Best Buy Bows Before Islam

Yes, You heard it right. Best Buy Bows Before Muslims everywhere. It is a cardinal sin to call our holiday Christmas in public but since we have a muslim sitting in the Commander in Chiefs position it has become politically correct to extol ALL things Islam. This is madness. Best Buy announces Happy Eid al-Adha the muslim holiday for SACRIFICE! On The front page of their website and promotional material.
Christians are ashamed to offend people and "make a stink" about whether the godless heathen call it Christmas or Happy holidays and so the secularization and the islamification of America goes unheeded. Let me be the first to say that no organization that submits to islam will get a bloody nickle from me. If you work for one of these companies than it is your responsibility to bring this outrage to the attention of your superiors. (unless of course you are a dhimmi that does not mind paying the Jizya and are complicit in the destruction of this Country.
This is in light of the Fort Hood Terrorsit attack and Khalid Sheik Mohammad being taken to N.Y.C in time for the lighting of "The Great Tree" not to mention the 4 mosques and N.Y. City Skyscraper that were seized for sending funds to Iran.
America WE had better wake up! This is no joke. Unless you want to awake to hear these muslims screaming 5 times a day for the destruction of everything we hold dear. We need to not only boycott but call Best Buy and tell them they have chosen the wrong side of this battle. Choose you this day whom you shall serve!

As a matter of fact. Why don't you take a momement and reach out and touch them right now!

Customer Service, Web Site, Store and General/Corporate Inquiries
Best Buy Corporate Customer Care
P.O. Box 9312
Minneapolis , MN 55440
1-888-BEST BUY (1-888-237-8289)

Media Inquiries
Best Buy Public Relations Department
Email: NewsCenter@bestbuy.com
Phone: 612-292-NEWS (6397)
After Hours Pager: 612-618-6703

Vendor Inquiries
Best Buy Vendor Inquiries
Phone: 1-888-265-2024
7601 Penn Avenue South
Richfield , MN 55423

This is tried and true leadership.

This past Thursday 13 American Soldiers were killed and another 30 wounded at a horrific mass shooting at US Army installation, Ft Hood Texas. As I watched in horror and then anger I recalled my two years of final service in the Army as a Battalion Commander at Ft Hood, 2002-2004.


My wife and two daughters were stunned at the incident having lived on the post in family housing.


A military installation, whether it is Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, or Coast Guard, is supposed to be a safe sanctuary for our Warriors and their families. It is intended to provide a home whereby our �Band of Brothers and Sisters� can find solace and bond beyond just the foxhole but as family units.


A military installation is supposed to be a place where our Warriors train for war, to serve and protect our Nation.


On Thursday, 5 November 2009 Ft Hood became a part of the battlefield in the war against Islamic totalitarianism and state sponsored terrorism.


There may be those who feel threatened by my words and would even recommend they not be uttered. To those individuals I say step aside because now is not the time for cowardice.Our Country has become so paralyzed by political correctness that we have allowed a vile and determined enemy to breach what should be the safest place in America, an Army post.


We have become so politically correct that our media is more concerned about the stress of the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. The misplaced benevolence intending to portray him as a victim is despicable. The fact that there are some who have now created an entire new classification called; �pre-virtual vicarious Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)� is unconscionable.


This is not a �man caused disaster�. It is what it is, an Islamic jihadist attack.


We have seen this before in 2003 when a SGT Hasan of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) threw hand grenades and opened fire into his Commanding Officer�s tent in Kuwait. We have seen the foiled attempt of Albanian Muslims who sought to attack Ft Dix, NJ. Recently we saw a young convert to Islam named Carlos Bledsoe travel to Yemen, receive terrorist training, and return to gun down two US Soldiers at a Little Rock, Arkansas Army recruiting station. We thwarted another Islamic terrorist plot in North Carolina which had US Marine Corps Base, Quantico as a target.


What have we done with all these prevalent trends? Nothing.


What we see are recalcitrant leaders who are refusing to confront the issue, Islamic terrorist infiltration into America, and possibly further into our Armed Services. Instead we have a multiculturalism and diversity syndrome on steroids.


Major Hasan should have never been transferred to Ft Hood, matter of fact he should have been Chaptered from the Army. His previous statements, poor evaluation reports, and the fact that the FBI had him under investigation for jihadist website posting should have been proof positive.


However, what we have is a typical liberal approach to find a victim, not the 13 and 30 Soldiers and Civilian, but rather the poor shooter. A shooter who we are told was a great American, who loved the Army and serving his Nation and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) stating that his actions had nothing to do with religious belief.


We know that Major Hasan deliberately planned this episode; he did give away his possessions. He stood atop a table in the confined space of the Soldier Readiness Center shouting �Allahu Akhbar�, same chant as the 9-11 terrorists and those we fight against overseas in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operation.


No one in leadership seems willing to sound the alarm for the American people; they are therefore complicit in any future attacks. Our Congress should suspend the insidious action to vote on a preposterous and unconstitutional healthcare bill and resolve the issue of �protecting the American people�.


The recent incidents in Dearborn Michigan, Boston Massachusetts, Dallas Texas, and Chicago Illinois should bear witness to the fact that we have an Islamic terrorism issue in America.And don�t have CAIR call me and try to issue a vanilla press statement; they are an illegitimate terrorist associated organization which should be disbanded.


We have Saudi Arabia funding close to 80% of the mosques in the United States, one right here in South Florida, Pompano Beach. Are we building churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia? Are �Kaffirs� and �Infidels� allowed travel to Mecca?


So much for peaceful coexistence.


Saudi Arabia is sponsoring radical Imams who enter into our prisons and convert young men into a virulent Wahabbist ideology�.one resulting in four individuals wanting to destroy synagogues in New York with plastic explosives. Thank God the explosives were dummy. They are sponsoring textbooks which present Islamic centric revisionist history in our schools.


We must recognize that there is an urgent need to separate the theo-political radical Islamic ideology out of our American society. We must begin to demand surveillance of suspected Imams and mosques that are spreading hate and preaching the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic��that speech is not protected under First Amendment, it is sedition and if done by an American treason.
There should not be some 30 Islamic terrorist training camps in America that has nothing to do with First Amendment, Freedom of Religion. The Saudis are not our friends and any American political figure who believes such is delusional.


When tolerance becomes a one way street it certainly leads to cultural suicide. We are on that street. Liberals cannot be trusted to defend our Republic, because their sympathies obviously lie with their perceived victim, Major Nidal Malik Hasan.


I make no apologies for these words, and anyone angered by them, please, go to Ft Hood and look into the eyes of the real victims. The tragedy at Ft Hood Texas did not have to happen. Consider now the feelings of those there and on every military installation in the world. Consider the feelings of the Warriors deployed into combat zones who now are concerned that their loved ones at home are in a combat zone.


Ft Hood suffered an Islamic jihadist attack, stop the denial, and realize a simple point.


The reality of your enemy must become your own.


Steadfast and Loyal,
Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Ret)

More of the Same!

I just got an email notice from the Duval County GOP informing me that there will be a caravan next Tuesday for the book signing of Sarah Palin. I intend on attending the book signing...but have a question to ask. Is there a little BiaS being shown here? Mitt Romney was the key note speaker for Duval County's Lincoln day dinner AFTER we failed to retain The Architect Karl Rove (maybe because of his endorsement of Mike Huckabee as the best Presidential hope we have for 2012.) Romney finished 3rd in the 2008 primary but is still being courted by the same GOP leadership and pundits who lead us into this debacle. Romney has not won a single poll in regards to our hope for 2012.
The same people who supported Romney are the same people pulling for Charlie Crist. This is the elite establishment of the Republican party who wish to give us more of the same having failed to learn from 2008.
Which brings me to my point. Governor Huckabee was in town for a book signing and yet there was not even a mention in any email let alone a CARAVAN.Yet Sarah Palin is coming to town and The REC is up and at em to have a full fledged parade for a vice presidential pick? What is going on here? Are we looking forward or backward?
I give kudos to Sarah Palin for stepping up to run with the McCain/Palin debacle but our Country is being take straight to the porta potty and the Republican Party thinks that Romney and Crist are the answer? Palin is popular but having resigned from her Governorship of Alaska, one may ask, "What does she view her role as in the GOP in the coming years?"
We need to be asking ourselves,"Why are we in this handbasket and where is the GOP taking us?"

America, Last Man Standing

'In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe?'

Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem.

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe.. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing..

You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.

All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.

In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.

Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.

In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.

In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan.

Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now.. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.

The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology.. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad.. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a danger greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe, American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.
We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.

Irena Sendler not Barack Hussein Obama deserves Nobel Peace Prize

Some children were taken out in gunnysacks or body bags. Some were buried inside loads of goods. A mechanic took a baby out in his toolbox. Some kids were carried out in potato sacks, others were placed in coffins, some entered a church in the Ghetto which had two entrances. One entrance opened into the Ghetto, the other opened into the Aryan side of Warsaw. They entered the church as Jews and exited as Christians. "Can you guarantee they will live?" Irena later recalled the distraught parents asking. But she could only guarantee they would die if they stayed. "In my dreams," she said, "I still hear the cries when they left their parents." This is the testimony of Irena Sendler

Obama doesn't want his daughters punished with a baby if they make a "mistake"


In 2007 Mrs Sendler was nominated for The Nobel Peace Prize (along with 1.5 million dollar award) for saving 2500 babies and children from Nazis> Guess who won? ... Hint...NO it was NOT Barack Hussein Obama.

Did Barck Hussein Obama win this year beacause He Declared the War on Terror is Over?

Cultural Mandate: Principles vs. Politics

We The People 5-6pm EST Mondays on www.1320wbob.com
Listen in and call in at 904-854-1320

This evening we discussed the Cultural Mandate and the Christian responsibility to rule and reign on Earth. This is a subject that is rarely discussed amongst the religious folk let alone the politicians. Pastors are apt to flee when confronted regarding the blaise attitude toward issues affecting the community at large and politicians are not going to speak on matters of faith without testing the wind.
Pastors fear losing people and money, not to differ from the politicians who fear losing their prestige and power if they do not tow the politically correct line. Just look at how they address the issue of fundamental islam and the creep of Shariah in America. When is the last time you heard either of the groups mentioned address the issue of Sharia law and it's incompatibility with our U.S. Constitution. Why would we welcome those whose stated goal is to subdue those who do not believe.
The muslim understands the culutral mandate of the Quran and strive zealously to follow it to the T. Yet Christians by and large are afraid to address the issues that effect our very values, beliefs and culture.
When will We The People finally take a stand and say enough is enough!

Faith is the Foundation For Freedom

Jerod

Islam on Capital Hill 2009

Here we go again. I have been in D.C. for the last 3 weekends. We were there for the 912 March on the Capital along with millions of Patriots voicing their discontent with this Administrations divergence from the Constitution.
Last weekend we were at the Values Voter Conference where Patriots gathered to get a strategic picture of 2010 and beyond. Mike Huckabee won the Straw Poll conducted by Family Research Council by a virtual landslide. We were afforded the opportunity to listen to speakers such as Ergun Caner who expressed the extreme conflict between our Constitution and Islamic Sharia Law. Mr. Caner spoke regarding the situation with Rifqa Bary the young Christian girl who converted from Islam to Christ and when her parents mosque discovered her conversion through her facebook account. Young Rifqa had to flee from Ohio and the threat of the Noor Islamic Cultural Center tpo the refuge of Florida. That fight is heating up due to the nature and threat of "Honor Killings." We were also priveledged to preview the film 33 which discussed the implications of the decisions being made regarding our Strategic Defense Initiative and the roll backs of our defense system. I reccomend watching this video.
Now we are crammed in a suburban with cameras and five "full" sized men on a mission to investigate the meaning of "Our Time Has Come" and it's implications as stated on the official website www.islamoncapitalhill.com
notice the statement at the bottom of the website.
This could mean that the fact that their president has refused to acknowledge the National Day of Prayer or America's Judeo Christian heritage, denied the God and Country flyover, and made no mention of Rosh Hoshanna the Jewish New Year last week.
Yet their president has made an official proclamation of the opening of Ramadan and now the call for 50,000 Muslims on the Capital. What say you?

Faith is the Foundation For Freedom!`

911, The March on the Capital and a man named BO

911, The March on the Capital, and a man named B O. What a strange amalgamation you may be saying to yourself. Let me clarify my thinking.
I and five other Patriots are heading to Washington DC to participate in not only commemorating 911 by visiting the site of one of the attacks but will be in the Florida contingency on the March to the Capital. We will also be paying our respects at Walter Reed Memorial Hospital.
Why all the drama, you may be asking? Simple. The Country we love has been hijacked by godless thugs who have a radical agenda.
Now for the facts.
1. This is the First administration since the inception of the National Day of Prayer to refuse not only to take part but even acknowledge the event.
2.The very same administrion, the very next month declared June to be the National Gay and lesbian month on the samee plain as Black History month.
3. B.O. kicks off the Muslim holiday of Ramadan.
4. 50,000 muslims are planning to attend Islam on the Capital on September 26th.

These are the facts. You make the call. Where is this Country heading and who is at the wheel?

Court Orders Christian Child Into Government Education

Court Orders Christian Child Into Government Education: 10-year-old's 'vigorous' defense of her faith condemned by judge
Posted: August 28, 200912:35 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as "well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level" has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too "vigorous" in defense of her Christian faith.

The decision from Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."

The recommendation was approved by Judge Lucinda V. Sadler, but it is being challenged by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who said it was "a step too far" for any court. The ADF confirmed today it has filed motions with the court seeking reconsideration of the order and a stay of the decision sending the 10-year-old student in government-run schools in Meredith, N.H.

The dispute arose as part of a modification of a parenting plan for the girl. The parents divorced in 1999 when she was a newborn, and the mother has homeschooled her daughter since first grade with texts that meet all state standards. In addition to homeschooling, the girl attends supplemental public school classes and has also been involved in a variety of extra-curricular sports activities, the ADF reported.

But during the process of negotiating the terms of the plan, a guardian ad litem appointed to participate concluded the girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that the girl's interests "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting" and "different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief ... in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs."
According to court documents, the guardian ad litem earlier had told the mother, "If I want her in public school, she'll be in public school."

The marital master hearing the case proposed the Christian girl be ordered into public school after considering "the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others."

"Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children. In this case specifically, the court is illegitimately altering a method of education that the court itself admits is working," said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons of Hampton.

"The court is essentially saying that the evidence shows that, socially and academically, this girl is doing great, but her religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews. This is a step too far for any court to take."

"The New Hampshire Supreme Court itself has specifically declared, 'Home education is an enduring American tradition and right,'" said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. "There is clearly and without question no legitimate legal basis for the court's decision, and we trust it will reconsider its conclusions."

The case, handled in the Family Division of the Judicial Court for Belknap County in Laconia, involves Martin Kurowski and Brenda Kurowski (Voydatch), and their daughter.

The ADF also argued that the issue already was raised in 2006 and rejected by the court. "Most urgent … is the issue of Amanda's schooling as the school year has begun and Amanda is being impacted by the court's decision daily," the court filing requesting a stay said. "Serious state statutory and federal constitutional concerns are implicated by the court's ruling and which need to be remedied without delay.

"It is not the proper role of the court to insist that Amanda be 'exposed to different points of view' if the primary residential parent has determined that it is in Amanda's best interest not to be exposed to secular influences that would undermine Amanda's faith, schooling, social development, etc. The court is not permitted to demonstrate hostility toward religion, and particularly the faith of Amanda and Mother, by removing Amanda from the home and thrusting her into an environment that the custodial parent deems detrimental to Amanda."

"The order assumes that because Amanda has sincerely held Christian beliefs, there must be a problem that needs solving. It is a parent's constitutionally protected right to train up their children in the religious beliefs that they hold. It is not up to the court to suggest that a 10-year-old should be 'exposed' to other religious views contrary to the faith traditions of her parents. Could it not be that this sharp 10-year-old 'vigorously' believes what she does because she knows it to be true? The court's narrative suggests that 10-year-olds are too young to form opinions and that they are not yet allowed to have sincerely held Christian beliefs," the ADF said.

"Absent any other clear and convincing evidence justifying the court's decision, it would appear that the court has indeed taken sides with regard to the issue of religion and has preferred one religious view over another (or the absence of religion). This is impermissible," the documents said.

The guardian ad litem had an anti-Christian bias, the documents said, telling the mother at one point she wouldn't even look at homeschool curriculum. "I don't want to hear it. It's all Christian based," she said.

************************************************************************************
In my opinion, this is another example of the insidious assault on Christian values and the fundamental right to freedom of religious practice guaranteed by the US Constitution. The outrageous, shameful actions by this leftist, activist judge should not go unchallenged. Parents everywhere should exercise another right they possess (at least for now) and speak out against this insanity! In addition, the "guardian ad litem" in this case ought to be sued for civil rights violations.

Joshua Warren
www.AmericanDiscussion.blogspot.com

www.FirstCoastTeaParty.org

www.IncomeSysteMax.com

www.RunForTheirLives.org

Rifqa Barry: Flight or Fight

Rifqa Bary may have had to flee to Florida for her life but now she can turn and fight. We are standing by Rifqals side. This will definitely bring some light to the possibilities of "honor killings" on American soil. I am thankful for John Stemberger of the Florida Family Policy Council providing counsel Pro Bono. May America wake up to the threat of fundamental islam creeping up amongst us. Who declared that the War on Terror is "over"? Itls not over...itls not even OVER THERE anymore. It is Here!


Faith is the Foundation For Freedom!

Republicans, Libertarians, and the Republican Liberty Caucus. What's the difference?

Today I took part in The Drive the Discussion forum in Live Oak Florida and was pleased with the overall atmosphere at the event. The event was well attended and the air was charged with energy. It was the perfect environment to germinate healthy discourse and foster a vigorous debate within the Republican Party on a local level.
I was very pleased with the array of speakers such as Marco Rubio, Janet Adkins, Dennis Baxley, Bob Smith and many others who helped to clarify the direction that the GOP is heading.
However, the purpose in attending this event was to define and contrast where we are, where we are going and how we are going to get there. I had the opportunity to ask several questions to the various speakers but the question that provoked the most thought for me was addressed to Sarah Lovett who sat on a panel to discuss States Rights. Sarah is an outspoken member of The Republican Liberty Caucus and as a panel member, I directed my question to her. The question was simply," As a member of the Duval County Republican Executive Committee, I believe a house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe that as Republicans we are fighting for the life of our Republic and am confused with the growing presence of Libertarians in the Republican Party and the division this is causing. Why aren't the Libertarians advancing their agenda in the Libertarian Party rather than the Republican Party?"
To my surprise, the question was not answered by Sarah Lovett nor the other panel members, but was directed toward Will Pitts who answered the question. His answer was that the RLC has worked very hard to bring independents and others who are disgruntled with the Republicans into the fold and that we should not alienate them. This is not an exact quote but immediately following the session, I had the opportunity to discuss the positions of the RLC and the divergence with these ideals and the Traditional Republican Platform. I ardently agree with certain values that Libertarians advocate such as 2nd Amendment advocacy and States rights, however, the Libertarian Platform is in direct opposition to several of the core planks of the Republican Platform.
I have done a little research and would like to present the facts on this issue. I have pulled the Platform of the Republican Party, the Platform of The Libertarian Party and the Issues supported by the Republican Liberty Caucus and was very impressed by the vast contrast that the Republican Party has with the National Libertarian Platform yet the striking similarities the the Libertarian Party and The Republican Liberty Caucus. But what was more appalling was the manner and language which the Republican Liberty Caucus attacked Traditional Republicans and the values that we hold near and dear.
The following is a direct quote from the Republican Liberty Caucus website which addresses the Republican Party Planks of Pro Life and Pro Family values. "The obsession with legislating morality and with opposition to abortion and gay rights is really not part of the core Republican agenda. These ideas and the fanaticism they inspire were brought into the party through its alliance in the post-Reagan era with religious conservatives. Historically, Republicans have had a laissez faire attitude, not just to the economy, but also on moral issues. Republicans used to be dispassionate, leaving moral decisions in the hands of individuals and keeping government out of the picture. It seems like the pendulum might be swinging back in that direction."
I do not know what direction that the Republican Liberty Party thinks they are going to take the Republican Party but I would personally welcome an old fashioned Lincoln Douglas Debate to define the role of Libertarianism in the Republican Party.

Wisdom of the Ages

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Patrick Henry

The Third Jihad

Four Part Series on the Third Jihad

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Faith is the Foundation for Freedom: Romans 13 Revisited

Faith is the Foundation for Freedom: Romans 13 Revisited

Romans 13 Revisited

Romans 13 Revisited
By Chuck Baldwin
February 27, 2009

It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our
Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise
reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans
Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read
your Bible, and leave me alone," or words to that effect.

No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating
what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the
other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument
are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their
escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the
way.

Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously
misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans
Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:

"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 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."

Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not
oppose any political leader really believe that civil magistrates have
unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt
that they truly believe that.

For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal
custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval
custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on
the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren
sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I
think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a
law? I wouldn't.

So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but
does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An
employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control
the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in
the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how
to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in
nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. Lordship
and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.

By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but
his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly
limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose:
"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is
the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a
revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no
power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it
that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has
no divine authority or protection.

Civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a
minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute
wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath
upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is
lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil
authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.

Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed
the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate
God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab
and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority
when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's
principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not
pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle
of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the
state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to
authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon
Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to
authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem?
Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused
to obey those authorities that demanded he abandon his missionary work? In
fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

Virtually every apostle of Christ (except John, who survived being boiled in
oil, according to historians) experienced martyrdom from hostile civil
authorities. In addition, Christians throughout church history were
imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for
refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these
Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?

So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including
the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--including
civil authority--is limited.

Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be
predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said,
"Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for
conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than
just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means
we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness
of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a
result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.

Remember, too, that we are all subject to Natural Law. No human authority
has the right to demand that men surrender their submission to God's law
"written in their hearts." When any human authority attempts to do this, it
becomes tyrannical, because, again, it challenges the Lordship and
Sovereignty of man's Creator.

As William Blackstone (as studied and devoted a Christian scholar as there
ever was) wrote, "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and
dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other.
It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no
human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are
valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or
immediately, from this original." (Source: William Blackstone, "Of The
Nature of Laws in General")

Therefore, there are times when civil authority must be resisted. Either
governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could
precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist
civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that
discussion for another time.

Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a
monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this
country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of
men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress,
or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme
Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises
to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand
the significance of this distinction? I hope so.

This means that in America the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy
elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S.
Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every
citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution.
Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Christians in America:

"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no
[Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of
God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the
Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then
not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt
have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to
thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the
Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] 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 this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution
is] God's minister, 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."

Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our
responsibility to civil authority in these United States, per the teaching
of Romans Chapter 13.

Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected
representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional
government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any
governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this
column, Biblical principles form the foundation of all three of America's
founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution,
and the Bill of Rights.

(See: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2005/cbarchive_20050630.html )

In addition, if Christians (and others) had been properly obedient to the
Constitution (and Romans 13), they would also have submitted to the Tenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which recognizes the authority of the
States in matters not specifically ceded to the federal government. In other
words, the Constitution intended that the authority of the federal
government be small and limited, with most authority residing within the
States and among the people themselves.

As submission to the Constitution and Natural Law have provided a haven of
peace and prosperity in these United States, Christians (for the most part)
have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and
defy their civil authorities. However, as it is obvious that a majority of
our government leaders currently have almost no fidelity to their oaths to
defend the U.S. Constitution, it is becoming more and more likely that
we--like our forefathers--will need to rediscover Benjamin Franklin's
declaration that "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." (Of course,
this effort, too, must be accomplished within the scope of law, both divine
and civil.)

The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders
to violate their oaths of office and to ignore, and blatantly disobey, the
"supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly
believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil
magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.

Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?

Say what??!

Congress should have to memorize this!

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves." --Presbyterian minister William J.H. Boetcker (1873-1962)

Class....you either have it or you don't!

This was sent to me in an email. Not sure of the original author.

January 21

Yesterday: Outgoing President George W. Bush quietly boards his helicopter and leaves for Texas , commenting only: "Today is not about me. Today is a historical day for our nation and people."

Eight years ago yesterday: Outgoing President Bill Clinton schedules two separate radio addresses to the nation, and organizes a public farewell speech/ rally in downtown Washington D.C. scheduled to directly conflict with incoming President Bush's inauguration ceremony.

Yesterday: President Bush leaves office without issuing a single Presidential pardon, only granting a commutation of sentence to two former border patrol agents convicted of shooting a convicted drug smuggler. He does not grant any type of clemency to Scooter Libby or any other former political aide, ally, or business partner.

Eight years ago yesterday: President Clinton issues 140 pardons and several commutations of sentence on his final day in office. Included in these are: billionaire financier, convicted tax evader, and leading Democratic campaign contributor Marc Rich; Whitewater scandal figure Susan McDougal; Congressional Post Office Scandal figure and former Democratic Congressman Dan Rostenkowski; convicted bank fraud, sexual assault and child porn perpetrator and former Democratic Congressman Melvin Reynolds; and convicted drug felon Roger Clinton, the President's half-brother.

Yesterday: The Bush daughters leave gift baskets in the White House bedrooms for the Obama daughters, containing flowers, candy, stuffed animals, DVD's and CD's, and heartfelt notes of encouragement and advice for the young girls on how to prepare for their new lives in the White House.

Eight years ago Yesterday: Clinton and Gore staffers rip computer wires and electrical outlets from the White House walls, stuff piles of notebook papers into the White House toilets, systematically remove the letter "W" from every computer key-pad in the entire White House, and damage several thousand dollars worth of furniture in the White House master bedroom.

Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago: "Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees" "Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times" "Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft"

Headlines Today:"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $170 million" "Obama Spends $170 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party" "Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate" "Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"

Giving Women...a real Choice

Today, I was privileged to attend a walk through tour of Riverside Emergency Pregnancy Center. It was a blessing and a real eye opener. Anyone who knows me would tell you that my motto is "Faith is the Foundation For Freedom." Not really a motto or creed but rather the lens through which I view life and without life one cannot be free, obviously. However, today I was once again reminded of the admonishment of the book of James who stated, "Faith without works is dead show me your faith without works, and I will Show you my faith BY my works." Since having become a Christian, I have been staunchly Pro Life from the view point that it is wrong to kill a baby but have never actually comprehended the real need to show compassion by practically serving these women and children. I have been pondering the abuse of the word, Compassion as of late and realize that true Compassion is action not emotion. Emotion without action is pity, and we don't need a pity party. I digress.
What I was a witness to today was God's love being manifest in a practical tangible way. The women who walk through those doors are greeted with a warmth and sincere desire to help that I believe could only be manifested by the heart of God. They are then escorted through these halls of mercy and counseled and educated about the Choices that are before them. Yes, I said Choices, not "Choice." There are some halls that these women may walk down where they will not be presented with a Choice, they will be informed that they really have no Choice but Abortion.
These women at this center will know that Adoption is available and that there are many families willing to love these children. They will be given real life answers if they Choose to raise the child themselves whether with the partner or with the support of a Community of Compassion. That is where my faith had been challenged and that is why I have locked arms with Run For Their Lives to support these centers and ministries that reach out and touch these women giving them a chance to Choose Life.
I look forward to serving these centers and ministries to the Glory of God through volunteering, raising support, and praying for God's love to reach the hearts of the women who walk through their doors.
As one who was adopted, I thank God for the heart of those willing to bring these little ones into their homes and raise them as their own. After all, isn't that what our Heavenly Father has done?
If you are reading this, I pray that God will show you how you may be a blessing to these women and children and that God's heart of Compassion would be manifested through you.

This is Madness

I am only going to take a moment to delve into what I would define as madness that is being touted as some new spiritualism exalted as "Compassion."

Websters defines:

com⋅pas⋅sion

–noun

1.	a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.

–verb (used with object)

2.	Archaic. to compassionate.

With this definition in mind I would like to address all of the concerns of so many people who admonish Christians to have "Compassion" on Nadya Suleman. I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not speak for anyone other than myself and second that I am not addressing everyone that has "compassion" on this woman and the children that will suffer as a result of this situation.

My view is as follows:

1. This subject needs to be addressed by the "Christian" world. Some folks are so heavenly minded that they are little earthly good. We tend to spiritualize everything with an air of superiority bordering on arrogance when we loosely equate our Lord and view how Jesus would act with "compassion" in any given situation. When Jesus confronted sinners in their sin, yes he did love them, and He also confronted sin and called for repentance. From the court of the "compassionate" I have yet to hear anyone condemn the fact that this woman brought 8 children in the world by means of in vitro fertilization, with the express intention of capitalizing monetarily. This is an aberration of God's intention for reproduction. Yet the"Compassionate Ones" do not mention that the woman was also already living on government subsidies and the compassion of her parents with the previous 6 children.

2. The treatments Suleman underwent to bear her children aren't cheap; they typically run from $8,000 to $15,000. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that her doctor gave her the lower rate (as a volume discount), which would put her expenses, simply for conception, at $48,000. Suleman told a television interviewer that she covered those costs out of a $165,000 disability settlement she obtained after suffering a back injury working at a state mental hospital. Could not this money have been used to show "compassion" to her 6 children she already had?
3. "She also said she is not "on welfare," which is a bit of a semantic dodge, because it turns out she's receiving both food stamps and Social Security payments for two of her children who suffer from unspecified disabilities. She also told the interviewer she plans to "support" her family with federally guaranteed student loans while she pursues a master's in counseling. (One tries to imagine receiving therapy from this woman, but the mind refuses to form the requisite image.)Tim Hutton" Once again, I am not against the use of government assistance when one falls on hard times or finds themselves in a difficult situation but is it "compassion" to allow the insanity to continue.
Insanity has been aptly defined as doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. I call it Madness to couch our religiosity in "compassion" and not address the situation in the manner of, "Go and sin no more, less a worse thing come upon you."
In the same manner, is it "compassionate" to allow this obviously mentally unstable woman continue to abuse the children by dragging them before the world in such an atrocious manner? The Compassionate Ones cry out that the media is up at arms, and for once , rightly so,(in my honest opinion) yet they fail to realize that this woman can stop the media frenzy by simply going home and tending to her children. Still she tries to sell her story for 2 million dollars! I say STOP THE MADNESS!
To all of the bearers of compassion, I say to you, where is the "Compassion" for the babies? Remember the definition: a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.
Will the childrens suffering stop if this woman continues in this pattern of behavior. Will the suffering of other children aborted be stopped if doctors continue to look at babies as a product to be bought and sold , created to be destroyed? This is MADNESS!
IT IS TIME TO STOP THE MADNESS in the name of COMPASSION!

Patriot games

Culture: What do you get when you mix Obama-inspired love of country with leftist religion? Norman Lear’s new “Born Again American” | Emily Belz

This is the an ironic attempt at The God Hater's to be " spiritual" The irony is that they use the very heart of what many Americans hold near and dear to make a mockery of America.

If the Foundations be destroyed.....

Do Americans Cherish Freedom Anymore?
By Chuck Baldwin
February 6, 2009


This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090206.html


I am often guilty of using the term "freedom-loving Americans." But I think
the question now needs to be asked, Do Americans really cherish freedom
anymore? I believe an argument could be made that not many do. In fact, I
doubt that most Americans today remotely understand what freedom--as
envisioned by our Founding Fathers--even is.

Freedom is more than not being in prison (although America incarcerates more
people than any nation on earth). Freedom is more than driving a car, or
taking a vacation, or being able to choose your place of residence, or
attending a sporting event. People in totalitarian regimes have, for the
most part, been able to do the equivalent of all that.

The freedoms upon which America was founded are outlined in our Declaration
of Independence and Bill of Rights. The first principle of freedom is that
freedom is a gift of Almighty God. As God is the Giver of life, He is also
the Grantor of liberty. This was plainly stated by Thomas Jefferson in the
Declaration: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness . . ."

Ask the average American today, Where do our rights come from? Most will
look at you funny and then blurt out, "From government." And, of course,
this is evidently the same opinion held by most of today's politicians. To
them, freedom is whatever civil government says it is. Yes, I am saying it:
most politicians have a God-complex. And, unfortunately, it seems that most
Americans today are willing to go along with this calamitous charade.

Jefferson and the rest of America's founders, however, rightly understood
that the only legitimate purpose of government was "to secure these rights."
The only legitimate purpose of civil government is to secure or protect the
freedoms and liberties that have been given to man by our Creator.

Jefferson went on to say that "whenever 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, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem
most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." In other words, whenever
government stops protecting liberty and starts destroying liberty, it is the
right and duty of freedom-loving people to reform or replace such
illegitimate government with a government that will fulfill its legitimate
purpose. And that is exactly what our forefathers did in the late 1700s.
Sadly, here we are in the twenty-first century, the descendents of some of
the wisest and bravest men and women in history, and we do not even seem to
know what freedom is, much less have the courage to defend it.

For example, we will work for 30 years or more to purchase our own property.
After having done that, however, the property still does not belong to us.
We are required to pay the State--for the rest of our lives--a property tax
(to support concepts and ideas that many of us find reprehensible and
detestable, no less), or armed agents will confiscate our property and throw
us on the street. Pray tell me, what is the difference between this and the
feudal system of old? In reality, none of us own any property. We are all
serfs paying the feudal lord. Beyond that, our feudal masters even dictate
to us what we can and cannot do with this property we supposedly own. We do
not even have the right to manage and control our own land. And yet, we
Americans put up with this illegitimacy and still have the audacity to say,
"We are free." Again, we don't know the meaning of the word.

Virtually everything we do and say is monitored by the great Nanny State.
Practically every service, every act is regulated by the State. Ask any
independent business owner how many regulations, laws, acts, etc., demand
fulfillment, and how many fees, taxes, permits, etc., are required by
various government agencies and bureaucracies before he can perform a single
task. For example, the federal government actually dictates how some
restaurants can seat people or serve tables. Farmers are told what and how
much to plant--and even to not plant. We cannot buy a gun, drive a car,
marry the person we love, or even install a toilet without saying, "Pretty
please?" to a dozen despots. And we still wave the flag every Independence
Day and brag about how "free" we are. Again, we don't know the meaning of
the word.

And the people who should be more "jealous over" their liberties than
anyone--born-again Christians--are among the first to gladly relinquish
their freedom. I know of hundreds-- perhaps thousands--of Christian College
employees who happily allow the school Gestapo to barge into their
homes--unannounced and uninvited--to inspect their private reading material,
or CD and video collections, and even their wardrobes. School officials tell
them where they must go to church, what attire their wives and children can
and cannot wear in public (off the job)--AND IN PRIVATE--and what amusements
they may and may not attend. I am not making it up. Adolf Hitler never had
the kind of control that some of these Christian Colleges exert over their
employees. And the remarkable thing is, these Christian employees would
still assume that they are "free." Again, they do not know the meaning of
the word.

And one would think that our veterans--of all people--would be among the
first to jealously guard freedom. How, then, can former and retired military
personnel sit back and allow the government they once proudly served to lie
to them, renege on promises, withhold medical care, abandon their friends
and family members still missing in action, and not utter a word of protest?
How can they allow their comrades-in-arms to sleep on the streets outside VA
clinics? While they were willing to travel halfway around the world--and
risk life and limb--to defend America against foreign enemies, many will sit
back right here at home and complacently watch while these glorified
miscreants--known as politicians--systematically strip this nation of the
very freedoms and liberties they swore to defend. Did they not take an oath
to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC? If the
statistics I read are accurate, most veterans do not even vote. I ask, if we
do not know what freedom is at home, how can we fight wars across the world
and understand what we are fighting for?

Obviously, people who are receiving welfare, or other government handouts,
seldom complain about there being too much government, because they
personally benefit from the growth of the socialist state. This is also true
for many (but not all, thank God) government employees, of course. And
please remember that government cannot give a blessed thing without first
stealing it from someone else. Big Government is totally incompatible with
freedom. For that matter, so is Big Business and Big Religion. In fact, Big
Anything is incompatible with freedom. Even Big Cities.

So, I repeat the question, Do Americans really cherish freedom anymore? And,
if we do, what are we going to do about it? I believe that there are
specific and constructive steps that can be taken to restore liberty in this
land. (I will develop these thoughts later.) I further believe that there
are still millions of Americans who really do understand and cherish
freedom. We may be in a minority, but remember, we were also a minority in
1776. Freedom is laborious, onerous work. And not everyone enjoys hard work.
So be it. Let lazy, indolent fools wallow in their servitude. God will yet
see to it that there is a land of liberty for those who truly desire it and
are willing to fight for it. I firmly believe that.

Remember, liberty is a precious gift from our Creator. For those who fear
God, respect Natural Law, and love liberty, there is yet a "promised land."
We may have to do a little searching; we may have to rethink our priorities;
we may have to adjust our lifestyles; and yes, we may have to "pledge our
lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" in order to obtain it; but our forebears
thought it was worth it--and so do I.

As Friedrich Schiller wrote in William Tell:

"By this fair light which greeteth us, before
Those other nations, that, beneath us far,
In noisome cities pent, draw painful breath,
Swear we the oath of our confederacy!
A band of brothers true we swear to be,
Never to part in danger or in death!

"We swear we will be free as were our sires,
And sooner die than live in slavery!

"We swear, to put our trust in God Most High,
And not to quail before the might of man!"

Such people can never be enslaved. And I believe that such people still
exist in these United States of America. I count them my brothers. I offer
them my arm and my heart. After all, we are freedom-loving Americans.

Libertarians, "Conservatives"?

I stumbled upon a great article this morning while surfing my Facebook Groups. I am a member of the Conservative Coalition and am tired of Libertarians disguising themselves as Republicans under the guise of "Conservatism." I tend to find that the tenets of Libertarianism are far more liberal then those which support the Planks and Platform of the Republican Party. It is bad enough that our nation is divided by left and right, red and blue and now the only Party resistant to the liberalism that infects our Country is now being infiltrated by the Libertarian expatriates. We must not accept this in our ranks. We must rout them out and drive them from amongst us if we are to go forward in bringing this Country back to the roots of our Fathers. If libertarianism is to succeed, then let it do so on its own merits not on the backs of those who believe in Faith, Family, andm Freedom. Libertarians cry for the Seperation of Church and State, as for me and my house we sya,Faith is the Foundation For Freedom!

Marxism to the Right is a GREAT Article:

Hypocritical B.O. " ALL life is Sacred?",... No Religion Hates

Obama says faith shouldn't be used to divide

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is telling the National Prayer Breakfast that even though faith too often has been used "as a tool to divide us from one another," there is no religion in the world that is based on hatred.

Obama, in prepared remarks, said, "There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being."

Obama is also telling the gathering that the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships that he is announcing Thursday won't favor any religious group, or favor religious groups over secular groups.

He says it will help organizations that want to "work on behalf of our communities," without "blurring the line" between church and state.

The Beginning of Our Demise?

"For the first time in my adult life, I am truly fearful of what may become of a once great nation, known as, 'America'".

I don't make this statement flippantly, or in jest. We are fast approaching a crossroads in our nation's history that is unprecedented in terms of where this country is likely to find itself in just a few short years from now. The signs are posted for all to see -- and they are ominous.

One of the most troublesome signs of impending disaster is the seemingly total lack of respect our elected officials have for our founding documents, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This lack of respect is displayed from the President (Barack Obama) on down to local government officials. 

In Obama's case, he trampled the Constitution before even taking office by thumbing his nose at the provision that establishes eligibility to become President. Most of you are already aware of the dozens of lawsuits by various US citizens calling for Obama to prove his eligibility to be President. He could do this simply by producing his birth certificate. If nothing else, it would put the matter to rest and cost him all of about $50 in the process. Instead, he has hired a slew of high-priced lawyers to fight these lawsuits so he does not have to produce the document, at a cost most of us could not afford to pay for a new home. Does this even make sense to you?

According to the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of 
this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. 

This clearly spells out the conditions that anyone aspiring to that office SHALL meet. Not, "...could"...", or "...should...", or "...hopefully shall..."! No, it states, "Shall"! Now, I don't have a PHD in English, but I'm certain that the intent here is to make that condition mandatory. 

Unfortunately, there seems to be a concerted effort to allow this usurpation to take place. The mainstream media, our elected officials (save for a few), federal judges, and even the Supreme Court seem to be complicit. Why this is so, is a total mystery. But where it may lead us is not. We may be headed for a constitutional crisis--unprecedented in our history. Imagine the turmoil and confusion certain to ensue if Obama is found to be ineligible for the office. Apart from the obvious question of who becomes President (the Constitution does provide for that eventuality), what of any laws or treaties that he signs? Or Executive Orders? Or even awards and decorations? All invalid! Not to mention the rage sure to manifest itself in those who will claim that it's all a plot to remove the first black President from office. Will there be rioting reminiscent of the late sixties?

Our Congressional leaders are no better. Like the President, they all take an oath to "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States". Yet, they propose and support all manner of policies and laws that strip us of the liberties granted by that document. What most people don't seem to understand is that although the Constitution was written to establish the foundation of our form of government, it was ultimately designed to protect the people FROM the government. 

A good example is the 2nd Amendment. If you ask the average citizen to explain the purpose of that amendment, they'll probably say something having to do with hunting or protection from petty criminals and thugs. Yes, those are valid reasons for having a firearm, but most US citizens don't know that the real reason that amendment is there has to do with "We the People" being able to protect ourselves from the real crooks, our congressional leaders. 

I know there are some who will doubt those words. Listen to what Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, a Texas state Representative, has to say about it ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&p ). 

Please pay particular attention to her last few words. For those of you who have never heard this before, gird your loins and prepare to be stunned! Warning: If you are an elected official, watching this video will probably cause you to break out in a cold sweat, and produce uncontrollable spasms. Watch at your own risk.

Another example of Congressional tampering with our rights is the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" which will undoubtedly rear its ugly head again now that the Democrats control Washington. The misnamed Fairness Doctrine is anything but fair. Isn't it amazing how liberals always seem to misname something when they're trying to bamboozle us? What the Fairness Doctrine is designed to do is to "outlaw" free speech over the airwaves. But, remarkably, the way it has been structured, it will have a deleterious effect ONLY on conservative talk radio. Imagine that?

Even at the local level, our leaders propose and implement policy in direct violation of our rights under the Constitution. A good example of that is Washington DC's former ban on handguns. It was finally overturned by the courts but at one time was the law of the land. 

Let me make this loud and clear for those of you who are apathetic about Rush Limbaugh or Shawn Hannity being told to pack their bags. Or about your neighbor being told he has to give up his guns. After all, you don't listen to those two "right-wing" nuts and you don't own a gun. No skin off your nose, right? Well, that may be true today, but you'd better get your butt in gear and start worrying about tomorrow. Begin--now--to worry about that time when they decide to outlaw your right to teach your own kids at home. Or to limit your ability to worship without government interference. Because, if you fail to stand up against tyranny in any form, you may find yourself in a place you don't want to be. Our liberties can never be taken away abruptly. 
They know we would never stand for it. However, they can be eroded. And that, my friends, seems to be the grand plan. A little here, a little there, and before long, a lifelong communist will feel right at home here in the (formerly) good-ole-USA. 

Alarmist rhetoric? If you think so, I suggest you pull your head out of your nether-regions. The people in power in Washington have a plan to change this nation. They admit it forthrightly. There is no attempt to hide where they want to take us. Of course, they hide the details. Or, they mislead and deceive us about some of the more controversial aspects. But, they also know that if they can get enough of the "dumb-masses" (say that quickly 5 times) to go along with their agenda, or not question their pronouncements, then they can essentially do as they please. 

Well, I for one, refuse to go like a lamb to the slaughter. 

What can we do? Well, we could put our collective heads in the sand and pretend it just ain't so! Ah, but that exposes the "arse" to all kinds of abuse. What about going along with the program because, "...surely our elected officials want to do what's best for the country". Do they? 

One has but to look at our convoluted tax structure or the never-ending bailouts and so-called" tax cuts being planned. Any thinking person has to realize that our tax system is a out-of-control monster that needs to be slain. I'll grant that all of our congressional leaders do think (although it's unclear what they actually think about). They alone, have the power to change our tax system. However, for the most part, they don't want to. Why? Simply stated, because they are not truly interested in doing what's best for the country--they want to do what's best for them. With our current system, they have the power to create winners and losers. Tax the hell out of those they deem to be losers (big oil and tobacco, big corporations, Pharmaceuticals, wealthy Americans) and give subsidies and tax breaks to those they like (agriculture, poor people, environmentalists, etc). Another system, such as one called the FairTax, has been proven to 
be a much better model for raising tax revenue without all the problems of the current system. Yet, most will oppose it. 

What about the so-called tax cuts? Sorry. That's an outright lie. A true tax cut reduces your tax rate so that you pay less in taxes. That's not what Obama has proposed. His plan is welfare. He will give money from the treasury (your money and mine if we pay taxes) to all Americans, even those who paid no taxes. Some may say, "So, what's wrong with that?" Two things. One, it's armed robbery. Don't believe it? Just try not paying your taxes. Eventually, someone will compel you to do so, with the power of government (including the use of force) squarely behind him. Two, this plan is designed to solidify the Democrat's hold on power.  

You see, under their vision of the future, there will ultimately be more who don't pay taxes (dependent on government) than those who do. Those who do will be "asked" to contribute an increasingly larger percentage of their income to the government to make up for the shrinking numbers who pay no taxes. When it comes time to vote, who do you think this segment of the "dumb-masses" will vote for? Those who promise to keep taking money from those evil rich folks and give it to them. 

Yes, it seems Benjamin Franklin was correct when he responded to that question about the longevity of this great republic thusly: "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." 

The Pledge

The Sun Has Set

Today marks a new era...how cliche.
However, I do believe that the perception of the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers is no longer the vision being pursued by our leadership in this Late Great America. Now before you contradict me and go into some diatribe equating our current president with the likes of men such as Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln; Please allow me the privilege of knowing the most current book on American history you have read, high school textbooks being exempt.
My position in writing this essay is not to determine which vision is better, rather to state that they are different. Very different. I will not take the time to elaborate on the particular details at this time, instead I will endeavor to challenge you to reflect on the totality of the 2 Very Different Visions.
Therefore you will gain an understanding in what is meant by "The Sun Has Set." I was enjoying a great discussion with several friends the other day regarding our current political situation facing this Nation and while we were challenging one another and strengthening our comraderie, one of our friends had to adjust his seating due to the fact that he was being blinded by The Setting Sun. I mused how appropriate it was that we enjoy this Vision on the eve of this inauguration.
As a student of history, I am able to appreciate the Rise and Fall of Nations and the cycles that ebb and flow. History does not lie and God is not mocked. We may argue about our views and clamour for our version of "The Truth." But that which has happened has happened and that which God promisede will happen. This one thing I am sure of.
In 1787 at a Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was waiting to sign a document that would hold the fate and destiny of our nation. As he stood, his eyes fell upon a carving on the back of George Washington's chair, a carving of half a sun. He stared thoughtfully at it for a minute, then proclaimed words that would be remembered forever, "I have often looked at that picture behind the president without being able to tell whether it was a rising or setting sun. Now at length I have the happiness to know that it is indeed a rising, not a setting sun."
200 years later, if Mr. Franklin was asked about this chair, would he reply, that the sun is rising or would he ackowledge that the sun is setting? I believe this answer can be found in several revealing statements made shortly thereafter.
1. Outside Independence Hall when
the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended,
Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
"A republic, if you can keep it."
2. "When the people find they can vote themselves money,
that will herald the end of the republic."

What say you?

Is the Sun Rising or Setting