Q&A: Why Obama's DOMA decision is significant
Posted on Feb 23, 2011 | by Michael Foust
WASHINGTON (BP)--In a monumental decision that some say could help legalize "gay marriage" in America, the Justice Department announced Feb. 23 that President Obama had instructed it to stop defending in court the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
The decision -- rare for a president -- does not mean the federal government will begin immediately recognizing "gay marriage," but it does mean the Department of Justice will no longer defend DOMA in a handful of cases nationwide. Even before the announcement, conservatives had criticized the department's defense of the law as weak. It is possible Congress will step in and try to defend the law, although federal courts are not required to allow Congress to intervene.
Technically, the Justice Department's decision applies only to the handful of lawsuits against DOMA Section 3, a part of the law that prevents the federal government from recognizing "gay marriages" from states such as Massachusetts and defines marriage within federal law in the traditional sense. A federal court in 2010 ruled DOMA unconstitutional, and the Justice Department initially filed an appeal.
The other major section of DOMA gives states the option of not recognizing another state's "gay marriages." The Justice Department's statement, though, made clear that Obama opposes the entire law, and not just Section 3.
DOMA supporters warn that "gay marriage" legalization would have a wide-ranging effect on society, impacting the tax-exempt status of religious organizations, the religious liberty of private businesses, and the curriculum in elementary schools.
Baptist Press asked Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund -- a Christian legal group -- to explain the importance of the Justice Department's decision. Following is a transcript:
BAPTIST PRESS: Why is this significant?
NIMOCKS: It is significant because the American people have a right to expect their laws to be defended by the government officials, and the Department of Justice has been failing to give a full defense of the Defense of Marriage Act for some time, but now has made their no-defense position official and in writing. This is really disappointing with the Department of Justice choosing to appease a small but vocal and wealthy constituency and abandon its duty to the American people.
BAPTIST PRESS: When you say they haven't been defending it, what do you mean?
NIMOCKS: Throughout the litigation over the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Department of Justice has expressly disavowed Congress' reasons for enacting the federal Defense of Marriage Act and instead put forth its own basis for defense, guaranteeing that the case would end the way they wanted it to end -- which is not in favor of [traditional] marriage.
BAPTIST PRESS: Is the Department of Justice's greatest omission in defending it the lack of referencing childrearing and procreation? [Editor's note: In 1996 the House of Representatives noted that the law was needed to encourage responsible procreation and mother-father homes. Some state courts have cited those reasons in refusing to legalize "gay marriage"]
NIMOCKS: In defending a congressionally enacted statute, like the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Department of Justice should take as its bases the elements articulated by Congress. And Congress expressly said there are four main reasons we're enacting the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and instead of using those four bases for it, the Department of Justice expressly disavowed those four reasons and said, "We don't believe in these reasons. We're casting them aside." And they put forth two other reasons of their own which were guaranteed to fail. When the Department of Justice is defending Congress, they should take Congress' bases for the law and articulate that in addition to any other bases which they know will help the act survive the challenge.
BAPTIST PRESS: What happens now? Can someone else defend it? Is it possible we're going to see a repeat of what is happening in California?
NIMOCKS: It is a repeat of what happened in California, where the governor and attorney general failed to perform their duties [and defend Prop 8]. Now, the House or the Senate of Congress have a right to try to intervene in the case if they should choose to do so and try to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Also, there could be other individuals or organizations or parties that could try to intervene in the case and try to defend DOMA. It remains to be seen what's going to happen.
BAPTIST PRESS: Does the court have to accept Congress' request to intervene?
NIMOCKS: No. The question is: If the attorney general decides he doesn't want to defend the law, does the law just go down by default? Our entire structure of our constitutional government then would rise and fall on the opinion of one person. It's not supposed to be the prerogative of the executive branch to undermine the legal enactments of the legislative branch. But that's exactly what's on the table here, where one man -- in this case President Obama or Attorney General Holder -- has the authority to literally undo a congressional enactment. The executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws enacted by Congress, not undermine them. This is really a tragedy what is happening to our constitutional form of government.
BAPTIST PRESS: If the courts do allow Congress to intervene, could this be good news for the Defense of Marriage Act, with it getting a more robust defense?
NIMOCKS: It certainly could be. If Speaker Boehner and the House of Representatives, for example, decide that they want to intervene in some or all of the pending cases and they assert the bases that Congress articulated for passing the law, that would certainly be a good thing to have -- a zealous governmental defendant doing the job that the Department of Justice was supposed to be doing. But it's unfortunate that the American people would have to look at, for example, the House of Representatives to defend their law when they have someone in the attorney general who is supposed to do that.
BAPTIST PRESS: The Justice Department, in a statement about the decision, said "sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny." Can you explain what they're talking about?
NIMOCKS: The suggestion by the attorney general that heightened scrutiny is appropriate is in essence a suggestion that the Department of Justice believes that the concept of sexual orientation should be addressed under the Constitution like one's race or sex, which is an unprecedented position under the United States Constitution.
BAPTIST PRESS: Why should the Defense of Marriage Act be upheld, and why do we need it?
NIMOCKS: Across this country, from coast to coast, north to south, red states and blue states, Americans believe in marriage. It is vital to the very survival and existence of our society, and it is an important part of the laws that unify us as a country.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Class Warfare: Then and Now
By Debra Rae
February 20, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
Part 1: Middle-Class Menace
Ah, the sixties! I remember them well. College campuses across our nation were abuzz with flower power on one hand and seething with anger on the other. Targeting and manipulating naïve students, “Cultural Marxists” used art, music, and media, as well as education, to condition their prey. As puppeteers masterfully wielded rhetorical trickery to foment dissention, disunity, and dispute, deeply alienated and embittered marionettes submitted on cue, thus affecting what arguably amounted to a stealth revolution.
Baby Boomers after all were products of Progressive Education. The movement’s father, Professor John Dewey was a Marxist-Fabian socialist. In 1928, Dewey identified the political function of schools as he saw it—that being, “to construct communist society.” Thanks to Dewey and ilk, progressive public schools served as nurseries for anti-God, anti-American, anti-middle class collectivism. Indeed, atheism was Progressive Education’s root; Marxism its branch.[1]
Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra187.htm
February 20, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
Part 1: Middle-Class Menace
Ah, the sixties! I remember them well. College campuses across our nation were abuzz with flower power on one hand and seething with anger on the other. Targeting and manipulating naïve students, “Cultural Marxists” used art, music, and media, as well as education, to condition their prey. As puppeteers masterfully wielded rhetorical trickery to foment dissention, disunity, and dispute, deeply alienated and embittered marionettes submitted on cue, thus affecting what arguably amounted to a stealth revolution.
Baby Boomers after all were products of Progressive Education. The movement’s father, Professor John Dewey was a Marxist-Fabian socialist. In 1928, Dewey identified the political function of schools as he saw it—that being, “to construct communist society.” Thanks to Dewey and ilk, progressive public schools served as nurseries for anti-God, anti-American, anti-middle class collectivism. Indeed, atheism was Progressive Education’s root; Marxism its branch.[1]
Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra187.htm
Monday, February 21, 2011
Can A Christian Righteously Rebel against Government?
Can A Christian Righteously Rebel against Government? (Romans 13)
Dr. David M. Berman
www.wakeupandsmellthetruth.com
Let me start by saying that you must read this entire article to understand my position on this question. The following passage has been used by many to teach that Christians must submit to all government. In fact during the Katrina disaster many Pastors worked with FEMA in what they call "Clergy Response Teams." If Marshall law is declared, this team is to be used by government to keep the people from rebellion (Source K.S.L.A news). It is interesting how the government decries Christian involvement in public policy while at the same time they want to use pastors to facilitate tyranny. I would take time to write about these pastors who would cooperate with government tyranny but that is for another article.
The justification for the mindset that teaches submission to government is found in the following passage:
Romans 13:1-4 "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."
This passage by itself seems to support the afore mentioned mind set, however we will see that it does not as we apply proper hermeneutic skills in understanding Scripture. Let us first understand that this passage makes it clear that Christians are to follow the laws of government in general. We are not to fight against lawful moral laws that do not violate as our founding documents say "natural laws or the laws of natures God." This is what our founders understood very well and so they gave us understanding of "inalienable rights." These rights are "self evident." Due to the brilliance of our founders they enshrined this truth in our founding documents so that we would have a nation of laws and not men. Many well meaning Christians believe that we are to submit to tyrannical leaders based on this passage. They are simply wrong. Legitimate government is there to reward good and to punish evil. It is not there to punish good and to reward evil.
The question is; "Can a Christian righteously rebel?" The answer is no! It is never acceptable for a Christian to rebel. First Samuel chapter fifteen says "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft."Having said that, in order to really answer this question we must first define rebellion. What is Rebellion? Is it simply disobedience of an authority? The answer is this; Rebellion is the disobedience of a lawful order and a lawful authority. That is what rebellion is. Two examples would be:
1) Refusing to stop when a police car is behind you with lights on.
2) Refusing to answer a question when testifying in court (not including 5th amendment).
What is rebellion not? Rebellion is not disobedience of an unlawful authority or an unlawful order. No government has the right to give unlawful or ungodly orders. Those who believe that Romans 13 somehow gives a right to government to give ungodly and unlawful orders to its citizens are terribly mistaken. Pastors that help the government disarm the citizenry, are acting against the Constitution and the natural law of self defense. Government is not given a right to tyrannical despotic rule. Let's look at the following passage to gain more understanding of this:
Acts 5:27 "And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them"
Here we see that Peter and other Apostles were brought before the council to answer charges that they have disobeyed the authority's demand that they stop preaching salvation through Jesus Christ.
Acts 5:28 "Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us"
The authority makes it clear that they were commanded not to teach in Jesus' name. Not only were they accused of disobedience of a direct order but also of sedition in filling Jerusalem with the doctrine of Christ. The following response of Peter should give all Christians the understanding of Romans 13:1-4.
Acts 5:29 "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men"
"We ought to obey God rather than men." This is the supreme principle concerning the question at hand. We must realize that Peter was not in rebellion against them. It is impossible to be in rebellion against an unlawful or ungodly order. If the order is ungodly we are obligated to disobey it. We are only in rebellion if the order is lawful and comes from proper authority. God does not contradict himself. He did not command us to obey him and at the same time command us to obey things that men tell us to do which oppose his moral law. For example we are given the right and responsibility to raise our own children in the Lord. We have every right to disobey any action of government that seeks to indoctrinate our children with ungodly teachings!
Our founding fathers fought against the tyranny of the King of England because they realized that the King was in violation of our inalienable rights.
The Declaration of Independence says when speaking of the violation of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:
"Any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute New Government." This means that if a government starts doing things that destroy people's rights, rather than protecting their rights, it is their right to change or destroy that form of government, and to institute a new one that will protect their rights"
The Declaration of Independence lists the violations of God given rights. Here is the list verbatim:
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Our founders realized the people have rights and that government can't use Romans 13 as an excuse for despotism. Christians must:
1) Resist tyranny
2) Not allow the government to indoctrinate our children.
3) Stand against any attempt to infringe of the second amendment.
4) Work to establish a government of the people for the people by the people.
5) Disobey any law that is ungodly.
6) Preach the gospel and all Biblical truth no matter what the law says.
7) Uphold the covenant of the Constitution above all attempts to make it relative to modern liberal/socialist/statist thinking.
8) Never put personal money gain above the principles of Constitutional government.
9) Be willing to speak out in the face of persecution.
10) Be able to articulate the Christian world view.
11) Protect babies from the slaughter of abortion.
12) Stand for what marriage is; a man and a woman.
Remember this; The Constitution is a covenant. The states were set up under this covenant. The rules of the covenant are what we agreed to. When the federal government violates the covenant, they have no right to expect to be obeyed and we must not obey them. There is no difference between the federal government violating the lawful contract (Constitution) and a common thief who commits fraud and breach of contract.
I have said this before and now I will say it again:
"One must never put his trust in the government for his own safety, nor the safety of his family. It is not in the nature of government to regard its citizens as more important that itself. Government when limited by the original Constitution of the United States of American can be a blessing. However, without the principled citizenry taking responsibility for itself all government leads to tyranny!"
What Obama, the Democrats, and the willing weak Republicans are doing is the same as many of the things the King of England was doing. They are enemies of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A final word – Resistance against tyranny is not rebellion. It is righteous!
Retrieved from:
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=5117
Dr. David M. Berman
www.wakeupandsmellthetruth.com
Let me start by saying that you must read this entire article to understand my position on this question. The following passage has been used by many to teach that Christians must submit to all government. In fact during the Katrina disaster many Pastors worked with FEMA in what they call "Clergy Response Teams." If Marshall law is declared, this team is to be used by government to keep the people from rebellion (Source K.S.L.A news). It is interesting how the government decries Christian involvement in public policy while at the same time they want to use pastors to facilitate tyranny. I would take time to write about these pastors who would cooperate with government tyranny but that is for another article.
The justification for the mindset that teaches submission to government is found in the following passage:
Romans 13:1-4 "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."
This passage by itself seems to support the afore mentioned mind set, however we will see that it does not as we apply proper hermeneutic skills in understanding Scripture. Let us first understand that this passage makes it clear that Christians are to follow the laws of government in general. We are not to fight against lawful moral laws that do not violate as our founding documents say "natural laws or the laws of natures God." This is what our founders understood very well and so they gave us understanding of "inalienable rights." These rights are "self evident." Due to the brilliance of our founders they enshrined this truth in our founding documents so that we would have a nation of laws and not men. Many well meaning Christians believe that we are to submit to tyrannical leaders based on this passage. They are simply wrong. Legitimate government is there to reward good and to punish evil. It is not there to punish good and to reward evil.
The question is; "Can a Christian righteously rebel?" The answer is no! It is never acceptable for a Christian to rebel. First Samuel chapter fifteen says "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft."Having said that, in order to really answer this question we must first define rebellion. What is Rebellion? Is it simply disobedience of an authority? The answer is this; Rebellion is the disobedience of a lawful order and a lawful authority. That is what rebellion is. Two examples would be:
1) Refusing to stop when a police car is behind you with lights on.
2) Refusing to answer a question when testifying in court (not including 5th amendment).
What is rebellion not? Rebellion is not disobedience of an unlawful authority or an unlawful order. No government has the right to give unlawful or ungodly orders. Those who believe that Romans 13 somehow gives a right to government to give ungodly and unlawful orders to its citizens are terribly mistaken. Pastors that help the government disarm the citizenry, are acting against the Constitution and the natural law of self defense. Government is not given a right to tyrannical despotic rule. Let's look at the following passage to gain more understanding of this:
Acts 5:27 "And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them"
Here we see that Peter and other Apostles were brought before the council to answer charges that they have disobeyed the authority's demand that they stop preaching salvation through Jesus Christ.
Acts 5:28 "Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us"
The authority makes it clear that they were commanded not to teach in Jesus' name. Not only were they accused of disobedience of a direct order but also of sedition in filling Jerusalem with the doctrine of Christ. The following response of Peter should give all Christians the understanding of Romans 13:1-4.
Acts 5:29 "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men"
"We ought to obey God rather than men." This is the supreme principle concerning the question at hand. We must realize that Peter was not in rebellion against them. It is impossible to be in rebellion against an unlawful or ungodly order. If the order is ungodly we are obligated to disobey it. We are only in rebellion if the order is lawful and comes from proper authority. God does not contradict himself. He did not command us to obey him and at the same time command us to obey things that men tell us to do which oppose his moral law. For example we are given the right and responsibility to raise our own children in the Lord. We have every right to disobey any action of government that seeks to indoctrinate our children with ungodly teachings!
Our founding fathers fought against the tyranny of the King of England because they realized that the King was in violation of our inalienable rights.
The Declaration of Independence says when speaking of the violation of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:
"Any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute New Government." This means that if a government starts doing things that destroy people's rights, rather than protecting their rights, it is their right to change or destroy that form of government, and to institute a new one that will protect their rights"
The Declaration of Independence lists the violations of God given rights. Here is the list verbatim:
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Our founders realized the people have rights and that government can't use Romans 13 as an excuse for despotism. Christians must:
1) Resist tyranny
2) Not allow the government to indoctrinate our children.
3) Stand against any attempt to infringe of the second amendment.
4) Work to establish a government of the people for the people by the people.
5) Disobey any law that is ungodly.
6) Preach the gospel and all Biblical truth no matter what the law says.
7) Uphold the covenant of the Constitution above all attempts to make it relative to modern liberal/socialist/statist thinking.
8) Never put personal money gain above the principles of Constitutional government.
9) Be willing to speak out in the face of persecution.
10) Be able to articulate the Christian world view.
11) Protect babies from the slaughter of abortion.
12) Stand for what marriage is; a man and a woman.
Remember this; The Constitution is a covenant. The states were set up under this covenant. The rules of the covenant are what we agreed to. When the federal government violates the covenant, they have no right to expect to be obeyed and we must not obey them. There is no difference between the federal government violating the lawful contract (Constitution) and a common thief who commits fraud and breach of contract.
I have said this before and now I will say it again:
"One must never put his trust in the government for his own safety, nor the safety of his family. It is not in the nature of government to regard its citizens as more important that itself. Government when limited by the original Constitution of the United States of American can be a blessing. However, without the principled citizenry taking responsibility for itself all government leads to tyranny!"
What Obama, the Democrats, and the willing weak Republicans are doing is the same as many of the things the King of England was doing. They are enemies of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A final word – Resistance against tyranny is not rebellion. It is righteous!
Retrieved from:
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=5117
Saturday, February 19, 2011
"TRY REIKI" SAYS DR. OZ
"TRY REIKI" SAYS DR. OZ
[TBC: As we have reported, Rick Warren's Daniel Plan ( begun January 15, 2011), has Dr. Mehmet Oz, Dr. Daniel Amen, and Dr. Mark Hyman heading up the list of speakers.
All three promote unbiblical mysticism and other practices contrary to the Gospel. In the case of Dr. Oz, he is also an enthusiastic supporter and promoter of the cultic teaching Reiki, as the following excerpt from "Reiki Digest" blog shows.]
'Try Reiki,' Dr. Oz tells millions on TV [Excerpts]
Dr. Mehmet Oz, a renowned cardiovascular surgeon and host of the third (or possibly second) most popular syndicated television program in America , this week introduced millions of viewers to the natural healing practice of Reiki as part of a program on alternative and natural remedies. The Dr. Oz Show included not only a segment featuring a demonstration by Reiki author Pamela Miles , but an emphatic recommendation to "try Reiki" as the #1 "Oz's Order" at the show's conclusion.
In a related (and unsurprising) development, the audience member who received a brief Reiki chair session from Miles told Oz and his viewers (an estimated 3.5 million people) after only a few minutes of Reiki that her headache was going away.
Oz, whose wife, Lisa, is a Reiki Master, called Reiki " my favorite treatment that could change the future of medicine forever ." Reiki was the last of an assortment of featured alternative remedies, including mud baths, herbal remedies, aromatherapy, yoga, saunas, and cupping.
"If we put cupping in the hybrid category between biomanipulation and energy," Oz said as the Reiki segment began, "It provides me with a good segue to what I think may be ultimately the most important alternative medicine treatment of all. And we are embarking on this whole new vista of opportunities, it broadens dramatically the spectrum of where we might be able to go in our bodies, and this is the area of energy medicine. " At that point, the camera pulled back to reveal Pamela Miles and the audience member.
"And joining me today is Pamela Miles," Oz continued. "Pamela has actually been to the operating room with me where we have done Reiki. He pointed out that, like Pamela, "my wife Lisa is a Reiki master, so when the kids get sick, or when I'm out of sorts, she actually comes by, I can't even tell when she's treating me, sometimes she secretly treats me, if she thinks I'm in a bad mood" -- everyone laughed -- "and I see hands moving around, but I actually feel the heat."
http://reikidigest.blogspot.com/2010/01/try-reiki-dr-oz-tells-millions-on-tv.html
Courtesy of The Berean Call
http://www.thebereancall.org/node/9001
[TBC: As we have reported, Rick Warren's Daniel Plan ( begun January 15, 2011), has Dr. Mehmet Oz, Dr. Daniel Amen, and Dr. Mark Hyman heading up the list of speakers.
All three promote unbiblical mysticism and other practices contrary to the Gospel. In the case of Dr. Oz, he is also an enthusiastic supporter and promoter of the cultic teaching Reiki, as the following excerpt from "Reiki Digest" blog shows.]
'Try Reiki,' Dr. Oz tells millions on TV [Excerpts]
Dr. Mehmet Oz, a renowned cardiovascular surgeon and host of the third (or possibly second) most popular syndicated television program in America , this week introduced millions of viewers to the natural healing practice of Reiki as part of a program on alternative and natural remedies. The Dr. Oz Show included not only a segment featuring a demonstration by Reiki author Pamela Miles , but an emphatic recommendation to "try Reiki" as the #1 "Oz's Order" at the show's conclusion.
In a related (and unsurprising) development, the audience member who received a brief Reiki chair session from Miles told Oz and his viewers (an estimated 3.5 million people) after only a few minutes of Reiki that her headache was going away.
Oz, whose wife, Lisa, is a Reiki Master, called Reiki " my favorite treatment that could change the future of medicine forever ." Reiki was the last of an assortment of featured alternative remedies, including mud baths, herbal remedies, aromatherapy, yoga, saunas, and cupping.
"If we put cupping in the hybrid category between biomanipulation and energy," Oz said as the Reiki segment began, "It provides me with a good segue to what I think may be ultimately the most important alternative medicine treatment of all. And we are embarking on this whole new vista of opportunities, it broadens dramatically the spectrum of where we might be able to go in our bodies, and this is the area of energy medicine. " At that point, the camera pulled back to reveal Pamela Miles and the audience member.
"And joining me today is Pamela Miles," Oz continued. "Pamela has actually been to the operating room with me where we have done Reiki. He pointed out that, like Pamela, "my wife Lisa is a Reiki master, so when the kids get sick, or when I'm out of sorts, she actually comes by, I can't even tell when she's treating me, sometimes she secretly treats me, if she thinks I'm in a bad mood" -- everyone laughed -- "and I see hands moving around, but I actually feel the heat."
http://reikidigest.blogspot.com/2010/01/try-reiki-dr-oz-tells-millions-on-tv.html
Courtesy of The Berean Call
http://www.thebereancall.org/node/9001
Friday, February 18, 2011
Freedom to be Christian but banned from acting Christian
Christains, Orthodox Jews or anyone with traditional views of sex and marriage should be barred from state university counseling programs unless they agree to violate their beliefs. That's the gist of theamicus brief the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed Feb. 11 in a case in which a Christian student is challenging her dismissal from a graduate counseling program at Eastern Michigan University in 2009.
Julea Ward had asked that another student take the case of a homosexual suffering from depression because, being a Christian, she could not affirm the person's sexual relationships. Miss Ward was dismissed and filed a lawsuit charging unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, religious discrimination and compelled speech. On July 26, 2010, a U.S. district court denied her claim, and she appealed to the 6th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals.
The ACLU's brief to the appeals court contends that compelling someone to act against her beliefs does not violate her freedoms of religion or speech. The ACLU quotes the university's response to Miss Ward saying she had a "conflict between your values that motivate your behavior and those behaviors expected of your profession." In other words, you're a conscientious Christian, so get lost.
This is one of several cases in which Christians have been told to conform to "diversity" requirements or leave counseling programs. At Augusta State University in Georgia, Jennifer Keetonsued last year after being told she had to take re-education courses to counter her Christian morality or be expelled from a master's program. After losing in a U.S. district court, she has appealed to the 11th U.S. Circuit.
In the Michigan case, the ACLU's brief rests heavily on the American Counseling Association's (ACA) Code of Ethics, which prohibits discrimination based on "sexual orientation" and a dozen other characteristics. Miss Ward contends that the code allows referrals to other counselors in situations such as hers.
The brief cites last year's egregious U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which upheld the decision by Hastings College of the Law at the University of California at Berkeley to eject a Christian legal group for not allowing open homosexuals in leadership positions. Writing for the majority in that case, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said: "Condemnation of same-sex intimacy is, in fact, a condemnation of gay people," and "our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context."
By this reasoning, if you don't support gluttony, you "condemn" overweight people. Let's further take this apart. If, as former ACLU attorney Justice Ginsburg says, conduct defines status, and the ACA's code says counselors must conform to what amounts to a positive or neutral view of sex outside marriage, then Christians must conduct themselves in a way that violates their beliefs. Their status becomes that of either outlaws or liars.
This is not rocket science. We are witnessing radical ideologues bent on replacing natural law with a wholly different set of values, which is what Justice Antonin Scalia said about the legal profession in his dissents in Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003).
Many professional associations have climbed aboard this runaway train. If this trend is not halted, the result will be a world full of signs that say, "Christians need not apply." Just ask Catholic hospitals that are being told to perform abortions - or else.
The underlying problem in the Michigan counseling case is twofold: First, there is no credible scientific evidence that homosexuality - unlike Miss Ward's black race - is inborn and unchangeable. As Colin L. Powell once pointed out, comparison of race with sexual orientation is "convenient but invalid." Second, the Constitution explicitly protects religious freedom but is silent on "sexual orientation," a term concocted in the 20th century as a bludgeon against Judeo-Christian morality.
So, in the name of the U.S. Constitution, a black woman who believes in biblical morality is barred as an unfit bigot from a program that is supposed to teach counselors how to encourage healthy behaviors. On the other hand, people who affirm deviation regardless of consequences face no such sanction.
The ACLU says the university is making an important ethical distinction. It sure is. Whereas Miss Ward draws from the Western moral tradition that inspired the U.S. Constitution, the university's ethics are based on the cause de jour in liberal faculty lounges.
The bottom line is that forcing Miss Ward or Miss Keeton to pretend to buy into the left's pansexual dystopia is supposed to be a reasonable action. If so, then anyone with traditional religious beliefs can be barred from a state institution if he or she fails to betray personal beliefs.
This is no longer remotely about tolerance or civil rights. It's about turning the nation's moral values upside down so that wrong is right and right is hate.
The agents of radical change have hijacked the God-given, unalienable rights that were codified precisely to protect people like Julea Ward from unjust discrimination. As the public sector expands, it is bankrupting the nation and moving us closer to the criminalization of Christianity.
In the short run, this must be met with superior legal and political forces. Long term, we must radically reduce the public sector to where it can no longer threaten American liberty.
Full article:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/18/freedom-to-be-christian-but-banned-from-acting-chr/print/
Julea Ward had asked that another student take the case of a homosexual suffering from depression because, being a Christian, she could not affirm the person's sexual relationships. Miss Ward was dismissed and filed a lawsuit charging unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, religious discrimination and compelled speech. On July 26, 2010, a U.S. district court denied her claim, and she appealed to the 6th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals.
The ACLU's brief to the appeals court contends that compelling someone to act against her beliefs does not violate her freedoms of religion or speech. The ACLU quotes the university's response to Miss Ward saying she had a "conflict between your values that motivate your behavior and those behaviors expected of your profession." In other words, you're a conscientious Christian, so get lost.
This is one of several cases in which Christians have been told to conform to "diversity" requirements or leave counseling programs. At Augusta State University in Georgia, Jennifer Keetonsued last year after being told she had to take re-education courses to counter her Christian morality or be expelled from a master's program. After losing in a U.S. district court, she has appealed to the 11th U.S. Circuit.
In the Michigan case, the ACLU's brief rests heavily on the American Counseling Association's (ACA) Code of Ethics, which prohibits discrimination based on "sexual orientation" and a dozen other characteristics. Miss Ward contends that the code allows referrals to other counselors in situations such as hers.
The brief cites last year's egregious U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which upheld the decision by Hastings College of the Law at the University of California at Berkeley to eject a Christian legal group for not allowing open homosexuals in leadership positions. Writing for the majority in that case, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said: "Condemnation of same-sex intimacy is, in fact, a condemnation of gay people," and "our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context."
By this reasoning, if you don't support gluttony, you "condemn" overweight people. Let's further take this apart. If, as former ACLU attorney Justice Ginsburg says, conduct defines status, and the ACA's code says counselors must conform to what amounts to a positive or neutral view of sex outside marriage, then Christians must conduct themselves in a way that violates their beliefs. Their status becomes that of either outlaws or liars.
This is not rocket science. We are witnessing radical ideologues bent on replacing natural law with a wholly different set of values, which is what Justice Antonin Scalia said about the legal profession in his dissents in Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003).
Many professional associations have climbed aboard this runaway train. If this trend is not halted, the result will be a world full of signs that say, "Christians need not apply." Just ask Catholic hospitals that are being told to perform abortions - or else.
The underlying problem in the Michigan counseling case is twofold: First, there is no credible scientific evidence that homosexuality - unlike Miss Ward's black race - is inborn and unchangeable. As Colin L. Powell once pointed out, comparison of race with sexual orientation is "convenient but invalid." Second, the Constitution explicitly protects religious freedom but is silent on "sexual orientation," a term concocted in the 20th century as a bludgeon against Judeo-Christian morality.
So, in the name of the U.S. Constitution, a black woman who believes in biblical morality is barred as an unfit bigot from a program that is supposed to teach counselors how to encourage healthy behaviors. On the other hand, people who affirm deviation regardless of consequences face no such sanction.
The ACLU says the university is making an important ethical distinction. It sure is. Whereas Miss Ward draws from the Western moral tradition that inspired the U.S. Constitution, the university's ethics are based on the cause de jour in liberal faculty lounges.
The bottom line is that forcing Miss Ward or Miss Keeton to pretend to buy into the left's pansexual dystopia is supposed to be a reasonable action. If so, then anyone with traditional religious beliefs can be barred from a state institution if he or she fails to betray personal beliefs.
This is no longer remotely about tolerance or civil rights. It's about turning the nation's moral values upside down so that wrong is right and right is hate.
The agents of radical change have hijacked the God-given, unalienable rights that were codified precisely to protect people like Julea Ward from unjust discrimination. As the public sector expands, it is bankrupting the nation and moving us closer to the criminalization of Christianity.
In the short run, this must be met with superior legal and political forces. Long term, we must radically reduce the public sector to where it can no longer threaten American liberty.
Full article:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/18/freedom-to-be-christian-but-banned-from-acting-chr/print/
Thursday, February 17, 2011
"Science Says" is now just another special interest group
"SCIENCE SAYS" IS NOW JUST ANOTHER SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP
President Obama echoed an often-heard lament when he complained recently that, among Americans, "facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day." According to distressed cultural observers, public ignorance about science is evidenced by failure to accept global warming, "animal rights," euthanasia and Darwinian evolution.
The assumption is that doubting scientists' claims means you have divorced yourself from reality. Yet steadily accumulating stories from the scientific community itself suggest grounds for doubting that scientists all pursue truth without fear or favor. Last year's "Climategate" email leak from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit is the best-known case, but hardly the only one.
If there's any question on which science has spoken definitively, it's supposed to be the theory that an unguided material process of natural selection accounts for life's long development. A consensus of biologists appears to agree on this. Yet to what extent is that uniformity coerced -- specifically, by employment pressure?
For years I've collected accounts of scientists who voiced doubts about Darwin and ended up paying a high price. In February, the University of Kentucky will defend itself in court in a discrimination case brought by astronomer Martin Gaskell, now at the University of Texas. He argues convincingly that he was turned down to direct Kentucky's observatory because of remarks on his personal website noting reservations about Darwinian theory and an openness to intelligent design.
Gaskell's attorneys present records of email traffic among the faculty search committee. Professors falsely tarred Gaskell as a "creationist" while a lone astrophysicist on the committee protested that Gaskell stood to be rejected "despite his qualifications that stand far above those of any other applicant."
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41006
(Klinghoffer, Human Events, 01/06/2011)
President Obama echoed an often-heard lament when he complained recently that, among Americans, "facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day." According to distressed cultural observers, public ignorance about science is evidenced by failure to accept global warming, "animal rights," euthanasia and Darwinian evolution.
The assumption is that doubting scientists' claims means you have divorced yourself from reality. Yet steadily accumulating stories from the scientific community itself suggest grounds for doubting that scientists all pursue truth without fear or favor. Last year's "Climategate" email leak from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit is the best-known case, but hardly the only one.
If there's any question on which science has spoken definitively, it's supposed to be the theory that an unguided material process of natural selection accounts for life's long development. A consensus of biologists appears to agree on this. Yet to what extent is that uniformity coerced -- specifically, by employment pressure?
For years I've collected accounts of scientists who voiced doubts about Darwin and ended up paying a high price. In February, the University of Kentucky will defend itself in court in a discrimination case brought by astronomer Martin Gaskell, now at the University of Texas. He argues convincingly that he was turned down to direct Kentucky's observatory because of remarks on his personal website noting reservations about Darwinian theory and an openness to intelligent design.
Gaskell's attorneys present records of email traffic among the faculty search committee. Professors falsely tarred Gaskell as a "creationist" while a lone astrophysicist on the committee protested that Gaskell stood to be rejected "despite his qualifications that stand far above those of any other applicant."
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41006
(Klinghoffer, Human Events, 01/06/2011)
Healthcare Reform Law Requires New IRS Army Of 1,054
The Internal Revenue Service says it will need an battalion of 1,054 new auditors and staffers and new facilities at a cost to taxpayers of more than $359 million in fiscal 2012 just to watch over the initial implementation of President Obama's healthcare reforms. Among the new corps will be 81 workers assigned to make sure tanning salons pay a new 10 percent excise tax. Their cost: $11.5 million.
"The ACA [Affordable Care Act] will require additional resources to build new IT systems; modify existing tax processing systems; provide taxpayer outreach and assistance services; make enhancements to notices, collections, and case management systems to address and resolve taxpayer issues timely and accurately; and conduct focused examinations to encourage compliance," said the newly released IRS budget.
In its request, the IRS explained that the tax changes associated with health reform are huge. "Implementation of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 presents a major challenge to the IRS. ACA represents the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years, with more than 40 provisions that amend the tax laws."
Unsaid: The requests are just the beginning, since the new healthcare program is evolving and won't be fully implemented until about 2014.
The detailed IRS budget documents spell out exactly what most of the new workforce will be doing. For example, some 81 will be tasked just to handle the tax reporting of 25,000 tanning salons. They face a new 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services. Another 76 will be assigned to make sure businesses engaged in making and imported drugs pay their new fee which is expected to deliver $2.8 billion to the Treasury in 2012 and 2013. The new healthcare corps will also require new facilities and computers.
The document gives the GOP a bright target to hit if they plan to make good on promises to defund the president's healthcare plan.
Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, who's become a point man in the budget battle, told Whispers, "The president's irresponsible budget empowers the IRS to begin to audit Americans' healthcare. As the IRS says, Obamacare represents the largest set of tax changes in more than 20 years. Adding hundreds of new jobs and millions of dollars to the IRS isn't going to make care better or more available for anyone. I will continue to fight to repeal and replace Obamacare with patient centered reforms that help the private sector—not the IRS—create more jobs."
The Treasury Department, which oversees the IRS said: "The Affordable Care Act includes important tax credits that help small businesses provide health insurance for their employees and partially cover the cost of health insurance for Americans who do not have access to affordable coverage, and Treasury's Budget includes funding for the IRS to administer these tax provisions. The vast majority of this funding will be used to develop information technology systems and other support to implement the law and help taxpayers claim these important credits."
The IRS document also noted that other tax law changes related to the stimulus require more workers, estimated at about 215 new employees.
"The ACA [Affordable Care Act] will require additional resources to build new IT systems; modify existing tax processing systems; provide taxpayer outreach and assistance services; make enhancements to notices, collections, and case management systems to address and resolve taxpayer issues timely and accurately; and conduct focused examinations to encourage compliance," said the newly released IRS budget.
In its request, the IRS explained that the tax changes associated with health reform are huge. "Implementation of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 presents a major challenge to the IRS. ACA represents the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years, with more than 40 provisions that amend the tax laws."
Unsaid: The requests are just the beginning, since the new healthcare program is evolving and won't be fully implemented until about 2014.
The detailed IRS budget documents spell out exactly what most of the new workforce will be doing. For example, some 81 will be tasked just to handle the tax reporting of 25,000 tanning salons. They face a new 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services. Another 76 will be assigned to make sure businesses engaged in making and imported drugs pay their new fee which is expected to deliver $2.8 billion to the Treasury in 2012 and 2013. The new healthcare corps will also require new facilities and computers.
The document gives the GOP a bright target to hit if they plan to make good on promises to defund the president's healthcare plan.
Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, who's become a point man in the budget battle, told Whispers, "The president's irresponsible budget empowers the IRS to begin to audit Americans' healthcare. As the IRS says, Obamacare represents the largest set of tax changes in more than 20 years. Adding hundreds of new jobs and millions of dollars to the IRS isn't going to make care better or more available for anyone. I will continue to fight to repeal and replace Obamacare with patient centered reforms that help the private sector—not the IRS—create more jobs."
The Treasury Department, which oversees the IRS said: "The Affordable Care Act includes important tax credits that help small businesses provide health insurance for their employees and partially cover the cost of health insurance for Americans who do not have access to affordable coverage, and Treasury's Budget includes funding for the IRS to administer these tax provisions. The vast majority of this funding will be used to develop information technology systems and other support to implement the law and help taxpayers claim these important credits."
The IRS document also noted that other tax law changes related to the stimulus require more workers, estimated at about 215 new employees.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Daniel Plan - Eastern mysticism, universalism
RICK WARREN HOSTS CULT CELEBRITY DOCTORS [Excerpts]
Features promoters of Eastern mysticism, universalism
When megachurch pastor Rick Warren decided he needed to take his health seriously, he responded in typically ambitious fashion, launching a year-long health program for his church, "The Daniel Plan," written with the help of three celebrity doctors who will appear at a kickoff seminar today (4 FEB 2011).
But critics point out the physicians who crafted the program apparently don't share the church's professed evangelical beliefs, espousing instead various forms of Eastern mysticism and the tenets of a Christian cult, Swedenborgism.
Vowing to lose 90 pounds, Warren said he placed himself under the care of Drs. Mehmet Oz, Daniel Amen and Mark Hyman last fall and worked with each to develop "The Daniel Plan."
Oz, host of the Emmy-winning "Dr. Oz Show" and professor of surgery at Columbia University, says he is inspired by Emanuel Swedenborg, an 18th century cult founder who taught that all religions lead to God and denied orthodox Christian beliefs such at the atonement of Christ for sin, the trinity and the deity of the Holy Spirit.
Best-selling author Amen, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at Irvine, teaches Eastern religious meditation and the New Age energy-based practice of Reiki.
Hyman, a four-time New York Times best-selling author, promotes mystical meditation based on Buddhist principles.
Emanuel Swedenborg said he had a vision in 1745 in which he saw creatures crawling on walls. He asserted God then appeared to him as a man and told him to promote the new teachings to the world.
Warren plans to have one-on-one discussions with Amen and Hymen at the summit today, which runs from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif. Oz will appear via a video message.
The church says all of its more than 5,000 small groups will go through "The Daniel Plan," which is part of Saddleback's "Decade of Destiny," a 10-year plan launching this month "to help individuals succeed and be who God designed them to be in every aspect in life."
Warren, author of the best-selling "The Purpose Driven Life," said he is "honored to be partnering with these internationally distinguished health experts." "God says that health is important, and that is what we want to explore," Warren said.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=251133
Features promoters of Eastern mysticism, universalism
When megachurch pastor Rick Warren decided he needed to take his health seriously, he responded in typically ambitious fashion, launching a year-long health program for his church, "The Daniel Plan," written with the help of three celebrity doctors who will appear at a kickoff seminar today (4 FEB 2011).
But critics point out the physicians who crafted the program apparently don't share the church's professed evangelical beliefs, espousing instead various forms of Eastern mysticism and the tenets of a Christian cult, Swedenborgism.
Vowing to lose 90 pounds, Warren said he placed himself under the care of Drs. Mehmet Oz, Daniel Amen and Mark Hyman last fall and worked with each to develop "The Daniel Plan."
Oz, host of the Emmy-winning "Dr. Oz Show" and professor of surgery at Columbia University, says he is inspired by Emanuel Swedenborg, an 18th century cult founder who taught that all religions lead to God and denied orthodox Christian beliefs such at the atonement of Christ for sin, the trinity and the deity of the Holy Spirit.
Best-selling author Amen, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at Irvine, teaches Eastern religious meditation and the New Age energy-based practice of Reiki.
Hyman, a four-time New York Times best-selling author, promotes mystical meditation based on Buddhist principles.
Emanuel Swedenborg said he had a vision in 1745 in which he saw creatures crawling on walls. He asserted God then appeared to him as a man and told him to promote the new teachings to the world.
Warren plans to have one-on-one discussions with Amen and Hymen at the summit today, which runs from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif. Oz will appear via a video message.
The church says all of its more than 5,000 small groups will go through "The Daniel Plan," which is part of Saddleback's "Decade of Destiny," a 10-year plan launching this month "to help individuals succeed and be who God designed them to be in every aspect in life."
Warren, author of the best-selling "The Purpose Driven Life," said he is "honored to be partnering with these internationally distinguished health experts." "God says that health is important, and that is what we want to explore," Warren said.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=251133
Video Shows Joint Chiefs’ Grim Reaction to Obama Plan for Homosexuals in the Military
Video Shows Joint Chiefs’ Grim Reaction to Obama Plan for Homosexuals in the Military
GO HERE TO WATCH VIDEO:
http://americansfortruth.com/news/video-shows-joint-chiefs-grim-reaction-to-obama-plan-for-homosexuals-in-the-military.html
February 3rd, 2011
This video says it all regarding the Joint Chiefs’ grim reaction to President Obama’s plan to homosexualize the U.S. military. Kudos to the Thomas More Law Center for their excellent work in opposing the repeal of the common-sense ban on homosexuals in our Armed Forces. The saddest thing of all is that this battle need not have been lost had more VIP “conservatives” acted, well, conservatively in mobilizing the country against this “lame-duck” congressional outrage. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
GO HERE TO WATCH VIDEO:
http://americansfortruth.com/news/video-shows-joint-chiefs-grim-reaction-to-obama-plan-for-homosexuals-in-the-military.html
February 3rd, 2011
This video says it all regarding the Joint Chiefs’ grim reaction to President Obama’s plan to homosexualize the U.S. military. Kudos to the Thomas More Law Center for their excellent work in opposing the repeal of the common-sense ban on homosexuals in our Armed Forces. The saddest thing of all is that this battle need not have been lost had more VIP “conservatives” acted, well, conservatively in mobilizing the country against this “lame-duck” congressional outrage. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
Planned Parenthood Stung by Sting Operation
Posted by Jim_Daly on Feb 3, 2011 3:42:33 PM
Everybody knows Planned Parenthood promotes and encourages abortion. But sex trafficking?
It is a convoluted and sad story:
Amy Woodruff, the clinic manager of a New Jersey Planned Parenthood office has been fired for aiding and abetting two people who posed as sex trafficking workers.
The undercover operation was organized by Lila Rose of Live Action, a youth-led movement dedicated to building a culture of life and ending abortion. Ms. Rose, a student at UCLA, founded Live Action in 2006.
When the news of the sting operation broke, Planned Parenthood dismissed it as a hoax. The video of the incident had been edited, they claimed, and didn’t properly reflect the full context of the discussion.
Yet, as the news began to spread and spiral downward, Woodruff’s employment was terminated.
What did the hidden camera reveal?
On the video, Ms. Woodruff coaches the man posing as a “pimp” to underage girls to not disclose the age of his “workers” when they come into Planned Parenthood for treatment. “If they’re minors, put down that they’re students,” she advises. “Yeah, just kind of play along that they’re students–we want to make it look as legit as possible.”
At one point, Woodruff suggests the best place in the area for minors to obtain abortions. The implication in the suggestion was that her clinic in Perth Amboy, NJ, was too regulated, although that didn’t seem to stop her from helping the “pimp” in other ways. She offered tips on the best way to utilize young prostitutes unable to have sex even as they recovered from abortions. “[Use them from the] waist up,” she advises, “or just [have them] be that extra action walking by.”
The undercover video can be seen on CitizenLink's website by clicking here.
In the wake of the exposed ghoulishness last week of the Philadelphia abortion clinic, this is yet another sordid stop on abortion’s trail of tears. Nor is this is the first time a Planned Parenthood clinic has been exposed. But each time it happens, we’re told it’s an exception to the norm. Right.
In response to the Rose expose, Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, pointed out the hypocrisy inherent to the pro-abortion movement:
“The horror of the logic behind Planned Parenthood’s founding has come to roost in this modern form: it is the primary partner of those who degrade and exploit women. The exploitation of women by men through abortion was vehemently rejected by the early feminists.”
Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood Clinic Director who recently joined me in the studio (click here to listen) to discuss her journey from supporting death to promoting life, was equally bold in her reaction to the sting operation. She said she wasn’t at all surprised to read of the news.
“Planned Parenthood is involved in the violent killing of children and has no regard for life,” Abby said. “People who traffic these young women for sex have no regard for their lives and are often involved in violent crimes.”
If there is any “hoax” being perpetuated within the abortion industry, it is to be found in the great lie that the taking of innocent life is a right whose supporters want to be “safe, legal and rare.”
As we have seen time and time again, abortion as promoted by this macabre multi-billion dollar industry is anything but safe, legal and rare. In fact, it is, by every measure, the exact opposite.
These two incidents, the horror of Philadelphia and the Planned Parenthood clinic’s condoning of sex trafficking, leave us with a profound sense of heartache and sadness. The news also drives us to our knees in prayer as we contemplate what we should, can and will do to not only bring an ultimate end to abortion, but also advance the sanctity of life in every form. We’ll have more to share about our plans in this regard in upcoming broadcasts and via other media channels.
In the meantime, please continue to pray with us. I will end with a beautiful prayer offered by a great friend of life, Fr. Frank Pavone:
Lord God, I thank you today for the gift of my life, and for the lives of all my brothers and sisters. I know there is nothing that destroys more life than abortion, yet I rejoice that you have conquered death by the Resurrection of Your Son. I am ready to do my part in ending abortion. Today I commit myself never to be silent, never to be passive, never to be forgetful of the unborn. I commit myself to be active in the pro-life movement, and never to stop defending life until all my brothers and sisters are protected, and our nation once again becomes a nation with liberty and justice. Not just for some, but for all. Through Christ our Lord. Amen!
Full article:
http://www.focusonlinecommunities.com/blogs/Finding_Home/2011/02/03/planned-parenthood-stung-by-sting-operation
Everybody knows Planned Parenthood promotes and encourages abortion. But sex trafficking?
It is a convoluted and sad story:
Amy Woodruff, the clinic manager of a New Jersey Planned Parenthood office has been fired for aiding and abetting two people who posed as sex trafficking workers.
The undercover operation was organized by Lila Rose of Live Action, a youth-led movement dedicated to building a culture of life and ending abortion. Ms. Rose, a student at UCLA, founded Live Action in 2006.
When the news of the sting operation broke, Planned Parenthood dismissed it as a hoax. The video of the incident had been edited, they claimed, and didn’t properly reflect the full context of the discussion.
Yet, as the news began to spread and spiral downward, Woodruff’s employment was terminated.
What did the hidden camera reveal?
On the video, Ms. Woodruff coaches the man posing as a “pimp” to underage girls to not disclose the age of his “workers” when they come into Planned Parenthood for treatment. “If they’re minors, put down that they’re students,” she advises. “Yeah, just kind of play along that they’re students–we want to make it look as legit as possible.”
At one point, Woodruff suggests the best place in the area for minors to obtain abortions. The implication in the suggestion was that her clinic in Perth Amboy, NJ, was too regulated, although that didn’t seem to stop her from helping the “pimp” in other ways. She offered tips on the best way to utilize young prostitutes unable to have sex even as they recovered from abortions. “[Use them from the] waist up,” she advises, “or just [have them] be that extra action walking by.”
The undercover video can be seen on CitizenLink's website by clicking here.
In the wake of the exposed ghoulishness last week of the Philadelphia abortion clinic, this is yet another sordid stop on abortion’s trail of tears. Nor is this is the first time a Planned Parenthood clinic has been exposed. But each time it happens, we’re told it’s an exception to the norm. Right.
In response to the Rose expose, Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, pointed out the hypocrisy inherent to the pro-abortion movement:
“The horror of the logic behind Planned Parenthood’s founding has come to roost in this modern form: it is the primary partner of those who degrade and exploit women. The exploitation of women by men through abortion was vehemently rejected by the early feminists.”
Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood Clinic Director who recently joined me in the studio (click here to listen) to discuss her journey from supporting death to promoting life, was equally bold in her reaction to the sting operation. She said she wasn’t at all surprised to read of the news.
“Planned Parenthood is involved in the violent killing of children and has no regard for life,” Abby said. “People who traffic these young women for sex have no regard for their lives and are often involved in violent crimes.”
If there is any “hoax” being perpetuated within the abortion industry, it is to be found in the great lie that the taking of innocent life is a right whose supporters want to be “safe, legal and rare.”
As we have seen time and time again, abortion as promoted by this macabre multi-billion dollar industry is anything but safe, legal and rare. In fact, it is, by every measure, the exact opposite.
These two incidents, the horror of Philadelphia and the Planned Parenthood clinic’s condoning of sex trafficking, leave us with a profound sense of heartache and sadness. The news also drives us to our knees in prayer as we contemplate what we should, can and will do to not only bring an ultimate end to abortion, but also advance the sanctity of life in every form. We’ll have more to share about our plans in this regard in upcoming broadcasts and via other media channels.
In the meantime, please continue to pray with us. I will end with a beautiful prayer offered by a great friend of life, Fr. Frank Pavone:
Lord God, I thank you today for the gift of my life, and for the lives of all my brothers and sisters. I know there is nothing that destroys more life than abortion, yet I rejoice that you have conquered death by the Resurrection of Your Son. I am ready to do my part in ending abortion. Today I commit myself never to be silent, never to be passive, never to be forgetful of the unborn. I commit myself to be active in the pro-life movement, and never to stop defending life until all my brothers and sisters are protected, and our nation once again becomes a nation with liberty and justice. Not just for some, but for all. Through Christ our Lord. Amen!
Full article:
http://www.focusonlinecommunities.com/blogs/Finding_Home/2011/02/03/planned-parenthood-stung-by-sting-operation
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Obama's Betrayl: America's word is worthless; an alliance with America is unreliable
The second revolution that is occurring in front of our eyes is the collapse of the American empire. It could be that the American empire was evil.
But for 60 years the American empire kept the world stable, and provided relative quiet, peace and prosperity. The current U.S. president, Barack Obama, is undermining the American empire.
Obama's betrayal of Hosni Mubarak is not just the betrayal of a moderate Egyptian president who remained loyal to the United States, promoted stability and encouraged moderation. Obama's betrayal of Mubarak symbolizes the betrayal of every strategic ally in the Third World. Throughout Asia, Africa and South America, leaders are now looking at what is going on between Washington and Cairo.
Everyone grasps the message: America's word is worthless; an alliance with America is unreliable; American has lost it. A result of this understanding will be a turn toward China, Russia and regional powers such as Iran, Turkey and Brazil.
Full article:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/obama-s-betrayal-as-goes-mubarak-so-goes-u-s-might-1.340244
But for 60 years the American empire kept the world stable, and provided relative quiet, peace and prosperity. The current U.S. president, Barack Obama, is undermining the American empire.
Obama's betrayal of Hosni Mubarak is not just the betrayal of a moderate Egyptian president who remained loyal to the United States, promoted stability and encouraged moderation. Obama's betrayal of Mubarak symbolizes the betrayal of every strategic ally in the Third World. Throughout Asia, Africa and South America, leaders are now looking at what is going on between Washington and Cairo.
Everyone grasps the message: America's word is worthless; an alliance with America is unreliable; American has lost it. A result of this understanding will be a turn toward China, Russia and regional powers such as Iran, Turkey and Brazil.
Full article:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/obama-s-betrayal-as-goes-mubarak-so-goes-u-s-might-1.340244
Friday, February 04, 2011
World food prices surge to new historic peak
Rome - World food prices surged to a new 'historic' peak in January, for the seventh consecutive month, according to the updated UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's Food Price Index, the agency said Thursday.
The index - a commodity basket that regularly tracks monthly changes in global food prices - averaged 231 points in January and was up 3.4 per cent from December 2010.
Full article:
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/business/news/article_1616745.php/World-food-prices-surge-to-new-historic-peak
The index - a commodity basket that regularly tracks monthly changes in global food prices - averaged 231 points in January and was up 3.4 per cent from December 2010.
Full article:
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/business/news/article_1616745.php/World-food-prices-surge-to-new-historic-peak
'Wolf Pack' Teen Bullying Case -- Is America Getting Meaner?
By Dr. Dale Archer
Published February 03, 2011
FoxNews.com
Nadin Khoury was brought to the United States ten years ago by his mother to escape the cruelty that accompanied the Liberian Civil War. Last month he was left suspended by his coat from a seven-foot-high fence after being punched, dragged, kicked and beaten in a Philadelphia suburb. His shocked mother said, “One of the reasons I came to the U.S. was (so) that these horrible things wouldn’t happen to us.”
Here we go again. Sadly, it seems every time we turn around there's a new case of bullying in the news. Back when I was growing up, bullying seemed to be almost a rite of passage for every new kid at school, a type of hazing to validate your acceptance. Of course, the big difference in those days was that the bullying was usually only at the schoolyard and typically petered out quickly. Now, in the cyber world there is no respite and bullying has taken on a much more sinister tone.
Today kids have to deal with not only physical confrontations, but are also virtually pounded 24/7 via Facebook, Twitter and cell phone by text, calls and voicemails. In some cases (think TylerClementi) personal situations are videotaped and posted on the internet for all to see. In others (Phoebe Prince) the bullying lasts for months on end. In addition, as in these two cases, suicide is being seen more and more as an end result with these kids.
The largest study ever on bullying was recently released by the non- profit Josephson Institute of Ethics, covering 43,321 kids from 15-18 years of age in both public and private schools. The results show that nearly 50% of kids reported being "bullied, teased or taunted in a way that seriously upset me at least once".
Another 50% reported they had "bullied teased or taunted someone at least once". Also, 52% of kids had hit someone in anger and 37% of boys and 19% of girls say it's OK to hit or physically threaten another who angers them. Other shocking stats reveal 60% of kids have cheated on a test and 27% had stolen something from a store.
Quite simply, what we learn as 'normal' we learn as children, and today that is all about violence. It's ubiquitous and it's often glorified through internet, movies, video games, TV, and song lyrics. When kids are exposed to violence they accept it as a normal way to resolve a conflict.
Also, we are becoming meaner as a society. A recent study from the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, looked at 72 studies that gauged empathy among 14,000 college students in the past 30 years. They found that empathy (identifying with the feelings, thoughts or pain of another) has DECREASED a staggering 40% in college students since 2000!
Reasons range from the decrease of face to face communication as a side effect of technology to the hangover effect from the boom economy which fed our narcissism to want, what we want, when we want it and screw you if you get in my way. Social networking sites are all about "look at me, me, me."
Reality shows like "Real Housewives" and "Jersey Shore" show backstabbing, rude and crass behavior on a nightly basis as a source of comedy. In sports we have a win at all costs (including cheating with performance enhancing drugs) mentality. Business is about CEO's maximizing their personal wealth at the expense of the rest of us and as for politics "All's Fair" to win an election. Is it any wonder that bullying is so prevalent in our 'only the strong survive' culture?
So, how do we stop this epidemic of bullying? the pundits will tell you that you have to start with the legislature, the court system and the schools but the simple truth is it starts with the family. Period. Parents must talk, talk, talk with their kids about bullying just the same way they should be discussing alcohol, drugs, safe sex and personal responsibility. We also need to talk with our kids about empathy, about the feelings of others and that we are all in this together and that kindness is a virtue. As those of you with kids know, you have to bring up these subjects over and over.
We must reinforce that it's never ok to bully or use physical violence to solve a problem and that words can be hurtful to others. It's even more important to have the child know that if they are being bullied, they have every right to speak up, and they can count on YOU to come to their aid.
In today's modern world we need to understand that what was once a way to initiate new kids into a peer group has now taken a cruel turn, with potentially grave consequences. America should stand as the role model for the rest of the world that if you come here your children will be safe. The time is now to just say NO to bullying.
Published February 03, 2011
FoxNews.com
Nadin Khoury was brought to the United States ten years ago by his mother to escape the cruelty that accompanied the Liberian Civil War. Last month he was left suspended by his coat from a seven-foot-high fence after being punched, dragged, kicked and beaten in a Philadelphia suburb. His shocked mother said, “One of the reasons I came to the U.S. was (so) that these horrible things wouldn’t happen to us.”
Here we go again. Sadly, it seems every time we turn around there's a new case of bullying in the news. Back when I was growing up, bullying seemed to be almost a rite of passage for every new kid at school, a type of hazing to validate your acceptance. Of course, the big difference in those days was that the bullying was usually only at the schoolyard and typically petered out quickly. Now, in the cyber world there is no respite and bullying has taken on a much more sinister tone.
Today kids have to deal with not only physical confrontations, but are also virtually pounded 24/7 via Facebook, Twitter and cell phone by text, calls and voicemails. In some cases (think TylerClementi) personal situations are videotaped and posted on the internet for all to see. In others (Phoebe Prince) the bullying lasts for months on end. In addition, as in these two cases, suicide is being seen more and more as an end result with these kids.
The largest study ever on bullying was recently released by the non- profit Josephson Institute of Ethics, covering 43,321 kids from 15-18 years of age in both public and private schools. The results show that nearly 50% of kids reported being "bullied, teased or taunted in a way that seriously upset me at least once".
Another 50% reported they had "bullied teased or taunted someone at least once". Also, 52% of kids had hit someone in anger and 37% of boys and 19% of girls say it's OK to hit or physically threaten another who angers them. Other shocking stats reveal 60% of kids have cheated on a test and 27% had stolen something from a store.
Quite simply, what we learn as 'normal' we learn as children, and today that is all about violence. It's ubiquitous and it's often glorified through internet, movies, video games, TV, and song lyrics. When kids are exposed to violence they accept it as a normal way to resolve a conflict.
Also, we are becoming meaner as a society. A recent study from the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, looked at 72 studies that gauged empathy among 14,000 college students in the past 30 years. They found that empathy (identifying with the feelings, thoughts or pain of another) has DECREASED a staggering 40% in college students since 2000!
Reasons range from the decrease of face to face communication as a side effect of technology to the hangover effect from the boom economy which fed our narcissism to want, what we want, when we want it and screw you if you get in my way. Social networking sites are all about "look at me, me, me."
Reality shows like "Real Housewives" and "Jersey Shore" show backstabbing, rude and crass behavior on a nightly basis as a source of comedy. In sports we have a win at all costs (including cheating with performance enhancing drugs) mentality. Business is about CEO's maximizing their personal wealth at the expense of the rest of us and as for politics "All's Fair" to win an election. Is it any wonder that bullying is so prevalent in our 'only the strong survive' culture?
So, how do we stop this epidemic of bullying? the pundits will tell you that you have to start with the legislature, the court system and the schools but the simple truth is it starts with the family. Period. Parents must talk, talk, talk with their kids about bullying just the same way they should be discussing alcohol, drugs, safe sex and personal responsibility. We also need to talk with our kids about empathy, about the feelings of others and that we are all in this together and that kindness is a virtue. As those of you with kids know, you have to bring up these subjects over and over.
We must reinforce that it's never ok to bully or use physical violence to solve a problem and that words can be hurtful to others. It's even more important to have the child know that if they are being bullied, they have every right to speak up, and they can count on YOU to come to their aid.
In today's modern world we need to understand that what was once a way to initiate new kids into a peer group has now taken a cruel turn, with potentially grave consequences. America should stand as the role model for the rest of the world that if you come here your children will be safe. The time is now to just say NO to bullying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)