Canadian Government slams the door in the face of Goliath enviro-supporting Rockefellers

Eco-charities in trouble in Canada

Canadian Government slams the door in the face of Goliath enviro-supporting Rockefellers

Author
By Judi McLeod


In the ongoing,  mammoth underground ‘Rockefeller vs. Canada Battle’, it’s Rockefeller 0, Canada 1.

You can hear the enviro screams from Canada all the way to the American EPA—latest warrior to join the battle against the long-detained Keystone XL Pipeline.

Just about everyone in the lib-left mainstream media of both Canada and the U.S.A. are shouting rape because of Canada Revenue’s 2013-2014 audit of high-profile environmental groups, including the David Suzuki Foundation, Tides Canada, Environmental Defence, the Pembina Foundation, Eqiuiterre and the Ecology Action Centre, among others.

They’re demanding to know “WHY?”

Though the environmental groups will slice the pie of reasons into thousands of pieces, it’s because the Canadian government finally decided to take a stand for the Canadian Aboriginal people and for Canadian interests.

In doing so, the Canadian Government took on the Goliath of the Environmental money war.

This is the biggest outcome:

The Rockefeller Foundation, leader of the pack of the American billionaires pouring millions into the fake, anti-oilsands shell organizations that flourish in Canada,  has had the door slammed in its face.

With stand-off impunity,  Rockefeller money runs the enviro world in North America, its deep pockets making it a veritable Goliath.  But make no mistake, that red imprint on the Rockefeller Foundation face looks an awful lot like a maple leaf.

“Only in the past year have Canadian politicians woken up to the hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign money pouring in to create fake anti-oilsands shell organizations,” (Ezra Levant, Toronto Sun, March 25, 2013).

The dirty little secret of the Keystone XL Pipeline is out: Rockefeller Foundation cash runs the Keystone Pipeline resistance, and it does so on the backs of poverty-stricken Aboriginal activists.

In fact, “and against their own Indian bands’ interests, too — the oilsands are the largest employers of Aboriginal people in Canada.

Being paid just to hold an anti-oilsands sign and make a little white noise in orchestrated protests goes a long, long way when you have hungry children waiting at home.

With a battle cry as hushed as a farmer’s field in Winter, the Rockefellers came in to the Land of the Maple Leaf with the election of President Barack Obama back in 2008.  That’s when the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, headquartered in New York, wrote a 48-page campaign plan targeting Canada’s oilsands.

Someone should show the Rockefellers a map of the 49th parallel.

Big boys with big money that are slippery as fish, up until now could count on camouflage to cover their job-killing anti-Canadian missions.

“They committed to a whopping $7 million yearly budget for this battle, now in its fifth year.” (Levant).

“Page 36 of their plan couldn’t be more clear: They need to put a non-billionaire, non-New York face on their campaign.

“They needed the help of groups like the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN).

“The plan was conceived and planned and funded and managed by white guys in New York.

“So they made a call down to central casting to order themselves up, to quote their campaign plan, “First Nations and other legal challenges.”

In the ‘Rockefeller Vs. Canada Battle’, celebrities get to sign their names to full-page anti-oilsands newspaper ads, the Indians get to do the grunt work.

Tom Goldtooth from the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), based in Minnesota made this telling statement to the Washington Post when he said his Aboriginal activists were pretty much only called upon by white billionaires “when they need something”.

As Levant aptly points out,  “the real money in Canadian environmentalism — the most radical money — isn’t Canadian.

“It’s from U.S. billionaires and their foundations.”

Add to the bully boys spreading big money to fight Canada, the U.S.-based Tides Foundation, also pouring millions into vulnerable Indian activists, directing them in a staged play against Canada’s interests.
Now that the cat’s out of the bag, giants of the mainstream media are starting to report on the hideous hypocrisy of the radical environmental movement.

Only recently the Post stepped up to the plate with the somewhat anemic headline: “Within mainstream environmentalist groups, diversity is lacking”.

The Post called out millionaire Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s organization known as the Waterkeepers for being all-white guy.

“Is it surprising that out of 200 waterkeepers in his club across America, only one is black?” the Post asked.

“Kennedy’s club is whiter than the wheat board.

“They’re almost as white as the Klan.”

Kennedys’ Waterkeepers , around since 1999, and forging deep trails into Canada for decades,  has been whiter than the wheat board for a long time.

Canada continues to let Kennedy play here, but as As Ezra Levant colourfully points out:  “See, if it were a trust fund kid like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — let alone a Rockefeller (whose family billions came from oil) — attacking Canada’s oil industry, we would laugh and run them out of town.”

The same American billionaires who destroy thousands of jobs when they do President Barack Obama’s bidding in Small Town America are no longer welcome in The Land of the Maple Leaf.
They can get out of Dodge and stay out of Dodge.

The fact is that the oilsands—against their own Indian bands’ interests too—happen to be the largest employers of Canada’s Aboriginal people.

And that’s exactly why the Stephen Harper Conservative Government finally slammed the door in the Rockefeller face.

Rockefeller vs. Canada: U.S. billionaires pour millions into anti-oilsands shell organizations
http://www.ezralevant.com/rockefeller_vs_canada_us_billi/


http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/american-billionaire-bullies/2253162772001

Eco-charities in trouble

A Canada Revenue Agency audit finds Environmental Defense breaking the law.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/american-billionaire-bullies/2253162772001

US EPA meddling in Canadian pipeline decision

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/us-epa-meddling-in-canadian-pipeline-decision/3222494590001

Being Free and Ignorant is Impossible

Liberty and ignorance cannot coexist. The less ignorant will soon rule the more ignorant.

Being Free and Ignorant is Impossible; Spinning The Term Away

When my daughter was small, I used to make up totally idiotic, nonsensical explanations to explain why I had done something incredibly stupid and inexpressibly DUMB.  The stories were intended to be quickly seen through, and they always were.  She would giggle and let me know that she knew that I knew that she did not buy my story for one single minute.

It was harmless fun served up by a doting father who knew that his offspring already recognized her father had feet of clay.

Today, making up idiotic nonsensical stories to explain something incredibly stupid and inexpressibly dumb done by our President—His Royal Majesty B.H. Obama—is referred to as “spinning.”

The difference between the stories of yours truly and those of Obama’s spin meisters is this:  My stories had no malicious intent.

I must tell you the made-up stories coming out of the democratic spin machine to explain the wonderful opportunities made available to American workers who have just had their hours cut until the are now part time employees as opposed to the full time employee status they had had for many years are truly incredible and stupid—and HURTFUL!

We have warned our readers for years that Obama and his  minions really DO believe we are stupid ignoramuses unable to care for ourselves or understand the constitution or how government is SUPPOSED to operate in this constitutional republic..

Judging from the results of the last two Presidential Elections,  I must say there is certainly a basis for arriving at that conclusion for at least half of the electorate, in any event.
But, truth be told, the fantastical stories emanating from the West Wing are supremely inferior fabrications unworthy of the high office(s) from which they undulate like so much sausage twisting forth from a sausage grinder.

Look.  Perfume was invented to cover the odoriferous smell of body odor wafting from the unwashed human bodies of our ancestors.  A darn good scrubbing with water and some river bottom sand (if soap wasn’t readily available) would have rid them of the problem, but instead they chose to cover it up.

It never worked.  It just gave the wearer of the perfume a feeling of confidence that he/she didn’t stink.  All the while, anyone downwind of the “stinker” now had to contend with two distinctly unpleasant attacks upon their olfactory glands.

That is sorta where we Americans are today. We are contending with two stinking situations.  Hours of employment are being cut and—- we are being lied to about it by the government.

When you live from pay check to pay check, as most Americans do today, the reduction, ANY reduction, in working hours hurts horribly.

But then to have some Washington idiot stand before a microphone and tell you that being demoted to part time employment is a good thing is just infuriating.

Now you have the time to write that book you’ve always wanted to write, to start a new business, to spend more time with your family, etc, etc..  All of it is pure bovine scatology and horse hockey.

Any fool knows those extra hours are spent worrying about how the bills are going to be paid, how one will put food on the table for his/her family,  how to keep enough gasoline in the family car to get to and from work,  how to keep the lights and heat on, and a myriad other problems that real families deal with every day.

Writing a book, indeed!  As an author myself, I can attest that writing is not easy when worry for your family’s survival is ever on your mind.  The starving artist syndrome may be acceptable for the artist, but it darn sure is not acceptable for the artist’s family!  And if the said artist is any kind of man/woman at all, they won’t be sitting in front of a computer fabricating a story, or researching for background, they’ll be out pounding the pavement looking for a second, or even third, job to feed,  clothe and shelter their families.

But,  hey!  This is the American brand of socialism.  How do you like it so far? Huh?

Don’t worry, it WILL get worse. It will devour this country and bring its collapse just as it has all others to try it before America.

It gives me no pleasure at all to note that we Americans, in my opinion, are at the very front edge of a total collapse of our system of government.  Our financial system is teetering over the abyss, too.   When either system goes down it will drag the other down with it.

So, while the spin meisters in Washington, develop their feel-good fairy tales to fool and misguide the gullible among us, our world is crumbling beneath our feet.  Sadly, the spin meisters will most likely succeed in their effort to convince the mob.  I mean, they are playing to the crowd that bought—and continues to buy—the hoax of Global Warming even though it has been proven false.  Last week every contiguous state had snow covering save for one.  And still the hoax of Global Warming is considered as truth.  So the elite intelligentsia of the left must feel justified in their efforts to misdirect misinform, and misguide that dumbed down percentage of Americans simply because there are so many more of them than there are thinking, reasoning, sentient Americans!

Thomas Jefferson once said:  “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

All that is required to demonstrate the validity of Jefferson’s statement above, one has only to consider the America in which we live today.

Liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.  The less ignorant will soon rule the more ignorant.

Knowledge is power. And in our constitutional  republic power is supposed to lodge with the people.  But when the people are ignorant, then knowledge has no home among them and therefore they are at the mercy of the more knowledgeable.  This old expression is undeniably true: In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

During the Great depression the American people never gave up hope.  They never stopped struggling to better their lot. They simply did not accept that this was the best they could ever hope for.  They fought, struggled, continued to dream, and eventually they broke through into a new and better America that thrived in all adversity.

I don’t see that spirit in modern Americans.  

Are we broken?  Is our spirit broken?  I’m beginning to believe so.
When the American  people are willing to lie down and roll over for a rogue government in Washington, then, yes, the country is done for.

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX,LIVE OUTSIDE THE CAGE

'Winning Isn't Everything; It's the Only Thing' – Really?

'Winning Isn't Everything; It's the Only Thing' – Really?

Conservatives anxious to retake the Senate and White House are obsessed with winning those political battles, but is it right to emulate Liberal Progressive Democrats who focus on winning at all costs, cheating at the voting booth and count, sacrificing the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Judeo-Christian principles, and immutable Natural Law?

Philosophy of many holds that GOP focus needs to be on “Winning, Winning, Winning.” Green Bay football coach Vince Lombardi preached this philosophy to his Packers football team members; “Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing.” If that is valid theory, Conservatives are no different than Liberals, or just as bad. Winning if both parties are identical and stand for the same thing; what is the point; six of one or a half dozen of the other, a zero sum game.

During the 1960s, Lombardi guided the Packers to three straight and five total NFL championships in seven years, including winning the first two Super Bowls following the 1966 and 1967 NFL seasons.

Not that it applies to Lombardi and his “Winning is the only thing,” Jesus warned, “What good is it to gain the whole world, but suffer the loss of your own soul?”

“The lesser of two evils” principle holds to the political theory that of two bad choices, one is not as bad as the other, and should therefore be chosen over the one that is perceived to be more evil.

The conundrum is that evil is evil, and acceptance of some evil because it is not as bad as another evil, is a path to permanent error as evil will never be overcome; just kicking the proverbial can down the road for the umpteenth time. Acceptance of the lesser evil invariably leads to the greater evil.

It is too soon in early Feb 2014 to test the lesser evil of presidential candidates, but never-ending campaigning has actually been going on since the 2012 election, and continuing to concentrate on the 2016 presidential election. Let candidates prove their mettle by what they do, not what they say. Been there; Done that; and all gotten in return was Obama and his catastrophic ObamaCare, the Obama version of  “CHANGE,” transformation of the U.S. into unconstitutional governance.

Obama WANTED to be President, and the current class of pretenders wants the same thing. NJ Governor Chris Christie already imploded with his petty Bridgegate escapade. More significant is the fact that Christie is the prima facie face of the despised RINO. The 1912 cast of GOP wannabes have run their course and there is no point to reheat expired outdated candidates. Senator Rand Paul and Rep. Ted Cruz are Johnny-on-the-spot pretenders awaiting “certain” victory in 2016, if nominated.

Again, Biblical wisdom: “The man who is faithful in the little things will be faithful in the big things.” Congress cannot be accused of having any wisdom, let alone Biblical Wisdom, but collude to use simulated conventional wisdom and political correctness to sell out the Constitution and rely on vague undefined American Values.

Senator Ted Cruz is a viable presidential candidate except for the problem of his dual citizenship in Canada and the U.S. that presents the same sort of problem the GOP objected to in Obama, whose father was a citizen of the U.K. and therefore unable to transfer American citizenship to Barack. Democrats, supported by media, will swarm over the issue of citizenship, muddying the political waters to distract from the fact that Cruz is a significant candidate in his own right.

Senator Rand Paul is in a different category, as he has shifted his view to concentrate on winning, which by his rationale means appealing to all the groups that carried and sustained Obama in power. Paul is already watering down the Conservative message, a chink in Conservative armor that seeks to become more like Democrats. Perish the thought.

The electorate is basically ill-informed as a poll finds that one in four Americans are so poorly educated due to policies of the Department of Education, as to be unaware that the Earth orbits the Sun.

To be gifted to be President, or King for a day, the start would be to clean up the U.S. mess by first pulling a “Moses,” smashing the carved-in-stone commandments of bureaucracies like EPA, Education, and more, that have tens of thousands of “employees”  constantly carving rules and regulations that choke jobs, economy, and country.

The new CEO, or Queen For A Day, should veto any congressional bill measured by the pound or massive pages as in encyclopedias. If a Bill cannot be understood or read in a half-hour, it should be vetoed and sent back for Congress to shrink it down.

Members of Congress complaining about waste, fraud, duplication, and abuse, would be called out publicly, to put up or shut up. If they say a program or expenditure is wasteful etc., they should be required to present a bill to that effect, and undo the damage. The new CEO should put forth a budget based on the proven federal tax and fee income four years back.

And not lastly, all welfare would be excluded from “self-supporting” able-bodied who have no direct familial responsibility, or no intention to provide for themselves. As to the rest, there would be declining unemployment benefits to encourage getting a job, and no benefits of any kind to prisoners and those living outside the U.S.

Means testing would apply to any and all so-called Entitlements. IRS would be instructed to data-base refunds to alert them and head off possibly fraudulent multiple refunds to the same address. Much much more, but “One Day At A Time,” without achieving some saving or cut in expenditure. Duplicate programs and bureaucracies would be eliminated immediately.

Harry Gross conducted the Link-Gross CPA training course in Philadelphia in the 1960s, and Harry wisely taught the philosophy: “Do the easy questions first, put the more difficult perplexing questions in the background, and suddenly the hard stuff will look easy, and you will have become a CPA,” and so it came to be. Simplicity is the key element. Reaching too far leads to the danger of going over one of the many cliffs endangering U.S. welfare.

Democracy by itself will not work as the Founders foresaw, so they set government up as a Republic in which the Senate would balance out the majority in the House that is too quick to vote “Free Stuff.” The deliberative Senate would need 60 votes, not 50, to enable the House majority rush to give benefits to those who have not earned them.

Senator Reid threatens the so-called “Nuclear Option” that would enable the Senate to operate on a simple majority, contrary to the protections built into the Constitution by the Founders. If the majority is all that is necessary, what justifies the existence of the Senate?

The “National popular vote movement” is a Liberal Democratic scheme to guarantee Democrats permanent control of the soon to be totally Socialist Government.

“National Popular vote” is not desirable for a free America. The bill guarantees the Presidency to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in the entire U.S. The most populous States could vote en masse, thwarting the original concept of States Rights. Likewise, the Party that has a history and expertise of stuffing the ballot box will win every time. That is how it is done in Third World countries. If everything in this country is simple majority, “We is dead meat.” The majority has been proven to be too often wrong.

Liberals permanently, regardless of scandals, have more than 90% of the Black vote, substantial majority among Brown and Latino voters, and combined with the “47%,” some included in the Black and Latino voters, along with died-in-the-wool Democrat and Liberal voters, abortionist and free contraceptive blocs, and GOP haters; Republicans may have seen the last of their effectiveness as a political party.

Who will be the presidential nominees for the 2016 presidential election? Who cares? Take care of today and tomorrow will take care of itself. Another aspect is to take care of the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves.

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX,LIVE OUT SIDE THE CAGE 

Message to Al Queda

Message to Message to Al Queda: America Is Already a Theocracy

Shortly after 9/11, I attended a local prayer breakfast at which service club members, clergy and town officials gathered to consider the Pledge of Allegiance’s phrase “one Nation under God.”

As I reflected on that theme, it occurred to me that Osama bin Laden and his cohorts – the Taliban of Afghanistan – might also say their objective is “one Nation under God.” After all, they speak of the “nation of Islam” and call for an Islamic theocracy.

A theocracy is defined by Mr. Webster as a state governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials – a monarch, council or junta – who are regarded as divinely guided. What distinguishes the Islamists' version of nationhood from ours?

Let’s start with the Declaration of Independence, our founding document. The Declaration is as much a spiritual document as a political one. It has four references to deity – “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” “Supreme Judge of the World” and “divine Providence.” Those phrases collectively declare that God is the mighty author of our being and the moral authority for our laws, and that we humans, by virtue of our spiritual nature derived from God, are created equal and are endowed with “certain unalienable rights.” The purpose of government, the Declaration says, is to ensure that those rights are not violated because each individual citizen is sacred and sovereign. Did bin Laden and the Taliban offer anything comparable?

Look at Afghanistan under the Taliban, which hosted bin Laden. Where was the freedom we cherish – freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and the press, freedom to assemble and to travel, freedom to criticize the government, freedom to seek redress of grievances, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom to work as we wish, freedom of education, and so forth? The Taliban suppressed all that. Radio, TV and entertainment were forbidden except for government-approved forms. There were no minority parties campaigning for election because critics of the government were publicly executed. People were jailed for the “crime” of teaching about Christianity.

The Declaration of Independence states that all men – meaning all people – are created equal. Did bin Laden and the Taliban have anything comparable? Just look at the condition of women under their rule. They had to be covered from head to foot, including their face; they were beaten on the street for showing even an ankle. They couldn’t vote. They couldn’t go to school or work outside the home. Female teachers couldn’t teach. Even female doctors, whose medical services were badly needed, were forbidden to practice their profession. (Please note that this terrible treatment of women is not inherent in Islam, but was due to the twisted mentality of the Taliban.) As for other religions, Christians were persecuted and Hindus were forced to wear a sign on their clothing to identify themselves as non-Muslim. Ancient Buddhist sculptures regarded by the world as art treasures were blown up.

Noble-sounding words can be misused to disguise something totally opposite to their meaning. That is what the Taliban, bin Laden and their followers did. Their version of “one Nation under God” was a brutal totalitarian dictatorship – the antithesis of everything for which America stands (and, according to many Muslim scholars, the antithesis of what Islam stands for also).

Whether you believe in God or not, if you are American, you should understand the profound difference which our theory of government makes for us from all other theories and forms of political organization. The fundamental idea of America is this: Our liberty, our sovereignty, our equality, our rights, our justice and our human dignity are bestowed upon us by God and guaranteed by the Constitution; all that may not be violated or taken away by laws, court decisions, executive orders or social majorities who think otherwise. Rather, the primary role of government is to protect all that from anyone who seeks to harm it or override it. As the Declaration of Independence puts it, governments are instituted to ensure those God-given rights.

Our Founders believed that Man is made in the living image of God and that the basis on which our nation stands is acknowledgement of God as the supreme authority for the conduct of our national life and our personal life. If God is the foundation of America, we can rightfully say this nation is a theocracy. But it is a democratic nonsectarian theocracy operating through a constitutional republic rather than an autocratic religious junta such as the Taliban. Our Founders wisely separated church and state to prevent just that.

Unlike the former condition of Afghanistan with the Taliban and unlike the former condition of China and Japan with their emperors, clerics and divine-right monarchs do not rule here and the First Amendment assures they never will. The individual comes first, not the state, not an establishment of religion, not a clerical caste, not a ruler regarded as semidivine. By virtue of our spiritual nature and our moral equality, in American society every citizen is a direct representative of God and every citizen is a full and equal member of the ruling body known as “we the people.” Through the Constitution, we the people rule America.

Ideally speaking, therefore, America is a theocracy because it is governed by God through the total population of our divinely guided citizenry who are the true heads of state and who are educated in the religio-moral ideals, principles and values of our society. They provide the governance of our society from which the representatives of our government are elected. Our national character is the seedbed from which our public officials grow.

That is a radically new form of theocracy – both new and better. It is unique in history. It is an advancement beyond even that which our Pilgrim forefathers intended, which was a theocracy, a Holy Commonweal of the elect. The Pilgrims were separatists; they separated from England in order to set up a society in which God, not the King, was head of state. “No king but God,” they said. Yet for all the debt of gratitude we owe our Pilgrim forefathers, we must not overlook the fact that their theocracy was a decidedly narrow, restrictive one, and intolerant of divergent religious beliefs. In fact, in the case of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, it was oppressive enough to send Roger Williams into the Rhode Island wilderness to establish a colony more hospitable to religious freedom for all. So understanding the magnificence of our Founders' achievement – a theocracy based on freedom of religion and freedom of conscience for all individuals, including even those who deny the existence of God – is critical for the future of freedom around the globe.

Although our Founders separated church and state, they did not separate God and state. How could they? The Declaration makes clear that from our beginning we have been “one Nation under God.”

What follows from that theory of government is the marvelous liberty of our nation in which people can worship, speak, assemble, write, travel, work, marry and live as they wish – in short, can pursue happiness as they wish – so long as they do not violate another’s right to do the same. Yes, that marvelous liberty has been abused by some citizens. And, yes, because liberty carries inherent responsibility, it requires a conscience, a sense of civic duty and a sense of respect for public decorum – in short, voluntary compliance – to live properly in accordance with our national ideals, principles and values. As Thomas Jefferson said, the qualifications for self-government are not innate; they are the result of habit and long training. But without that spiritual foundation asserting your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and without the constitutional protection guaranteeing your freedom and your rights… well, renounce your American citizenship, move to Taliban City and find out for yourself what follows.

We Americans should thank God for the blessings we have: personal, political, economic and social freedom, the right to self-determination of our lives and the opportunity to lawfully pursue happiness as we define it for ourselves, rather than being forced into abject, slavish service to a totalitarian state run by despots claiming to be divinely guided. We should express that gratitude through lives which serve – not rule – others, from the nuclear family to the human family. We should also gratefully honor those who went before us – often in great hardship, suffering and bloodshed – to build and defend a haven for us in the wilderness of man’s longstanding inhumanity to man. Last of all, we should be vigilant, active citizens who work to preserve the blessings of liberty so they may be passed on to our posterity and the boundaries of our haven may be peacefully enlarged to educate and eventually encompass all humanity. We should do all that in recognition that the blessings of liberty come to us from our Creator, Nature’s God, Divine Providence, the Supreme Judge of the world who is, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, “the common Father of us all.”

America – love it and live it!

VOICES OF THE PEOPLE:

My first initial thought is that foreign policy is a gross contradiction to the wishes of President Washington's Farewell address. When has it not been? Ever since the expansion and domination of trade backed by an elite military had become Foreign Policy it has created enemies it has finally brought them home. It's time to revisit the purpose and meaning of republican virtue. Please see The Never Realized Republic: Political Economy and Republic Virtue. President Washington's Farewell address is my conclusion. It ought to be clear; how Foreign Policy was meant to be: vis-à-vis: Social progress, and ethical behavior were of paramount importance and clearly the expectations of the Revolutionary generation. In President Washington’s Farewell Address he made it clear, for all and future presidents: ‟Observe good faith and justice towards all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.-Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it?”1 What have American Presidents accomplished in the latter half of the twentieth-century? What will the first half of the twenty first-century realize? What brand of virtue is America exporting? What brand of virtue do these regimes represent? Besides morality in government, Washington had a clear expectation or desire for the future of foreign policy: ‟The great role of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little Political connection as possible,-So far as we have already formed engagements , let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith,-Here let us stop.-”2 As stated in the Constitutional Convention: “Our true situation appears to me to be this — a new extensive Country containing within itself the materials for forming a government capable of extending to its citizens all the blessings of civil & religious liberty — capable of making them happy at home. This is the great end of Republican Establishments.” 3 Neither did the Revolutionary generation abandon their principles. Faith, ethics, and religion were all tied together. “The reconciliation of Christianity with classical philosophy served a vital emotional function: it saved the founders from the painful necessity of abandoning the religion of their ancestors and of their countrymen,” a religion whose principle or basic truth, seemed to be to exemplify the ethical behavior of Jesus Christ."4 __________________________________1 Marvin Meyers, eds., et al., Sources of the American Republic: A Documentary History of Politics, Society, and Thought; rev.ed., (Glenview, Ill: Scott Foresman and Co., 1967),, Vol. 1, doc. # 64, 202.2 Ibid., 207 3 Charles Pinckney (S.C.), in Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, Reported by James Madison, with an Introduction by Adrienne Koch, (N.Y.: W.W. Norton & Co.), 185. 4 Carl J. Richard, The Founders and the Classics, Greece, Rome, and the American Enlightenment, (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1994), 194. Although Richard refutes the humility of Socrates, he notes that “Benjamin Franklin audaciously paired Socrates with Jesus as the greatest models of humility, ibid., 186. “Jefferson considered...Jesus the best guide for ethics.” Ibid., 187.Addendum: It is important to realize that "Ethics" is the Roman, (Latin) translation of the Greek "Moral Philosophy." Respectfully yours,Peter J. O'Lalor, Ph.D.














"Not all theocracies are Christian. Some are Jewish, Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, and some are secular. There is no escaping theocracy. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is WE THE PEOPLE."People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The only question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?"Excerpted from "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YHWH" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.php.








Our government cannot be said to be a theocracy under God's law, so I must agree with the comments of Ted Weiland.The evidence is clear. For example: legal abortions continue in America. Any government that makes laws and allows conduct in direct violation of God’s perfect law is corrupt. America, like the rest of the world, is displaying manifold evidence of the extent to which we have become corrupt. America needs a spiritual revival. Only a renewed relationship with our God and obedience to His laws will make our nation safe again. Until then, we are not protected by our Shield."The LORD is my strength and my shield; my heart trusted in him, and I am helped: therefore my heart greatly rejoiceth; and with my song will I praise him." --Psalm 28:7












Don't get too clever in splitting all those fine hairs in pushing your theocracy on us, . It doesn't make the rest of us any more comfortable or willing to trust that our FREEDOM is safe when you say that it all came from God in the first place.I also find it quite unsettling that you so graciously allow those who don't believe in your God to come along for the ride. We are Americans, and if you choose to believe that this all came from God, you are welcome to it.I, however, am absolutely certain that the foundation of America came from the PEOPLE. It is WE THE PEOPLE who have the idea of God in us, NOT the other way around. God came from the PEOPLE, and if you want to look for power, look at US, not God.God is nothing but the thoughts, prayers and wishes of people who share some things in common and many things not at all. Not all of us believe in God, but ALL of us are here as Americans - it is PEOPLE who founded this country, and PEOPLE who keep it as it is today.John, your argument will appeal to all those who crave a theocracy, and is repellent to those who don't. Quit pushing your God down our throats, no matter how new or improved! We are the PEOPLE who have made America; even though many people have built and sustained America with God in their minds and hearts, it is still US who have made this country, NOT God!















Sunforester: and who made you, the PEOPLE?The People have made Amerfica, but who made the PEOPLE?And if the fundamental liberties don't come from GOD, then they come from people, so please don't cry when the PEOPLE decide that you have too many (liberties, I mean) and take away some of them. All in the name of the common good, the PEOPLE's good, that is.Communism is also the PEOPLE, you know.















Thanks for your thoughtful article. A couple of observations:1) Most of the Founders and early thought leaders of our Nation understood "God" to be not just any "god"...but specifically, the "God" of the Holy Bible.2) From this foundational understanding, they also derived that we were created "in the image of God" (Biblical teaching) and thus had certain unalienable rights.3) Because this definition of "God" and our understanding of man's relationship to God is FOUNDATIONAL to the creation of the Constitution and American Government, several of the Founders (most notably, John Adams) understood that if we (as a people) abandoned our devotion to the "God" of the Bible...the American Experiment would be lost. 4) American Government is dependent upon enough people having an "internal compass" for doing what is good, right, and just...that can only be sustained through the worship of the "God" of the Bible. Though other faiths are welcome to enjoy freedom here (atheists, agnostics, Islam, humanism, Buddhism, etc.), their voices should not be given the authority to change the foundations of this country...or it will certainly crumble and fall.








"Though other faiths are welcome to enjoy freedom here (atheists, agnostics, Islam, humanism, Buddhism, etc.)...." That's polytheism, and regardless how you slice it, Amendment 1's provision for freedom of religion is a violation of the First Commandment. See "Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt11.php.






The Constitution does not require a "divinely guided" office holder as Mr. White attributes to Daniel Webster definition of a theocracy. The founders purposely established this Republic as such due to the history pf "religious" mandates of the "old world." That said, perhaps the primary author of the Constitution, said it best: "Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God therefore, not to men, must an account of it be rendered." --James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance (More at "Theocracy?" http://www.earstohear.net/Separation/theocracy.html

LEGALIZING IRS DISCRIMINATION,Free Speech Under Attack

LEGALIZING IRS DISCRIMINATION

Free Speech Under Attack

Culture Challenge of the Week: LEGALIZING IRS DISCRIMINATION
Remember the recent IRS scandal? The IRS admitted to improperly targeting conservative and libertarian organizations, individuals and their families. And not just groups involved in the political process - they even targeted the family counseling radio show, FamilyTalk, on whose board of directors I serve. Yet, President Obama told Bill O'Reilly in an interview (Bill is one of the best searchers for the truth on the planet, btw) that there is “not even a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS.

Now the IRS is proposing regulations to make its illegal efforts to silence conservatives an official part of regulatory code.
Not only would these oppressive regulations trample the First Amendment, they would unfairly favor liberal groups over conservative and libertarian organizations.

Why? Instead of simply harassing conservative organizations and individuals, or delaying or denying requests for tax-exempt status of perfectly legal requests, the IRS is now trying to dissuade conservatives from applying for tax-exempt status in the first place by changing the standards required to receive it. And for those groups that already exist, the IRS seeks to silence the organizations from educating voters on the public records and positions of those already in power. The proposed limits on political speech are so severe that one can't help but think of two things: the KGB; and the question, “What are they afraid of?”

Nonprofit organizations designated as 501c4 are already limited in their ability to engage in “candidate-related political activity.” The new regulations are meant to broaden the definitions of both “candidate” and “political activity” to give the IRS more power to regulate conservative action. But get this: the new rules would NOT apply to labor unions or trade associations.

These new definitions would include:

-Criticism of incumbents 30 days before primary elections and 60 days before general elections (in other words, you can't speak poorly about those already in power)

-Any references to politicians (candidates, appointees, etc.)

-Hosting candidate debates

-Posting voting records of incumbents on websites before elections

-Creating or distributing voter guides

-Phone calls about upcoming votes (even when no candidate is mentioned)

-Voter registration drives (no more signing up folks at churches or in your neighborhoods, for instance)

-Donating money to groups that engage in political activity

-Volunteer activities if they relate to voting or candidates

Every action listed above, among others, would have to be submitted to the IRS for review, would be subject to taxation and would be treated as restricted candidate-related political activity. The restrictions include every type of communication, from newspapers to television to oral speech that can reach 500 people or more.

The proposal is outrageous. If adopted, the United States of America will move one step closer to becoming a country ruled by oppressive and abusive government. And our children will pay the price.

How to Save Your Family: Tell the IRS you value free speech
Our free speech is under attack and we have to do something about it!

Before it can finalize the new regulations, the IRS must review all public comments. If you comment and the IRS doesn't address your concerns, the regulations can be overturned.

We need to inundate the IRS with comments by the February 27th deadline. Please, help me encourage others to help stop the gross abuse of power. We MUST let the IRS know that the new rules are discriminatory, that they violate the first amendment, and that they burden the American people.

There are two easy ways to submit comments to the IRS without even leaving your home.

1) You can submit your comments by letter by mailing them to:

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-134417-13) Room 5205Internal Revenue ServiceP.O. Box 7604 Ben Franklin StationWashington, DC 20044

2) Email them to http://www.regulations.gov. Be sure to include the citation: IRS REG-134417-13 in subject line or body of your email.

Please cc your congressmen on all correspondence to the IRS and keep copies for your own records. Make sure you spread the word and ask your family members and friends to comment too.

You can learn more details on this frightening proposal in a fantastic video by Cleta Mitchell, one of the most courageous and effective attorneys fighting for freedom. Just click on Youtube, type in her name and “IRS”.

Please, take the time to make your voice heard. As Plato observed, “The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

BREAKING NEW VIDEO: Battleground Texas Illegally Copying Voter Data

Battleground Texas Field Organizer Jennifer Longoria was caught on camera

BREAKING NEW VIDEO: Battleground Texas Illegally Copying Voter Data

Author
By Guest Column, James O'Keefe,
President of Project Veritas   Wednesday, February 19, 2014


SAN ANTONIO, TX—Today Project Veritas released a new undercover video exposing Battleground Texas’ illegal data collection methods being used to elect Wendy Davis.


Battleground Texas Field Organizer Jennifer Longoria was caught on camera multiple times making statements such as, “So every time we register someone to vote we keep their name and number.”

Doing so however, is illegal. According to the Secretary of State, it is unlawful to transcribe, copy, or otherwise record a telephone number furnished on a voter registration application.http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.13.htm

“If Battleground Texas is willing to unlawfully transcribe and use people’s private data what other laws are they currently or willing to break to elect Wendy Davis and turn Texas blue?” asked James O’Keefe, President of Project Veritas.

Alicia Pierce, Communications Director of the Texas Secretary of State commented on the video saying, “Section 13.004 speaks for itself.”

Raw video footage can be found here.http://www.youtube.com/veritasvisuals

For questions or to interview James O’Keefe, President of Project Veritas contact Jennifer Ridgley at Jennifer@ProjectVeritas.com.Jennifer@ProjectVeritas.com

Natural Born Citizen

Natural Born Citizen

It is beyond time to resolve the issue of 'natural born citizen' and presidential eligibility.

The Republican National Committee, on behalf of Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Gov. Nikki Haley, should request a legal ruling and definitive interpretation of the meaning and intent of the language contained in Article II, Section 1. (4) of the Constitution of the United States.

Here is what the author's review of the subject matter reveals:

'Natural born' is a special 'class' of citizenship imposed by the Constitution on the Offices of President and Vice President. It is different from being a 'simple' citizen under other qualifications.

Why the 'natural born citizen' requirement? Because the President is also the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and questions of divided loyalties were a consideration at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, did not alter Article II, Section 1. (4) of the Constitution of the United States, nor have subsequent SCOTUS case law i.e. Minor v. Happersett (and others).

Essentially, born of citizen parents (plural) is the fundamental determinant.

Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1. (4)

(4)  No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President;….
The Conclusive Definition Of “Natural-Born Citizen”

Natural-born citizens of the United States are those who are citizens of the United States from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their American citizenship. These are those whose parents (plural) are citizens of the United States at the time of their birth. Natural-born American citizens are those born of American citizen parents, within or without the American Republic, provided in the latter case that one of the parents had resided in the United States prior to the birth of the child.

Their American citizenship is natural, the result of parentage, and not artificial or acquired by compliance with legislative provisions. A natural-born citizen is one not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority, in fact, the mass of our citizens; all others are exceptions specially provided for by law. A natural-born citizen is defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country. It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be “a natural born citizen.” It is only requisite he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country. Natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens and naturalized citizens, are those born in the United States of parents who are citizens.

Natural-born citizens are also those born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of the child. Hence, a child born abroad to two US citizen parents is a natural-born citizen: Provided, That at least one citizen parent had previously resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401.

So in reality, as civilian ownership of guns continues to rise, violent crime continues to fall in America

So in reality, as civilian ownership of guns continues to rise, violent crime continues to fall in America

Why Are Liberals So Stupid about Guns?

Any normal, reasonably intelligent person who has ever had a conversation with a liberal about guns, gun control, or any related topic has probably asked himself or herself this very question. I realize that the title for this article could easily leave off the last two words, but because I want to write an article instead of a book, I will confine myself to answering the more specific question above. While there are some people in this country who are otherwise on the Left who yet support the 2nd amendment, by and large those on the Left are strongly, even virulently anti-gun. What is it that makes them this way, however? While I understand that those at the top—the politicians, the lobbyists for the big anti-gun organizations, and so forth—specifically want a disarmed populace so that we can be more easily controlled by the government, what explains the blatant stupidity, the blinding lack of common sense, that your average rank-and-file liberal exhibits whenever the topics of firearms and the 2nd amendment come up?

I was thinking about this the other day while standing in line waiting for entry into the Raleigh Gun and Knife Show (go figure). What started this train of thought was an excellent article over at the Federalist by Daniel Payne in which he asks the question of why,http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/16/if-guns-cause-more-violence-wheres-the-exploding-crime-rate/

 if guns in the hands of the citizenry create crime, are we not seeing exploding crime rates in line with the steadily rising prevalence of civilian firearms ownership? After noting that America has the highest rate of private gun ownership in the world and that some studies show that roughly half of all American households possess at least one firearm, Payne observes,

“Yet where’s the exploding crime rate? The gun control lobby has been claiming for years that the more guns in private hands, the more gun violence we’ll see; the perennial hyperventilation is given to fears of a kind of Wild West America of lawless anarchy, wherein every gun owner is prepared to shoot from the hip at the first sign of danger.

“Well. Last year the Department of Justice released a report revealing that firearm homicides declined nearly 40% between 1993 and 2011, and nonfatal firearm injuries declined nearly 70% within the same time period. Every year since 2002 has seen a rise in the number of NICS background checks performed, yet in 2011 the firearm homicide rate was lower than it was in 2002; in fact, all firearm violence, both fatal and nonfatal, was lower the former year than the latter.”

So in reality, as civilian ownership of guns continues to rise, violent crime continues to fall in America. For those of us who live in the real world, this makes sense—the more law-abiding citizens own guns, the fewer people there are who criminals will perceive as potential victims and the more likely a criminal is to think twice about breaking into someone’s home in the middle of the night. Patterns of victimization bear this out, since people who live in very restrictive, anti-gun locales are more likely to be the victims of criminal activity.

Yet, liberals just can’t seem to wrap their heads around this relatively simple, straightforward, and empirically-substantiated point. Every time a state loosens its restrictions on firearms, whenever a federal “assault weapons” ban is allowed to lapse, whenever it becomes easier for law-abiding citizens to open carry or to obtain a concealed carry permit, liberals fall all over themselves predicting that the streets of our nation will turn into rivers of blood. As with most everything else they believe, the evidence that contradicts their worldview simply does not penetrate the self-imposed bubble in which liberals live.

Why?

I believe the answer to that question relates to two related phenomena—liberals’ ignorance about guns and gun ownership and the ignorance and arrogance that liberals exhibit toward the type of person who typically engages in civilian ownership of a firearm.

First, to their ignorance about guns themselves. Keep in mind that your average liberal has probably never even touched, much less fired, a gun. For them, guns are a black box, the inner workings of which they simply know nothing about. Because they know nothing about them, they fear them, much as a small child does the monster hiding in his closet when the lights are turned out. Your average liberal learns what little they know about guns primarily from media and entertainment sources—movies, televisions, and whatnot. As a result, liberals tend to lump gun users into one of three categories based on what they see from their limited repertoire of information:

The police

Criminals

Buffoons

Some (though not all) liberals believe it is okay for the police to have firearms. There tends to be the assumption that police are the only competent users of firearms, so if you do not currently belong to that category, then you’re probably just going to shoot your kid while cleaning your gun because you’re an incompetent hillbilly who just does things like that.

This belief is actually rather unrealistic once you recall that in cases where a civilian firearm user intervenes in a potentially criminal situation, only 2% of the time do they shoot an innocent person whom they mistaken believed to be committing a crime, versus 11% for the police. Civilians are also more successful at wounding, driving off, or subdue a criminal attacker than the police are (83% vs. 68% of the time). We should also note that police officers are three times as likely as civilian CCW holders to commit homicides.http://www.ammoland.com/2013/10/police-officers-likely-to-murder-than-concealed-carry-permit/#axzz2qxsVVfAv

Nevertheless, liberals go to movies and liberals see police officers using their weapons to be heroes. They then look around at the average, everyday Joes they work with who are not particularly heroic, and they assume that those people shouldn’t have guns because they, unlike the police officers they see in the movies, couldn’t shoot down a white supremacist terrorist while doing a back flip and having one arm in a sling from a previous bullet wound. Agents of the increasingly big-government state are uber-competent heroes. You people in the Tea Party are drooling morons who shouldn’t be trusted with a rubber band gun, much less a real one. That really is how many liberals think—only the government can be trusted with guns. If you’re not a government agent, then you have no business having a gun.

If someone depicted in the movies with a gun is not a police officer, then they’re likely a criminal. All criminals in the movies have guns, and pretty much any civilian with a gun is a criminal, or is going to be revealed to be a criminal by the end of the film. Liberals, being the simplistic thinkers that they are, transfer this silver screen perception over to the real world, and assume that any non-policeman who owns or wants to own a gun does so for nefarious, and likely illegal, purposes. This is why liberals seemingly make no distinction at all between hardened gangland thugs and pudgy middle-aged suburban accountants when they try to make their arguments for more and more gun control. Having a gun means you are under the spell of a magical force of nature that is going to make you commit crimes. How else can you explain the unreasonable attitudes shown by liberals and left-leaning states such as Maryland, which is now apparently using the power of metadata to flag and harass concealed-carry permit holders from other states for the crime of driving through their state?http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/

 The guy in the linked article had left his firearm at home in Florida, yet he was still treated like a common criminal by bumbling, incompetent Maryland State Police officers. As the victim, Mr. John Filippidis of Florida, asked,

“Face red, eyes shining, John pounds his knees. “And he wants to put me in jail. He wants to put me in jail. For no reason. He wants to take my wife and children away and put me in jail. In America, how does such a thing happen? ...And after all that, he didn’t even write me a ticket.”

How, Mr. Filippidis? The reason is because the police officer was an arrogant fool acting on laws and policies put into place by other arrogant left-wing fools and signed into law by an arrogant left-wing fool of a governor. That’s why, Mr. Filippidis. You were the victim of liberals being liberals, stupidly and arrogantly violating the Constitution and other laws of the land because they are too brain-addled to think for themselves instead of letting their ignorant stereotypes of you as a gun owner override their higher brain functions.

Now, if you’re not a police officer, and you can get a liberal to charitably grant that you are not some kind of criminal, the liberal will nearly always just fall back on his or her third media-driven stereotype, which is that gun owners like you are buffoons. What liberals see in the movies and on television when a non-policeman and non-criminal gun user is depicted is a dope who is always doing something stupid with a gun like sticking into his waistband and shooting himself in the leg or something like that. In their eyes, you’re just a crazy gun-nut who walks around town shooting your gun into the air while a-whoopin’ and a-hollerin’ like the drunken hillbilly cowboy that you probably are. Invariably, in the course of a conversation with a liberal about guns, they will assume that you’ve probably had some sort of gun safety accident, and wonder how it is that you haven’t accidentally shot yourself yet. Liberals love to slap bumper stickers on their cars that say things like, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their kids.” Never mind the fact that children are several times more likely to drown in swimming pool accidents than they are to die from accidental discharges of firearms. Maybe the next time you run across one of these limousine liberal types who drives an Audi and who lives in one of those trendy, upscale anti-gun neighborhoods where ever house has a swimming pool, you should ask them how they can ethically justify having a proven killer of children sitting right there behind their home, just waiting to gobble up their kids the first time they forget to cover the pool with a tarp?

This point leads me to the other general reason I gave above for why liberals are so clueless about guns—which is that they are similarly clueless about gun owners. And the reason for that, in turn, is because liberals are generally ignorant of the large body of people in this nation who make up “Middle America.”

In case it isn’t obvious to you (in which case, check yourself for a pulse), liberals in America have a very different culture than do normal Americans. Liberals basically created the sort of culture that you will find in the Northeast and the Left Coast, and ones who don’t live in these regions still idolize that culture and try to create enclaves of it wherever they congregate in large numbers. This culture is secular, dependent on government, addicted to feeling and experience, hedonistic, and thus mentally focused on the here and now to the exclusion of any sort of long-term planning. That’s why, for example, liberals tend to have fewer children than normal people do—they’re too busy living it up today to saddle themselves with little people who would crimp their lifestyles. Hence, why they so desperately want to force you to pay for their birth control—liberals essentially want the rest of us to subsidize their live-for-today lifestyles. Besides, when they need kids to perpetuate liberalism, they’ll just steal yours and indoctrinate them in the publik skoolz.

If you want a quick primer on what liberal culture is like and how it differs from that of the Wrong Kind of White Person (i.e. me and you, if you’re white), check out Stuff White People Like. Hilarious parody that perfectly fits into the “it’s funny because it’s true” category of humor.http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/

Liberals genuinely have no idea what the rest of us living here in flyover country really are like. Because they rarely interact with normal people in situations that don’t involve them either being arrested, being hassled by their boss, or trying to mock a normal person for essentially not being a liberal, they almost never get outside their self-contained sphere of influences to see what real people in America are like. Instead, they just continue assuming that the negative stereotypes that they derive from popular culture and from their other liberal friends must be reality. When it comes to understanding Normal American culture, liberals really are like the stereotypical “ugly American,” wandering around in a foreign country wearing a Bahama shirt and wondering why all these people won’t speak English.

For instance, most liberals don’t interact with real live conservative religious people, so they take it for granted that evangelicals and fundamentalists are all like the mother in Carrie or Mrs. Carmody in Stephen King’s The Mist. It never occurs to them that we’re just people going to our jobs, raising our families, fellowshipping with our friends and neighbors in our communities…and just wanting to defend ourselves from criminals. The same can be said for the many other characteristics that apply to a lot of us out here in Normal America with our gauche tastes in entertainment, our horrific eating habits, our refusal to recycle on command, and our lack of those little shopping-cart sized “Smart Cars.”

No—it’s so much easier for liberals to go along with disarming us if they can demonize us for being Not Like Them.

And let’s face it, when liberals push for gun control, we’re the ones they’re targeting—regular, everyday, middle class Normal Americans of all types. They know perfectly well that gang members and thugs aren’t going to suddenly turn in their already-illegal guns just because you pass another law against them. Because they have been taught by decades of popular culture and politically-ambitious rabble-rousers to believe that we’re a threat because we’re Different From Them, liberals truly believe that all of us Normal Americans are crazy yokels running around shooting guns at everything while we try to force liberals to go to our churches. Part and parcel with liberal culture is the anti-gun mentality—and because of the authoritarian predilections that accompany liberal psychology, they are determined to force this aspect of their culture off onto along with all the rest.

So while their ignorance and prejudice may be understandable, given the handicaps under which they are laboring, this doesn’t make them alright. Genuine constitutional rights are our birthright, antecedent to any act, or even existence, of government. Therefore, we cannot indulge the narrow-minded chauvinism of liberals who dislike the fact that we do not live according to their culture. Our gun rights—the right to be free, the right to defend ourselves, even the right to revolution if need be—must remain with our people, no matter how much the liberals may hate it.

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX,LIVE OUT SIDE THE CAGE 

A Canadian Warns America NOT To Register Our Guns

A Canadian Warns America NOT To Register Our Guns

A Canadian newscaster has a warning for Americans: Do NOT register your firearms because if you do, the government WILL confiscate your guns and throw you in jail.
http://youtu.be/LIrBUrFV2Ac



Brian Lilley, a host on Sun News in Canada, hosted a commentary proving that if we Americans are stupid enough to register our firearms (I’m talking to YOU Connecticut) then we should expect to have our guns confiscated at some point in the future.)

Lilley isn’t just talking mere opinion, here. He has proof. It happened in his own country. Once certain guns were outlawed, and the remaining ones were leveled with a must-register law, it wasn’t long before the government began confiscating guns for no legitimate reason.

The newscaster pointed out that critics of the Canadian gun registry program said that the registry would lead to confiscation, but supporters waved off those criticisms as absurd worries meant only to harm Canada’s “safety and security.”

But, Lilley points out, the critics were right. It wasn’t long before capricious and arbitrary rules began being passed that gave cops the excuse to roam throughout the country confiscating suddenly “illegal” guns and using the registry to do so.

Worse, those who refused were treated as if they were criminals as dangerous as a drug lord and these “paperwork criminals” had the full weight of the government slammed down on their heads.

Folks, THAT is what WILL happen here in the USA unless we ALL stand together and refuse to give up our rights to the petty criminals we call “lawmakers.” Registration MUST be resisted or we will end up just like Canada. Our guns confiscated, and ourselves thrown in prison.

Registration has already started in Connecticut. Don’t let your state become a police state like the fools in Connecticut who have willingly thrown away their Constitutional rights.

10 Reasons to Keep Women Out of the Infantry

10 Reasons to Keep Women Out of the Infantry

THIS POST IS NOT MENT TO A SEXIST IDEALISM BUT AND INFORMED OPINION FROM A FORMER TROOP & LEADER OF MEN AND WOMEN AND HONEST ASSESMENT 

The issue isn't women in combat. Women have always been near or in combat. Women in our U.S. Army have been pushed closer and closer to the front lines of the Infantry in combat by politicians of both parties since the 1970s. In campaigns where there are no front lines women ride in vehicles that get blown up – but that isn't the Infantry. Women pilot helicopters, get shot down and lose their legs – but that isn't the Infantry. Women shoot back when they are ambushed – but that isn't the Infantry. The issue is forcing the Infantry to become girl compatible.

Since the 1970s, everywhere women entered in the military the adjustment was to make the military organization, school, or course girl-compatible. Women served well where assigned. The quality of female military service doesn't change the reality that adjustments were made for women. The compromises didn't cost The Army too much – enough to lose a war.

Adjusting the Infantry for girls may mean America loses a war. At the least it will cost the unnecessary additional loss of life, because the Infantry won't be as good as it could be. The girlish Infantry won't be all it can be.

Here are 10 reasons to not create girlish Infantry.

No improvement to combat effectiveness. Name one way a woman improves the combat effectiveness of a rifle squad. Cite one measure of effectiveness or performance that a woman makes better. Name one. Then, prove it.

Equity is for lawyers, victory is for the Infantry. Promoting more women generals doesn't make America win wars. Promotions for women isn't protection for America.

Women in the Infantry are like women in the NFL, NBA or NHL. If women could play professional sports as well as men, they would. The Infantry is more demanding, like professional sports are, than any other branch. The only way women can compete with men in professional sports is if the standards are compromised. Change the rules. Except the rules of Land Warfare don't submit to political whimsy. Ground combat is an equal opportunity killer. Separate male and female physical and appearance standards reaffirm that separate, but equal, is never equal.

More Women will be injured. Basic sports medicine applies. More women will be injured in training and combat. Women's bodies are different from men. Women aren't men. More injuries cost the military many ways and society in lifetime disabilities.

More Women will be raped. Sooner or later women will face aggressive demands for sex from their battle buddies. Women will be raped by the enemy – and the Infantry faces capture more than any other soldiers.

Women will be degraded. There is no privacy in the Infantry. Creating privacy burdens and distracts leaders from training good Infantry. And, often it will be impossible. Decency demands differences between sexes. No differences means no decency and real degradation of womanhood.

Women will be drafted into the Infantry. Some day in the future there will be a war of national survival, or a really big war. Young people will be drafted. For legal equity women will be drafted into the Infantry. Your daughters, granddaughters, nieces and neighbors will go serve. The children of the elites won't be in the Infantry. Yours will suffer and die so the Elite Class can feel so superior – for the sake of equality, diversity, and political correctness.

Women aren't men. Male-bonding matters. Liberals and rabid feminists hate that. Women don't bond with men the way men bond with men. Neither do men who act like women as open homosexuals. It's science. It's culture. It's history. It's truth. The Infantry is based on squads of men working as a team. All male teams fight better.

Women don't win wars. A Nation that relies on its women to fight for it – deserves to die. Women in the infantry don't make the best infantry. They'll be the best politically-correct infantry and play that part until the dogs of war are unleashed.

Homosexuals will be jealous. Real women will compete with the homosexuals for sex with the men in the Infantry. It gets more complicated when the lesbian women compete with real men for sex with the women in the Infantry. Infantrymen and Infantrygirls are a volatile mix every day, let alone in combat. Ask a Combat Infantryman what combat does to arouse a man's senses.

Making the Infantry girl-compatible is another national folly. Except this one will get Americans killed. America may lose battles – even a war - for the cause of creating girlish Infantry.

Joseph F Barber served in 75th U.S. Army Divisions as an Airborne, Ranger Infantry Officer.

JOSEPH F BARBER