A day of reckoning is coming

by Don Hank

A recent article by Bob Unruh in WND shows how states are fighting back against federal encroachment – in the case in question, by declaring themselves unwilling to comply with federal detention orders under NDAA. This quiet revolution is merely an extension of other local and state muscle flexing, such as the pushback in Arizona by the state legislature and by Sheriff Arpaio, and the tough anti-invasion law in Alabama.

But I think this could be just the beginning.

The federal government has created a network of vested interests to keep the states in line, all long after the writing of the Federalist Papers and the Constitution, designed to prevent federal abuses. The biggest club they have created is grants to states. Every state gets millions of your and my money, duly shrunken after passing through the sticky fingers of Congress. This money is nothing more than a bribe, a cheap trick to make states grovel and behave like good little slaves. It has worked well thus far. And the money club is not the only weapon in the federal arsenal in its war on the states and the citizens. Obama has shown that states who fail to fall in line behind the dictator in chief don’t get needed non-monetary aid either. Texas, always a renegade stand-alone state, recently watched as its forests were reduced to cinders for lack of much-needed federal help, which eventually arrived after it was rather late.

Arizona saw a lawsuit filed against it by the lawyer in chief, who even went crying to the UN to help subdue the big bad Brewer. And some of the lower southern states found that, after they had sullied Big Daddy Washington, the illegal alien criminals and hit-and-run perps it turned in to ICE were no longer being dealt with. Some came back and killed and raped. That was the states’ payback for not liking the jackboot.

But what if:

What if the states turned the tables on the feds?

I mean, where did this federal money and power come from in the first place?

Why the people of the various and sundry states who pay taxes.

Now, what if the good people of the abused states got together and made a law that prohibited state citizens from paying the entire amount of the federal taxes in those instances when the feds were playing these dirty games? What if they were enjoined to withhold a certain percentage or a set amount corresponding to an estimate of the losses incurred?

What if the states calculated the amount of money it would take to incarcerate lawbreakers who were allowed by the feds to sneak into their state and cause trouble? And what if the states explicitly deducted this amount from the amount their state citizens were bound to pay to the feds?

What if they made it illegal for citizens of that state to pay the federal tax amount that, according to the calculations of the state comptroller generals, was owed them by the feds for dereliction of duty?

Suppose they calculated that X number of illegal aliens had entered their state as a direct result of the federal government’s failure to station an adequate number of border guards and provide them with the necessary equipment and training, and further, as a partial result of their hamstringing them with unreasonable rules of engagement and jailing those who failed to comply with said unreasonable rules.

Suppose they calculated the amount of damage to the state of improperly providing federal aid to people who repeatedly built their homes in areas repeatedly stricken by natural disasters — and then billed the feds for this?

Suppose they calculated the probable number of Mexicans fleeing their homes and entering their state due to AG Holder’s dirty game of Fast and Furious and the amount of money and human life this probably cost in that state?

Suppose they collected this money by the same method, forbidding their citizens to pay this amount to the fed and funneling it to state coffers instead.

And suppose some of the non-border states used a percentage of this money saved to help border states beef up their border security and pay for the detention and return of illegal alien criminals.

And suppose they blew off any unconstitutional and arbitrary federal laws in their state affairs that “prohibited” them from returning illegal aliens on their own? Without the intermediary of ICE, for example. A series of contiguous states could set up a kind of reverse “Underground Railroad” to return criminal aliens to Mexico.

Now, certainly some will say this is carrying things a bit too far.

Oh really?

Did you know what Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says? Read it for yourself:

 … and [The United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence

The extent of the invasion of Mexican cartels is a well kept secret.

But there are numerous credible reports by people living in the border area showing that some areas are no longer safe for Americans to enter or live.

The Sonoran Desert National Monument in Arizona has areas that are closed off because the cartel has completely taken them over.

These situations fit anyone’s definition of an invasion. And the damage done by Latin gangs and drug dealers everywhere is certainly domestic violence, all traceable to a porous southern border, thanks to a negligent central government itching for a come-uppance.

The US Constitution is a contract between the States and Washington. In all of contract law, there is give and take. (Contracts with only “take” are deemed unlawful, as in the case of prenups). Each of the parties to the contract is both beneficiary and provider of rights. Whenever one party reneges on part of the contract, the counterparty who is hurt by this has a right to deny a corresponding part of its contribution to the bargain.

The states have not reneged in any way. They are a compliant partner. The US government, on the other hand, has completely reneged on parts of its contract — particularly its duty to protect the States against invasion but also with regard to undeclared — and hence unlawful — wars against countries that are not an enemy in any traditionally accepted respect, or the NDAA, which permits the federal government to detain Americans without charges or evidence. It must expect consequences, and if it won’t hold up its part of the agreement, then at least part of the agreement intended to benefit it is null and void by law.

There are 2 main things keeping the States as a counterparty from declaring part of the bargain null and void despite flagrant federal breach of contract:

1—Lack of knowledge of the law and how it applies to the parties.

2—Lack of will.

It is only a matter of time before all the states affected by the Federal government’s failure to perform its duty will understand that they are on the right side of the law and the fed is clearly in non-performance of its contract.

And in our economic crisis, as states find themselves increasingly strapped for cash, laying off employees, halting public works and closing down offices, they will eventually reach a point of desperation when a strategy such as I have outlined above will appear, if not attractive, then at least inevitable.

Outing Ron Paul

Outing Ron Paul

 

by Sapient

 

Is Ron Paul, “Mr. Constitution,” uniquely channeling the spirit of the Founders of our nation and their thinking as clearly embodied in our founding documents, the Federalist Papers, etc — so much so that his seeming eccentricities are due to OUR having forgotten our own true national principles, perhaps because we naively cling to a party loyalty, are deceived by the media, etc?

Is it true that that there is NO good reason for a Constitutional Conservative to question Ron Paul, let alone reject him?   

This, Ron Paul and his followers would have us believe.  Always sounded a bit elitist even cultish to me, but no matter for now.

May I suggest that you should heed your gut instinct and explore Ron Paul a bit — to come to peace with that sense you have that Ron Paul just might be out of bounds in some way, maybe WAY out of bounds.  Explore the possibility that Ron Paul is even something totally foreign to his persona, that he is actually espousing principles foreign to and even antithetical to those of our Founders, and is cloaking those foreign principles in the authority of the Constitution and Founders — carefully tossing in a majority agreeable issue or two or naming the Constitution to promote acceptance.

Could such a thing be possible?  Could Ron Paul be so out of line with our nation that the idea sin qua non of a government by the people, i.e. “We the people…” upon which our nation rests is antithetical to his vision?  Would that concern you?  Is he perpetuating fraud and deception to gain acceptance?

FWIW: 

An atheist once argued that “Christian / Jew–you say you believe the Bible?  Well, the Bibles explicitly says in Psalm 14:1 ‘there is no God.’  Do you believe the Bible or not?”

One slight problem–the atheist omitted the portion that “The FOOL HAS SAID IN HIS HEART ‘there is no God,'”  and from beginning to end the Bible assumes and confirms the existence of God.  The words the atheist quoted were there, but hardly the truth of it.  We want the consistent truth of it — right?

Context and the consistent whole make all the difference.  Same with Ron Paul and the Constitution and Founders.  A word or two here or there is NOT proof of anything.  A “wolf in sheep’s clothing” is the word for a person who claims to be one thing with a very contrary end in mind.  

As noted previously, Ron Paul embraces the philosophy of voluntaryism, a form of anarchism.  I report that without apology.

That has several flavors of voluntaryism of course, but they are cut from the same bolt of cloth. Make no mistake — Ron Paul admits his embrace of this philosophy in no uncertain terms.  His writings and speeches are consistent with that philosophy,.

Follow the links I am providing and you will get to hear it from his own lips, and read his own words, and written by his own supporters.  

Now, it is our responsibility to understand the significance of that philosophy as someone running for POTUS embraces it and is asking us to entrust him with the power of office, OVER US.  If we have never caught that Paul embraces voluntaryism before, we should do so now.  Decision time approaches.  If we were ignorant of either our Constitution and Founding principles, or ignorant of Voluntaryism, and how they compare,  we should become educated.  Again, this view is asking for power over us:

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

So, take a look at what we are dealing with in this Voluntaryism.

First, a video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92ybf2L4Guw

Listen to Ron Paul’s words, and take a moment to peruse the comments section for some real flavor of the people who support it.  It seems they thought no one else would read what they are saying.  Compare what Paul said to the “philosophy” link above.  Is this what you believe?  Is this what you believe the Founders believed?  It IS what Ron Paul believes.

Now, from the Mises Institute:  http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/25612.aspx ,  founded and once chaired by Lew Rockwell, former chief of staff to  Ron Paul, and other close associations with him.  So far, I found nothing to prohibit this reproduction.

The purpose of this video at that link is stated:   to illustrate Ron Paul’s voluntaryism, in no uncertain terms, with the caption:

In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State.

Notice that Ron Paul has a long term strategy:  to adopt limited government positions and appeals to the Constitution, before the American people, for purpose of implementing  Voluntaryism. Does this concern you?  Remember, this written by people who support him, not his enemies.

Now, watch the video, and then read the comments there on this same page.and note things like whether the readers think promoting this video outside this circle is a good idea and why they have that opinion.

Why, one even compared it to a “coming out of the closet” for Ron Paul. 

  • Right, this might be well for us here [readers of Mises], but I don’t think we should be outwardly promoting that as his [Ron Paul’s] position.  His “anarchism” might not appeal to the voters we need to elect him.

 Read it again, and again until it sinks in what was said there.

That is clear intent to deceive, to twist, to cloak, what Ron Paul is — and they are FINE WITH IT.  It’s their strategy.

Note how elitist it is:  

We [the elite] need the support of the unsuspecting / deceived [voter–non elite] so that we [the elite] can gain power in our Republic-so we {the elite] can do what is actually best for us, and that the voters” [non elite] would never put us [the elite] in office if they knew the truth about us or our intentions–it’s just too far above them…so, we lie.

Pretty bold huh? 

Friends.same old problem, and same basic decision.  I give you Thomas Jefferson:

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.”  —Thomas Jefferson

See Jefferson’s choices…self governing, or elite governing.  Where is Ron Paul and his followers in that choice?

Historically, for the elite, honesty is optional–but justified.  Truth is optional but justified by the glorious ends in view.  They see themselves as great souls, self anointed, on a mission the rest of us just cannot understand and appreciate…but we will, they say.  Their intentions are good.

The Founders spoke of such:

Daniel Webster  – “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power . it is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”


Now, we can see what Jefferson meant:  

“Where the principle of difference [between political parties] is as substantial and as strongly pronounced as between the republicans and the monocrats of our country, I hold it as honorable to take a firm and decided part and as immoral to pursue a middle line, as between the parties of honest men and rogues, into which every country is divided.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795. ME 9:317

Same issue.  Same basic choices:  honest, rogue, or the immoral who can’t tell the difference, believing someone a win-win compromise can be reached between the honest and the rogue.  Wanna hazard a guess at just which of those an elitist falls into–those who recognize no law above themselves?  I don’t have to say it, do I?

Where does Ron Paul and his followers fall in that grouping?

Let’s continue as these Ron Paul / voluntaryists discuss whether Ron Paul should admit who and what he is…a voluntaryist and anarcho-capitalist-anarchist rather than the Constitutionalist he claims to be:

  • Graham asks:  What do other people think of this ?  Is there a chance that widespread promotion of this video could undermine what Ron Paul is trying to do?
  • To Graham: I think it’s highly likely that it would damage his campaign temporarily.  But in all reality, he’s got to “come out of the closet” sometime, or else all he’s done is spawned a bunch of “We the People!” types, which is still antithetical to Paul’s ideal society.  I have said in the past before that if he did come out as an an-cap [anarcho capitalist] that it would isolate a good portion of his fan base.  But at the same time, if hangs onto it all the way to the grave, we’d probably wind up with fewer an-caps in total. In addition to these clips, he was also at a debate in 2007 at FreedomFest with Doug Casey and said in the following speech after Casey said he was an anarchist that he would love to give Casey the VP nomination if nominated.

Read it carefully:  Among other things, there is a danger for Ron Paul staying in the voluntaryist closet too long.  It might spawn the wrong kind of following–“We the people types.”

Before we go past that, note the first and most sacred words in our Constitution. “We the people….”

These people are on a MUCH different page already.”We the people” types are FAR from what they desire to have around.

“We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The Constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 1824

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it. —John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

These Ron Paul / Voluntaryist folks disagree at a basic level.  “We the people types, which is still ANTITHETICAL TO PAUL’S IDEAL SOCIETY” — read it again.  You are a “We the people” type?  YOU do not belong for YOU are against what they seek!

Still think Ron Paul is a “We the people…” Constitutionalist as he claims?  Still think he is channeling the spirit of the Founders?   The Founders held that “We the people” were key while Ron Paul and his ilk say “we the people are antithetical.”  It’s “we the people” or an elitist.  Those are the choices.

They say they believe in the individual, and the amassed wisdom.  Do they really?  If they did, they would be honest, and allow real choice.  Deception that is characteristic of the elitist.  Watch now as they ask and answer a great question:  What should Paul do if confronted in front of the American people. How should he answer if asked if he is an anarchist? That is, should he be honest about who and what he is and where he would take us if entrusted with power:

  • Question:  If Ron Paul is asked if he is an anarchist — yes or no — during a televised debate, how do you think he will answer?  How do you hope he will answer?  I agree that it would damage his campaign short-term if he said yes, but I think it could well also do long-term damage to the voluntaryist movement.  He is currently acting as a filter: he turns liberals / conservatives into constitutionalists, and some of them (the ones that follow his leads to LRC [Lew Rockwell dot com] and LvMI) [Ludwig von Mises Institute] become voluntaryists by resolving their cognitive dissonance.  If he “came out” he would be less effective at converting socialists to constitutionalists, and by extension, less effective at leading people to voluntaryism.
  • Answer:  It is a different question, but it’s kind of the same thing.  If us anarchists spread the video around, it would functionally be the same thing as “outing” Ron Paul.  So they are similar in that fashion.  If he’s asked in a televised debate whether or not he is an anarchist, my guess is that he’d answer no and say he thinks the society with the least amount of coercion would be the best society, but that he believes a Constitutional government would the best means to achieve those ends.

Obviously I would hope he’d answer in the positive, but that would turn him into a laughingstock. If the people asking questions at these debates like Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, Chris Matthews, or Anderson Cooper did 5 seconds of research, they would discover that Ron Paul a) has all of these clips floating around on the Internet, b) is affiliated with the majority anarcho-capitalist Mises Institute, and c) alludes to a load of anarchist literature in Liberty Defined (such as the LvMI publication “Let’s Abolish Government,” a collection of essays by Spooner).

I agree that Ron Paul’s role is as an educator.  He gets people interested in libertarianism and then turns people onto the Mises Institute.  If you took a poll here on this message board, I’d bet that 50+% of the people first heard of this place through Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign.  Changing somebody into a voluntaryist is a gradual thing and it’s something that’s probably easier to glide into rather than jump into.  So I think you’re right.  But there comes a point where you reach critical mass and Ron Paul has appealed to all of the people who are serious thinkers and at that point he can drop the anarchist bomb on his fans.

Seen enough?  Are you frightened as to what might happen if this man gets into office?

Can you imagine entrusting  the highest authority in our nation of United States, and our Federal State to someone who believes that the whole idea of a state is immoral and should not exist — and is more than willing to lie and deceive to gain power with the intent to dissolve the very state he was elected to preserve, protect, and defend?

He lied about who he was in order to get elected?  What is his oath worth?

I ask you to read carefully about this “eccentric uncle” in the GOP before you even consider supporting him.  Hopefully having some key words will help:  Voluntaryism, anarcho capitalism, Lew Rockwell.com. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, anarchy, statelessness, stateless communism, etc.

While it may be hard to decide who to support, it should not hard to decide who to oppose, and do so.  FWIW:  Many of these groups embrace the philosophy, not of the American Revolution, but the FRENCH REVOLUTION — that spawned the Reign of Terror.  So, make sure and take a look.

I know you will conclude that Ron Paul is hardly in tune  with the Founders after all.  In fact HE is what they warned us about:

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers 15– “Why has Government been instituted at all?  Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.” 

Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.  —Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 1, October 27, 1787

Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.  –John Adams, An Essay on Man’s Lust for Power, August 29, 1763

 

Note this:

 

Ron Paul and his people believe so strongly in the sanctify of non-compelled choice, that they are more than willing to perpetuate fraud and deception on you and me and the rest of the American electorate, in order to get their way and to impose THEIR WILL on us — for our own good of course.  So are a lot of tyrants.

Being defrauded is hardly voluntary choice.  It negates free choice, and is its very antithesis, just as is coercion, etc. 

They violate their own standards to gain power.

Heads up.

Further reading:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=379089

Christianity and Libertarianism and the Consent of the Governed

Originally Posted here by Laigle’s contributor Anthony Horvath


“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed Declaration of Independence


The last few months I’ve seen some strident statements of opposition against libertarians by conservatives. I’m on several email lists where I’m seeing such commentary and of course its on the web, as in this example. I personally didn’t detect a huge uptick in libertarian sentiment, but alright. I describe myself as a ‘constitutional libertarian’ and in explaining why I hope that I can shed light on what I believe are the true reasons for a rise in libertarianism- among Christians in particular. I can’t speak for them all, of course, but I think I recognize in some of their commentary some of my own thinking.

So, to begin with, let me make two important observations. First of all, when one thinks ‘libertarian’ one might immediately think licentious. However, the two are not identical terms. This leads to the second observation, the direction by which one arrives at libertarianism greatly impacts the flavor of that libertarianism. There can be no question that there are a great mass of individuals, who calling themselves libertarians, really are just people who wish to engage in whatever depravity that they want, with no one to tell them otherwise or worse- stop them. By my observation, the people coming from this direction are really your typical atheist secular humanist progressive who is perfectly happy to foist as much government as people can bear onto themselves and others- in the form of nationalized health care, eg- just so long as they can have sex with whatever and whomever they want and smoke whatever happens to come across their path.

However, someone coming at ‘libertarianism’ from the other direction, say, from a Christian perspective and a conservative, is not looking for a reason to misbehave. This is why I led off with the John Adams quote. ‘Moral and religious people’ will continue to be ‘moral and religious’ whatever freedoms or restrictions are placed on them by the government. I might say: “Libertarianism was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the [government] of any other.” There are any number of forms of government that can work with a ‘moral and religious people.’ For an amoral or immoral or anti-moral or non-religious or anti-religious people, no kind of government is going to work for the long haul. Continue reading

I Wish the GOP was the Party of No

by A.R. Horvath

Obama has been on a tear, raging against the Republicans that they are the ‘party of no.’  From a recent speech:

“There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner. There were no new ideas. There was just the same philosophy that we had already tried during the decade that they were in power — the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place: Cut more taxes for millionaires and cut more rules for corporations.”

If only this were true!  If only the GOP were eschewing new ideas and holding tenaciously to the perfectly good old ones!  If only.   Not that I am conceding Obama’s argument, here.  Either he is an idiot or we are- or he thinks we are.  The Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with the housing bubble.  Barney Frank (D) and Chris Dodd (D), did, and let us remember that this ‘inherited’ recession came only in the last few months of an 8 year term.  Shame, shame, Mr. Obama.  But I digress.

As the candidate field shapes up for the 2012 presidential election there is an opportunity to lay bare the fatal flaw in GOP ‘conservatism’ in the hopes that maybe something can be done about it.   Let me be clear, this isn’t a new development.  The problems began decades ago- even before we were born.   To help me get at what I’m talking about, let me begin with what may appear to be another digression.

Much talk has been made about Sarah Palin’s intelligence and education and her suitability to be president of these united states.  And this on the conservative side!  Have we ever wondered why we need our presidents and politicians so sophisticated?

We perceive that a high level of sophistication is necessary because the issues that our politicians will have to grapple with are so hugely complex that on no one of them could the president get away with saying, “this is above my pay grade.”    The underlying assumption, however, is that these politicians are going to have to actually navigate these hugely complex issues.

Therein lies the problem.  Constitutionally speaking, precious little is supposed to be done by the Federal government.  There shouldn’t be a thing called social security.  Or a department of education.  It shouldn’t require three doctoral degrees to balance out how taxation and distribution impacts the whole economy.  In short, the reason why ‘intelligence’ is needed in government these days is because we all take as our working assumption that the job of our politicians is to tinker, tinker, and tweak.

Now, this is to be expected from the Democrats.  Continue reading

One State Strategy for Bringing Down Obama

Laigle’s Forum staff writer Anthony Horvath has posted a column on the Cypress Times describing a winning strategy for forcing Obama to confront his citizenship questions by relying on the efforts of a single state.  That column was picked up by Worldnetdaily.com, whose founder, Joseph Farah, is mentioned in the opening paragraphs.

Asking people of principle to look the other way in the face of what possibly could be the highest act of arrogance in modern history just isn’t possible.  If Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be president then that’s that.  Furthermore, the burden of proof is on Obama to show that he is constitutionally qualified.  It isn’t Farah’s job to prove he isn’t.   We’re talking about the leader of the (so far) free world, not a dog catcher.  It is too important to ignore.

On the other hand, it is a simple fact that the people on the other side of this issue have every advantage.  Let’s face it.  The opinions of many Americans are formed by no more than a glance at the day’s headlines, the quick blurb at the 6 o’clock news, and the clever jabs on Stewart’s Daily Show.  Combine this with the average American’s deep fear that someone might think that he is ‘one of those extremists’ and the Left has all they need to defeat a ‘Birther’ candidate.  It really isn’t a winning issue… yet.

So how to stick to principle and win?  I have an idea.

Read the whole column.

The lawsuit none dare mention

The lawsuit none dare mention

 

By Donald Hank

People all around the world are concerned about the lawsuit brought by Hillary supporter Phillip Berg, charging Barack Obama and the DNC with improprieties centered around Obama’s apparent inability to prove he is a US citizen, and in fact his having presented patently false documents, making him constitutionally ineligible to become the next president of the United States. The latest development is that the failure of Obama and the DNC to respond to the charges brought under this suit is, legally, an admission of guilt, making him ineligible for the presidency. It’s all over the internet.

But the silence in the media is deafening. None of the talk hosts will touch the story. Neither will Fox News.

Just this morning I received emails from two different Brazilian friends, including philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, whose columns we proudly present at Laigle’s Forum from time to time.

One email says:

Dear Don

Please clarify this: “Press Release: Obama & DNC admit all allegations in Berg v. Obama”? http://obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-main/38-press-release-obama-a-dnc-admit-all-allegations-in-berg-v-obama 

Is this a hoax? If correct, why nobody says anything about it? The ‘official’ great media I can understand but why don’t conservatives like you say anything?

All the best and thanks for any help,

[name of prominent Brazilian activist]

  Continue reading

How conservative is your talk show host?

How Right is Your Conservative Commentator
 
 

 

By Michael Bresciani

Those who host conservative radio shows are less likely to be pressured by
PC watchdogs but all of them occasionally take leave of reality especially
when it comes to theology. Let’s see!

From the stinging replies of Americas “culture warrior,” Bill O’Reilly, to
the sardonic humor of Glenn Beck and all in between there is a lot to be
desired.

It may be naiveté as in President Bush’s remark about Islam being a
“peaceful religion” or it may just be that after all they are only political
commentators and not avowed conservative theologians. In either case, some
who are only slightly above novice theologians have to cringe from time to
time at what they have to say.

In O’Reilly’s Culture Warrior he notes that he must leave all judgment about
sin to the deity. (pg. 179) No problem with that but then he indicates that
he sees no problem with gay couples raising children. As with all others he
offers a chance for the Catholic Church to explain their reasons for the
negative positions they hold about children in such unions. It still might
be easier to get the Pope to come on the “Factor” than Barack Obama but I
doubt he is going to accept the offer if one is made.

The biblically grounded use the Bible as their ultimate authority under what
is known as the belief in the “plenary verbal” method of biblical
inspiration. In short that means that every letter, word and phrase was
chosen explicitly by God. Catholic theology allows for ex-cathedra which in
essence says that the Pope can speak in Christ’s stead through something
called apostolic succession. Then there’s Bill O’Reilly’s view. He is right
about a lot of things and always interesting but for those of us who trust
God’s word only scripture is endowed with intrinsic infallibility.

I don’t need to say what the bible says about homosexuality again but if I
did the fastest way to get the info would be to check the rhetoric on the
gay sites where the blogs are always in full steam and much is always being
said against those words.

Then along comes Glenn Beck with his feisty and often gut splitting raw
humor and sarcasm, until he starts praising ministers like Osteen and
Warren. Both are well intentioned icons of the day but once again the best
bet for biblical truth is still the bible itself, not the surmising of an
icon.

Beck graduated from Sehome H.S. and O’Reilly often reminds his viewers that
he is an alumnus of Harvard University so it is safe to say we should not
expect theology that reflects an education from Dallas Theological Seminary
from either of the aforementioned. What we might hope for is that someone
explains to Glenn that for millions of conservative Christians around the
nation the mega church darlings are part of the problem (apostasy) not the
solution.

Being interviewed between stops and found at an airport, Rick Warren was
lauded by Beck for his shear “brilliance” as he wrapped up the question of
what he planned to ask the candidates Obama and McCain at his upcoming
forum.

Warren said he planned to ask them the question of how they see the
Constitution of the United States. Do they view it as “carved in stone”
immovable and rigid, or is it “a living” document open to interpretation.

It is the old “open to interpretation” aspect of the question that causes
the greatest concern. For the politically conservative it is that very
question that makes us look for Supreme Court judges who are willing to take
the constitution at face value. Among the biblically conservative it is the
same reason we look for leaders who will take the bible at face value.

For well over 35 years I have been reproving those who virtually ignore
every word in the bible under the guise that it is after all a book that is
open to all sorts of interpretations. Nonsense! It would be almost
impossible to line up the major 24 translations of the bible and choose a
passage that after reading every translation would not say exactly the same
thing.

Hiding behind an open interpretation clause when it pertains to God’s word
is shaky ground at best. The Apostle Peter addressed the silly notion that
just anyone could see just anything they wanted to in scriptures when he
said “Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation.” (2Pet 1:20)  But even if Peter had been silent who would
dare trust the most well intentioned preacher or commentator, conservative
or not, if you couldn’t take God at his word?

Rev Bresciani is an author and columnist for several online and print
publications. With over two million readers worldwide and growing you will
enjoy the articles, movie reviews, commentary and much more visit
www.americanprophet.org

Purpose driven myth: Males are violent, females are their victims

 The effete feminist myth that males are inherently bad while females are their perennial victims has recently been debunked, again, by our good friend Phyllis Schlafly, the woman who single-handedly stopped the ERA.

Yet Kay Warren and her husband Rick, the “most powerful pastor in America” (according to a recent Time article) apparently wants to “partner with governments” based on the threadbare feminist notion that domestic violence is typically violence against women.

A recent article from the UK highlights a startling rise in violence among females there in the last 3 years. This violence too can be laid at the feet of radical feminism and its encroachment in the courts, which makes females all but exempt from prosecution in England, tempting them to go further and further to test their limits of immunity. Here in the US we have, of course, the famous case of Mary Winkler, who was able to shoot her husband in cold blood and get a slap on the wrist by the court, then on to victory in a custody case. She now has custody of the couple’s three girls, who have registered no interest in being returned to her.

Write to the Saddleback Church to register your concern about Kay Warren’s portrayal of domestic violence as a typically male-on-female phenomenon.

Tell them that virtually all studies on the subject (like the best-known and most extensive ones by Murray Strauss at the University of NH) show that males and females initiate DV at equal rates. Further, the highest DV rate by far is among lesbian women!

Tell them therefore to adopt a more balanced approach to this important issue.

Be polite but firm:

info@purposedriven.com or elizabeths@saddleback.net.

Donald Hank

zoilandon@msn.com