In The Name Of God, Who Goes There?

Libertarians and statists stand at opposite poles. Their essential essence is this: the statist seeing the rich man and his fine homes says, "No man should have this much." The libertarian seeing the same thing say, "All men should have as much."

Huey P. Long, "Every man a king." Yet the Kingfisher was a hard-boiled Louisiana Democrat and a ruthless statist, and once a big hero of mine (in my early 20s, after reading the new T. Harry Williams biography of Long (1970), giving me the satisfaction of the ends justifying the means in some very special cases (better calculated from hindsight's axiomatic 20/20 vision). However 35 years later, I'm nearly heart-broken to say, I'm beginning to lose faith in all men who dare to shame us and themselves by speaking in the name of government OR religion..

Or rock music, or fashion, or anything but LAW & ORDER on the streets and in the skyboxes and in the tabernacles and in the shopping centers and in our homes to include EVERY FIRST & EVERY LAST ONE OF US, so that we might hear the tiny voices of humility and liberty, of honor and nobility, of perseverance and resourcefulness within us...

Facts And Fiction: The JFK Assassination Redux

jfk
John F. Kennedy

Among the neon spectres, sweaty palm swoons, cigarette smoke, and coffee stained reams of conspiracies theory that have bustled about the name of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, there is one which invariably sticks to the soles of any flat foot who nurses a need to boast of a secret that could have been but probably never was, and this blog entry is the detail-rich tale that JFK was killed as a result of the following presidential statement and subsequent issuing of Executive Order No. 11110. This transfiguring event was no mere dalliance with the shadowy powers that gently push this world along a path they with the pursestrings and information gathering powers prefer, but a seismic shift that would cost them dearly, and some say they could not let this happen...

Jack Kennedy, the second youngest ever to hold the office, served less than three years as the 35th President of the United States, but he was instrumental in bringing the nation into the contemporary age of television, media, and popular culture from which we have never recovered.

So let the conspiracy mill begin anew by reading the full speech that many say got JFK murdered:

President Anderson, members of the faculty, board of trustees, distinguished guests, my old colleague, Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his degree through many years of attending night law school, while I am earning mine in the next 30 minutes, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:

It is with great pride that I participate in this ceremony of the American University, sponsored by the Methodist Church, founded by Bishop John Fletcher Hurst, and first opened by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914. This is a young and growing university, but it has already fulfilled Bishop Hurst's enlightened hope for the study of history and public affairs in a city devoted to the making of history and to the conduct of the public's business. By sponsoring this institution of higher learning for all who wish to learn, whatever their color or their creed, the Methodists of this area and the Nation deserve the Nation's thanks, and I commend all those who are today graduating.

Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service and public support. "There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university," wrote John Masefield in his tribute to English universities—and his words are equally true today. He did not refer to towers or to campuses. He admired the splendid beauty of a university, because it was, he said, "a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see."

I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children—not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace in all time.

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age where great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age where a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need them is essential to the keeping of peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles—which can only destroy and never create—is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace. I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary, rational end of rational men. I realize the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war, and frequently the words of the pursuers fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

Some say that it is useless to speak of peace or world law or world disarmament, and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitudes, as individuals and as a Nation, for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward, by examining his own attitude towards the possibilities of peace, towards the Soviet Union, towards the course of the cold war and towards freedom and peace here at home.

First examine our attitude towards peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it is unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable, that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade; therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable, and we believe they can do it again. I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.

Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions – on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace; no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process—a way of solving problems.

"And, JFK's "United States notes" backed by silver, which were withdrawn the day he was shot, would have put the Federal Reserve out of business and returned to the Treasury Department the Constitutional power to create and issue a debt-free currency."

With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor, it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors. So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all people to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly towards it.

And second, let us reexamine our attitude towards the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent, authoritative Soviet text on military strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims, such as the allegation that American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of war, that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union, and that the political aims – and I quote – "of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries and to achieve world domination by means of aggressive war."

Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth."

Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements, to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning, a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture, in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union in the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and families were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland—a loss equivalent to the destruction of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again—no matter how—our two countries will be the primary target. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many countries, including this Nation's closest allies, our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combat ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle, with suspicion on one side breeding suspicion on the other, and new weapons begetting counter-weapons. In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours. And even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

So let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal.

Third, let us reexamine our attitude towards the cold war, remembering we're not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different. We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists' interest to agree on a genuine peace. And above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy – or of a collective death-wish for the world.

To secure these ends, America's weapons are nonprovocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self-restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility. For we can seek a relaxation of tensions without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people, but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.

Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system – a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished. At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention, or which threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East, and the Indian subcontinent, have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an example for others, by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and Canada.

Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to many nations by alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge. Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope, and the purpose of allied policy, to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others. The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no doubt that if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace would be much more assured.

This will require a new effort to achieve world law, a new context for world discussions. It will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased contact and communication. One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of others' actions which might occur at a time of crisis.

We have also been talking in Geneva about our first-step measures of arm[s] controls designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and reduce the risk of accidental war. Our primary long range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament, designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this Government since the 1920's. It has been urgently sought by the past three administrations. And however dim the prospects are today, we intend to continue this effort—to continue it in order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are.

The only major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security; it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards.

I'm taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard. First, Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking towards early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hope must be tempered – Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history; but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind. Second, to make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on this matter, I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not—We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.

Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude towards peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives—as many of you who are graduating today will have an opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home. But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because freedom is incomplete. It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government—local, State, and National—to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within our authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever the authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of others and respect the law of the land.

All this—All this is not unrelated to world peace. "When a man's way[s] please the Lord," the Scriptures tell us, "He maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights: the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation; the right to breathe air as nature provided it; the right of future generations to a healthy existence?

While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can, if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement, and it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers, offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough—more than enough—of war and hate and oppression.

We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we must labor on—not towards a strategy of annihilation but towards a strategy of peace.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy—35th President of the United States

You Know You Live In A Nation...

InnocentYou know you live in a nation run by idiots and saboteurs if....
The common language has been so distorted from the norm that how one says something in public is more important than what is actually being said, and usually has generational not educational implications.

You know you live in a nation run by idiots and saboteurs if....
One can get arrested for expired tags on your car but not for having been illegally trafficked into a supposedly border patrolled country in the first place.

You know you live in a nation run by idiots and saboteurs if...
One's government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to continue to add trillions more in taxpayer debt.

You know you live in a nation run by idiots and saboteurs if...
A seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for calling his teacher "cute" but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable.

You know you live in a nation run by idiots and saboteurs if...
The Supreme Court of the United States can rule that lower courts cannot display the 10 Commandments in their courtroom, while sitting in front of a courtroom display of the 10 Commandments.

You know you live in a nation run by idiots and saboteurs if...
Children are forcibly removed from parents who appropriately discipline them while children of "underprivileged" drug addicts and other social calamities are left to rot in filth infested cesspools.

You know you live in a nation run by idiots and saboteurs if...
Working class Americans pay for their own health care (and the health care of everyone else) while unmarried women are free to squirt out child after child on the "State's" dime while rarely being held responsible for their own choices.

You know you live in a nation run by idiots and saboteurs if...
Hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while slothful, lazy behavior is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid and subsidized housing, free cell and birth control.

You know you live in a nation run by idiots and saboteurs if...
The government's plan for getting people back to work is to provide 99 weeks of unemployment checks to not work on the guise that this extra "free" money stimulates the economy.

You know you live in a nation run by idiots and saboteurs if...
Being thrifty, well-prepared, self-sufficient, and often having served one's country in the military is a red flag of terrorist activity and is considered a threat to the government...

You know you live in a nation run by idiots and saboteurs if...
Politicians think that stripping away one by one the amendments to the Constitution is really protecting the rights of the people.

You know you live in a nation run by idiots and saboteurs if...
The rights of the Federal Government come before the rights of the individual States and more to the point, the Individual...

You know you live in a nation run by idiots and saboteurs if...
Being illegally stripped of the ability to defend oneself and one's family in a world more dangerous by the day makes one "safer".

You know you live in a nation run by idiots and saboteurs if....
One must have one's parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion or be taught in the ways of Islam while any mention of Christianity is verboten.

You know you live in a nation run by idiots and saboteurs if...
An 80 year old Christian woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a Muslim woman in a burka is only subject to having her neck and dead searched.

You know you live in a nation run by idiots and saboteurs if...
Using certain words and phrases are considered "hate speech" but writing and singing songs about raping women and killing cops is considered "art".

You know you live in a nation run by idiots and saboteurs if...
Anyone with the sensibilities of a house cat can write a post like this just by reading the news headlines on any single day.

This article is adapted from an anonymous viral piece probably still bouncing around in the ether. <---GT

Liars! Liars! Liars Of A Feather Flocking In Silence

liars-club
The Revolutionary Guard of America's Disgrace: Liar's Club
AS DISGRACED CIA DIRECTOR and former commanding officer of the entire US Afghanistan nation-building boondoggle, DAVID PETREAUS, was scheduled to testify on the Benghazi crisis next week, the vultures have begun circling. Now it appears he’s bowed out of the picture, and will not testify although there is nothing preventing him from doing so. Director Petraeus resigned Friday after admitting marital infidelity. There is surely much more to this resignation saga than this decorated military man making bouncy boo boo with his fawning sexy young autobiographer.

Some vain religious actor in Florida is not the threat. The American policy of trusting Islamic players has always presented a clear and present danger to American lives, and thus these men of valor must always be cautious.
Petreaus lost this writer's respect when he complained that the Florida pastor Terry Jones was endangering American lives with his threats to burn a Qu'ran. That whine was petty and unbecoming of an American officer, particularly the top soldier in charge. Soldiers in Afghanistan live in a state of fear. By definition their lives are alwas at risk, and in severe danger. Natives who have been befriended, paid handsomely, turn on these soldiers with deadly force whenever the chance presents itself. Sure. They can honestly mimic greedy or needy humans first, but they are Islamic tribalists second, and that's all there is. Islam speaks to their core. Kafirs with their strange ways do not, except when it is to their immediate advantage. Some vain religious actor in Florida is not the threat. The American policy of trusting Islamic players has always presented a clear and present danger to American lives, and thus these men of valor must always be cautious. Grow up, I said of the General when I heard that ridiculous remark of his. Now it seems the great man has more than cowardly emotions, but stirs beneath the uniform as well.

The whole lot of simmering Obama scandals must see the light of day as they come to a boil. Fast and Furious. Benghazi. Oh, despair! This radical administration must be forced to fall upon its own sword, if America stands any chance of survival. But that presumes the Republican House finally grows a pair, and fights tooth and nail for the US Constitution and the rule of law...

On May 2, 2011, official history contends SEAL Team 6 infiltrated a terrorist compound in Pakistan and killed Al-Queda leader Osama bin Laden. Okay. So good, so far.

All across this divided nation, Americans cheered the news that one of the world's largest mass murderers had been brought to justice. Unfortunately, there's a tragedy in this story, as there seems to be with most of Obama's plotlines—and it's being ignored by Congress. In the weeks leading up to bin Laden's death, Pakistani Doctor Shakil Afridi risked his life to provide us with the information that directly helped SEAL Team 6 find and kill Osama bin Laden.

Dr. Afridi should be rewarded—or at the very least—congratulated for his efforts. But he's been imprisoned, brutally tortured and charged with treason by Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI). It's an outrage that Pakistan is holding Dr. Afridi for the crime of helping America.

And it's an outrage the United States continues to send over $2 BILLION in taxpayer money to Pakistan each year. We must get this jizya stopped

To hear that AG Eric Holder might be on his way out is good news, if only a rumor at this stage of the big shuffle apparently under way. Out with the bad journalism of the leftist media and in with the sunshine and the light...

Tar and feather the scoundrels, liars of a feather!

Rejecting The Imperial Presidency

President Obama
President Obama

Iow did this once great nation of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and many others of high morals and proven action choose governmental rot instead of constitutional liberty, economic slavery over national sovereignty? Here we quiver, uncertain, unprotected, quibbling while over $15 trillion in crushing debt. Where does this dark road—now ruled by executive fiat—crumb by crumb to personal serfdom end? What can we the citizenry do? Take note that Barack Hussein Obama became the Imperial President over the last 4 years:

    WHEN
  • people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, rather than put his hand over his heart; people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he surrounded himself in the White House with advisors who were pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he said he favors sex education in kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • his personal background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco—a man of questionable character and who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home - people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he started appointing White House Czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist /Communists, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he stood before the Nation and told us that his intentions were to "fundamentally transform this Nation" into something else, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he appointed cabinet members and several advisers who were tax cheats and socialists, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he appointed a Science Czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he appointed Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar who believes in "Explicit Consent," harvesting human organs without family consent and allowing animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual and organizer of a group called Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network as Safe School Czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he appointed Mark Lloyd as Diversity Czar who believes in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth, who supports Hugo Chavez, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • Valerie Jarrett, an avowed Socialist, was selected as Obama's Senior White House Advisor, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he appointed Carol Browner, a well-known socialist as Global Warming Czar working on Cap and Trade as the nation's largest tax, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as Green Energy Czar, who since had to resign when this was made known, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for Health and Human Services Secretary could not be confirmed because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • as President of the United States, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • his actions concerning the Middle East seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel , our longtime ally, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops early-on when the Field Commanders said they were necessary to win, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions, and individuals that got him elected, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, et cetera, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he claimed he was a Christian during the election and tapes were later made public that showed Obama speaking to a Muslim group and 'stating' that he was raised a Muslim, was educated as a Muslim, and is still a Muslim, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade, people said it didn't matter.
    WHEN
  • he finally completes his transformation of America into a Socialist State, people will wake up—but it will be too late. Our tickets will be punched. We must act now. Add these up one by one and you get a phenomenal map that points to the fact that President Obama is determined to "transform" America into a Marxist-Socialist society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. Before you disavow this do an Internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph. Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America ?

Don't just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. We all need to pull together or watch the demise of a free democratic society, only just hanging on by a thread as it is. Pray for Americans to seek the truth and take action for it will keep us FREE. Our biggest enemy is not China, Russia, North Korea, Iran or even the Muslim Brotherhood in the White House. Our biggest enemy is a large contingent of self-serving sold-out politicians in Washington, DC.

Question—will you delete this, or pass it on to others who don't know about Obama's actions and plans for the USA, so that they may know how to vote in November, 2012 and the ensuing years? It's your decision. I believe it does matter who occupies in the Oval Office and Congress. How about you?

    WHEN
  • November 2012 comes, it will matter that you vote and for whom you vote!

Andrew Jackson Abolishes The Central Bank

One hundred and fourscore years ago this month, President Andrew Jackson gave the following speech stipulating why he was closing the United States Bank.

President Andrew Jackson
President Andrew Jackson
A BANK OF THE UNITED STATES is in many respects convenient for the Government and useful to the people. Entertaining this opinion, and deeply impressed with the belief that some of the powers and privileges possessed by the existing Bank are unauthorized by the Constitution, subversive of the rights of the States, and dangerous to the liberties of the people, I felt it my duty, at an early period of my administration, to call the attention of Congress to the practicability of organizing an institution combining all its advantages, and obviating these objections. I sincerely regret that, in the act before me, I can perceive none of those modifications of the Bank charter which are necessary, in my opinion, to make it compatible with justice, with sound policy, or with the Constitution of our country.

Every monopoly, and all exclusive privileges, are granted at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair equivalent. The many millions which this act proposes to bestow on the stockholders of the existing Bank must come directly or indirectly out of the earnings of the American people. It is due to them, therefore, if their Government sell monopolies and exclusive privileges, that they should at least exact for them as much as they are worth in open market. The value of the monopoly in this case may be correctly ascertained. The twenty-eight millions of stock would probably be at an advance of fifty per cent, and command in market at least forty-two millions of dollars, subject to the payment of the present bonus. The present value of the monopoly, therefore, is seventeen millions of dollars, and this the act proposes to sell for three millions, payable in fifteen annual installments of two hundred thousand dollars each.

It is not conceivable how the present stockholders can have any claim to the special favor of the Government. The present corporation has enjoyed its monopoly during the period stipulated in the original contract. If we must have such a corporation, why should not the Government sell out the whole stock, and thus secure to the people the full market value of the privileges granted? Why should not Congress create and sell twenty-eight millions of stock, incorporating the purchasers with all the powers and privileges secured in this act, and putting the premium upon the sales into the Treasury.

It has been urged as an argument in favor of rechartering the present Bank, that the calling in its loans will produce great embarrassment and distress. The time allowed to close its concerns is ample; and if it has been well managed, its pressure will be light, and heavy only in case its management has been bad. If, therefore, it shall produce distress, the fault will be its own: and it would furnish a reason against renewing a power which has been so obviously abused. But will there ever be a time when this reason will be less powerful? To acknowledge its force is to admit that the Bank ought to be perpetual; and, as a consequence, the present stockholders, and those inheriting their rights as successors, be established a privileged order, clothed both with great political power and enjoying immense pecuniary advantages from their connection with the Government. The modifications of the existing charter, proposed by this act, are not such, in my views, as make it consistent with the rights of the States or the liberties of the people.

Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a Bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country. The president of the Bank has told us that most of the State banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory, whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace, and for the independence of our country in war. Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly renewed every fifteen or twenty years, on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom in peace put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But if any private citizen or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers, or prevent a renewal of its privileges, it cannot be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence.

Should the stock of the Bank principally pass into the hands of the subjects of a foreign country, and we should unfortunately become involved in a war with that country, what would be our condition? Of the course which would be pursued by a bank almost wholly owned by the subjects of a foreign power, and managed by those whose interests, if not affections, would run in the same direction, there can be no doubt. All its operations within would be in aid of the hostile fleets and armies without. Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy…

It is maintained by the advocates of the Bank, that its constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be considered as settled by precedent, and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power, except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the Bank might be based on precedent. One Congress, in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another, in 1811, decided against it. One Congress, in 1815, decided against a bank; another, in 1816, decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore, the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the States, the expressions of legislative, judicial, and executive opinions against the Bank have been probably to those in its favor as four to one. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me.

If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision…

It cannot be necessary to the character of the Bank as a fiscal agent of the Government that its private business should be exempted from that taxation to which all the State banks are liable; nor can I conceive it proper that the substantive and most essential powers reserved by the States shall be thus attacked and annihilated as a means of executing the powers delegated to the general government. It may be safely assumed that none of those sages who had an agency in forming or adopting our Constitution, ever imagined that any portion of the taxing power of the States, not prohibited to them nor delegated to Congress, was to be swept away and annihilated as a means of executing certain powers delegated to Congress…

Suspicions are entertained, and charges are made, of gross abuse and violation of its charter. An investigation unwillingly conceded, and so restricted in time as necessarily to make it incomplete and unsatisfactory, disclosed enough to excite suspicion and alarm. In the practices of the principal bank partially unveiled, in the absence of important witnesses, and in numerous charges confidently made, and as yet wholly uninvestigated, there was enough to induce a majority of the committee of investigation, a committee which was selected from the most able and honorable members of the House of Representatives, to recommend a suspension of further action upon the bill, and a prosecution of the inquiry. As the charter had yet four years to run, and as a renewal now was not necessary to the successful prosecution of its business, it was to have been expected that the Bank itself, conscious of its purity, and proud of its character, would have withdrawn its application for the present, and demanded the severest scrutiny into all its transactions. In their declining to do so, there seems to be an additional reason why the functionaries of the Government should proceed with less haste and more caution in the renewal of their monopoly…

I have now done my duty to my country. If sustained by my fellow citizens, I shall be grateful and happy; if not, I shall find in the motives which impel me ample grounds for contentment and peace. In the difficulties which surround us and the dangers which threaten our institutions there is cause for neither dismay nor alarm. For relief and deliverance let us firmly rely on that kind Providence which, I am sure, watches with peculiar care over the destinies of our republic, and on the intelligence and wisdom of our countrymen. Through His abundant goodness, and their patriotic devotion, our liberty and Union will be preserved.

President Andrew Jackson
Speech to Congress
July 10, 1832

Islam Will Rule The World in Fifty Years Of Demographic Superiority

islam7
Islam Will Not Be Denied

The numbers are astounding, and the result is disheartening. Will Islam rule the world after fifty years of demographic superiority? Are the brightly fired souls of Western Civilization being extinguished without so much as a whimper? The future looks bleak unless the tide of stealth Islamic jihad is stopped with same authority often used in the past to salvage the European cultures, by insisting that these recent migrations are reversed. Islam is less a religion as it is a political system, totalitarian in its outlook, and feverish in its concentration. But we know that this will not happen. We know that civil strife and possibly all out world war on European and North American soil (mismanaged as police actions) is assured, as the encroaching darkness of the AntiChrist with his false religion of Mohammedanism approaches.

But these projections inevitably involve a host of uncertainties, including political ones. Changes in the political climate in the United States or European nations, for example, could dramatically affect the patterns of Muslim migration. And the Pew Institute presents a much less radical observation:

muslim population

"the battleground where art and politics beat each other up, and few are they who seem the wiser…"

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube