Saturday, July 31, 2010

Arizona’s illegal immigration law—the judge violated the Constitution; NOT Arizona


I was searching the internet early this morning looking for a petition in favor of and in support of the Arizona illegal immigration law. I found one and plan to post it next week. I also found an article from a site which supports my earlier post—Arizona’s illegal immigration law and JUDICIAL TYRANNY, July 28, 2010—in which I said the U.S. Constitution prohibits an inferior federal court judge from dealing with the case since the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. This should be obvious to anyone who can read and who has read the U.S. Constitution. However, it is always nice when an attorney supports what I had previously written.

Therefore, I am posting that article today with a few comments from me including another relevant section of the U.S. Constitution. It’s amazing what people can learn just by actually reading the document. Maybe it should be required reading for each judge before he/she accepts any case and then tries an accepted case. It seems some of them need refresher courses on what the United States Constitution actually says!!!

The article is as written except for putting it into my format. The article:

From http://www.resistnet.com/

“ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial

Posted by George Hathaway on July 30, 2010 at 2:05 pm in Constitutional Issues
Courtesy of today’s Canada Free Press. We should press Arizona to get a trial (not appeal) with SCOTUS.

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial
By Publius Huldah Thursday, July 29, 2010

Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Ours which is as plain as the nose on your face.

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction….”

‘Original’ jurisdiction means the power to conduct the ‘trial’ of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court). You all know quite well what a ‘trial’ is—you see them all the time on TV shows: Perry Mason, Boston Legal, The Good Wife, etc. Witnesses testify and are cross-examined, etc.

The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:
State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her
Official Capacity, Defendants.

Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you. (EXACTLY!—my addition)

See where it says, ‘State of Arizona’? And ‘Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official Capacity’? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what gives the US Supreme ‘original Jurisdiction’, i.e., jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice). (EXACTLY!—my addition)

In Federalist No. 81 (13th paragraph), Alexander Hamilton commented on this exact provision of Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2:

‘... Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only ‘in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.’

Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal….’

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it! (EXACTLY!—my addition)

So! Counsel for the State of Arizona should consider:

1. File a Petition for Removal before federal district court Judge Susan R. Bolton demanding that the case be removed to the Supreme Court on the ground that under Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, US Constitution, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case.

2. If Judge Bolton denies the Petition for Removal, file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Supreme Court asking that court to order Judge Bolton to transfer the case to the Supreme Court.

A Petition for Writ of Mandamus is an old common-law ‘extraordinary writ’: It asks a court to ORDER a lower court or other public official to something which it is its duty to do. In Kerr v. US District Court for Northern District of California (1976), the Supreme Court said, respecting the propriety of issuing writs of mandamus:

‘....the fact still remains that ‘only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’ will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy.’’ ... (paragraph 13)

When a federal district court judge presides over a case which the Constitution specifically prohibits her from hearing, and even issues a ruling enjoining the enforcement of a State Law, then that federal district court judge usurps power. (EXACTLY! And in this case, I would suggest that she be impeached and convicted of violating her oath of office under the ‘good behavior’ clause since her actions are an extremely egregious violation of her oath. Every State should be concerned when one inferior court judge believes that she has the power to enjoin a State from enforcing its own law!—my addition)

She is specifically stripped—by Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2—of jurisdiction to preside over the case against the STATE of Arizona and against THE GOVERNOR of the STATE of Arizona.

For procedures for filing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, see Supreme Court Rule 20. Article IV, Sec. 4, requires the federal to protect each of the States against invasion. (The exact wording from the Constitution is as follows: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion [Is there any question that Arizona as well as other States are being invaded by illegals?—my addition]; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.” And yet, an appointed inferior federal judge has enjoined a duly elected State government NOT to enforce a law duly passed by its duly elected legislature and has further said through her ruling that, even though the federal government is NOT protecting the State of Arizona from invasion by illegals, the State CAN NOT do so on its own! WHAT UTTER, CONTEMPTIBLE NONSENSE!!! The U.S. Constitution has been turned upside down by both the Barack Hussein Obama Administration and this delusional judge!—my addition) Not only is the Obama regime refusing to perform this specific Constitutional duty—it seeks to prohibit the Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending itself! This lawlessness on the part of the Obama regime is unmatched in the history of Our Country. (EXACTLY—my addition)

OK, counselors—Go for it!”

Friday, July 30, 2010

Arizona’s immigration law and previous Supreme Court decisions


I downloaded the following on July 14th and am posting it tonight because of information at the end of the article. Specifically, a 1976 Supreme Court decision that seems to allow the Arizona law. If so, it seems the inferior court judge, who does not Constitutionally have jurisdiction over this case and does not Constitutionally have the authority to issue an injunction against a State law, ignored the Supreme Court decision or does not know of its existence. Of course, I guess Ann could be wrong about the previous Supreme Court decision. After all, she is an attorney but not an appointed federal judge.

From http://www.humanevents.com/

“New Black Panthers, You’re Free To Go—Not So Fast, Arizona
by Ann Coulter
07/14/2010


So I guess all that hysteria about the Arizona immigration law was much ado about nothing. After months of telling us that the Nazis had seized Arizona, when the Obama administration finally got around to suing, its only objection was that the law was ‘pre-empted’ by federal immigration law.

With the vast majority of Americans supporting Arizona’s inoffensive little law, the fact that Obama is suing at all suggests that he consulted exclusively with the craziest people in America before filing this complaint. (Which is to say, Eric Holder’s Justice Department.)

But apparently even they could find nothing discriminatory about Arizona’s law. It’s reassuring to know that, contrary to earlier indications, government lawyers can at least read English.

Instead, the administration argues, federal laws on immigration pre-empt Arizona’s law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

State laws are pre-empted by federal law in two circumstances: When there is a conflict—such as ‘sanctuary cities’ for illegals or California’s medical marijuana law—or when Congress has so thoroughly regulated a field that there is no room for even congruent state laws.

If Obama thinks there’s a conflict, I believe he’s made a damning admission. There’s a conflict only if the official policy of the federal government is to ignore its own immigration laws.

Only slightly less preposterous is the argument that although Arizona’s law agrees with federal law, Congress has engaged in ‘field pre-emption’ by occupying the entire field of immigration, thus prohibiting even harmonious state laws.

Field pre-emption may arise, for example, in the case of federal health and safety laws, so that manufacturers of cars, medical devices and drugs aren’t forced to comply with the laws of 50 different states to sell their products nationally.

And yet, just over a year ago, the Supreme Court held that there was no ‘field pre-emption’ even in the case of an FDA-approved anti-nausea drug because Congress had not explicitly stated that state regulation was pre-empted.

The drug, Phenergan, came with the warning that, if administered improperly (so that it enters an artery), catastrophe could ensue.

In April 2000, Phenergan was administered improperly to Diana Levine—by a clinician ignoring six separate warnings on Phenergan’s label. Catastrophe ensued; Levine developed gangrene and had to have her lower arm amputated.

Levine sued the health center and clinician for malpractice, and won.

But then she also sued the drug manufacturer, Wyeth Laboratories, on the grounds that it should have included more glaring warnings about proper administration of the drug—like, I don’t know, maybe a flashing neon sign on each vial.

Wyeth argued that since the Food and Drug Administration (after 54 years of study) had expressly approved the warnings as provided, state tort law was pre-empted by the federal drug regime.

But the Supreme Court held that Congress had to make pre-emption explicit, which it had not, so Levine was awarded $6.7 million from Wyeth.

If ever there were a case for ‘implicit pre-emption,’ this was it. Without federal supremacy for the FDA’s comprehensive regulation of drugs, pharmaceutical companies are forever at the mercy of state and local laws—and trial lawyers—in all 50 states.

As much as I would like pharmaceutical companies to rot in hell for their support of ObamaCare, I might need their drugs someday. Now, drug prices will not only have to incorporate R&D costs, but also the cost of paying for trial lawyers’ Ferraris. (Perhaps that should be listed as a side effect: ‘Caution! Improper use may cause nausea, dizziness, shortness of breath, and six new houses for John Edwards.’)

But the point is: According to the Supreme Court’s most recent pre-emption ruling, Arizona’s law is not pre-empted because Congress did not expressly prohibit state regulation of illegal aliens.

In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the pre-emption argument against state laws on immigrants—including laws somewhat at odds with federal law, which the Arizona law is not.

In the seminal case, De Canas v. Bica (1976), the court held 8-0 that a California law prohibiting employers from hiring illegal immigrants was not pre-empted by federal law.

The court—per Justice William Brennan—said that the federal government’s supremacy over immigration is strictly limited to: (1) a ‘determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country,’ and (2) ‘the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain.’

(To emphasis this section: “the federal government’s supremacy over immigration is STRICTLY LIMITED (my capitalization—my addition) to: 1] a “determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country,’ and 2] ‘the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain.’” As I said in an earlier post, NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution prevents a State from regulating the people [all the people within the State, legal and illegal] who are living within that State’s boundaries—absolutely NOTHING!!! It is an obscene, insane argument that a State can NOT regulate a specific group of people—illegal immigrants—within its own borders! Are our federal government representatives INSANE?—my addition)

So a state can’t start issuing or revoking visas, but that’s about all it can’t do.

Manifestly, a state law about illegal immigrants has nothing to do with immigrants who enter legally or the conditions of their staying here. Illegal aliens have neither been ‘admitted into the country’ nor are they ‘legal entrants.’

Indeed, as Brennan noted in the De Canas case, there’s even ‘a line of cases that upheld certain discriminatory state treatment of aliens lawfully within the United States.’ (You might want to jot some of this down, Mr. Holder.)

So there’s no ‘field pre-emption’ of state laws dealing with aliens, nor is there an explicit statement from Congress pre-empting state regulation of aliens.

On top of that, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld state laws on immigrants in the face of pre-emption challenges. Arizona’s law is no more pre-empted than the rest of them.

Unless, of course, Obama is right and it’s a violation of federal law to enforce federal immigration laws, which is the essence of the Department of Justice’s lawsuit.”

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Federalism from a sheriff's perspective



Hopefully I just uploaded a video which discusses the power of the local sheriff. Perhaps, the sheriffs in Arizona should use this power to enforce the new law to control illegal immigration in Arizona. The federal court decision to prevent the law from being enforced is invalid! Sheriffs unite and enforce legal, duly authorized Arizona law.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Arizona’s illegal immigration law and JUDICIAL TYRANNY!!!


I’m changing direction again today. Earlier today, a federal judge made some rulings in relation to the Arizona illegal immigration law. Today, my take on those decisions:

One federal judge, appointed by a past President—Bill Clinton—with the approval of a majority of the Senate and holding her office “during good Behaviour” (Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution), has again usurped the powers of a State by issuing an injunction against the State of Arizona ordering the State of Arizona not to enforce sections of a law duly passed by the people of the State of Arizona through the people of Arizona’s elected representatives. Where in the Constitution of the United States does a federal judge have the power and authority to issue an injunction against a State ordering that State not to enforce a duly passed law of that State? ANSWER: NOWHERE!!!

Article III of the United States Constitution is the shortest of the three articles that establishes the three branches of the federal government Therefore, I am going to quote the article in its entirety. I am taking the liberty of numbering the judicial power listed in Section 2 of Article III. Otherwise I am quoting the article as printed.

“Article III

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

1) The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

2) to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;

3) to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;

4) to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;

5) to Controversies between two or more States;

6) between a State and Citizens of another State—NOTE: This provision was changed by the Eleventh Amendment.

7) between Citizens of different States, [and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects].—NOTE: This provision was changed by the Eleventh Amendment, but only the section in brackets. Since the Eleven Amendment does not pertain to the Arizona immigration law, I am not quoting that amendment.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a STATE (my capitalization for emphasis—my addition) shall be a party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the state where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”

First of all, and extremely important although ignored by the Courts, who has jurisdiction in a federal court of law when a State is a party to the procedure? The correct, Constitutional answer is that the SUPREME COURT has jurisdiction! That’s what original jurisdiction means. The case is to begin and end at the United States Supreme Court. Note that the Constitution says in Article III, section 2, ¶ 2; “In all Cases affecting … , and those in which a State shall be a party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.” Period! This provision has NEVER been changed by Constitutional Amendment! NEVER!!! Therefore, this case, since the State of Arizona is affected by the ruling and is a party involved in the case, should not even be in this court. This should begin and end in the United States Supreme Court. Period! This lower court DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION!!!

Second, absolutely NOTHING, let me repeat this statement—ABSOLUTELY NOTHING—in the United States Constitution gives this court or any federal court, including the Supreme Court, the power to issue an injunction against a State forbidding that State to enforce a duly passed law of the State when it has not been ruled to be unconstitutional. In fact, any law passed by any duly elected body is by definition Constitutional until and unless ruled to be unconstitutional. Again, this judge is tyrannically issuing a ruling that she has NO Constitutional power to issue or enforce. SHE HAS NO SUCH POWER!!!

Thirdly, she obviously is violating the Constitution of the United States and is obviously not performing her duties in any manner remotely resembling any reasonable concept of “good behavior.” Therefore, every State should demand and Congress should immediately institute the procedures necessary to impeach and convict her for NOT fulfilling her oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

JUDICIAL TYRANNY is alive and well in the United States. And it is, because we the people have not demanded and have not required that the Constitution of the United States be enforced as written! When are we going to demand and require obeying the Constitution of the United States by all people, including government people?

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Responsibility—the ant and the grasshopper


I received the following as an e-mail today and just had to post it immediately. I don’t know the original author. I have put it into my format but otherwise have not changed it. The e-mail:

“This one is a little different. Two Different Versions. Two Different Morals.
Have a great day, Everyone.

OLD VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.
CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green.’

ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing, ‘We shall overcome.’ Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper’s sake.

President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper’s plight.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—my addition) drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn’t maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010.

I’ve sent this to you because I believe that you are an ant—not a grasshopper! Make sure that you pass this on to other ants. Don’t bother sending it on to any grasshoppers because they wouldn’t understand it anyway.” (HOW TRUE!—my addition)

Unfortunately, things have become even worse than told in this story. The government still believes that it must “save” all the grasshoppers of the nation because, after all, they are not responsible just irresponsible. The government now believes it must also “save” all those—people and businesses—that have made poor economic choices. Who pays? All those who were “foolish enough” to make good economic choices. Why should they be the only ones to benefit for their correct choices? Why should those who made poor economic choices be held responsible for their poor choices?

It’s always someone else’s fault. Who are those individuals? The ones who made the original good economic choices. Why should they benefit from making good choices?

The moral: It’s better to make poor economic choices and be bailed out by the government than to make good economic choices and to be punished by the government! Welcome to the new “change you can believe in!” The Barack Hussein Obama FANTASY LAND of “FAIRNESS”! It’s only “FAIR”!

Monday, July 26, 2010

Unilateral Disarmament—the Barack Hussein Obama way


I received the following recently from www.humanevents.com and am posting it today because it is time sensitive. I plan to return to the University of Illinois and its firing of a professor tomorrow.

“Unilateral Disarmament
by Oliver North
07/20/2010

Washington, DC —While Mr. Obama golfs his way through the Gulf Coast’s oil-drenched environmental calamity, another crisis is looming across the Potomac. America’s military, in harm’s way in a two-front war, is about to get staggered by a double whammy below the belt. Unfortunately for those who wear our nation’s uniform, the Commander in Chief and his cronies in Congress are throwing the punches.

The first blow will land in the next two weeks unless Senator Harry Reid’s Senate and Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives can get their act together to pass a supplemental appropriations bill to fund combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In May, while proselytizing for homosexuals in our military, Defense Secretary Robert Gates gently reminded the Congressional Armed Services Committees that he needed the appropriation by Memorial Day. They ignored him.

Last month he went again and told them the funds had to be approved before the Independence Day recess or the Pentagon would have to start doing ‘stupid things’—like shifting funds within the overall Defense Department budget just to keep the troops in the field re-supplied with beans, bullets and bandages. Once again Congress, taking their cue from Mr. Obama’s virtual silence on the matter, did nothing.

On July 13, Mr. Gates went up to Capitol Hill again, urging the solons to break the deadlock before the House recesses for ‘campaign season’ at the end of the month. The Secretary of Defense warned without action by then, he will have to start cancelling contracts on everything from weapons and equipment repairs to ammunition and fuel purchases in order to pay the troops. Not exactly what a Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Guardsmen or Marine needs to hear in the middle of Afghanistan’s ‘fighting season.’

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) describes the situation as ‘a true emergency.’ Yet despite dire predictions of higher unemployment as defense suppliers shed employees when contracts for munitions and equipment are delayed—there doesn’t seem to be any sense of urgency at the Obama White House. Perhaps that’s because this is just the first low blow.

A second salvo is now making its way through Washington’s ‘think tanks’ and elite soirees. For more than a month, while Secretary Gates has been begging Congress to act on this year’s $33 billion war supplemental, the ‘Sustainable Defense Task Force’ has been quietly circulating a report titled, ‘Debt, Deficits and Defense—A Way Forward,’ to the same congressional offices. The 56-page document lays the groundwork for drastic cuts in U.S. military spending—starting next year.

The 14-member, allegedly ‘non-partisan’ Task Force was convened last year at the direction of Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA), Walter B. Jones (R-NC), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Ron Wyden (D-OR). Their mandate was to ‘explore possible defense budget contributions to deficit reduction efforts that would not compromise the essential security of the United States.’

No one from the so-called ‘mainstream media’ has yet inquired at the Obama White House which, if any, members of the O-Team have read the report. They should. The document not only proffers an entirely new definition of the word ‘contribution,’ it also provides a blueprint for unilateral disarmament in the midst of a war and a global spike in the development and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.

Though few would argue with Task Force conclusions that better acquisition, contracting and auditing at the Pentagon are essential to saving billions, the authors baseline budget urges the U.S. to reduce military spending by nearly a trillion dollars over the course of the next decade by making drastic cuts in ships, aircraft, weapons systems and military personnel. The premise for making such major strategic and conventional force structure cuts is naïve and dangerous.

For example, in Section III of the report, labeled ‘Realistic Goals, Sustainable Strategy,’ the authors preface their proposed cuts by baldly claiming ‘In the conventional realm, the United States today faces no global threat remotely comparable to that once posed by the Soviet Union and its allies.’ Somehow they seemed to have missed a salient fact: more Americans have been killed by radical Islamists than by the entire Soviet nuclear arsenal.

Section VII—‘A Strategy of Restraint Would Allow Even Greater Savings posits that billions more can be saved by adopting a ‘strategy of restraint—one that reacts to danger rather than going in search of it.’ For those of us who once learned what happened at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 or who vividly recall planes flying into buildings on September 11, 2001, those words are highly offensive. But at the Obama White House where it’s blame America first and apologize globally, they will undoubtedly get a high five.

Lt. Col. North (Ret.) is a nationally syndicated columnist and the author of the FOX News/Regnery books, "War Stories: Operation Iraqi Freedom," "War Stories II: Heroism in the Pacific" and "War Stories III: The Heroes Who Defeated Hitler." Lt. North hosts ‘War Stories Investigates: Drugs, Money and Narco-Terror’ Saturday, Aug. 22, at 3 p.m. and 9 p.m. EDT on Fox News Channel.

Like this article? Get the latest Guns & Patriots delivered to your email every Tuesday. Sign up here - it's free! (www.humanevents.com/offers/offer.php?id=GNP292)”

It seems that the only budget cutting that the Barack Hussein Obama Administration approves of is in the cutting of national defense which is, of course, one of the primary purposes of the federal government—to protect the citizens of the nation from outside forces. Do you think that Barack Hussein Obama has everything topsy-turvy in his perverted view of the purpose of government?

Saturday, July 24, 2010

University of Illinois—more on the professor and his firing, part 3


From Illinois Family Institute: The Division of School Advocacy, e-mailed on July 12

“University of Illinois Inclusivity Standards Exclude Catholics
by Laurie Higgins, Director of IFI’s DSA -Illinois Family Institute

Examples of hypocrisy and viewpoint and religious discrimination are tumbling out of academia faster than I can keep track of. The latest is from the problem-ridden University of Illinois (U of I), or as I have come to think of it, the gang that couldn’t shoot straight (no pun intended).

U of I has fired adjunct professor, Dr. Kenneth Howell, who has taught for nine years in the Department of Religion. Most recently, he taught ‘Introduction to Catholicism’ and ‘Modern Catholic Thought.’ From all reports, it appears that Dr. Howell was fired essentially for being Catholic.

According to the News-Gazette, ‘One of his lectures in the introductory class on Catholicism focuses on the application of natural law theory to a social issue.’ To help his students prepare for an exam, Dr. Howell, who is open with his students that he is Catholic, sent a lengthy email explaining what the Catholic doctrine of natural law would say about homosexual acts, including the following:

‘NML (Natural Moral Law—my addition) says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act .... Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.’

Subsequently, a friend of a student in Dr. Howell’s class sent an email to the department chair, Robert McKim, accusing Dr. Howell of engaging in ‘‘hate speech,’’ saying that ‘‘The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.’’ This email resulted in Dr. Howell’s firing.

I have two questions for this student:

1) How would teaching Catholic (or Orthodox Jewish, or Muslim, or orthodox Protestant) beliefs on homosexuality undermine public discourse, inhibit independent thought, or ostracize those who self-identify as homosexual?

2) And how in his view could a professor teach these theological beliefs without undermining public discourse, inhibiting independent thought, or ostracizing homosexuals?

Let’s imagine that the Department of Religion has a faculty member who teaches a course on the doctrines of Islam, which hold that homosexuality is a sin; and let’s imagine further that he has the good fortune of having a book published on some aspect of Islam and on this book jacket, the professor is identified as a Muslim. As a result, his students would know that he likely believes that homosexuality is a sin. Would this professor be fired? And would such a firing constitute religious discrimination, which one would think would be prohibited by school anti-discrimination policy?

One tool in the cliche ‘toolbox’ of activist ideologues currently ensconced in our ivory towers is to unilaterally change the definition of words and then enforce those unilateral redefinitions on society—redefinitions that conveniently disadvantage their philosophical opponents. So, redefine ‘hatred’ to mean ‘moral beliefs with which I disagree’ and then charge those who hold them with hatred. Voilà, sexual traditionalists become haters. So simple, so simplistic, so irrational—and yet so effective. (The libertines are masters of redefining words and/or substituting words to lessen the impact of the actual behavior. Thus, they use the word “gay” instead of homosexual behavior and a woman’s “right to choose” instead of MURDERING her unborn baby—my addition.)

According to Ann Mester, associate dean for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, ‘‘the e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us.’’ (In plain English, Mester’s tortured, obfuscatory rhetoric, ‘entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement,’ means they can fire him.) Apparently these standards of ‘inclusivity’ strictly exclude anyone who believes homosexual practice is immoral. One wonders if Dr. Howell would have been permitted to teach the Catholic views on homosexuality as long as he didn’t actually hold those views himself. (Of course not, since, in their view, the Catholic/Christian position that homosexual behavior is sinful is, in and of itself, not inclusive under the University’s, or at least it’s administrators, perceived understanding of inclusivity. Are these really educators?—my addition)

If professor A were to express her belief that adult consensual incest is immoral, would she be fired because her belief constitutes hatred of those involved in incest and therefore violate the university’s Orwellian policy of inclusivity? (Yes, if there were enough politically active voices demanding that it be so!—my addition)

If professor B were to express his belief that polyamory is immoral, would he be fired because his belief constitutes—in the university’s omniscient, omnipotent mind—hatred of polyamorists and therefore violates its standards of inclusivity? (Yes, if there were enough politically active voices demanding that it be so!—my addition)

Have U of I’s standards of ‘inclusivity’ become the de facto arbiter of morality for the entire faculty, determining which moral beliefs about behaviors are acceptable and which are not? (Yes, since there are enough politically active voices demanding that it be so!—my addition) It might behoove the university to spell out which beliefs are included under their policy of inclusivity—and which are excluded—because some employees might foolishly assume that the university’s standards of inclusivity would include Catholics.

And how are these standards—standards that evidently require the firing of anyone who believes homosexual acts are immoral—reconciled with commitments to intellectual inquiry, critical thinking, and diversity? As conservatives are well aware, when it comes to the contentious topic of homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder, many ‘educational’ institutions have become academic gulags, freely engaging in censorship and routinely violating their own commitments to intellectual inquiry, diversity, inclusivity, and tolerance.” (And FREELY PROMOTING such sinful behavior!—my addition)

Although the student was wrong to even suggest the e-mail was some kind of “hate speech,” the real blame in the whole sordid episode falls primarily upon the administrators of the University of Illinois for not knowing better! Just how much money is the public paying these people! Talk about evil people who do NOT understand JUSTICE!!!

Friday, July 23, 2010

Videos worth watching


I have a friend who sends videos to his e-mail list. He had not been sending them to me since I used dial-up and it took too long to view them. Since I’m now on cable, he sent me two videos today. I’m posting the addresses today for my post. I will then return to the University of Illinois and the handling of the professor who sent out an alleged “hate” e-mail as part of his teaching assignment.

From an e-mail received today:

1) “It’s the best 5 minutes you’ll spend all week.

http://www2.nationalreview.com/video/video_homie_060110_C.html

2) 2 million hits in 3 days. A must watch video

This video just came out... and it already has over a four Million hits... ‘Americans’ will love it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJEA

3) After watching the above video, go to the right and click on “Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown”

I tested the first two links by copying and pasting them and they do work that way.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

University of Illinois—the professor’s e-mail and student’s email, part 2


“Dr. Kenneth Howell’s Teaching E-mail to Students:

The following is the e-mail to students that U. of Illinois religion professor Ken Howell sent to his students, as reported by the Champaign News-Gazette:

From: Kenneth J. Howell
Date: Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:45 PM
Subject: Utilitarianism and Sexuality (for those in 447 FYI)

Dear Students:

Since there is a question on the final exam about utilitarianism (see the review sheet), I thought I would help with an example. I realized after my lectures on moral theory that even though I talked about the substance of utilitarianism, I did not identify it as such and so you may not have been able to see it.

It turns out that our discussion of homosexuality brings up the issue of utilitarianism. In class, our discussion of the morality of homosexual acts was very incomplete because any moral issue about which people disagree ALWAYS raises a more fundamental issue about criteria. In other words, by what criteria should we judge whether a given act is right or wrong?

Before looking at the issue of criteria, however, we have to remind ourselves of the ever-present tendency in all of us to judge morality by emotion. The most frequent reason I hear people supporting same-sex marriage is that they know some gay couples or individuals. Empathy is a noble human quality but right or wrong does not depend on who is doing the action or on how I feel about those people, just as judging an action wrong should not depend on disliking someone. This might seem obvious to a right thinking person but I have encountered many well-educated people who do not (or cannot?) make the distinction between persons and acts when engaging moral reasoning. I encourage you to read the final essay editorial I sent earlier to reflect on this. In short, to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person. A person and his/her acts can be distinguished for the purposes of morality.

So, then, by what criterion should we judge whether sexual acts are right or wrong? This is where utilitarianism comes in. Utilitarianism in the popular sense is fundamentally a moral theory that judges right or wrong by its practical outcomes. It is somewhat akin to a cost/benefit analysis. So, when a woman is deciding whether it’s right to have an abortion, the utilitarian says it’s right or wrong based on what the best outcome is. Similarly, a man who is trying to decide whether he should cheat on his wife, if he is a utilitarian, will weigh the various consequences. If the cheating side of the ledger is better, he will conclude that it’s okay to cheat. If the faithful side is better, he will refrain from cheating.

I think it’s fair to say that many, maybe most Americans employ some type of utilitarianism in their moral decision making. But there are at least two problems. One is that to judge the best outcome can be very subjective. What may be judged good for the pregnant woman may not be good for the baby. What may be judged good for the about-to-cheat-husband may not be good for his wife or his children. This problem of subjectivity is inherent in utilitarianism for a second reason. Utilitarianism counsels that moral decisions should NOT be based on the inherent meaning of acts. Acts are only good or bad relative to outcomes. The natural law theory that I expounded in class assumes that human acts have an inherent meaning (remember my fist vs. extended hand of friendship example).

One of the most common applications of utilitarianism to sexual morality is the criterion of mutual consent. It is said that any sexual act is okay if the two or more people involved agree. Now no one can (or should) deny that for a sexual act to be moral there must be consent. Certainly, this is one reason why rape is morally wrong. But the question is whether this is enough.

If two men consent to engage in sexual acts, according to utilitarianism, such an act would be morally okay. But notice too that if a ten year old agrees to a sexual act with a 40 year old, such an act would also be moral if even it is illegal under the current law.

Notice too that our concern is with morality, not law. So by the consent criterion, we would have to admit certain cases as moral which we presently would not approve of. The case of the 10 and 40 year olds might be excluded by adding a modification like “informed consent.” Then as long as both parties agree with sufficient knowledge, the act would be morally okay. A little reflection would show, I think, that “informed consent” might be more difficult to apply in practice than in theory. But another problem would be where to draw the line between moral and immoral acts using only informed consent. For example, if a dog consents to engage in a sexual act with its human master, such an act would also be moral according to the consent criterion. If this impresses you as far-fetched, the point is not whether it might occur but by what criterion we could say that it is wrong. I don’t think that it would be wrong according to the consent criterion.

But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the ‘woman’ while the other acts as the ‘man.’ In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don’t want to be too graphic so I won’t go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.

Now recall that I mentioned in class the importance of gaining wisdom from the past. One part of wisdom we gain from such knowledge is how people today came to think of their bodies. I won’t go into details here but a survey of the last few centuries reveals that we have gradually been separating our sexual natures (reality) from our moral decisions. Thus, people tend to think that we can use our bodies sexually in whatever ways we choose without regard to their actual structure and meaning. This is also what lies behind the idea of sex change operations. We can manipulate our bodies to be whatever we want them to be.

If what I just said is true, then this disassociation of morality and sexual reality did not begin with homosexuality. It began long ago. But it took a huge leap forward in the wide spread use of artificial contraceptives. What this use allowed was for people to disassociate procreation and children from sexual activity. So, for people who have grown up only in a time when there is no inherent connection between procreation and sex—notice not natural but manipulated by humans—it follows ‘logically’ that sex can mean anything we want it to mean.

Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.

I know this doesn’t answer all the questions in many of your minds. All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions. As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don’t arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.

Kenneth J. Howell Ph.D.
Director, St. John’s Institute of Catholic Thought
Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign”

Is the University of Illinois serious? A university professor was fired for the above teaching e-mail. The University of Illinois is the largest PUBLIC university within the State and as a PUBLIC university is funded, in part, with STATE TAX MONEY. Who should be fired here? The professor or the incompetent administrators who are wasting our tax dollars with this intolerant nonsense!

“U of I Student’s Complaint E-mail about Religion Prof Ken Howell:

The following is the e-mail complaint from student about U-I religion instructor Ken Howell, as reported by the News-Gazette:

Prof. McKim,

This past semester, a friend of mine took RLST 127: Introduction to Catholicism. Throughout the semester, he would consistently tell me how the teacher [Ken Howell], who I believe is a priest at the Newman Center, would preach (not teach) his ideology to the class. Many times, my friend (whom I wish to remain anonymous) said the instructor would say things that were inflammatory and downright insensitive to those who were not of the Catholic faith—it should be noted that my friend and I were both brought up Catholic. Anyways, my friend informed me that things got especially provocative when discussing homosexuality. He sent me the following e-mail, which I believe you will agree is downright absurd once you read it. (Actually, NO! It is NOT absurd! In a court of law, none of the above, accept the actual e-mail from the professor which is NOT unreasonable, would be accepted since it is, first of all, hearsay evidence and secondly, since it is anonymous as far as the accuser is concerned, it would NOT be permitted since every accused has the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him” (Amendment VI of the United States Constitution) This provision is also in the Constitution of the State of Illinois, Article I—Bill of Rights, Section 8: Rights after Indictment. The courts have consistently ruled that due process and equal protection have to be provided when dismissing an employee in public institutions—my addition.)

I am in no way a gay rights activist, but allowing this hate speech (What hate speech!—my addition) at a public university is entirely unacceptable. It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes. (Happens all the time with leftist, libertine instructors and professors! Is he sure he is attending the University of Illinois?—my addition) Once again, this is a public university and should thus have no religious affiliation. (What nonsense! There is NO religious affiliation! Again, is this person actually a student at the university. My old high school students knew better!—my addition) Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. (Even if it is TRUE!—my addition) The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation. (Where is this individual supporting independent thought?—my addition)

I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a gay student would feel if he/she were to take this course. I am a heterosexual male and I found this completely appalling. (SO!—my addition) Also, my friend also told me that the teacher allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma. (HERESAY!—my addition) Once again, he is guilty of limiting the marketplace of ideas and acting out of accord with this institution’s mission and principles. (Who is trying to limit the marketplace of ideas? This student, the President of the University of Illinois, other administrators?—my addition)

I have Cc’d Leslie Morrow, director of the LGBT Resource Center, on this e-mail as well as (name redacted), former features editor at the Daily Illini (I’m sure they’d like to hear about this), and Siobhan Somerville, a former teacher of mine and the founder of the queer studies major.

I didn’t go to Notre Dame for a reason, (Who cares?—my addition)
(name redacted)”

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

University of Illinois reaction to a professor’s e-mail


In my last post, the material mentioned the dismissal of Catholic professor Kenneth Howell by the University of Illinois. I have received several e-mails from Americans For Truth concerning this matter. Tonight, portions of the first e-mail received.

“From: Americans For Truth
Sent: Jul 12, 2010 6:26 PM
To: aft-update@americansfortruth.com
Subject: The E-mail that Got Prof. Kenneth Howell Fired at U. of Illinois


The E-Mail that Got Dr. Kenneth Howell Fired at U. of Illinois
READ IT ONLINE: http://americansfortruth.com/news/the-e-mail-that-got-dr-kenneth-howell-fired-at-u-of-illinois.html

Dr. Kenneth Howell, Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, was fired after a liberal student complained about an e-mail he sent to his students explaining Natural Moral Law.

By Peter LaBarbera

The University of Illinois has fired Dr. Kenneth Howell, a Catholic adjunct religion professor who was doing his job of teaching a class on Catholicism—after a liberal student complained to the university about an e-mail Howell sent to his students explaining Natural Moral Law. (The professor’s instructive e-mail and the student’s complaint e-mail are reproduced below.)

TAKE ACTION: Contact Michael Hogan, the University of Illinois’s new president, and urge him to reinstate Prof. Howell immediately: phone: (217) 333-6400; Fax: (217) 333-5733. Tell President Hogan that Howell’s firing is a nationwide advertisement that the University of Illinois is bigoted toward and intolerant of people of faith—giving lie to U-I’s mission statement to be “inclusive” and to ‘treat each other with dignity and respect.’ Board of Trustees: contact the U. of Illinois Bd. of Trustee (217) 333-1920 or write: UIBOT@uillinois.edu.

The U. of Illinois’ ‘religion department’s website says Howell was recognized for excellent teaching in the spring and fall semesters of 2008 and 2009,’ the Champaign News-Gazette reports.

Howell’s termination draws attention to the emerging, cold reality of modern, politically correct America: in cosmopolitan areas and certainly in academia, you are more likely to be terminated, punished or persecuted on the job for opposing homosexuality than for ‘being gay.’

Here we are—on the verge, with our Democrat-controlled Congress, of creating federal employment ‘rights’ based on homosexuality (and transgenderism), and people are being fired merely for expressing their sincere religious beliefs—which, in Howell’s case, was his job. Even as homosexual activists falsely claim that thousands of homosexuals face job losses because of ‘who they are,’ the number of anti-Christian firings is piling up: remember the Allstate firing of Matt Barber? Crystal Dixon?

As you can see from below, Dr. Howell is a clear thinker who was doing what he was paid to do—teaching Catholic morality to his students. The complaint e-mail that got him terminated dismisses Howell’s e-mail as ‘absurd...It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes.’ (That’s a good portion of university staffs but they are most likely to be indoctrinating students with libertine trash—a woman has the “right” to MURDER her unborn baby, homosexual behavior is normal and acceptable—and socialistic nonsense—my addition.)

If you want to know about the homo-fascist impulse that dominates so many institutions of ‘higher learning’ (hah!) today, here are the key paragraphs from the News-Gazette story:

In a series of e-mail exchanges between [Robert McKim, head of the U-I religion department] and UI administrators about how to proceed regarding Howell’s teaching and his appointment as an adjunct professor, McKim states he will send a note to Howell’s students and others who were forwarded his e-mail to students, ‘disassociating our department, College, and university from the view expressed therein.’

In another e-mail, Ann Mester, associate dean for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, wrote that she believes ‘the e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us.’

Inclusivity? What about U. of Illinois’ ‘inclusivity’ of traditional Catholic students and students who adhere to traditional Judeo-Christian morality? ‘Diversity’ has become a code-word for punishing those who dissent from liberal, pro-homosexuality groupthink. Please read the excellent e-letter below on National Moral Law by Prof. Howell. And take action to urge the University of Illinois to correct this injustice.—Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org ”

(I plan to post the Professor’s e-mail and the student’s e-mail tomorrow.)

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Homosexuals’ War on Christians in Britain; get ready America (or is it already here?)


“Fw: Britain’s ‘Gay’ War on Christians—Must-Watch Video‏

From: Americans For Truth
Sent: Jul 19, 2010 9:36 AM
To: aft-update@americansfortruth.com
Subject: Britain’s ‘Gay’ War on Christians—Must-Watch Video

Will Obama, like U.K.’s Tony Blair, usher in ‘gay’ tyranny in the United States?

Watch video online: http://americansfortruth.com/news/video-gay-britains-war-on-christianity.html/

Will Americans Learn from Britain’s ‘Gay’ War on Christians?

By Peter LaBarbera

I was sent this must-watch CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) video by my friend Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Association of Michigan. Glenn is backing a #HYPERLINK ‘http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123943’ civil rights lawsuit by the Thomas More Law Center against Attorney Gen. Eric Holder over the new homosexuality/transsexuality–inclusive ‘hate crimes’ law. This video deserves wide circulation as a warning to America.

The Homosexual Activist Movement, aided and abetted by liberal straights, currently is the greatest threat to religious freedom in the United States. This is because homosexual radicals like lesbian Chai Feldblum (appointed by President Obama as a Commissioner on the E.E.O.C. [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—my addition] ) believe ‘gay rights’ supersede Americans’ freedom to oppose homosexuality and gender confusion. To quote Feldblum, ‘Gays win, Christians lose’ when the ‘zero-sum’ game of ‘gay rights’ versus religious freedom hits the courts.

[CLICK HERE or got to http://americansfortruth.org/]

Already, we in the USA are seeing the same sort of persecution for opposing homosexuality as is occurring in Great Britain, only on a lesser scale. (See University of Illinois story over dismissed Catholic professor Kenneth Howell HERE.) It will only get worse if homosexuality- and transsexuality-based special ‘rights’ are federalized under the proposed “Employment Non-Discrimination Act.”

(A Note on ‘Islamophobia’: the effort to push for acceptance of Islam—insofar as it becomes official government policy—is also a threat to liberty; however, unlike in the U.K., state punishment of ‘Islamophobia’ in the United States has not reached a fever pitch. But isn’t it interesting how activist Muslims, who reject homosexuality as sinful and bemoan Western promotion of homosexuality, have nevertheless copied the manipulative ‘gay’ tactic of accusing opponents of possessing an irrational ‘phobia‘?)

Willow Creek ‘Leadership‘?

Another key difference between the USA and Britain is that biblical Christianity is much more vibrant and common here, although of course its strength varies geographically. That is why homosexual activists are struggling to “re-interpret” the Word of God and turn it into a ‘gay’-affirming text. Given the crucial role that churches and pastors (should) have in maintaining our religious freedom, I have another question regarding the CBN video:

Are American churches up to the challenge of defending our precious liberty and their freedom to preach the truth about any sin, including homosexuality, uninhibited by the state? (GOOD question!—my addition)

I wonder, because here in Illinois, one very influential, trend-setting mega-church— Willow Creek Community Church, which holds annual “Leadership Summits’ for pastors and Christian leaders—honored former British Prime Minister Tony Blair last year—the very same Tony Blair credited in this CBN video with ushering in a sweeping gay rights’ to the U.K. with its attendant anti-religious persecution.

Not only did Mr. Blair make Britain safe for same-sex immorality, as it were, but he helped establish a legal ‘anti-discrimination’ system that led inexorably to Christians and moral-minded British citizens being investigated and even jailed for ‘anti-gay’ discrimination. See this recent case of a Dale McAlpine, a British evangelist who was arrested for preaching against the sin of homosexuality (the charge against him was ultimately dropped).

As he revealed to British homosexual writer Johann Hari, Blair counts his pro-‘gay rights” work as one of his singular achievements. This excerpt of Blair’s 2009 interview with Hari (in the British gay magazine Attitude) is telling:

Hari: You are a very rare example of a person who is publicly very religious, and very pro-gay. Did you ever see a conflict between the two?

Blair: No. Not for me. Because I came to a religious faith through people who were themselves very much open and liberal on all these issues, and who would have regarded it as bizarre to have attitudes of hostility to gay people. I think it would have been, actually, the other way around. If in the end I’d felt that my religious faith was pulling me in an opposite direction, I’d have had real difficulties with it. I think that for all religions, the challenge is how do you extract the essential values of the faith from a vast accumulation of doctrine and practice? For many people, the reason for their religious faith is less to do with the doctrine and practice, and more to do with the values like love of God and love of your neighbour. And one of the things I do through my Foundation, through trying to bring different religious faiths together, to show how, actually, there is a huge common space around these values between the different religious faiths.

Like Obama, Blair conveniently ignores or dismisses biblical texts that might interfere with the noble sense of good that he associates with affirming homosexuality and ‘equal rights’ based on same. Blair, a Catholic convert, once even lectured the pope on the latter’s ‘entrenched’ attitudes about homosexuality.

Is this the kind of ‘leadership’ that Willow Creek and its charismatic pastor Bill Hybels hope to spread throughout American Christendom, and the world? Blair with his New Age-ish brand of (c)hristianity certainly has “led” on homosexual rights—but doesn’t that mean that he utterly failed to model godly, biblical leadership? Would Hybels agree? Once again it’s that pesky homosexual issue—if we publicly agree with the God of the Bible on this issue, there is a price to pay in worldly fame—one apparently too great for many who still claim the mantle of moral leadership. Just ask Rick Warren, or Dr. Laura Schlessinger, or Tony Blair.

I have not seen Hybels’ 2009 Willow Creek ‘Leadership Summit’ interview with Blair, but I would be surprised if there were any queries about Blair’s enthusiastic state promotion of homosexuality-based ‘rights’ (the very opposite of God-given liberties)— or his campaign to synthesize his socially liberal views on sex and marriage with the historic Christian faith. Clearly, Blair was honored by Willow Creek, and Christians and lovers of religious and moral freedom everywhere have the right to ask: why?

As AFTAH readers know, in 2008 this writer and another pro-family advocate picketed Willow Creek church after its leadership agreed to meet with the homosexual activist group Soulforce. (Would WCCC also meet with pro-pornography activists demanding a meeting?) At issue is the nature of Willow Creek’s and Hybels’ ‘leadership’ in Christian circles. It should be remembered that Willow Creek rejected numerous high-level requests to actively assist the 2006 ‘Protect Marriage Illinois’ campaign to place a statewide referendum on the Illinois ballot affirming traditional marriage.

We will be doing more examinations into just what kind of leadership WCCC is exerting —as well as that of the larger evangelical Church—in the cultural sphere of sexual sin and marriage.

CBN YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UZVlh3U-kc

TRUTH ACADEMY: Your Opportunity to Learn the Other Side of the ‘Gay’ Debate

Venue change: The Truth Academy will be held Thursday, Aug. 5 through Saturday, Aug. 7 at Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, Illinois. (http://www.christianlibertyacademy.com/) For more info, click the ‘Truth Academy’ button at the upper right corner of AFTAH’s website (www.aftah.org)

Help Americans For Truth teach a new generation of young people how to counter the lies and myths of the homosexual activist movement. Sponsor a young person (age 14-25) to attend AFTAH’s Truth Academy Aug 5-7 for $99 (and receive a free book from AFTAH; for details, see link HERE). You can sign up to attend yourself (youth: $99; adults: $149; married couples' discount: $199). But you also can help AFTAH make this event possible with your tax-deductible donation of $1,000, $500, $100, $25, or whatever you can give. Go towww.americansfortruth.org/donate, or send your check to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567.

And please pray for this project and help us recruit youth to attend! For more info on the Academy, click the ‘Truth Academy’ button on the AFTAH website or go here: http://americansfortruth.com/news/aftah-launches-truth-academy-to-train-youth-on-how-to-fight-gay-agenda.html”

Monday, July 19, 2010

“Ella”—the MURDER drug, a petition against


From http://www.lifenews.com/

“FDA Misleads Women on New Abortion Drug Ella, Billed as Morning After Pill
by Wendy Wright and Kristan Hawkins
July 13, 2010

www.lifenews.com Note: Wendy Wright is the president of Concerned Women for America. Kristan Hawkins is the executive director of Students for Life of America.

The abortion debate is shifting. Americans are uncomfortable with abortion. They definitely do not want tax dollars paying for abortions. Most doctors aren’t willing to participate.

So abortion advocates have a new plan: mislead and mislabel. (Not a new plan at all. They do it all the time—my addition) They are steering the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to mislead women by mislabeling the new drug Ella to avoid mentioning that it can cause an abortion. Women and health providers will be enticed by the claim that it can prevent a pregnancy, unaware that it also can abort a pregnancy. And by not being labeled an ‘abortion drug,’ it may skirt federal laws against funding abortions—and the government will pay for it.

The question is: Will the FDA go along with this scheme? (Of course they will unless pressure is put on them!—my addition)

This new drug is close to being introduced in the market. It can be taken up to five days after sexual intercourse. The drug sponsor touts Ella’s ability to delay ovulation, but Dr. Jeffrey Bay, an FDA pharmacologist, admitted that Ella also may prohibit embryos from implanting in the uterus.

This is significant. Ella impacts embryos both before and after implantation by interfering with the hormone needed to line the uterus to support an embryo.

An FDA advisory panel recently approved Ella (www.lifenews.com/nat6433.html—my addition) as an ‘emergency contraceptive.’ However, the drug contains virtually the same chemicals as the abortion drug RU-486 and acts the same way.

By blocking progesterone receptors, it starves the baby to death.

Despite this, the FDA panel voted unanimously not to inform women that Ella may do more than prevent ovulation. ( www.lifenews.com/nat6383.html—my addition) Incredibly, it went further by discouraging studies to determine if Ella can cause birth defects in babies who survive.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) admitted, ‘Extremely limited data are available on the health of the foetus/new-born in case a pregnancy is exposed’ to Ella. It also noted that Ella ‘is embryotoxic at low doses.’

RU-486 was approved without adequate trials and, even with restricted distribution, has resulted in thousands of complications—including deaths. Ella’s clinical trials looked at by the EMA reported on a single dose per menstrual cycle in a limited group of women.

In the real world, it will be used more frequently and by all types of females. If the drug is approved for contraceptive use, it could later be approved for sale over the counter.

What if women use Ella more than once in a cycle? EMA noticed an effect on all tissues, particularly the liver, ‘if the drug is used again a month later ... in repeated dose this could result in toxicity due to accumulation.’

If this isn’t enough, clinical tests of Ella were conducted only on females 16 years of age and older. If approved, Ella could be used by girls younger than 16, the side effects for whom are unknown.

Planned Parenthood (Planned Murderhood—my addition) told the FDA panel that it dispenses the morning-after pill Plan B after its approved 72-hour limit. It boldly states on websites how it violates the safety guidelines for the dangerous RU-486. (Several women who died from RU-486 abortions went to Planned Parenthood.) If Ella is approved, there is no doubt it will be given to women beyond the five-day window in order to take advantage of its abortion-causing mechanism.

If Ella does not cause abortions, does not cause birth defects and is not dangerous to use multiple times, the drug sponsor should prove it. The FDA would require this of any other drug. It should not have lower standards for reproductive drugs used by women.
Women deserve better than this. The FDA should not be party to this deception of women for profit.

Related web sites:

Concerned Women for America—http://www.cwfa.org
Students for Life of America—http://studentsforlife.org”

SIGN A PETITION AGAINST ELLA (I’ve already signed the petition. I had to copy and paste to do so.)

“Sign a Petition Against Ella—http://www.ellacausesabortions.com ”

Quite simply and scientifically (President Barack Hussein Obama claims he bases his decisions on scientific evidence when, in fact, he does NOT including particularly the MURDER of unborn babies—my addition.), once conception occurs, anything that interferes with the natural development of the human being created by that conception is an attempt to destroy human life. And that is a scientific fact! If no interference occurs after conception, a human being will be born every time—EVERY TIME!

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Federal employee pay


“Today’s News Briefs and Commentaries

Thursday, July 08, 2010
Federal Government Overpaid $47 Billion a Year
Posted by: Townhall.com Staff”

“Guest post from the Heritage Foundation

Today, the White House is launching its second annual SAVE Award, which encourages federal employees to submit ideas on how to save taxpayer dollars. Federal employees will be able to rank the submissions submitted by colleagues, and then the general public will be able to vote on the top submissions later this year. Last year’s contest generated more than 38,000 submissions from government employees and more than 84,000 votes. Last year’s winner? A Department of Veterans Affairs employee from Colorado who suggested that VA medical centers should permit patients to take home extra bandages and medication when they are discharged. Estimated savings: $14.5 million by 2014. Not bad. But we have a better idea. How about paying federal employees what they would be worth in the private sector? Potential savings: $47 billion a year.

In March, USA Today reported that Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations that exist both in government and the private sector. Instead of taking the news as an opportunity to save taxpayers money, the Obama administration pushed back against the news and dispatched Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag to defend government employee pay. Orszag told reporters: ‘I think the key thing to remember about that is the federal workforce is more highly educated than the private workforce. … Basically the entire delta between private sector and public sector federal government average pay can be explained by education and experience.’ The problem is, this is just not true.

Heritage Foundation senior labor policy analyst James Sherk has just released a paper analyzing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey (CPS) for 2006 through 2009. The data show that even after controlling for education and experience, federal employees get paid 22% more per hour on average than private-sector workers. And that does not include the significant non-cash benefits government workers receive. Federal employees not only can enroll in a Thrift Savings Plan that works like a 401(k), but they also get a ‘defined contribution’ plan, which lets a worker with 30 years of experience retire at 56 with full benefits. And don’t forget the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, paid leave, group life insurance and on-site child care. To be sure, many private employers offer similar benefits but not all of these at the same time. All told, while the average private-sector employee gets $9,882 in annual benefits, federal government employees get $32,115 on average. Adding cash and non-cash compensation together, federal employees earn approximately 30 to 40 percent more in total compensation than comparable private-sector workers.

And the gravy train doesn’t end there. How much would near-absolute job security be worth to you? While their private sector counterparts have seen the unemployment rate rise from 4.2% to a high of 10.6%, the percentage of federal employees who lost jobs barely budged, going from 2.0% to 2.9%. And if ‘serving’ in the public sector is such a ‘sacrifice’ then why do federal employees voluntarily leave their jobs at roughly a third the rate that private sector employees do?

Why does this pay gap exist? In the private sector, productivity determines workers’ pay. Firms that overpay their employees are driven out of business by competitors that more accurately price their employees’ economic contribution. But the government is a monopoly. It has no competitors to act as a check on employee compensation. If the federal government paid market rates for their employees’ skill, education and experience, it would save taxpayers $47 billion in 2011 alone.

Not all federal employees are overpaid. The most skilled and hardest working are probably underpaid. The problem is that our government operates under a wage-fixing pay scale set by Congress. This seniority-based system divorces federal pay from individual performance. Abolishing the General Schedule system and implementing performance-based pay would go a long way toward getting taxpayers a fair deal. Reducing federal benefits and making it easier to dismiss unproductive employees would also help.”

The basic problem here is that the federal government DOES NOT operate under basic supply and demand principles. When I resigned from my last teaching assignment, I took one of the federal government’s tests to become a civil servant. It was one of the most difficult tests I’ve taken. However, I did well on it and I was eventually offered a job that was either at the GS 11 or 13 level (I don’t remember which anymore) which was unusual at the time. Unfortunately, by the time I was offered the job, I had already moved to Tucson, Arizona and I turned it down because it meant moving to California. I was offered a couple others but they were all in California. I didn’t want to leave Arizona for California.

As stated above, once in a position, all your movement is basically upward. As a tax consultant, I have dealt with very knowledgeable federal employees and I have dealt with employees who did not have a clue of what was going on—basically all they did was read from the tax manual and hoped that they were reading from the correct section dealing with very complex and sometime contradictory tax law. Once hired, once completing the probationary period, they were employed for basically as long as they wanted to stay. Yes, there are ways to get people out, but it is based upon record keeping of misconduct, and viewed as a long drawn out process. Many managers aren’t willing to take the time and effort. (The same tends to be true in the government education establishment too. I hope to post about an exception to this in the near future.)

On my post of September 14, 2009 entitled “Give us more Money,” I wrote that the State of Illinois was the largest employer in Illinois. And that the federal government was the second largest employer in Illinois. And that is part of this huge problem. Government, both at the State and federal level, keeps expanding and keeps hiring more and more employees who then have a vested interest in additional government expansion.

We the people MUST put an end to this or the government will one day CONTROL all aspects of our lives. This election is the time to reverse the process. It is time to REPLACE , REPEAL , and RESTORE!

REPLACE—liberal, “progressive” officials, elected and otherwise

REPEAL—laws and Supreme Court decisions that are contrary to the United States Constitution and limited government

RESTORE—Constitutional government and limited government

Friday, July 16, 2010

Discrimination by an internet business?


I’m changing what I planned to post for today.

Quite a while ago, I was on an internet site to check out the possibility of making some purchases for Gunslinger Publications L.C., one of my two businesses. I signed up for e-mails telling me about special sales events. Today, while checking my e-mail there was a new offer. Posters were on sale for 25% off, if a certain dollar amount was purchased.

I clicked the link and, being a political person, began checking the political posters. The links included under this category included:

“Anti Democrat
Anti Republican

Popular Political Terms

GI John
Superwoman
Yes We Can
Demoblican
Obamacrat
Obama Salute
Republicrat

Other Candidates

Hillary Clinton
Ron Paul
Ralph Nader

Issues”

Anti Homosexual Marraige (I changed the three letter word used in the link to “homosexual” because the three letter word has been co-opted by homosexual activists trying to divert identification away from the homosexual behavior of their sin. I also wonder why the website uses the term “anti” instead of “protect” marriage since the site uses “equal” for the opposing view. Marriage was spelled as given in both of the links. Spell check must not have been working!—my addition)
“Environment
Equal Marriage”

Since I am opposed to people involved in homosexual behavior being allowed to marry and since I support the protection of traditional marriage, I clinked the Anti Homosexual Marriage link.

This is a portion of what was displayed:

“No Matching Results Found” (“No Matching Results Found”! How could that be? It was the link provided by the company! Why provide the link if there are no products!—my addition)

“Try selecting another topic or product. Or you can try searching different keywords.

1) Check your search keywords for spelling mistakes or typos.

2) Consider trying a more general or alternate search term. You might get better results for ‘elephant’ than for ‘pachyderm.’

3) Keep in mind that certain terms and content may be blocked from our system because it does not comply with our Content Usage Policy. (Could it possibly be that protecting traditional marriage DOES NOT “comply with” this business’s “Content Usage Policy”?—my addition)

4) “Some products may not be available in the Marketplace. Learn More”

The website has a link for posters to protect traditional marriage but no posters. Could the same be true for the “Equal Marriage” link? So, I clicked the link. What a surprise! Actually NOT! There was a poster for the “Equal Marriage” link and more!

The poster was titled “Equal Rights for all”

It was identified as “A subtle, tasteful way to demand acceptance.” (Notice it wasn’t identified as a way to ask for “equal rights”. Rather, it is a way to “DEMAND ACCEPTANCE” Everyone must ACCEPT the SINFUL behavior of homosexuality! It is DEMANDED! And the business is promoting this nonsense and not even providing an alternative choice in posters!—my addition)

“More Like This:

Posters & Art (the numbering is mine—my addition):

01) Coexistence posters & art,

02) tolerance posters & art,

03) gay marriage posters & art,

04) Gay & Lesbian posters & art,

05) femme posters & art,

06) transgender posters & art,

07) butch posters & art,

08) equality posters & art,

09) pink triangle posters & art,

10) dyke posters & art

Marketplace Categories:

1) Equal Marraige,

2) Issues,

3) Elections & Politics

All Products:

01) Coexistence gifts,

02) tolerance gifts,

03) gay marriage gifts,

04) Gay & Lesbian gifts,

05) femme gifts,

07) transgender gifts,

08) butch gifts,

09) equality gifts,

10) pink triangle gifts,

11) dyke gifts”

Could it be that this company is deliberately discriminating against traditional marriage? Could it be that this company has been pressured by the homosexual lobby to discriminate against traditional marriage?

I don’t know why the selections are as they are. However, I did NOT purchase any product and I will NOT purchase merchandise from this company. I have a choice of where my money goes. It will NOT go to this business!

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Armed and stopping crime


The following is from the magazine “American Rifleman” July 2010, page 10. It’s website is http://www.americanrifleman.org/.

“Studies indicate that firearms are used more than 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances. Shooting usually can be justified only where crime constitutes an immediate, imminent threat to life, limb, or, in some cases, property.”

“the armed citizen”

“‘He was a big, burly guy,’ said 89-year-old Beatrice Turner of the man who allegedly smashed in her front door and entered the home. ‘He was pulling at his shorts and talking crazy … I always said if they come inside, it’s me or them.’ Armed with a .22-cal. revolver, Turner yelled at the man to leave. According to police, the burglar instead advanced on Turner, and she fired a shot in self-defense, narrowly missing her assailant. A neighbor heard the gunshot and phoned police. Officers arrested the burglar in the front. ‘All of [the police officers] were hugging me and telling me how brave I was,’ Turner said. The friendly officers even helped Turner reload her gun before leaving.
(The Des Moines Register, Des Moines, Iowa, 04/21/10)”

“Police are calling a man lucky to be alive after he attempted to commit burglary in a firearm-friendly neighborhood. First he broke into a home owned by Avi Manges, who quickly got her pistol when her barking dogs alerted her to the danger. ‘I hollered, ‘Who’s there? I’ve got a gun!’’ Manges explained. The intruder looked through a window, confirmed Manges was armed and fled. Shortly thereafter, the suspect entered another residence; the homeowner heard a commotion and got his 9 mm pistol. He spotted the suspect, point the gun at him and held him for police. ‘If [the burglar] had threatened them, he would have been shot,’ police Sgt. Roderick O’Conner said. ‘You go busting into a house, they don’t know what your intent is.’ according to O’Connor, all the suspect had to say for himself was, ‘Those guys pointed guns at me. They should be arrested.’ (Right! And unfortunately, that seems to be the mindset of these people. I have the “right” to rob you; you have no right to protect your property and/or life. Is that a learned concept developed in our present society of protecting evil while condemning moral values?—my addition) The only charges filed were against the suspect. (as it should be!—my addition)
(Glenwood Post, Glenwood, CO, 04/29/10)”

“A man was enjoying his lunch on a park bench when, according to police, a suspect with a less wholesome agenda spotted him. Clutching a knife, the suspect approached the man and said, ‘Give me all your money or I’ll stab you!’ The mugger grabbed the man and shoved him against a fence. The suspect may have intended to inflict bodily harm on the man, however, he didn’t realize his would-be victim was licensed to carry a fireman. The man drew a handgun and opened fire on the suspect, wounding him. The mugger was to be arrested upon his release from the hospital.
(The Hartford Courant, Hartford, CT, 04/27/10)”

“When Michael Lish returned home to find the back door and a window ajar, he entered cautiously with his handgun for protection. As he inspected the home, a man dressed in dark clothing and wielding a sword sprung out at him. Police say the burglar threatened Lish and walked toward him. Lish fired a shot, wounding the burglar who fell to his knees. The burglar reached behind his back in an apparent attempt to grab another weapon, forcing Lish to fire two more shots, killing him. The burglar, who was on probation at the time of his death, was also carrying two illegally possessed guns, a knife and a stun gun.
(Tulsa World, Tulsa, OK, 04/03/10)”

“Two masked men were going door-to-door looking for a home that looked ripe for burglary. They settled on one owned by Carlos Martinez, who was home with his wife and children. Martinez’s son, Bryan, answered a knock at the door, and the masked burglars thrust it open so forcefully that they damaged the wall inside. The men demanded money and Bryan, a Marine who was home on leave, retreated into the home and alerted his family to the situation. Carlos hurried his wife and daughter into the master bedroom and locked the door. The women hid in the bathroom and Carlos grabbed one of his handguns. The burglars attempted to breech the bedroom door and Carlos fired three shots. The intruders fled the home.
(WFTV-TV, Orlando FL, 04/27/10)”

“An elderly couple proved that a firearm is all that’s needed to counteract a burglar’s youth and strength. Police say a 28-year-old thug learned that fact the hard way when he entered their barn toting a crow bar, metal cutters and flashlight. Charles and Kathleen Smith, whose barn had been broken into earlier in the week, stopped to check on the property and spotted the prowler. Kathleen shouted at the prowler not to move and held him with her .22-cal. Rifle. The couple called police, who arrested the suspect. Neighbors have expressed much gratitude for the Smiths’ brave actions.
(WIVB-TV, Buffalo, NY, 04/16/10)”

“If you have a firsthand ‘Armed Citizen’ experience, call NRA-ILA PR/Communications at (703) 267-1193.”

“Send clippings via e-mail to armedcitizen@nrahq.org or by mail to ‘The Armed Citizen Blog’ at http://www.americanrifleman.org/.”

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Global Warming: Most Egregious Claim of the Week


From Green Watch America: http://www.greenwatchamerica.net/

“Dear Greenwatch Readers,

This month marks GreenWatchAmerica’s two year anniversary. For the last two years, we’ve provided you with the latest news on the Climate Change front - news the Radical Green Agenda doesn’t want you to hear - news the Mainstream Media is unwilling to provide. We’ve provided this news at no cost to any of our subscribers.

What you may not realize is that providing this service has cost us a pretty significant chunk of change. If we’re to continue providing this service, we need your help.

We need at least 50 people to donate $19.95 to keep us going. If you want to help, click this link and make a secure online donation via our Paypal account. We need your help to counter the propaganda the Radical Green Agenda and its allies in the media peddle daily.

Please consider clicking this link and donating $19.95 to keep this newsletter alive and fighting back against Al Gore, James Hansen, and the rest of the Chicken Littles who’ve controlled the story for too long.

Over the last year, the foundations in the Radical Green movement have started to crack. Now is not the time to let up. We here at GreenWatch are immensely grateful for your support. Help us by clicking on this link and donating $19.95 so we can continue being the voice of reason and real science for many years to come.

Thank you,
Patrick Gallagher, Editor

Most Egregious Claim of the Week
The Urgency of Now:

1989 - ‘A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.’

Oct, 2009 - Gordon Brown: ‘50 days to save the world’

Nov, 2009 - UK Metro Office: 10 years to control Global Warming

2010 - Scientist Panel: Scientists expect ‘tipping point’ in 2200...190 years down the road!

What changed?
-Patrick Gallagher, Editor

Lawrence Solomon, Author of The Deniers: Wind's Bad Day

UK Inquiry finds Emails Do Not Undermine Climate Science

Climategate: Reinstating Phil Jones is Good News

Appeals Court Rejects Obama Effort to Keep Ban on Deepwater Oil Drills

More Bad UN Fact-checking: Source for IPCC Info Was Brazilian Website Taken Down in 2003

Most Egregious Runner-up: How to Brainwash Your Kids: Tell Them They're Drowning Santa!”

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

DON’T TREAD ON ME! One month remaining!


“Early flags designed for use in the American colonies reflected the Old World origin of the colonists. In the British colonies many flags were adaptations of the British Union Jack (see Flags, National). The colors red, white, and blue, which symbolized colonial unity, were first used in a flag in New England in 1737. The flag was blue with a white canton quartered by a red cross. In one upper quarter of the canton was a globe symbolizing the New World.

As relations with Great Britain became more strained, the colonists designed a large number of flags expressive of their political sentiments and ideals. A favorite emblematic device in the flags of the southern colonies was a rattlesnake, usually depicted as coiled and ready to strike and having 13 rattles. In South Carolina it was emblazoned on a yellow flag and was accompanied by the inscription ‘DONT TREAD ON ME.’” Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Washington: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.

I don’t know about others, but I have issues where I have figuratively “drawn a line in the sand.” I will not obey laws that are in direct violation with GOD’S will. One of those lines is being required to support the MURDER of American citizens by law—in this case, the MURDER of unborn babies financed by the federal government. This is an instance of “DON’T TREAD ON ME.” GOD’S law supersedes any man-made law!

I have, for a long time, taken the position that I don’t give my money to governments any sooner than required. Consequently, I owe taxes to the federal government every year when I file my income tax. Also, because I prepare taxes for others, I usually don’t file until the August 15th extension deadline.

This year, as normal, I owe taxes to the federal government. This year, I WILL NOT FILE! AND I WILL TELL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JUST THAT!

The question is when. If you’ve read my book, you know that 13 is the prime number for The Black Sword. It is also mine. As it happens, August 13th is on a Friday—Friday the 13th. Would there be any better day to say to the federal government—DON’T TREAD ON ME; DON’T TREAD ON GOD’S LAW!

Consequently, that’s the day I will notify the federal government that I refuse to help finance the MURDER of unborn babies. I plan to write the same on my federal 1040 and mail it to the government on that day without any financial information. I will also post a copy of the 1040 on my blog that morning.

I WILL NOT SUPPORT A GOVERNMENT THAT REQUIRES ME TO HELP FINANCE THE MURDER OF UNBORN BABIES!

DON’T TREAD ON ME!

DON’T TREAD ON GOD’S LAW!

One month and counting!

Monday, July 12, 2010

George W. Bush in office


The following is from a past edition of the Peoria Journal Star published six months after the disaster:

“Bodies were everywhere, laid out under sheets, cardboard or nothing. Most were cleared by garbage trucks and front-loaders. Others were burned. Some are still being found.

But an estimated 20 million cubic meters of rubble continues to make most … impassable. Even with 300 trucks working daily, 98 percent of it remains.

The number of people in relief camps has nearly doubled to 1.6 million, while the amount of transitional housing built is miniscule.

Most of the $3.1 billion pledged for humanitarian aid has paid for field hospitals, plastic tarps, bandages, and food, plus salaries, transportation and upkeep of relief workers. About $1.3 billion went through U.S. relief groups.

Hundreds of millions have yet to be spent, with agencies such as the American Red Cross saying they want to avoid dumping money into half-baked projects.

Aid workers say the money already spent helped prevent epidemics, floods and political violence, while distributing food and other essentials. Food markets are back to normal, and the foreign doctors and equipment that flowed in have left medical care--while deeply flawed--better than it was before ….”

“Police … are back on patrol. Crime is more prevalent … with attacks in camps terrorizing thousands, especially women and girls. However, violence is nowhere near the levels faced ….

But very little long-term progress has been made. Reconstruction remains a dream.

It took more than three months to hold a donors’ conference ....

That committee is set to oversee the $5.3 billion pledged internationally for the first two years of … reconstruction--money separate from the total spent on humanitarian aid. But only 10 percent of it has been delivered …. The rest is mired in bureaucracy and politics of more than 60 countries and organizations that pledged to help.

Everyone bemoans the lack progress. But … says the government needs to proceed with caution so it doesn’t replicate the … slums.”

Is this an old article discussing the aftermath of Katrina? Is this another disaster during the George W. Bush Administration? No! The article is from the Peoria Journal Star published on July 12, 2010, page A5. The title of the article is “Haiti: Little progress six month latter.”

Reading the title and the article, the first thing I thought of was: What if this tragedy had occurred during the Bush Administration? What would be the headline? Perhaps something along the lines of “Bush fails to provide satisfactory relief for Haiti.” Or, “Bush is slow to react once again!” Or, “Why is Bush missing in action?” Certainly, something along the lines of blaming George Bush for the lack of progress, don’t you think?

Do you believe that there is a difference in the headlines and the slant of the story within the United States based upon who is President? The entire story does not contain one word about Barack Hussein Obama or the Obama Regime. Why do you think that is?

If this was occurring during the Bush Administration, do you think some would be shouting “racism!” Do you think some would be claiming that the Bush administration isn’t doing enough? Do you think some would be claiming that the Bush Administration doesn’t care about the plight of poor nations? Do you think some would be shouting that the Bush Administration doesn’t care about the plight of Haiti?

Which Administration it is, makes a different when reading news stories on what is said, parroted, and believed! Don’t you think!