all the hate speech aimed at Ron Paul?
Left wing/liberal/progressive/fascists feel genuine terror that Ron Paul, if elected, would actually follow through with his campaign promises and reduce government overreach.
The left wing fears that someone who stands for something with a clear message has a chance to break down the status quo in American politics. They fear less government, lower taxes and a country where people are not forced to implement their left wing agenda.
Ron Paul is not some messianic fix-all; but he is a step in the right direction. Ron Paul has voted with an originalist constitutional mindset consistently for the last 30 years. That is not hearsay but 100% fact. He is the only congressman who regularly receives a 100% rating on the Freedom Index. Ron Paul is the boogeyman that haunts big federal government. His sin is that he believes in US as individuals; his congressional colleagues all believe in some level of big federal government.
Paul has an honest, constitutional, pro-American mentality. This is exactly what we need right now. Only an originalist constitutional approach will save our country. However, if Ron Paul is elected, prepare for big fights, as neither Congress nor the bureaucracy is going to allow the implementation of the elimination of subsidies, sweetheart contacts, insider deals, special protections and massive war preparations; the greed is too deeply embedded. They will defend at all costs over 100 years of planning and scheming to insinuate their subservient mindset.
The biggest problems in America today ALL stem from our bloated, overbearing form of Statism. That’s the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. America needs the constitutional restitution that Ron Paul represents and this is exactly what the big corporations that own the major media outlets do NOT want.
Rep. Paul’s message has achieved enough currency that it can no longer be ignored, despite the alarming lack of media coverage. I now expect the Establishment to switch to attack mode.
However, Ron Paul doesn’t have much in his background to attack. His writings and rhetoric have remained consistent. We know that there are no major scandals to uncover or they would have already announced them. He remains faithful to one wife. Ron Paul never dodged the draft and he is the only veteran in the race.
There is only one place to attack and it is tenuous at best. Some of his distant staff wrote some unpopular lines in a few newsletters 22 years ago. The lines fail to match anything in Dr. Paul’s long voting record or anything he’s actually said. Paul clearly states what he believes personally and that his personal views should not matter. Liberty for all means exactly that. Ron Paul’s positions on individual liberty are antithetical to the collectivist notion of racism.
Interestingly, the question of whether Ron Paul is racist has never come up in a political career spanning 30+ years. Were Paul a racist, I would expect many people to come forward with accounts of anti-Semitism and hatred of minorities. However, all we ever hear about are the accounts of minorities getting free healthcare. The lack of proper journalism in the media today is appalling.
These attacks on the only candidate who upholds the Constitution are happening because the military industrial complex and big business do NOT want an end to the status quo of bug business in bed with big totalitarian government.
Don’t be fooled by the mainstream media’s disinformation campaign to marginalize Ron Paul’s anti-war, pro-constitutionalist message.
Full article and additional links:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Goldstein/mitchell106.htm
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
The Modernist Preacher - Entering Hell
by Oscar C. Eliason
He was an ordained minister, but modern in his views.
He preached his twisted doctrines to people in the pews.
He would not hurt their feelings, whate'er the cost would be,
But for their smiles and friendship and compliments sought he.
His church was filled with wicked souls that should be saved from sin,
But never once he showed the way or tried a soul to win.
He preached about the lovely birds that twitter in the trees,
The babl'ing of the running brooks, the murm'ring of the seas.
He quoted fancy poetry that tickled list'ning ears
When sorrow came to some, he tried to laugh away their tears.
His smooth and slipp'ry sermons made the people slide to hell.
The harm he did by preaching goes beyond what we can tell.
He took our Holy Bible, and preached it full of holes,
The Virgin Birth, said he can't be believed by honest souls,
The miracles of Jesus and the resurrection tale
For educated ones like us, today, cannot avail.
We're living in an age, said he, when wisdom rules and reigns,
When man's intelligence is great and superstition wanes.
He said, we're all God's children who live upon this earth,
No message of salvation, no need of second birth.
His coat was bought with money that he had wrongly gained,
For through his twisted sermons his wealth he had obtained.
He was just like the Roman soldiers that watched at Jesus' grave,
For money in abundance, to them, the people gave;
It all was theirs by telling what was a sinful lie -
A resurrected Savior, they, too, were to deny.
The day at last had come for the minister to die,
When to his congregation, he had to say good-bye.
His form lay cold and lifeless, his ministry was past,
His tongue with all its poison was hushed and stilled at last.
His funeral was grand; he was lauded to the skies-
They preached him into heaven where there are no good-byes.
Upon the lonely hill, underneath the shady trees,
His form was laid to rest in the whisp'ring of the breeze.
A tombstone was erected with words: "He is at rest,
He's gone to heaven's glories to live among the blest."
His body now is lifeless, but Ah! His soul lives on,
He failed to enter in where they thought that he had gone.
The letters on the tombstone or that sermon some had heard,
Could not decide his destiny, 'twas not the final word.
He still had God to deal with, the one who knows the heart;
While others entered heaven, he heard the word, "Depart."
He pauses for a moment upon the brink of hell;
He stares into a depth where he evermore will dwell.
He hears the cries and groanings of souls he had misled,
He recognizes faces among the screaming dead.
He sees departed deacons which he had highly praised.
Their fingers pointing at him as they their voices raised:
"You stood behind the pulpit, and lived in awful sin,
We took you for a saint, but a liar you have been."
Accusing cries! He hears them, "Ah! You have been to blame,
You led us into darkness when you were seeking fame."
"You preached your deadly doctrine, we thought you knew the way.
We fed you and we clothed you, we even raised your pay.
You've robbed us of a home where no tear-drops ever flow,
Where days are always fair and the heav'nly breezes blow.
Where living streams are flowing, and saints and Angels sing,
Where every one is happy, and Hallelujahs ring.
We're in this place of torment, from which no soul returns;
We hear the cry of lost ones, we feel the sizzling burns;
Give us a drop of water, we're tortured in this flame;
You failed to preach salvation to us through Jesus' Name."
The preacher turns in horror, he tries to leave the scene,
He knows the awful future for every soul unclean,
But there he meets the devil, whom he has served so well,
He feels the demon powers as they drag him into hell.
Throughout eternal ages, his groans, too, must be heard-
He, too, must suffer torment-he failed to heed God's Word.
He feels God's wrath upon him, he hears the hot flames roar,
His doctrine now is different, he ridicules no more.
By Oscar C. Eliason, c1960
He was an ordained minister, but modern in his views.
He preached his twisted doctrines to people in the pews.
He would not hurt their feelings, whate'er the cost would be,
But for their smiles and friendship and compliments sought he.
His church was filled with wicked souls that should be saved from sin,
But never once he showed the way or tried a soul to win.
He preached about the lovely birds that twitter in the trees,
The babl'ing of the running brooks, the murm'ring of the seas.
He quoted fancy poetry that tickled list'ning ears
When sorrow came to some, he tried to laugh away their tears.
His smooth and slipp'ry sermons made the people slide to hell.
The harm he did by preaching goes beyond what we can tell.
He took our Holy Bible, and preached it full of holes,
The Virgin Birth, said he can't be believed by honest souls,
The miracles of Jesus and the resurrection tale
For educated ones like us, today, cannot avail.
We're living in an age, said he, when wisdom rules and reigns,
When man's intelligence is great and superstition wanes.
He said, we're all God's children who live upon this earth,
No message of salvation, no need of second birth.
His coat was bought with money that he had wrongly gained,
For through his twisted sermons his wealth he had obtained.
He was just like the Roman soldiers that watched at Jesus' grave,
For money in abundance, to them, the people gave;
It all was theirs by telling what was a sinful lie -
A resurrected Savior, they, too, were to deny.
The day at last had come for the minister to die,
When to his congregation, he had to say good-bye.
His form lay cold and lifeless, his ministry was past,
His tongue with all its poison was hushed and stilled at last.
His funeral was grand; he was lauded to the skies-
They preached him into heaven where there are no good-byes.
Upon the lonely hill, underneath the shady trees,
His form was laid to rest in the whisp'ring of the breeze.
A tombstone was erected with words: "He is at rest,
He's gone to heaven's glories to live among the blest."
His body now is lifeless, but Ah! His soul lives on,
He failed to enter in where they thought that he had gone.
The letters on the tombstone or that sermon some had heard,
Could not decide his destiny, 'twas not the final word.
He still had God to deal with, the one who knows the heart;
While others entered heaven, he heard the word, "Depart."
He pauses for a moment upon the brink of hell;
He stares into a depth where he evermore will dwell.
He hears the cries and groanings of souls he had misled,
He recognizes faces among the screaming dead.
He sees departed deacons which he had highly praised.
Their fingers pointing at him as they their voices raised:
"You stood behind the pulpit, and lived in awful sin,
We took you for a saint, but a liar you have been."
Accusing cries! He hears them, "Ah! You have been to blame,
You led us into darkness when you were seeking fame."
"You preached your deadly doctrine, we thought you knew the way.
We fed you and we clothed you, we even raised your pay.
You've robbed us of a home where no tear-drops ever flow,
Where days are always fair and the heav'nly breezes blow.
Where living streams are flowing, and saints and Angels sing,
Where every one is happy, and Hallelujahs ring.
We're in this place of torment, from which no soul returns;
We hear the cry of lost ones, we feel the sizzling burns;
Give us a drop of water, we're tortured in this flame;
You failed to preach salvation to us through Jesus' Name."
The preacher turns in horror, he tries to leave the scene,
He knows the awful future for every soul unclean,
But there he meets the devil, whom he has served so well,
He feels the demon powers as they drag him into hell.
Throughout eternal ages, his groans, too, must be heard-
He, too, must suffer torment-he failed to heed God's Word.
He feels God's wrath upon him, he hears the hot flames roar,
His doctrine now is different, he ridicules no more.
By Oscar C. Eliason, c1960
ARAB WINTER
Dr. Michael Youssef
onenewsnow.com
11/30/2011 10:05:00 AM
ARAB WINTER [Excerpts]
After making numerous phone calls and speaking to many Christian leaders in Egypt... I have learned that what is really happening on the ground is far removed from the television reporters' happy endorsement of democracy seekers. To describe what is really going on around the country as "barbaric" would be an understatement. While some of the protestors may be true democracy lovers, the widespread terrorism on display defies all human decency.
The truth about recent events in Egypt reveals that the country has disintegrated into a total anarchy and barbarianism that would make the Vikings blush.
Peaceful Christians are being beheaded in their own homes. Their possessions are being carried off as police either stand helplessly by or, for a portion of the booty, turn a blind eye. And surprise, surprise! Nearly all the victims of beheadings were Christians killed by Muslim fundamentalists.
Not only are the Egyptian Islamists poised to take over the country as a result of elections [the week of November 28], but these acts of terrorism are serving as propaganda tools to "prove" that they and they alone can bring order to the country with their Sharia law. So, for now at least, these terrorist acts reinforce their cause and agenda.
So much for President Obama's "Arab Spring." When history books are written truthfully, they will reveal that the President's speech in Cairo, one he insisted the Islamists attend, set this barbarism in motion.
Indecisive leadership kills innocent people and causes disasters. Take President Jimmy Carter's vacillating support for the Shah of Iran. In one breath, Carter would support the beleaguered leader, and in the next, he would praise the Iranian Revolution. That indecisiveness led to 52 Americans being taken hostage for 444 days inside the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
Full article:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1487262
onenewsnow.com
11/30/2011 10:05:00 AM
ARAB WINTER [Excerpts]
After making numerous phone calls and speaking to many Christian leaders in Egypt... I have learned that what is really happening on the ground is far removed from the television reporters' happy endorsement of democracy seekers. To describe what is really going on around the country as "barbaric" would be an understatement. While some of the protestors may be true democracy lovers, the widespread terrorism on display defies all human decency.
The truth about recent events in Egypt reveals that the country has disintegrated into a total anarchy and barbarianism that would make the Vikings blush.
Peaceful Christians are being beheaded in their own homes. Their possessions are being carried off as police either stand helplessly by or, for a portion of the booty, turn a blind eye. And surprise, surprise! Nearly all the victims of beheadings were Christians killed by Muslim fundamentalists.
Not only are the Egyptian Islamists poised to take over the country as a result of elections [the week of November 28], but these acts of terrorism are serving as propaganda tools to "prove" that they and they alone can bring order to the country with their Sharia law. So, for now at least, these terrorist acts reinforce their cause and agenda.
So much for President Obama's "Arab Spring." When history books are written truthfully, they will reveal that the President's speech in Cairo, one he insisted the Islamists attend, set this barbarism in motion.
Indecisive leadership kills innocent people and causes disasters. Take President Jimmy Carter's vacillating support for the Shah of Iran. In one breath, Carter would support the beleaguered leader, and in the next, he would praise the Iranian Revolution. That indecisiveness led to 52 Americans being taken hostage for 444 days inside the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
Full article:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1487262
Welcome to the Nanny State
Todd Strandberg
raptureready.com
Jan 9, 2012
The arrival of the new year brought with it a host of new laws that regulate every detail of our daily lives. I read one report that said over 40,000 new state laws took effect at the start of this month. The amount of regulation is reaching insane levels.
In Illinois, you now need to provide photo identification and sign a log just to buy drain cleaners and other caustic substances. State Rep. Jack Franks obtained passage of the new law following attacks in which drain cleaner was poured on two Chicago women, badly scarring them. Noncompliance results in fines: $150 for the first offense, $500 for the second, and up to $1,500 for the third and subsequent violations.
It is now illegal to produce 100W and 75W incandescent light bulbs in the U.S. Anyone who doesn't like the light produced by Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs will need to stock up before they run out. In a few years, they will probably be made illegal all together, and we'll hear stories of them being smuggled into the country.
I'm dead-set against all these laws that trample on our rights while going after criminals. I understand that Sudafed is used to produce methamphetamines, but it shouldn't be a controlled substance for someone who uses it for a cold remedy. Arrest the guy with a drug lab in his garage, and leave the rest of us alone.
The regulation of products used to make drugs doesn't work anyway. It just makes addicts more resourceful. In response to the clamp down on cold remedies, someone came up with a one-pot or shake-and-bake method of producing meth. Instead of a lab with beakers and hoses taking up a lot of space, all drug producers need now is a two-liter drink bottle. A couple of weeks ago, a woman was arrested while making meth in the bathroom at a Wal-Mart. I guess we now need a ban on plastic soda bottles.
Last week, President Obama named Richard Cordray director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB). The appointment was in the news because Obama used unconstitutional means to make appointment. What was lost in the headlines was the fact that here we have yet another layer of regulation gumming up our financial markets. We already had about 20 major agencies governing finance. For some brokerages, their largest division is the one where people are working to ensure compliance to government rules.
One of the most sinister examples of how we are turning into a Nanny State is the regulations that govern our banking industry. Your bank is required by law to keep an eye on your financial transactions to make sure you are not engaged in a growing list of illegal activities. Years ago, it was unheard of to have your bank nosing around in your account. Last year, I saw a photo of a $2 million check written in 1979 by author Hunter S. Thompson. It had “Cocaine” written in the memo field. If Hunter had written the same check today, there would probably be a call to the Drug Enforcement Agency or the FBI.
Turning America into a police state is not going to solve our problems. The need for laws is a sign of the lack of morality in a society. There was once a time when anyone could walk into a drugstore and buy a bottle of opium or heroin. We didn't have drug crimes because people knew the abuse of these drugs was contrary to biblical values.
It absolutely astounds me how tolerant people are about the government incursion into their daily lives. I still can't believe people are now willing to allow strangers to feel them up at the airport. Obama signing the law on New Year's Eve that allows him to arrest anyone for any reason was just plain scary. I just wonder what would cause the public to say to the government, "Now, you've gone too far.”
When I was a youngster, I wondered how the Antichrist would be able to get everyone to line up and receive the mark of the Beast. Back then, there were all types of civil rights watch groups, and anything that hinted of a "big brother" move by the government was automatically shot down. Today, the watchdogs are all gone and any move seems very possible. All the Beast would need to do is say the 666 mark is to fight terrorism, and people will be bustling to be the first in line.
"He required everyone--great and small, rich and poor, slave and free--to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead. And no one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either the name of the beast or the number representing his name" (Revelation 13:16-17, NLT).
Full article:
http://raptureready.com/rap16.html
raptureready.com
Jan 9, 2012
The arrival of the new year brought with it a host of new laws that regulate every detail of our daily lives. I read one report that said over 40,000 new state laws took effect at the start of this month. The amount of regulation is reaching insane levels.
In Illinois, you now need to provide photo identification and sign a log just to buy drain cleaners and other caustic substances. State Rep. Jack Franks obtained passage of the new law following attacks in which drain cleaner was poured on two Chicago women, badly scarring them. Noncompliance results in fines: $150 for the first offense, $500 for the second, and up to $1,500 for the third and subsequent violations.
It is now illegal to produce 100W and 75W incandescent light bulbs in the U.S. Anyone who doesn't like the light produced by Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs will need to stock up before they run out. In a few years, they will probably be made illegal all together, and we'll hear stories of them being smuggled into the country.
I'm dead-set against all these laws that trample on our rights while going after criminals. I understand that Sudafed is used to produce methamphetamines, but it shouldn't be a controlled substance for someone who uses it for a cold remedy. Arrest the guy with a drug lab in his garage, and leave the rest of us alone.
The regulation of products used to make drugs doesn't work anyway. It just makes addicts more resourceful. In response to the clamp down on cold remedies, someone came up with a one-pot or shake-and-bake method of producing meth. Instead of a lab with beakers and hoses taking up a lot of space, all drug producers need now is a two-liter drink bottle. A couple of weeks ago, a woman was arrested while making meth in the bathroom at a Wal-Mart. I guess we now need a ban on plastic soda bottles.
Last week, President Obama named Richard Cordray director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB). The appointment was in the news because Obama used unconstitutional means to make appointment. What was lost in the headlines was the fact that here we have yet another layer of regulation gumming up our financial markets. We already had about 20 major agencies governing finance. For some brokerages, their largest division is the one where people are working to ensure compliance to government rules.
One of the most sinister examples of how we are turning into a Nanny State is the regulations that govern our banking industry. Your bank is required by law to keep an eye on your financial transactions to make sure you are not engaged in a growing list of illegal activities. Years ago, it was unheard of to have your bank nosing around in your account. Last year, I saw a photo of a $2 million check written in 1979 by author Hunter S. Thompson. It had “Cocaine” written in the memo field. If Hunter had written the same check today, there would probably be a call to the Drug Enforcement Agency or the FBI.
Turning America into a police state is not going to solve our problems. The need for laws is a sign of the lack of morality in a society. There was once a time when anyone could walk into a drugstore and buy a bottle of opium or heroin. We didn't have drug crimes because people knew the abuse of these drugs was contrary to biblical values.
It absolutely astounds me how tolerant people are about the government incursion into their daily lives. I still can't believe people are now willing to allow strangers to feel them up at the airport. Obama signing the law on New Year's Eve that allows him to arrest anyone for any reason was just plain scary. I just wonder what would cause the public to say to the government, "Now, you've gone too far.”
When I was a youngster, I wondered how the Antichrist would be able to get everyone to line up and receive the mark of the Beast. Back then, there were all types of civil rights watch groups, and anything that hinted of a "big brother" move by the government was automatically shot down. Today, the watchdogs are all gone and any move seems very possible. All the Beast would need to do is say the 666 mark is to fight terrorism, and people will be bustling to be the first in line.
"He required everyone--great and small, rich and poor, slave and free--to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead. And no one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either the name of the beast or the number representing his name" (Revelation 13:16-17, NLT).
Full article:
http://raptureready.com/rap16.html
Monday, January 09, 2012
WORDS HAVE MEANING
Excerpts from "WORDS HAVE MEANING: LOVE, AND FREEDOM"
By Marilyn M. Barnewall
January 8, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
The cost of something for nothing is human dignity
Conservatives think loving their neighbor – being their brother’s keeper – means teaching the poor and downtrodden to fish.
Liberals believe love means giving the poor and downtrodden a fish.
Which definition of love is right? To judge truthfully, one must look at the long-term results of each act… teaching and giving.
When we teach someone to fish – when we train a person to work and be productive – it has a long-term effect on the recipient’s life. Properly taught and considerately planned, it provides life purpose and a career and of being able to support a family and send kids to college.
When we give someone a fish day after day, what do we do? We teach people to be dependent on something outside of them – and that stifles their creative energy. We motivate laziness. Even worse, we motivate the recipient to lose the important drive to get out of bed each morning with the zest required to find meaning and purpose (of which happiness is made) in the day ahead.
The giving of the free fish makes givers feel good about themselves - but is that how we define love of neighbor? No. It isn't. No mature, sane person defines love in this way. The giver of the fish probably won't admit it, but providing the fish is an exercise in power… and love isn't an exercise in one ego dominating another ego.
What about the word "charity?"
To be charitable is to be kind. I would repeat the meaning of love and merely ask: Is it kinder to give your neighbor or your brother a fish? Or is it kinder to teach him to fish? Which has the best long-term impact on the person's life? Which offers the best potential for growth?
How do you define "freedom?"
It seems to me that "freedom" has its root in the right to own personal property - which includes owning one's own body… the avoidance of slavery If you are free to own property, you must have the accompanying right to define its use. If you cannot use property as you wish, do you really own it?
NDAA
In late December, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It decimates the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
A majority of Republicans voted for the NDAA (which validates my concern that Democrats want to get us to one world government via socialism, Republicans via fascism). The official Russian international radio broadcasting service. Voice of Russia, compared the Act to legislation passed by the Third Reich.
If you're unfamiliar with this legislation, don't be. The NDAA gives the President authority to detain, via our armed forces any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," or anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity." An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected by the Senate. (NOTE: AUMF means Authorization for Use of Military Force.)
It is interesting to note that "terrorism" has not by law been defined. NDAA, then, allows the President to define who a terrorist is and to have the military arrest him/her and "disappear" them to a foreign country. It wasn't too long ago that law enforcement in more than one state defined a potential terrorist as someone who had bumper stickers that were pro-Constitution.
That's why it's important to define our words more carefully and know what words like "freedom" mean.
Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Barnewall/marilyn177.htm
By Marilyn M. Barnewall
January 8, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
The cost of something for nothing is human dignity
Conservatives think loving their neighbor – being their brother’s keeper – means teaching the poor and downtrodden to fish.
Liberals believe love means giving the poor and downtrodden a fish.
Which definition of love is right? To judge truthfully, one must look at the long-term results of each act… teaching and giving.
When we teach someone to fish – when we train a person to work and be productive – it has a long-term effect on the recipient’s life. Properly taught and considerately planned, it provides life purpose and a career and of being able to support a family and send kids to college.
When we give someone a fish day after day, what do we do? We teach people to be dependent on something outside of them – and that stifles their creative energy. We motivate laziness. Even worse, we motivate the recipient to lose the important drive to get out of bed each morning with the zest required to find meaning and purpose (of which happiness is made) in the day ahead.
The giving of the free fish makes givers feel good about themselves - but is that how we define love of neighbor? No. It isn't. No mature, sane person defines love in this way. The giver of the fish probably won't admit it, but providing the fish is an exercise in power… and love isn't an exercise in one ego dominating another ego.
What about the word "charity?"
To be charitable is to be kind. I would repeat the meaning of love and merely ask: Is it kinder to give your neighbor or your brother a fish? Or is it kinder to teach him to fish? Which has the best long-term impact on the person's life? Which offers the best potential for growth?
How do you define "freedom?"
It seems to me that "freedom" has its root in the right to own personal property - which includes owning one's own body… the avoidance of slavery If you are free to own property, you must have the accompanying right to define its use. If you cannot use property as you wish, do you really own it?
NDAA
In late December, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It decimates the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
A majority of Republicans voted for the NDAA (which validates my concern that Democrats want to get us to one world government via socialism, Republicans via fascism). The official Russian international radio broadcasting service. Voice of Russia, compared the Act to legislation passed by the Third Reich.
If you're unfamiliar with this legislation, don't be. The NDAA gives the President authority to detain, via our armed forces any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," or anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity." An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected by the Senate. (NOTE: AUMF means Authorization for Use of Military Force.)
It is interesting to note that "terrorism" has not by law been defined. NDAA, then, allows the President to define who a terrorist is and to have the military arrest him/her and "disappear" them to a foreign country. It wasn't too long ago that law enforcement in more than one state defined a potential terrorist as someone who had bumper stickers that were pro-Constitution.
That's why it's important to define our words more carefully and know what words like "freedom" mean.
Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Barnewall/marilyn177.htm
Before Jumping on Board with Rick Santorum...
Before jumping on board with Rick Santorum, consider his past voting record and activities...
Rick Santorum has a history of:
* Padding his own wallet as a corporate lobbyist at the expense of taxpayers;
* Voting to RAISE the debt ceiling five times;
* Voting to DOUBLE the federal Department of Education;
* Voting with liberals like Ted Kennedy on multiple occasions in support of Big Labor's radical agenda;
* Urging more federal involvement in housing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;
* Voting to create a brand new, unfunded entitlement, Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of entitlement spending since President Lyndon Johnson - creating $16 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities;
* Endorsing liberal Big Government RINOs like Arlen Specter over conservatives. Of course, Specter later became a Democrat and worked hand-in-glove with President Obama to pass his radical agenda;
* Voting for Sarbanes-Oxley, which imposed dramatic new job-killing accounting regulations on businesses;
* Supporting raising taxes on oil companies, which directly costs Americans more money out of their pockets at the gas pump;
* Voting for gun control;
* Voting to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens, while voting against an additional 1,000 border patrol agents;
* Voting to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea;
* Voting to send hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood - the nation's largest provider of abortion - and hand out hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid to enemies of Israel.
Rick Santorum isn't even trying to sweep his Big Government record under the rug. He's proud of it!
Rick Santorum said constitutional conservatives have a "crazy" idea that government should "keep our taxes down, and keep our regulations low."
Not only that, but he endorsed Mitt Romney just four years ago!
How can the "alternative to Romney" also be a Romney supporter?
The truth is, Rick Santorum has no national campaign and no funding to compete against Mitt Romney, let alone Barack Obama.
There's no way his Big Government record can stand up to an ounce of scrutiny.
See in his own words:
Rick Santorum
Rick Santorum has a history of:
* Padding his own wallet as a corporate lobbyist at the expense of taxpayers;
* Voting to RAISE the debt ceiling five times;
* Voting to DOUBLE the federal Department of Education;
* Voting with liberals like Ted Kennedy on multiple occasions in support of Big Labor's radical agenda;
* Urging more federal involvement in housing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;
* Voting to create a brand new, unfunded entitlement, Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of entitlement spending since President Lyndon Johnson - creating $16 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities;
* Endorsing liberal Big Government RINOs like Arlen Specter over conservatives. Of course, Specter later became a Democrat and worked hand-in-glove with President Obama to pass his radical agenda;
* Voting for Sarbanes-Oxley, which imposed dramatic new job-killing accounting regulations on businesses;
* Supporting raising taxes on oil companies, which directly costs Americans more money out of their pockets at the gas pump;
* Voting for gun control;
* Voting to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens, while voting against an additional 1,000 border patrol agents;
* Voting to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea;
* Voting to send hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood - the nation's largest provider of abortion - and hand out hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid to enemies of Israel.
Rick Santorum isn't even trying to sweep his Big Government record under the rug. He's proud of it!
Rick Santorum said constitutional conservatives have a "crazy" idea that government should "keep our taxes down, and keep our regulations low."
Not only that, but he endorsed Mitt Romney just four years ago!
How can the "alternative to Romney" also be a Romney supporter?
The truth is, Rick Santorum has no national campaign and no funding to compete against Mitt Romney, let alone Barack Obama.
There's no way his Big Government record can stand up to an ounce of scrutiny.
See in his own words:
Rick Santorum
Friday, January 06, 2012
Barack Obama’s Disturbing Misreading of the Sermon on the Mount as Support for Homosexual Sex
Barack Obama’s Disturbing Misreading of the Sermon on the Mount as Support for Homosexual Sex
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
gagnon@pts.edu
October 23, 2008
Presidential candidate Barack Obama has written in The Audacity of Hope—a book that perhaps should have been entitled The Audacity of Portraying Myself Messianically as the Herald of Audacious Hope—that he is not “willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans [about homosexual practice] to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”[1] He repeated this line in a campaign appearance in Ohio this past March. He stated that if people find controversial his views on granting the full benefits of marriage to homosexual unions, minus only the name, “then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.”[2] These remarks by Obama represent a gross distortion of the witness of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.
On Romans 1
First, they misrepresent the text in Romans 1:24-27 against all homosexual practice, a text that belongs to one of the two or three most important books in Scripture, a catalyst for frequent spiritual revivals for the past two millennia. Romans 1:24-27 depicts all homosexual practice as an “indecency” and moral “impurity” that does three things. First, it violates God’s male-female standard for valid sexual relations given in Genesis 1:27 (the text contains strong echoes to Genesis 1:26-27). Second, it violates the obvious evidence in the material structures of creation that male and female, not persons of the same sex, are each other’s sexual counterparts or complements (a particularly obvious example on the plane of human interrelationships of suppressing the truth about God and ourselves accessible in creation and nature). Third, it “dishonors” the sexual integrity of the participants who engage in such activity by imaging themselves as only half their own sex in their attempt to merge with an alleged complement of the same sex. The passage is no more “obscure” than Paul’s comments on idolatry in the preceding passage in Romans 1:19-23 or his comments regarding a case of adult-consensual man-stepmother incest at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 5—another instance of prohibited sexual intercourse between persons who are too much alike (here on a familial level, already of the same “flesh”).
On Scripture Generally
Second, Obama’s remarks misrepresent Scripture generally in that they suggest that Paul’s stance on homosexual practice is somehow an oddity within the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a person would be hard-pressed to come up with an example of consensual sexual relations that the witness of Scripture opposes more strongly, consistently, and absolutely. Paul’s remarks were certainly not isolated. Every law, narrative, proverb, poetry, metaphor, teaching, and exhortation in Scripture that has anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite. The creation texts in Genesis 1 and 2 both establish such a prerequisite. Genesis 1:27 integrates the creation of “male and female” as a sexual pair with being made in God’s image, suggesting that same-sex pairing would efface that part of the image of God stamped on the sexual self (as also would adultery and incest, the latter even of an adult-consensual sort). Genesis 2:21-24 portrays a male-female sexual bond as the re-merger of the two complementary sexual halves of an integrated sexual whole. In other words, the sexual “counterpart” or “complement” of a man is a woman (and vice versa), a being both “corresponding to him” and “opposite him” (as the Hebrew word kenegdo infers).
On Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount
Third, Obama’s remarks grossly distort the message of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). The Sermon on the Mount says nothing at all that intimates either support for homosexual relationships or opposition to the kind of view espoused in Romans 1, a view that would have been held universally by Jews and Christians of the period.
The Sermon as a closing of remaining loopholes in the Law of Moses
Following the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-11), Jesus contends that he has not come to abolish any portion of the law and the prophets but rather has come to tighten its demands and close remaining loopholes (5:17-48). Six “antitheses” are put forward, the gist of which is: You use to be able to get away with the following but I say ‘no longer’ (5:21-48). Two of the six antitheses have to do with sex: adultery of the heart (5:27-28), which extends God’s requirement for sexual purity into the interior life, and divorce/remarriage (5:31-32). In between them is a warning by Jesus that if your eye or hand threatens your downfall, remove them, for it is better to go into heaven maimed than to be thrown into hell full-bodied (5:29-30). This last statement—along with Jesus’ strong affirmation of “the law and the prophets”—does not fit well with Obama’s view that applying the adage “hate the sin but love the sinner” to homosexual practice is wrong because “such a judgment inflicts pain on good people.”[3]
The two-sexes foundation for Jesus’ view of marital twoness
The remarks against both divorce and marriage to a divorced person are pertinent to the issue of homosexuality. While we permit both in our society it would be invalid to argue from this to acceptance of homosexual unions; first, because Jesus’ remarks implicitly forbade polygamy, which we continue to reject today; and, secondly, because Jesus regarded a male-female prerequisite for marriage (and thus for any sexual union) as foundational for, and hence more important than, the definition of a valid sexual union as a lifelong commitment between two persons.
What we see in Matthew 5:31-32 is only the outcome of a reasoning that is more fully put forward in Matthew 19:3-9 (which parallels Mark 10:2-12). There Jesus bases his view of marital monogamy (the ‘twoness’ of the sexual bond) and marital indissolubility on two Scripture texts: Genesis 1:27 (“male and female [God] made them”) and Genesis 2:24 (“for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his woman/wife and the two shall become one flesh”). The “cleaving” text in Genesis 2:24 is obviously relevant to Jesus’ remarks about marital permanence, even as it presupposes a male-female prerequisite. But of what relevance is the terse quotation that God “made them male and female”? Apparently Jesus extrapolated from God’s creation of two primary sexes that sexual unions should be limited to two persons, whether serially (no divorce) or concurrently (no polygamy). The twoness of the sexes, their binary or dimorphic character, was for Jesus the foundation for limiting sexual unions to two persons. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for Jesus to have cited Genesis 1:27 and no basis for limiting marriage to two and only two persons.
Confirmation for this interpretation of Jesus’ remarks can be found among the Essene community at Qumran, the Jewish sect whose opposition to polygamy was closest to Jesus’ views. They rejected “taking two wives in their lives” because “the foundation of creation is ‘male and female he created them’ [Genesis 1:27]” and because “those who entered (Noah’s) ark went in two by two into the ark [Genesis 7:9]” (Damascus Document 4.20-5.1). Once the two primary sexes came together in a sexual union a third party was neither needed nor desirable.
What this means is that Jesus thought the male-female paradigm given by God in creation was the foundation for the twin principles of monogamy and lifelong commitment. The foundation is obviously more important, not less so, than any superstructure predicated on the foundation. Since we don’t permit polygamy today, even between three or more persons with a polysexual orientation in a loving relationship of lifelong commitment, there is even less of a basis for permitting homosexual unions. Once the twoness of the sexes is rejected as a basis for extrapolating a monogamy principle, there is no nature-based or logical reason for limiting the number of persons in a sexual union to two persons at any one time.
Jesus and “born eunuchs”: no sex for them
In Matthew 19:10-12 Jesus compared “eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” to “eunuchs who from their mother’s womb were born thus.” The former were people who did not get married, and thus abstained from sexual relations, out of a pragmatic missionary desire to further God’s kingdom (i.e., a single person would have greater freedom of movement and might be more willing to take risks than someone who had a family to worry about). The latter, the “born eunuchs,” were men who did not experience sexual desires for women, whether because they were asexual or, possibly, homosexual. Why does Jesus compare “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” with “born eunuchs”? Answer: Like the “born eunuchs,” the “eunuchs for the kingdom” are not having any sexual relations. If the “born eunuchs” included men attracted only to other men—a reasonable interpretation given the ancient evidence—then Jesus was presuming that men with exclusive homosexual attractions should not be having intercourse with other males. This is consistent with his argument from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 earlier in the same passage (Matthew 19:4-9), where the only link between the two creation texts is the insistence that marriage—and thus all sexual unions since Jesus permitted sexual intercourse only in the context of marriage—be between the two sexes, male and female, man and woman. Those who cannot find sexual satisfaction in such relationships, Jesus believed, were not permitted other forms of sexual relationships, including same-sex sexual activity. [This is fodder for further discussion, as this explanation seems to presuppose the idea that "sexual desires" are inborn, when actually sexual desires are of the flesh, can be "trained" (a learned behavior) and if not controlled they are driven by sin nature. "born eunuchs" should actually be translated "eunuchs from birth" the other could include those who are widows/widowers who chose not to re-marry, but to devote the rest of their life to the work of the Gospel. This agrees with Paul's later epistles.]
Other indications of Jesus’ embrace of a male-female standard for sexual unions
There are many other arguments to which one can point in order to establish Jesus’ embrace of a male-female prerequisite for valid sexual unions. These include:
Obama claims that his advocacy for homosexual unions receiving full marriage benefits is in keeping with Jesus’ own views in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere. As an assertion about the Jesus of history or even about the living Christ (assuming significant continuity between the two), this claim is preposterous. It is nothing but a fantasy, a figment of Obama’s imagination imposed on the text of the Sermon. The Sermon does speak about loving one’s enemies (Matthew 5:43-48) and about not judging others over relatively minor matters while ignoring larger problems in one’s own life (7:1-6). However, these themes provide no more support for homosexual unions than they do for loving, committed polyamorous or polygamous unions or for adult-consensual incestuous unions, both of which Jesus obviously opposed. If in the Sermon Jesus warned against men marrying divorced women, even women divorced by their husbands on invalid grounds (i.e., on grounds other than adultery), the idea that Jesus would have opposed “hurting the feelings of gays and lesbians” by not treating such unions as the functional equivalents of a valid marriage represents revisionist history at its worse. Obama’s argument, carried to its logical but absurd conclusion, would force Americans to provide full marital benefits for adult-committed polygamous unions and incestuous unions, since such persons too deserve to have hospital-visitation privileges, health insurance coverage, and all the other benefits of marriage every bit as much (and more so) than homosexual unions.[4]
Obama’s image of Jesus is that of a person who, rather than lovingly calling sinners to repentance so that they might be reclaimed for the kingdom of God that he proclaimed, tells others to stop judging them. This is not the picture of Jesus’ mission to “sinners and tax collectors” in the Gospels. Instead, we find a picture of a Jesus who aggressively reaches out in love to the biggest violators of his ethical demands while simultaneously maintaining that demand; a Jesus who encourages offenders to “go and no longer be sinning” lest something worse happen to them, namely, exclusion from the kingdom of God. Obama does not love more or better than Jesus. That would be carrying a messianic complex a bit too far.
Full article and endnotes:
http://republicansforfamilyvalues.com/2008/10/23/theology-expert-says-obama-grossly-distorts-scriptures-to-support-homosexual-cause/
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
gagnon@pts.edu
October 23, 2008
Presidential candidate Barack Obama has written in The Audacity of Hope—a book that perhaps should have been entitled The Audacity of Portraying Myself Messianically as the Herald of Audacious Hope—that he is not “willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans [about homosexual practice] to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”[1] He repeated this line in a campaign appearance in Ohio this past March. He stated that if people find controversial his views on granting the full benefits of marriage to homosexual unions, minus only the name, “then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.”[2] These remarks by Obama represent a gross distortion of the witness of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.
On Romans 1
First, they misrepresent the text in Romans 1:24-27 against all homosexual practice, a text that belongs to one of the two or three most important books in Scripture, a catalyst for frequent spiritual revivals for the past two millennia. Romans 1:24-27 depicts all homosexual practice as an “indecency” and moral “impurity” that does three things. First, it violates God’s male-female standard for valid sexual relations given in Genesis 1:27 (the text contains strong echoes to Genesis 1:26-27). Second, it violates the obvious evidence in the material structures of creation that male and female, not persons of the same sex, are each other’s sexual counterparts or complements (a particularly obvious example on the plane of human interrelationships of suppressing the truth about God and ourselves accessible in creation and nature). Third, it “dishonors” the sexual integrity of the participants who engage in such activity by imaging themselves as only half their own sex in their attempt to merge with an alleged complement of the same sex. The passage is no more “obscure” than Paul’s comments on idolatry in the preceding passage in Romans 1:19-23 or his comments regarding a case of adult-consensual man-stepmother incest at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 5—another instance of prohibited sexual intercourse between persons who are too much alike (here on a familial level, already of the same “flesh”).
On Scripture Generally
Second, Obama’s remarks misrepresent Scripture generally in that they suggest that Paul’s stance on homosexual practice is somehow an oddity within the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a person would be hard-pressed to come up with an example of consensual sexual relations that the witness of Scripture opposes more strongly, consistently, and absolutely. Paul’s remarks were certainly not isolated. Every law, narrative, proverb, poetry, metaphor, teaching, and exhortation in Scripture that has anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite. The creation texts in Genesis 1 and 2 both establish such a prerequisite. Genesis 1:27 integrates the creation of “male and female” as a sexual pair with being made in God’s image, suggesting that same-sex pairing would efface that part of the image of God stamped on the sexual self (as also would adultery and incest, the latter even of an adult-consensual sort). Genesis 2:21-24 portrays a male-female sexual bond as the re-merger of the two complementary sexual halves of an integrated sexual whole. In other words, the sexual “counterpart” or “complement” of a man is a woman (and vice versa), a being both “corresponding to him” and “opposite him” (as the Hebrew word kenegdo infers).
On Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount
Third, Obama’s remarks grossly distort the message of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). The Sermon on the Mount says nothing at all that intimates either support for homosexual relationships or opposition to the kind of view espoused in Romans 1, a view that would have been held universally by Jews and Christians of the period.
The Sermon as a closing of remaining loopholes in the Law of Moses
Following the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-11), Jesus contends that he has not come to abolish any portion of the law and the prophets but rather has come to tighten its demands and close remaining loopholes (5:17-48). Six “antitheses” are put forward, the gist of which is: You use to be able to get away with the following but I say ‘no longer’ (5:21-48). Two of the six antitheses have to do with sex: adultery of the heart (5:27-28), which extends God’s requirement for sexual purity into the interior life, and divorce/remarriage (5:31-32). In between them is a warning by Jesus that if your eye or hand threatens your downfall, remove them, for it is better to go into heaven maimed than to be thrown into hell full-bodied (5:29-30). This last statement—along with Jesus’ strong affirmation of “the law and the prophets”—does not fit well with Obama’s view that applying the adage “hate the sin but love the sinner” to homosexual practice is wrong because “such a judgment inflicts pain on good people.”[3]
The two-sexes foundation for Jesus’ view of marital twoness
The remarks against both divorce and marriage to a divorced person are pertinent to the issue of homosexuality. While we permit both in our society it would be invalid to argue from this to acceptance of homosexual unions; first, because Jesus’ remarks implicitly forbade polygamy, which we continue to reject today; and, secondly, because Jesus regarded a male-female prerequisite for marriage (and thus for any sexual union) as foundational for, and hence more important than, the definition of a valid sexual union as a lifelong commitment between two persons.
What we see in Matthew 5:31-32 is only the outcome of a reasoning that is more fully put forward in Matthew 19:3-9 (which parallels Mark 10:2-12). There Jesus bases his view of marital monogamy (the ‘twoness’ of the sexual bond) and marital indissolubility on two Scripture texts: Genesis 1:27 (“male and female [God] made them”) and Genesis 2:24 (“for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his woman/wife and the two shall become one flesh”). The “cleaving” text in Genesis 2:24 is obviously relevant to Jesus’ remarks about marital permanence, even as it presupposes a male-female prerequisite. But of what relevance is the terse quotation that God “made them male and female”? Apparently Jesus extrapolated from God’s creation of two primary sexes that sexual unions should be limited to two persons, whether serially (no divorce) or concurrently (no polygamy). The twoness of the sexes, their binary or dimorphic character, was for Jesus the foundation for limiting sexual unions to two persons. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for Jesus to have cited Genesis 1:27 and no basis for limiting marriage to two and only two persons.
Confirmation for this interpretation of Jesus’ remarks can be found among the Essene community at Qumran, the Jewish sect whose opposition to polygamy was closest to Jesus’ views. They rejected “taking two wives in their lives” because “the foundation of creation is ‘male and female he created them’ [Genesis 1:27]” and because “those who entered (Noah’s) ark went in two by two into the ark [Genesis 7:9]” (Damascus Document 4.20-5.1). Once the two primary sexes came together in a sexual union a third party was neither needed nor desirable.
What this means is that Jesus thought the male-female paradigm given by God in creation was the foundation for the twin principles of monogamy and lifelong commitment. The foundation is obviously more important, not less so, than any superstructure predicated on the foundation. Since we don’t permit polygamy today, even between three or more persons with a polysexual orientation in a loving relationship of lifelong commitment, there is even less of a basis for permitting homosexual unions. Once the twoness of the sexes is rejected as a basis for extrapolating a monogamy principle, there is no nature-based or logical reason for limiting the number of persons in a sexual union to two persons at any one time.
Jesus and “born eunuchs”: no sex for them
In Matthew 19:10-12 Jesus compared “eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” to “eunuchs who from their mother’s womb were born thus.” The former were people who did not get married, and thus abstained from sexual relations, out of a pragmatic missionary desire to further God’s kingdom (i.e., a single person would have greater freedom of movement and might be more willing to take risks than someone who had a family to worry about). The latter, the “born eunuchs,” were men who did not experience sexual desires for women, whether because they were asexual or, possibly, homosexual. Why does Jesus compare “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” with “born eunuchs”? Answer: Like the “born eunuchs,” the “eunuchs for the kingdom” are not having any sexual relations. If the “born eunuchs” included men attracted only to other men—a reasonable interpretation given the ancient evidence—then Jesus was presuming that men with exclusive homosexual attractions should not be having intercourse with other males. This is consistent with his argument from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 earlier in the same passage (Matthew 19:4-9), where the only link between the two creation texts is the insistence that marriage—and thus all sexual unions since Jesus permitted sexual intercourse only in the context of marriage—be between the two sexes, male and female, man and woman. Those who cannot find sexual satisfaction in such relationships, Jesus believed, were not permitted other forms of sexual relationships, including same-sex sexual activity. [This is fodder for further discussion, as this explanation seems to presuppose the idea that "sexual desires" are inborn, when actually sexual desires are of the flesh, can be "trained" (a learned behavior) and if not controlled they are driven by sin nature. "born eunuchs" should actually be translated "eunuchs from birth" the other could include those who are widows/widowers who chose not to re-marry, but to devote the rest of their life to the work of the Gospel. This agrees with Paul's later epistles.]
Other indications of Jesus’ embrace of a male-female standard for sexual unions
There are many other arguments to which one can point in order to establish Jesus’ embrace of a male-female prerequisite for valid sexual unions. These include:
- Jesus’ retention of the Law of Moses even on relatively minor matters such as tithing, to say nothing of a foundational law in sexual ethics; and his view of the Old Testament as inviolable Scripture, which Scripture was absolutely opposed to man-male intercourse.
- The fact that the man who baptized Jesus, John the Baptist, was beheaded for defending Levitical sex laws in the case of the adult-incestuous union between Herod Antipas and a woman who was both the ex-wife of his half-brother Philip and the daughter of another half-brother. The rejection of homosexual practice in the same two chapters of Leviticus from which the incest laws stem (18 and 20) is the closest analogue to the incest laws inasmuch as both types of law’s reject sex between persons too much alike in embodied structures, whether in terms of kinship or in terms of gender.
- Early Judaism’s univocal opposition to all homosexual practice—no exceptions anywhere within many centuries of the life of Jesus.
- The early church’s united opposition to all homosexual practice. This completes the historical circle and underscores the absurdity of positing a homosexualist Jesus without analogue in his historical context: cut off from his Scripture, from the rest of early Judaism, from the man who baptized him, and from the church that emerged from his teachings.
- Jesus’ saying about the defiling effect of desires for various forms of sexual immoralities (porneiai, Mark 7:21-23), which distinguished matters of relative moral indifference such as food laws from matters of moral significance such as the sexual commands of his Bible and connected Jesus to the general view of what constitutes the worst forms of porneia in early Judaism (same-sex intercourse, incest, bestiality, adultery).
- Jesus’ affirmation of the Decalogue prohibition of adultery, which in early Judaism was treated as a rubric for the major sex laws of the Old Testament, including, prominently, the laws against homosexual practice.
- Jesus’ saying about Sodom which, understood in the light of Second Temple interpretations of Sodom (Matthew 10:14-15, with parallel text in Luke 10:10-12), included an indictment of Sodom for attempting to dishonor the integrity of the visitors’ masculinity by treating them as if they were the sexual counterparts to males.
- Jesus’ saying about not giving what is “holy” to the “dogs” (Matthew 7:6), an apparent allusion to Deuteronomic law (Deuteronomy 23:17-18) and texts in 1-2 Kings that indict figures known as the qedeshim, self-designated “holy ones” identified as “dogs” in Deuteronomy for their attempt to erase their masculinity by serving as the passive-receptive partners in man-male intercourse.
- The fact that Jesus developed a sex ethic that had distinctive features not shared by the love commandment (love for everyone does not translate into having sex with everyone); reached out to tax collectors and sexual sinners while simultaneously intensifying God’s ethical demand in these areas; insisted that the adulterous woman stop sinning lest something worse happen to her (i.e., loss of eternal life; compare John 8:3-11 with John 5:14); appropriated the context of the “love your neighbor” command in Leviticus 19:18 by insisting on reproof as part of a full-orbed view of love (Luke 17:3-4; compare Leviticus 19:17: you shall reprove your neighbor lest you incur guilt for failing to warn him); and defined discipleship to him as taking up one’s cross, denying oneself, and losing one’s life (Mark 8:34-37; Matthew 10:38-39; Luke 14:27; 17:33; John 12:25).
Obama claims that his advocacy for homosexual unions receiving full marriage benefits is in keeping with Jesus’ own views in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere. As an assertion about the Jesus of history or even about the living Christ (assuming significant continuity between the two), this claim is preposterous. It is nothing but a fantasy, a figment of Obama’s imagination imposed on the text of the Sermon. The Sermon does speak about loving one’s enemies (Matthew 5:43-48) and about not judging others over relatively minor matters while ignoring larger problems in one’s own life (7:1-6). However, these themes provide no more support for homosexual unions than they do for loving, committed polyamorous or polygamous unions or for adult-consensual incestuous unions, both of which Jesus obviously opposed. If in the Sermon Jesus warned against men marrying divorced women, even women divorced by their husbands on invalid grounds (i.e., on grounds other than adultery), the idea that Jesus would have opposed “hurting the feelings of gays and lesbians” by not treating such unions as the functional equivalents of a valid marriage represents revisionist history at its worse. Obama’s argument, carried to its logical but absurd conclusion, would force Americans to provide full marital benefits for adult-committed polygamous unions and incestuous unions, since such persons too deserve to have hospital-visitation privileges, health insurance coverage, and all the other benefits of marriage every bit as much (and more so) than homosexual unions.[4]
Obama’s image of Jesus is that of a person who, rather than lovingly calling sinners to repentance so that they might be reclaimed for the kingdom of God that he proclaimed, tells others to stop judging them. This is not the picture of Jesus’ mission to “sinners and tax collectors” in the Gospels. Instead, we find a picture of a Jesus who aggressively reaches out in love to the biggest violators of his ethical demands while simultaneously maintaining that demand; a Jesus who encourages offenders to “go and no longer be sinning” lest something worse happen to them, namely, exclusion from the kingdom of God. Obama does not love more or better than Jesus. That would be carrying a messianic complex a bit too far.
Full article and endnotes:
http://republicansforfamilyvalues.com/2008/10/23/theology-expert-says-obama-grossly-distorts-scriptures-to-support-homosexual-cause/
Thursday, January 05, 2012
BILL OF RIGHTS IS NO MORE
“Even while committing an act of pure treason in signing the bill, the unindicted criminal President Obama issued a signing statement that reads, in part, ‘Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded…’
“Anyone who reads between the lines here realizes the ‘the flexibility on which our safety depends’ means they can interpret the law in any way they want if there is a sufficient amount of fear being created through false flag terror attacks"
BILL OF RIGHTS IS NO MORE
By Chuck Baldwin
January 5, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
While most Americans were celebrating the holidays, President Barack Obama quietly signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” into law. Obama had initially said he would veto the bill which contains the draconian language authorizing the US military to seize and incarcerate US citizens without warrant, due process, trial, etc. Of course, Obama quickly changed his mind after the bill passed both houses of Congress.
When signing the NDAA into law, Obama issued a signing statement that in essence said, “I have the power to detain Americans... but I won’t.”
Americans should realize that, coupled with the Patriot Act, the NDAA, for all intents and purposes, completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights, turns the United States into a war zone, and places US citizens under military rule. And what is even more astonishing is the manner in which the national press corps, and even the so-called “conservative” talking heads, have either completely ignored it, or have actually defended it. The likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al., should be ashamed of themselves!
At this juncture, I want to highly encourage my readers to review two columns written by my constitutional attorney son, Tim Baldwin. He has written two masterful columns explaining the draconian provisions of the NDAA and responding to those irresponsible journalists who fail to understand and warn the American people regarding the horrific implications of the NDAA.
Mike Adams at NaturalNews.com has also written a great piece regarding the seriousness of the NDAA. He begins his report saying, “One of the most extraordinary documents in human history--the Bill of Rights--has come to an end under President Barack Obama. Derived from sacred principles of natural law, the Bill of Rights has come to a sudden and catastrophic end with the President's signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a law that grants the U.S. military the ‘legal’ right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder. This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused. It is a system of outright government tyranny against the American people, and it effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights.
“In what will be remembered as the most traitorous executive signing ever committed against the American people, President Obama signed the bill on New Year's Eve, a time when most Americans were engaged in the consumption of alcohol. It seems appropriate, of course, since no intelligent American could accept the tyranny of this bill if they were sober.
“This is the law that will cement Obama's legacy in the history books as the traitor who nullified the Bill of Rights and paved America's pathway down a road of tyranny that will make Nazi Germany's war crimes look like child's play. If Bush had signed a law like this, liberals would have been screaming ‘impeachment!’”
Adams is absolutely right! Liberals are as bad as conservatives when it comes to overlooking traitorous behavior when it is perpetrated by one of their own.
Adams goes on to say, “Even while committing an act of pure treason in signing the bill, the unindicted criminal President Obama issued a signing statement that reads, in part, ‘Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded…’
“Anyone who reads between the lines here realizes the ‘the flexibility on which our safety depends’ means they can interpret the law in any way they want if there is a sufficient amount of fear being created through false flag terror attacks. Astute readers will also notice that Obama's signing statement has no legal binding whatsoever and only refers to Obama's momentary intentions on how he ‘wishes’ to interpret the law. It does not place any limits whatsoever on how a future President might use the law as written.”
Signed into law by President George W. Bush, the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act effectively eviscerated the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Now, the NDAA of 2012, signed into law by President Barack Obama, has effectively eviscerated the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendments to the US Constitution. Note that it has not mattered one whit whether it was a Republican or Democrat President or Congress in power at the time. Both parties in Washington, D.C., have superintended over the deliberate and unabashed dismantlement of the Bill of Rights. And, of course, we must all realize that for all intents and purposes--and with very few exceptions--both parties in Washington, D.C., have ignored the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution for decades.
We should also add that the First Amendment was pretty much expunged in 1962 and 1963 when the US Supreme Court outlawed the public acknowledgment of God. And the Second Amendment suffered a major setback with the passage of the Nazi-like Gun Control Act of 1968. And, of course, the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision also effectively annihilated the right to life clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Therefore, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that, over the past several decades, the US Congress, the US Supreme Court, and the US Presidency have collaborated together to strip the American people of the protections and safeguards of their liberties contained in what must be recognized--along with the Declaration of Independence--as the Holy Grail of liberty: the Bill of Rights.
So, how long will it be before the President of the United States will actually act upon the power that has been granted him under the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the NDAA of 2012? How long will it be before the US military is ordered to turn their guns on the American citizenry? How long will it be before American citizens begin disappearing in much the same way that the people in Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, and Mao’s China disappeared? What will be the “national emergency” that triggers the implementation of these Hitlerian laws? Another 9-11-style attack maybe? Who knows? One thing is certain: these laws are not painstakingly written, debated, and passed into law for the fun of it! These laws are on the books for a reason: the federal government fully intends to implement these laws at some point! You can count on that!
And once more I need to remind readers that the only Presidential candidate that is sounding the alarm regarding this persistent and deliberate erosion of our liberties is Congressman Ron Paul.
I am reminded of the sagacious words of America’s most celebrated jurist Daniel Webster. He said, “God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.” So, I guess it’s time to start asking the question: Just who is left within these States United that truly love liberty and are willing to guard and defend it? Because one thing is certain: the vast majority of the miscreants in Washington, D.C., sure aren’t going to do it.
Full article and additional links:
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin682.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Timothy/baldwin177.htm
http://tinyurl.com/7j7reom
http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.html
“Anyone who reads between the lines here realizes the ‘the flexibility on which our safety depends’ means they can interpret the law in any way they want if there is a sufficient amount of fear being created through false flag terror attacks"
BILL OF RIGHTS IS NO MORE
By Chuck Baldwin
January 5, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
While most Americans were celebrating the holidays, President Barack Obama quietly signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” into law. Obama had initially said he would veto the bill which contains the draconian language authorizing the US military to seize and incarcerate US citizens without warrant, due process, trial, etc. Of course, Obama quickly changed his mind after the bill passed both houses of Congress.
When signing the NDAA into law, Obama issued a signing statement that in essence said, “I have the power to detain Americans... but I won’t.”
Americans should realize that, coupled with the Patriot Act, the NDAA, for all intents and purposes, completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights, turns the United States into a war zone, and places US citizens under military rule. And what is even more astonishing is the manner in which the national press corps, and even the so-called “conservative” talking heads, have either completely ignored it, or have actually defended it. The likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al., should be ashamed of themselves!
At this juncture, I want to highly encourage my readers to review two columns written by my constitutional attorney son, Tim Baldwin. He has written two masterful columns explaining the draconian provisions of the NDAA and responding to those irresponsible journalists who fail to understand and warn the American people regarding the horrific implications of the NDAA.
Mike Adams at NaturalNews.com has also written a great piece regarding the seriousness of the NDAA. He begins his report saying, “One of the most extraordinary documents in human history--the Bill of Rights--has come to an end under President Barack Obama. Derived from sacred principles of natural law, the Bill of Rights has come to a sudden and catastrophic end with the President's signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a law that grants the U.S. military the ‘legal’ right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder. This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused. It is a system of outright government tyranny against the American people, and it effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights.
“In what will be remembered as the most traitorous executive signing ever committed against the American people, President Obama signed the bill on New Year's Eve, a time when most Americans were engaged in the consumption of alcohol. It seems appropriate, of course, since no intelligent American could accept the tyranny of this bill if they were sober.
“This is the law that will cement Obama's legacy in the history books as the traitor who nullified the Bill of Rights and paved America's pathway down a road of tyranny that will make Nazi Germany's war crimes look like child's play. If Bush had signed a law like this, liberals would have been screaming ‘impeachment!’”
Adams is absolutely right! Liberals are as bad as conservatives when it comes to overlooking traitorous behavior when it is perpetrated by one of their own.
Adams goes on to say, “Even while committing an act of pure treason in signing the bill, the unindicted criminal President Obama issued a signing statement that reads, in part, ‘Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded…’
“Anyone who reads between the lines here realizes the ‘the flexibility on which our safety depends’ means they can interpret the law in any way they want if there is a sufficient amount of fear being created through false flag terror attacks. Astute readers will also notice that Obama's signing statement has no legal binding whatsoever and only refers to Obama's momentary intentions on how he ‘wishes’ to interpret the law. It does not place any limits whatsoever on how a future President might use the law as written.”
Signed into law by President George W. Bush, the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act effectively eviscerated the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Now, the NDAA of 2012, signed into law by President Barack Obama, has effectively eviscerated the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendments to the US Constitution. Note that it has not mattered one whit whether it was a Republican or Democrat President or Congress in power at the time. Both parties in Washington, D.C., have superintended over the deliberate and unabashed dismantlement of the Bill of Rights. And, of course, we must all realize that for all intents and purposes--and with very few exceptions--both parties in Washington, D.C., have ignored the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution for decades.
We should also add that the First Amendment was pretty much expunged in 1962 and 1963 when the US Supreme Court outlawed the public acknowledgment of God. And the Second Amendment suffered a major setback with the passage of the Nazi-like Gun Control Act of 1968. And, of course, the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision also effectively annihilated the right to life clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Therefore, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that, over the past several decades, the US Congress, the US Supreme Court, and the US Presidency have collaborated together to strip the American people of the protections and safeguards of their liberties contained in what must be recognized--along with the Declaration of Independence--as the Holy Grail of liberty: the Bill of Rights.
So, how long will it be before the President of the United States will actually act upon the power that has been granted him under the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the NDAA of 2012? How long will it be before the US military is ordered to turn their guns on the American citizenry? How long will it be before American citizens begin disappearing in much the same way that the people in Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, and Mao’s China disappeared? What will be the “national emergency” that triggers the implementation of these Hitlerian laws? Another 9-11-style attack maybe? Who knows? One thing is certain: these laws are not painstakingly written, debated, and passed into law for the fun of it! These laws are on the books for a reason: the federal government fully intends to implement these laws at some point! You can count on that!
And once more I need to remind readers that the only Presidential candidate that is sounding the alarm regarding this persistent and deliberate erosion of our liberties is Congressman Ron Paul.
I am reminded of the sagacious words of America’s most celebrated jurist Daniel Webster. He said, “God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.” So, I guess it’s time to start asking the question: Just who is left within these States United that truly love liberty and are willing to guard and defend it? Because one thing is certain: the vast majority of the miscreants in Washington, D.C., sure aren’t going to do it.
Full article and additional links:
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin682.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Timothy/baldwin177.htm
http://tinyurl.com/7j7reom
http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.html
Totalitarian State Mind Control Wars (Part 1)
By Paul McGuire
January 2, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
Totalitarianism has already conquered America. What happens in the next few years is simply the externalization of a battle that has already been won in the mind of man. For over a century millions of American’s have been put into a drug-like state through materialism, television, film, music, ever-increasing dosages of sexual perversion, political theatre, false prophets in the church, drugs, social engineering and the mind-control-factories of public education. Martial Law, detention camps and rule by military force are simply the by-products of an Armageddon-style war for the mind that has been won by those who arrogantly call themselves “the scientific elite.” But, most people do not understand the Luciferian and spiritual dimension of this warfare that was planned centuries ago.
This war is not a new war; it is a mind control war that goes back to ancient Babylon and the secret occult religions. The primary military theatre of this war is in the human mind. Beginning in 1917 when the father of modern public education came back from Communist Russia, the mass brainwashing and mind control war started with Orwellian thought control in public education.
This was not hidden; Dewey and others came out publicly and stated the purpose of publication was to not educate but to indoctrinate through scientific social engineering. Despite the fact that Dewey and the Communist movement claim to be atheists, the reality is that Karl Marx was a practicing Satanist. The Communist Manifesto that Marx wrote with Engels was simply a copy of the Illuminati Manifesto written in the late 1700’s. The six primary tenets of the Illuminati Manifesto are:
These are also the exact same goals of the World Communist Movement. Look at America today and notice that every one of these areas is under attack or has been destroyed. This is a deliberate strategy and it ties directly in to harnessing Luciferian power and mind control because it severs all psychological and spiritual ties to God and the individual. The endgame is a microchipped planet of slaves who will serve the Illuminati elite.
This has not been a covert war in the traditional sense; most of it was announced in articles, speeches, books and through the media. Science fiction author and former head of British intelligence during World War I wrote, “The Open Conspiracy,” in 1928, which outlined a plan for global totalitarian state. In a June 16, 1928 article in the Illustrated London News, Wells’ good friend and fellow intellectual G. K. Chesterton reviewed the book and warned of the danger he saw in what Wells was saying about the "general tendency towards establishing a world control." Chesterton correctly perceived that Well’s call for world government would end up being a world dictatorship.
In 1940, H.G.Well’s published his book, “The New World Order” and revealed the battle plan. H.G. Wells, was far more than a leading intellectual, he was connected to occult secret societies. Unlike, American Marxists in academia and politics, Well’s believed the most effective method of Revolution was not with guns, camps and violent revolution. Wells understood that the most effective revolution could be achieved through the science of brainwashing and mind control. Wells wrote in “The New World Order,”…A Revolution need be neither an explosion nor a coup d'état. And the Revolution that lies before us now as the only hopeful alternative to chaos, either directly or after an interlude of world communism, is to be attained…” Well’s explained, “An altogether different type of Revolution may or may not be possible. No one can say that it is possible unless it is tried, but one can say with some assurance that unless it can be achieved the outlook for mankind for many generations at least is hopeless. The new Revolution aims essentially at a change in directive ideas. In its completeness it is an untried method.” Years later, after this new type of Revolution, that relied on social engineering and mind control was tested, Wells realized that scientific mind control is far more effective that troops, guns and camps.
“It depends for its success upon whether a sufficient number of minds can be brought to realize that the choice before us…” Aldous Huxley, a disciple of H.G. Wells and British Intelligence agent, came to Hollywood in the 1930’s to promote his ideas by writing screenplay’s that would be produced as feature films. In 1932 Huxley wrote a novel entitled, “Brave New World,” where he described a “scientific dictatorship: that was established not through armed troops and tyranny, but through drugs, sex and mind control. “There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.” Aldus Huxley.
In a 1962 speech at UC Berkeley, Huxley spoke primarily of the ‘Ultimate Revolution’ that focuses on ‘behavioral controls’ of people: If you are going to control any population for any length of time, you must bring in an element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them. We are in process of developing a whole series of techniques, which will enable the controlling oligarchy – who have always existed and will presumably always exist – to get people to love their servitude.”
Huxley added, “I think there are going to be scientific dictatorships in many parts of the world. If you can get people to consent to the state of servitude – then you are likely to have a much more stable, a much more lasting society; much more easily controllable society than you would if you were relying wholly on clubs, and firing squads and concentration camps.”
Aldous Huxley began turning on many Hollywood celebrities, writers and powerful people on to the psychedelic drug mescaline. He wrote his famous book, “Heaven and Hell and the Doors of Perception,” which advocated the use of strong psychedelic drugs to travel into different dimensions and he promoted occult and mystical teachings. As I High School student in New York City, I read Huxley’s book and took mescaline not as a means to get “high,” but to travel through the doors of perception. At around this same time, Harvard Professor Timothy Leary was telling people to “tune in, turn on and drop out,” by ingesting an even-more powerful drug LSD.
In my search for the answers to life’s questions, I began taking LSD, practicing Eastern mysticism, saw the great white light and communicating with spirit guides, which today I am convinced were demons. My major at the University of Missouri was “Altered States of Consciousness” and filmmaking. Back then I did not understand the promotion of psychedelic drugs and the counter culture was a mind control war called MK ULTRA.
In 1980, when I moved into Laurel Canyon and Lookout Mountain in the Hollywood Hills above Sunset Blvd. to produce a number science fiction films, I did not know that Aldous Huxley lived within walking distance of my house several decades earlier and that Timothy Leary was there at the same time I was there. I had hung out with Leary at the Electric Circus on St. Marx’s place in the East Village and we would run into him at exercise gyms.
What is interesting is that Laurel Canyon and Lookout Mountain was home to a lot of musicians, writers and other people who were allegedly involved in MK ULTRA experiments. Years after I lived there, I read that there was supposedly some kind secret MK ULTRA facility hidden up there.
I remember jogging up the mountain one day and walking through some trees I discovered a strange looking compound directly beneath the cliff I was standing on. It was a strange looking compound and at the time, I believed it to me the home of some kind of cult. If that was the rumored facility I will never know, because I was unable to find it again since there was only one small view of it hidden by the private property of people’s homes.
The whole Lookout Mountain scene had no appeal to me because I had long ago left the “counter culture” and began intensively studying the Old and New Testament’s. There was no question that there was intense demonic activity in the Laurel Canyon and Lookout Mountain area. You can feel the presence of it in the air. But through my research, I began to realize the occult-Illuminati connections between psychedelic drugs and the MK ULTRA program which was developed by Nazi scientists who were practicing Satanists brought to America after World War II. This implied that certain rituals and drugs can open portals into another dimension and allow demonic entities to travel into our present reality, which is the secret component of the mind control wars.
Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/McGuire/paul111.htm
January 2, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
“You who read this represent the greatest danger to America.
No matter what the outcome of the war in Europe may be, Totalitarianism has already won a complete victory in many American minds and conquered all of our intellectual life. You have helped it to win.
Perhaps it is your right to destroy civilization and bring dictatorship to America, but not unless you understand fully what you are doing.
But the tragedy of today is that you — who are responsible for the coming Totalitarian dictatorship of America — you do not know your own responsibility. You would be the first to deny the active part you're playing…”
-Ayn Rand in a open letter entitled, “To All Fifth Columnists,“ in 1941
Totalitarianism has already conquered America. What happens in the next few years is simply the externalization of a battle that has already been won in the mind of man. For over a century millions of American’s have been put into a drug-like state through materialism, television, film, music, ever-increasing dosages of sexual perversion, political theatre, false prophets in the church, drugs, social engineering and the mind-control-factories of public education. Martial Law, detention camps and rule by military force are simply the by-products of an Armageddon-style war for the mind that has been won by those who arrogantly call themselves “the scientific elite.” But, most people do not understand the Luciferian and spiritual dimension of this warfare that was planned centuries ago.
This war is not a new war; it is a mind control war that goes back to ancient Babylon and the secret occult religions. The primary military theatre of this war is in the human mind. Beginning in 1917 when the father of modern public education came back from Communist Russia, the mass brainwashing and mind control war started with Orwellian thought control in public education.
This was not hidden; Dewey and others came out publicly and stated the purpose of publication was to not educate but to indoctrinate through scientific social engineering. Despite the fact that Dewey and the Communist movement claim to be atheists, the reality is that Karl Marx was a practicing Satanist. The Communist Manifesto that Marx wrote with Engels was simply a copy of the Illuminati Manifesto written in the late 1700’s. The six primary tenets of the Illuminati Manifesto are:
- Abolition of Monarchy and Ordered Government
- Abolition of Property
- Abolition of Inheritance
- Abolition of Patriotism
- Abolition of Family
- Abolition of Religion
These are also the exact same goals of the World Communist Movement. Look at America today and notice that every one of these areas is under attack or has been destroyed. This is a deliberate strategy and it ties directly in to harnessing Luciferian power and mind control because it severs all psychological and spiritual ties to God and the individual. The endgame is a microchipped planet of slaves who will serve the Illuminati elite.
This has not been a covert war in the traditional sense; most of it was announced in articles, speeches, books and through the media. Science fiction author and former head of British intelligence during World War I wrote, “The Open Conspiracy,” in 1928, which outlined a plan for global totalitarian state. In a June 16, 1928 article in the Illustrated London News, Wells’ good friend and fellow intellectual G. K. Chesterton reviewed the book and warned of the danger he saw in what Wells was saying about the "general tendency towards establishing a world control." Chesterton correctly perceived that Well’s call for world government would end up being a world dictatorship.
In 1940, H.G.Well’s published his book, “The New World Order” and revealed the battle plan. H.G. Wells, was far more than a leading intellectual, he was connected to occult secret societies. Unlike, American Marxists in academia and politics, Well’s believed the most effective method of Revolution was not with guns, camps and violent revolution. Wells understood that the most effective revolution could be achieved through the science of brainwashing and mind control. Wells wrote in “The New World Order,”…A Revolution need be neither an explosion nor a coup d'état. And the Revolution that lies before us now as the only hopeful alternative to chaos, either directly or after an interlude of world communism, is to be attained…” Well’s explained, “An altogether different type of Revolution may or may not be possible. No one can say that it is possible unless it is tried, but one can say with some assurance that unless it can be achieved the outlook for mankind for many generations at least is hopeless. The new Revolution aims essentially at a change in directive ideas. In its completeness it is an untried method.” Years later, after this new type of Revolution, that relied on social engineering and mind control was tested, Wells realized that scientific mind control is far more effective that troops, guns and camps.
“It depends for its success upon whether a sufficient number of minds can be brought to realize that the choice before us…” Aldous Huxley, a disciple of H.G. Wells and British Intelligence agent, came to Hollywood in the 1930’s to promote his ideas by writing screenplay’s that would be produced as feature films. In 1932 Huxley wrote a novel entitled, “Brave New World,” where he described a “scientific dictatorship: that was established not through armed troops and tyranny, but through drugs, sex and mind control. “There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.” Aldus Huxley.
In a 1962 speech at UC Berkeley, Huxley spoke primarily of the ‘Ultimate Revolution’ that focuses on ‘behavioral controls’ of people: If you are going to control any population for any length of time, you must bring in an element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them. We are in process of developing a whole series of techniques, which will enable the controlling oligarchy – who have always existed and will presumably always exist – to get people to love their servitude.”
Huxley added, “I think there are going to be scientific dictatorships in many parts of the world. If you can get people to consent to the state of servitude – then you are likely to have a much more stable, a much more lasting society; much more easily controllable society than you would if you were relying wholly on clubs, and firing squads and concentration camps.”
Aldous Huxley began turning on many Hollywood celebrities, writers and powerful people on to the psychedelic drug mescaline. He wrote his famous book, “Heaven and Hell and the Doors of Perception,” which advocated the use of strong psychedelic drugs to travel into different dimensions and he promoted occult and mystical teachings. As I High School student in New York City, I read Huxley’s book and took mescaline not as a means to get “high,” but to travel through the doors of perception. At around this same time, Harvard Professor Timothy Leary was telling people to “tune in, turn on and drop out,” by ingesting an even-more powerful drug LSD.
In my search for the answers to life’s questions, I began taking LSD, practicing Eastern mysticism, saw the great white light and communicating with spirit guides, which today I am convinced were demons. My major at the University of Missouri was “Altered States of Consciousness” and filmmaking. Back then I did not understand the promotion of psychedelic drugs and the counter culture was a mind control war called MK ULTRA.
In 1980, when I moved into Laurel Canyon and Lookout Mountain in the Hollywood Hills above Sunset Blvd. to produce a number science fiction films, I did not know that Aldous Huxley lived within walking distance of my house several decades earlier and that Timothy Leary was there at the same time I was there. I had hung out with Leary at the Electric Circus on St. Marx’s place in the East Village and we would run into him at exercise gyms.
What is interesting is that Laurel Canyon and Lookout Mountain was home to a lot of musicians, writers and other people who were allegedly involved in MK ULTRA experiments. Years after I lived there, I read that there was supposedly some kind secret MK ULTRA facility hidden up there.
I remember jogging up the mountain one day and walking through some trees I discovered a strange looking compound directly beneath the cliff I was standing on. It was a strange looking compound and at the time, I believed it to me the home of some kind of cult. If that was the rumored facility I will never know, because I was unable to find it again since there was only one small view of it hidden by the private property of people’s homes.
The whole Lookout Mountain scene had no appeal to me because I had long ago left the “counter culture” and began intensively studying the Old and New Testament’s. There was no question that there was intense demonic activity in the Laurel Canyon and Lookout Mountain area. You can feel the presence of it in the air. But through my research, I began to realize the occult-Illuminati connections between psychedelic drugs and the MK ULTRA program which was developed by Nazi scientists who were practicing Satanists brought to America after World War II. This implied that certain rituals and drugs can open portals into another dimension and allow demonic entities to travel into our present reality, which is the secret component of the mind control wars.
Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/McGuire/paul111.htm
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Coming In 2012: Target Tehran
January 4, 2012 by John Myers
The United States has Iran in its crosshairs.
Target Tehran is a new production set to be released worldwide in 2012. Washington hopes it will be a blockbuster.
The story is of an all-out air and naval assault on Iran by the forces of freedom and democracy: the U.S. Navy and Air Force. It is yet to be decided if the U.S. infantry will be written into the script; but with an unlimited budget, it very well may happen.
Details of the story are undergoing final edits at the Pentagon. President Barack Obama has already signed on to direct the project. Insiders say it could save his career.
(Unfortunately, Target Tehran will not follow the same plot as its namesake, Target Tokyo. When that film was released in 1945 — narrated by Ronald Reagan who, ironically, would become president — there was no doubt that America was fighting a global struggle for freedom. Many historians have called it America’s last good war.)
The first production, Iraq II, was directed by two Presidents at a cost of $1 trillion. Not since Ishtar has there been a bigger desert bust.
Almost 4,500 U.S. soldiers perished during the making of Iraq II. Another 32,000 U.S. soldiers were wounded. No U.S. agency officially keeps track of the “other side,” but estimates indicate that between 100,000 and 300,000 Iraqis died.
Counterpunch.com describes the Iraq war in a paragraph that reads like a movie review:
There is no happy ending. Iraq is as far away from democracy as it was during Saddam Hussein’s rule.
Saddam was a ruthless butcher, but that hardly distinguished him as a Mideast ruler. Today, Iraq is being ripped apart by sectarian violence and is on the verge of a bloody civil war.
Such post-production details matter little to the neoconservatives who conceived the project.
Only a few weeks ago did production shut down in Iraq. In response, The Washington Post published this opinion piece by Jessica T. Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
Bullets Over Broadway
As misguided as it was for America, Iraq II was embraced by Obama, the second director brought in on the project. Continued work ceased only after the Iraqi government, which owns the lot where the production was being made, declared that U.S. forces could face prosecution for their actions.
It seems almost impossible to believe that the U.S. government, which seamlessly transformed Japan and Germany into rich democratic nations following World War II, could fail so miserably in the Mideast, yet that is exactly what has happened.
Springtime For Hitler
Washington is intent on further Mideast productions. In a case of life imitating art, Target Tehran seems much like Mel Brooks’ production The Producers.
Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seem as careless as Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom in turning their play into a flop — as long as their careers can be furthered by it.
On the PBS program Victory In The Pacific, the narrator says: “The emperor, who had worried about a rebellion from his subjects, helped ensure his position by posing as their savior.”
I expect the same of Obama in 2012. His re-election looms in less than 11 months, and nothing has proven to be a better prescription for winning than engaging in war. What better target than Iran? Unlike George W. Bush, Obama doesn’t have to lie about weapons of mass destruction. Many Americans are convinced Iran actually has them, and Washington is already in pre-production mode. Consider the recent public relations offensive:
Over the holidays, Obama’s Hawaii vacation included a workout at the Kaneohe Marine Base. Later, he hiked with family and friends along the Lanikai Pillbox trail on the Windward side of Oahu, a short distance from Pearl Harbor. Not far away, Obama was likely planning his re-election campaign and the centerpiece of it: Target Tehran.
Full article:
http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/government/coming-in-2012-target-tehran/?eiid=
The United States has Iran in its crosshairs.
Target Tehran is a new production set to be released worldwide in 2012. Washington hopes it will be a blockbuster.
The story is of an all-out air and naval assault on Iran by the forces of freedom and democracy: the U.S. Navy and Air Force. It is yet to be decided if the U.S. infantry will be written into the script; but with an unlimited budget, it very well may happen.
Details of the story are undergoing final edits at the Pentagon. President Barack Obama has already signed on to direct the project. Insiders say it could save his career.
(Unfortunately, Target Tehran will not follow the same plot as its namesake, Target Tokyo. When that film was released in 1945 — narrated by Ronald Reagan who, ironically, would become president — there was no doubt that America was fighting a global struggle for freedom. Many historians have called it America’s last good war.)
The first production, Iraq II, was directed by two Presidents at a cost of $1 trillion. Not since Ishtar has there been a bigger desert bust.
Almost 4,500 U.S. soldiers perished during the making of Iraq II. Another 32,000 U.S. soldiers were wounded. No U.S. agency officially keeps track of the “other side,” but estimates indicate that between 100,000 and 300,000 Iraqis died.
Counterpunch.com describes the Iraq war in a paragraph that reads like a movie review:
In the U.S. narrative — as repeated in U.S. media — this war was waged to prevent Iraq from terrorizing the world, never mind that all the “evidence” was trumped up. It is mind-boggling the notion of killing and maiming untold tens of thousands of Iraqis and displacing hundreds of thousands of them, and for U.S. politicians to continue to invoke notions of U.S. sacrifice and heroic deeds in the same breath.There were also indirect costs of Iraq II, including a five-fold increase in the price of oil and a declining opinion of the United States. Two generations ago, America was seen as the great liberator. Today, many people consider it the great instigator.
There is no happy ending. Iraq is as far away from democracy as it was during Saddam Hussein’s rule.
Saddam was a ruthless butcher, but that hardly distinguished him as a Mideast ruler. Today, Iraq is being ripped apart by sectarian violence and is on the verge of a bloody civil war.
Such post-production details matter little to the neoconservatives who conceived the project.
Only a few weeks ago did production shut down in Iraq. In response, The Washington Post published this opinion piece by Jessica T. Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
The public may also never know exactly why or when the Bush administration made its tragically misguided decision to go to war. Former Treasury secretary Paul O’Neill has said that unseating Saddam Hussein dominated a meeting with President George W. Bush 10 days after Bush’s inauguration — eight months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Among the many reasons posted — avenging an Iraqi attack on Bush’s father, getting the United States’ hands on Mideast oil, extending democracy across the region — only the charge that Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction came close to selling the American people on war.
Bullets Over Broadway
As misguided as it was for America, Iraq II was embraced by Obama, the second director brought in on the project. Continued work ceased only after the Iraqi government, which owns the lot where the production was being made, declared that U.S. forces could face prosecution for their actions.
It seems almost impossible to believe that the U.S. government, which seamlessly transformed Japan and Germany into rich democratic nations following World War II, could fail so miserably in the Mideast, yet that is exactly what has happened.
Springtime For Hitler
Washington is intent on further Mideast productions. In a case of life imitating art, Target Tehran seems much like Mel Brooks’ production The Producers.
Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seem as careless as Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom in turning their play into a flop — as long as their careers can be furthered by it.
On the PBS program Victory In The Pacific, the narrator says: “The emperor, who had worried about a rebellion from his subjects, helped ensure his position by posing as their savior.”
I expect the same of Obama in 2012. His re-election looms in less than 11 months, and nothing has proven to be a better prescription for winning than engaging in war. What better target than Iran? Unlike George W. Bush, Obama doesn’t have to lie about weapons of mass destruction. Many Americans are convinced Iran actually has them, and Washington is already in pre-production mode. Consider the recent public relations offensive:
- In a speech at the 71st General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism on Dec. 16, Obama said: “Another grave concern — and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world — is Iran’s nuclear program. And that’s why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”
- In an interview with CBS Evening News With Scott Pelley that aired on Dec. 19, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta declared that Iran might be only a year away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. “If they proceed and we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it,” Panetta said.
- On Dec. 20, CNN reported that Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said “I am satisfied that the options that we are developing (for attacking Iran) are evolving to a point that they would be executable if necessary.”
- In a Dec. 21 interview with Israel’s Channel 10, Dennis Ross, Obama’s former Mideast adviser, said: “This is a president who has prided himself on doing what he says, so I think if he draws the conclusion that what is required is to take a certain kind of step, he’s prepared to take those steps. It means that when all options are on the table and if you’ve exhausted all other means, you do what is necessary.”
- On Dec. 23, former Pentagon adviser Matthew Kroenig’s essay “Time to Attack Iran” was published in Foreign Affairs. Kroenig builds his case that an American assault on Iran should be undertaken sooner rather than later.
Over the holidays, Obama’s Hawaii vacation included a workout at the Kaneohe Marine Base. Later, he hiked with family and friends along the Lanikai Pillbox trail on the Windward side of Oahu, a short distance from Pearl Harbor. Not far away, Obama was likely planning his re-election campaign and the centerpiece of it: Target Tehran.
Full article:
http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/government/coming-in-2012-target-tehran/?eiid=
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations
By Sharyl Attkisson
December 7, 2011 1:44 PM
Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:
"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."
On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as "(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue." And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: "Bill--well done yesterday... (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case."
This revelation angers gun rights advocates. Larry Keane, a spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, calls the discussion of Fast and Furious to argue for Demand Letter 3 "disappointing and ironic." Keane says it's "deeply troubling" if sales made by gun dealers "voluntarily cooperating with ATF's flawed 'Operation Fast & Furious' were going to be used by some individuals within ATF to justify imposing a multiple sales reporting requirement for rifles."
The Gun Dealers' Quandary
Several gun dealers who cooperated with ATF told CBS News and Congressional investigators they only went through with suspicious sales because ATF asked them to.
Sometimes it was against the gun dealer's own best judgment.
In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. "We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys," writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials, "(W)e were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items."
ATF's group supervisor on Fast and Furious David Voth assures the gun dealer there's nothing to worry about. "We (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into detail."
Two months later, the same gun dealer grew more agitated.
"I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys. I guess I am looking for a bit of reassurance that the guns are not getting south or in the wrong hands...I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents (sic) safety because I have some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ as well as my concern for all the agents (sic) safety that protect our country."
"It's like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back," says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. "It's a circular way of thinking."
The Justice Department and ATF declined to comment. ATF officials mentioned in this report did not respond to requests from CBS News to speak with them.
The "Demand Letter 3" Debate
The two sides in the gun debate have long clashed over whether gun dealers should have to report multiple rifle sales. On one side, ATF officials argue that a large number of semi-automatic, high-caliber rifles from the U.S. are being used by violent cartels in Mexico. They believe more reporting requirements would help ATF crack down. On the other side, gun rights advocates say that's unconstitutional, and would not make a difference in Mexican cartel crimes.
Two earlier Demand Letters were initiated in 2000 and affected a relatively small number of gun shops. Demand Letter 3 was to be much more sweeping, affecting 8,500 firearms dealers in four southwest border states: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. ATF chose those states because they "have a significant number of crime guns traced back to them from Mexico." The reporting requirements were to apply if a gun dealer sells two or more long guns to a single person within five business days, and only if the guns are semi-automatic, greater than .22 caliber and can be fitted with a detachable magazine.
On April 25, 2011, ATF announced plans to implement Demand Letter 3. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is suing the ATF to stop the new rules. It calls the regulation an illegal attempt to enforce a law Congress never passed. ATF counters that it has reasonably targeted guns used most often to "commit violent crimes in Mexico, especially by drug gangs."
Reaction
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is investigating Fast and Furious, as well as the alleged use of the case to advance gun regulations. "There's plenty of evidence showing that this administration planned to use the tragedies of Fast and Furious as rationale to further their goals of a long gun reporting requirement. But, we've learned from our investigation that reporting multiple long gun sales would do nothing to stop the flow of firearms to known straw purchasers because many Federal Firearms Dealers are already voluntarily reporting suspicious transactions. It's pretty clear that the problem isn't lack of burdensome reporting requirements."
On July 12, 2011, Sen. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department oversees ATF. They asked Holder whether officials in his agency discussed how "Fast and Furious could be used to justify additional regulatory authorities." So far, they have not received a response. CBS News asked the Justice Department for comment and context on ATF emails about Fast and Furious and Demand Letter 3, but officials declined to speak with us.
"In light of the evidence, the Justice Department's refusal to answer questions about the role Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to play in advancing new firearms regulations is simply unacceptable," Rep. Issa told CBS News.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/#ixzz1iQQzPF7V
December 7, 2011 1:44 PM
Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:
"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."
On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as "(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue." And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: "Bill--well done yesterday... (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case."
This revelation angers gun rights advocates. Larry Keane, a spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, calls the discussion of Fast and Furious to argue for Demand Letter 3 "disappointing and ironic." Keane says it's "deeply troubling" if sales made by gun dealers "voluntarily cooperating with ATF's flawed 'Operation Fast & Furious' were going to be used by some individuals within ATF to justify imposing a multiple sales reporting requirement for rifles."
The Gun Dealers' Quandary
Several gun dealers who cooperated with ATF told CBS News and Congressional investigators they only went through with suspicious sales because ATF asked them to.
Sometimes it was against the gun dealer's own best judgment.
In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. "We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys," writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials, "(W)e were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items."
ATF's group supervisor on Fast and Furious David Voth assures the gun dealer there's nothing to worry about. "We (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into detail."
Two months later, the same gun dealer grew more agitated.
"I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys. I guess I am looking for a bit of reassurance that the guns are not getting south or in the wrong hands...I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents (sic) safety because I have some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ as well as my concern for all the agents (sic) safety that protect our country."
"It's like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back," says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. "It's a circular way of thinking."
The Justice Department and ATF declined to comment. ATF officials mentioned in this report did not respond to requests from CBS News to speak with them.
The "Demand Letter 3" Debate
The two sides in the gun debate have long clashed over whether gun dealers should have to report multiple rifle sales. On one side, ATF officials argue that a large number of semi-automatic, high-caliber rifles from the U.S. are being used by violent cartels in Mexico. They believe more reporting requirements would help ATF crack down. On the other side, gun rights advocates say that's unconstitutional, and would not make a difference in Mexican cartel crimes.
Two earlier Demand Letters were initiated in 2000 and affected a relatively small number of gun shops. Demand Letter 3 was to be much more sweeping, affecting 8,500 firearms dealers in four southwest border states: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. ATF chose those states because they "have a significant number of crime guns traced back to them from Mexico." The reporting requirements were to apply if a gun dealer sells two or more long guns to a single person within five business days, and only if the guns are semi-automatic, greater than .22 caliber and can be fitted with a detachable magazine.
On April 25, 2011, ATF announced plans to implement Demand Letter 3. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is suing the ATF to stop the new rules. It calls the regulation an illegal attempt to enforce a law Congress never passed. ATF counters that it has reasonably targeted guns used most often to "commit violent crimes in Mexico, especially by drug gangs."
Reaction
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is investigating Fast and Furious, as well as the alleged use of the case to advance gun regulations. "There's plenty of evidence showing that this administration planned to use the tragedies of Fast and Furious as rationale to further their goals of a long gun reporting requirement. But, we've learned from our investigation that reporting multiple long gun sales would do nothing to stop the flow of firearms to known straw purchasers because many Federal Firearms Dealers are already voluntarily reporting suspicious transactions. It's pretty clear that the problem isn't lack of burdensome reporting requirements."
On July 12, 2011, Sen. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department oversees ATF. They asked Holder whether officials in his agency discussed how "Fast and Furious could be used to justify additional regulatory authorities." So far, they have not received a response. CBS News asked the Justice Department for comment and context on ATF emails about Fast and Furious and Demand Letter 3, but officials declined to speak with us.
"In light of the evidence, the Justice Department's refusal to answer questions about the role Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to play in advancing new firearms regulations is simply unacceptable," Rep. Issa told CBS News.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/#ixzz1iQQzPF7V
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)