Comrade Pelosi: “Every Aspect of Our Lives Must Be Subjected To An Inventory”

Meanwhile Obama says “We ‘aint seen nothing yet”

Freight train on track hurtling down at 90 MPH- light is visible…. how many of us are still on the tracks staring mesmerized at the shimmering light growing brighter?

Pelosi touring the mighty bastion of Chinese Communism today, announced a tenet of pure Communism for the serfs of the world that she considers should be imposed on anyone not in a politburo.  Preaching the Communist doctrine of Global Warming to the approval of her Communist Comrades in the Chinese Government, the sickening excuse for a Speaker of the House stated  “We have so much room for improvement.  Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory … of how we are taking responsibility.”

While that may sound pleasing to Communist overlords – them is fighting words to any red-blooded American who should look upon this treasonous lying scumbaglady as a traitor to the Constitution, to liberty, to life and to the pursuit of happiness.  

We must subject our LIVES to government inventory to make sure we are “responsible”????

And once they begin doing this – what criteria will they use to determine “proper responsibility” by us little people who pay their salaries?  Will it extend beyond what property we own to what we eat and teach our children?

Of course it will.  Welcome to the blueprint of Communist imposition and slavery…all under the umbrella of saving the planet from “Climate change”.

Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea have nukes and are preparing to use them.

But Comade Pelosi  wasn’t done making an unmitigated ass of herself, she opened her yap again to vomit out this absurd profundity: “The impact of climate change is a tremendous risk to the security and well-being of our countries.” and added ” “It’s a place where human rights — looking out for the needs of the poor in terms of climate change and healthy environment — are a human right.”

Communism is A HUMAN RIGHT?  The imposition of communist tools to ‘inventory’ and ‘control’ we the people is a HUMAN RIGHT?

Hell no!  It’s despotism disguised as a trojan horse.  But the emoting classes of people indoctrinated to this crap – true believers in this religious tenet of Communism are going to continue to support and preach this same gospel of slavery and servitude.

In tandem with Comrade Pelosi’s comments, Comrade Dear Leader Obama last night said at a fundraiser for his party of Marxists: “I’m confident in the future, but I’m not yet content,” adding, “Los Angeles, you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

War has been declared and is being waged upon America and liberty by these Marxist revolutionaries, sabotaging our culture, our economy and our liberty.

We roll over to increasing controls and tyranny upon our lives.  We whimper when property is taken from us and given to others in redistribution programs.  We ignore the fact the fact Obama has said and believes he needs to return America’s wealth to it’s “rightful owners”.  We sit dumbfounded as they have done exactly that by trillion-dollar plus bailouts and new Soviet-style welfare programs.  We shrug our shoulders when his regime puts out a report declaring Conservative Americans and Christians ‘terrorists’.  We say nothing when they say the biggest threat to the security of the nation is by Right Wing white middle class Americans.  We laughed and waved him off when Obama called us “Bitter clingers”.

Now we sit mute as the Speaker of the House says that we must be subject to have our lives inventoried.

Will we walk willingly to the gas chambers when these tyrants make policy to do that too?

I have to wonder.

To Maintain Liberty, Religion and Politics Are Inseparable

Religion & Politics Don’t Mix?

By Mark Alexander

“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.” –Thomas Jefferson

For all of our nation’s history, there have been tactical battles between opposing political ideologies — liberals (leftists) who want to liberate us from constitutional rule of law, and conservatives who strive to conserve rule of law. Great political capital has been, and continues to be, expended by the Left in order to offend our Constitution, and by the Right in order to defend it.

Amid the din and rhetoric of the current lineup of tactical contests, I ask that you venture up to the strategic level and consider a primal issue that transcends all the political noise.

How many times have you heard the rejoinder, “Religion and politics don’t mix”?

Most Americans have, for generations now, been inculcated (read: “dumbed down”) by the spurious “wall of separation” metaphor and believe that it is a legitimate barrier between government and religion. So effective has been this false indoctrination that even some otherwise erudite conservatives fail to recall that religion and politics not only mix, but are inseparable.

Recall that our Founders affirmed in the Declaration of Independence “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.”

In other words, our Creator bestowed the rights enumerated in our Declaration and, by extension, as codified in its subordinate guidance, our Constitution. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are natural rights; they are not gifts from government.

To that end, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

But the Left has, for many decades, made its primary objective the eradication of God from every public quarter, and routinely relied on judicial activism to undermine constitutional rule of law and, thus, the natural rights of man.

The intended consequence of this artificial barrier between church and state is to remove knowledge of our Creator from all public forums and, thus, over time, to disabuse belief in a sovereign God and the natural rights He has endowed.

This erosion of knowledge about the origin of our rights has dire implications for the future of liberty.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.”

As the author of our Declaration of Independence makes clear, we should all tremble that man has adulterated the gifts of God.

Ironically, it was Jefferson who penned the words “wall of separation between church and state” in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

Jefferson was responding to a letter the Association wrote to him objecting to Connecticut’s establishment of Congregationalism as its state church. Jefferson responded that the First Amendment prohibited the national (federal) government from establishing a “national church.”

After all, the controlling language (Amendment I) reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Jefferson concluded rightly that the Constitution’s 10th Amendment federalism provision prohibited the national government from interfering with matters of state governments — a “wall of separation,” if you will, between the federal government and state governments.

Among all our Founders, Jefferson was most adamant in his objection to the construct of the Judicial Branch of government in the proposed Constitution, writing, “The Constitution [would become] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Jefferson warned: “The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. … It has long been my opinion … that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 81, “[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution.”

But Jefferson was correct in his apprehension about our Constitution being treated as “a mere thing of wax” by what he called the “despotic branch,” who would do the bidding of their special-interest constituencies rather than interpret the plain language of the Constitution.

In 1947, Justice Hugo Black perverted Jefferson’s words when Black speciously opined in the majority opinion of Everson v. Board of Education that the First Amendment created a “wall of separation” between religion and government, thus opening the floodgates for subsequent opinions abolishing religious education and expression in all public forums.

John Adams wrote, “If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.”

It may not be in the power of man to alienate the gift of liberty, but it will certainly take the power of men, guided by our Creator, to defend it. To that end, religion and politics are inseparable.

Denying The Faith, and Our Christian Heritage

.

Are We Ashamed?

Roy Moore

The Apostle Paul knew well that his open profession of faith in Jesus Christ could cost him his life, yet with boldness he proudly proclaimed, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Romans 1:16). Unfortunately, Barack Obama and his administration apparently do not share Paul’s courage.

On April 6, while in Turkey, Obama stated at a press conference that “we [American citizens] do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” And Obama has acted in accordance with his views!

Recently, on May 7, our National Day of Prayer, Obama refused to conduct any formal observance of the day. Although he did comply with a statute that requires him to sign a proclamation of a national day of prayer, he discontinued the practice of George W. Bush of inviting Catholics, Protestants and Jews to join at a formal ceremony in Washington, D.C., in recognition of this special day.

Before delivering an address on the economy on April 14 at Georgetown, one of the nation’s leading Catholic universities, the White House issued an order that all religious symbols on display where the speech was to be given should be covered. Even the crucifix depiction of our Lord Jesus Christ and the gold letters “IHS” above His head were hidden from view.

Our forefathers were not ashamed of their Christian faith when they came to America in 1620 in search of religious liberty. Before setting foot on Plymouth Rock, they declared in the Mayflower Compact that they had undertaken their voyage “for ye glorie of God, and advancemente of ye Christian faith.”

Nearly every school or university in America was founded on the Christian faith. Harvard was founded 16 years after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. According to Harvard’s Rules and Precepts in 1642, every student was “plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the maine end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life.” Yale was founded in 1701 with the primary goal that “every student shall … know God in Jesus Christ.” Princeton was founded by evangelical Presbyterians in 1746 to preserve and spread the fervor of the Great Awakening. The nation’s first compulsory education law, adopted by Massachusetts in 1647, proclaimed that it was “one chief project of Satan to keep [children] from the knowledge of the scripture” and therefore required that parents ensure that their children learn to read and write. The most common texts in early American schools were the Bible and the Christian “New England Primer.”

Unfortunately, many of the young people who attend public schools and universities in America today are being persecuted for their profession of faith in Christ. For example, Renee Griffith, 2008 co-valedictorian at Butte High School in Montana, planned to tell her fellow graduates that during her high school experience she had learned to be a person with a purpose from God with a passionate love for Him. Her co-valedictorian expressed confidence that “the power for change is inherent in humanity and each individual” and that “we all have the framework for greatness and impact.” His humanistic faith was acceptable to the authorities, but just before the ceremony, officials ordered Renee to remove the words “Christ” and “God” from her speech and replace them with “sharing my faith” and “lived with a purpose, a purpose derived from my faith and based on a love of mankind.” She refused, and she was therefore barred from speaking at her graduation. She sued, and her case is currently before the Montana 13th Judicial District Court.

In Colorado, high school valedictorian Erica Corder mentioned Jesus Christ in her graduation speech, and her principal then ordered her to sign an apology as a condition for receiving her diploma. She sued, and her case is currently before the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

And in a Nevada high school, valedictorian Brittany McComb strayed from her script to say that Jesus had filled a void in her life, and as she said, “God’s love is so great that he gave up – gave up his only Son …,” her microphone was shut off in mid-sentence. The liberal 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled that her free speech and equal protection rights were not violated, and she is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is encouraging that so many of our youth are not ashamed of the gospel of Christ. Like our forefathers, they know America is a Christian nation. Even the United States Supreme Court in the Church of the Holy Trinity case in 1892, recognized that a volume of unofficial declarations, “together with a mass of organic utterances,” solemnly declare that “this is a Christian nation.” It is a shame that our president and some of our other public officials do not share that view.

Like Paul, we must not be ashamed of the gospel of Christ and should recognize and appreciate our Christian heritage. Then, when our battles are over, we can proudly say, as did Paul, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith!” (2 Timothy 4:7).

The Genesis and History of American Socialism

I’ve posted only a large chunk of John’s commentary on the blog today, not it’s entirety .  Due the length and detail, I’m only posting portions of his analysis.   John’s essay here is one of the most truly enlightening reads on the subject of “How did we get here?” on par with “The Creature from Jekyll Island”.  Please click on the link in the title to truly educate yourself on the genesis of how America has become Moscow on the Mississippi.

Blame Wisconsin

By John Galt

May 14, 2009

“We stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord.”  -Theodore Roosevelt, August 6, 1912 final line from the speech “A Confession of Faith” before the National Progressive Party convention

I wish to begin this editorial with special thanks to Glenn Beck for re-stimulating my interest in this era of American history. I have always found the period from the 1907 Panic through the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank to be instructive as well as fascinating as the ideals expressed in that time period created the foundation for this era, and problems we now are encountering in our society. The theories about evolutionary law, not Darwinism mind you, economic Progressive thought, and the revision of the traditional ideals of our Constitution via the adoption of the 16th and 17th Amendments all should give one pause to reflect. Thanks to Mr. Beck, I have done so again and found another culprit which aided and abetted the destruction of our traditional American values and system, intentional or unintentional as it may have been.

Thus I say, “Blame Wisconsin” and in this somewhat wordy historical opinion piece, I shall attempt to tie together the idealism of the Progressives with the current era of what I call “PSD” or ‘Progressive Socialist Disorder’, which infests our nation’s major political parties and has created a nightmare scenario for our future.

Progressive Socialist Disorder 

America’s evolution from a balanced form of republican representative government into a dominant state subscribing to the ideals of Federalism or a strong centralized national government did not occur overnight. The end of the Civil War created the time line of change which has extended to our current period where the sponge known as centralized government absorbed more and more power and economic dominance because that system of managing our nation’s affairs and of the people was determined by an unelected elite to be the most practical solution.

“Unelected” might seem puzzling to the reader as many of us and our fellow citizens vote every two years in Senatorial, Congressional, Presidential, and statewide elections yet thanks to the Progressive idealists in Wisconsin and the Socialists of our past, the true concentration of power was removed from the electorate in many cases and delegated to the appointed and recruited technocracy known as American bureaucracy. For example the link to the speech from Theodore Roosevelt at the top of this piece could have come from this location, at www.theodoreroosevelt.combut in fact I elected to demonstrate the desires of our bureaucratic origins; the link at the top of the page comes from our own Social Security Administration which not only highlights the Progressive agendas of Theodore but of course his fifth cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Ah the apple does not fall far from the tree when it comes to destroying Constitutional principles. 

The historical references and data with this government sponsored bureaucratic nightmare are worthy of taking your time to read and review at your leisure as it demonstrates the glorification of clerical unity and bureaucratic power when you read the SSA website.

So what is “Progressive Socialist Disorder” (PSD) and why is it an affliction that could quite possibly destroy not just the United States Constitution, but the concept of America itself?

First we have to transport our frame of reference to the era where the debate began. Shortly after the Civil War concluded in the United States a book was printed in Germany in 1867 that created a shudder throughout the modern industrialists mindset titled Das Kapital by Karl Marx. While the notions presented in this book were dismissed out of hand by most Americans and many within the traditional business community worldwide, the idea that wealth was not a creation of the individual or business endeavor but the result of labor, the group effort or one portion of the industrial process became popular among those within the trade unionist movements and the leaders of the lesser, or lower economic stratus in societies worldwide.

The consequences of the Marxist movement throughout history from that day forward can not be dismissed nor ignored by capitalists as the Progressive movement has served the purpose of the ‘useful idiot’ which has enabled many of the programs which Marx and Engels advocated and now are considered a “necessary” part of modern American society. I shall reflect further on in this piece as to the acquiescence of these useful idiots and their purpose which has the current generation of our nation and quite possibly the next two generations unless drastic changes occur immediately; a highly unlikely prospect considering the mindset of our citizenry.

The Marxist movement created a conflict within American society where socialism was viewed with disdain by many and un-American in its concepts and origins, a sort of European societal aberration of which its principles were not just foreign but objectionable to the emerging Progressive movement of the late 1880’s. Professor Richard Ely, PhD, the Associate Professor of Political Economy at John Hopkins University, wrote a book in 1889 titled An Introduction to Political Economy where he outlined not only the traditional views of American society but also added his views of the Socialist movement and why it will not succeed within the American system. In Chapter V. titled ‘Socialism’ on page 245 he correctly identifies the most glaring weakness of the Socialist idealism:

“The danger to freedom appears to be a very real one. It is frankly admitted that up to a certain point there is a tendency on the part of government to improve as its functions increase. But would this hold with the indefinite extension of the sphere of government? Let us admit that s our livelihood would depend on the efficiency of government all the force and energy which now go into private services would be turned into public channels. But what would happen if, in spite of all precautions, some unscrupulous combination should secure the control of government?”

This analysis of the glaring flaw which shines above all else in the Socialist movement was confounded though a few paragraphs further where he warned of the dangers of Mercantilism, which he viewed equally as dangerous. It is wise to keep this conflict in mind as we review the impact of Professor Ely on the state of Wisconsin and by extension the early Progressive movements which emerged within the Republican and Democratic Parties at the turn of the century, which I will discuss within the era of Van Hise, Roosevelt and Wilson.

The impact of this debate created a conflict where Progressives emerged with the kinder, softer Americanized democratic (not the party) version of Euro-Socialism without the hard core Marxist tinge. As American society emerged from the turn of the century, the romanticism was spread about that era by the very education system designed by the Progressive movement and by default, the glorification of their actions at that time. The American citizen has no reason to doubt that conservationism, clean water and pure food were programs which were meritorious in their achievements, as I also have no desire to have a worm pop out of my burger and say “howaydoin” while munching on my Vidalia onion topping. Yet the benefits of that era are somewhat outweighed by their negative accomplishments which have been twisted into positive outcomes as witnessed by Hillary Clinton’s declaration that she was an active Progressive much like those politicians of that era as she stated during the 2007 portion of the Democratic Party debate series.

Now without revealing the thrust of this article at this time, let us say that Hillary and Obama are the poster children for PSD. During the turn of the twentieth century, nothing would offend a supporter of President Roosevelt or the Progressive movement more than accusing them of engaging in stealth socialism. Fast forward to the current administration and once again, if you wish to raise the ire of the “Progressives” point out the activities and outlines of the policies and politics they engage in as “Socialist” or “Marxist” and you win the “right wing extremist” tag and a free phone tap from the Department of Homeland Security should you dare to visit a gun show or send money to Ron Paul.

The reality is that this disdain for the use of proper terminology when applied to the activities the Progressives support and engage in, which are the same positions of Socialists and Marxists alike is the root of PSD or Progressive Socialist Disorder. They wish to engage in the activities of the Socialist ideal but refuse to acknowledge the roots of their activities as such. The self-delusion of their propositions and protestations makes one wonder if they are genuine but the mindset introduced with Roosevelt, Wilson and the Professors behind Progressivism always believed the ends justified the means. Thus you must understand that PSD is not a myth; it is a propagandist proposition to mask the reality of their actions under the flowery ‘Patriotic’ activities of two over-glorified Presidents in the early 1900’s. Thus you now have the understanding that these activities and the individuals who engage in them suffer not from a delusion, but wish to impose that delusion on the citizens of this nation, to create a fog of war which will allow them to complete the task initiated some one hundred and twenty years ago.

The Wisconsin Idea 

“The people must be given full power to make their action effective, and at the same time the educational institutions of the commonwealth must be built up in such shape as to give the people the opportunity to learn how to use their power wisely. Nor must political reform stand by itself. it must accompany economic reform; and economic reform must have a twofold object; first to increase general prosperity, because unless there is such general prosperity no one will be well off; and, second, to secure a fair distribution of this prosperity, so that the man of the people shall share in it.”   – Theodore Roosevelt, Introduction pages ix and x to The Wisconsin Idea by Charles McCarthy, The Macmillan Company, 1912

[end snip]

[begin snip]

….The Constitutionalists are now considered dinosaurs to be mocked and despised for their primitive idealism and their voices to be silenced using whatever methods are necessary. 

After all the greater good and the public interest are far more important than an advocate of the positions of Washington or Jefferson that are inconvenient to the current political class. Regulatory expansion is far more important to assure job creation for the allies who adore the cause or can contribute to the expansion of Progressive Socialism. The concepts I have outlined are not outrageous. If you reflect on the original Communist Manifesto, much of what Marx and Engels sought to spread throughout the world’s capitalist economies have been implemented in Europe and the United States while some of the same proposals are being deconstructed in Communist China.

Go figure.

America is at a crossroads and that intersection is wrought with danger. The capitalist must decide if he can tolerate a one and a half party system where the choices for political office will assure the continued destruction of his or her rights and freedoms as well as imposing crushing tariffs on his labors. The other alternative is to retire, or cease to produce for the state, leaving the complicated problem of survival in a country that was once admired by all men and women the world over, yet now has raised doubts about the dedication to the very magnet which brought millions to our shores. The choice is what I call the Great Restoration but it will not be easy and doubtfully be completed in our lifetimes. The trials we are to endure as the absorption of America into the great World-Euro Socialist model appears to be successful and will continue unabated.

The major corporations have chosen their alliances and lot in life and thus that of their employees in this conflict. The new found acquisitions of private corporations or shares of their companies by the Federal government lays the basis for a statutory envelopment of those companies that the administration deems necessary for not just our future, but that of the world movement. This is balanced by a need for the citizenry to have a basic existence and to sell the diminished standard of living to the populace as a necessary evil for the greater good. This will be attempted via the process of economic blackmail, security of the future for retirees, and the perpetual crisis, a concept enjoyed by Fascist governments throughout history to alleviate the pain as new restrictions on freedom are declared. America’s trials are just beginning, even though the elite would have you believe they began in the 1890’s with the banking crisis of that era and since.

Sadly, this crisis as all of the others since 1907 would be long over and resolved had the government stepped aside. Alas, it was not meant to be nor would it appear a celebration of 250 years of our nation as it was envisioned by the Founders.

Simple Numbers: Kiss Western/Christian Culture Goodbye

In 410, when the Romans saw the Visigoths streaming over the Seventh Hill to sack Rome, I doubt any of them comprehended that would be the abject end to their empire and Roman culture itself.

Of course Rome was rotting from the inside-out for almost a century beforehand.  The growing immigration numbers of barbarians, Goths and other conquered peoples who were immediately made Roman citizens for the purpose of expanding the Empire’s welfare rolls and tax base, had been attacking and eating away at Rome’s wealth, sovereignty and security for many decades.  Rome had already lost her unique culture as it had absorbed so many cultures that refused to meld with the Roman culture – that there was little to distinguish what was once Rome.  By 410 – immigrant barbarians had outbred Roman people themselves, and stood ready for Alaric to take revenge and burn the capital – and the entire Roman culture to ashes for the history books.

Today, like Rome – Western Christian culture is being outbred and soon the barbarians are going to outnumber the native peoples.  Only there will be no need for an invasion – they are already rising among us.

When The Righteous Perish

By Ronald L. Dart

I was thinking recently of a Scripture I have sometimes heard cited at funerals: “The righteous perishes, and no man lays it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come” (Isaiah 57:1). The Scripture was comforting in an odd sort of way. But it fell strangely on the ear in the good times we have enjoyed in years past. I wonder what people will think nowadays should they hear it read over the casket of a dear old friend.  

I was reading a column by Peggy Noonan when this came to mind. She described New York in these days of a sharply slowed economy: “We have been living in a carnival these last many years, an unreal world of wealth and plenty. Now we have to think about a different kind of world. Our leaders are pessimistic—which is an odd thing for leaders. They are supposed to mobilize us, to tell us the truth, but to hold out hope. Yet we hear words such as crisis and catastrophe coming from leaders who seem more concerned about political power than the welfare of those they lead.”

Blind watchmen

I’ve wondered what prompted this message from the old prophet, so I took a little time to look and think about it. The lead into this passage was sobering, and startlingly apt to this generation. Isaiah said that his nation’s watchmen were all blind and lacking in knowledge. He compared them to mute dogs who cannot bark, who lie around and dream. They have mighty appetites, Isaiah said, they are shepherds who lack understanding. They all are more interested in getting rich than in watching out for the people (Isaiah 56:10 ff.).

Mute dogs. Somehow I had overlooked this reading the King James. The old Bible calls them dumb dogs, but to the King James boys, it didn’t mean dumb as in stupid. It meant unable to speak, as in “deaf and dumb.” I know, there are times when you wish your dog was mute, but dogs want to let you know what is going on. They are concerned when the doorbell rings that you might not hear it. Barking is their way of saying, “Someone’s at the door!”

When a little girl was taken from her bed in the middle of the night, I thought, “If I had a little girl like that, she would have a dog that sleeps in her room, maybe on her bed. A big dog.” But of what use is a mute dog that cannot bark—that only lies around, sleeps, and eats?

Isaiah shifts the metaphor from dogs to shepherds. “They are shepherds who lack understanding; they all turn to their own way, each seeks his own gain. ‘Come,’ each one cries, ‘let me get wine! Let us drink our fill of beer! And tomorrow will be like today, or even far better.’”

Many kinds of shepherds

I groan when I read it, for there are many kinds of shepherds. There are presidents, governors, congressmen, preachers, teachers, school board trustees, and administrators. Tomorrow, they say, will be just like today and even better. And that is the way nearly everyone has been acting for a long time now. It is at this point that Isaiah comes to the Scripture I started with. “The righteous perish, and no one ponders it in his heart; devout men are taken away, and no one understands that the righteous are taken away to be spared from evil.”

Human nature doesn’t change

So we don’t live in a world that goes on to greater and better things, after all. Tomorrow may not be all that abundant. It may get bad enough to be grateful our moms didn’t live to see it. But what happened to bring this situation about?

Isaiah goes on: “But you—come here, you sons of a sorceress, you offspring of adulterers and prostitutes! Whom are you mocking? At whom do you sneer and stick out your tongue? Are you not a brood of rebels, the offspring of liars?” (vv.3-4).

Would you have to look very hard to find children who sneer at society, who stick out their tongues at the rest of us? Times change. Cultures change. But human nature doesn’t, and the divine nature doesn’t either. When you read a passage like this, you can say, oh, this isn’t now, not us. This was then and those people. And, yet, the ratio of children born without a father in the home grows on apace, and the children of adulterers and prostitutes abound among us. As much as we try to be understanding and compassionate, we can’t deny what is right there in front of us.

The cost is terrible

There is a terrible cost associated with this. Lay aside for the moment the cost for the kids themselves and consider what it means to society. Too many people are in denial about what all this is costing. Did you know, for example, that the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is being raised by a single parent? Three studies and a well documented book stress the point. Seventy percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers were raised by single mothers. Seventy-two percent of juvenile murderers and 60 percent of rapists come from single mother homes. Seventy percent of teenage births, drop-outs, suicides, and child murders involve children of single mothers. Girls raised without a father in the home are sexually more promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced. A 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that, after controlling for single motherhood, the differences between black and white crime rates disappeared.

The cost for single motherhood is dear

I don’t think I could ever have tracked all this down, But Ann Coulter, in her book, Guilty, lays it all out with full documentation. This time Ms. Coulter is not trying to be funny. Thinking about her statistics made my blood run cold:

sixty-two percent of youth suicide;
seventy percent of teenage pregnancy;
seventy-one percent of adolescent chemical substance abuse;
eighty percent of all prison inmates; and
ninety percent of all homeless and runaway children are from single parent families.
Children brought up in single mother homes are:
five times more likely to commit suicide;
nine times more likely to drop out of school;
fourteen times more likely to commit rape (boys);
twenty times more likely to end up in prison; and
thirty-two times more likely to run away from home.

Now you tell me: is this a huge problem for society at large or not? And does it not have an economic impact? Then consider that God will send a prophet with the primary aim of turning the hearts of the fathers to the children lest an entire society collapse into ruin.

The Path to Gun Confiscation Now Laid

 

It’s Getting Very Serious Now

By Chuck Baldwin

First, it was a Missouri Analysis and Information Center (MIAC) report; then it was a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report; now it is a New York congressman’s bill. Each of these items, taken on their own, is problematic enough; taken together they portend “a clear and present danger” to the liberties of the American people. It is getting very serious now.

As readers may recall, the MIAC report profiled certain people as being potential violence-prone “militia members”: including people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself. In addition, anyone who opposed one or more of the following were also included in the list: the New World Order, the U.N., gun control, the violation of Posse Comitatus, the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Ammunition Accountability Act, a possible Constitutional Convention, the North American Union, the Universal Service Program, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), abortion on demand, or illegal immigration.

The MIAC report prompted a firestorm of protest, and was eventually rescinded, with the man responsible for its distribution being dismissed from his position. The DHS report profiled many of the same people included in the MIAC report, and added returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans as potentially dangerous “extremists.”

As I have said before, it is very likely that when all of the opinions and views of the above lists are counted, 75% or more of the American people would be included. Yet, these government reports would have law enforcement personnel to believe we are all dangerous extremists that need to be watched and guarded against. If this was not bad enough, a New York congressman has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to deny Second Amendment rights to everyone listed above.

According to World Net Daily, May 9, 2009, “A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans a potential ‘threats,’ could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others–any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential ‘extremism.’

“Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any ‘known or suspected dangerous terrorist.’ The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is ‘appropriately suspected’ of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general ‘has a reasonable belief’ that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.

“Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill’s language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person’s Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being ‘dangerous.'”

WND quotes Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt as saying, “By [DHS] standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists.

This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009.”

Pratt was also quoted as saying, “Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment rights are toast.” He went on to say, “This such an anti-American bill, this is something King George III would have done.”

Now that DHS has established both a list and a lexicon for “extremists,” it looks to Congress to confer upon it police-state-style powers through which these individuals may be disarmed and eventually done away with. Rep. Peter King is accommodating this goal with H.R. 2159.

Let me ask a reasonable question: how long does anyone think it would be, after being profiled by DHS and denied the lawful purchase of firearms, that those same people would be subjected to gun confiscation? And how long do you think it would be before DHS began profiling more and more groups of people, thus subjecting them to gun confiscation?

This was exactly the strategy employed by Adolf Hitler. The Jews were the first people denied their civil rights–especially the right to own and possess firearms. Of course, after disarming Jews, the rest of the German citizenry was likewise disarmed. And we all know where that led.

I’m not sure how many of the American people realize that it was the attempted confiscation of the colonialists’ cache of arms in Concord, Massachusetts, that started America’s War for Independence. Yes, my friends, it was attempted gun confiscation that triggered (pun intended) the “shot heard ’round the world.” And now it would appear that, once again, a central government is on the verge of trying to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms.

I am told that as of 2004, 50% of the adults in the United States own one or more firearms, totaling some 270 million privately owned firearms nationwide. I would venture to say that the vast majority of these gun owners would find themselves matching the DHS profile of a potential “extremist.” I wonder how many gun owners realize the way they are now being targeted by their government, and just how serious–and how close–the threat of gun confiscation has become?

…This leads to a very serious question: how many of America’s gun owners would allow their government to deny them gun ownership? Further, how many would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated?

As humbly and meekly as I know how to say it: as for me and my house, gun confiscation is the one act of tyranny that crosses the line; debate, discourse, discussion, and peaceful dissent cease and desist at that point. I say again, it is getting very serious now.

Obama: A Stealth Jihad Supporter

This entry by forumite Rabid Rabbit.  When Jihadists attack the U.S. again (and they will) Obama will have opened the gates and enabled them to hit us – but of course – no blame will ever be applied to him.  Instead his Propaganda media sycophants will blame Bush, torture, and Bitter Clingers for the Islamic world wanting to “hurt Americans”.

Obama will skate from any blame – even though he is making every avenue for attack open to them.

While some may willfully remain blind – I will  not.  Any American killed by a Jihadist – anywhere in the world – that blood is on Obama’s hands and head, and he will be responsible for those deaths firsthand.

Obama is a Stealth Jihadist.

Might as well have Osama instead of Obama running the White House.  Same difference.

***

Relocation of Hamas Refugees Signed behind our backs.

By Rabid Rabbit

EVERYONE IN THE U.. S. Needs to know ….

Something happened… E9-2488 was signed, behind our backs. You may want to read about it. It wasn’t mentioned on the news… Just went by on the ticker tape at the bottom of the CNN screen.

Obama funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees to the USA . This is the news that didn’t make the headlines…

By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in “migration assistance” to the Palestinian refugees and “conflict victims” in Gaza .

The “presidential determination”, which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States , was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on February 4.

Few on Capitol Hill, or in the media, took note that the order provides a free ticket replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006.

Let’s review…itemized list of some of Barack Obama’s most recent actions since his inauguration:

His first call to any head of state, as president, was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.

His first one-on-one television interview with any news organization was with Al Arabia television.

His first executive order was to fund/facilitate abortion(s) not just here within the U. S. , but within the world, using U. S. Tax payer funds. 

He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and all military trials of detainees halted..

He ordered overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.

He withdrew all charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole and the “terror attack” on 9/11.

Now we learn that he is allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refuges to move to, and live in, the US at American taxpayer expense.

These important, and insightful, issues are being “lost” in the blinding bail-outs and “stimulation” packages.

Doubtful? To verify this for yourself: www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-02-04-E9-2488

PLEASE PASS THIS ON… AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW

WE are losing this country at a rapid pace.

Welcome To The Hard Tyranny of Obama’s Dictatorship

Right under the noses of most Americans – Obama has one-upped Hugo Chavez in the Dictatorial usurpation department of imposing Marxism upon a country.

To thunderous applause, Obama has single-handedly, and with threats behind closed doors – nationalized the entire financial system and the Auto Industry virtually overnight. We are in a soft tyranny already, and next up on the block is the hard tyranny this dictatorship will ultimately impose upon the whole country.

For some some people, who were in the way of Obama’s juggernaut to take over and rob them of their wealth and property – the hard tyranny has already arrived, complete with death threats to those who opposed the efforts of Obama’s takeover.

For them, (many of whom actually VOTED for Obama) – welcome to the Hard Tyranny you voted for when you voted for a messiah promising “change”.

He is changing us from a Free Republic, into a Marxist Dictatorship, and with the consent of the Leftist proletariat and the Politburo Elites in D.C.

The American Thinker notes where we have arrived and what is going on under our noses:

 

Obama’s Pinstripe Revolution

By Tom Suhadolnik

At the end of April the Obama administration tested its ability to take direct control of the US financial system. The test was a success. There is a revolution underway which would impress Chavez or Castro. If you were like most people, you did not realize it happened.

As the details of the GM restructuring plan emerged, on Monday, April 27th, Lawrence Kudlow was one of the first to sound the alarm as secured lenders and bond holders were being given a fraction of the amount owed to them under long established bankruptcy law.

What is going on in this country? The government is about to take over GM in a plan that completely screws private bondholders and favors the unions. Get this: The GM bondholders own $27 billion and they’re getting 10 percent of the common stock in an expected exchange. And the UAW owns $10 billion of the bonds and they’re getting 40 percent of the stock. Huh? Did I miss something here? And Uncle Sam will have a controlling share of the stock with something close to 50 percent ownership. And no bankruptcy judge. So this is a political restructuring run by the White House, not a rule-of-law bankruptcy-court reorganization.

Some might have dismissed Kudlow’s comments as partisan hysterics. Kudlow is a radical free marketer with ties to the Reagan administration. On Tuesday, April 28th as details of the Chrysler reorganization began to leak other experts in the financial industry began to speak out.

“To say it’s unusual is an understatement — it’s unprecedented,” said Norman Kinel, a New York-based partner at law firm Duval & Stachenfeld. “The government doesn’t ever get involved in this way.”

Dan Seiver, a finance professor at San Diego State University, said that as some of the automakers’ creditors have received bailout money from the government they may be forced to “ride herd over other lenders” to get a deal done.

“We’re in a new era where the government is calling a bunch of shots,” Seiver added.

Intervening in the auto industry is also seen creating a conflict of interest for the government, where its role as a shareholder collides with its desire to protect jobs and benefits.

There is also concern about what Syd Finkelstein, a professor at Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business, called the “implied consequences” of disobeying the government.

Since this story lacked stunning visuals like troop columns or burning buildings most people did not notice. By May 3rd 2009, the first cycle of Sunday talk shows since both reorganization plans were announced, more time was spent discussing the Swine Flu pandemic than the auto industry deals. On the few occasions the reorganization plans were discussed it was in terms of the administration’s political victory.

While many Americans were worrying about going to the mall or getting on an airplane, people who understand the byzantine world of corporate finance and bankruptcy were wondering how the executive branch nationalized two giant companies and no one seemed to notice.

To understand the gravity of the events you need a basic understanding of bankruptcy laws. The pecking order of bankruptcy claims is supposed to be:

• 1. Debtor in Possession (DIP) financing which is loaned to the restructuring company
• 2. Secured Lenders – creditors whose loans are backed by assets such as real estate or equipment
• 3. Unsecured Lenders – creditors such as bond holders, vendors and the UAW
• 4. Equity Owners – shareholders

When a company files for bankruptcy the claims that are superior (represented by a lower number) in the pecking order are paid first. Claims with equal status are treated equally; those claims are almost always paid on the same pro rata basis. It is an explicit goal of our bankruptcy system is to treat all creditors equally. This is how Lawrence Kudlow’s rule-of-law bankruptcy-reorganization should work.

Of course the rule of law means nothing to Obama – who on a quest to “CHANGE” America from a Capitalist Free market society into a Marxist Dictatorship.  As you read the article you discover that Obama essentially said ‘Screw the Investors and bond-holders – I want the UAW Union to get empowered here”.

 

Then he went so far as to THREATEN those shareholder who opposed his nationalization and takeover plan blasting them in a press conference:

…he had harsh words for a small group of secured lenders — whom he referred to as “speculators” — who were forcing Chrysler into bankruptcy:

While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you some did not. In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout. They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none [emphasis added]. Some demanded twice the return that other lenders were getting. I don’t stand with them.

[snip]

I know that there are some who will insist that bankruptcy, even for these limited purposes, is a step that should not have been taken. But it was unsustainable to let enormous liabilities remain on Chrysler’s books, and it was unacceptable to let a small group of speculators endanger Chrysler’s future by refusing to sacrifice like everyone else [emphasis added]. So I recognize that the path we’re taking is hard. But as is often the case, the hard path is the right one.

Among people who understand bankruptcy rules these comments raised eyebrows. Does President Obama mean to say secured loans like mortgages are speculative investments? Is a bank which insists on repossessing a car secured by a note seeking something unjustified? These comments were certainly not comforting to credit markets in the US and abroad.

Obama’s comments were followed on May 2nd by Jake Tapper’s report that a lawyer for one of Chrysler’s secured lenders who opposed the administration was threatened. Threats consisted of an organized media campaign to destroy any company opposing the deal. 

By May 4th, The Detroit News was reporting death threats as well. Thomas Lauria, the lawyer for the objecting secured creditors said one client dropped their objections to the reorganization plan after the threats. 

Saul Alinsky and the partners at Goldman Sachs would both be impressed with Obama’s team. 

… the US Treasury has the power to trump stakeholders at will. Obama used this leverage to take power from the investors and creditors and give it to the government and union as the restructuring was being negotiated.

…Obama will have established control directly (US Treasury at GM) and by proxy (UAW at Chrysler) of two of the largest companies in the US. He will have erased the previously unmanageable corporate debt and amassed a huge cache of personal political capital. 

Obama will have funded the juggernaut with taxpayer money and his ability to strong arm creditors. This would be the pinnacle of almost any Wall Street Titan’s — or community organizer’s — career. Obama is just getting started. 

The Chrysler and GM reorganizations are certainly astounding in themselves. Leveraging existing bank regulations, TARP loan conditions and the bully pulpit, the administration was able to muscle creditors in an extraordinary way. These two reorganizations also show how Obama can nationalize all the major banks.

…Obama has made it clear he is willing to use his political muscle on the banks as well. Politico reported on this meeting between bank CEOs and the Obama administration during the AIG bonus imbroglio:

“These are complicated companies,” one CEO said. Offered another: “We’re competing for talent on an international market.” 

But President Barack Obama wasn’t in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public’s reaction to such explanations. “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that.” 

“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

…When one Wall Street CEO raised the issue of paying back TARP funds to avoid public and government scrutiny Obama pushed back.

The president offered an analogy: “This is like a patient who’s on antibiotics,” he said. “Maybe the patient starts feeling better after a couple of days, but you don’t stop taking the medicine until you’ve finished the bottle.” Returning the money too early”, the president argued “could send a bad signal”. 

…Regardless of the President’s motives, the more money lent to the banks, the more stock under the control of the US Treasury and Federal Reserve. Anything that causes banks to take more government money moves them closer to direct government control. The administration has already announced a program which will do just that.

…As private investors become leery of investing in companies susceptible to government muscle the only source of additional capital to the banks will be the government. 

Another benefit of Pimco’s involvement to the administration is purely political. Pimco’s activities could arguably be described as healthy “creative destruction” in a functioning capital market. If the Obama administration needs to provide the banks more financing it can be framed as a response to the excesses of capitalism. Of course, by pure coincidence the government acquires more control of the banking system as it responds to this excess. 

The Obama administration will be able to make a plausible argument that nationalization of the banks was forced upon the administration by capitalism run amok. Given the type of patently absurd statements made by politicians of all stripes, this rather nuanced position will pass without a second thought.

In summary, the mechanism to nationalize the US financial system is now in place. All the levers are controlled by the executive branch. Here how it works:

• 1. The government determines various loses have eroded a particular bank’s balance sheet and regulatory intervention is necessary.
• 2. The bank is ordered to raise additional capital to maintain the proper asset ratio.
• 3. Increasing government activism causes private capital to avoid investing in banks.
• 4. The government is “forced” to loan more money to the bank in exchange for more stock and control via loan conditions like those found in earlier TARP loans and legislation.
• 5. As government acquires more power they force the bank to accept loses to benefit key constituencies of the administration (like the UAW) or the sale of toxic assets to firms like Pimco.
• 6. If the government does not own the majority of the bank’s stock return to step 1and repeat.

…If the administration chooses to do so the largest banks in the country can be nationalized by the end of summer.

There is no additional legislative action required to allow the executive branch to continue on this path. The regulatory framework was reviewed and approved by the judicial branch decades ago. The public at large may not even notice what is happening. Anyone looking for strutting fascists will be disappointed; this revolutionary change will be brought about by clean cut men and women in pinstripes.

Obama and the Marxists Kill The Golden Goose

Killing the golden goose

 By Henry Lamb

When the President announced last week that he would “cut out the middle man” and make direct government loans to students, he laid bare his contempt for free enterprise.  He is fulfilling a campaign promise by overhauling the system through which he claims “Private lenders are costing America’s taxpayers more than 15-million dollars every day and provide no additional value except to the banks themselves.”

Consider the INSANE philosophy behind his statement. If government cuts out the middle man and performs the service instead, it will be cheaper and more efficient, he reasons.  Apply this same reasoning to, say, the entire banking industry.  Government’s direct involvement in the banking industry can eliminate all those bonuses paid to greedy executives, and profits earned by greedy share holders, and make sure that loans are extended to low-income borrowers whether they qualify or not.  Direct government control of the banking business will surely make it fairer, and more efficient.

What a fantastic idea! Someone should have thought of this before.

Apply this reasoning to, say, the auto industry.  Government’s direct involvement can force the auto industry to dump the management that failed to produce the toy-cars that the government said would abate global warming.  Government control of the auto industry can eliminate those nasty, unnecessary monster cars, such as the Pontiac, and more.  Direct government control of the auto industry would certainly be more efficient, and would operate the industry in a more environmentally-friendly way.

Direct government control of the auto industry could eliminate the wasteful duplication of products and services.  Why should there be three major auto manufacturers?  The status quo requires three design departments, three different manufacturing operations, three different, but duplicative sales networks, and three different repair and maintenance systems.  Imagine all the savings that can be achieved by simply combining the auto industry into a single operation managed by government.

This principle, applied to all industry, could result in enormous savings, ensure social justice in the workplace, and avoid unsafe operations that jeopardize the environment.  Wow, who can object to this change?  This new direction by this new administration sounds great to a generation who can’t remember, or never knew, why America became the strongest, most prosperous nation on earth.

America’s greatness is due to the absence of government control.

Now this was truly a fantastic idea formulated by the founders who wrote the U.S. Constitution.  In two short centuries, America achieved what the rest of the world could not achieve in two millennia.  When people are free to pursue their own happiness, there are no limits on what can be achieved.  When government controls what people may pursue, achievement is limited to whatever government permits.

Imagine direct government funding of education; students will attend the school chosen by government, and study the courses approved by government.

Imagine direct government control of the banking industry; investors will earn no more than the government thinks is fair, and borrowers will be rewarded with loans only for purposes the government thinks is necessary.

Imagine direct government control of the auto industry; everyone will drive the car the government decides is environmentally sound, and only those who meet the government’s criteria for ownership will be able to get an automobile.

Come to think of it, someone did have this idea before.  It was the rage of the 1920s and 1930s.  It really took hold in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe.  Ignorant American rednecks rejected the League of Nations, and much of Roosevelt’s efforts to have government take control of industry and the market place. 

President Obama, and others who subscribe to this philosophy of direct government control, have persisted through the years.  By dramatically changing the public school curriculum over the years, and by manufacturing environmental crises to justify stringent government regulations, a majority of the people – who elected Obama – have apparently come to accept the idea that government control is better than freedom and individual responsibility. 

The old adage is true about the people who forget history; as surely as the Soviet Union collapsed, the Obama-initiated system of government control will also collapse – sooner or later.  Those who forgot, or never knew why America prospered for two centuries, cannot grasp the idea that America’s current economic problems are caused directly by our government’s prior intervention.

Government’s insistence that housing be made available to people who could not afford the loans the government guaranteed is the root cause of the housing bubble and the subsequent collapse of the sub-prime financial market.  Government’s insistence on “protecting” mud-holes and spotted owls – that don’t need protecting – have stripped private property rights and free market opportunities from a generation.

Obama’s insistence on “direct government control” over the market and over individual lives is killing the golden goose – the freedom – that is the engine of America’s greatness.