End of Independence Day

Amnesty Capitulation Assures A Failed Society

After decades of documenting the mad consequences of an “Open Borders” policy, voices of rational and sane immigration, ready themselves for definitive betrayal from their phony conservative brethren. Mark Krikorian, Roy Beck, Peter Brimelow and Pat Buchanan have waged the crusade to save the nation from the forces of greedy corporatists and demented egalitarianism. Proponents of limitless immigration are committed to the unilateral destruction of what once made America, “A City upon a Hill“.The inauspicious application of previous illegal immigration amnesty is irrefutable. Even the Gipper resigned himself to Ronald Reagan’s Biggest Mistake – According to Reagan Himself on Ronald Reagan immigration amnesty, “Ronald Reagan was not comfortable with amnesty. He was pro-enforcement, and he admitted to Edwin Meese that the biggest mistake of his presidency was to sign the 1986 amnesty.”

The Radical Reactionary essay, The Gang of Eight Immigration Constituency, sums up the plight thusly, “The hype that meaningful security of the borders would be an important aspect of this Senate initiative ignores the countless promises previously pronounced that the first duty of the federal government is to secure the nation.”

A report in the Washington Times, Border security deal boosts immigration bill’s chances in Senate, signals Iacta alea est – translated, “The die is cast.”

“Senators struck a deal Thursday to boost border security in the immigration bill, including building 700 miles of fence and adding 20,000 Border Patrol agents to the Southwest, in a move those on both sides say could clear the way for a bipartisan vote next week.”

The next complicity cover comes from the bureaucratic CBO accomplice.

For the White House spin on the , the rosy fruits of the globalist economy are never mentioned. The projected convalescence in public debt is beyond credulity.

“CBO estimates that fixing our broken immigration system will reduce federal deficits by about $200 billion over the next 10 years, and about $700 billion in the second decade. The CBO analysis made clear that the additional taxes paid by new and legalizing immigrants would not only offset any new spending, but would be substantial enough to reduce the deficit over the 20-year window.”

In an accurate assessment of this same account, Neil Munro points out the obvious in the Daily Caller article; CBO says immigration bill aids investors, not wage earners.

“The Senate’s pending immigration bill would boost investors’ and owners’ share of the economy for at least twenty years, and shrink some Americans’ wages and salaries for at least 10 years, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office.”The rate of return on capital would be higher [than on labor] under the legislation than under current law throughout the next two decades,” says the report, titled “The Economic Impact of S. 744.”

 

Now review the video from the Heritage Foundation on . You can trust Krikorian, Beck, Brimelow and Buchanan on the immigration issue, so why not acknowledge that the Heritage’s assessment on the actual costs from the amnesty legislation is the valid appraisal.

Kudos to one Senator, Ted Cruz Launches National Petition Against Gang of Eight’s Bill, who is rallying grassroots opposition to this amnesty bill. He urges citizens to sign the petition demanding REAL border security. What is the saying – a little short and a couple of generation too late?So, who has the guts to stop this lunacy?

Usually, fair-minded citizens look to the House of Representatives to safeguard the national interest. Even so, what does the Speaker say: John Boehner: ‘Bipartisan’ immigration reform only way, “And while the rest of his party maligns the Congressional Budget Office’s report on the economic benefits of immigration reform, Boehner said: “If in fact those numbers are anywhere close to being accurate, it’ll be a real boon for the country.”It should be apparent that the entire political process, held hostage to international corporatism, wants to destroy the domestic economy. Slave labor wages, ensured by an endless flow of low skilled immigrants is a formula for national destruction.

The Washington Watcher in VDARE article, Conservatism Inc. Using IRS Scandal To Mask Amnesty Drive, laments the cold hard facts that the establishment speaks with one voice on destroying the remains of a common law republic.

“After the Citizens United ruling, I warned on VDARE.com: “No matter what the constitutional merits of the Supreme Court’s decision, this could be a disaster for patriotic immigration reform.”

If you listen to conservative talk radio, you will certainly be familiar with ads from the 501(c)4, Americans for a Conservative Direction, funded by that great conservative Mark Zuckerberg, claiming that Gang of 8 Amnesty-Surge bill is really “toughest immigration-enforcement measures in the history of the United States” and gives us “border security on steroids.” And, of course, Crossroads has its own blitz of pro-amnesty ads, and a coalition of big money GOP donors who support amnesty.”

Amnesty is tantamount to the elimination of the last remains of the middle class. The prospect of derailing this juggernaut through Congressional action is inconceivable as long as cowardly conservatives capitulate to their corporate donors. Even more absurd are the lobotomized liberals. They purport to be champions of the worker, but are willing and eager to destroy any meaningful employment for their own compatriots.

Where is that elusive fairness for our own citizens? Soon the remnant economy will be reduced to the same level of third world exploitation, with the United States being the biggest loser. No wonder that the media presstitutes over at NBC, push their hit program – by the same name – to a dullard public.

Facts no longer matter to most masses. Understanding their self-interest is even more obscure. Exploiters use these shortcomings to their advantage. Accepting an amnesty capitulation illustrates the triumph of global corporatists over the merchant class that built the wealth creation economy. For this reason alone, it is imperative that sane citizens demand a reasonable and rational rejection of the proposed Senate bill.

The latest appeal from NumbersUSA says: Hold Nothing Back.

“Now, amnesty proponents know they have to shake up the game. The latest trick is an amendment by Sens. Corker (R-TN) and Hoeven (R-SD). The amendment solves nothing; the amnesty will still come before enforcement. It’s simply a ruse to give the impression that the bill has changed since all of your calls and faxes were sent.

We now expect a vote on the Corker-Hoeven amendment on Monday and a final vote on Thursday. Both need 60 votes for passage. Before Thursday’s vote, we need all our members to call their senators and tell them you still oppose amnesty before enforcement!

There has NEVER been a vote in Congress as critical for preserving America and its prosperity. This bill simply cannot pass. We’re glad that hundreds of thousands of you have used NumbersUSA’s toll-free calls, free services, and we are so grateful for your activism.”

How many Americans will gets off their back side and challenge their Senators? Register an ultimatum. A vote in favor of amnesty means all out political war. Any incumbent that refuses to secure the borders needs to face a serious primary challenge. Nevertheless, perceptive political onlookers have a chilling feeling that this round of legislation will be the toughest to defeat.

The reason is simple. The secular society is rooted in self-destruction. Common sense no longer has a place in the immigration hysteria. Relinquishing traditional standards and historic values in representative government has produced a Congress that walk lock step in unison with big business.

The opportunity culture has become the entitlement society.

Even a militant NeoCon like Ann Coulter can be correct once in a while, when she acknowledges, U.S. ‘finished’ if amnesty passes.

“If amnesty passes, is it time to ditch the GOP and start a new party? (Or would it already be too late?)

Too late. If the Rubio amnesty bill passes, the country will be finished. There will be no point in fighting for anything anymore. All we will have left to do is take revenge on the people who destroyed this country, starting with desecrating Teddy Kennedy’s grave and moving on to primarying every Republican who voted for it.”

There is a death wish bent on collapsing the productive economy. Transnational businesses want an implosion and the inevitable reduction and permanent subsistence level of wage scales. The mercantilist is in the business of manufacturing monopolies.

After eons of debating the particulars of the negative consequences inevitable from accepting any and all of those hallowed huddled masses, by skipping the Ellis Island examination, the final extermination of the American experiment is in sight. That profound are the stakes.

The public fears the label of racist, and shuns a healthy aspiration that earns the respect of defenders of our noble heritage. For many, surrendering to authoritarian progressivism is a badge of dishonor, but most view such submission as a small price to pay to be accepted.

The Whistleblowers Are The New Generation of American Patriots

The violation of civil liberties in the name of security has had a profound impact on those who came of age after 9/11…

When Darrell Anderson, 22, joined the US military he knew there was going to be a war, and he wanted to fight it. “I thought I was going to free Iraqi people,” he told me. “I thought I was going to do a good thing.”

Until, that is, he realised precisely what he had to do. While on patrol in Baghdad, he thought: “What are we doing here? Are we looking for weapons of mass destruction? No. Are we helping the people? No, they hate us. What are we working towards, apart from just staying alive? If this was my neighbourhood and foreign soldiers were doing this then what would I be doing?” Within a few months, he says, “I was cocking my weapon at innocent civilians without any sympathy or humanity”. While home on leave he realised he was not going to be able to lead a normal life if he went back. His mum drove him to Canada, where I met him in 2006 at a picnic for war resisters in Fort Erie.

Anderson’s trajectory, from uncritical patriotism to conscious disaffection and finally to conscientious dissent, is a familiar one among a generation of Americans who came of political age after 9/11. Over time, efforts to balance the myth of American freedom on which they were raised, with the reality of American power that they have been called on to monitor or operate, causes a profound dislocation in their world view. Like a meat eater in an abattoir, they are forced to confront the brutality of the world they are implicated in and recoil at their role in it – occasionally in dramatic fashion.

It is from this generation that the most recent prominent whistleblowers have emerged: Edward Snowden, 29, the former National Security Agency contractor, now on the run after passing evidence of mass snooping to the Guardian; Bradley Manning, who at 22 gave classified diplomatic and military information to WikiLeaks and now faces a court martial; the late Aaron Swartz, who by 24 was a veteran hacker when he was arrested for illegally downloading academic articles from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and later took his own life; and , 28, who is facing federal criminal charges for allegedly publicising the internal files of a private spying agency.

Just as America’s military record abroad, complete with torture and “collateral damage”, has helped push a section of disaffected Muslim youth across the globe towards terrorism, so the violation of civil liberties and privatisation of information has driven a number of disillusioned Americans to law-breaking dissent at home.

In a 2008 book, The Way We’ll Be, US pollster John Zogby categorised this age cohort as . Tracking everything from views on gay marriage to propensity to travel, he described young Americans aged 18-29 as “the most outward-looking and accepting generation in American history”. Unfazed by social diversity at home, they held more open attitudes towards the rest of the world. They were far more likely to travel abroad than others, have friends or family overseas, and to be aware of international politics. “[They] might not be more able than other age cohorts to point to Darfur on a map,” argued Zogby, “but they at least know there is a Darfur, and they care what’s happening there.”

The perpetual war and accompanying “anti-terror” security structure after 9/11 is all this generation has ever known. And it has had a profound impact on shaping their views on US foreign policy.

In 2007, 63% (significantly higher than any other age group) disagreed with the statement “I support my country, right or wrong”. In 2004, 86% thought “an imperialist power that acts on its own regardless of what the rest of the world thinks” was improper or somewhat improper, while just 3% thought the opposite. On the latter question, Zogby wrote: “No other group we studied, not Democrats nor self-described progressives, not readers of the New York Times, had a greater spread between the two extremes.” It is in this context that the defiance and determination of these young people must be understood.

One could make too much of their age as a unifying factor. Since these leaks demand proficiency with new technology, those involved are bound to be younger. And older people, with families, careers and pensions, are less likely to do things they know will put them in jail or force them to flee. Moreover, for all the similarities between them, there are significant differences. Snowden contributed money to Republican libertarian Ron Paul’s campaign; Hammond describes himself as an “anarchist-communist”.

Yet, while each acted separately from the other, their unrepentant justifications read as though they were unconsciously working in concert. “I believe people have a right to know what governments and corporations are doing behind closed doors,” wrote Hammond.

“We need to take information,” wrote Swartz. “Wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world.”

“This is the truth. This is what is happening,” said Snowden. “You should decide whether we need to be doing this.”

Manning said: “I want people to see the truth, because without information you cannot make informed decisions as a public.”

They seek to liberate not land or people, but information. The state seeks to criminalise them as spies. But it wasn’t treachery but patriotism (once blind, now wide-eyed, and arguably always misplaced) that brought most of them to this point. Their aim was neither to enrich themselves nor to aid a foreign power, but to make the power in which they invested much of their identity – America – more transparent, knowledgeable, accountable and honourable.

Anderson, Manning and Snowden, for example, all joined the military-security sector after Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib were in the public domain. They knew what could be done in America’s name. They just never thought they would be put in a position where they would have to choose between doing it, concealing it or exposing it. Raised in the true American ideal that an individual can make a difference, they spoke up.

Forced to choose between allegiance to the flag and uniform, and loyalty to the ideals the flag is supposed to represent and the uniform is supposed to defend, they chose the latter. Their defiance stems from the fact that, in acting as they have, they don’t believe they’ve let down America. They believe they had to act because America was letting itself down.

Source: Gary Younge | The Guardian

Secret Service Invades Home Of Obama Critic Over Twitter Followers

Tom Francois was visited by the Secret Service merely because he posted anti-Obama messages for his “large”Twitter following to read. I am sick and tired of looking out the window to see if Old Glory is still flying to reaffirm my shaky belief that I still reside in America. Francois never threatened the president; he simply lambasts and lampoons his actions, facial expressions, and unconstitutional policies. The most thin-skinned president in the history of the Republic has proven once again that he has nothing but disdain for the First Amendment.

The Secret Service agents arrived at the home of  and asked if they could come inside and take a look around. Noting that he had nothing to hide and not wanting to see his things tossed about if the agents were forced to wait for a warrant, the avid political cartoon creator let the men inside. Francois maintains that while he loathes Barack Obama’s policies, he has never threatened his being in any way, shape, or form. I scanned hundreds of Francois’ tweets (which were the cited reasons for the Secret Service agents arriving on the blogger’s porch), and saw nothing violent—just the same angst felt by millions of Constitution-loving patriots.

Francois was reportedly told by the Secret Service agents that his large Twitter following was a concern. While Tom does have a sizeable number of followers, his numbers do not make him anywhere near a household name – perhaps that is what President Obama was trying to prevent.

The Secret Service agents asked Francois to sign an Authorization to Review Medical and Mental Health Records form after a search premises document was signed. Tom signed the forms simply to facilitate matters so future visits would not be necessary. While the decision was both pragmatic and understandable, an American citizen should not feel compelled to share their medical and mental health records with the government simply because they exercised their First Amendment rights in front of 11,692 Twitterfollowers.

While the blogger’s signature was still drying on the intrusive documents, he was asked if he ever left his home state or traveled to Washington, D.C. The next question will not come as a shocker considering the current political climate. Secret Service agents asked Tom Francois is he owned any guns. President Obama apparently does not like either the First Amendment or the Second Amendment, and would probably be thrilled if we could just throw out the entire Constitution. A multitude of liberals feel the text the greatest nation in the world was founded upon is merely an outdated document anyway, so why would a Socialist-leaning president even bother to follow the freedom-ensuring dictates?

The True Christian Heritage and Christian Ideals That Are Woven Into The Very Fabric Of The Constitution…

According to Tom Francois, Secret Service agents asked him if he had any intentions of “whacking” President Obama. The political cartoonist had this to say in response and during an Examiner interview:

“Of course not. I wish him no harm. I disagree with his policies and actions and I make no bones about it. It’s my First Amendment right and I intend to exercise it. I flat out told them I have never threatened Obama’s life! Yes, I despise him as you can plainly see, but I have that right! They actually admitted and agreed with me that I hadn’t threatened Obama. Yes, I am extremely critical of Obama in my posts, but I never cross the line and threaten his being. Ever. It’s just the idea of Obama’s Secret Service intruding on my life when they knew I wasn’t really a threat.”

The FBI reportedly compiled a thick file comprised of screenshots of Tom Francois’ Twitter posts. The agents also wanted to see the gun which a background check had already revealed Tom owned. When asked if they were loaded, Francois gave the same answer that any gun owner would utter, “What good are guns if they aren’t loaded?”

According to Tom, the Secret Service had this to say when he asked about why he was being harassed:

“They were concerned that since I have a large Twitter following, the things I said could be acted upon by some nut case out there! What the hell? They turned my life upside down for that?”

Francois also maintains that one Secret Service agent told him to be mindful of his actions, that “stepping over the line” means they will be back for his guns. Despite how much I loathe everything President Obama stands for, I would agree that any person who threatens the life of the president deserves to be in jail and have their world turned upside down – but only when such a violent threat has been made. A sarcastic cartoon posted on Twitter does not even come close to reaching a warrantless search or gun confiscation warning threshold.

The consent to search form Secret Service agents presented to Tom Francois allowed the men to search his computers, software, hardware, cell phones, date storage, and recording devices. The NSA could have saved the president’s men some time and just handed over all of Francois’ communications, since they have a massive facility filled with nearly all the same information on every single American citizen.

The privacy intrusion and trampling on the First Amendment did not end at Tom’s home. The Secret Service agents also paid a visit to his 22-year-old daughter’s house. The young woman was reportedly terrified about, not just what was unfolding in front of her, but for the safety of her father. The political cartoonist’s daughter stated that the agents told her that all the information would be turned over to Eric Holder, because he has the final word on what to do—if anything.

Yes boys and girls, if you or any other Americans listen to or view your non-threatening anti-Obama sentiments, you too could have Secret Service agents pounding on your front door. I hate, literally hate, that President Obama’s actions and policies have forced me to write (on numerous occasions) articles which can cast dedicated heroes like the Secret Service and police officers in a negative light. These brave men and women should never be ordered to undertake unconstitutional endeavors which put them at odds with their oath and the American people. The land of the free is becoming a tyrannical police state under the watchful guidance of the Obama administration.

Source: Off The Grid News

Government To Pulpit: Shut Up

The relationship between the throne and the pulpit has always been a tenuous one at best. Since the days of Melchisedec, God intended that the office of priest and king be separate. Old Testament kings learned the hard way not to intrude into the priest’s office. God clearly intended that His prophets be free and independent men who possessed as much courage as they did faith. Reading the scriptural record of the Old Testament reveals that the prophecies and warnings of the prophets were aimed as much at the throne as at the village. And, more often than not, these prophecies were not well received (putting it mildly) by ancient Israel’s equivalent to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

King Amaziah commanded the prophet Amos to “prophesy not.” King Jeroboam I attempted to seize, with the intent to kill, the prophet. Fortunately, God miraculously protected His man. King Ahab looked everywhere for Elijah with the intent to kill him. Queen Jezebel tried to kill Elijah, as well. Ahab’s last act was to imprison the prophet Micaiah. Ahab’s son, King Ahaziah, tried to arrest Elijah three times and lost over 100 men in the process. Ahab’s second son, King Jehoram, tried to kill the prophet Elisha. King Joash killed Zechariah. King Amaziah beat God’s prophet into silence. King Jehoiakim killed Uriah. The prophet Jeremiah spent more time in prison than he did out. Israel’s kings falsely accused him, hated him, mocked him, persecuted him, and repeatedly imprisoned him. They even attempted to murder him, and without divine protection, would no doubt have succeeded. The prophets Amos, Micah, and Isaiah all record Israel’s kings as telling them to “prophesy not,” or in modern parlance, to “shut up.”

So egregious were the persecutions against God’s prophets by Israel’s kings that Jesus stood outside the capital city of Jerusalem and declared, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee.” (Matthew 23:37 KJV)

Likewise, the early church was birthed in a baptism of persecution. And the story of the church throughout history has, for the most part, been one of governmental persecution, oppression, and tyranny against believers. Some of them were unable to defend themselves and were led away as sheep to the slaughter. Others resisted with force. Of these, some prevailed, threw off the oppressor, and lived in peace; while some fell on the battlefield, choosing to die as free men than live as slaves.

The history of America reflects the struggle of religious men to live free of the king’s tyranny. First, the pilgrims came to these shores fleeing persecution. Then, the patriots bled and died on these shores fighting persecution. The result was a land of liberty in whose founding documents are enshrined the eternal principles of liberty. Chief among those principles was the divine principle that the throne must stay out of the pulpit, that no more could the king tell the prophet to shut up.

But there is more than one way to silence a man. If coercion and intimidation won’t work, bribery is always an option. Back in the 1950s, then Texas US Senator Lyndon Johnson cleverly employed both tactics when he introduced and helped pass what we now know as the 501c3 non-profit, tax-exempt corporation status for churches. Suddenly, free and independent church bodies became creatures of the state. Pastors, elders, deacons, etc., were no longer offices of the church; they were now corporate officers, authorized and sanctioned by the state.

Just as Ahab had his gaggle of bought-and-paid-for prophets, so, too, now Lyndon Johnson and his fellow would-be kings had successfully bought and paid for the silence of the pulpit. And the perks were good. These state-owned preachers were able to launch radio and television programs, build schools and universities, and enjoy the approbation of heads of state. Wealthy corporate heads were happy to provide vast sums of money to these state-approved “ministries.” The state even generously provided faith-based taxpayer money to their approved churches. Compliant pastors were called to the White House for lavish banquets and private meetings. The marriage between throne and pulpit was complete. It was a small price to pay: all the prophets had to do was “shut up.”

Brothers and sisters, that’s why your pastor will not “Cry aloud, spare not, [and] lift up [his] voice like a trumpet.” (Isaiah 58:1). That’s why he will not rebuke Ahab or Herod. That’s why he will not talk about “politics.” That’s why he will not preach the hard sermons. That’s why he refuses to read the books or watch the videos you give him. That’s why he tells the church family to stay away from you. That’s why he warns his flock to not listen to Chuck Baldwin. That’s why he rolls his eyes at the mere mention of the word “conspiracy.” He is a hireling of Caesar. He is bought and paid for by the government’s 501c3 tax-exempt bribe.

Just as Pharaoh had the religious wizards Jannes and Jambres to withstand Moses, modern heads of state have their religious wizards to stand against those patriot-pastors who dare to oppose them. These hireling-wizards even dare to proclaim that America’s Founding Fathers were sinful when they resisted the tyranny of King George. They mingle the magic potion of pacifism by twisting Romans 13 and other scriptures to promote the damnable doctrine of submission to oppression. If they mention the great Swiss reformer Zwingli at all, they fail to mention that he died on the battlefield–sword in hand–defending religious liberty. They condemn the heroic efforts of courageous preachers such as Germany’s Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller. They cast aspersion upon the sacrifices of American patriot-pastors such as Jonas Clark, James Caldwell, John Peter Muhlenberg, Joab Houghton, John Witherspoon, and John Leland. Yes, they are willing to sacrifice the lives and liberties of their own offspring in order to eat well at the king’s table. And eat well they do.

Everyone now seems concerned about the way the IRS sought to intimidate and punish “conservative” non-profits groups. But why should this surprise us? The IRS has been the chief instrument of coercion against America’s churches for over a half-century. And where is the outrage among America’s Christians for the way their pastors have been intimidated and bribed into silence by this monstrous agency? If America’s churches had any guts, they would stand up now and demand that the IRS, along with its infernal 501c3 code, be forever abolished.

Jesus said that a man cannot serve two masters–neither can a church. The church cannot be the property of the state and the property of Christ at the same time. Its loyalty is to one or the other. A pastor cannot be the prophet of God and the hireling of men at the same time. And the scripture is clear: “Be not ye the servants of men.” (I Corinthians 7:23)

There was a time in America when we had pastors and preachers in the similitude of Old Testament prophets. They were men who helped forge a land of freedom. Furthermore, they helped insure that in the United States there was “No king but Jesus.” They feared no one but God, and they loved liberty from the depths of their souls. And they made sure that in this country no civil magistrate could ever tell the pulpit to “shut up.” What ever happened to those men?

Storm Clouds Gathering

Government is bad for personal freedom. That argument is premised upon the truism that everything government does interferes with freedom because it either prohibits or compels. Everything it owns it has taken from others. Much of what it says is divorced from the truth. President Obama, like President George W. Bush, has argued that his first job is to keep America safe, and if he impairs personal freedom in the process, that is a small price to pay for safety. Many of my colleagues in the media on the left and right have bought this argument, notwithstanding its fallacies.

Until now.

This past week, we learned that the IRS has targeted for additional scrutiny the tax exemption applications of groups with whose messages it disagrees. We also learned that the Department of Justice obtained the personal telephone records of hundreds of reporters and editors employed by the Associated Press without a search warrant issued by a judge. And during this past week we learned that the White House, the Department of State and the CIA all engaged in a conspiracy of disinformation so that the official version of events of what caused the murders of four Americans at our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, would not impair Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012.

The common threads in all of this government secrecy and lying are a general rejection of government’s moral obligation to tell the truth, a disturbing yet brazen willingness to evade and avoid the restrictions the Constitution has deliberately built around government, and a glib admission that the government can do as it pleases so long as it can politically get away with it.

The Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause requires that the government treat all similarly situated entities in a similar manner. The Constitution’s First Amendment prohibits the government from using the speech and expressive activities of persons in America as a basis for the disparate treatment of them.

Thus, on its face – that is, on the basis of what the IRS has admitted and without any further investigation – we have violations of these constitutional principles. If the IRS were to examine the applications for tax exemption of Media Matters with the same level of scrutiny as it does with Tea Party Patriots, it would not run afoul of these principles. But Congress has given the IRS broad latitude to scrutinize the behavior of the taxpayers it chooses to scrutinize, and the IRS has given itself authority to probe, prod and plunder wherever it wishes. I say “given itself,” because the IRS has rule-making power, which when overlooked by Congress (as is almost always the case) actually serves to enhance IRS powers beyond what Congress permits.

Short of criminal behavior such as bribery or conspiracy, the IRS employees who have singled out applications for tax exempt status for more scrutiny based on anticipated political expression are subject to removal from office, but they cannot be prosecuted or sued. Here again, Congress is to blame, as both Republicans and Democrats have used and abused the IRS to their advantage, and neither party inwardly wants laws that will prevent it from doing so in the future. Is this what you expect of our tax collectors?

The First Amendment also assures the right of professional journalists to seek and protect their sources, and it gives them immunity from government prosecution or retribution for truthfully publishing matters of material public interest, even when it involves information stolen from the government. The Supreme Court taught us this in the Pentagon Papers case.

Moreover, the Fourth Amendment requires that if the government wants private information about who stole its secrets, it needs a search warrant from a judge. But the Patriot Act, which was celebrated by some in the media whose telephone records have since been seized, permits federal agents to write their own search warrants when they seek records from a third party like a telephone company and can claim that pursuit of terrorists is at stake. The Patriot Act makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment, and the government knows that. When the government chills free speech, we all suffer. Thomas Jefferson preferred newspapers without government to government without newspapers. Whose personal records will the government authorize itself to seize next?

The lesson of Benghazi is that we had no lawful right to interfere in the domestic affairs of the Libyan government. It was unlawful for Obama to bomb Col. Gadhafi without a congressional declaration of war. The organized assault on our consulate was the unintended consequence of us using force to infuse American-style democracy on a people whose culture is unable and unwilling to accept it.

But the president’s people were terrified that the murder of our ambassador to Libya during the 2012 presidential campaign might impair Obama’s re-election chances. So they and he tried to rewrite history, and the more they and he lied the more they and he needed to lie to cover up their original lies. Would you retain an employee who lied to you about the deaths of innocents and lied more to cover up the original lies?

Now, back to Bush and Obama and the president’s job. According to the Constitution, the president’s first job obligation is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. According to the Constitution, that means preserving Americans’ freedom first and safety second. Freedom is our natural state and is the ultimate natural right. Safety is a need that we ourselves can provide when unimpeded by the government. If the president keeps us safe but not free, he is not doing his job. Do you know anyone who feels freer or even any safer because the government trampled personal freedoms and so far has gotten away with it?

Source: Andrew Napalitano |LewRockwell.com

Take It From The Rabbi’s Mouth

Every so often we come across a secular Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist’  who argues that Zionism is not Judaism and vice versa. Interestingly enough, I have just come across an invaluable text that illuminates this question from a rabbinical perspective. Apparently back in 1942, 757 American Rabbis added their names to a public pronouncement titled ‘Zionism an Affirmation of Judaism’. This Rabbinical rally for Zionism was declared at the time “the largest public pronouncement in all Jewish history.”

Today, we tend to believe that world Jewry’s transition towards support for Israel followed the 1967 war though some might  argue that already in 1948, American Jews manifested a growing support for Zionism. However, this rabbinical pronouncement proves that as early as 1942, the American Jewish religious establishment was already deeply Zionist. And if this is not enough, the rabbis also regarded Zionism as the ‘implementation’ of Judaism. Seemingly, already then, the peak of World War two, the overwhelming majority of American Rabbis regarded Zionism, not only as fully consistent with Judaism, but as a “logical expression and implementation of it.”

In spite of the fact that early Zionist leaders were largely secular and the East European Jewish settler waves were driven by Jewish socialist ideology, the rabbis contend that “Zionism is not a secularist movement. It has its origins and roots in the authoritative religious texts of Judaism.

Those rabbis were not a bunch of ignoramuses. They were patriotic and nationalistic and they grasped that “universalism is not a contradiction of nationalism.” The rabbis tried to differentiate between contemporaneous German Nationalism and other national movements and they definitely wanted to believe that Zionism was categorically different to Nazism. “Nationalism as such, whether it be English, French, American or Jewish, is not in itself evil. It is only militaristic and chauvinistic nationalism, that nationalism which shamelessly flouts all mandates of international morality, which is evil.” But as we know, just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz the new Jewish State launched a devastating racially driven ethnic-cleansing campaign. Zionism has proven to be militaristic and chauvinistic.

Shockingly enough, back in 1942 as many as 757 American rabbis were able to predict the outcome of the war and they realised that the suffering of European Jewry would be translated into a Jewish State . “We are not so bold as to predict the nature of the international order which will emerge from the present war. It is altogether likely, and indeed it may be desirable, that all sovereign states shall under the coming peace surrender some of their sovereignty to achieve a just and peaceful world society (a Jewish State).”

Some American patriots today are concerned with Israeli-American dual nationality and the dual aspirations of American Jews. Apparently our rabbis addressed this topic too. According to them, there is no such conflict whatsoever. All American Jews are American patriots and all American decision makers are Zionists. “Every fair-minded American knows that American Jews have only one political allegiance–and that is to America. There is nothing in Zionism to impair this loyalty. Zionism has been endorsed in our generation by every President from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and has been approved by the Congress of the United States. The noblest spirits in American life, statesmen, scholars, writers, ministers and leaders of labor and industry, have lent their sympathy and encouragement to the movement.”

Back in 1942 our American rabbis were bold enough to state that defeating Hitler was far from sufficient. For them, a full solution of the Jewish question could only take place in Palestine. “Jews, and all non-Jews who are sympathetically interested in the plight of Jewry, should bear in mind that the defeat of Hitler will not of itself normalize Jewish life in Europe. “

But there was one thing the American rabbis failed to mention – the Palestinian people. For some reason, those rabbis who knew much about ‘universalism’ and in particular Jewish ‘universalism’ showed very little concern to the people of the land. I guess that after all, chosennss is a form of blindness and rabbis probably know more about this than anyone else.

Zionism: An Affirmation of Judaism

http://zionistsout.blogspot.com/2008/03/zionism-affirmation-of-judaism.html

ZIONISM AN AFFIRMATION OF JUDAISM A Reply by 757 Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Rabbis of America to a Statement Issued by Ninety Members of the Reform Rabbinate Charging That Zionism Is Incompatible with the Teachings of Judaism

THE SUBJOINED REPLY was prepared at the initiative of the following Rabbis who submitted it to their colleagues throughout the country for signature: Philip S. Bernstein, Barnett R. Brickner, Israel Goldstein, James G. Heller, Mordecai M. Kaplan, B. L. Levinthal, Israel H. Levinthal, Louis M. Levitsky, Joshua Loth Liebman, Joseph H. Lookstein, Jacob R. Marcus, Abraham A. Neuman, Louis I. Newman, David de Sola Pool, Abba Hillel Silver, Milton Steinberg, and Stephen S. Wise.

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RABBIS of all elements in American Jewish religious life, have noted with concern a statement by ninety of our colleagues in which they repudiate Zionism on the ground that it is inconsistent with Jewish religious and moral doctrine.This statement misrepresents Zionism and misinterprets historic Jewish religious teaching, and we should be derelict in our duty if we did not correct the misapprehensions which it is likely to foster.

We call attention in the first place to the fact that the signatories to this statement, for whom as fellow-Rabbis we have a high regard, represent no more than a very small fraction of the American rabbinate. They constitute a minority even of the rabbinate of Reform Judaism with which they are associated. The overwhelming majority of American Rabbis regard Zionism not only as fully consistent with Judaism but as a logical expression and implementation of it.

Our colleagues concede the need for Jewish immigration into Palestine as contributing towards a solution of the vast tragedy of Jewish homelessness. They profess themselves ready to encourage such settlement. They are aware of the important achievements, social and spiritual, of the Palestinian Jewish community and they pledge to it their unstinted support. And yet, subscribing to every practical accomplishment of Zionism, they have embarked upon a public criticism of it. In explanation of their opposition they advance the consideration that Zionism is nationalistic and secularistic. On both scores they maintain it is incompatible with the Jewish religion and its universalistic outlook. They protest against the political emphasis which, they say, is now paramount in the Zionist program and which, according to them, tends to confuse both Jews and Christians as to the place and function of the Jewish group in American society. They appeal to the prophets of ancient Israel for substantiation of their views.

TREASURING the doctrines and moral principles of our faith no less than they, devoted equally to America and its democratic processes and spirit, we nonetheless find every one of their contentions totally without foundation.

Zionism is not a secularist movement. It has its origins and roots in the authoritative religious texts of Judaism. Scripture and rabbinical literature alike are replete with the promise of the restoration of Israel to its ancestral home. Anti-Zionism, not Zionism, is a departure from the Jewish religion. Nothing in the entire pronouncement of our colleagues is more painful than their appeal to the prophets of Israel—to those very prophets whose inspired and recorded words of national rebirth and restoration nurtured and sustained the hope of Israel throughout the ages.

Nor is Zionism a denial of the universalistic teachings of Judaism. Universalism is not a contradiction of nationalism. Nationalism as such, whether it be English, French, American or Jewish, is not in itself evil. It is only militaristic and chauvinistic nationalism, that nationalism which shamelessly flouts all mandates of international morality, which is evil. The prophets of Israel looked forward to the time not when all national entities would be obliterated, but when all nations would walk in the light of the Lord, live by His law and learn war no more.

Our colleagues find themselves unable to subscribe to the political emphasis “now paramount in the Zionist program.” We fail to perceive what it is to which they object. Is it to the fact that there are a regularly constituted Zionist organization and a Jewish Agency which deal with the mandatory government, the Colonial office, the League of Nations and other recognized political bodies? But obviously, even immigration and colonization are practical matters which require political action. The settlement of a half million Jews in Palestine since the last war was made possible by political action which culminated in the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate. There can be little hope of opening the doors of Palestine for mass Jewish immigration after the war without effective political action. Or is it that they object to the ultimate achievement by the Jewish community of Palestine of some form of Jewish statehood? We are not so bold as to predict the nature of the international order which will emerge from the present war. It is altogether likely, and indeed it may be desirable, that all sovereign states shall under the coming peace surrender some of their sovereignty to achieve a just and peaceful world society.

Certainly our colleagues will allow to the Jews of Palestine the same rights that are allowed to all other peoples resident on their own land. If Jews should ultimately come to constitute a majority of the population of Palestine, would our colleagues suggest that all other peoples in the post-war world shall be entitled to political self-determination, whatever form that may take, but the Jewish people in Palestine shall not have such a right? Or do they mean to suggest that the Jews in Palestine shall forever remain a minority in order not to achieve such political self-determination?

PROTESTING their sympathy both for the homeless Jews of the world and for their brethren in Palestine, our colleagues have by their pronouncement done all these a grave disservice. It may well be that to the degree to which their efforts arc at all effective, Jews who might otherwise have found a haven in Palestine will be denied one. The enemies of the Jewish homeland will be strengthened in their propaganda as a result of the aid which these Rabbis have given them. To the Jews of Palestine, facing the gravest danger in their history and fighting hard to maintain morale and hope in the teeth of the totalitarian menace, this pronouncement comes as a cruel blow.

We do not mean to imply that our colleagues intended it as such. We have no doubt that they are earnest about their fine spun theoretical objections to Zionism. We hold, however, that these objections have no merit, and further that voicing them at this time has been unwise and unkind.

We have not the least fear that our fellow Americans will be led to misconstrue the attitudes of American Jews to America because of their interest in Zionism. Every fair-minded American knows that American Jews have only one political allegiance–and that is to America. There is nothing in Zionism to impair this loyalty. Zionism has been endorsed in our generation by every President from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and has been approved by the Congress of the United States. The noblest spirits in American life, statesmen, scholars, writers, ministers and leaders of labor and industry, have lent their sympathy and encouragement to the movement.

Jews, and all non-Jews who are sympathetically interested in the plight of Jewry, should bear in mind that the defeat of Hitler will not of itself normalize Jewish life in Europe.

An Allied peace which will not frankly face the problem of the national homelessness of the Jewish people will leave the age-old tragic status of European Jewry unchanged. The Jewish people is in danger of emerging from this war not only more torn and broken than any other people, but also without any prospects of a better and more secure future and without the hope that such tragedies will not recur again, and again. Following an Allied victory, the Jews of Europe, we are confident, will be restored to their political rights and to equality of citizenship. But they possessed these rights after the last war and yet the past twenty-five years have witnessed a rapid and appalling deterioration in their position. In any case, even after peace is restored Europe will be so ravaged and war-torn that large masses of Jews will elect migration to Palestine as a solution of their personal problems.

 Indeed, for most of these there may be no other substantial hope of economic, social and spiritual rehabilitation.

THE freedom which, we have faith, will come to all men and nations after this war, must come not only to Jews as individuals wherever they live, permitting them to share freedom on a plane of equality with all other men, but also to the Jewish people, as such, restored in its homeland, where at long last it will be a free people within a world federation of free peoples.

Of the 757 Rabbis listed below, 214 are members of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (Reform); 247 are members of the Rabbinical Assembly of America (Conservative); and the rest are affiliated with the Rabbinical Council of America (Orthodox) or the Union of Orthodox Rabbis. The total represents the largest number of rabbis whose signatures are attached to a public pronouncement in all Jewish history.

To see the scanned image in PDF format with the list of signers, click here

Note: A version of the above statement was released to the press on November 20, 1942. By that time 818 rabbis had signed on. It appears in Samuel Halperin’s The Political World of American Zionism. (Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1961) 333.

Lions And Tigers And Terrorists, Oh My!

The debate over what actions actually constitute “terrorism,” I believe, will become one of the defining ideological battles of our era. Terrorism is not a word often used by common people to describe aberrant behaviors or dastardly deeds; however, it is used by governments around the world to label and marginalize political enemies. That is to say, it is the government that normally decides who is a “terrorist” and who is a mere “criminal,” the assertion being that one is clearly far worse than the other.

The terrorist label elicits emotional firestorms and fearful brain-quakes in the minds of the masses. It causes the ignorant and unaware to abandon principles they would normally apply to any other malicious enterprise. They begin to reason that a criminal should be afforded justice, while a terrorist should be afforded only vengeance, even though the act of branding a person a “terrorist” is often completely arbitrary. This vengeance is usually pursued by any means. Thus, the terrorist moniker becomes a rationalization for every vicious and inhuman policy of the establishment, as well as for the citizenry.

Dishonorable and foolish people claim the existence of terrorism essentially gives license for the rest of us to become criminal, willfully trampling on individuals’ rights to privacy, property, free speech, due process, civic participation, etc. Mass criminality against the individual in the name of social safety is the glue that holds together all tyrannical systems, triggering a catastrophic cycle of moral relativism that eventually bleeds a culture dry.

Historically, the expanded use of the terrorist label by governments tends to coincide with the rising tides of despotism. A government that quietly seeks to dominate the people will inevitably begin to treat the people as if they are the enemy. Those citizens who present the greatest philosophical or physical threat to the centralization of power are usually the first to suffer. I do not think it is unfair to say that any system of authority that suddenly claims to see terrorists under every rock and behind every tree is probably about to rain full-on fascism down upon the population.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is the legal extension of this process, with a vaporous gray language that allows the government to interpret it in any manner it deems useful, which conveniently allows it to interpret a wide range of “offenses” as acts of war against the state.

The Department of Homeland Security’s “If You See Something Say Something” campaign is the social extension of the process, by which it creates the framework for a paranoid self-censored surveillance culture.

The fusion center network is the enforcement extension designed to surround local and State police with an atmosphere of indoctrination and federalized dogma, teaching common cops to profile according to a template that is so ambiguous that literally any activity could be considered suspicious or terroristic.

All that is left for the establishment is to force the vocabulary of fear into mainstream consciousness. This means constant propaganda. This means furious hype. This means an utterly shameless barrage of false associations, misdirections and fantastical fairyland lies. This means that we have reached a point in the grand totalitarian scheme in which the American populace is about to be bombarded with an endless drone of terrorism brainwashing — not demonizing a foreign enemy, but demonizing the hypothetical extremist next door. In fact, the Boston Marathon bombing seems to have been the signal for an escalation of such rhetoric. The high-speed conditioning has already begun.

In Middlefield, Ohio, James Gilkerson, an unemployed man taking care of his elderly mother, was pulled over during a routine traffic stop only to exit his vehicle firing an AK-47 at police officers. The action was obviously unprovoked; the police responded with deadly force, and rightly so. I would have done the same. Gilkerson’s attack was crazy, yes. Criminal? Yes. But Middlefield Police Chief Arnold Stanko’s remarks to the press bring a whole other dark side to this already tragic event. Stanko stated that: “He got out of the vehicle, intending to kill my officers. We don’t know why he did it… He was a scumbag and a terrorist, and he’s dead.”

Stanko doesn’t know why Gilkerson fired at police, but he is certain that the man was a “terrorist.” What if Gilkerson was depressed or overmedicated or he just snapped that day? Terrorism denotes certain premeditation and planning. This attack was clearly not part of a malicious scheme, yet the label of “terrorist” is being thrown around nonchalantly, almost as if law enforcement has been trained to use such rhetoric whenever it suits them.

In Montevideo, Minn., the FBI recently raided the home of Buford Rogers, who was convicted of felony burglary in 2011. Authorities had received reports that Buford was in possession of a firearm, which is illegal for convicted felons. The raid did indeed produce firearms, as well as items the FBI dubbed “explosive devices.” They did not specify what these “explosive devices” were or if they actually posed a significant threat to anyone. After the bust, headlines read “FBI Thwarts Terror Attack.”

Again, there is absolutely no indication here of a planned attack. There’s no indication that Rogers had any intent to hurt anyone or even any ideological motivations to hurt anyone. Yet the terrorism label is used again to describe a routine criminal arrest.

In Tempe, Ariz., 18-year-old Joshua Prater was arrested after a maid found an “explosive device” in his closet and turned it in to authorities. Prater claims he built the device, consisting of a carbon dioxide cartridge, a fireworks fuse, gunpowder, match heads and fireworks, eight years ago; and he claims he was not aware it was dangerous. Police did not call Prater a terrorist, but they did refer to his device as an “IED,” which, as we all know, is the abbreviation used by U.S. soldiers to describe an “improvised explosive device,” the favorite weapon of insurgents and “terrorists” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such terminology is not coincidental. Make no mistake; this is a calculated effort to introduce the language of the battlefield to the streets of America.

Seattle police are now holding simulation drills of attacks on local schools in which law enforcement officials fight against gun-wielding proxy opponents posing as “angry parents.”

These kinds of drills are a part of a larger DHS program implemented through fusion centers which, in my view, is designed to desensitize law enforcement to violence against common citizens. Said drills have simulated conflicts with constitutionalists, home-schoolers, patriots and so on. Let’s be clear here; the “terrorists” that the police are now being trained to fight against are people like you and me. We are being painted as the future enemy.

Just to solidify this reality, I will also point out the recent exposure of a DHS training program series available on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program website, which includes a media section designed to provide teaching aids to agency heads and law enforcement. The series includes a fabricated news broadcast that covers a hypothetical raid on a “militia headquarters.” The video shows semi-automatic firearms, rifle scopes, night vision, flak jackets — all perfectly legal in the United States today — as illegal “contraband,” while painting gun owners and militias as chemical weapon-wielding terrorists.

What started as an appeal to the average American’s sense of Islamophobia after the 9/11 attacks has now evolved into the full-spectrum theater of random domestic terrorism that culminates in what the establishment calls “self-radicalization.”

The concept of self-radicalization is a very interesting propaganda tactic. Rather than limiting the public’s fear only to some outside foreign enemy like Al Qaeda or some domestic activist organization like the liberty movement, the establishment has now composed a narrative in which each and every one of us might one day catch the extremist virus of dissent, defiance or ideological violence and suddenly decide to kill, kill, kill.

The more naïve subsections of our society will accept unConstitutional methods against the “radicalized” out of fear and conditioning, without realizing that the machinations of bureaucracy being used against those they hate could just as easily be used against them in the future.

If the elites achieve the social endgame they desire, legal and political wordplay will become so broad that anyone could be targeted. If you are a citizen who defies the establishment power structure, then you are an extremist. If you are an extremist, then you are a terrorist. If you are a terrorist, then you are an enemy combatant. And, under the NDAA, if you are an enemy combatant, you are no longer a citizen and you no longer deserve Constitutional protection. The circular logic is maddening, not to mention outrageous. But it is also very useful when an abusive government needs a pretext to silence or destroy dissent. Under totalitarianism, all people become terrorists. It starts with the mistreatment of the worst of us, and it ends with the mistreatment of the best of us.

Source: Brandon Smith | Alt-Market

From Viet Nam Defiance To Boston Surrender

Historically, what separated American society from most other countries was a healthy distrust of government and a tradition of civil liberties. The Bill of Rights is a unique safeguard embodied within the constitutional structure of a road map for governmental restraint. One of the most important restrictions placed upon the police powers of the central government is exemplified in Posse Comitias. The militarization of domestic law enforcement is fundamentally in conflict with individual rights and natural law.

The basic character of the American spirit envisioned narrow intrusion into the personal affairs of citizens. The federal government is burdened with thoughtful and precise limitations on its powers for the essential reason to inhibit the aggressive expansion of despotic tendencies. Once upon another era, the people of the Republic understood this vital social construct of control against the destruction of liberty, by the very government entrusted to preserve the essence of the union.

Fifty years ago, the nation entered into a morass of a foreign conflict that altered the very fabric and substance of the post World War II mentality. As the Viet Nam war expanded, the consciousness of a youthful generation exploded into a fundamental counter cultural resistance against the mindset that built the military-industrial-complex and perpetuated an interventionist global foreign policy.

The campuses and streets of America were filled with swarms of dissenters opposing the war and the repression of a burgeoning police state. The gambit of defiant speeches to civil disobedience saw the corridors of power crumple in the wake of a nation galvanized against the Sovietization of our authorities, when the war, was supposedly fought, to stop the spread of Communism.

Even with the incomplete success in ending the Viet Nam hostilities, the political loss of that war, did not prevent the uninterrupted march toward the Orwellian collectivist state, that we now live under and the oppressive compliance that Homeland Security so aptly represents.

Corrosive incrementalism of totalitarian policies developed in an environment of gradual apathy, over the last half century. Dissenting opposition movements, persistently confrontational against the establishment became less organized and vocal. As a result, institutions of influence descended into deeper depths of moral corruption, as the agencies of bureaucratic dominance expanded their reach and scope of tyranny.

The generations of the post Viet Nam period, developed a materialistic career oriented motivation, at the expense of abandoning the search for spiritual and social responsibility, toward their fellow neighbor and their country. The flower power experienced at the opposite end of a National Guard bayonet is now replaced with a corporatist stock option in a company that builds the drone surveillance society.

With the spread of “Politically Correct” urbanity, political debate has become restrictive, sterile and punitive. The primary ingredient out of the corporate news media is a filtered mush that leads to a permanent blockage in the excretion track. These gatekeepers protect careerist criminal politicians, while serving the global interests of their Wall Street masters. The seldom-interrupted path towards government worship homogenization is a main accomplishment of the systematic dismantling of the principles of inherent autonomy.

Woefully, the plastic patriots of Bean Town demonstrated their retardation, from drinking of the dirty water, offered by the storm troopers. Accepting an arbitrary and capricious “Judge Dredd” martial law decree for an area wide lockdown is repulsive and antithetical to the noble tradition of a community, who squared off against the red coats.

The phony war on terror is actually a contrived policy and false flag drill exercises, to strip away the last vestiges of constitutional inhibitions and restraints. The “so called” terrorism that the government would have you believe threatens the nation, is but an elaborate deception to justify the methodical enslavement of unsophisticated and easily fear induced denizens.

As the connection between the patties, blamed for the Boston Marathon panic, with intelligence communities operatives and fronts become known, the official FBI version of the investigation unravels. Deployment of battalions of military vehicles with SWAT assassins poses a far greater danger to the citizenry than a nineteen-year-old “so called” Jihadist recruited into the cause by the very government, who claims to be in charge of keeping us all safe.

With the surrender of our cherished civil liberties to a ruthless DHS internal police force, martial law is now the rule of the land. Many Bostonians deserve the shame of their forbearers. Where are protests with every knock at the door? This precedent does not bode well. It is doubtful that the populace will resist in mass, when it becomes their time for transfer to their designated FEMA concentration camp.

That day is coming, and with the lack of courage in the veins of the mediocre public, the state will face little resistance, when the financial collapse hits the households of all the government dependent. This reincarnated empire of a “King George” assault, is seizing the spirit of the Bunker Hill memorial. Homeland insecurity is designed to eliminate the Gadsden flag so that it has no place to fly.

The hard-learned lessons of Viet Nam are lost to the self-absorbed and dumbed down civil servants, who pledge their loyalty to an illegitimate government, as they sell their souls to an evil empire. The mere hint of reviving a counter-culture resistance against the globalist matrix labels one an enemy of the state. Just maybe, too many people are drinking Sam Adams beer and drunk with lethargy, to heed the call of Paul Revere.

The underground press was alive and vibrant in the 1960’s. Now the internet is being groomed to be clipped with CISPA. During the confrontations with authority in a time long ago, the best within Americans emerged as defenders of core political values, while pushing the envelope of personal freedom discovery. Now the children of that generation are in seats of official authority. Lost in the education process; both in government schools and often in the family home, is a vigorous suspicion of the abuse of power and a duty to resist oppression.

Without a renaissance in traditional revolutionary commitment, the American experiment will end as every other botched and immoral imperium. The colonial civilization that rose up the original Tea Party rebels against the Crown has sunk into docile disciples of obedience to state fascist brutality.

The founding fathers were men of wisdom and courage. The survivors of the Viet Nam campaign grew in understanding over the decades in the knowledge that their battle for national survival just began with their return home. The enemy they fought in the rice paddies were fighting a civil war. Back on home soil, these veterans learned that their true foe became a tyrannical government, bent upon destroying the very civil liberties that every real American pledges upon their allegiance and sacred honor.

Until people develop the guts to face up to the 911, excuse for the terrorism fraud and the false security measures designed to destroy essential legal protections of individual rights, the organized government terror will continue.

The call goes out to rekindle the defiant spirit and resistance to the ever-growing police state. The sincere patriot opposes any bureaucratic and administrative edict that violates your natural rights. The next time belligerent and suspect authorities demand a lockdown on your neighborhood, hold a block party. The enforcement mercenaries have neither the moral mandate nor the practical efficiency to arrest and sequester the minuteman multitude with the willful daring to “just say no” to tyranny.

Where are the Thoreauvian moralists, willing to defend their local Walden Ponds in their own communities? The reason the herds of the timid are so unwilling to challenge the supermax prison that Amerika has become is due to the fact, that so few have the fortitude to join the-strike-the-root inspiration that speaks to the character of a corrupt society.

Soon the infamous disturbed Colonel Kurtz will look like a sane expedient of military violence as the entire nation is transformed into an Apocalypse Now before our eyes. The best way to combat the thugs that violate every universal decency and common law right is to practice civil disobedience at any opportunity. Resisting oppression is a necessary step in the liberation of society from subjugation.

First responders need to stand down, when they are commanded to follow illicit orders. Boston needs to repent from their authoritarian progressive state worship. As a center of creative cutting edge protest during the Viet Nam war, the Bostonian Bluebloods of globalist indoctrination have succeeded into transmuting independent thinkers into lock step zombies.

Liberation from trumped up jingoism has been a difficult task for well over a century. At stake now is the very fabric of our own country. Surrendering our precious heritage, for a delusive and faux sense of security, plays directly into the hands of the fascists. Protest the dictatorship of the establishment. Learn from the majesty of dissent, that when the emperor is exposed as wearing no cloths, he is naked for all to see. The essential issue is whether the American public has any eyesight left, and what actions will they undertake to restore their dignity.

The Man Who Fired The Shot Heard ’Round The World

In II Samuel 19 there is the story about an often-overlooked man by the name of Barzillai. He was a Gileadite who helped save King David’s life. The Scripture says of him: “He was a very great man.” Today, I’m going to tell you about a very great man. In fact, I’m going to talk about several great men.

I am reminded of these men, because tomorrow I have the distinct honor of speaking at a giant freedom rally on Lexington Green, Massachusetts, on the occasion of the 238th anniversary of the famous Battle of Lexington and Concord. If you live within driving distance, please come and join us. Oath Keepers founder, Stewart Rhodes, will also be speaking at this event. I believe the rally begins at 2pm local time.

In truth, April 19, 1775, should be regarded as important a date to Americans as July 4, 1776. It’s a shame that we don’t celebrate it as enthusiastically as we do Independence Day. It’s even more shameful that many Americans don’t even remember what happened on this day back in 1775. For the record, historians call this day, “Patriot’s Day.” More specifically, it was the day that the shot heard ’round the world was fired. It was the day America’s War for Independence began.

Being warned of approaching British troops by Dr. Joseph Warren and Paul Revere, Pastor Jonas Clark and his male congregants of the Church of Lexington (numbering 60-70) were the ones that stood with their muskets in front of the Crown’s troops (numbering over 800), who were on orders to seize a cache of arms which were stored at Concord and arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock (who were known to be in the area, and who had actually taken refuge in Pastor Clark’s home).

According to eyewitnesses, the king’s troops opened fire on the militiamen without warning, immediately killing eight of Pastor Clark’s parishioners. In self defense, the Minutemen returned fire. These were the first shots of the Revolutionary War. This took place on Lexington Green, which was located directly beside the church-house where those men worshipped each Sunday. Adams and Hancock were not apprehended. A few of Pastor Clark’s men led them to safety as their Christian brothers were preparing to stand in front of the British troops. Sam Adams and John Hancock owed their lives to Pastor Clark and his brave Minutemen.

According to Pastor Clark, these are the names of the eight men who died on Lexington Green as the sun rose on April 19, 1775: Robert Munroe, Jonas Parker, Samuel Hadley, Jonathan Harrington, Jr., Isaac Muzzy, Caleb Harrington, and John Brown, all of Lexington, and one Mr. Porter of Woburn.

However, by the time the British troops arrived at the Concord Bridge, hundreds of colonists had amassed a defense of the bridge. A horrific battle took place, and the British troops were routed and soon retreated back to Boston. America’s War for Independence had begun!

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, these two elements of American history are lost to the vast majority of historians today: 1) it was the attempted gun confiscation and seizure of two patriot leaders by British troops that ignited America’s War for Independence; and, 2) it was a local church pastor and his male congregants that mostly comprised the Minutemen who fired the shots that started our great Revolution.

With that thought in mind, I want to devote today’s column to honoring the brave preachers of Colonial America–these “children of the Pilgrims,” as one colonial pastor’s descendent put it.

It really wasn’t that long ago. However, with the way America’s clergymen act today, one would think that preachers such as James Caldwell, John Peter Muhlenberg, Joab Houghton, and Jonas Clark never existed. But they did exist; and without them, this country we call the United States of America would not exist.

Caldwell was a Presbyterian; Muhlenberg was a Lutheran; Houghton was a Baptist; and no one really seems to know what denomination (if any) Jonas Clark claimed, although one historian referred to Clark as a Trinitarian and Calvinist. But these men had one thing in common (besides their faith in Jesus Christ): they were all ardent patriots who participated in America’s War for Independence, and in the case of Jonas Clark, actually ignited it.

James Caldwell

James Caldwell was called “The Rebel High Priest” or “The Fighting Chaplain.” Caldwell is most famous for the “Give ’em Watts!” story.

During the Springfield (New Jersey) engagement, the Colonial militia ran out of wadding for their muskets. Quickly, Caldwell mounted his horse and galloped to the Presbyterian church, and returning with an armload of hymnals, threw them to the ground, and hollered, “Now, boys, give ’em Watts!” He was referring to the famous hymn writer, Isaac Watts, of course.

The British hated Caldwell so much, they murdered his wife, Hannah, in her own home, as she sat with her children on her bed. Later, a fellow American was bribed by the British to assassinate Pastor Caldwell–which is exactly what he did. Americans loyal to the Crown burned both his house and church. No less than three cities and two public schools in the State of New Jersey bear his name.

John Peter Muhlenberg

John Peter Muhlenberg was pastor of a Lutheran church in Woodstock, Virginia, when hostilities erupted between Great Britain and the American colonies. When news of Bunker Hill reached Virginia, Muhlenberg preached a sermon from Ecclesiastes 3 to his congregation. He reminded his parishioners that there was a time to preach and a time to fight. He said that, for him, the time to preach was past and it was time to fight. He then threw off his vestments and stood before his congregants in the uniform of a Virginia colonel.

Muhlenberg was later promoted to brigadier-general in the Continental Army, and then to major general. He participated in the battles of Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, and Yorktown. He went on to serve in both the US House of Representatives and US Senate.

Joab Houghton

Joab Houghton was in the Hopewell (New Jersey) Baptist Meeting House at worship when he received the first information regarding the battles at Lexington and Concord. His great-grandson gives the following eloquent description of the way he treated the tidings:

“[M]ounting the great stone block in front of the meeting-house, he beckoned the people to stop. Men and women paused to hear, curious to know what so unusual a sequel to the service of the day could mean. At the first, words a silence, stern as death, fell over all. The Sabbath quiet of the hour and of the place was deepened into a terrible solemnity. He told them all the story of the cowardly murder at Lexington by the royal troops; the heroic vengeance following hard upon it; the retreat of Percy; the gathering of the children of the Pilgrims round the beleaguered hills of Boston; then pausing, and looking over the silent throng, he said slowly, ‘Men of New Jersey, the red coats are murdering our brethren of New England! Who follows me to Boston?’ And every man in that audience stepped out of line, and answered, ‘I!’ There was not a coward or a traitor in old Hopewell Baptist Meeting-House that day.” (Cathcart, William. Baptists and the American Revolution. Philadelphia: S.A. George, 1876, rev. 1976. Print.)

Jonas Clark

As I said at the beginning of this column, Jonas Clark was pastor of the Church of Lexington, Massachusetts, on April 19, 1775, the day that British troops marched on Concord with orders to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock, and to seize a cache of firearms. It was Pastor Clark’s male congregants who were the first ones to face-off against the British troops as they marched through Lexington. When you hear the story of the Minutemen at the Battle of Lexington, remember those Minutemen were mostly Pastor Jonas Clark and the men of his congregation.

On the One Year Anniversary of the Battle of Lexington, Clark preached a sermon based upon his eyewitness testimony of the event. He called his sermon, “The Fate of Blood-Thirsty Oppressors and God’s Tender Care of His Distressed People.” His sermon has been republished by Nordskog Publishing under the title, “The Battle of Lexington, A Sermon and Eyewitness Narrative, Jonas Clark, Pastor, Church of Lexington.”

Order the book containing Clark’s sermon at:

“The Battle of Lexington, A Sermon and Eyewitness Narrative, Jonas Clark, Pastor, Church of Lexington”

Of course, these four brave preachers were not the only ones to participate in America’s fight for independence. There were Episcopalian ministers such as Dr. Samuel Provost of New York, Dr. John Croes of New Jersey, and Robert Smith of South Carolina. Presbyterian ministers such as Adam Boyd of North Carolina and James Armstrong of Maryland, along with many others, also took part.

Numerous Baptist preachers participated in America’s War for Independence, so many that at the conclusion of the war, President George Washington wrote a personal letter to the Baptist people saying, “I recollect with satisfaction that the religious societies of which you are a member have been, throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously, the firm friends to civil liberty, and the preserving promoters of our glorious Revolution.” It also explains how Thomas Jefferson could write to a Baptist congregation and say, “We have acted together from the origin to the end of a memorable Revolution.” (McDaniel, George White. The People Called Baptists. The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1918. Print.)

And although not every pastor was able to actively participate in our fight for independence, because so many pastors throughout colonial America preached the principles of liberty and independence from their pulpits, the Crown created a moniker for them: The Black Regiment (referring to the long, black robes that so many colonial clergymen wore in the pulpit). Without question, the courageous preaching and example of colonial America’s patriot-pastors provided the colonists with the inspiration and resolve to resist the tyranny of the Crown and win America’s freedom and independence.

I invite readers to visit my Black Regiment web page to learn more about my attempt to resurrect America’s Black-Robed Regiment. Go to:

Black Regiment

Readers should know, too, that a brand new book co-authored by me and my constitutional attorney son, Tim, entitled, “To Keep Or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns,” will be released in just a few days. This book examines the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and proves conclusively that nowhere does God expect His people to surrender their arms in the face of any would-be tyrant. With hundreds of references, we show from both Natural and Revealed Law that the right of self-defense, the right to keep and bear arms, is a God-ordained right and responsibility. This book is sure to be a blockbuster. To order the book, go to:

Keep Your Arms

This is the fighting heritage of America’s pastors and preachers. So, what has happened? What has happened to that fighting spirit that once existed, almost universally, throughout America’s Christian denominations? How have preachers become so timid, so shy, and so cowardly that they will stand apathetic and mute as America faces the destruction of its liberties? Where are the preachers to explain, expound, and extrapolate the principles of liberty from Holy Writ?

I am absolutely convinced that one of the biggest reasons America is in the sad condition that it is in today is because the sermons Americans frequently hear from modern pulpits deal mostly with prosperity theology, entertainment evangelism, feelgoodism, emotionalism, and Aren’t-I-Wonderful ear tickling! One man recently wrote and told me that his ears had been tickled so much in church that he had calluses on them.

This milquetoast preaching, along with a totally false “obey-the-government-no-matter-what” interpretation of Romans 13, have made it next to impossible to find Christian men with the courage and resolve to stand against the onslaught of socialism, corporatism, and, yes, fascism that is swallowing America whole.

Tim and I also wrote a book entitled, “Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission.” This book examines Romans 13, and the rest of Scripture, and shows that nowhere does God demand that His people yield to wicked and unjust government. To order this book, to go:

“Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission”

As we celebrate Patriot’s Day tomorrow, please remember Jonas Clark (along with James Caldwell, John Peter Muhlenberg, Joab Houghton, and the other brave pastors of colonial America). “He was a very great man.”

Boston Marathon Bombing: Who Do They Plan To Blame?

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” – Rahm Emanuel, former White House Chief Of Staff to Barack Obama

While many people might immediately dismiss the concept, any student of true and unadulterated history has to eventually admit this fact:  Governments exploit crisis.  Sometimes, they merely take advantage of the ensuing chaos and aftermath of a disaster they had nothing to do with directly.  Other times, they create those disasters themselves in order to engineer social and political opportunity.

In regard to the recent bombing of the Boston Marathon, which killed three people and injured at least 140, I have asked “Who do they plan to blame?”  The unaware and naïve will state that “They will blame the true culprit behind the attack, of course!”  Unfortunately, in the past couple decades I have seen numerous terrorist attacks where the blame was NOT placed on the true culprit, or, the blame was extended to totally uninvolved groups and organizations in order to politicize the event.  Governments (especially our government) squeeze each man-made disaster like a ripe papaya until every drop of sweet advantage can be collected.  They use our fear and confusion as license to attack a predetermined list of targets that may or may not have had anything to do with the original event.  They tell the story in a way that suits their end-line interests, and the last thing they are concerned with is helping the public to “understand”.  In the end, what average citizens see as an authoritative analysis on the facts from their “loving” leaders is in reality nothing more than an exercise in fantasy.

Now, the thought of persons and institutions within our government being malicious enough to create a terrorist event to be used to manipulate the public towards a certain end tends to bring out furious denial in some Americans.  This is because those people with weak characters and an even weaker sense of identity tend to attach their egos to the collective.  They live vicariously through the group, or the nation state, so that the State’s accomplishments and trials become THEIR accomplishments and trails.  To accuse the state of criminality is to accuse them of criminality.

The Boston bombing already has the makings of a subversive and highly exploitable false flag event, and certain undertones remind me of the now exposed Operation Gladio, a false flag program utilized by NATO governments (including the U.S.) for decades which involved multiple bombings and mass shootings of high traffic public areas across Europe that were then falsely blamed on “left-wing terrorists”.  The operation was exposed in the early 1990’s by the Italian government, and then quickly swept into the dust bin of history.

Vincenzo Vinciguerra, a far-right terrorist linked to Gladio and currently serving a life-sentence for the car bomb murder of three policemen stated during sworn testimony on Gladio in March of 2001:

“You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game…”

“The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security. This is the political logic that lies behind all the massacres and the bombings which remain unpunished, because the state cannot convict itself or declare itself responsible for what happened…”

The strategy used by NATO was clear – terrorize the common population, target as many innocents as possible in places where they felt most comfortable and at ease, and drive the citizenry into the waiting arms of the establishment.  The tactic creates the cancerous spread of public tension because the sense of “distance” from violence is removed.  An attack could literally happen anytime, anywhere.  A predetermined scapegoat enemy is then presented, completing the circle and galvanizing the people in the direction the establishment desires.

The methods used in Europe to demonize “left-wing” political movements could just as easily be used to demonize what some call “right-wing” political movements here in the U.S.  Let’s look at some of the facts surrounding the Boston incident so far:

Boston authorities and witnesses on the scene admit that bomb sniffing dogs and roof spotters were employed before the race even began.  The local bomb squad was also coincidentally running a “controlled explosion drill” only one mile away from the attack:

http://www.local15tv.com/mostpopular/story/UM-Coach-Bomb-Sniffing-Dogs-Spotters-on-Roofs/BrirjAzFPUKKN8z6eSDJEA.cspx

Participants at the race were told repeatedly not to worry, and that a “training exercise” was taking place.  In nearly every major terror attack since 9/11, from the U.S., to the UK and Spain, the government was running “training exercises and drills” fitting the EXACT description of the threat that then suddenly occurred in real life on the same day.  Perhaps it is only an overtly reoccurring negative serendipity, but in my view, if the authorities are running a training exercise for a bombing in your town, it might be best to run for the hills before their little war-game becomes real yet again.

Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis also stated that authorities were not aware of any specific threats to the marathon before it began, which means that they are not presenting any claims that they had reason to believe a bombing might take place:

So, just to clarify, the Boston police on the suggestion of…someone, decided to run bomb squad training, bomb sniffing dogs, and rooftop spotters on the exact same day that the Boston Marathon happened to be bombed…just because?

I would add to this conundrum another question – With all those bomb sniffing dogs present, and with multiple devices now found on the scene, how did they not find at least one of the explosive packages before people were killed?  Those dogs need to be fired, I suppose…

Along with the immediate strangeness of the attack, the timing is also rather perfect for the establishment.

April 15th is tax day across the nation, and Tax Protest Day sponsored annually by Tea Party organizations across the country also just happened to fall on the 15th this year.  On top of this, in Massachusetts, Patriots Day (a civic holiday celebrating the battles of Lexington and Concord) is held on the third Monday of April every year, which just happened to be the 15th this year.  Oath Keepers, a constitutional organization often wrongly attacked as a “domestic extremist group” by the DHS and SPLC, just happened to have a large pro-freedom rally scheduled for the 19th of April at Lexington Green in Massachusetts.  Are we starting to get the picture here?

With the Senate in the midst of the most blatant attack on our 2nd Amendment rights in history following the passage of the absurdly fascist NDAA and the White House’s unwillingness to remove American citizens as potential targets for executive ordered assassination,  and with multiple states now implementing draconian gun restrictions and even confiscations, public opinion is quickly moving against the Federal Government.  Wouldn’t it be beneficial for their agenda if it turned out that the Boston Marathon Bombing was executed by a group of “pro-gun anti-income tax anti-government domestic terrorists”, or maybe just Constitutionalists and Liberty Movement activists that are labeled as such?

Wouldn’t that be a big turn-off for those on the fence but shifting towards gun rights and constitutionalism?  Wouldn’t it be great for the DHS and the SPLC if all their anti-Constitutionalist propaganda was suddenly proven “correct”?  Maybe the TSA could even suggest roving street checkpoints and random searches so that such a calamity “never happens again”.

No suspects have yet been named in the marathon attacks, and none have claimed responsibility, so perhaps I am jumping to conclusions.  Perhaps we’ll find out those dastardly North Koreans were behind it all, or maybe those devious Iranians.  However, I can’t shake off that smell of a setup lurking in the musty sickly statist air, and the mainstream media is already suggesting “right-wing involvement” (why don’t they ever suggest left-wing extremism as a possibility…?).

As I have said many times before, during any crisis, always look at who benefited the most from the event.  Look at who had something to gain, rather than the first scapegoats they throw in front of you.  Some terror attacks are real, and some are proven as staged, but never forget that government power structures do not see these tragedies as tragedies; rather, they see them as gifts; precious openings that create vulnerabilities in the psyche of the citizenry.  They WILL exploit these vulnerabilities to further their own agenda, and they WILL exploit the Boston Marathon Bombing to demoralize and marginalize their political enemies.  Count on it.

Source: Brandon Smith | Alt-Market

Ignoring Whistleblowers

A government whistleblower, disclosing classified secrets, risks criminal charges. Defining restricted material usually includes a broad scope of information that casts officials or agencies in a compromising embarrassment. The idea that public servants may be engaged in violating laws is no excuse for blowing the whistle on such abuses if it involves “National Security”. This protect the state attitude at all cost argument, is the very definition of institutional cover-up. In war, truth is the first casualty, so said Aeschylus.

So throwing the book at Bradley Manning comes as no surprise. Why should anyone be concerned about the intentional dissemination of raw evidence about war crimes, committed in the name of the War of Terror? Most would fail to be moved by the motivations of a stoic prisoner, who uploaded secured computer files to WikiLeaks. Many would cheer his interminable incarceration for disclosing military records.

Yet, before you slam the jail shut, reflect upon the Secretly Recorded Audio Leaked of Bradley Manning’s Court Statement. Listen to the .

 

Also, view the YouTube video, .A cogent reaction from another renowned whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers fame, carries the weight of a brave man from another era.

“It’s important to remember through all this that Manning has already pled guilty to ten charges of violating military regulations (few of which, if any would be civilian crimes) and faces twenty years in jail. Yet the prosecutors are still going ahead with the absurd charge of “aiding the enemy,” a capital offense, of which the prosecutors are asking for life in prison.

Nixon could have brought that charge against me too. I was revealing wrongdoing by our government in a public way, and that information could have been read by our enemies in Vietnam. Of course, I never had that intent and Manning didn’t either. We both leaked information to provoke a domestic debate about military force and government secrecy. And to say we did so to aid the enemy is absurd.”

In any political trial, the spirit of the law is sacrificed for the expediency of protecting a debased regime. Balance in prosecution is a concept unknown to a government consumed with punishing any perceived enemy of the state.

Attorney Floyd Abrams and Professor Yochai Benkler provide a thoughtful perspective and legal opinion in The New York Times editorial – Death to Whistle-Blowers?

“Under the prosecution’s theory, because Private Manning knew the materials would be published and that Al Qaeda could read them once published, he indirectly communicated with the enemy. But in this theory, whether publication is by WikiLeaks or The Times is entirely beside the point. Defendants are guilty of “aiding the enemy” for leaking to a publishing medium simply because that publication can be read by anyone with an Internet connection.

Private Manning’s guilty plea gives the prosecution an opportunity to rethink its strategy. The extreme charges remaining in this case create a severe threat to future whistle-blowers, even when their revelations are crystal-clear instances of whistle-blowing. We cannot allow our concerns about terrorism to turn us into a country where communicating with the press can be prosecuted as a capital offense.”

No such mercy from the imperial empire, Manning must suffer the supreme wrath for his transgressions. His admissions acknowledge expected official sanctions, but the sentiment of Daniel Ellsberg reflects the standpoint of many Manning supporters.

“…For the third straight year, Manning has been nominated for the Noble Peace Prize by, among others, Tunisian parliamentarians. Given the role the WikiLeaks cables played in the Arab Spring, and their role in speeding up the end of the Iraq War, I can think of no one more deserving who is deserving of the peace prize.

He’s also deserving of the Congressional Medal of Honor. This medal, awarded by Congress-and not the executive branch-is given to military personnel, who during wartime, do what they should do for their country and their comrades, at the greatest risk to themselves.”

 

Another target of recrimination, seen in the Sibel Edmonds dismissal is a classic example of punishing the whistleblower. Edmonds took a job as a translator at the FBI shortly after 9-11. Her story, stated in the YouTube interview, , is compelling.

Sibel Edmonds Finally Wins, documents her observation in the book, “Classified Woman” and offers a disturbing assessment of her fellow workers.

“Edmonds found at the FBI translation unit almost entirely two types of people. The first group was corrupt sociopaths, foreign spies, cheats and schemers indifferent to or working against U.S. national security. The second group was fearful bureaucrats unwilling to make waves. The ordinary competent person with good intentions who risks their job to “say something if you see something” is the rarest commodity. Hence the elite category that Edmonds found herself almost alone in: whistleblowers.”

This characterization of morally challenged federal employees is a direct consequence of a system that protects the cover-ups, while punishing disclosure of conflicting evidence of outright corruption. The silent culture of concealment or the worse incentive system of collusion runs the governing bureaucracies.

The presstitutes in the establishment media enable the warmongering protection racket as a condition of employment. Their lack of investigative reporting is only superseded by their ominous distortion of real patriotic loyalty. Whistleblowers function as detectives doing the job that reporters abdicate. Woefully, so few citizens of conscience are willing to jeopardize their individual circumstance for the courage of genuine national security.

The always insightful, William F. Jasper of the New American writes in Sibel Edmonds’ “Classified Woman”.

“Unfortunately, most of Edmonds’ contributing editors at BoilingFrogs are decidedly left of center, and their anti-globalist, anti-war, anti-police-state arguments and analyses tend to range from the “progressive” to the Marxoid. However, when she went public and came under attack, it wasn’t Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who came to her defense; it was the anti-Bush Left that rallied to her aid. In fact, the faux conservatives at FOX, National Review, and the radio talk show universe alternately ignored and attacked her; they were busy cheerleading George W. Bush’s unconstitutional wars abroad and his unconstitutional police-state measures at home. Sympathetic coverage for Edmonds from alternative media on the Right has been woefully lacking, with a few exceptions.

In April 2011, Sibel Edmonds submitted her manuscript for Classified Womanto the FBI for review, as required by terms of her employment agreement. Under that agreement, the FBI has 30 days to approve and/or require deletions and revisions. After waiting over 340 days with no response from the bureau, Edmonds took the path that few others have taken; she published anyway. However, with every publisher afraid to touch it, she was forced to publish it on her own. She knows that any day now the Obama administration, which has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined, may come after her.”

Forget about the false left-right paradigm. The “War of Terror” being waged by the imperium empire is designed to crush whistleblowers, and keep the brain dead in a zombie trance. Just consider the impact on the Afghanistan campaign if the FBI acted upon the evidence unclosed by Sibel Edmonds that cuts to the heart of the 911 myth assumptions.

The military-industrial-security-intelligence complex closes ranks to protect their “Splendid Little Wars“. The whistleblowers that expose the lies out of the War Party establishment are only a minor distraction, as long as the public sleeps in their self-induced coma. The Army Times item, Hagel to order review of drone medal precedence, is one such interlude, while the control and command structure continues to aim their weapons at imaginary threats.

Who would doubt that the Bradley Mannings and Sibel Edmonds, squealers of state secrets, would be prime quarries for the hunt to eliminate enemies of the state? The only good government snitch is a Gitmo captive. So goes the claims of the governance prosecutors.

How many people have actually examined the information in the Manning WikiLeak disclosures or read the Edmonds account of 911-treason complicity? Oh no, the discomfort of confronting the fake reality of the official story of make believe is too disturbing for most people.

Loyalty of country is a very dangerous attitude, when your government sponsors state terrorism as a normal activity. The fear to face up to the horrors of administration deceit is the prime activity of the flag waving drones that cheer for more carnage.

When Edmonds describes the traitors within the national security structure, the fearful bureaucrats facilitate the ongoing treachery that passes for nationalism. When Manning exposes the documents that prove a genocide policy is in effect, the penalty demanded by the bellicose command is his execution.

An honorable whistleblower is a citizen hero. Disobeying dishonest laws is true patriotism. In the end, A Different Philosophy of Civil Disobedience, is needed. Complacency is the countrywide disease of choice. Real patriots oppose jingoistic orders. Stand down.

Gun Confiscation For Us; Gun Protection For Them

There is a line from the movie Tombstone (one of my favorite westerns, by the way) in which Val Kilmer’s character, Doc Holliday, says to Wyatt Earp, “My hypocrisy knows no bounds.” (For the record, Kilmer should have won an Oscar for his performance of Doc Holliday in that movie.) Well, my friends, what Doc Holliday said in Tombstone could be said by virtually every prominent gun grabber in the country, because they are the biggest hypocrites the world has ever seen!

Paul Joseph Watson wrote a very enlightening report relative to the way that proponents of gun control are themselves heavily protected BY GUNS. Watson writes:

“The fact that Senator Dianne Feinstein’s gun control bill exempts government officials from the planned semi-auto assault weapons ban illustrates the astounding hypocrisy of gun control advocates who, while working feverishly to disarm the American people, own firearms and surround themselves with armed men.

“As the Washington Times reported last week, ‘Mrs. Feinstein’s measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and WEAPONS USED BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.’ (Emphasis in original)

“Back in 1995, while carrying a concealed weapon for her own protection, Feinstein simultaneously called for Mr. and Mrs. America to ‘turn em all in.’

“Feinstein’s hypocrisy has been matched or surpassed by virtually every other public figure now pushing for the second amendment to be eviscerated.”

The report continued saying:

“-While Obama claims that semi-automatic assault rifles should only be in the hands of members of the military, the Department of Homeland Security has purchased no less than 7,000 fully automatic assault weapons for the purpose of ‘personal defense,’ in addition to more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the last 10 months alone.

[Notice that when DHS purchases FULLY AUTOMATIC submachine guns, they are called “personal defense weapons,” but when you and I purchase SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles, they are called “assault weapons.”]

“-While refusing to even consider the idea of arming teachers and school officials to prevent school shootings, Obama recently signed a law that would give him and all past and future presidents armed Secret Service protection for life.

“-During an ABC Nightline interview broadcast on December 26 yet recorded before the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama said one of the benefits of his re-election was the ability ‘to have men with guns around at all times,’ in order to protect his daughters. In addition, the school attended by Obama’s daughters in Washington D.C. has no less than 11 armed security guards on duty at all times.”

The report also said, “Michael Moore, another vehement proponent for gun control, also has armed bodyguards.” And Moore is not the only gun control hypocrite. Watson notes that “Prominent gun control advocates like Piers Morgan, who base their argument on reducing gun violence, routinely threaten violence against ideological adversaries. Morgan once spoke of his desire to use machine guns to ‘take out’ his critics, while also making jokes with his guests about murdering second amendment advocate Alex Jones with a semi-automatic assault rifle during his CNN show on January 8.”

Watson concludes his report saying, “The agenda-driven and factually bankrupt political arguments of gun control advocates may be somewhat easier to stomach if the people making them were not rampant hypocrites who–while calling for the American people to be stripped of their right to bear arms–are precluding themselves from being subjected to the same treatment.”

See Watson’s report at:

The Astounding Hypocrisy Of Gun Control Advocates

The examples of gun control fanatics who either use guns for personal protection or hire guns for their own protection are ubiquitous. Not long ago, a gun-grabbing State senator from North Carolina used his own firearm to shoot intruders. FOX NEWS covers the story:

“Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles (D-NC), 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outside Tabor City, N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician’s home county said.”

The report continued saying, “The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn’t hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.

“In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the ‘Do as I say and not as I do’ Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. Why hypocritical you may ask?

“It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.”

See the report at:

Anti-Gun Politician Shoots Intruder

Virtually every major proponent of the banning of semi-automatic rifles, from Bob Costas to Joe Scarborough to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, all enjoy varying degrees of ARMED SECURITY–often including semi-automatic, or even fully automatic, rifles. Yet, these same people want to deny you and me the liberty of defending ourselves with a semi-automatic rifle.

And is there anyone reading this so naïve as to think that if they succeed in banning semi-automatic rifles that they would stop there? It has never happened. Disarmament is always accomplished one step at a time. Big-Government toadies will never be content until a population is, for all intents and purposes, totally disarmed. If gun-grabbers get their way, only the privileged few (including them) would be allowed to own their own firearms. The rest of us would be turned into helpless, hapless sheep: unable and incapable of defending ourselves, our homes, or our communities.

Among the thousands of emails I have received over the last few weeks was one written by a professing Christian who rebuked me saying, “The only guns anyone needs to own is a short-barreled shotgun and a large-caliber revolver.”

Does this man truly believe that if the gun-grabbers succeed in banning our semi-automatic rifles that it will stop there? If he does, he is positively delusional! Then, my next question to the gentlemen is, so what will you do when they ban your short-barreled shotgun and large caliber revolver?

The problem with this misguided Christian is that he suffers from the same sickness that many people suffer from: they truly do not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment. It was never about hunting or target shooting or anything of the sort. It was about the ability of the citizenry to be able to withstand government tyranny.

If you don’t think that the government fears an armed citizenry, pay attention to the way virtually any police agency reacts to almost any “dangerous” situation today. With full military garb, military hardware and ordinance, and almost battalion-size numbers, one would think that soldiers were headed to war against an invading army.

And as to the argument that the American people have “no chance” against the US military should the federal government decide to use it to enslave us, one must understand that a significant percentage (if not a majority) of our combat troops love freedom and liberty as much as we do and would use their skills and equipment to fight alongside of their fellow citizens in opposition to a tyrannical government. The hundreds and thousands of combat troops that have written me expressing this exact sentiment is too overwhelming to dismiss. Plus, the sheer number of armed citizens in the U.S. amounts to the largest fighting force in the world. An armed citizenry is anything but helpless.

But the reason so many people today have lost sight of the historical meaning of the Second Amendment is somewhat understandable. In the first place, it has been a long time since the American people have had to use their guns in the defense of their liberties on their own soil. It’s been several generations since the tree of liberty has been watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants (Thomas Jefferson).

In the next place, far, far too many people suffer from the affliction known as the “It Can’t Happen Here” syndrome. Americans today (especially Christians, it seems) are way too trusting of their government. Way too trusting! They seem to have lost all awareness of history–and all rational thought to boot. It is no hyperbole to say that many of today’s Americans are every bit as gullible as were the Germans who rejoiced over the rise of Adolf Hitler, or the Russians and Chinese who still revere the memories of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung. They seem incapable of believing that there could be wicked people in Washington, D.C., who would, if possible, put the shackles of slavery over our necks. In fact, these would-be tyrants attempt to do just that every day with their onerous and burdensome laws, ordinances, and regulations, which are literally strangling the life out of our liberties piece-by-piece.

I dare say if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, and Patrick Henry lived today, they would have hoisted the “Don’t Tread On Me” flag a long time ago!

In the third place, pacifist preachers are literally killing America! All over the country, local church pastors and radio and TV preachers keep telling their audiences to “trust the government,” “the government is good,” “don’t resist the government,” “Romans 13 says obey the government no matter what,” ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

But what is so incredible with these “don’t resist the government” preachers is that they are the first ones to lead the cheer for America fighting unlimited undeclared, unprovoked, preemptive wars of aggression against governments all over the world. It is okay for Barack Obama to order the killings of hundreds of people (including American citizens and innocents) with no congressional authorization or oversight; it is okay for America to attack and invade sovereign states without moral or legal justification; it is okay to distrust any and all government leaders throughout the world–but never distrust our own leaders; it is okay to send other people to pick up all kinds of guns and go fight and die in hundreds of nations all around the globe in order to “preserve freedom.” But when it comes to fighting for freedom in our own country, when it comes to distrusting our own government when it proves itself to be dishonest and untrustworthy, when it comes to defending our own lives, homes, and communities with our own guns, we have no right to do so? Hogwash! Balderdash! Poppycock!

At this point, let me remind readers that my constitutional attorney son and I are right now in the process of publishing a brand new book entitled, “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns.” This book thoroughly and completely researches both the Old and New Testaments to conclusively show that the right of armed resistance is cemented in both Natural and Revealed Law. The book should be released in a matter of just a few weeks. We are now taking pre-orders for the book. To pre-order “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns,” go to:

Keep Your Arms

There seems to be no doubt that these pacifist preachers and gun-grabbing gasbags could say along with Doc Holliday in the movie Tombstone, “My hypocrisy knows no bounds.”

If You Are Going To Take A Stand, You Must Take It Now!

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in Montgomery, Alabama, has long been used by the federal government and the national press corps to paint conservative organizations as “extremists,” “anti-government,” “hate groups,” etc. No sooner would the SPLC issue some attack piece in their newsletter and police agencies all over the country would be issuing bulletins to their officers regurgitating what the SPLC had just spewed out. No private organization has this kind of connection to, and influence over, police agencies nationwide without collaboration with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, D.C. Well, now, we have evidence that such a collaboration exists.

Brietbart.com has just released a report by Judicial Watch confirming that the DOJ and the SPLC are intricately tied to the hip. The report states, “Judicial Watch (JW), a Washington D.C. based non-partisan educational foundation, released some two dozen pages of emails it obtained on Tuesday revealing connections between the Department of Justice Civil Rights and Tax divisions and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

“According to JW, the e-mails reveal questionable behavior by agency personnel while negotiating for Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) co-founder Morris Dees to appear as the featured speaker at a July 31, 2012, ‘Diversity Training Event.’ Judicial Watch obtained the records pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) submitted to the DOJ on September 10, 2012:

“‘The Judicial Watch FOIA request was prompted by an apparently politically motivated shooting at the Family Research Council (FRC) headquarters in August, 2012. At the time of the shooting, FRC president Tony Perkins accused the SPLC of sparking the shooting, saying the shooter “was given a license to shoot… by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been reckless in labeling organizations as hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy.” On its website, the SPLC has depicted FRC as a hate group, along with such mainstream conservative organizations as the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, and Coral Ridge Ministries.’

“The FOIA request specifically requested ‘any and all records concerning, regarding, or relating to the Southern Poverty Law Center’ between January 1 and August 31, 2012, including the Dees’ presentation sponsored by the Civil Rights and Tax divisions of the DOJ.

“JW says that they filed the request to see if any of SPLC’s branding of hate groups had an influence on government agencies. According to the emails SPLC’s diversity speech ‘was to be simulcast to everyone’s PC throughout the Department’ which fulfilled DOJ supervisors’ ‘mandatory annual diversity training.’

“The emails produced by the DOJ show communications between DOJ personnel planning the Diversity Training Event and SPLC personnel, including Dees.”

The report went on to say, “The Southern Poverty Law Center has, in the past few years, taken to labeling organizations with conservative views on social issues as ‘hate groups,’ said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, in a press release.

“‘Given these fawning emails, one would have thought that a head of state was visiting the Justice Department. The SPLC is an attack group, and it is disturbing that it has premier access to our Department of Justice, which is charged with protecting the First Amendment rights of all Americans. And these emails further confirm that politically-correct “mandatory” diversity training programs are a waste of taxpayer money,’ Fitton claimed.

See the report here:

Emails Expose Southern Poverty Law Center Collaboration With DOJ

I have been personally victimized by the SPLC and DOJ’s vicious smear campaigns. In 2008, the State of Missouri issued their now infamous MIAC report, which identified supporters of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and me as being potential dangerous militia members and similar absurdities. This report was issued after State officials received the inflammatory accusations from DHS Fusion Centers. After an outcry of protest from people all over America, and after Ron, Bob, and I demanded an apology from those Missouri officials who issued this libelous report, the report was rescinded and an apology was issued.

I have an entire webpage devoted to the MIAC fiasco. To see it, go here:

DHS & MIAC Reports

I wish I could say that the MIAC episode was the only such time this has happened, but that just isn’t true. I have had police officers and deputy sheriffs in several states personally show me memorandums that they had received from their respective police agencies depicting me and other notable conservatives with the same derogatory characteristics. These memos were once again issued to local police departments and sheriff’s offices via DHS-DOJ Fusion Centers. And those memos were almost word-for-word the same kind of character-assassination that appeared in SPLC publications. Now we know why, don’t we?

So, will the national and even local media now stop using the SPLC as a credible source for identifying so-called “hate” groups? Don’t count on it. The national press corps is mostly in bed with big-government zealots in Washington, D.C., and will do everything they can to smear and besmirch limited-government conservatives. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this matches the definition of the word “conspiracy.”

On a related topic, let me remind readers to let their pastor-friends know about the webpage where they can sign up to publicly state that they will support the right of their church members to keep and bear arms, no matter what law is passed in Washington, D.C.

All over America, hundreds of sheriffs have publicly said that that they will not enforce any attempt by the federal government to confiscate semi-automatic rifles from the citizens of their counties and neither will they allow federal police agents to confiscate semi-automatic rifles from the citizens of their counties. We are asking pastors all over the country to take a similar stand, by encouraging their congregants to NOT obey any federal law to disarm.

By the way, I have personally received hundreds of emails from members of the US military, including special forces troops, who have stated unequivocally that, not only will they not obey orders to confiscate the semi-automatic rifles of the American people, but that they would join those Americans who would resist such an order.

Now, it’s time for pastors to stand and be counted!

America’s War for Independence began on April 19, 1775, when Pastor Jonas Clark and the male members of his Church at Lexington stood on Lexington Green (outside the very church house where they assembled for worship each Sunday) and fired the “shot heard ’round the world.” It was a local church pastor and the plucky patriots of his congregation who were willing to resist the tyrannical laws of their national government to confiscate their guns and illegally seize Sam Adams and John Hancock that ignited our revolutionary war. Without the pastors of 1775 and 1776, there would have been no Lexington Green, no Concord Bridge, no Bunker Hill, no Declaration of Independence, no British surrender at Yorktown, no US Constitution, and no United States of America.

So, where are today’s pastors?

Here is the webpage where pastors can sign up:

Submit Your Church

And here is the webpage that shows the list of those pastors who have already signed up:

Second Amendment Pastors

Think about this: the federal government is using “private” organizations such as the SPLC to denigrate, mischaracterize, and marginalize us; it sends hit pieces to local police departments and sheriff’s offices to inflame animosity, suspicion, and even prejudice among law enforcement officers against us; it has created an entire Army division–not to mention the DHS–targeting America’s “homeland”; it is releasing thousands of drones over the skies of the continental United States; it uses its lackeys in the national media as propaganda agents to promote an ever-burgeoning police state; and now it is attempting to take away the right of the people to keep and bear their most fundamental self-defense tool: the semi-automatic rifle. And we are supposed to think that all of this is mere coincidence? Hogwash!

Let me here quote from Patrick Henry’s immortal “Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death” speech. By the way, this most-famous-of-all American speech was delivered almost one month to the day before the shots fired on Lexington Green. Henry’s speech was delivered on March 23, 1775; the shots fired on Lexington Green occurred on April 19, 1775.

Listen to Patrick Henry:

“Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, Sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, Sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, Sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging.

“They tell us, Sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.”

As you read those words, remember that Henry was 39-years-old when he spoke them; that he was the father of seventeen children; that among those in the audience were Thomas Jefferson and George Washington; and that he was every bit the Christian as any American who has ever lived–including us Christians today.

Sheriff, if you are going to take a stand, you must take it now! Mr. Police Chief, if you are going to take a stand, you must take it now! Soldier and Marine, if you are going to take a stand, you must take it now! Pastor, if you are going to take a stand, you must take it now! Mr. and Mrs. America, if you are going to take a stand, you must take it now!

Let me remind readers, too, that my constitutional attorney son and I are in the process of publishing a brand new book designed to give Christians the tools they need to be able to properly understand that the Bible nowhere teaches that they should be willing to disarm themselves under any tyrannical order to do so. The book is entitled, “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns.” The book will be released soon, and we are now taking pre-orders.

To pre-order the book, “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns,” go to:

Keep Your Arms

I submit that we are able to defend our liberties and defeat attempts by modern would-be tyrants to enslave us as much NOW as we were in 1775. It starts by settling the matter in your own heart that you are NOT going to surrender your semi-automatic rifle no matter what law is passed in Washington, D.C. Next, let your elected representatives and senators (both State and federal) know in no uncertain terms that the protection of our Second Amendment liberties is an absolute litmus test for re-election–political party notwithstanding. Thirdly, if your sheriff won’t take a stand for your right to keep and bear arms RIGHT NOW, vote him or her out of office at the earliest opportunity. You might even consider issuing a recall petition against him or her. And if your pastor will not take a stand RIGHT NOW, vote with your feet and leave his church and find a pastor who will. And while you’re at it, stop listening to these radio and TV preachers who keep telling you that it’s wrong to resist tyranny. They are aiding and abetting the enemies of freedom.

To quote Patrick Henry again, “Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?”

I say, again, if you are going to take a stand, you must take it now!

Governments And Guns Are Socially Analogous

People Control Both…

Libertarianism has become popular.  But is it really the answer to the despotic regimes that have characterized the history of human society?  Some who claim the name are close but many are far into utopian fantasies.

I like Lou Rockwell.  His internet page is always a source of truth and commendable prose. I saved a quote where he said that the “moral law applies across the board, and that one is not exempted from it by a government suit.”  That is a good starting point as long as the source of the moral law is the Word of the Christian Triune God.  Unfortunately, God’s Law is rarely, if ever, mentioned in Libertarian circles.   

Most Libertarians are pedagogic, articulate, intellectual, and industrious; they have no peers in chronicling the swift deterioration of our nation.  Their primary moral code is that coercion is evil and freedom is righteous.  Most envision a society f where everyone considers the rights of their fellows. Their objective is attractive and though its realization is murky and imprecise their ranks are growing.

Libertarianism has roots in the Godless intellectualism of the Enlightenment.  Seventeenth Century French intellectual Rene Descartes declared   “I think, therefore I am”. Deification of the human mind began the tragic and irrational march toward human divinity.  Thomas Paine called it “The Age of Reason” and with the irreverence of a rebel and the brilliance of an intellectual he discarded the formal religion of the ages in favor of his own deistic opinions.

Intellectualism spawned the Enlightenment and like its progenitor Libertarianism is steeped in intellectualism.  Free trade ala Ludwig von Mises takes on an almost divine character.  The fractured condition of the movement provides insight into the results of the deification of the human mind.

Libertarian ranks include Liberals, Conservatives, Paleo-Conservatives, Anarchists, Minarchists, limited government rebels, mislead Christians, freedom loving intellectuals, and rebellious youth.  There are Socialist Libertarians and Capitalist Libertarians.  European definitions tend to be anarchic and politically left while American definitions are broader supporting free market capitalism.  All tend to resist coercion and emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association.  There are moral Libertarians and immoral Libertarians.  There are Koch Libertarians and Rockwell Libertarians.  As with many Godless intellectual movements there is a wide acceptance of free sex.

Former Congressman Ron Paul has done as much as anyone to popularize the Libertarian Movement. His run for the Presidency was filled with wisdom and honesty that would serve us well but his defeat was programmed before he began his campaign.  Peter Theil, an openly gay member of the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group, provided major support.  I voted for Ron Paul and thought his financing was a result of large quantities of small contributions from internet sources.  I now wonder if it was a setup to insure the election of Barak Obama.

Libertarianism lacks an anchor and is plagued with the anarchy of human opinion.  When organizations become fractured by opposing opinions they become weak through diversity.  Power results from a clear objective.  There are too many voices in the movement. In a Business Insider article Eric Zuesse writes that Libertarians “entirely avoid the real question, which is: What type of government is good? As an “ideology,” libertarianism doesn’t even make it to first base: it’s fake, from the get-go. That’s why libertarianism fails.”

Allegiance to God’s overarching legal system provides an anchor and a big step forward for freedom. Opinions are a form of coercion with each proponent striving to dominate.  Anthony Wile at the Daily Bell recently posted a fascinating interview with George Guilder.  Guilder is a consummate insider who lost his father to WWII and was parented by David Rockefeller.  Some of Guilder’s opinions are compatible with patriots, new world order opponents, and some Libertarians.  The interview is here.   It is an interesting interview of a very smart man.  However, I am not as much interested in the interview itself as I am with the demeanor of Gilder’s responses. He responds with the assurance of the wealthy elite and Wile accepts his responses with the demeanor of the proletariat.  Though they are just opinions Gilder expects them to be heeded; there is tyranny in his manner.  An interview with Walter Block provides another example of dominate opinion.  Block has the lofty credentials of an academic. He expects respect for his positions but with less dominance.  Read his interview here.

Rejection of the Christian doctrine of original sin undergirds scores of disastrous social and political ventures. The government of the United States of America was founded and has been conducted under the assumption that government is a human domain.  We live in a Democratic Republic which depends on the voting public to elect individuals who will abide by a Constitution.

God provided Commandments, not opinions.  Commandments are authoritative and dominating, they demand compliance.  Opinions vary from man to man and are subject to rejections.  Commandments vest authority in God while opinions vest authority in the creature.  One is God centered, the other is humanistic.  God’s Commandments are simple and immutable; human law is voluminous, complex, emendable, and often obtuse.

The United States Constitution is a man made document that is being shredded by men and women who have taken a sacred oath to uphold it.  These are evil, dishonest people.  This kind of behavior is typical of the majority of kings, queens, and dictators that have enslaved and abused the earth’s population from antediluvian times.  It would create severe problems in an anarchic Libertarian society.

Absolute freedom is like infinity, it is beyond the kin of mankind.  We are captives in a body and captives in a universe.  We had nothing to do with our birth and baring suicide we have little to do with our death. Our inclination is to fall into a captivity of action that imprisons our lives.  Some of us become obsessed with business, some with learning, some with drugs, some with sex, some with ego, etc.  A mature person in a properly governed society should be free to choose where he will use his life.

Al Benson began one of his recent columns with this paragraph: “We see in operation today two kingdoms in the world—the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of man (the state). There are few legitimate governments anymore that really comprise the “state.” Most of the legitimate ones are gone, having been replaced with dictatorships, oligarchies, or fake “republics” that fool people with charades they refer to as elections and whose results have already been predetermined long before the “election” takes place. We recently had one of those in the United States.”

The human freedom being pursued by the Libertarian agenda is at war with the Kingdom of God and in spite of its popularity it cannot realize its objective. Freedom is rooted in Christianity.  It is rooted in individual responsibility and obedience to God’s Commandments.  God’s government is the opposite of the new world order; His government is decentralized. The family is the basic unit.  The state acts as protector and the church is God’s agent.

The universal application of Law is the key to freedom.  All of society; the individual, the church, and the state, must abide by God’s Law.  Government cannot be allowed to pass laws to which they, themselves, are not subject; it always ends in tyranny.

Christians have been living in a dream world and the next few months and years may bring a big change in their religious perception.  God’s Judgment has fallen on our world!   R. J. Rushdoony wrote that “the Moloch state is a product of apostasy.”  We are in the grip of a product of apostasy that is abolishing our freedom and conducting a war against God and His people.  Hobby Lobby is resisting the new health care law which demands support for abortion.  The Moloch state will require a massive daily fine for non-compliance.  The state does not worship the Christian God of Hobby Lobby; its god is the anti-Christ.

Hundreds of thousands of Dispensational Christians are expecting world government to bring the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ.  It could happen but it is likely it will not.  If they are wrong they will be shocked to find themselves living in a police state run by an evil cabal that hates their Savior.  The dictionary defines apostasy as abandonment of a previous loyalty.  We have abandoned the orthodox Reformed Christian Faith that was bequeathed by our fathers and followed a heresy that has allowed the humanistic hand of evil to invade our religion, our lives, our homes, and our nation.

As the horrors of the new world order afflict the Western World people will realize that government is not the source redemption.  They will concede that we have not followed the gift of salvation with obedience and dominion; and that if we expect to live in freedom again we must turn from our sin and repent of our wicked ways.

Christians often quote 2 Chronicles 7:14 where God promises to remove His judgment “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”.   I get many emails quoting this Bible passage but none of them specify what is meant by turning from our wicked ways.   God’s judgment is not confined to abortion or to homosexuality or to disobeying the often questionable personal guidance that comes from God “speaking to” individuals.  Judgment comes for disobedience to His Commandments (His Law).

We have lost our nation to Moloch because we have allowed a foreign religion to change our laws legalizing the evils of abortion, homosexuality, murder, dishonesty, theft, injustice, war, genocide, hate, pugnacity, greed, torture and independence.   When a society allows its government to disobey God’s Law that society is on the road to ruin.

Freedom is not realized by abandoning government and allowing moral evil to run rampant, it is not a product of a lack of laws, nor can it be produced by intellectual endeavor.  Freedom is a result of obedience to the Commandments of our Creator.  Libertarians put the rational product of their minds above the Law of God.  They are not the only ones who believe their opinions are superior to God’s. Our society is full of legal standards, folkways, and mores that are at odds with God.  We are living in a cesspool created by our own vain laxity and many have not yet smelled the stench.

Revolution?

I have been writing this column for over a dozen years, and I can safely say the column I wrote last week, “My Line In The Sand Is Drawn Here,” produced more response than any column I have ever written–maybe more than any two or three columns combined. And what is even more noteworthy: unlike most columns, the responses to this column were at least 90% favorable.

In last week’s column I said, “Throughout the United States, there are tens of millions of fully-armed citizens who are more than capable of defending themselves and their communities against any enemy–whether that enemy is an internal or external one. In fact, many millions of these citizens have been trained in the US armed forces. Firearms–especially semi-automatic rifles–in the hands of millions of American citizens is truly the only thing that stands between freedom and tyranny for the people of the United States. That Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein want to disarm the American people should be considered an act of war against our liberties! In other words, ladies and gentlemen, this is a line in the sand that none of us can afford to ignore.”

I also wrote, “Make no mistake about it: to take away an American’s right to a semi-automatic rifle is to FULLY DISARM HIM. There is no Second Amendment; there is no right to keep and bear arms; there is no citizen militia; there is no liberty without the semi-automatic rifle!”

I concluded the column saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, whatever the consequences might be, and whatever anyone else does or doesn’t do, I am prepared to become an outlaw over this issue! I don’t know how to say it any plainer: I will not register my firearms, and I will not surrender my firearms. Period. End of story. It’s not just a saying with me: when my guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw!

“My line in the sand is drawn here!

“Make no mistake about it: it is not just semi-automatic rifles that these gun grabbers are after. Ultimately, they want to take all of our guns. We either stop them now or there will be no stopping them at all.”

See the column at:

My Line In The Sand Is Drawn Here!

Among those who wrote to tell me that they had also drawn their personal line in the sand on this issue and that they would also absolutely refuse to register or surrender their firearms were people from virtually all walks of life: attorneys, realtors, bankers, teachers, physicians, civil servants, salesmen, truck drivers, tradesmen, pastors, law enforcement officers (including federal police officers), and military personnel–even special forces troops. Accordingly, I am absolutely convinced that these people are a microcosm of gun owners nationwide. I am also convinced that should Senator Dianne Feinstein’s bill banning semi-automatic rifles become law that there are literally tens of millions of Americans who simply will not comply.

Furthermore, former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan recently told John McLaughlin that should the federal government attempt to confiscate the guns of the American people, “There would be a revolution in this country!”

See the report at:

‘There would be a revolution in this country!’, Mail Online

What most people fail to realize (because they are not taught it) is that the match that ignited America’s War for Independence was not excessive taxes, or the lack of representation, or trade restrictions, or the lack of trial by jury (as important as these issues were). The match that ignited America’s War for Independence was ATTEMPTED GUN CONFISCATION.

On April 19, 1775, British troops, some 800 strong, were dispatched to Concord, Massachusetts, to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock and to seize a cache of weapons known to be stored at Concord. When Dr. Joseph Warren sent Paul Revere to warn Pastor Jonas Clark (in whose home Adams and Hancock were staying) that the Crown’s troops were on their way to arrest the two men and seize the guns at Concord, he alerted his male congregants. About 60-70 men from the Church of Lexington stood armed on Lexington Green awaiting the Red Coats.

Upon spotting the citizen militia, a British officer demanded the men throw down their arms. They refused; and the British troops immediately opened fire. Eight of the Minutemen were instantly killed. The colonists returned fire in self-defense, and the shot was fired that was heard ’round the world. By the time the troops arrived at the Concord Bridge, just a few miles away, hundreds of colonists were waiting for them with muskets in hand, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Make no mistake about it: attempted gun confiscation ignited America’s War for Independence. And I am convinced that Pat Buchanan is absolutely right. If the federal government attempts to confiscate the guns of the American people, “There would be a revolution in this country!”

One more observation regarding The Battle of Lexington which opened America’s War for Independence: not only was attempted gun confiscation the match that ignited the war, it was the pastor of the Church of Lexington and members of his congregation who were the Minutemen of Lexington Green. That is another fact most historians conveniently leave out of the story.

If there is one element missing from today’s liberty fight, it is the lack of participation from America’s pastors. By and large they are MIA. How many pastors today are warning their congregations of the threat against their Second Amendment liberties? Every pastor in America, regardless of denomination, should have already started proclaiming “the spirit of resistance” (Thomas Jefferson) to their church congregations; they should already be extolling the Biblical mandate to resist tyranny; they should already be warning their congregations of Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein’s plan to disarm them.

Let me ask my church-going readers: has your pastor said one word from the pulpit regarding the impending gun ban now being drafted? Has your pastor explained the Biblical principles of lawful resistance? Has your pastor exhorted his church congregation to not surrender their firearms and to do everything in their power to demand that your senators and legislators hold the line for the Second Amendment? And my next question is if your pastor has not done any of this, why are you still attending that church?

Ladies and gentlemen, there would have been no United States of America had it not been for Rev. Jonas Clark and the other patriot-pastors of 1775 and 1776. There would have been no Lexington Green and Concord Bridge; there would have been no Bunker Hill; there would have been no Declaration of Independence; there would have been no British surrender at Yorktown. And I would dare say that if a significant percentage of pastors would stand up this Sunday and encourage their people to stand firm against this gun ban bill, the bill would never see the light of day.

The time is late, folks! We no longer have the luxury of straddling the fence or putting our heads in the sand. If your pastor refuses to take a public stand for YOUR liberties, and the liberties of YOUR CHILDREN, vote with your feet and walk out the door. Find yourself a pastor who will defend your liberties and the liberties of your children–liberties that other pastors and patriots purchased at the cost of their very blood.

I repeat what I’ve already said, “Whatever the consequences might be, and whatever anyone else does or doesn’t do, I am prepared to become an outlaw over this issue! I don’t know how to say it any plainer: I will not register my firearms, and I will not surrender my firearms. Period. End of story. It’s not just a saying with me: when my guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw!

“My line in the sand is drawn here!”

And so are the lines of millions of Americans.

In response to Pat Buchanan’s prediction of revolution should the federal government attempt to confiscate our guns, John McLaughlin replied, “Baloney!”

I’m sure that’s what King George III said when he was told that would happen if his troops attempted to confiscate the guns at Concord.

« Previous Page — Next Page »