Overturning the Rule of Law

Overturning the Rule of Law
by Jason Lovelace
October 16, 2010


Keys for Today:
“Keep thee far away from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.”
– Exodus 23.7

“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment…”
– Leviticus 19.35

“The law of the wise is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death.”
– Proverbs 13.14

“Fret not thyself because of evil men, nether be thou envious at the wicked; For there shall be no reward to evil men; the candle of the wicked shall be put out. My son fear thou the Lord and the King: and meddle not with them that are given to change: For their calamity shall rise suddenly; and who knoweth the ruin of them both? These things belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment. He that saith unto the wicked, ‘Thou art righteous”; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him: But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them.”
– Proverbs 25.19~25

“When righteous men do rejoice, there is great glory: but when the wicked rise, a man is hidden.”
– Proverbs 28.12

“To have respect of persons is not good: for a piece of bread, that man will transgress.”
– Proverbs 28.221

On August 4th, 2010, in California, Judge Vaughn Walker issued a decision that strikes down Proposition 8, a measure passed by 52% of the population of California, defining marriage as between one man and one woman. This is the second time in eight years in the Golden bear State that such a measure has been stricken by an appellate judge. This decision now means that proponents of the Proposition 8 measure will now have their appeal taken to the Supreme Court. We saw a similar happening just a few scant weeks ago when a judge in Phoenix gutted the immigration legislation signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer back in April. What does this mean for the people of the United States of America? When Special Interest Groups are allowed special laws, or to overturn the due process and rule and letter of the law, what does it mean for the rest of us? What else could it mean for people of faith in the United States of America, most specifically Christians?


The Ruling, the Constitution, and the Error

Judge Vaughn Walker ruled against Proposition 8 in similar fashion as U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton gutted the Arizona Immigration Law signed by Governor Brewer back in April. In his decision, Judge Walker cited that Proposition 8 was an infringement of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Section One of the 14th Amendment says thus:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.2


Before we move on, a few definitions: First, Marriage…

The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife; the mutual relationship of husband and wife; the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence or the purpose of founding and maintaining a family3

The state of being married; relation between a husband and wife4

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.5

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.6,7

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. Wherefore what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.8

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.9

…‘for two,’ saith he, ‘shall be one flesh.’10


Next, Privilege…

A right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor: special enjoyment of a good or exemption from an evil or burden; a peculiar or personal advantage or right especially when enjoyed in derogation of a common right11

A special right, advantage, favor, etc. granted to some person or group; a basic civil right, guaranteed by a government: as, the privilege of equality12

Never before in the history of the world – with the possible exception of Ancient Greece and Rome – have chosen lifestyles been given such protected status. This overturn of a law, duly formed, created, and voted on by the population of California, is nothing more than the establishment of special laws for a group of people who have made a lifestyle choice. Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. Despite those who defend homosexuality as natural throwing up smokescreen after smokescreen, trying to convince the rest of the world that homosexuality is natural, not one concrete shred of scientific or medical proof exists to buttress such a claim. Judge Walker’s decision has little to do with homosexuals being denied basic rights and privileges accorded under the Constitution of the United States of America. No homosexual has ever been denied the right to vote, hold office, obtain medical insurance, live in safety from crime, or any of the other rights that exist in the USA today (or in the world, for that matter). No homosexual has ever been denied privileges enjoyed by other Americans: homosexuals may drive, may take out a library card, may work in an environment free of discrimination, may go to any store in the USA and buy a stick of gum. The only privilege that they currently do not enjoy is that of marriage, and for a special reason: they have chosen a lifestyle that precludes marriage as defined by society (and 31 state constitutions), the dictionary, and common sense. When the Fourteenth amendment was added, it was done so in order to allow disenfranchised and freed slaves the opportunity to live in the USA as citizens. Homosexual citizens are accorded every right and privilege accorded to freed slaves of the century-and-a-half past. Again, the only privilege they do not enjoy is marriage, and, again, not because of some bigoted or hateful reason, but because, by definition, homosexuals are choosing a lifestyle where marriage doesn’t work as it does elsewhere in nature. In fact, homosexual marriage doesn’t really work at all.


The Denial of Privileges and Rights by Choice

The questions from the poster on another article was: “Who in their right mind would willingly give up their rights?!” Actually, in cases such as this, there are numerous examples of people willingly giving up certain rights and privileges simply because they have chosen a certain lifestyle. We see this happen every day. People choosing to enter the military are choosing to give up their right to freedom to do as they wish 100% of the time. Employees desiring to work at any company are giving up their right to freely speak out against the company that employs them. People who choose to drink are, in essence, giving up their driving privileges until they are sober (ditto that for people stringing themselves out on other drugs). People making the choice to smoke are giving up their privilege to smoke where they choose, as many businesses and restaurants forbid smoking. People deciding to fly on a passenger airliner choose day in and day out to refrain from smoking in any part of the plane or airport (in the latter case, only in designated areas). Couples seeking to have children are choosing to give up many of their own privileges in order to rear their children. So it is with homosexuals and marriage. Marriage has been – since the beginning of recorded time itself – a privilege exclusively for a man and a woman desiring to live in a permanent relationship. No single person could – in the past (though with yesterday’s ruling, this could change) – declare him/herself married. People engaging in sex with multiple sex partners could also not declare themselves married to their sex partners. Those participating in the North America Man-Boy love Association (or any other so-called man-boy love association) could not, also, declare themselves in a married relationship. The reason is because these relationships are chosen lifestyles, and as such are exempt from being deemed married relationships. People engaging in such chosen lifestyles are, in essence, declaring to the world their desire to give up the right to marry, and the privilege of living in a married relationship. It’s no different than those entering the Roman Catholic Priesthood: Roman Catholic Priests are forbidden to marry, as are those of Nuns’ orders. Such is the case with those choosing a homosexual lifestyle: marriage is and always has been between one man and one woman.


Get Rid of Those Pesky Morals

Judge Vaughn ruled yesterday that morals do not constitute a valid reason to allow the ban of homosexual “marriage”. However, we have laws based similarly on moral values. Theft is forbidden as it is a moral wrong perpetrated on the victim. Murder is also morally wrong, and laws are enacted against murder. Rape and assault are morally wrong as well, and deemed so in the laws of the United States of America. Despite the fallacy of “no fault” divorce, the fact of the matter is divorces are often declared on the foundation of moral bases by the husband or wife. Adultery is often a moral ruling in which one spouse is deprived of the custody of children, and often even visitation rights in some cases. You see? When we have a moral compass that is fixed on delineating what is absolutely right and absolutely wrong, society works better than one where the moral compass is going haywire. A majority of Americans have been against abortion on demand precisely because of the moral implications. Ditto that for those majorities who oppose euthanasia, the legalization of drugs, legalized prostitution, and other social ills that plague the USA today. It is morals such as we see in the Bible that have helped the United States of America become the bastion for freedom, for moral integrity, and for quality character that we were for so long. During the First and Second World Wars, when the populations of various countries saw a unit of soldiers arriving, fear would spread as these soldiers would very likely rape, pillage, and destroy. However, US Military personnel were always held to a higher standard by the government of the USA and their superiors. This is why when US Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen arrived in places in Europe, especially during the Second World War, there was often a collective sigh of relief from the populace, including those of our enemies because they knew that our men and women would treat their people as people (and any such deviation form the Military Code of Conduct regularly meant severe punishment from the military itself)! Such has been the case for the US Military since her founding two hundred and thirty years ago. Despite what Judge Walker ruled in his decision, moral virtue and quality character make up the fabric of civilized society. Homosexual has been deemed a moral failure for the entirety of United States’ history – except up until recent days – and as such, has historically had no real place in society. The first thing anyone who wishes to change society does, however, is to challenge what is morally acceptable. Up until the 1960s and the so-called “Summer of Love”, sexual promiscuity by either men or women was viewed as morally unacceptable. Nowadays, however, we see television, movies, magazines, music, and other media outlets of every stripe declaring sex with anyone anywhere as acceptable. Up until the late 1970s, gratuitous violence was also viewed as morally unacceptable and – in many cases – abhorrent (case in point is the sanitization of World War Two stories sent home from the front). However, with the changing (read: lowering) of Movie standards and the introduction of the movie rating system, more and more movies have become more increasingly depraved in their portrayals of grisly, graphic violence. We can say the same for many other facets of society. Divorce was once deemed a moral decadence by society; now, better than 50% of marriages end in divorce and for the flimsiest of reasons. Music once heralded as a true art form has decayed to something in which “musicians” sing abut everything from having sex with multiple partners to offing police officers. Judge Walker’s ruling that morals have no sway over societal law and the collective mores of a population couldn’t be more inaccurate.


Pandora’s Box

The more frightening thing that Judge Walker’s decision does is that it opens doors of opportunities for other decadent and morally bankrupt segments of society to now have their own special rights, just as homosexuals are being granted by his ruling, and that illegal immigrants are receiving by way of Judge Bolton’s ruling against the Arizona Immigration Law last month. These two laws essentially raze the dam holding back the acceleration of moral and societal decay in the USA. Think about it for a minute: If Judge Walker’s decision is upheld by the Supreme Court of the USA, what is there to keep the NAMBLA people from gaining their “right” to “marry”? If this overturn of the rule of law – and, yes, there WAS due process involved: State Constitutional Amendments banning so-called “Gay ‘Marriage’” have been upheld 35 of 36 times it has been put to a popular vote in the United States (and of the 50 states, 39 concurrently ban homosexual marriage in their state constitutions, the 3/4ths of State Legislatures needed for ratification of a Constitutional Amendment13), including twice, now, in California – is upheld, it will rule out any future due process law as enacted by the will of the people and will open doors for those seeking special status with regards to threesomes, foursomes, and other group sexual relationships, NAMBLA, drug users and abusers, alcoholics, rapists, and other such chosen lifestyles. Why? Precisely because Judge Walker’s ruling against traditions and morals as reasons to disallow law, especially the popularly-passed kind. The same is the cases, as well, for Judge Bolton’s gutting the Arizona Immigration law. When we get right down to the nuts and bolts of these two situations, what we are seeing is the rule of law - the majorities of 39 of the 50 US States and the majority population of the State of Arizona - being cavalierly overturned time and time again when special interests raise their heads and cry “Wolf!” and “Foul!” and “No Fair!” These two overturnings of the rule of law have already begun to open up a Pandora’s Box of further judicial overturns of laws either demanded and voted on by the people, or out of their bounds and jurisdiction of their branch of government. On September 9th and October 12th, 2010, another instance of the overturning of the rule of law came about in the form of yet another activist judge taking her gavel and turning it into a legislative tool, this one concerning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, the military’s decision to ban homosexuals from openly serving:

A federal judge in Riverside declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional Thursday, saying the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy violates the 1st Amendment rights of lesbians and gay men.

U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the policy banning gays did not preserve military readiness, contrary to what many supporters have argued, saying evidence shows that the policy in fact had a “direct and deleterious effect’’ on the military…

The ruling is expected to intensify political pressure in Washington to act on legislation to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which remains stalled in the Senate despite support from President Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership.

Finally, it again must be noted that Defendants called no witnesses, put on no affirmative case, and only entered into evidence the legislative history of the Act. This evidence, discussed in Section IV(C)(1) above, does not suffice to show the Act’s restrictions on speech are “no more than is reasonably necessary” to achieve the goals of military readiness and unit cohesion.14

A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday [October 12th, 2010] stopping enforcement of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, ending the U.S. military’s 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops…

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say they are under no legal obligation to do so and could let Phillips’ ruling stand…

“The order represents a complete and total victory for the Log Cabin Republicans and reaffirms the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians in the military for fighting and dying for our country,” said Dan Woods, an attorney for the Log Cabin group.

Government attorneys objected, saying such an abrupt change might harm military operations in a time of war. They had asked Phillips to limit her ruling to the members of the Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military service members.15.16

What this recent ruling and injunction does is basically sounds a death knell for the effectiveness of US Military worldwide. Already, former military personnel are stating that any kind of move which Judge Phillips has made would effectively undercut morale and discipline17, encourage a loss of retention among the military branches18, encourage discrimination against Christian Military Personnel19, waste of resources and time with regards to “diversity training”20, loss of combat effectiveness21, Loss of privacy and creation of a hostile environment22, increases the dangers of military personnel being in contact with HIV-positive blood on the battlefield23, and the very survival of the all-volunteer force which the US Military has been for decades24. If this injunction and lifting of the “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” ban is allowed to stand, we will see the ruin of the US Military in similar fashion as the Roman Imperial Legions were compromised in ancient times. The result of that compromise and decimation of Rome’s mighty legions resulted in the end of the Empire in the West and the ushering in of the Dark Ages. The same can and very will be the same for the USA. This is just a small part of what happens when the Rule of Law is abrogated by a select group of so-called “elites”.


God and the Rule of Law

God has stated time and again in his written Word that he is the ultimate lawgiver25, that his law is perfect26, that there is to be one law for everyone27 (favoritism was not to be allowed28,29,30,31), and warned against having unjust balances and laws32,33. Many people have the wrong idea about the Government of the united states of America. To whom, exactly, is the Government supposed to be subservient? Are we, the citizenry of the USA, subservient ot the government….or is the government subservient to us34? Since it is the People of the United States of America that are the rulers of and over the government of each and every state and the Federal Government in Washington, D.C., the following verses should be clear as crystal to our lawmakers, law enforcers, and law interpreters:

“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.”35

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”36

“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men…”37

“Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.”38

What the government needs to understand is that these verses cut both ways39. In fact, the truth be known, the government of the United States of America needs to listen with special interest to the people of the USA for, after all, ultimate power in deciding upon government is vested in the rights of the people to dissent and to vote. When government officials – including judges – overturn and/or create laws that are not based on the will of the people – especially laws governing morals, values, traditions, and Christian and Biblical beliefs – chaos soon will reign. As already mentioned above, 39 states now forbid the fantasy of homosexual “marriage” by public referendum and State Constitutional Amendment. Why, then, does a judge in California rule against two-thirds of the population of the USA? Most current and former members of the US Military oppose homosexuals serving openly. Why then does another judge cast out the “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” policy as unconstitutional and further decree an injunction against its continued enactment? The Arizona Illegal Alien law was approved by both houses of the Arizona State Legislature and signed into law by it’s governor, and is regarded as a good law by a majority of Americans. As such, what gives the US Government the right to step in, use the courts to smack down this law – or gut it into virtual ineffectiveness – and keep the people of Arizona from allowing their voices to be heard? When it comes to laws such as this – ones designed to promote values and uplift moral standards – God takes a keen interest.


Lawlessness Begets Lawlessness

Here is what God says about the law:

“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;” 40

“Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”41

“Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding. For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.”42

“Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”43
“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully…”44

“And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.”45

“And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments ”46

There are many, many more Scripture references that could be added to this, but the basic premise is that those who follow the law (yes, man’s law as well as God’s will be rewarded; those who do not, won’t. Even clearer is the fact that without law and the abiding by them, society will turn less and less orderly, safe, and functioning and will instead turn more dangerous:

“Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”47

We see here that when laws are not executed, the unjust not punished, and the just given no recourse, chaos reigns. Can it be no surprise that America’s jails and prisons are full to overflowing, insomuch that lesser felons – such as child predators and molesters, drug dealers, car thieves, and even third-degree murderers – are being allowed minimum sentences from judges, and hardened criminals such as death row inmates are allowed to bypass their scheduled executions and live on the public’s dime for the rest of their lives? Should we be surprised at the skyrocketing crime rates in not only our inner cities, but also in our smaller cities and communities? Since the federal government has refused to protect the borders of the USA – and is in fact suing to block the Arizona State law which is precisely designed to do that – should we Americans be shocked when we hear of criminal illegal aliens coming to our shores and crossing our borders to commit grisly, unspeakable crimes? Since we Americans have – for the most part – turned the criminal into some sort of victim, should we really be outraged when Mexican Drug Gangs and Cartels regularly make incursions into US Territory to rape, pillage, kidnap, torture, and murder? When we stand idly by while judges strike down this and that common sense or popularly decided law, should we be at all surprised when we hear of the Government deciding to force US Military personnel to give Miranda Rights to captured Terrorists on the battlefield, or when the POWs in Guantanamo Bay demand the “right to trial” (something guaranteed under US law for citizens not rabid terrorists that would sooner see the USA crumble)? God promised us that such would happen when laws and the rule of law are stricken down.


Those Who Hate the Law Oppose the Law

It is unsurprising that the “plaintiffs” in the three cases highlighted here are, amazingly enough, those who hate the law. Take for example the Arizona Immigration Law: those who are actively opposed and in opposition to this law are those who hate the fact that illegals cannot freely cross in to the USA. Yes, we have heard how this Law is allegedly racist and encouraging of racial profiling, but the fact of the matter is, this law is less about race, and more about enforcing the law of the land. Yes, groups such as “La Raza” and The Rainbow Coalition are stating that all this law does is increase bigotry and racism, and will cause untold suffering by police officers and other law enforcement agents and agencies in Arizona. Yet the glaring fact is that these groups ignore the obvious, failing to see the forest for the trees, or the elephant in the room if you will: the “illegal” in “illegal alien” means that people who unlawfully cross into the USA are in fact criminals according to US Customs and Immigration Laws. It is interesting to note that these groups are silent when it comes to Cubans fleeing Castro’s Cuba, and the suffering at the hands of the oppressive Communist Government in Havana, but will immediately liken Arizona Governor Brewer to Hitler or any number of other racist, totalitarian despots. Simply put, “La Raza” and other groups that are fighting this law - and this includes the Obama Administration - are those who basically hate the laws of the USA (most glaringly, the Constitution). In essence, these and other groups are trying to overturn Arizona’s laws so that illegals can come and go as they please. They can cross the border, place our eco0nomic system into far greater debt, remain invisible to society and the government, all the while running up huge tabs at hospitals, commit unspeakable crimes, undercut law-abiding citizens and residents in the search for employment, skip out on paying taxes, social security, and other dues and simply live either in the shadows of US Society, or go back across the border. It is said that Mexico’s number one economic income is from residents - both illegal and legal - who send money back across the border to their impoverished families. Is it any wonder that Mexico cried “foul!” the loudest when it has come to Arizona’s Immigration Law? We hear how it would be impossible for Immigration and Naturalization Service to deport the 12~20 million illegals already here, but when asked “Why?”, illegals’ supporters are strangely silent. The reason is? La Raza and other Illegal Immigration Support Groups receive millions of dollars a year from illegal aliens (and, just as with the Ambassador from Mexico and Mexico’s President, they are screaming most loudly with regards to the Immigration Law), and if 12 to 20 million were rounded up and sent back, there goes these groups’ cash cow. Essentially, money is the determining factor concerning the breaking and undermining of US and State Immigration laws. The Apostle Paul had a very severe warning for this48, and it seems that this is the root cause (no pun intended) for this usurpation of the law in Arizona in particular and the USA as a whole. Giving in to this form of law-breaking only hastens the chaos that will soon engulf the USA unless reason and respect for the law, and for the people who support and make them is restored…


Criminals to Natural Law

In similar fashion, Homosexuals are attempting to gain prominence by using the courts and court system - ironically enough - due to the fact that they oppose not only national laws (how many laws in the USA against sodomy have been struck down over the last two decades?), but natural law. Homosexuals and their supporters will be the first to trumpet the opinion that homosexuality is somehow natural. They will state that certain lizards, flies, and monkeys all exhibit “natural” homosexuality, all the while denying the truth that animals cannot and generally do not engage in recreational sex (and in case someone wants talk about Bonobos, please understand that they are the exception, not the rule, in nature, as are the single sex lizards). Since humans can and do have sex for fun, it allows us to release hormonal drives in a natural way. However, animals have no such luxury due to their not having a moral ability to choose. When male dogs “hump” another male, or females another female, it is not due to “natural” homosexuality, but built up, pent up hormones which cannot be released until the female is “in heat”, or, ready to have a baby. When those male dogs that were humping each together yesterday come near a female dog in heat, the reaction between the males will be starkly different: usually a fight until one is the victor, thereby being allowed to mate with the female. It’s the same in every other animal in nature. As such, it is comical to hear homosexuals talk about how their lifestyle is “borne” of nature. But there is another, glaring truth to the fact that homosexuality is not natural, and it comes in this form: the production of children. Why is it that homosexuals are concurrently striving to have the right to adopt children while fighting for “marital” rights and recognition? Why cannot homosexuals in the form of two gay men or two lesbian women have children naturally when they are with each other? It is simple: male parts weren’t meant for male parts and female parts weren’t made for female parts. It’s like trying to get electricity for a saw by trying to “mate” the saw plug with another saw plug (or any other electrical plug) or attempting to do the same with two sockets. Electricity will never get ot the saw or out of the socket unless the plug from the saw is inserted into a socket of some kind (in fact, the chance of lighting striking the saw or the socket, thereby producing electricity naturally, is far greater than the chance of any homosexual, male-male, female-female couple ever having children naturally). In essence, homosexuals are trying to change the laws of nature, and in one area they have succeeded: psychology and psychiatry. Once declared by the American Psychiatry Association as a mental disorder, the APA declared some 35 years ago that homosexuality was no longer to be treated as a disease. How much longer before other medical associations follow suit? Yet the fact remains that homosexuals - with their desire to “marry” are - in fact - defying natural law. An interesting quote from a friend goes in this fashion:

“This…very commandment of God way back in the beginning about being fruitful and multiplying, REQUIRES opposite sexes…”49

This is simply the truth, and the glaring reason why homosexuality is in no way natural (again, as with Bonobos above, please do not refer to sterile couples, as again, sterile couples unable to have children naturally are the exception, not the rule). If homosexuality was somehow natural, then children would be produced from homosexual “sex” (sodomy with men, and whatever else with women). As children are not produced, how, then, can homosexuality be natural? Is homosexuality not a crime against nature? And as such, is it no surprise that among prison population, homosexuality and homosexual “sex” is rampant among prison populations for both male and female prisons respectively? The Apostle Paul writes again concerning natural law:

“Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”50

This, folks, is essentially what has happened with people who give into sin. Homosexuality is no different than any other sin, in that it starts small, but ends up bringing the practitioner to a bad end: death. Just as crimes against human and government law brings repercussions, so too does tampering with or breaking natural law. God created natural law to benefit man, just as he created it in the heart of man to make human law. Breaking the natural law that God created brings about consequences from nature, namely in the form of sexually transmitted diseases for those engaging in sex apart from marriage, most especially AIDS and HIV for those practicing the natural crime of homosexuality. This is why it is imperative to remember that natural law is still natural law, no matter who tries to change or tamper with it.


Openly Serving a Severely Weakened Military

Another arena where homosexuals are demanding their “rights” is with regards to service in the United States Military. Even more so than with receiving a driver’s license and marriage, serving in the Military is a privilege, not a right. The simple fact is, the United States Armed and Uniformed Forces do not just take anybody into their ranks. Someone who has a severe physical handicap may not serve. Same said for anyone who is mentally weak. Ditto for anyone who fails to score highly in school and in academics. Same again for the severely overweight or severely underweight. Unable to fire a weapon for some reason? You’ll never make it out of boot camp. Having a problem with alcohol, drugs, or abiding by the laws of the land? It is doubtful you will ever be accepted into the US Military. Even further, the Military has restrictions on age, literacy, height, body size and types, and other areas of a person, a deficiency in any of them being prohibitive from service. One of the laws that has been in the US Military has also dealt with sexual orientation. This has been so precisely because of National Security Issues51,52,53,54. Allowing homosexuals to serve heightens the risk of foreign espionage agencies attempting to gain access to US Intelligence and classified information, as the Soviet Union successfully practiced during the height of the Cold War55, 56. Such is still the case today as, either through blackmail or recruitment, homosexuals can still be forced to give up national security secrets, threatening the USA itself with attack. It is further believed that allowing homosexuals to openly serve could cause as many as 24% of current military personnel to leave the military as a result57, 58, 59, 60. As we see, allowing homosexuals to serve openly would greatly deplete US Military Forces, both in the field and in intelligence. In case anyone thinks that this percentage isn’t so much, think of what happens to the human body when the heart is 24% weaker; when a person loses 24% of their muscular strength; or there is 24% less brainpower. To drastically lose this percentage of our fine military personnel would be near catastrophic for US Forces already stretched across the globe. We are a nation at war with international terror organizations such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban. When we think of losing 24% of our forces during this critical juncture, when the fight with the Taliban is entering its most crucial stage, and the front in Iraq undergoing a rise in activity (especially now that the terror networks in Iraq know that we are drawing down our forces), it seems almost inconceivable that such a loss would sensibly be taken…yet the fact of the matter is that if gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly, this sort of drop in overall personnel will take place. It will also be the death knell for the USA in this war on terror. Such a drop in personnel will only strengthen our enemies who are already seeing rises in their own numbers of recruits. History proves that when – in a war – one side loses soldiers and the other side gains in recruitment, the side with the rise in recruiting will win. We saw what happened following the 1990s and President Clinton’s Administration with regards to cuts in intelligence and the military. We are already seeing the same sort of cuts with President Obama in office. Do we really believe, as citizens of the USA that allowing homosexuals to openly serve will make our military stronger, and ourselves a stronger nation, as well? Can we not see the handwriting on the wall61? Can we not see that such an allowance of yet other special rights to a group seeking special designation will do nothing – especially to the military – but bring sorrow and defeat? Again, serving in the military is not a right, but a privilege. Not everyone can nor does serve in the military, just as not everyone in the USA drives, chooses to work at the same company, or goes to the same church. Forcing special interest rights, such as homosexuals given the “right” to openly serve n the military, will do nothing but cause problems and end up destroying the USA.


An Ancient Parallel to the USA – Mighty Rome

The United States of America is possibly one of the greatest – if not the greatest – civilizations in history. Never before have people in a nation been given such power and such worldwide influence, save on only one other occasion. That other nation and other occasion was the Roman Empire. When Rome began, she made the transition from being a king to being the first real republic of the ancient world, a scenario and situation that lasted in Rome for centuries. Even after the first Emperor Ascended to power in the form of Octavian Caesar, or Augustus Caesar, the Roman Senate still wielded great power, even through and during the most despotic of Emperors. However, things began to change. Special interests groups began clamoring for special “rights” and within a century or two, Mighty Rome was a shell of her former self, with barbarians invading and destroying from without and civil strife and the decay of her moral and traditional fiber destroying her from within. By the end Fourth Century and the middle of the Fifth Century AD, Rome had been sacked multiple times, the Roman Army – once feared for her discipline and order – was a mockery, and being defeated on the field of battle by enemies once deemed far inferior. The Roman Senate had become a joke, and the Throne of the Emperor itself bought and sold to the highest bidder. By the time the Western Half of the Roman Empire Fell in 476AD, corruption and debauchery reigned; common law – once the pride of Rome and her citizens – had become an oppressive nightmare, with laws changing to meet every special group, the will of the people to the flames. For the first one hundred and eighty years, the United States of America was the fastest growing, most dominant nation, and for a few decades, the sole superpower, in the world. No nation has risen so high so fast and with the blessings of the Lord to boot. Now, we are seeing the rule of law become a joke, and we have elected a President to Office who has chosen to thumb his nose at the United States’ Constitution, who has declared the USA to not be a Christian Nation, and has promised special interests their day in the sun, including giving special “rights” to homosexuals, rights of citizens to criminals in the form of illegal aliens and captured POWs, and has taken upon himself to apologize for the USA at every turn when on foreign soil. He has taken it upon himself to change laws and times62, and has become more of a megalomaniac than a real president. Whereas out military was feared and respected worldwide, we are now becoming a laughingstock, insomuch that tiny nations like Vietnam, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba are ratcheting up their military prowess despite rhetoric form the USA and the United Nations. How much longer will it be before Constitutional Law and the Bill of Rights becomes the Shadow that Roman Law became shortly before her fall? How much longer and how many basic, fundamental, and cultural traditions will fall to the wayside before the USA fall as surely as Rome fell?


The Bottom Line - Overturning Righteous Law Will Bring National Calamity

It happened in Rome, it happened in Germany, it has happened in every part of the world where good laws have been stopped or overturned by a privileged in the face of popular support. Just as surely, it is already happening here, and it will not be long before the USA is not only replaced as the preeminent in the world, but crushed altogether. Hear the words of God as written though the pen of the Apostle John:

“And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double. How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her. And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning, Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come. And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men. And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all. The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, And saying, Alas, alas that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her. And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.”63

Could it be that John was seeing the destruction of the USA? Could it be that, through the overturn of the rule of law, destruction will come to the USA in one, great, calamitous moment? Is it possible the USA will crumble as John predicts here for Babylon, simply because we, the citizenry, allowed the rule of law to be overturned by a President who’d sooner be crowned king for life? Friends, so long as the rule of law is overturned, especially to special interest groups like those who harbor illegal alien criminals and/or abet them, and those who demand special rights and privileges for homosexuals, it won’t be long before every chosen lifestyle makes like demands. It will seem at that time that the only ones who will be bereft of rights will be those who hold to Biblical and Traditional values, and this is no surprise; for Christ has repeatedly warned throughout the Bible that these times would merely be signposts for the endtimes64.


Conclusion – It’s Not Too Late

Though the hour grows late, it is not yet that the USA is finished. If we repent, return to the Bible and to God Himself, he promises to restore and return to us65, but we must turn to him. To continue down our way, both individually and as a nation, will only bring God’s rightful, righteous judgment. Which will it be for you? You can choose to miss God’s judgment and execution of sentence if you will turn to him today! Won’t you come to him right now?


Prayer

Heavenly Father, we need thee! Our nation is going down the tubes quick, and it is because we see the homosexual community seeking special rights. We see special interest groups aiding and abetting what the Law defines as Criminals. We pray for salvation and Revival, Father, for our leaders, our judges, and our people! Help us, we pray, in Jesus’ Righteous and matchless name, Amen!


Verse to Remember:
“The law of the wise is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death.”
– Proverbs 13.14


Endnotes

1. All Scripture quotations are taken from The King James Version of the English Bible: Published 1611, London, England, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

2. The Constitution of the United States with Case Studies; Edited by Edward Conrad Smith and Harold J. Spaeth – © 1987, Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., New York, NY, USA: p. 58

3. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged); Philip Babcock Gove, Ph. D., Editor-in-Chief – © 1968, Merriam-Webster, Springfield, MA p. 1384

4. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language; David B. Guralnik, General Editor – © 1966, The World Publishing Company, Nashville, TN, USA: p. 459

5. The First Book of Moses, Called Genesis: Chapter Two, Verse Twenty-Four

6. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew: Chapter Nineteen, Verses Five and Six

7. The Words of Jesus Christ will appear in the color red.

8. The Gospel According to Saint Mark: Chapter Ten, Verses Six through Nine

9. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians: Chapter Five, Verse Thirty-One

10. The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians: Chapter Six, Verse Sixteen

11. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary: p. 1803

12. Webster’s New World Dictionary: pp. 591~592

13. The Elite vs. The People, Erik Ericson - Red State.com story: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/08/05/the-elite-vs-the-people/

14. Breaking: Federal judge in California says “don’t ask, don’t tell” is unconstitutional, Allahpundit, HotAir.com, September 9th, 2010: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/09/breaking-federal-judge-in-california-says-dont-ask-dont-tell-is-unconstitutional/

15. Federal judge halts enforcement of “don’t ask, don’t tell” worldwide, Ibid., October 12th, 20101: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/12/federal-judge-halts-enforcement-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-worldwide/

16. Judge Orders "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Injunction, CBSNews.com Story, October 12th, 2010: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/12/politics/main6951101.shtml

17. Gay policy: A danger to military discipline, Col. Richard H. Black, U.S. Army, retired, The Orange County Register, February 3rd, 2010: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/military-232507-homosexuals-officers.html

18. Military Lab Rats, Oliver North, Lt. Col. USMC (Ret.), Towhnhall.com Opinion, February 5th, 2010
http://townhall.com/columnists/OliverNorth/2010/02/05/military_lab_rats/page/full/

19. EDITORIAL: Outing the new gay Army, Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, US Army, The Washington Times, September 23rd, 2010: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/23/outing-the-new-gay-army/

20. Room for Debate: In the Barracks, Out of the Closet, Editors of the New York Times, Mary 3rd, 2009: http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/in-the-barracks-out-of-the-closet/#elaine

21. Ibid., http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/in-the-barracks-out-of-the-closet/#robert

22. Ibid., http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/in-the-barracks-out-of-the-closet/#brian

23. Cliff Kincaid - George Will does the politically expedient thing, sells out to gay lobby, World Tribune.com, June 2nd, 2010: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/ss_military0485_06_02.asp; GEORGE WILL SELL OUT TO CULTURAL CORRUPTION, NewsWithViews.com, June 3, 2010: http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff423.htm

24. Ibid., Culture Warriors Head for the Hills on Memorial Day, Accuracy in Media (www.aim.org), May 30th, 2010: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/culture-warriors-head-for-the-hills-on-memorial-day/

25. “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” - The Book of the Prophecy of Isaiah: Chapter 33, Verse 22.

26. “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.” - The 19th Psalm, Verses 7 and 8.

27. “One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.” - The Second Book of Moses called Exodus: Chapter 12, Verse 49

28. “My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”
- The Epistle General of the Apostle James: Chapter 2, Verses 1 through 10

29. “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.” - The Third Book of Moses called Leviticus: Chapter 19, Verse 15

30. “Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.” - The Fifth Book of Moses called Deuteronomy: Chapter 1, Verse 17

31. “For there is no respect of persons with God.” - The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans: Chapter 2, Verse 11

32. “A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.”
- The Book of the Proverbs: Chapter 11, Verse 1

33. “Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD; and a false balance is not good”
- Ibid.: Chapter 20, Verse 23

34. The Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States of America: November 19th, 1863

35. The Third Book of Moses called Leviticus: Chapter 19, Verse 15

36. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans: Chapter 13, Verses 1 through 10

37. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians: Chapter 6, Verses 5 through 7

38. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Titus: Chapter 2, Verses 9 and 10

39. “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” – The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews: Chapter 4, Verse 12

40. The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy: Chapter 1, Verse 9

41. The First Book of Moses Called Genesis: Chapter 26, Verses 3 through 5

42. The Proverbs of Solomon: Chapter 4, Verses 1 and 2

43. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans: Chapter 7, Verse 12

44. The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy: Chapter 1, Verse 8

45. The Book of Ezra: Chapter 7, Verse 26

46. The Second Book of Moses called Exodus: Chapter 20, Verse 6

47. The Book of Ecclesiastes; Chapter 8, Verse 11

48. “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
- The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy: Chapter 6, Verse 10

49. Quoted excerpt from a conversation with Sam South, October 14th, 2010

50. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans: Chapter 1, Verses 24 through 32

51. Homosexuals a military security risk, says activist, Chad Groening, OneNewsNow, August 25th, 2010 - http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=1133232)

52. Accused Army Traitor Cruised Gay Bars, Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media, August 2oth, 2010
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/accused-army-traitor-cruised-gay-bars/

53. ‘Gays’, Guns, and Mad Social Science - Gambling With Our Security for Homosexual Rights is Nuts, Matt Barber, The Ether Zone: The Intelligent Alternative, October 4th, 2010
http://etherzone.com/2010/barb100410.shtml

54. An Open Letter to Hoppy Kercheval on Homosexual Conduct in the Military, Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq., The Family Policy Council of West Virginia: The engage Family Blog, September 24th, 2010

55. The Lavender Scare, David K. Johnson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004): pp. 145-6

56. Anthony Blunt, John Simkin, Spartacus Educational http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SSblunt.htm

57. Poll on Gays in the Military Perturbs Palm Center, Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness, January 14th, 2009
http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=342

58. ‘Gays’, Guns, and Mad Social Science - Gambling With Our Security for Homosexual Rights is Nuts, Matt Barber, The Washington Times, September 24th, 2010
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/24/gays-guns-and-mad-social-science/

59. Pentagon Poll: Don’t Ask If You Won’t Like the Answer, Peter Brown, The Wall Street Journal, August 17th, 2010
http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2010/08/17/pentagon-poll-don%E2%80%99t-ask-if-you-won%E2%80%99t-like-the-answer/

60. Military Opposes Obama’s Pro-Gay Stance, Dave Eberhart, News Max, January 8th, 2009
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-military-gays/2009/12/12/id/341730

61. “And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this; But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified: Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written. And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians. Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.” – The Book of the Prophet Daniel: Chapter 5, Verses 22 through
31

62. “And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.”
– Ibid., Chapter 7, Verses 25 and 26

63. The Revelation of St. John the Divine: Chapter 18, Verses 1 through 24

64. The Gospel of St. Matthew: Chapter 24, Verses 1 through 51

65. The Second Book of the Chronicles: Chapter 7, Verse 14


Retrieved from:
http://jandjinjapan.xanga.com/734140664/overturning-the-rule-of-law/

'Radical-in-Chief' Details Obama's Socialist Convictions

'Radical-in-Chief' Details Obama's Socialist Convictions

Hannity and special guest Stanley Kurtz, author, "Radical-in-Chief"

Monday, October 18, 2010


This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," October 18, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: During his 2008 presidential campaign, many of President Obama's radical associations from his past were brought to light and forced Americans to question his real political aspirations.


Now almost two years after the election, a new book delves deeper into the president's ties to the likes of ACORN, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers and others. And detailed in the book are Obama's socialist convictions that he would like to keep secret.

Joining me now to explain is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, author of the brand new book "Radical-in-Chief, Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism," Stanley Kurtz is with us.

I've read your stuff often at National Review. Good to see you. Thanks for being here. Appreciate it.

STANLEY KURTZ, "RADICAL-IN-CHIEF" AUTHOR: Good to be here, Sean. Thanks for having me.

HANNITY: All right, hiding socialism. Now it is interesting because when conservatives such as myself and others pointed out that we felt Barack Obama had radical ties and socialist, radical views, we were laughed at, made fun of, people thought we were too harsh on the president. Now a full, you know, 60 percent of the American people view him as socialist. Were we right?

KURTZ: You were absolutely right, Sean. Frankly, I was nervous about the socialism charge myself. When I started researching Barack Obama's history after two years probing the archives, I realized that you and all the people who said he was socialist were absolutely right.

Really the book that I've written vindicates what you have been saying for the last three years.

HANNITY: You go a lot deeper than -- and I thought we went pretty deep into his background, I read "Dreams of My Father," "Audacity of Hope," and all these books. What did you find that stood out more than anything else that proved this point?

KURTZ: Well, Sean, the big picture first is that there is almost a kind of conveyor belt running from socialist activism to community organizing to electoral politics. Obama was riding that conveyor belt.

But the reason people don't understand that is that community organizers very intentionally keep their socialism secret. So what the book does is expose and explain the socialist background of community organizing and I used that to explain Barack Obama's entire political career.

I'll give you one important example. The beginning of the book lays out what happened to the series of socialist scholars conferences Barack Obama attended when he lived in New York City between about 1983 and 1985. Those conferences, Sean, connected Obama to groups, to strategies to mentors that have guided his entire political career.

For example, this conference titled community organizing is the key to moving America gradually toward socialism. Obama would first have heard about the groups ACORN and Project Vote, which of course, he spent his lifetime working with at these conferences and most amazing of all, these conferences touted a newly-formed alliance between Black Liberation Theology and socialism. So it was actually these socialists conferences that put Obama on the path that led him to Reverend Wright.

HANNITY: What's interesting as you say, all right, that's the key that led him to Reverend Wright, which Black Liberation Theology rooted in Marxism.

But you go into detail about the socialist scholar's conference and the Democratic Socialists of America for example and different activities that he attended during the years that we really have all question marks about his time in New York. So basically, you are saying this was him from the very beginning?

KURTZ: That's right, Sean. Those socialist conferences gave Obama a program for his whole career, but it didn't stop in his early adulthood, it went right on because, Sean, those conferences pointed Obama, for example, to a remarkable community organizer training institute in Chicago called the Midwest Academy.

Now the Midwest Academy was run by some of America's most prominent socialists, but these community organizers, very strongly believe you don't talk about your socialism out loud. You use it to strategize, but you don't actually tell the people you organize about your socialism.

These are the folks who trained Obama. They funded Obama and most important, Sean, they sponsored his political career. Why would they have done that if he didn't share their socialist views?

HANNITY: And then you go from, quote, "Frank" as he refers to in his book to Frank Marshal Davis, so you go to Bill Ayers, you go to Jeremiah Wright and you go to -- it is no surprise that he's governing in this fashion.

KURTZ: Right.

HANNITY: Is there any indication in your analysis, in your study, that he has any capacity to change or recognize that he's wrong? Because seems to be lashing out at his own bases we were discussing earlier.

He seems to think it is a communication problem as we saw in The New York Times this weekend. He seems to, as we were talking about with Karl Rove earlier in the program, to think that the American people just don't get it. And that they are not scientifically -- they are too afraid right now, they are not scientifically oriented in times of fear?

KURTZ: Well, I don't think he's going to change his views, Sean, maybe if the election is an overwhelming repudiation of him, he'll put himself in check very temporarily. But, you know, what he has been doing lately fits very closely to the some of the long term political strategies his socialist mentors had.

For example, Obama has been attacking the Chamber of Commerce, a real American institution. Now that might not seem to make sense. A lot of people say why the heck is he doing that? What's the political gain?

Obama's socialist mentors have a long term strategy for realigning the Democratic and Republican Parties along class lines. They thought if you attack business and drive it out of the Democratic Party, you simultaneously jumpstart a populous anti-business movement of the left. Bring that into the Democrats then the country is polarized on class lines and in the thought of Obama's mentors, the party of the have nots will slowly, but surely gravitate toward increasingly socialist ideas.

HANNITY: You have 48 million Americans now in need of government food stamps, one in seven Americans in poverty. It might be a greater danger I think than people think.

Stanley, good book. Good to see you. Thanks for being with us.

KURTZ: Thanks, Sean.

Retrieved 19OCT2010 from:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/transcript/039radical-chief039-details-obama039s-socialist-convictions

Troops chafe at restrictive rules of engagement

Troops chafe at restrictive rules of engagement, talks with Taliban

By: Sara A. Carter
National Security Correspondent
October 19, 2010

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- To the U.S. Army soldiers and Marines serving here, some things seem so obviously true that they are beyond debate. Among those perceived truths: Tthe restrictive rules of engagement that they have to fight under have made serving in combat far more dangerous for them, while allowing the Taliban to return to a position of strength.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Troops-chafe-at-restrictive-rules-of-engagement_-talks-with-Taliban-1226055-105202284.html

why scientific programming does not compute

There are terrifying statistics showing that almost all of what scientists know about coding is self-taught," says Wilson. "They just don't know how bad they are." As a result, codes may be riddled with tiny errors that do not cause the program to break down, but may drastically change the scientific results that it spits out.


full article

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101013/full/467775a.html

Fed Officials Mull Inflation as a Fix

Fed Officials Mull Inflation as a Fix
OCTOBER 7, 2010
By SUDEEP REDDY

The Federal Reserve spent the past three decades getting inflation low and keeping it there. But as the U.S. economy struggles and flirts with the prospect of deflation, some central bank officials are publicly broaching a controversial idea: lifting inflation above the Fed's informal target.

The rationale is that getting inflation up even temporarily would push "real" interest rates—nominal rates minus inflation—down, encouraging consumers and businesses to save less and to spend or invest more.

complete article...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704689804575536391713801732.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection#printMode

An Inflationary Cocktail in the Making

An Inflationary Cocktail in the Making
Thu, 30 Sep 2010
Richard Benson

Expect the prices at supercenter retail stores to increase as well. Wal-Mart, as one example, grew so large and great by blowing up small stores on Main Street, along with our American factories, which were moved to China to take advantage of cheap labor.

Wal-Mart and other superstores have effectively become storefronts for China, Inc. However, given labor unrest in China, major Chinese manufacturers have caved in and given their workers 20 percent wage hikes.

The days of cheap Chinese labor are fading. Worst yet, for consumer prices, it actually looks like our government has made a conscious decision to throw the dollar under the bus and go for a 20 – 40 percent dollar devaluation against the Yuan to try and boost exports, limit imports, and create American jobs.

Moreover, with higher wages and a higher currency, those 1.3 billion hungry Chinese will be better positioned to bid in the world for oil, wheat, and pork bellies. So, the likely trend for commodity demand will be up in a world where the Russian wheat crop failed, and the world’s coffee and cotton crops were duds.

Full article
http://www.sfgroup.org/An%20Inflationary%20Cocktail.htm


Related article

Inflation Raises Its Ugly Head

http://raptureready.com/rap16.html

New stem cell technique captures 'high moral ground'

New stem cell technique captures 'high moral ground'

WASHINGTON (BP)--Pro-life bioethicists have applauded the announcement of a new advance in stem cell research that is a safer and more efficient method than previously discovered methods and avoids experiments that destroy human embryos.

Scientists at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute in Boston, Mass., published studies showing they had reprogrammed adult skin cells into induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells without the hazards previously associated with the technique. Unlike previous conversions of adult cells into stem cells virtually identical to those in embryos, these iPS cells did not require the use of viruses to insert genes into cells -- a technique which increases the risk of cancer in the recipient of the cells.

The new method also avoided the ethical problems of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), which requires the destruction of days-old human embryos when extracting the cells.

ESCR opponents said the development further demonstrates the destructive research method -- which is funded by the federal government -- is not only morally repugnant but unnecessary.

"This is yet another confirmation that when science takes the moral high ground great discoveries can be made," said C. Ben Mitchell, professor of moral philosophy at Union University in Jackson, Tenn., and a consultant to the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

Complete article here:
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=33802

Sexual Tsunami

Our children are being swept away
by Ed Vitagliano

How crazy is the school committee in Provincetown, Massachusetts? Crazy enough to institute a policy whereby condoms could be distributed to all students – including those of elementary age – whether or not parents approve.

After a public outcry following the new policy – even Gov. Deval Patrick complained – the school committee backtracked. In early July, members decided to limit the free condoms to students fifth grade and up, although parents still could not interfere.

But that’s just crazy ol’ Massachusetts, right? After all, Provincetown is an extremely liberal enclave in the midst of an already very liberal state.

It’s happening elsewhere – like Shenandoah, Iowa, for example. According to Fox News, a co-ed sex education class for eighth graders in that community demonstrated how female exams are performed, how to properly use a condom, and some of the sexual positions that kids could use during sex.

And in Helena, Montana, a proposal to teach “comprehensive sex education” throughout all 12 grades caused an uproar in that city. The curriculum dictated that by the end of first grade students should understand that homosexuality was as normal as heterosexuality. By the end of the fifth grade, students should understand “that sexual intercourse includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration.” And by the end of the following year kids should know that such sexual activity includes “using the penis, fingers, tongue or objects.”

Hicks versus Harvard?

What’s going on? The short version is that the sexual revolution continues to sweep away traditional morality and its supports. While it would be bad enough for the traditional view of sexuality to be simply ignored in our culture, the situation is even worse. A hedonistic view of sex is being spoon fed to our children in many schools, on TV and online. Kids are, in effect, being brainwashed about sex.

Involved in many of the school controversies over sex that erupt every year is Planned Parenthood Federation of America. According to Fox News, for example, PPF helped prepare the curriculum in Montana, and in Iowa, the sex education class was taught by a PPF representative.

Jennifer Horner, a spokesperson for the Iowa PPF group, told a newspaper that the graphic material was justified. “We are not trying to keep any of this a secret,” Horner said. “All information we use is medically accurate and science based.”

This is a typical approach taken by the purveyors of sex education in schools, according to psychiatrist Miriam Grossman. In her book You’re Teaching My Child What? she exposes the lies taught to children under the guise of sex education. She said groups like Planned Parenthood and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States regularly defend their work by claiming to be science based.

She said these groups “claim neutrality and successfully portray the conflict [over graphic sex education] as religious right versus medical facts, hicks versus Harvard.”

But that’s not true, Grossman said. She insisted that what’s called “comprehensive sexuality education” is in reality nothing more than “pseudoscience and crackpot ideology.”

The main prophets of the sexual revolution – sexologist Alfred Kinsey, PPF founder Margaret Sanger, Playboy founder Hugh Hefner and others – had an agenda, according to Grossman.

“These 20th-century crusaders were passionate about social change, not health,” she said. “Their goal was a cultural revolution, not the eradication of [sexually-transmitted] disease.”

This crusade mentality comes out clearly in a 2010 pamphlet published by the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, titled Healthy, Happy and Hot: A Young Person’s Guide to their Rights, Sexuality and Living with HIV.

If PPF simply wanted to protect kids from unwanted pregnancy and STDs, then why include this statement: “Sexual and reproductive rights are recognized around the world as human rights. … There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself! Remember it’s your body. You choose what you do, when you do it, how and with whom.”

That statement is replete with moral judgments and makes a clear case against not only traditional morality, but also against the influence of parents, clergy or others who advocate sexual restraint.

Like the controversies in Montana, Iowa and elsewhere, the PPF pamphlet declares all sexual activity a good thing. Masturbation, “aggressive sex,” carrying out sexual fantasies, talking “dirty” to one’s sex partner, anal sex and more – it’s all included in a handout for kids. As long as sex is consensual and “safe” – i.e., using condoms and other forms of birth control – it is to be enjoyed by children and teens.

So what’s wrong with protecting kids against STDs? You’re Teaching My Child What? builds a strong case against the education strategies of PPF, SIECUS and other groups, but one argument stands out. It is something that most parents would probably know intuitively: Teens aren’t finished growing up. Yet the Planned Parenthood approach to teen sex wrongly presumes mature and rational decision-making by adolescents.

“Give adolescents information, [PPF and SIECUS] promise, provide them with condoms and pills, and they’ll make smart decisions,” Grossman said. “But [researchers using magnetic resonance imaging] show that during highly charged moments, teen brains rely on gut feelings, not reason. In other words, it’s not ignorance causing all those pregnancies and infections; it’s the unfinished wiring between brain cells.”

Looking at the statistics, kids are paying the price. Grossman said that, according to the American Social Health Association, one out of every two sexually active youth will be infected by a sexually transmitted disease (STD) by the time they turn 25.

Small screen, big problems

Matters are only made worse by prominent sources of teen entertainment, such as television, which help inflame the sexual passions of adolescents.

A study conducted by researchers at the Children’s Hospital Boston found that the younger kids started watching adult television programming containing sexual subject matter – and the more often they did so – the higher their risk for becoming sexually active as teenagers.

According to USA Today, for every hour of such programming kids (age 6 to 8) watched, there was a 33% increased risk they would begin having sex in their adolescent years.

Dr. Hernan Delgado, a pediatrician who carried out the study, said: “Television and movies are among the leading sources of information about sex and relationships for adolescents.”

What is that information source telling kids? The same thing as PPF and SIECUS: Sex is fun. Ignore your parents, pastor or priest, and do what you want.

Once again, however, kids are not adults. Study co-author Dr. David Bickham said, “Adult entertainment often deals with issues and challenges that adults face, including the complexities of sexual relationships. Children have neither the life experience nor the brain development to fully differentiate between a reality they are moving toward and a fiction meant solely to entertain. Children learn from media, and when they watch media with sexual references and innuendos, our research suggests they are more likely to engage in sexual activity earlier in life.”

Wild, wild Web

Sexed-up television is mild, however, compared to the Internet, a technological version of the wild, wild West where pornography is nearly ubiquitous.

A study published in the journal Pediatrics in 2007 reported that “42% of youth Internet users 10 to 17 years of age saw online pornography in the past year, and two-thirds of those reported only unwanted exposure.”

The researchers, from the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, said that for those who had experienced unwanted contact with online porn, the exposure came primarily through “links to pornography sites that came up in response to searches or misspelled Web addresses or through links within Web sites, pop-up advertisements, and spam e-mail.”

Many researchers are worried that young people exposed to Internet porn may suffer significant and deleterious effects, according to the Pediatrics study. These negative consequences include the “undermining of accepted social values and attitudes about sexual behavior, earlier and promiscuous sexual activity, sexual deviancy, sexual offending, and sexually compulsive behavior.”

Dr. Sharon Cooper, a forensic pediatrician and faculty member at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill School of Medicine, told the Washington Times, “Imagery definitely affects children. Adult pornography is a good example of giving children unhealthy sexual images.”

Cooper said pornography normalized behavior that is harmful, such as unprotected sex and even violent rape. On a more fundamental level, porn presented sex as an act devoid of loving – or even emotional – commitment.

Citing the American Psychological Association, the Times article said that, in just the last 12 years, girls under age 18 had changed in the way in which they viewed themselves. They were now beginning to see themselves solely in terms of sexual value.

“When a child sees herself only as a sexual object, she is no longer able to demand the kind of respect she deserves,” Cooper said. “The new definition of ‘love’ these days is sending a sexually explicit picture.”

Researchers are also finding evidence that boys are trained by consuming pornography to disrespect women.

Dr. Michael Flood, a sociologist at La Trobe University’s Australian Research Center in Sex, Health and Society, said, “There is compelling evidence from around the world that pornography … is a very poor sex educator because it shows sex in unrealistic ways and fails to address intimacy, love, connection or romance. Often it is quite callous and hostile in its depictions of women.”

It’s clear that adults are failing the next generation. Whether it’s adults who sell sex or use it to entertain, or those who are pushing a sexualized lifestyle on students who are clearly not equipped to make such important decisions, kids are drowning in the aftermath of a sexual tsunami.

It’s time to throw them a lifeline.

Retrieved from OneNewsNow 01OCT2010
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Journal/editorial.aspx?id=1141002

Global Tax Scam Shifts From Climate Change To Poverty

The elite are determined to rob the American people blind while creating a slush fund for world government by any means possible

Global Tax Scam Shifts From Climate Change To Poverty
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, September 21, 2010


As the science behind global warming becomes increasingly discredited and its proponents are exposed as eugenics-obsessed control freaks who care only about destroying freedom [2], the effort to make Americans pay a global tax has shifted from the justification of climate change to that of poverty.

As we documented on Sunday [3], leaders from 60 nations will be meeting at the UN this week to push a tax on world financial transactions, formally launching a massive program to bankrupt the middle class and enrich the coffers of global government.

Separately, the leaders of Spain and France are also now calling for new “financing sources” with which to build the infrastructure of a one world government. Remember, this has nothing to do with poverty. As the leaked Danish text revealed [4], global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have no intention of handing the money looted from American taxpayers to poorer countries, they will merely continue to keep the third world in bondage with crippling loans while withholding the real wealth for themselves.

“We need to make more effort to look for alternative financing sources … that aren’t as vulnerable as the budgets of developed countries when faced with crises like the one we’re seeing today,” said Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

“Both he and French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for some form of financial tax to raise money to combat poverty, an idea already rejected by the International Monetary Fund and many Group of 20 major developed and developing nations,” reports Reuters [5].

Although climate change still gets a token mention in the call for a global tax, the justification of poverty has firmly overtaken it as the primary ruse via which globalists plan to conduct a massive transfer of wealth – not to poor nations – but to their own back pockets.

As the recently leaked UN blueprint revealed [6], the elite are determined to use a global tax as just one of the weapons in their arsenal to dismantle the middle class of richer nations.

In their own words, the globalists talk of their aim to “limit and redirect the aspirations for a better life of rising middle classes around the world,” in other words to reduce the standard of living for the middle classes in Western Europe and America.

As the opening session paper puts it: “The real challenge comes from the exponential growth of the global consumerist society driven by ever higher aspirations of the upper and middle layers in rich countries as well as the expanding demand of emerging middle-class in developing countries. Our true ambition should be therefore creating incentives for the profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles.”

This is globalist talk for dismantling the middle classes by looting them with global taxes and consumption levies in the name of alleviating poverty in poorer areas of the world and stopping climate change. However, as we have already explained, this is merely a ruse. The money will not be “redistributed” to the poor, it will be swallowed up by the same globalist institutions running the scam.

To achieve their goal, the UN will have to oversee “nothing less than a fundamental transformation of the global economy,” states the report. In other words, economic growth will wither and be replaced by a “green economy” and a “post-industrial revolution.”

Since Spain’s “fundamental transformation” of its economy over to a “green economy” has devastated the country, with unemployment hitting a crippling 20 per cent [8], it’s unsurprising that Zapatero is now calling for a new global levy on financial transactions in an effort to force already destitute Americans to pick up the tab for the failed and economically crippling “green” measures that he inflicted on his own country while doing the bidding of his globalist masters.


Full article and references:

Obama's War on America's Seniors

Obama's War on America's Seniors
By Peter Ferrara on 9.15.10 @ 6:09AM


Seniors citizens probably provided less support for President Obama in the 2008 election than any other voter bloc. That reflects the wisdom of age. But for President Obama, apparently it's payback time, because he is conducting a comprehensive economic assault on America's senior citizens.


First He Trashed Medicare

A Democrat campaign theme this fall is that those scary Republicans want to end Medicare as we know it. But that is not possible, because President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the Democrats have already done that, in Obamacare.

The Chief Actuary for Medicare has publicly reported that the Medicare payment rates for the doctors and hospitals serving seniors will be cut by 30% over the next 3 years. By 2019, those Medicare payment rates will be lower than under Medicaid, which leaves the poor often unable to find doctors and hospitals willing to serve them. Medicare's Chief Actuary reports that ultimately under Obamacare Medicare payment rates will be only one-third of what will be paid by private insurance and only half of what is paid by Medicaid. Good luck to Grandma in finding a doctor then.

If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep him, President Obama promised in trying to sell Obamacare to the nation. But the question under Medicare now, after Obamacare, is whether your doctor will be willing to keep you.

Last month's Annual Report of the Medicare Board of Trustees revealed that Obamacare's total cuts to Medicare run to over $1 trillion over the first 10 years of full implementation, and to nearly $5 trillion over the first 20 years. These are cuts for seniors who are already retired!

Ultimately, by the end of the Trustees' Report projection period, Medicare Part A is cut by 60%. Medicare Part B is cut by 43%. Translation: this means the end of Medicare as we know it.

These are all primarily cuts in Medicare payments to the doctors and hospitals for the services, health care, and treatments they provide to the nation's seniors. That includes hip and knee replacements, sophisticated diagnostics through MRIs and CT scans, treatment for cancer and heart disease, and the services and care from the specialists that keep seniors functional and alive. If the government is not going to pay, then seniors are not going to get the health services, treatment and care they expect.

Indeed, the Medicare Chief Actuary reports that even before these cuts two-thirds of hospitals were already losing money on Medicare patients. Health providers will either have to withdraw from serving Medicare patients, or eventually go into bankruptcy.

These draconian Medicare cuts were the basis for the CBO score repeatedly cited by President Obama that Obamacare would actually reduce the deficit while expanding or adopting three entitlement programs. Too bad the President never disclosed that in trying to sell Obamacare to the nation. Indeed, in his weekly radio address to the nation on August 14, it was these draconian Medicare cuts that President Obama was touting in lauding Obamacare for "adding at least a dozen years to the fiscal health of Medicare -- the single longest extension in history." (Only a dozen years because most of the money raided from Medicare is taken to finance Obamacare.) The President thinks he can play seniors for fools.

Obama's Medicare policy is like trying to maintain our national defense by refusing to pay the people who make the tanks, the planes, the ships, the guns, the bullets, and the bombs. How long do you think our national defense would last under that policy? The same goes for Medicare now under Obamacare.

Contrast this policy atrocity with the proposed reforms to Medicare under Rep. Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America. Ryan is the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee who will become the Committee Chairman after this fall's elections. The Congressional Budget Office has scored Ryan's Roadmap as achieving full and permanent solvency for Social Security, full and permanent solvency for Medicare, and a permanently balanced federal budget, without tax increases.

Ryan's Roadmap, which he fully explains in a website devoted entirely to the Roadmap, includes no cuts in Social Security or Medicare, or changes of any sort, for today's seniors. The reforms apply only to those who are under age 55 today. For those future retirees, he would reform Medicare into Medicare Advantage for everyone. Medicare Advantage is the option already existing under Medicare allowing seniors to choose private insurance coverage for their benefits under the program, which nearly one-fourth of seniors have already chosen because it gives them a better deal.

Just as in Medicare Advantage today, future seniors under Ryan's Roadmap would be able to use Medicare funds to choose from a wide range of private insurance options, including the highly beneficial and empowering Health Savings Accounts. The funding for these options would grow more slowly over time for higher income and healthier seniors, and so they would have to pay some more out of their pockets for the coverage. That is how the long-term Medicare financing gaps are closed and full solvency for Medicare achieved. Additional funding is provided, however, for low and modest income, and less healthy, seniors, so they are fully protected from any higher costs.

But this is too much filthy capitalism for President Obama, and his modern new socialist Democrats, so they wrongly trash it. But unlike Obamacare's wild and irresponsible Medicare cuts, this is a carefully designed and structured reform plan, which is far better for future seniors, taxpayers, and America.


Now He Wants to Cut Your Social Security

But President Obama is already moving on, to cut your Social Security next, as he also revealed in his August 14 Saturday radio address. In that address, he denounces the idea of solving Social Security's problems by allowing young workers the freedom to choose to save and invest some of their taxes in their own personal accounts.

Such accounts would enable these workers to enjoy much higher benefits in the future than Social Security even promises, let alone what it can pay, at just standard, long-term investment returns. By taking some of the long-term burden off of Social Security for financing future benefits, these accounts can also solve the program's long-term financing crisis. That is shown by reports from the Chief Actuary of Social Security still available on his website. Such personal accounts would also do far more to reduce government spending over the long run than any other possible alternative.

But the ideologically far left Obama can't stand the idea of workers and retirees supporting themselves more through the private sector. He calls that privatization, which means again too much filthy capitalism for his tastes. Moreover, if seniors are self-supporting through their own personal accounts, they are no longer dependent on Obama's secular socialist political machine. That is not the change for America that Obama has in mind.

If he rejects personal accounts, however, then how is President Obama going to solve Social Security's long-term financial crisis, which even his own Presidential Debt Commission realizes is real? The only alternatives are to raise payroll taxes or cut benefits.

Raising payroll taxes is out because President Obama pledged over and over to get elected that he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. If he refuses even to consider personal accounts as inconsistent with his socialist ideology, that leaves only cutting benefits.

And this is exactly what his Presidential Debt Commission is plotting to reveal right after the election. Leaks indicate that among the options being considered are delaying the retirement age, changing the basic benefit formula, and delaying or slashing COLAs. Personal accounts for younger workers are once again a far better idea, for the young, for seniors, and for America.


Interest, Dividends, and Capital Gains

But President Obama's economic assault on America's seniors doesn't stop there. Under his economic policies, interest rates have been negligible since he came into office. But interest on a lifetime of accumulated savings is a substantial source of income for many seniors.

Yes, these rock bottom interest rates are maintained as part of President Obama's broader economic policies, to promote economic recovery. But those broader policies are not working, and no consideration is given to the harmful effect on seniors. There is no offset or compensating policy to alleviate the impact on retirees.

Moreover, under President Obama's comprehensive tax rate increases that start to go into effect next year, the top tax rate on corporate dividends will nearly triple, from 15% today, to 43.4%, counting the new 3.8% tax on capital income added by Obamacare. No, this doesn't affect only the rich. Companies will respond to this wild, draconian tax increase mostly by cutting off corporate dividends, as they will no longer be able to attract sufficient capital through such heavily taxed payments.

That will hurt millions of more modest income seniors who have invested some of their lifetime of savings to obtain corporate dividends as a supplement to their income. But President Obama and his New Socialist Democrats can't understand this, just as they can't understand that raising tax rates on the nation's employers and investors, because they are "the rich," harms average working people, who lose their jobs or suffer lower wages as a result. Politicians who make a career of decrying and raiding "the rich" are crass pirates who would have no role in public life in a responsible society.

President Obama's capital gains tax increases also hurt seniors the most, because they have been around the longest to accumulate most of the capital gains.


The Disgrace of AARP

And where has AARP been during this comprehensive economic assault on America's seniors? That self-styled spokesman for the nation's seniors began as an insurance marketing scam. Today it is a big bucks Washington bureaucracy that looks out for itself, and just another phony liberal/left front group providing cover for the expanding socialist takeover of America.

It too thinks it can play seniors for fools. Instead of warning seniors about the draconian Medicare cuts in Obamacare, it sought to provide cover for its Washington Democrat buddies with a slick, big bucks marketing campaign in favor of Obamacare. The truth is that AARP is all about partisan politics. Republicans can try to just slightly slow the growth of Medicare to balance the budget, and AARP is out screaming that the Republicans are destroying the program. But the Democrats can mercilessly trash it with trillions in draconian cuts, and AARP doesn't even notice. Instead, AARP spends seniors' money to try to delude them into supporting it.

Ya'll are too polite at these meetings AARP holds to gull you into the socialist political machine. Check out instead the Alliance for Prosperity, a newly emerging, fully equipped, alternative to AARP.


Seniors' Payback Time

During the 2008 campaign, then candidate Obama told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread the wealth. Apparently, President Obama's concept of spreading the wealth includes sacking both the Medicare and Social Security systems on which America's seniors have come to rely, in favor of others the President's progressive vision deems more worthy.

But this fall, America's seniors will have the opportunity for their own payback time. President Obama, however, thinks he doesn't need them. He thinks he can whip up what he imagines is his mindless political base into a frenzy. That is what the ludicrous, groundless attacks on the Tea Party as racist are all about. And it is what the federal lawsuit against the Arizona immigration enforcement law is all about. That Arizona law explicitly prohibits racial profiling, and only seeks to enforce current federal law.

But the President himself is overlooking the brutal fact that Hispanics have suffered double-digit unemployment throughout his presidency. And African Americans have suffered a long-term depression, with unemployment among them persistently over 15%. Last week came the report that the poverty rate has rocketed upwards to record shattering levels. Who does President Obama think he is fooling now?

Not America's seniors, who this fall won't be caught like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.

Retrieved 15 SEP 2010 from:

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/15/obamas-war-on-americas-seniors/print

Chinese General Threatens U.S. with Debt Retaliation

We all knew this was the plan all along, here is evidence we were right...

Chinese General Says U.S. Carrier in Yellow Sea May Result in Retaliation

By Bloomberg News

A Chinese general said U.S. plans to send a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to the Yellow Sea may lead to retaliation from China, the biggest foreign holder of Treasuries.

"Imagine what the consequence will be if China's biggest debtor nation challenges its creditor nation," Major General Luo Yuan, deputy secretary general of the People's Liberation Army Academy of Military Sciences, wrote in an editorial today in the state-controlled English-language Global Times.

Retrieved from
http://www.thefreepressonline.co.uk/news_print/1/2030.htm

Bank Run 2011?

Bank Run 2011?



Let me be plain and blunt. The "unexpected developments" Bernanke referred to is the collapse of the global banks. This is FED speak and to those in the loop, this is the dire warning. So many renowned economists have misdiagnosed the objective and consequences of quantitative easing. Central bankers' scribes and the global mass media hoodwinked the people by saying that QE will enable the banks to lend monies to cash-starved companies and jump start the economy. The low interest rate regime would encourage all and sundry to borrow, consume and invest. This was the fairy tale. ... The multiplier effect of fractional reserve banking did not take off. Bank lending in fact stalled.

When the ball hits the ceiling fan, sometime early 2011 at the earliest, there will be massive bank runs. I expect that the FED and other central banks will pre-empt such a run and will do the following: 1) Disallow cash withdrawals from banks beyond a certain amount, say US$1,000 per day; 2) Disallow cash transactions up to a certain amount, say US$10,000 for certain transactions; 3) Transactions (investments) for metals (gold and silver) will be restricted; 4) Worst-case scenario – the confiscation of gold AS HAPPENED IN WORLD WAR II. 5) Imposition of capital controls etc.; 6) Legislations that will compel most daily commercial transactions to be conducted through Debit and or Credit Cards; 7) Legislations to make it a criminal offence for any contraventions of the above.



5 Doomsday Scenarios for the U.S. Economy

1. Housing's Mini-Bubble Pops

2. You Break the Economy

3. Toxic Assets Return

4. Europe Falls Apart

5. Debt Finally Catches Up to Us

Wallis admits funding from Soros

Wallis admits funding from Soros; wealthy urged to give it away
Posted on Sep 3, 2010 | by Erin Roach

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--After initially denying it, Jim Wallis, a leader of the evangelical left, has admitted his Sojourners organization has received funding from leftist billionaire George Soros, who has financed groups promoting abortion, atheism and "gay marriage."

Marvin Olasky, editor of World magazine, mentioned in a column this summer that Soros bankrolled Sojourners with a $200,000 grant in 2004, followed by at least two more grants, all while Wallis said he knew of "no connections" between "religious progressives" and liberal groups "that are as direct as the Religious Right's ties to right-wing funders."

Wallis frequently claims to be neither left nor right, but "prophetic," speaking to both sides. Olasky called on Wallis to admit that he is clearly on the left.

In a subsequent interview with Patheos, an interfaith website, Wallis said, "Glenn Beck lies for a living. I'm sad to see Marvin Olasky doing the same thing." Later Wallis apologized to Olasky and said in a statement that he had not been able to recall such funding at the time he denied it.

"The spirit of the accusation was that Sojourners is beholden to funders on the political left, which is false," Wallis said. "The allegation concerned three grants received over 10 years from [Soros'] Open Society Institute that made up the tiniest fraction of Sojourners' funding during that decade -- so small that I hadn't remembered them. Sojourners doesn't belong to the political left or right."

Jay Richards wrote for National Review Online Aug. 25 that Sojourners received at least 49 separate foundation grants between 2003 and 2009 totaling more than $2 million. "Not one of these is from a discernibly conservative foundation," Richards wrote. "Very few are from discernibly Christian foundations."

Three grants were from the (Barbra) Streisand Foundation, which also contributes to People for the American Way and Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Richards noted.

"You don't have to be keen-witted to figure out that Sojourners is overwhelmingly a left-wing operation, optimized to brand left-wing ideas for Christians, ideologically moored on the left, and funded to a significant degree by secular, left-wing donors with little interest in the health of the church," Richards wrote. "Certainly this fact is apparent to the trustees and officers of many left-wing foundations."

'GIVING PLEDGE' URGES PHILANTHROPY -- Warren Buffett joined Bill and Melinda Gates in launching the Giving Pledge, "an effort to invite the wealthiest individuals and families in America to commit to giving the majority of their wealth to philanthropy."

In August, 40 families and individuals had signed the pledge to give away at least half their fortunes either during their lifetimes or after their deaths, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, filmmaker George Lucas, media mogul Ted Turner and oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens.

"We've really just started but already we've had a terrific response," Buffett, the third-richest person in the world, said. "At its core, the Giving Pledge is about asking wealthy families to have important conversations about their wealth and how it will be used. We're delighted that so many people are doing just that -- and that so many have decided to not only take this pledge but also to commit to sums far greater than the 50 percent minimum level."

Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the pledge could be a new status symbol.

"It will be something that's very important to the wealthy -- to be able to say, 'I give my money away as much as I spend it in all of these other exciting ways,'" Palmer told Reuters. "Clearly pressure on the elite is high right now to say that they are giving money away, and that will make it trendy."

Wall Street Journal wealth columnist Robert Frank said the recession has prompted America's rich to search for new status symbols.

"Yachts, private jets, seaside mansions are so 2007," Frank wrote. "But being wealthy enough and generous enough to get on the Giving Pledge list may quickly become the ultimate badge of status -- both in the U.S. and abroad."

Bradford Smith of the Foundation Center said the pledge at least would be a productive use of billions.

"If philanthropy is indeed becoming the new status symbol of the wealthy, it will do a lot more to change the world than buying Gucci bags," he told Reuters.

Retrieved from:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=33639

Glenn Beck taken to task for 'gay marriage' position

Posted on Aug 27, 2010 | by Michael Foust

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--A pro-family leader is taking conservative talk show host Glenn Beck to task for saying the legalization of "gay marriage" will not harm religious freedom.

Appearing on Fox News' "O'Reilly Factor" Aug. 11, Beck took a libertarian approach to the issue and said he has "bigger fish to fry." A federal judge's ruling against California Prop 8 was barely mentioned on Beck's TV and radio programs.

"Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?" host Bill O'Reilly asked.

"A threat to the country?" Beck asked.

"Yeah, is it going to harm it in anyway?" O'Reilly responded.

"No. Will the gays come and get us?" Beck answered, sarcastically.

O'Reilly asked again if "gay marriage" legalization would harm the country, and Beck responded, "I believe that Thomas Jefferson said: 'If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?'"

Beck added, "As long as we are not going down the road of Canada, where it is now a problem for churches to have free speech ..."

But free speech and religious freedoms will be impacted if "gay marriage" is legalized, says Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality. LaBarbera wrote a column, "Why Glenn Beck is Wrong," that listed several reasons "gay marriage" legalization will harm freedoms. LaBarbera said it would:

-- override "the documented will of the people in the 31 states that have already voted -- some by huge margins -- to preserve marriage in the law as what it is: between one man and one woman."

-- force "businessmen and -women to subsidize homosexual relationships" through insurance benefits "even if they rightly believe that those relationships are immoral and deviant."

-- pave the way "for even greater pro-homosexuality indoctrination in the nation's schools than we are already seeing under the mandate of 'sexual orientation nondiscrimination.'"

-- open the door for homosexual teachers in public schools to talk openly about their spouses -- all with the protection of the law.

-- allow textbooks to be rewritten to portray "gay marriage" as a good thing that was part of a successful civil rights movement.

-- result in those who oppose "gay marriage" to be portrayed as bigots who are equivalent to the racist opponents of the 1950s and 1960s civil rights movement and who need to be pushed by the government "to the curb."

-- harm the adoption movement and possibly lead to the closing of adoption agencies who refuse to adopt to homosexual couples, as happened to Catholic Charities in Massachusetts.

FORMER GOP CHAIR IS HOMOSEXUAL -- Former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, who was the campaign manager for President George W. Bush's 2004 campaign, told The Atlantic in an Aug. 25 story that he is homosexual. He also says he backs "gay marriage," which is ironic, because pundits often credit Bush's 2004 re-election -- at least partially -- to social conservatives who went out in droves in 11 states to vote for constitutional marriage amendments. Ohio, a key swing state that went for Bush, passed a marriage amendment that year.

"It's taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life," Mehlman, who has never been married, said. "Everybody has their own path to travel, their own journey, and for me, over the past few months, I've told my family, friends, former colleagues, and current colleagues, and they've been wonderful and supportive. The process has been something that's made me a happier and better person. It's something I wish I had done years ago."

Retrieved from:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=33601

Protests show intolerant side of 'gay marriage' movement

Posted on Jul 23, 2010 | by Michael Foust

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (BP)--A 23-city bus tour by the National Organization for Marriage was intended to rally Americans to support the traditional definition of marriage, but its first few stops also have served as a platform for protests to show the ugly side of the "gay marriage" movement.

In Albany, N.Y., July 17, protesters with rainbow-colored balloons and umbrellas walked behind the podium during the outdoor sunny rally and refused to move. The next day in Providence, R.I., protesters went a step further, walking through the crowd and shouting at attendees and even approaching the podium and screaming at the speaker, National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown. Both rallies were held in front of the respective state capitols.

At one point, the protesters and Brown were only a few feet apart.

"This is the face of tolerance," Brown said, speaking into the microphone and using sarcasm to make an ironic point.

"This is the face of love!" the protester screamed back at Brown.

With attendees seemingly in disbelief, Brown told them, "Activists have come to break up our rallies and silence us. The moment we allow them to silence us is the moment our civil rights have been taken away."

Police apparently were unprepared and had to wait for backup to restore order.

Videos, since posted on YouTube, captured the exchange. (Watch them at Marriagetour2010.com.) One protester, heard on a video, said to a parent, "You'd better watch that kid or we're gonna kidnap him." Brown said another protester was heard saying, "Mommy raising you to be a good little bigot?"

The National Organization for Marriage was instrumental in helping pass California Proposition 8 and Maine Question 1, each of which reversed laws that had legalized "gay marriage" in those states.

"Not only did they truly embarrass themselves and their cause," Brown said in an e-mail to supporters, "they made our point far more powerfully than we could ever hope to do, making it crystal clear how far they are willing to go to force their agenda on all of society.

"... If gay marriage ever becomes the law in Rhode Island, or any other state, remember this display of intolerance when they tell you they would never dream of forcing it on young children in public schools, as they did in Massachusetts and California."

Brown added, "We have a message of tolerance and respect for all, adults and children alike. Theirs is a message of intolerance and hatred -- if you don't agree with me, you're a bigot and we're going to either shout you down or intimidate you into silence. That's no civil rights movement."



PELOSI'S PRESS SECRETARY 'MARRIES' PARTNER -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's press secretary, Drew Hammill, "married" his partner, Jason Mida, in Washington D.C. in late May, according to an announcement in The New York Times. The announcement said Hammill is 31, Mida 30.

"Gay marriage" is legal in the District of Columbia as well as in five states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa. Pelosi, whose district covers San Francisco, supports "gay marriage."

As a spokesman for the speaker, Hammill often is quoted in the media.

Retrieved from:
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=33407

Robertson Spokesman's Statement on 'Pact with The Devil' Remarks

CBN.com – VIRGINIA BEACH, Va., January 13, 2010 -- On today’s The 700 Club, during a segment about the devastation, suffering and humanitarian effort that is needed in Haiti, Dr. Robertson also spoke about Haiti’s history. His comments were based on the widely-discussed 1791 slave rebellion led by Boukman Dutty at Bois Caiman, where the slaves allegedly made a famous pact with the devil in exchange for victory over the French. This history, combined with the horrible state of the country, has led countless scholars and religious figures over the centuries to believe the country is cursed. Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God’s wrath. If you watch the entire video segment, Dr. Robertson’s compassion for the people of Haiti is clear. He called for prayer for them. His humanitarian arm has been working to help thousands of people in Haiti over the last year, and they are currently launching a major relief and recovery effort to help the victims of this disaster. They have sent a shipment of millions of dollars worth of medications that is now in Haiti, and their disaster team leaders are expected to arrive tomorrow and begin operations to ease the suffering.

Chris Roslan
Spokesman for CBN