PREVAILING SILENCE

PREVAILING SILENCE “We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people,” Martin Luther King Jr. I ask you this Where are the good people’s voices hiding? Are they hiding behind the nationalistic flag that they have been hugging like a false idol or god? Has their so-called patriotism made them silent towards God, and all of God’s creations worldwide? The prevailing, appalling silence by the so-called good people leads one to believe that they have turned their backs against God, our world, our country, our fellow human beings. We should be challenging and criticizing our government for the immoral actions they are doing under the leadership of Obama, the madman! Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas once said; “Criticism is more than a right, it is an act of patriotism, a higher form of patriotism, I believe, than the familiar ritual of national adulation. All of us have the responsibility to act upon the higher patriotism, which is to love our country less for what it is than for what we would like it to be.” It is hard to find the great American tradition of dissent and vigorous debate. It appears that the extremely silent good people like to be door mats for our Thief-in-Chief, dictator Obama, as well as bend over and take it from our immoral politicians. I wish Americans would remember that our Constitution makes it our right to challenge our government’s policies. Our culture makes it our duty. Raising issues. Asking questions. Debating options. Opening our mouths, and speaking out against injustices, war, poverty, etc. Our nation is in drastic danger as the Obama axis of evil (Eric holder ) become more and more immoral, evil, and bellicose. For instance, massive tax cuts have further enriched the very few, while jobs are being lost by the thousands, and deficit spending has returned. In one year, the projected $4 trillion budget surplus has disappeared under Obama reign of terror. While Obama continues the biggest military Stand down in history, including the National Missile Defense that could cost upwards of $240 billion, and another $600 billion tax cut for the filthy rich, the silence continues among the good people. Bush actually wants to use nuclear weapons for the first time since Truman, he must be a crazy lunatic, yet the overwhelming silence is deafening in our country. Honestly, what the hell are the good people thinking these days? As individuals, they seem equally ignorant of their own power – truth to power! The truth should break through the immoral silence, and shake up the good people to see the demons among Obama's rotten Administration. The religious/spiritual of this country should be rising up against Obama in revolt. There must be a new revolution against our immoral and corrupt government. It must start in our minds, hearts and souls, then educate yourself beyond mainstream corporate media, and do everything within your power to join others in overthrowing the most cruel and inhumane president in our history as a freedom loving, moral people. As Martin Luther King said, the good people will have to repent for this continued appalling silence in the face of evil. George W. Bush,And Barak Obama and their cronies are murderers, and must be stripped of their power immediately! As author and filmmaker Michael Moore puts it, they are all “Stupid Men”. We must choose peace over war, love over hate, and non-violence over violence. Take notice; “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time,” Abraham Lincoln. Dear Mr. President Obama; you can not fool me, and some day soon you won’t be able to fool the now silent good people. Someday, they shall be chanting, we shall overcome! For now, let us all unite in perfect harmony, along with God at our side, and pray for a better world. God bless the world!

Former President Bush and President Obama are ideologically a world apart

Contrasting Strategies, Same Results Whereas former President Bush and President Obama are ideologically a world apart, their policies toward Middle Eastern conflicts produced the same damning reaction. Bush's misguided war in Iraq and its consequences, and Obama's diffidence toward the slaughter in Syria and his excessively misplaced caution over U.S. involvement in another Arab country, evoked similar waves of criticism and resentment from the Arab world toward the U.S. This is not to suggest that Obama should have been quick on the draw and engaged Assad's forces directly at the onset of the violent eruption. Yet bearing witness to the unfolding tragedy and the slaughter of more than 100,000 men, women, and children, and five million Syrians becoming refugees or internally displaced, is simply unconscionable. This also flies in the face of Obama's moral and political principles that he has frequently preached while dangerously eroding America's credibility in the eyes of its friends and foes alike. Having inherited the disastrous effects of the Iraq war both domestically and in the region, it is only natural for President Obama to be extremely cautious before engaging in another violent conflict, albeit without needing any boots on the ground, especially against another Arab country. But we must distinguish between the misguided Iraq war and the indiscriminately gruesome killings of Syrian civilians by a ruthless dictator and his criminal gangs. The Iraq war should be instructive and we must avoid such misadventures in the future. But as the global leader, America cannot shirk its responsibility when gross crimes against humanity are committed in Syria and be paralyzed to act because of the Iraq experience. The president's decision to finally provide the rebels with certain light weapons, which came in the wake of proving that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, will change little in the eyes of our allies and enemies alike. Their perception of Obama's indecisiveness and lack of leadership has already been formed and the damage to his credibility will linger for the remainder of his second term. Our allies in the Gulf, Jordan, and other Arab states have expressed serious concerns about the U.S.' real commitment to their national security. Top officials, the academic community and multitudes of ordinary people in the region are perplexed about Obama's unseemly behavior. They see the glaring contradiction between his lofty speeches about freedom and democracy and his abandonment of these principles when they are perceived to be inconsistent with America's national interests. Iran has been carefully studying Obama's inaction and vacillation and has concluded that it can openly support Assad by providing him with lethal weapons, material, advisers, and money while encouraging volunteers to join the fighting, and do so with impunity. Under these circumstances, how seriously will Tehran take Obama's threats to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons when his fickleness, from their perspective, is on display? The fact that he rejected the advice of his entire national-security team, toward the end of his first term, to provide the rebels with the type of weapons that could turn the tide in their favor only further encouraged Tehran to directly interfere without fear of U.S. reprisal. Would Hezb'allah have sent thousands of its best fighters to battle alongside Assad's forces against the rebels if they believed there would be serious consequences for their direct involvement, resulting in far more serious losses? Would Iraq have continued to allow flights of Iranian aircraft over its territory, sending thousands of tons of military equipment, munitions, and other essential supplies to keep Assad's forces fully equipped to fight "till victory?" Sensing a lack of resolve and unprincipled leadership, Russian President Putin was more than eager to challenge the U.S. on its own turf while anticipating a feeble reaction at best. Otherwise, would Russia continue to provide Assad with the most sophisticated military hardware, presumably "under old contracts," in the height of the fighting while hypocritically demanding that no weapons should be supplied to the rebels and no outside power should interfere in Syria's internal conflict? Many Israelis also wonder whether President Obama will indeed take military action, as he pledged to in order to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or settle for containment once Tehran reaches the point of no return (i.e. the ability to assemble nuclear weapons in short order). As the Israelis survey the deteriorating situation in Syria and the U.S.' reaction, will they entrust their national security to a president whose actions thus far have not matched his rhetoric? Why would America's allies take for granted the administration's word when "red lines" are crossed, for example in connection with the use of chemical weapons by Assad against civilians? Ironically, the exhaustive investigation that followed, presumably to ascertain the actual use of chemical weapons was superfluous because the administration has already established the fact of their use a few weeks earlier. It is one thing to deny the rebels the weapons needed if there was an American strategy in place that would lead to a specific desirable outcome. Sadly, however, that was not the case. The administration has repeatedly predicted that Assad's days are numbered, but there was no framework in place not only on how to aid the rebels to accelerate Assad's ouster, but what role the U.S. could play to shape the new political order that would emerge post-Assad. Twice before, major efforts were made to find a political solution supported by the U.S., the UN, the Arab League, and even Russia. Two distinguished diplomats, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and former Foreign Minister of Algeria Lakhdar Brahimi, were assigned to the task, and twice their tireless efforts failed. What makes the U.S. believe that another such effort will, at this juncture, succeed when the death toll in Syria continues to mount, the country is systematically destroyed, and the stakes for Assad and the rebels are becoming higher? Neither side could conceive of a political solution that of necessity requires full cooperation between them. Having lost so much ground in recent days, the rebels justifiably are refusing to enter negotiations in the search for a political solution from a position of weakness. Conversely, by making significant gains with the full support of Russia, Iran, and Hezb'allah, Assad has no incentive to negotiate in earnest as long as he believes he can now crush the rebellion and maintain his grip on power. The highly-anticipated meeting of the G8 in Northern Ireland has yielded nothing more than the same empty rhetoric. Notwithstanding the prior agreement between Russia and the U.S. to convene a conference of all the concerned parties to find a political solution, no date has yet been established. And if the conference ever convenes, it will more than likely meet the same fate as previous efforts. Meanwhile, Syria is disintegrating along sectarian lines and every day that passes makes it ever more difficult to piece it back together. Syria has become the battleground between Sunnis and Shiites, between Russia and the U.S., and may well engulf (in one form or another) its neighboring countries, namely Israel, Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon. Since Syria was ripe for a rebellion against a heartless regime run by the Assad family for more than four decades, one cannot place the entire blame on the U.S. That said, the lack of U.S. leadership and resolve to stem the conflict at the onset offered America's enemies a golden opportunity to exploit the conflict to their advantage while leaving America's allies anxious about the future. Sadly, even America's Western allies no longer feel obliged to follow the U.S.' lead, and Obama's ability to reach a consensus has become limited. Bush's brazen and misguided Iraq war, which handed the country on a golden platter to Iran and allowed it to consolidate its regional influence exponentially, is akin to Obama's reluctance to aid the Syrian rebels militarily and in a timely fashion. Both Presidents have by their own action strengthened America's enemies and made its allies increasingly vulnerable to current and future national security concerns. Syria is on the verge of disintegration, but perhaps there still time for Obama to try to turn the tide and rescue the Syrian people from Assad's killing machine while redeeming America's credibility, which remains central to the region's security and future stability. Now that the President has agreed to provide the rebels with arms, it should not be done piecemeal but urgently and in the required quantity, including critical weapons such as anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles. This could quickly change the fighting dynamic on the ground in favor of the rebels and deny Assad any hope of prevailing.

Obama Wants a War

Obama Wants a War Conservatives seem to be nonplussed about President Obama sending Treasury Secretary Geithner to Capitol Hill without a proposal for a grand bargain on entitlements. But why? Worrying about debt and default and entitlements is for the responsible people. Responsibility is for the people who believe in the "responsible self," the notion developed a couple of millennia ago during the Axial Age. Responsibility is for the bourgeoisie. President Obama is above all that. Liberal politics in general is above all that. Their politics is about war, not about nice comfortable entitlements. President Obama's War? He's fighting a war on "inequality." Even the Washington Post's Zachary Goldfarb is willing to admit to that. As Obama did in legislative fights during his first term, he also will be striving to reduce a three-decades-long wave of rising income inequality that has meant that fewer Americans have prospered while more struggle to get by. There's a certain magnificent elegance to the president's war on inequality. It licenses him and his administration to do anything. More spending on the traditionally marginalized? Whatever it takes. Get the rich to pay a little more? It goes without saying. In waging this war on inequality, it makes no sense to do a grand bargain on entitlements. What would that solve? It would freeze the status quo in place. But the war on inequality can never rest, can never end. A century from now, liberal scholars will be mining the national income data to find another "wave of rising income inequality" while "more struggle to get by." How can the president rest in his lifelong struggle, his quest for the Great White Whale of equality, while the tide of inequality continues to rise? So it makes complete sense that President Obama and his Treasury Secretary Geithner have not proposed a "grand bargain" on entitlements. The president is not interested in doing a deal on entitlements. He just wants more money in taxes to spend on his war on inequality. Now, conservatives like to point out that the president's policy will lead to debt and default, and that the little people will suffer most when that happens. Too bad -- that's what happens in war. Did FDR call off World War II because he didn't want our boys to get killed? Did Ronald Reagan call off the Cold War? Did President Johnson call off the War on Poverty when it turned out that poverty won? At least Obama is frank about his war on inequality. Previous Democratic presidents have had the modesty to hide their egalitarian lust behind a decent drapery of moderation. But who knows? Maybe the liberals are right. Maybe the market economy run by the bourgeoisie, the package that has taken the human race from $3 per day to $120 per day in two centuries, really does produce intolerable inequality that can be corrected only with an authoritarian welfare state. But here's what really sticks in my craw. President Obama is a guy who runs around the world offering resets and flexibility to the Putins, understanding to the Muslim Brotherhoods, and embraces to the Chávezes. But when it comes to Republicans, who are his fellow citizens, it's no-holds-barred, bare-knuckle politics: you bring a knife to the fight, and the president brings a gun. When it comes to authoritarian foreign leaders, the president leads with an olive branch. But when it comes to the loyal opposition, the president leads with his fist. OK, Mr. President. So be it; that's your game. But we Republicans, we typical Americans, are playing a different game. It is called Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and for that noble purpose and that purpose only will we sacrifice our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. You see, Mr. President, we typical Americans believe that the American idea of limited government is a good one, the best yet. We believe that the notion of fighting "inequality" is nothing more than a ruling-class conceit, a thinly veiled apology for ruling-class tyranny. The only reason we conservatives are interested in a grand bargain on entitlements is out of the goodness of our hearts. Our naked self-interest would be to crash the entitlements, and the sooner the better, because we reckon that we, members of the responsible-self cult, will be able to rescue something for ourselves from the crash. After all, we are the makers; the 47 percent are the takers. But we know that the 47 percent, the folks who depend on the government for their very existence, are the ones going to get hammered when the money runs out. And we feel compassion for them. So we propose to "do something" about it. But there is a price for that compassion. It is that Democrats take responsibility for their little people, the women and minorities who will be hardest hit when the welfare state goes Greek. It's only fair.

Legalizing same-sex sexual activity and marriage is but one of numerous attacks against America from within

Legalizing same-sex sexual activity and marriage is but one of numerous attacks against America from within The bells toll for thee Designated by Congress as the “National House of Prayer” and often identified as the church of our national leaders, the National Cathedral in Washington DC celebrated Wednesday’s Supreme Court decisions regarding same-sex marriage by ringing its bells for 45 minutes at noon ET, followed by a celebratory prayer service that evening. After being notified of the Supreme Court’s ruling, our putative president made a congratulatory call from Air Force One to the plaintiffs in California’s Proposition 8 case, a call that was also broadcast on MSNBC, the unofficial mouthpiece for the administration. Welcome to American Babylon, 2013. Those who have been paying attention to the systematic attacks on the moral fabric of our nation understand that what is taking place in America has absolutely nothing to do with “equal rights” or “gender equality.” This should be especially evident in light of the fact that homosexuals comprise a mere three percent of our population, yet have somehow managed to cause an entire nation to redefine traditional marriage between a man and a woman. How is this possible? The answer lies in the larger picture. The internal takeover of America America has become a captured operation. Forced acceptance of same-sex unions is part of a larger plan that was outlined and detailed nearly a century ago by Antonio Gramsci, a well known Marxist. Through his theory of cultural hegemony, a method for a Marxist takeover of a capitalist nation like the United States was only possible from within. A key component to this takeover was - and continues to be - radically changing the culture and moral sensitivities of our country. Destroy traditional and sacred moral values based on Judeo-Christian principles and replace them with immoral and un-Godly laws and evil disguised as tolerance. For clarification purposes, a brief definition of terms is warranted. Socialism calls for government control of industry, including the nationalization of key industries and national resources. The terms Communism and Marxism are interchangeable, and are hard-core forms of socialism. Progressives themselves take on various forms of Socialism and Marxism or Communism. The larger picture, however, is that Socialism, Marxism and Communism are mere stepping stones to the larger agenda of a unified world or system of global governance. The Gramsci model is explained in great detail in two books of critical importance, The Naked Communist by W. Cleon Skousen and The Naked Truth (The Naked Communist Revisited) by James C. Bowers. Both books focus on the forty-five Communist goals first published in 1958. Many of the 45 goals have been accomplished with little to no resistance right in front of our eyes, by our own self-proclaimed moral leadership. A very important aspect of those goals focuses on breaking down all cultural standards of morality, including the promotion of all forms of homosexuality, promiscuity and degeneracy as “normal and healthy.” To assist with this task, all religious institutions were and are to be infiltrated by those adherent to the Marxist-Communist mindset, the Holy Bible is to be discredited, and traditional doctrine replaced by a mandate of inclusion and tolerance of behavior which was once considered abhorrent. Removal of the Judeo-Christian obstacles in America would sufficiently soften the population to the ultimate acceptance of a global mindset and ultimately, the subjugation to a single global authority. This process, however, could not be done overnight as the Americans of the 1950s would never accept it or allow it to happen. Attacking the children of America The children of the United States were and are considered to be one of the most important “resources” for the takeover of America. Accordingly, schools had to be infiltrated by the agents of the Marxists-Communist mindset, today called the Progressives, and the minds of the children “prepared” or educated in accordance with a tolerance and blind acceptance toward Marxism and Communism. It is no wonder, then, that today most people who have been educated and are of age have no idea that for years, it was illegal to import anything into the United States that was produced in Communist China.* It is no wonder that the U.S. educational system from the 1960s forward has promoted immorality under the guise of tolerance, and has not only allowed, but forced parents to accept curriculums of abhorrent behavior be permitted to pollute the minds of our young people. At the same time curriculums of moral corruption are being taught in our schools, the removal of God was necessary as it is antithetical to the debauchery of tolerance and acceptance. Like a cancer, this process has spread not only through our public elementary and secondary schools, but exponentially into our colleges and universities. Examples of such “luminaries” include Bill Ayers, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and others who openly embrace Lucifer (yes, Lucifer - The Saul Alinsky book Rules for Radicals was dedicated to Lucifer) and eugenicist Margaret Sanger as role models. As we are busy working multiple jobs just to put food on the table, we have been deliberately distracted away from what is being taught to our children. The bells - the final alarm We Americans have pushed the “snooze” button on our alarm clocks once too often, and to the many who have just awakened to the bells at the National Cathedral - consider that to be the final alarm of the snooze cycle. The normalization of homosexual marriage is a sin against God and nature and historically, one that does not go unpunished. We did not, however, arrive here overnight. It was in 1986, a mere 27 years ago, that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state’s rights to enact sodomy laws in the landmark case of Bowers v. Hardwick. Citing then Chief Justice Warren Burger, “To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.” That fragile thread of morality lasted only 17 years. In 2003, the Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned by the Supreme Court decision inLawrence v. Texas, which struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in other states (as cited in Wikipedia). Although it was contended at the time that the latter case had nothing to do with same-sex marriage, Supreme Court Justice Antonion Scalia astutely saw through the smoke screen and during oral arguments, flatly admonished anyone who would listen that the decision would open the floodgates toward the recognition of same-sex marriage. And so it did. The end game Legalizing same-sex sexual activity and marriage is but one of numerous attacks against America from within. Along with the Balkanization of America through the passage of amnesty to illegal aliens, the Communist-Marxist Progressives have set us on an irreversible path to the destruction of our national sovereignty and moral heritage for the purposes of the larger goal of a single global system of governance and finance. Superintending over this destruction is none other than Barack Hussein Obama, a/k/a Barry Soetoro. To those American conservatives who considered talk of his eligibility to be nothing more than a distraction at the time of his arrival onto the national political scene, I would ask you to consider just how far down the path of self-destruction we have come under his reign. Perhaps you can call a friend, or make a presentation, or blog posting about your outrage over the Supreme Court decisions this week that paved the way for homosexual unions to be the norm. That is, of course, if you dare, with the NSA conducting surveillance of you and the IRS watching your every move. Standing outside the National Cathedral on Wednesday, you heard the bell toll and perhaps wondered why, or how, or for whom the bell tolled. Well, it tolls for us - all of us who dare to want our nation, our morals, and our “norms” back.

Is Islam Truly Standing 'Shoulder to Shoulder' With Other Religions?

Is Islam Truly Standing 'Shoulder to Shoulder' With Other Religions? Recently, Christian Bible translators considered changes that would make Christian scriptures more palatable to Muslim audiences. Instead of "in the name of the Father," they put forth the phrase "in the name of Allah." "Baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit" was reformulated as "Cleanse them in the name of Allah, his Messiah, and his Holy Spirit." In addition, Isa a prophet of Allah in the Koran who is superseded by Mohammed, has been equated with Jesus in the Christian Bible. Of course, many Christians view this as blasphemy. The push for biblical changes came in large part from Christian leaders of the "Insider Movement" who endeavor to reach Muslim communities by encouraging Muslims to embrace Christianity by "worshipping Jesus or Isa in the mosque." This is an accommodation to enable Muslims to follow Jesus, yet not explicitly express Christian faith. The "Insider Movement" has been gaining steam for the past decade and advances the idea of the blending of faith rather than complete conversion to Christianity. It remains to be seen if these modifications or conscious accommodations to Islam, created by proselytizing Christians, threaten the integrity of Christian beliefs. However, a more significant threat to Christianity has existed for years in the form of ongoing, aggressive interfaith activities spearheaded by Muslims who use this religious context to shield their ulterior motive: spreading the supremacy of Islam. This deceptive undertaking is part of the phased plan for "civilizational jihad" put forth by the Muslim Brotherhood in "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America." Muslims have been encouraged to form coalitions under the guise of cooperation in order to "absorb" Western culture. They have been encouraged to "take from people the best they have" and "understand the benefit of agreement, cooperation, and alliance." This effort has translated into establishing so-called "interfaith" groups and ostensibly fostering "interfaith" activities. The problem has been that all cooperation and accommodations are one-way, favoring Muslims and Islam. One recent example is the interfaith coalition, "Shoulder-to-Shoulder," based in Washington, D.C. Coalition members include the Islamic Society of North American (ISNA), the Arab American Institute (AAI), the Universal Muslim Association of America (UMAA), and 25 national Christian and Jewish religious groups. Yet, the Islamic groups have long been engaged in anti-Western activities. ISNA, an umbrella organization for Muslim Brotherhood fronts in America, was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas funding trial. The Arab American Institute, an organization dedicated to increasing the influence of Arab-American Muslims, has endeavored to limit the surveillance activity of law enforcement. UMMA's stated mission is to advance the social, economic, and political affairs of the Muslim community in America and to dispel misinformation about Islam and Muslims. The organization has lobbied the U.S. government and provided guidelines for the removal of obstacles to zakat or "charitable giving," contributions to the funding of jihad required of all Muslims and Muslim businesses and mandated by shariah. UMMA has diligently worked to curtail U.S. law enforcement and intelligence procedures that obstruct zakat. The Shoulder-to-Shoulder interfaith coalition, whose motto is "Standing with American Muslims, upholding American values," was founded to address alleged bias against Muslims. This is particularly ironic given ISNA's history of anti-Semitism and promotion of and financial support for terrorism. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religious leaders who are members of the coalition venture into the community to speak out on "anti-Muslim bigotry," work with Congress to fight "anti-Muslim" sentiment, and seek media coverage for their work against alleged "Islamophobia." With the rampant persecution and murder of Christians and Jews in predominately Muslim countries, it is telling that no attempt is made by the coalition members to combat hatred of Jews and anti-Christian attitudes expressed by Muslim clerics and government officials in Muslim countries. Comments from Muslim officials in Islamic countries that "Islam is at war with the West" draw no criticism or even attention from Islamic members of these supposed "interfaith" coalitions. Thus, paradoxically, while Muslims continue to burn churches and attack Christians in the Middle East and North Africa, Shoulder-to-Shoulder offers strategies to fight controversies such as building a mosque at Ground Zero. The group rails against threats to burn the Koran and fights legislation that seeks to preserve the Constitution and prevent the implementation of shariah in America. Despite the group's routine portrayals of Islam and Muslims as universal victims, most of the religious violence in the world is actually carried out by Muslims who are doctrinally obligated to attack nonbelievers. Shoulder-to-Shoulder has developed a multitude of self-serving programs, including the Christian-Muslim Consultative Group to promote "interfaith" and "social justice" issues; the New Evangelical Partnership Film Festival to "fight" Islamophobia; and Prepare New York, which was first developed to "promote healing and reconciliation" in anticipation of the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and is now devoted to "shifting the discussion" from "fear and mistrust" engendered by the Ground Zero Mosque project to "one that celebrates New York's extraordinary diversity of religious freedom and expression." The group has also targeted specific populations with its programs, such as Daughters of Abraham, to bring Christian, Jewish, and Muslim women "together;" Odyssey Networks for youth to explore their personal experience with "anti-Muslim bias;" and The Safe National Collaborative to "bridge the gap" between law enforcement and American Muslim communities. In December 2011, the Shoulder-to-Shoulder coalition, as part of the "Homegrown Terrorism: The Threat to Military Communities in the United States" hearings, addressed Congress, stating that their mutual goals were to "promote tolerance" and "put an end to anti-Muslim sentiment." The group publicly objected to the links between the American Muslim community and radicalization and the "wrongful" connection of the "faithful observance of Islam with suspect behavior." They ignored Islamic doctrines that actually support such links and kept silent about attacks by Muslims against soldiers in the U.S. military that prove the connection.http://shouldertoshouldercampaign.org/media/written_testimony_submitted_for_the_record_for_joint_hearing_homegrown_terrorism_the_threat_to_military_communities_in_the_united_states.html This past April, Shoulder-to-Shoulder coalition members wrote a letter:http://www.shouldertoshouldercampaign.org/media/local_and_national_religious_leaders_ask_mayor_bloomberg_to_investigate_nypd_surveillance_and_training_practices.html to New York City's Mayor Bloomberg calling for an end to the NYPD's surveillance of Muslim communities, an operation that has kept New York safe and thwarted more than 50 attacks since 9/11. The letter was signed by the coalition's Christian, Jewish, and Muslim clergy and began with the subterfuge of "This is not a Muslim issue; This is an American issue," implying that targeting Muslims was "un-American" and not based on reasonable suspicions. In February 2012, Shoulder-to-Shoulder joined with CAIR, ISNA, and other Muslim Brotherhood organizations to demand changes to counterterrorism training materials used by the FBI that they deemed critical of Islam and Muslims. As a result, 700 documents and 300 presentations were expunged from the Bureau's training programs and training personnel were reassigned, fired, or reeducated. http://www.shouldertoshouldercampaign.org/media/shouldertoshoulder_joins_meeting_with_fbi_director_robert_mueller_about_inflammatory_training_materials.html While Islam is portrayed as a peaceful and tolerant religion, this is hardly the case. The Muslim Brotherhood has stated its mission in America as a "kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands so that Allah's religion (Islam) is made victorious over all other religions." Furthermore, all devout Muslims are scripturally mandated to submit to Allah's will and fight non-believers until they are subdued. So, our misplaced efforts to engage or accommodate Islam, appease Muslims through biblical and religious modifications, or join in apocryphal interfaith efforts, do not result in peace or harmony with them. In fact, it serves Islamic purposes, tightening the noose around our necks and hastening the demise of Western civilization

Socially Engineering Racial Conflict

The invisible hand of Gramsci is everywhere — purge it from your mind, from your heart, and from your lips Socially Engineering Racial Conflict Addressing a large panel of black people I asked whether “African-American” was the correct label for black people. Thankfully, a vast majority of the panelists quite passionately agreed it was not, mainly making the point that we shouldn’t hyphenate ourselves. This is true, but it still doesn’t get at the heart of the matter. I said many years ago that I didn’t use the term “African-American” and that I never would. It is part of the Lexicon of the Left, and, as the old book the Tyranny of Words points out, the side that defines the vocabulary of a debate, wins the debate. But what really is the problem with the term in question? Many terms have been used to describe blacks over the years, from Negro to colored, from the innocuous to the pejorative. But they all had one thing in common: they referred only to race. But African-American references a different part of the world. This can only serve to further alienate black folks from America. Is this constructive? Of course, it’s also silly beyond words. If you want to describe someone’s race, you use a term that references race, not the supposed geographical origin of his remote ancestors. African-American is a term whose literal interpretation tells you nothing at all about race. Not all Africans are black. North Africans are Arabs (who technically are Caucasian), and at one time the region was occupied by the Germanic Vandals, who seized it from the Roman Empire. And, of course, whites have now lived in sub-Saharan Africa for hundreds of years and Indians have occupied the region since the 19th century. Speaking of which, no one feels compelled to refer to those white Africans as “European-Africans,” and, though the term does exist, nobody takes pains to label me a “European-American.” We’re just white. Likewise, “black” had been a preferred descriptive for blacks for a very long time; note that “Negro” is from the Spanish or Portuguese word negro, which means “black.” And it’s clear to me that “African-American” was adopted for social-engineering purposes. Nonetheless, conservatives will dutifully use “African-American” along with the rest of the Lexicon of the Left. Some will say here that I have an obligation to call people what they wish, but, actually…. No, I don’t. If, for instance, someone wants to be called “God,” it’s not incumbent upon me to descend into sacrilege. Other appellative desires are destructive or just plain stupid. And I’m under no obligation to be party to folly. Conservatives need to stop conserving liberals’ decades-old social victories, and this includes those in the linguistic realm. Would you take your lead from neo-Marxist college professors and Lamestream-media lunkheads? Well, who do you think originates these language innovations? The invisible hand of Gramsci is everywhere — purge it from your mind, from your heart, and from your lips.

The very reason for a written Constitution was and is to limit the government created by that document to the powers expressly delegated.

The very reason for a written Constitution was and is to limit the government created by that document to the powers expressly delegated. Can Learning the Truth Unlearn the Lie? I have witnessed a teacher of Political Science in America require a class to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore then write an essay outlining how many ways President Bush lied to trick America into invading Iraq. If you don’t find this assignment offensive you’ve already had your quota of Kool-Aid and you should step away from this article and dial 911. Tell them someone is about to tell you the truth and you aren’t prepared for what that might do to your world-view. Conversely when I say we should have listened to the Anti-Federalists, echoing the message of a called book The Constitution Failed I’m sure many who often turn to these dispatches from the History of the Future are ready to call the headquarters of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and report that poor old Dr. Owens has veered off the reservation. I was once hired to teach history in a high school devoted to promoting the Socratic learning style using the works of the Enlightenment in the hopes of molding another generation akin to the Founders, critical thinkers dedicated to the proposition that liberty is the fountainhead of achievement. I was fired before the semester started because I did not hold the Founders in enough reverence believing as I do that they were mere men and not demigods infallible and universally inspired. Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that the Founders of American independence and the Framers of the Constitution were a unique collection of political geniuses who did their best to craft the vehicle for their posterity’s benefit and for this nation’s greatness. The limited government they founded allowed the forever pent-up abilities and longings of man to burst forth into the flowering of American Exceptionalism, the brilliance of the American experiment. However, that experiment crashed upon the shoals when Abraham Lincoln and the newly birthed Republican Party decided to interpret the Constitution which had been freely entered into by sovereign States to say that no State could ever voluntarily leave even though this is not stated anywhere in the document. Having made that determination this minority government used the overwhelming majority they had in what was left of the Congress to shackle the power of the Industrial North to crush the seceding agricultural South. Slavery, which cannot be divorced from its evil, nor defended in any way, provided the spark, the rallying cry, and the effective explanation for a war which shattered the myth of a federal republic composed of sovereign states. Since that war between brothers our nation has inexorably grown from the vision expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence of a commonwealth of freemen into what is rapidly becoming a statist express highballing its way to the gulag of collectivist uniformity and shabby mediocrity. Gone is the meritocracy of the young republic. Gone is the equality of opportunity smothered in the cold dead grasp of the equality of outcome. Gone is the blind justice of a nation of laws devoured by the politically correct insanity of social justice. The Progressives and their coalition of mega-state lobbies have turned the protections of a Constitution written to limit government into a suicide pact wherein if the nationalist federal government chooses open borders in contravention of federal law and states are condemned for passing laws which requires police to enforce the law. It is time to think the unthinkable and to embrace the abhorrent conclusion that the Constitution has failed It is time to think the unthinkable and to embrace the abhorrent conclusion that the Constitution has failed. It was meant to limit government. This is proven conclusively by the 10th Amendment which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Without the promise of the immediate adoption of the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution would never have been ratified by a majority of the States. This important though neglected amendment says, and means that only those powers expressly delegated to the central government are legitimate, not the endless multiplication of powers which allows that government to intrude into every aspect of our lives as it does today. If that wasn’t the intent, why have a Constitution at all? The very reason for a written Constitution was and is to limit the government created by that document to the powers expressly delegated not to open the door for interpretation and precedent to expand infinitely until all limits are gone. If that wasn’t the intent, why have a Constitution at all? Though many trace the diversion from republican purity to Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressives the truth is Hamilton set the stage for a big government. He fathered the movement away from a decentralized federation of free people agreeing to disagree so that compromise would leave enough space for liberty to bloom. John Marshall, the second Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, manufactured the power of judicial review by exploiting political factions clearing the path for the rule of unelected black robed aristocrats with the power to turn a country of laws into a country of men. This history lesson may not make my fellow Patriots glow with the satisfaction derived from accepting the Constitution as inviolable scripture received from on high. However, our current descent into the Progressive’s transformed America should make every lover of liberty ready to embrace the truth. The only question remaining: Can learning the truth unlearn the lie?

You are a slave. You probably do not realize it, but you are.

You are a slave. You probably do not realize it, but you are. Movies and public school like to portray slaves as bound by chains and beaten with whips, creating a polarized image of slavery that can be pointed to with the comment, “You are not like that, therefore you are not a slave.” But history shows that slaves have been treated in all manner of ways, some more cruel than others, yet even with the most kind treatment, a slave remains a slave. Setting aside the stereotyped image of a slave as a bleeding chain-bound wretch, slaves throughout history are often hard to recognize. In some cases, such as the Medieval Serfs, they were held slaves to the rulers by religious belief, and did not see themselves as slaves even though they were treated as such.The favored slaves of Asian potentates wore jewels to make a movie star gasp, yet were still slaves for all their finery and comfort. So, what is a slave? How do we define a slave? What test do we use to tell if someone is a slave. What makes them different from free people? Free people can say “no”. Free people can refuse demands for their money, time, and children. Slaves cannot. There is no freedom without the freedom to say “no”. If someone demands that you do something and you can say “no” and refuse to do it, then you are a free human being. If you can be forced to do something or surrender something that you do not wish to, then you are a slave. No other test need be applied. Freedom is the freedom to say "no." When you are forced to surrender half your life’s work to the government in ever-increasing taxes, then you are a slave. Throughout history, slaves were expected to perform the work needed for their own upkeep, then perform additional work for the rulers. For Roman slaves, the ratio of work-for-self versus work-for-rulers was about 50-50. The same ratio applied to Medieval Serfs, and even to the slaves of the American south. And, when you add up all the overt taxes, covert fees, tariffs, excises, plus the increased price you pay for products to pay the taxes of the companies that make those products, you will find that Americans are at that same “half-for-self” versus “half-for-rulers” ratio! Can you say “no” to the confiscation of half of your life? Can you even get the masters to maybe reduce the burden by a significant amount? No? Congratulations. You are a slave. The masters have decided they want wars on anyone living over oil. The idea is that it is better for American corporations to steal the oil they need than to pay for it. Millions of Americans (and millions more around the globe) did not want the war, but the masters started them anyway, by lying to the people. Could you refuse the war? Can you refuse being lied to? No? Congratulations. You are a slave. The rulers want your children for their future wars. Legislation for a draft is already in Congress. Can you refuse the confiscation of your children? No? Congratulations. You are a slave. Also in Congress is legislation for a "voluntary" national service program. It is being called "voluntary" to get around the 13th amendment, but volunteerism implies a choice, and no choice is being offered here. You cannot say no. Congratulations. You are a slave. The government has been caught lying over and over again to the people, from who really did 9-11, to the legality of the tax system, to Cheney’s Energy Task Force papers, to Saddam’s WMDs. Americans are the most lied-to people on Earth. Can you refuse to be lied to? Can you punish the liars? No? Congratulations. You are a slave. Vote fraud is rampant in the nation, and the mandated imposition of audit-less electronic voting systems means that elections will be decided (as Stalin admitted) not by those who vote but by those who count the vote. Can you refuse a dishonest voting process? No? Congratulations. You are a slave. Just because you cannot see the slave-chains doesn’t mean they are not there. Chains made of steel are obvious, but chains made of beliefs are not always recognized for what they are. Hitler enslaved the German people to war with a belief that Poland was about to invade. LBJ enslaved the American people to war with the belief that Vietnam had attacked the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin. Poland wasn’t invading. There were no torpedoes in the Gulf of Tonkin, but the slaves, held by invisible chains of beliefs, went to war. Millions died. In 2003, however, the chains started to become visible. The Constitutional right to freedom of expression was confined to “free-speech” zones. A slave may have an opinion, so long as it is not expressed where it might upset the other slaves. The Constitutional right to an armed populace, the means by which the men who set up a nation of free citizens hoped to keep them free, is under constant attack from those who fear a nation of free citizens, and who will not sleep soundly until we are a nation entirely of slaves. Armed citizens can, after all, say “no” and make it stick. That was why there was a Second Amendment, to allow the people to say “no” to those who would return them to the slavery they had so recently escaped from. Other Constitutional rights and protections have been set aside. The government can now search through your private records without cause and without warrant, even break into your home and not have to tell you. Simply by declaring a citizen an enemy combatant, the government can now lock up US citizens without a charge and without a lawyer. You can be prevented from traveling simply for having the wrong name. If you purchase too much gold or take home too much cash, or hoard food, the government will take notice. Having a Farmer's Almanac is grounds for suspicion. Talking about the Constitution is now deemed grounds to suspect a terrorist link. Torture is now espoused as “necessary” to “deal with the crisis”. Were you able to refuse those changes to the Constitution? No? Congratulations. You are a slave. The government (at all levels) has borrowed trillions of dollars and stuck your kids with the payments. Children not even born will be paying off the bills. To declare the lives of children not yet born, let alone old enough to vote, indentured to the state is slavery most obvious and odious. Can you refuse responsibility for payments on debts the government incurred without your permission? No? During the debate on TARP, more than 90% of Americans opposed using taxpayer money to help rich Wall Street con-artists escape the costly mistakes of their own making. Did Congress listen when you said "No?" Congratulations. You are a slave. The government has borrowed so much money that it has long ago run out of gold to pledge as collateral on the debts. Starting in Nixon’s administration, natural resources were used as collateral for the mounting debts. Borrow more money, promise a chunk of public lands as collateral. These land pledges were concealed behind “Environmentalism” to disguise the real purpose. Numerous names such as “Wilderness Reserve”, “Wetland”, “Heritage River”, and so forth were used to conceal the true scale of the confiscations. But the end result was the same. Huge tracts of public land containing natural resources were walled away from the public that owned them, mortgaged to the holders of the US Government debt. We are well on our way from being citizens, to being mere tenants. Were you able to refuse having your public lands placed at risk by the US Government to cover loans you never authorized the government to make? No? Congratulations. You are a slave. Trust funds under government control are being looted, from the Social Security trust fund to Native American trust accounts to Federal Retirement Funds. Congress pays lip service to the looting of Social Security, but considers only more taxes to cover the looted shortfall. Meanwhile, court cases over other looted trust accounts drag on without resolution. Are you able to refuse corrupt and dishonest government? No? Congratulations. You are a slave. You are a slave because the ruling class can do what they want, take what they want, and you cannot refuse. You may have freedom to decide what TV channel to watch tonight, or just which style car you will drive to your work in, but little power over the rest of your life. Even that home you have worked to pay for over the last decade can be taken from you at a moment’s notice via “eminent domain” or the "Force Majeur" clause in your mortgage agreement, or skyrocketing interest rates. Can you refuse? No? Congratulations. You are a slave. In October 2001 I wrote that more damage would be done to our nation by those claiming to save us from the terrorists than by any actual terrorist act. Even as Bush claimed that the terrorists hated the US because of our freedoms, he took what few remaining freedoms we had away until we are more watched, more spied on, more limited, more silenced, more taxed, and more enslaved that at any other time in our nation’s history. Not only are we slaves, we are at last starting to see that we have been slaves all along. We did not have rights, because a right cannot be taken away. What we had were indulgences, granted by the masters to the slaves, to be removed when the masters grow fearful of the slaves’ resentment and anger. I have watched through the years as people I care about lost their homes and businesses, as the labors of a lifetime evaporated in stock market manipulations by corporate crooks. These Americans who had worked hard to achieve the American dream lost it all through no fault of their own. Our schools are broke, hospitals under-staffed, the roads and bridges and rails of the nation are crumbling while billions of dollars are given away to foreign nations, favored cronies, and the ravenous war machine. The priorities of the government that feeds on taxes seems focused everywhere but on those who pay those taxes. And we can’t seem to refuse that either. ********************************************************************************************************************************** I think the state of the nation can be summed up by the image of homeless people camped out in front of boarded up and foreclosed homes. The United States is like that other slave empire, Rome. And I think it is headed for the same fate. The US will eventually lose their war of conquest of the world. The US does not have enough troops to garrison the planet, and as Hitler learned much too late, merely having superior weapons isn’t going to win a war when you’ve pissed off absolutely everyone else in the world. On a more practical level, sooner or later the US will wind up at war with someone who really DOES have nuclear weapons of mass destruction. That this is the government plan is witnessed by the numerous underground facilities which have been built or upgraded in recent years. You paid for them, but you won’t be allowed in them. Such an attack on the US is small price to pay for those who promote these wars, not for America, but for another nation standing by while its victims are tricked into fighting each other. The United States has allowed its manufacturing to decay over the last 30 years. In a major war, we lack the industrial capacity to sustain the kind of production of war material needed to prevail in a prolonged conflict. With our economy on the brink of default, our next war will likely be our last. Minus a war, the US Government will eventually collapse as did the Soviet Union, dragged down by debt and corruption. As the final collapse looms closer, look for the looting of the nation to become even bolder than it is now. The last official act of any government is to loot the nation. I am opposed to violence. I wish it could be avoided but I do believe that this nation is headed towards a collision between the rulers and the ruled. The government fears this as well or we wouldn’t see so much bullet-proof Lexan between us and our “public servants”. I think that the reason we have not seen it yet is that Americans have been conditioned to expect a hero or savior to come and make things right. We know things have gone wrong, but we are waiting for someone else to fix it, Superman, the cavalry riding to the rescue, Spartacus, the Messiah, Batman, What Really Happened, etc. This belief that one should wait quietly for a hero is part of the slavery mechanism, to keep you in your place, rendering unto Caesar, breeding more slaves, waiting for salvation that never comes. However, as history has shown, even the patience of an entire people can run out, and I predict that when the final upheaval comes, it will arrive as suddenly as that which occurred in Romania. In November 1989, Romania seemed stable under the rule of Nicholai Ceausescu. One month later, a sporting event erupted into a spontaneous political protest and on December 25th, Nicholai Ceausescu was tried and sentenced to death. Ceausescu proved that tyrants should not confuse silence with consent. The Romanian people finally realized that nobody was coming to save them, and they had the courage to save themselves. The collapse of the USSR was equally rapid and almost as unexpected. So shall it be in the US. Like I said above, I hope I am wrong in my forecasts. However it is clear that the US Government is under the control of individuals intent on personal enrichment, or loyalty to a foreign nation above our own, and seeing no reason at all not to continue on their present course. Confrontation seems inevitable. The founding fathers set up a nation in which government was by the consent of the people. We The People agreed to certain obligations, and the government we allowed to care for our national sovereignty agreed to abide by certain limits set forth in the Constitution. The present government has broken the agreement, discarding the Constitutional limits on their power and authority while at the same time piling more and more obligations onto the people. Were you able to refuse them? No? This more than any of the other reasons is why you have ceased to be a free human being, and are now a slave. You are a slave. When you live under a government that takes your wealth and your children and lies to you to keep you docile and scares you to keep you obedient, how can it be otherwise? You are a slave. You can stay that way, or not. It’s that simple. Nobody is coming to save you. There are no heroes, no cavalry riding to the rescue. Whether you and your children will live as slaves or as free human beings is entirely up to you.