Senior Master Sgt. Relieved Of Position Because Of Christian Faith

Afterthought –  this ought to have been included in my America Implodes Part III  “X”

FROM ZIONICA

121018-F-MJ260-350-600x350

Senior Master Sgt. Relieved Of Position Because Of Christian Faith

How would you feel if your boss asked you for your personal beliefs  concerning homosexuality and then demanded that you answer the question  honestly?   When you comply and tell the boss that homosexuality is a sin,  the boss immediately relieves you of your position of authority because of your response.

That’s exactly what happened to Air Force Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk.

In 2010, Lackland Air Force, most known as the Air Force’s basic training,  was merged with Randolph Air Force Base and the Army’s Fort Sam Houston.   It is home not only to the Basic Military Training unit, but it is also  encompasses a number of other units and training facilities.

Sgt. Monk is stationed at Lackland Air Force and has a spotless record for his 19 years of service to his country that is until his commander asked him a  personal question.  The commander was talking with Monk about her upcoming  promotion ceremony and mentioned that she thought the chaplain who was scheduled to deliver the benediction was a bigot.  She told Monk that it was because  the chaplain preached that homosexuality was a sin.

According to Monk, he objected to the commander’s statement about the chaplain.  She then asked him for his personal views on homosexuality and  commanded him to answer honestly.  When he stated that in accordance with his Christian belief that homosexuality was a sin, his commander immediately relieved him of his position.   (underline my emphasis “X”)

http://zionica.com/2013/10/24/senior-master-sgt-relieved-position-christian-faith/#VQfcdtYvi9cJXQmo.99

 

Remaining part of post from Godfather Politics:

Sgt. Monk has retained the services of attorney Mike  Berry of the Liberty Institute.  Berry stated that the Air Force is  denying Monk’s account of what was said and says that this should be a warning  to everyone in the military.  Even though Sgt Monk has a 19 year spotless  career and is within one year of retirement, he could find himself being  forcibly discharged from the Air Force with no retirement benefits at all  because of his Christian faith.

Berry commented:

“You cannot criminalize somebody’s thoughts. You criminalize actions, not  thoughts.  Within the military never before have we reached that  status.”

“We’re now at this juncture … if you don’t believe, or think in a particular  manner, that’s going to be held against you.”

“He had to agree with her beliefs, and if he wasn’t able to do that, he was  deemed unfit to hold that position.  This is a dangerous and slippery  slope  … that somehow the government is going to be delving into your  thoughts.”

It seems that Senior Master Sgt. Monk is not the only one being singled out  by the military because of their Christian faith and belief that homosexuality  is a sin.  Steve  Branson is the pastor at Village Parkway Baptist Church in San  Antonio.  His church is about 20 minutes away from Lackland Air Force Base  and a number of military personnel attend services at his church.  In a  Fox  News Radio interview with Todd Starnes, Branson stated:“Anyone who doesn’t hold to the right view on homosexuality is having a very  difficult time.”

“I’m raising the warning.  It’s not a good situation out here. The  military’s job is not to fight these kinds of battles. Christians are having to  walk so carefully. I hear it every Sunday at church.”

As long as Obama and his liberally tailored military command remain in  control, Christians will find it more and more difficult to live their faith  while serving our nation.  I believe this is being done deliberately to  tailor the entire military to one that will follow Obama into his war against  patriotic Americans.  Christian soldiers are less likely to obey orders to  fire upon fellow citizens who stand up for their constitutional rights.   But pro-homosexual personnel already have a warped sense of right and wrong and  moral values and will be more likely to follow their gay activist hero into  whatever battle he leads them in, including the one against you and me.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/12980/senior-master-sgt-relieved-position-christian-faith/#ixzz2jJgKr8tF

Court Upholds Law That Could Imprison Pastors For Preaching Biblical Doctrines

Last Resistance email header

Court Upholds Law That Could Imprison Pastors For Preaching Biblical Doctrines

In 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law. The law was pushed by every gay rights organization in the country. They claim that anyone who says anything negative about homosexuality is guilty of bullying them and therefore constitutes a hate crime.

Under the strictest definition of the law, any biblical preaching against sin in general, especially that of homosexuality could be considered hate language and therefore a hate crime. If convicted of the felony offense, a person could spend as much as 10 years in prison.

In 2010, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act’s constitutionality was challenged in court by the American Family Association of Michigan along with several Michigan pastors, Levon Yuille, Rene Ouellette and James Combs. The pastors and AFA of Michigan president Gary Glenn actively preached against homosexuality and that it was a sin according to the Bible. They saw the Hate Crimes Prevention Act as a violation of their constitutional rights for free speech and religion. Their federal lawsuit was filed against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Later that year Holder filed for a dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds of standing and ripeness. Standing and ripeness are legal terms that have to do with their legal ability to file the suit for future circumstances that may or may not ever happen. A federal district judge granted Holder’s request and dismissed the lawsuit.

The dismissal ruling was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by Robert Muise, Senior Counsel and Co-Founder of AFLC Co. Muise argued his case before the court in January of this year. The Sixth Circuit also dismissed the case claiming that the plaintiffs did not have proper legal standing to challenge the law.

After the disappointing news of the dismissal, Muise commented:

“There is no doubt that this federal criminal statute violates the First Amendment on its face. Thus, the Act chills the exercise of free speech, specifically the free speech of our clients, who speak out against homosexuality. This chilling effect is sufficient to confer standing to challenge the Act as a matter of law.”

David Yerushalmi, another Senior Counsel and Co-Founder of AFLC offered this statement:

“Criminalizing religious opposition to homosexuality while elevating those who engage in homosexual acts to a protected class under federal law is a clear violation of the Constitution and a frightening abuse of federal power.”

Not every member of Congress was in favor of the bill as it was passed when the Democrats ruled both the House and Senate. Iowa Congressman Steve King (R) wrote to AFLC on their efforts to challenge the legality of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act saying:

“I want to commend you for your courage to challenge the constitutionality of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. As a Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, I worked hard to stop this legislation in Committee and on the floor of the House of Representatives. . . . Like you, I believe this ‘Hate Crimes’ Act is unconstitutional and marks an unprecedented move to regulate and criminalize thoughts.”

This week, the AFLC took steps to have their case heard before the U.S. Supreme Court by filing a writ of certiorari. They are asking the high court to review the lower courts’ decisions to dismiss the case that challenges the constitutionality of the Hate Crimes law.

If the Supreme Court rejects the request to hear the case, then the Hate Crimes Prevention Act may and will be used against anyone that says or does anything that a homosexual deems offensive or hurts their pride and self-esteem. Pastors in churches across the country could find themselves facing 10 years in prison for preaching God’s Word.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act protects perverted sinners from having their feelings hurt, but it does nothing to protect Christians from having someone like a homosexual denigrate their beliefs and feelings. They will still be allowed to say what they want about Jesus Christ or anyone that follows Him and that won’t be considered hate language. But tell someone that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin against God and you could go to jail.

This ladies and gentlemen is Obama’s agenda and if he gets re-elected next week, it will only get worse for us Christians. It will be the first time in our nation’s history that Christians will be openly and legally persecuted.

http://lastresistance.com/407/court-upholds-law-that-could-imprison-pastors-for-preaching-biblical-doctrines/

Courtesy of Gds44’s blog – Original Intent: The 2nd Amendment

Had to repost this – almost lost it when making revisions in the dashboard.

NOT JUST YES; HELL YES!

Original Intent: The 2nd Amendment

February 6, 2012

Original Intent: The 2nd Amendment.

From http://ajbulava.wordpress.com/

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

– The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The sentence above has spawned in modern U.S. history some of the most heated and vitriolic debates on government authority. The key point is whether government has authority to require background checks, waiting periods, and registration for a person to own and use firearms. Some cities have even outright banned the sale, use and possession of firearms, even handguns. In some states, there are laws governing open and concealed carry laws. But what did the Founding Fathers really mean when they wrote the Second Amendment? And how should it be applied today given that knowledge of the Founders Original Intent? That will be the topic of discussion for today’s blog article.

First, we will focus on quotes from the Founders that clearly outlines the intent and purpose behind the second amendment. Secondly, we will talk about the modern implications and authority of the different levels of government in respect to this amendment and its original intent.

The second amendment is traditionally broken up into two parts or clauses. The first clause is the militia clause, that states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” This clause is the lynchpin to most liberal arguments against private gun ownership and use. Liberals argue that the right belongs to the militia to control the use of fire arms. They view the police and military as the only legal owners of firearms. What did the founders think of this? How did they define “militia?” And what was the purpose of the militia?

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. – George Mason

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms. – Richard Henry Lee

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country. – James Madison

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. – Tenche Coxe

No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…. Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – “State Gazette,” Charleston, NV, 1788

We can see directly from these quotes that the militia is the complete body of men trained and capable of bearing arms. This would lead us to believe that the right of bearing arms, while used in the militia, belongs to the individual trained to use those arms. This is an individual right, not a collective right. What was the purpose of the militia?

The most effectual way to guard against a standing army, is to render it unnecessary. The most effectual way to render it unnecessary, is to give the general government full power to call forth the militia, and exert the whole natural strength of the Union, when necessary. Thus you will furnish the people with sure and certain protection, without recurring to this evil; and the certainty of this protection from the whole will be a strong inducement to individual exertion. – James Madison

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. – Elbridge Gerry

I object to the power of Congress over the militia and to keep a standing army … The last resource of a free people is taken away; for Congress are to have the command of the Militia … Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army–or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed. – John Smilie

The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no Danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them. – Samuel Adams

In a people permitted and accustomed to bear arms, we have the rudiments of a militia, which properly consists of armed citizens, divided into military bands, and instructed at least in part in the use of arms for the purposes of war. Their civil occupations are not relinquished, except while they are actually in the field, and the inconvenience of withdrawing them from their accustomed labours, abridges the time required for military instruction. Militia therefore never amount to perfect soldiers, unless the public exigencies shall have kept them so long together as to absorb the civil, in the military character. – William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America

The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. – John Adams

The design of the militia was to protect the local community from threats against itself and to enforce the laws. We can see from these quotes that the citizens that were part of the militia were not “select” soldiers, as we see today in the national guard. The men serving in the militia were everyday people brought together to defend their community. This fighting force was large or controlled by the directly governor or the President of the United States to fight our wars. The use of the militia or today’s national guard in fighting wars oversees is a clear violation of that standard. As we can see by this quote of Richard Henry Lee at the ratification convention in Virginia: “The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”

The militia is a protection against the dangers of a standing army, which could enforce tyranny through a barrel of a gun. The reason behind this is that the full body of citizens, armed and trained in their use will always out number the standing army produced by then national government. Take, for example, the following quotes

By the last returns to the Department of War the militia force of the several States may be estimated at 800,000 men – infantry, artillery, and cavalry. – James Monroe

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops… – Noah Webster

The second clause of the Second Amendment focuses on the real individual right of the people protected and to not be infringed upon by the government. It states: “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” To form a militia people obviously need the ability to buy arms used to protect of themselves and their community. So any laws that limit a person’s ability to possess and bear their weapons in public are in clear violation of this clause. But if the above mentioned quotes are not enough evidence for the average reader let even more quotes from both our Founding Fathers and the courts of the U.S. be entered into the record as evidence of this correct interpretation.

The great object is that every man be armed … Everyone who is able may have a gun. – Patrick Henry

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. – Samuel Adams

Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion… in private self-defense … – John Adams

The second amendment to the federal constitution, as well as the constitutions of many of the states, guaranty to the people the right to bear arms. This is a natural right, not created or granted by the constitutions.” – Henry Campbell Black, “Handbook of American Constitutional Law,” 1895.

This [Second Amendment] may be considered as the true palladium of liberty …. The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. – Saint George Tucker, “Blackstone’s Commentaries” (1803)

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” – William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution,” 1829

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms – Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them. – Richard Henry Lee, in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” – Patrick Henry debate in the state ratifying conventions

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government – and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.” – Edward Abbey, “The Right to Arms,” 1979

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” – Bliss vs. Commonwealth (1822)

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. – Nunn vs. State 1846

The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff. – People vs. Zerillo (1922)

The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions. – State vs. Kerner (1921)

The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and ‘is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power. – Cockrum v. State (1859)

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.” – Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed – Thomas Jefferson

What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear — and long-lost proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for the protection of himself, his family, and his freedom.” – Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Preface, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms”

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms – George Mason

Is any more evidence needed? It is clearly seen in the words of the Founders of our nation, cases before the Supreme Court, and even from Blackstone’s Commentaries on the law that the right to bear arms belongs to the people individually, not collectively. If anyone can provide any quotes from the courts or the Founders that show this to be a collective right instead of individual, please share them.

What implications must now be taken into consideration after learning what the founder’s original intent on the second amendment? First, no peaceable citizen shall be deprived of their right to buy, possess or carry firearms, either openly or concealed. A person’s interpretation of “peaceable citizens” does give government authority for several legal actions. There is no debate that the government has authority to require background checks before an individual purchases a firearm. The purpose of that background check would be to ensure that the person has no outstanding warrants or felony convictions. The citizen who is guilty of such a crime may legally be denied their right to own a firearm until they are proven “peaceable” by regulations authorized by the state.

Secondly, gun registration laws provide a clear and unprecedented danger to peaceable citizens, without any benefit for the general welfare of all other citizens. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina the danger of gun registration laws became crystal clear. The police would go into neighborhoods and forcibly confiscate the firearms from law-abiding citizens, using the gun registration records. This is in clear violation of a person’s fourth and fifth amendment rights. They confiscated property without probable cause, and confiscated property without providing the citizen due process. After that the gangs and other criminals would flock into those areas and use their illegal guns to take what they wanted. The law-abiding citizens people were defenseless. This also happened under the Nazis in Germany and the Communists in Russia. The registration lists allowed the government to isolate and confiscate the arms owned by law-abiding citizens, thereby making them easier to control. The other part of this implication is that gun registration laws have had little or no effect on the solving of crimes. Guns used in criminal acts are rarely traced back to the own through gun registration records; so they serves no real purpose other than isolating and identifying the law-abiding citizens who own guns.

During the research for this article, there was an interesting part of the amendment that was found in the original drafts of what would become the second amendment, but excluded in the final text. In the original drafts of the second amendment, debated before the House of Representatives and Senate, included a clause that allowed for conscientious objectors excused from service in the militia. In the historical context this restriction on government make sense. The religious sect known as Quakers, were a well-known group of people in the states during our colonial and found periods. They were strictly pacifist and did not volunteer for any war. This allowed them to stay true to their faith and kept government from violating their right to freedom of religion and conscious. A U.S. hero in World War I, Sergeant Alvin York, was a Quaker and tried to get out of the draft by claiming conscientious objector status. It was obviously denied, but one may argue that the founders intended to allow this excuse from military service.

The original intent of the Founders on this topic of the Constitution is clear for everyone to see. When the federal, states, or local governments pass laws that prevent peaceable citizens from owning firearms are in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Some of you would say that the Founders could not foresee a day when we would have of rapid fire weapons, so the second amendment requires reinterpreted. But we can see in the original intent that the specific type of weapon is not a concern when defending the right of the people to defend themselves. If you can regulate automatic weapons, what is to stop government from then regulating swords, knives and other “arms.” The meaning of the terms is clearly defined in the words of the Founders. This is the case for every questionable term that Constitutional modernists and activists think need should be reinterpreted for our modern progressive era. And that is the key behind the idea of original intent.

It is understandable that government must change with the times, but it cannot change not beyond the clearly limited enumerated powers of the Constitution. The words of the Constitution are clearly defined and understood if you do your due diligence and research the meaning behind the phrases when written. Both strict and liberal constructionists must do this research because both are bound to the origins of these phrases and clauses written 235 years ago. Both theories are necessary and proper for understanding the Constitution and the authority given in the document. But we can only completely understand that authority when we know and understand granted authority by viewing what the Founders meant when they wrote the document.

Related articles

From YT; I love this video: Note – Mr. Nugent pulls no punches; the term “bastard” is used, and if you’d rather be martyred by a criminal, than use deadly force to defend your life, and your loved ones, you’re invited to not view this point blank, direct defense of the Second Amendment.

http://gds44.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/original-intent-the-2nd-amendment/

PAN members Canales and Reynoso: We are united to save our country

“X” here; Two legitimate Americans of latino descent “lay it on the line”. Because of culture, their syntax is a bit different; however their point is easily understood. Two inspiring PAN Patriots:

FREEDOM IS BASE ON TRUST – TRUST IS BASE ON TRUTH

LATINOS FOR HONEST GOVERNMENT

PAZ ES EL RESPETO AL DERECHO AJENO – PEACE IS THE RESPECT TO THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS

(ILLEGAL ALIENS RESPECT THE US SOVEREIGNTY )

http://www.usconstitution.net/constquick.html

Help us to spread the truth, pass this on and help us to take our country back.

The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant. (Maximilien Robespierre). Please take a few minutes and learn what you can do for our country. http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/79424/employment-rate-us

Fellow Americans, will you vote for a pathological liar?. Obama is just that, this man is a liar, has not shame, nor values; he is destroying our country and will leave a huge economic burden for generation to come. Obama during his presidential term had set an unpleasant fiscal landmark a debt legacy for our future generations, during his 44 months in power he manage to expend more than 5 trillions Dollars on economic stimulus programs that benefit his cronies but fail to create jobs for Americans. Obama’s expending frenzy increased our National debt to 16.35 trillions Dollars, this financial obligations will cost the American people over 500 billions in interest per year. Because we fail to create jobs our real unemployment is 15.9 % and our GDP is 15.4 trillions Dollars per year; less that our national debt (16.35 trillions Dollars).

Obama’s solution to this financial catastrophe that will make us economic slaves for generations to come is more expending, he force on us the famous Obama’s care that is an economic burden on every one and is a program that is unsustainable, his immigration policy encourage more illegal immigration and more expenses, his foreign policy also ad more to our national debt, Obama’s economic policies is a disaster and will not get better because he do not have a clue of what needs to be done to change this path of selves destruction, he is not a leader, good talker that manage to convince people that it is not inform about what is going on in our country.

Fellow Americans as Americans we have the responsibility to stand for our country and due what we must do to get our country on the right path, this will be our legacy the salvation of our country for the benefit of our future generations.

Please do your research and vote for the future of our country. The following are the main issues that destroy our economic:

1- Free trade, out sourcing our jobs and exporting our technology and capital to produce goods for the US market and destroy our manufacturing infrastructure and demise millions of American jobs.

2- Our foreign policy objective, that is the military intervention and the overthrowing of legitimate elected governments for the protection of American’s Multinational corporation interest, under the pretense of national security.

3- Illegal immigration, the failure of the Bush and Obama’s administration to enforce our immigration laws and the promotion of an exodus of Mexicans into the USA.

 Unfortunately, to fix this mess will take some time and a huge commitment and sacrifice. We must stop this expending frenzy, balance our budget and pay our national debt, review our trade policies to create jobs for Americans, enforce our immigration laws and cut on social services, no more handouts, people on welfare that is able to work must attend job training classes and do community service to pay for welfare received the only people that will get free assistance will be the old and the incapacitate to work. This United states should not engage in military interventions and congress should vote and declare war if need be, we must protect our country from our enemy, but we will not engage on any more wars under the pretense of national security. Our right to defend our country and our sovereignty should be clear so should not be misunderstand by any foreign country. It is clear that Americans across the country, people of all ages and different ideologies are willing to work together and make difficult budget cuts as long as there is share sacrifice and with all options on the table to deal with this deficit reduction. Fiscal reform will be difficult, but we can do it if we are united to save our country from this economic collapse.

Spread the word let the people know .

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3Bcghsbq&gs_nf=1&am…

http://www.investorplace.com/2012/06/the-real-unemployment-rate-is-…

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-employment-rate-in-…

http://www.federalbudget.com/

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-04-19/markets/30054130_1_b…

http://nationalpriorities.org/en/analysis/2012/presidents-budget-fy…

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=vie…

http://economics.about.com/cs/money/a/money_supply.htm

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/money-supply

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/79424/employment-rate-us

http://www.rumormillnews.com/MEDIA_EMAIL_ADDRESSES.htm

http://2012.presidential-election.info/

The Fredom Movement – posted by Juan Reynoso – teapartyoftx@gmail.com

We must strengthen the federal government by redirecting its time, energy and resources toward those objects for which it bears express constitutional responsibility. Our Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The power not delegated to the federal government by the written Constitution is reserved to the states or to the people respectively.

We must stop the trashing of our Constitution and end the Obama’s Nazism dictatorship type of Government.

Has “In God We Trust” Become a Fraud?

Political Outcast

 

In God We TrustFifty-six years ago today, on July 30, 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a joint resolution of the U.S. Congress, authorizing “In God We Trust” as the U.S. national motto. 

Atheists have claimed that the phrase was purely political; a Cold War concoction to counter the atheism of the Soviet Union. But the phrase goes back before Karl Marx was born. In reporting the Joint Resolution, the Senate Judiciary Committee stated:

“Further official recognition of this motto was given by the adoption of the Star-Spangled Banner as our national anthem. One stanza of our national anthem is as follows:

“‘O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto — ‘In God is our trust.’
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

“In view of these words in our national anthem, it is clear that ‘In God we trust’ has a strong claim as our national motto.” ((S. Rep. No. 2703, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2.))

In November of 2011, the motto was needlessly reaffirmed by Congress. Ron Paul, on the campaign trail, said he would have voted “No.”

In March of last year, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear an appeal by atheist Michael Newdow from a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals against Newdow’s claim that the “In God We Trust” Motto violated his Constitutional Rights.

Some Christians cheered, but this was not a victory for the God of the Bible. The decision was based on the Ninth Circuit’s prior declaration back in 1970 that phrases like “under God,” “In God We Trust,” and “So Help Me, God” did not violate the “separation of church and state” because the word “God” in these phrases was actually a secular term, a “ceremonial” and “patriotic” phrase with no “theological” meaning, functioning simply to inculcate obedience to the State.

If the phrase had been a “theological” reference to the God of the Bible, then it would have been “unconstitutional.”

Imagine that Francis Scott Key was transported through time from 1814 (when the Star Spangled Banner was written) to our day. What if he sat in the back of a typical public school classroom for a day, and discovered that God had been banned there? What if he were told that 4,000 American mothers abort their children each and every day? What if he saw our pornography — not what we call porn, but what we don’t call porn: everyday billboards, videos, and publications that would have shocked his sensibilities? What if he saw the warrantless violations of the 4th Amendment at airports by those who had taken an oath to support the Constitution by declaring “so help me, God?” What if he saw our standing armies and foreign wars? What if he could grasp the size and scope of our Messianic government? What evidence could be set before him that would convince him that this is a nation that trusts God?

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/07/has-in-god-we-trust-become-a-fraud/#ixzz228PMsSol

Warnings from George Washington

 

Patriot Action Network     We are the Tea Party      

Posted by It ain’t my diaper that stinks on July 20, 2012 at 6:44am

Annoyed by the constant assault on the Constitution and the Founders, and by being told they are not for today, I give you what George Washington said 216 years ago.

George Washington on:

Patriot Distrust of Government:

“there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavour to weaken its bands.”

Respect by the Elected for the Constitution:

“Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.”

Subversion:

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

 Overthrowing the Government by Constitutional Alterations:

“One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.”

 Abuses of Power and the Ruin of Liberty:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

Real Despotism:

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.

The Public Credit: (National debt)

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater
disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in times of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. (He has several paragraphs warning against borrowing money from foreign nations.)

National Defense:

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Usurpation:

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of
good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

Obligation of Patriots:

…”the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.” “From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Closing comment: The current administration including Mr. Obama, on all points presented by the First President, has failed to comply and by definition is a despot. I am wondering if there is a sitting Congress person willing to read these points into the Congressional Record, because they mean something to them personally and every member of Congress needs reminded. It is shameful that George Washington’s warnings have gone totally unheeded by those who call themselves Patriots and embrace a tyrant. We, the People, are not terrorists. We are uniformly vigilant, and seek to restrain despotism in protecting our government because we are a wise people.

Source of George Washington’s warning quotes : Farewell Address, 1796

http://resistance.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A5856185&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

This excerpt from a PAN members comment:

Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way that you can quickly understand. This quote came from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out. It was translated into English from an article in the Prague newspaper, Prager Zeitungon

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.”

Only In America Top 10 List

From a Patriot, and Veteran friend. DON’T quibble about maybe being a bit off in his percentages!

Monday, July 16, 2012 3:01 PM

 

10) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $40,000 a plate campaign fund raising event. 

9) Only in America could people claim that the government still Discriminates against black Americans when we have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black, while 12% of the population is black. 

8) Only in America could we have had the two people most responsible For our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel, who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax dodgers who are in favor of higher Taxes. 

7) Only in America can we have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash. 

6) Only in America would we make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just become American Citizens. 

5) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution be thought of as “extremists.” 

4) Only in America could you need to present a driver’s license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote. 

3) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. Oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike). 

2) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a trillion dollars more than it has per year for total spending of $7 million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough money.

1) Only in America could the rich people who pay 86% of all income taxes be accused of not paying their “fair share” by people who don’t pay any income taxes at all.

From PAN Nat’l Director: One Nation Under Socialism – Jon McNaughton

National Director
One Nation Under Socialism – Jon McNaughton
Added by Darla Dawald, National Director on March 21, 2012 at 4:04am
 

“I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, And not to an ideology, which can never stand, One nation under socialism, divisive, With no liberty or justice for anyone.”

This November, you will make a choice. Will you choose One Nation Under Socialism?

McNaughton’s Answers to Questions Regarding This Painting:
Why the title “One Nation Under Socialism?”
Our federal government has been moving in the direction of socialism for over one hundred years. Many presidents and politicians have compromised the Constitution as we have given away our freedoms under the guise of entitlements and government intervention. When the people are willing to sacrifice the next generation for their current lifestyles and allow the federal government to have all the power for an illusory mess of pottage—you have chosen One Nation Under Socialism.

What do you mean by an ideology, which can never stand?
I will not support an ideology, which will lead to the destruction of America. In the history of the world, never has there been a recorded example where Socialism has led to the betterment of the human condition or improved the liberty of the people. I know there are varying degrees and definitions of “socialism.” Even the European model of Democratic Socialism has proven to be a dismal failure. Do you want to see our country become like Greece, Italy, Portugal, or even Great Britain?

What do you mean by “divisive, with no liberty or justice for anyone?”
Socialism uses the illusion of offering fairness and justice for everyone by redistributing the wealth of the nation; picking and choosing winners and losers. This administration has taken over our health care system, given bailouts to the automotive industry, banking industry and energy industry. They support the “Occupy Wall Street” movement of increased taxing of the rich to pay for the welfare of the “less rich.” The Constitution never guaranteed equal things—only equal rights and justice. In America we should be FREE TO SUCCEED and FREE TO FAIL!

At this very moment our Constitution is literally going up in flames. What will you do to preserve the Constitution and save America?

Why Socialism Failed …
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/why-socialism-failed/

Is the bell tolling for the U.S.? Matt 25 (the virgins and the bridegroom)

Inspired by reading about fellow blogger  http://chiefofleast.com/

Matthew 25

1Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

2And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

3They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:

4But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

5While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

6And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.

7Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.

8And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.

9But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.

10And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.

11Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.

12But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

13Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

14For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

15And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

16Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

17And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

18But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.

19After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

20And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

21His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

22He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

23His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

24Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

27Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

28Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

29For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

30And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Why, might you ask, am I posting this? When we ought to be most awake, the church has fallen asleep. When we ought to be most active, we find many backsliden, weak, compromising, and scoffers. An amoral public has bred immoral leadership.

People wonder why the United States is not mentioned in prophecy; I have given my opinion that -simply put- “You can’t have a free country, and a one world government.” We have fallen far and fast, from the most powerful force to emerge from the cataclysm known as WWII, to a groveling, amoral, corrupt, weak cistern.   HOLD YOUR VOTES!

It has been said that we’re an  “80% Christian” nation … Let that sink in for a moment.

What percentage would you guess were Christian in 1946? (rhetorical question) Would there even be a second’s thought that -other than Judiasm- we all ascribed to the Author and finisher of our faith and his father, who is so sacred to Jews, that his name can’t be written out except as “G-d”?  We were far from  perfect, yet we were a beacon of light to the rest of the world; why else would France have  bestowed on us the symbol known today as the Statue of Liberty?  That we have allowed Islam to take root knowing their attitude that “all infidels are to be converted, or killed” is insanity.

This year, the NDAA in particular, and many other acts, in violation of the Constitution; have brought us to the brink of being the police state that the German republic became in 1932.  The National Socialist German Workers’ Party,    (Nazi stands for “Nationalsozialist“) implemented gun control, thereby being able to usurp control by knowing exactly who owned guns, and how many.

Combine this with the Globalist agenda by the U.N. and you have the prescription for a pivitol change in the course of history. Given that all our efforts to get rid of Obama succeed, the destruction already done to the Constitution and our freedoms may be irreversible.  Scripture admonishes us to be watchful.  

1 Peter 5:8-11 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

8Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.

9Whom resist ye, strong in faith: knowing that the same affliction befalls your brethren who are in the world.

10But the God of all grace, who hath called us into his eternal glory in Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a little, will himself perfect you, and confirm you, and establish you.

11To him be glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen.

2 Timothy 4:2-4  Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

2Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.

3For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:

4And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.

Apostacy, one of the last requirements prior to God the Father informing His son “it’s time” is now apparent, not just isolated incidents.

I hope Iran’s high  council stays its hand; but I fear that despite international outcry, Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani’s fate might be sealed.

In my humble opinion, we have awaken too late.  Those of us who own guns may soon see the day of becoming the first targets of a government made all too powerful by complacency and neglect.  The mechanism that accelerates prophecy, the “sorrows” in Matthew, over the top;  thus catapulting the mystery man -a religious/political figure- who will become  the Antichrist to power. 

Ephesians 6:10-13 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

10Finally, brethren, be strengthened in the Lord, and in the might of his power.

11Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil.

12For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.

13Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect.