Barack Obama: Savior or Anti-Christ?

Believers knew this was coming.  The days of the false prophets and anti-Christ.

I’m not a professional Bible scholar, so I can’t speak definitively on the subject of “anti-Christs.”  What I’ve been able to find so far on the topic doesn’t seem to indicate that there will be ONE anti-Christ, but many.  They are also referred to as false prophets.  God warns us of their coming, their intent, and what happens to them and their followers.

2Ti 3:1-9 NASB But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.  (2)  For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,  (3)  unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,  (4)  treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,  (5)  holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.  (6)  For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses,  (7)  always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.  (8)  Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith.  (9)  But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also.

2Ti 3:13 NASB But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

Tit 1:10-11 NASB For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision,  (11)  who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain.

2Jn 1:7 NASB For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

1Jn 2:18 NASB Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.

This brings us to the question at hand:  Barack Hussein Obama.  Savior and Christ, or anti-Christ and False Prophet?

How will we know who the savior is?  John 10:3-4 tells us that the followers of Christ will know His voice.

Joh 10:3-4 NASB “To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.  (4)  “When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.

I’ve been listening to Mr. Obama ever since he became a candidate for president, and I can tell you unequivocally that I do not “know his voice,” and I wouldn’t follow him anywhere.

John also describes what makes a good shepherd.  He is one who will lay down/sacrifice his life for his sheep.  There you have another disqualifying attribute of B-HO.  How many of his associates has he thrown under the bus for traction?

Next we look at deniers of Christ.

1Jn 2:22 NASB Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

1Jn 4:2-3 NASB By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;  (3)  and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

Barack’s statement that we are not a Christian nation, and his refusal to proclaim Christ as his savior literally scream “false prophet.”

done

done

Now, what would further identify B-HO as an anti-Christ?  Signs and false teachings seem to be the order of the day.

Rev 16:13-14 NASB And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs;  (14)  for they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty.

Now, I can’t say I’ve seen any frogs come out of B-HO’s mouth, or that I’ve seen him perform any signs (unless getting into the White House without any documentation counts), but I’ve heard MANY things that I know to be blatant lies and un-truths come from the hole below his nose.  So, we have at least one of the two indicators of false prophet-ness present.

What happens next?  Well, when the REAL savior returns it won’t be pretty for those who refused or denied Him as savior.  Much less so for those who worked against Him to prevent people from accepting His grace.

Rev 20:10 NASB And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

I am not judging B-HO to be a/the anti-Christ.  I am merely pointing out what he is NOT.  The evidence does suggest that he could indeed be a false-prophet or an anti-Christ, but ultimately that is for God to decide and judge.

All this talk of fire and brimstone, lakes of fire, and torment aren’t very pleasant thoughts.  So to show you that God is not only just, but a merciful and loving God, I’ll leave you with this.  It is a warning to the non-believers and deceivers, and a message of hope for believers and those who don’t yet know but are seeking God.

Gal 6:7-9 NASB Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.  (8)  For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.  (9)  Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.

Hang in there.  It’s going to get worse before it gets better.  But if you plant yourself in God, and share the fruits of the gift He has given us, the reward He has stored up for us will be well worth the price we pay to get it.  Just remember, the price for the gift has already been paid.  All you have to do is accept it.

Pray for Obama.  Pray for his salvation.  If that isn’t going to happen, pray Psalm 109:8.

---

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=120459
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
MEDIA MATTERS
WorldNetDaily

Newspaper: Obama is, of course, greater than Creator God

Newspaper deifies American president, dismisses Christ

Posted: December 29, 2009
8:39 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily

This messianic image of Obama was highlighted by ABC's Jake Tapper

An editorial in a Danish newspaper, citing both foreign and domestic policies pursued by President Barack Obama, is deifying the American political leader.

“Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus – if we have to play that absurd Christmas game,” opined the unsigned editorial yesterday in Politiken, which boasts of being Denmark’s largest newspaper, in publication since 1884.

The English translation is provided online by Julian Isherwood.

It continued, “But it is probably more meaningful to insist that with today’s domestic triumph, that he has already assured himself a place in the history books – a space he has good chances of expanding considerably in coming years.”

The newspaper says Obama “is provocative in insisting on an outstretched hand, where others only see animosity.”

And while “his tangible results in the short time that he has been active – are few and far between,” his words “remain in the consciousness of their audience and have long-term effects.”

“He comes from humble beginnings and defends the weak and vulnerable, because he can identify himself with their conditions,” the newspaper said. (he who has made millions of dollars at the expense of the people he purports to serve “identifies with their conditions?” You’re kidding, right?) “And no we are not thinking of Jesus Christ, whose birthday has just been celebrated – but rather the President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama.”

The editorial noted that “the idea was naturally that the comparison between Jesus and Obama” would be made. “If such a comparison were to be made, it would, of course, inevitably be to Obama’s advantage.”

The editorial, written on the occasion of a legislative vote in favor of Obama’s plan for a health care takeover by the government, cited “the right of every American not to be financially shipwrecked when their health fails” as well as the “biggest ever financial support package in America’s history, a major disarmament agreement and the quickest-ever re-establishment of American reputation.”  (What a crock.  Socialists in America, and the socialists in Europe hold the European governments up as the model that we should follow.  Do they understand that the only way they can afford their own socialist spending is that they don’t have to pay for their own defense?  When we can no longer afford to protect them because of our social spending, what will become of them?)

“On the other hand, we have Jesus’ miracles that everyone still remembers, but which only benefitted a few. At the same time, we have the wonderful parables about his life and deeds that we know from the New Testament, but which have been interpreted so differently over the past 2000 years that it is impossible to give an unequivocal result of his work,” the newspaper said.  (It was only the creator of the world paying the price for YOUR sins before you were even born.  To bad you can’t see the results of that.  There’s still time…)

“Well we all knew that this day would come,” wrote Jeremy Wiggins on the American Family Association blogs.

“We knew that someone on the left side of the political spectrum would ultimately try to compare Barack Obama to Jesus,” he wrote.

“What I want to know is this: How is any comparison made between a person who has done NOTHING and someone who has done EVERYTHING? President Obama has bowed before kings, but Jesus will have kings bowing before Him, because HE is THE King of Kings. I guess the closest comparison I could come up with would be comparing Obama to Jesus is like comparing an ant to a skyscraper, not only is one VASTLY greater than the other, but they are not even in the same category to compare!” he wrote.

WND has reported on the multiple references and suggestions of Obama’s diety, including when British recording artist Sting said President Obama could be the answer to the world’s problems – the divine answer.

“In many ways, he’s sent from God, because the world’s a mess,” he said in interview with the Associated Press as the time.

Earlier, it was an associate editor at a college newspaper who wrote, “Obama is my Jesus.”

Maggie Mertens, the associate editor at the campus paper at Massachusetts’ Smith College, said, “Obama is my homeboy. And I’m not saying that because he’s black – I’m saying that in reference to those Urban Outfitters T-shirts from a couple years ago that said, ‘Jesus is my homeboy.’ Yes, I just said it. Obama is my Jesus.” (Poor, deceived person.  I can introduce you to the REAL Jesus…)

Her confession came in the Smithsophian’s commentary section recently under the headline: “I Will Follow Him: Obama As My Personal Jesus.”

“While you may be overtly religious and find this to be idol-worshipping, or may be overtly politically correct and just know that everything in that sentence could be found offensive, I’m afraid it’s true anyway,” she wrote.  (Blasphemy: an act of cursing or reviling God; irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.)

Also, an artist who planned to unveil a portrait of Obama in a Christ-like pose with a crown of thorns upon his brow canceled the event due to “overwhelming public outrage.”  (As it should be.  Why should Christians sit back and let our faith be defiled while all other faiths are handled with kid-gloves?  That includes atheism, because it is a religion as well.)

And it was Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan who declared last year that when Obama talks, “the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

There also was the development during Obama’s campaign when a website called “Is Barack Obama the Messiah?” captured the wave of euphoria that followed the Democratic senator’s remarkable rise.

The site was topped by an Obama quote strategically ripped from a Jan. 7, 2008, speech at Dartmouth College just before the New Hampshire Primary in which he told students, “A light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote” for Obama.

The site includes this:

OBAMA BE THY NAME
THY CHANGE WILL COME
THY WILL BE DONE …

---

Barry Buries the Barely Alive Constitution Again, Signs Blank Check for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

The destruction of the United States Constitution, and the disregard of the American voters continues unabated by the Undocumented President, Barry Soetoro/Barack Hussein Obama, the Dear Leader, Chairman Maobama.

Just as he has lied and deceived about EVERYTHING he has done since beginning his campaign for president, he did this in the dark of night on the eve of the biggest holiday of the year so that no one would notice.  Well, Barry.  We noticed.  Your days of destruction of America are coming to an end.  We’re coming for you.

Impeach him now.  If that doesn’t stop him, we’ll think of something else.

---

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/sectors-mainmenu-46/2656-frannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-now-have-a-blank-check?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Now Have a Blank Check

Written by Charles Scaliger
Tuesday, 29 December 2009 17:22

Little noticed (so far) by the American public, a Christmas Eve announcement by the Obama administration to expand the amount of bailout monies available to ailing mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is already stirring controversy among Capitol Hill lawmakers sick of fueling the bailout gravy train at the expense of an increasingly restive voter base.

“The timing of this executive order giving Fannie and Freddie a blank check is no coincidence,” Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, told the Wall Street Journal. The announcement was timed, Bachus added, “to prevent the general public from taking note.”

On Christmas Eve, President Obama quietly signed an executive order removing the caps of $200 billion dollars that the Treasury was authorized to spend on each of the two mortgage underwriters. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now will have access to unlimited Treasury funds through 2012 — this despite the fact that Treasury has so far provided $61 billion to Fannie and $50 billion to Freddie, both formidable sums, but a far cry from the now-abolished $200 billion ceiling.

This decision is evidence enough that the bailout brigade continues apace, even as Obama Administration spokesmen and Federal Reserve officials insist that the worst is behind us, and that the economy has already technically emerged from recession. What, we may well enquire, could worry government insiders so much about the economic future that they felt obligated to remove all further restraints on government bailouts to the two biggest players in the imploded mortgage industry? After all, the government has spent barely a quarter of the funds already available to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Moreover, President Obama, with the stroke of the pen, has authorized spending essentially a limitless amount of taxpayer dollars to bail out the two quasi-government mortgage giants. Yet the president of the United States has no constitutional authority to spend money, nor order Congress to do so. The power of the federal purse is assigned to Congress in Article I of the United States Constitution, but the recent string of bailouts has provided political cover for the executive branch — the president, the Treasury Department, and the Federal Reserve, in particular — to ignore this particular check on the power of the executive.

As a consequence, we are many trillions of dollars deeper in debt than was the case a year ago, and Congress is fast becoming little more than a rubber stamp for whatever spending schemes the president cares to undertake.

---

Tyranny Illustrated: Democrats Can’t Figure Out How Health Care Takeover is Constitutional

When several senators were asked to point out where the United States Constitution gave them the authority to mandate that Americans buy health care, NONE of them could answer the question.  Why?  Because their plan is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  They try to justify their mandate and the takeover of our health care system by using the “general welfare” clause and/or the “commerce” clause, but these are such transparently WRONG arguments that any high school student with a copy of the constitution can see it.  Here’s a link to the Unites States Constitution so you can see for yourself.

The other basic differences these criminals and tyrants overlook are the differences between RIGHTS, and GOODS and SERVICES.  See/hear Judge Andrew Napolitano’s comments about that HERE.

Bottom line: these tyrants know they are in the wrong, they know that we know they are in the wrong, but they are just hoping that not enough of us know it, and that we aren’t willing to do anything about it before it’s too late.

We’ve got to step up the pressure.  Faxes, phone calls, and e-mails are great, but the tyrants have already shown that they aren’t listening to or reading those communications.  In many cases they turn the fax machines off, don’t answer the phones, and leave the e-mail boxes full (or simply turn on an auto-reply that says it’s full).  We have to go to the next level.

If your state has a provision to recall a congressman or senator, get to work on that.  If they see a concerted effort to remove them from office NOW rather than waiting until an election, it may not change their mind, but it will distract them from the business at hand.

If your state doesn’t have this kind of provision, join organizations such as Get Out of Our House! and Our Country Deserves Better, to name a few.  Donate whatever time, money, or other resources you can spare to unseat these rotten politicians.  Don’t just make the threat now in hopes they’ll change the way they vote.  That’s just them being spineless.  We must let them know that their removal from office is a done deal, a certainty.

We can save this country from the tyranny being thrust upon us, but it will take all of us standing together to make it happen.  We must stay mad, we must stay informed, we must stay connected/networked, and we must stay engaged.

Below are links to what the various politicians said about the constitutionality of their plan to take over and mandate health care.

---

• Sen. Feinstein ‘Assumes’ Commerce Clause Gives Congress Unlimited Authority to Mandate Health Insurance
• Sen. Ben Nelson: ‘I’m Not Going to Be Able to Answer That Question’ of Where Constitution Authorizes Congress to Force Americans to Buy
• Sen. Nelson: Constitutionally, Congress Can ‘Probably’ Mandate Health Insurance In ‘Same Place’ States Can Mandate Car Insurance
• Sen. Akaka Says ‘I’m Not Aware’ of Constitution Giving Congress Authority to Make Individuals Buy Health Insurance
• Sen. McCaskill Doesn’t Say Where Congress Gets Power To Mandate Health Insurance, But Cites Auto Insurance At State Level
• Sen. Lautenberg Declines To Say Where Congress Gets Constitutional Authority To Mandate Health Insurance
• Sen. Bob Casey: Health Care Mandate Constitutional But Not Sure If There’s ‘Specific Constitutional Provision’
• Alaska Senator Begich Doesn’t Say Where Congress Gets Authority to Mandate Purchase of Health Insurance
• Sen. Sanders: Constitutional Authority for Congress’ Health Insurance Mandate ‘Probably’ Same As Medicare
• When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: ‘Are You Serious?’
• Sen. Reed: Forcing People to Buy Health Insurance is Constitutionally Justified Because It’s Like Making People ‘Sign Up for the Draft’
• Sen. Landrieu Declines to Say Where Constitution Authorizes Congress to Force Americans to Buy Health Insurance, Saying She’ll Let ‘Constitutional Lawyers on Our Staff’ Handle That
• Gibbs Says He Doesn’t Know if White House Has Reviewed Constitutionality of Forcing People to Buy Health Insurance
• Sen. Lincoln: Congress Can Force Americans to Buy Health Insurance Because Constitution ‘Charges Congress With the Health’ of the People
• Sen. Burris Cites Unwritten Constitutional ‘Health’ Provision to Justify Forcing Americans to Buy Health Insurance
• Sen. Merkley: Authority to Force People to Buy Health Insurance is Part of Congress’s ‘Very First Enumerated Power’
• Sen. Mark Warner: Health Care, Education, and Telephones (none of them mentioned in the constitution)

---

Judge Andrew Napolitano – Health Care Insureance IS NOT A RIGHT

Recently Judge Andrew Napolitano was a guest host on Glenn Beck’s program. He very eloquently laid out in his opening comments the difference between RIGHTS, and GOODS/SERVICES.

Once you break it down, it is easy to see the fallacy of the liberal argument that health care is a right. IT IS NOT A RIGHT!

Below I have included the bullet outline of the Judges comments as well as the video. The second half of the video is a good discussion that continues in part two of the video, which I’ve included as a bonus. You can find these and other videos of the Judge on Youtube.com.

---

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Health Care Is NOT a Right

• Health care is not a RIGHT, it is a GOOD/SERVICE.
• What is a RIGHT?
  • Is a gift from God
    • RIGHT to life
    • RIGHT to develop our personalities
    • RIGHT to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say
    • RIGHT to worship or NOT worship
    • RIGHT to travel
    • RIGHT to defend ourselves
    • RIGHT to use our own property as we see fit
    • RIGHT to due process, fairness from the government
    • RIGHT to be left alone
• These are NATURAL rights
• What is a GOOD?
  • Something we WANT or NEED, the OPPOSITE of a RIGHT.  It is something you buy, or that someone buys for you
  • We have rights from birth
    • NEED our parents when we are children
    • NEED ourselves as adults to purchase goods and services that we NEED or WANT
    • Food, shelter, clothing, education, car, legal representation, working out at the gym, and ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE are all examples of GOODS.
    • Those who say health care is a right simply want to extend a form of GOVERNMENT WELFARE.
    • Liberals argue that if people don’t have health insurance, they’ll just go to the hospital, and we’ll have to pay for it anyway.
      • Why should that be?
        • We don’t let people steal food from super market, or an apartment from a landlord, or clothing from a local shop
        • Why let them take health care from a local hospital without paying for it?
• Liberals contend that’s charity
  • Wrong again
  • IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO BE CHARITABLE WITH SOMEONE ELSES MONEY
    • Charity comes from your own heart, not from the government spending your money
  • When we pay taxes to the government, and government gives that money away, that’s not charity, that’s WELFARE
  • When government takes more than it needs to secure our freedoms so it can give that money away, that’s not charity, that’s THEFT.
  • When government forces hospitals to provide “free” health care to those who can’t or won’t care for themselves, that’s not charity, that’s SLAVERY.
  • This is why we now have CONSTITUTIONAL CHAOS.  Because the government STEALS and ENSLAVES.
    • We outlawed that a long time ago.

---

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Health Care Is NOT a Right – 1 of 2

done

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Health Care Is NOT a Right – 2 of 2

done

---

How Rod Blagojevich Got His Start

A young cowboy from Wyoming goes off to college. Half way through the semester, he has foolishly squandered all his money.
He calls home. “Dad,” he says, “You won’t believe what modern education is developing! They actually have a program here in Laramie that will teach our dog, Ol’ Blue how to talk!”
“That’s amazing,” his Dad says. “How do I get Ol’ Blue in that program?” “Just send him down here with $1,000″ the young cowboy says. “I’ll get him in the course.” So, his father sends the dog and $1,000.
About two-thirds of the way through the semester, the money again runs out. The boy calls home. “So how’s Ol’ Blue doing son?” his father asks.
“Awesome, Dad, he’s talking up a storm,” he says, “but you just won’t believe this – they’ve had such good results they have started to teach the animals how to read!”
“Read!?” says his father, “No kidding! How do we get Blue in that program?” “Just send $2,500, I’ll get him in the class.”
The money promptly arrives. But our hero has a problem. At the end of the year, his father will find out the dog can neither talk, nor read. So he shoots the dog.
When he arrives home at the end of the year, his father is all excited. “Where’s Ol’ Blue? I just can’t wait to see him read something and talk!”
“Dad,” the boy says, “I have some grim news. Yesterday morning, just before we left to drive home, Ol’ Blue was in the living room, kicked back in the recliner, reading the Wall Street Journal, like he usually does. Then he turned to me and asked, “So, is your daddy still messing’ around with that little redhead who lives in town?”
The father exclaimed, “I hope you shot that SOB before he talks to your Mother!”
“I sure did, Dad!”
“That’s my boy!”
The kid went on to be a successful lawyer, and eventually was elected as Governor of Illinois.

---

Obama Signs Away YOUR Freedom and Sovereignty to Foreign Police Forces

Barack Obama is an enemy of the United States of America.  He is intentionally circumventing the United States constitution, which he swore to defend, destroying our economy and health care system, and he is doing all that he can to destroy our sovereignty as a nation.

This threat to the future well being of America must be stopped, and he must be stopped NOW.  Impeachment, legal proceedings on his background, whatever.

America won’t survive another year of Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

//////////////UPDATE: 29 Dec 2009, 1945 EST//////////////

Roger Hedgecock just put forth a theory that dovetails quite nicely with the pattern of subterfuge put forth by the Obama administration.  Roger theorized that the aim of this maneuver is to suborn our justice system to the international community so that G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney can be arrested and tried for war crimes.  Plausible.

---

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=120363

Obama gives foreign cops new police powers in U.S.

Sovereignty apparently set aside as agency exempted from law

Posted: December 28, 2009
8:57 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily

A little-discussed executive order from President Obama giving foreign cops new police powers in the United States by exempting them from such drudgery as compliance with the Freedom of Information Act is raising alarm among commentators who say INTERPOL already had most of the same privileges as diplomats.

At David Horowitz’s Newsreal, Michael van der Galien said the issue is Obama’s expansion of President Ronald Reagan’s order from 1983 that originally granted those diplomatic privileges.

Reagan’s order carried certain exemptions requiring that INTERPOL operations be subject to several U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act. Obama, however, removed those restrictions in his Dec. 16 amendment to Executive Order 12425.

That means, van der Galien wrote today, “this foreign law enforcement organization can operate free of an important safeguard against government and abuse.”

“‘Property and assets,’ including the organization’s records, cannot be searched or seized. Their physical locations are now immune from U.S. legal or investigative authorities,” he wrote.

Obama’s order said he was removing the Reagan limitations on INTERPOL:

“AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES

“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, (who decides what “appropriate” privileges are?) exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them,” he wrote.

At the ThreatsWatch.org website, authors Steve Schippert and Clyde Middleton gave their interpretation of the result.

“In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama’s Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans’ 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves,” they wrote.

“When the paths on the road map converge – Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States – it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body whose INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement,” they said.

“For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL’s central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with ‘inviolable archives’ from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds,” they said.

“Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.“

Records show that the original order designated INTERPOL as a public international organization. Reagan had extended “appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities,” but kept it subject to searches and seizures under appropriate legal circumstances.

Obama’s decision, analysts have concluded, exempted Interpol from all restrictions.

“This international law enforcement body now operates – now operates – on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests,” ThreatsWatch reported.

At the Patriot Room, it was explained there is a reason for a certain level of immunity.

“Before we get our knickers in a bunch, there is logic to this immunity. While we like our Constitution and laws, other countries like their Constitution and laws. It doesn’t matter if the concept of personal freedom is more expansive here. If we expect immunity in their country, we have to extend it to them here.”  (But if you don’t limit this immunity, you throw away your sovereignty.  When you are treated illegally, there is not recourse.)

But with Obama’s change, “It means that we have an international police force authorized to act within the United States that is no longer subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure.“

Anthony Martin at the Examiner noted the international agency now can operate in the U.S. will “full immunity” from U.S. laws and “with complete independence from oversight from the FBI.”

At National Review Andy McCarthy asked, “Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?“

At UNDispatch, which is a blog on the United Nations, Mark Leon Goldberg, who explained he worked at Interpol’s headquarters in France in 2002, said there isn’t much danger of INTERPOL agents whisking Americans off to jail. But he confirmed, “As to the specific reason why the Obama administration would decide, last week, to extend to INTERPOL the same suite of diplomatic privileges that are typically accorded to international organizations? I don’t have a good answer for that. My sense is that it probably has something to with the accessibility of INTERPOL’s secure criminal databases (on things like stolen passports and the like).”

But the Obama critics at the Obamafile weren’t convinced.

“By this EO, Obama has conferred diplomatic immunity upon INTERPOL, exemption from being subject to search and seizure by law enforcement, exemption from U.S. taxes, and immunity from FOIA requests, etc. … Does INTERPOL have a file on Obama – or his associations?“

---

The Official Pace Car of Obamacare 2009

Here are some reminders of what you’re going to get when/if the senate and house iron out the differences between them and pass the final health care takeover.

Official Pace Care of Obamacare 2009

To be taken rectally. No lubrication allowed.

Bend Over, America. Homina, homina, homina...

Will the elderly get a brief reprieve, or will they be pushed to the front of the line for the ovens?

---

Our only hope for saving America from being spent into complete financial ruin and economic collapse? Our only hope is for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to become customers of their own health “care” system.

---

Ronald Reagan Warned Us in 1961

Here is the text and audio of a speech that then actor Ronald Reagan gave on the issue of socialized medicine in 1961.  It is eerie how it seems as if he were reading today’s headlines when he gave this speech.

Where are the wise men in America?  Where are the men and women who will stand up, speak out, and take action against the evils being perpetrated against a once free and great society?  Many might ask “what would Reagan do?”  But we must remember that he did not look to himself for wisdom and the answers.  Ronald Reagan looked to God and to our founding fathers for their PROVEN wisdom in dealing with threats and problems.  So should it be with us.

We have endured creeping socialism and the corresponding loss of freedoms for decades now.  Alarmingly, the pace of the race toward socialism, tyranny and oppression has increased dramatically in the last 3 years.  We must stand as Americans, as free men and women, to do WHATEVER is necessary to prevent the destruction of this nation from within.

Those of us in the military and in other branches of government service (including the congress, senate, and the president, believe it or not) have sworn an oath.  That oath is not to any one man, but to our constitution.  It is an oath that I believe EVERY citizen of the United States should willingly take.

I, (whoever you are), having been appointed a (rank, position, etc.), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN and DOMESTIC; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, SO HELP ME GOD.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are facing enemies to our constitution, both foreign and domestic.  Will you take the oath with me to do defend it, no matter the cost?

---

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

done

+

Ronald Reagan’s 1961 Speech on Socialized Medicine

Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.

There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent over owning more than 19,000 businesses covering different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.

But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand  introduced the Ferrand Bill. This was the idea that all people of social security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.

Now, Congressman Ferrand brought the program out on that idea of just for that group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot in the door philosophy, because he said “if we can only break through and get our foot inside  the door, then we can expand the progam after that.”

Walter Ruther said “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American. Well, let’s see what the socialists themselves  have to say about it.

They say: “Once the Ferrrand bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicince. Capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.’ Well, we can’t say we haven’t been warned.

Now, Congressman Ferrand is no longer a congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill, by Congressman King of  California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores the fact that in the last decade a hundred and twenty seven million of our citizens in just ten years, have come under the protection of some form of  privately owned medical or hospital insurance.

Now the advocates of this bill, when you try to oppose it, challenge you on an emotional basis. They say “What would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?” That’s ridiculous and of course no one’s has advocated it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr-Mills Bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried, to see if it works, they have introduced this King Bill which is really the Ferrand Bill.

What is the Kerr-Mills Bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens that I have mentioned. And it is provided from the federal government money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it. Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says “we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on the basis of age alone; regardless of whether they’re worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they’re protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.”

I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time – socialized medicine.

James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention said: “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

They want to attach this bill to Social Security. And they say here is a great insurance program now instituted; now working.

Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of saving that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end Social Security was adopted. But it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.

Now in our country under our free enterprise system, we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being.

I know how I’d feel, if you my fellow citizens decided that to be an actor, I had to become a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband, all of us can see what happens – once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school, where he will go or what they will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell them where he will go to work and what he will do.

In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in world’s history. The only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relation to man, a little group of the men, the founding fathers - for the first time – established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny.

This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today. And strangely we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. Well, majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy, provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.

In Washington today, 40,000 letters, less than a hundred per congressman, are evidence of a trend in public thinking.

Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”

So write, and if your this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let him get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell him that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments don’t tax to get the money they need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”

Write those letters now; call your friends and tell them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until, one day, as Normal Thomas said we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.”

---

Harry Reid and Company MUST Go

Self-serving tyrants like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been allowed to stay in office far too long, suckling on the golden breast of America.  They and others like them have gradually stolen power and wealth in ways the founding fathers warned us against.  It’s time to take our country back.  We need to replace every last one of the bums and get them to pass the laws that make sense for America, and conform to the constitution.  That includes voting for things that are not personally beneficial to said politicians.  Here are two of the things we should expect of our politicians.

• Term limits – Politics was never intended to be a lifelong career.  Elected representatives were expected to represent their states and districts for a “season” of time, then return home.  That was to ensure fresh ideas, no self-serving entrenchment, and that the representatives were current and aware of desires and goings on in their home states/districts.  A careerist politician living in Washington doesn’t meet that intent.
• Eliminate lifelong pensions – Again, they should only be in Washington long enough to convey the wishes of the electorate and return home to a REAL job.  These exorbitant pensions awarded after little or no work or tenure are an insult to America.  The automatic pay raises, especially at a time when 10 to 20% of Americans are out of work is even more insulting.  While they are in office (for their LIMITED number of terms), pay them well.  Just don’t do it forever.

If you are tired of the tyranny, here are some web sites you may want to visit.  Join the fight to retake and save America.

Our Country Deserves Better (http://www.ourcountrypac.org/)

Get Out of Our House! (http://goooh.com/Home.aspx)

---

Harry Reid compares opponents of the democrat health care takeover to slave owners.

done

Harry Reid thinks taxes are “voluntary.”  He’s either evil, an idiot, or an evil idiot.

done

Ronald Reagan had Harry Reid figured out a long time ago.  Time to fire Harry Reid.

done

Harry Reid said our troops failed, and insulted American voters saying “you could literally smell the tourists coming into the capitol,”  in addition to comparing those who disagree with his health care takeover plan to slave owners.  We’re tired of being your slaves, Harry.  It’s time for you to go.

done

---

Al Gore’s Logical Fallacies of Global Warming

It’s funny how a divinity school drop-out is viewed by a large (and deceived) segment of society as being able to predict what will happen to God’s creation.

There are so many holes in Al Gore’s arguments that his global warming boat is now finally starting to sink.  It is taking on water at an even faster rate with the exposure of the fraud perpetrated by the East Anglia crowd (who are the primary providers of “data” to the UN’s IPCC, who the uninformed have viewed as an authority on global warming UNTIL NOW).

Mr. McDurmon does a passable job of explaining how just the LOGICAL errors in Gore’s “reasoning” shoot down his own arguments.  The documented evidence McDurmon provides (supported authoritatively by many, more credible scientists than those proponents of “global warming”) also highlights the logical AND scientific fallacies of the global warming argument.

As Mr. McDurmon sums up, “global warming”/climate change is simply a CONVENIENT LIE to push an agenda of CONTROL over populations and money.  IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SAVING THE PLANET.

---

http://www.americanvision.org/print/printpage.php

Logical Fallacies of Global Warming

by Joel McDurmon, Dec 18, 2009

Excerpts from Biblical Logic: In Theory and Practice

One of the “Fallacies of Cause” I address in my book Biblical Logic is one that confuses simultaneity for causation. In other words, just because two things occur at or near the same time, someone may fallaciously assume that one caused the other. We call this Cum Hoc Propter Hoc, which is Latin for “With this, because of this.” The same exposure of folly as the After This Fallacy applies here to the With This Fallacy: a myriad of possible causes exist—many we may not even see or know of—for every given occurrence. This creates a high probability for false causes, even for events that seem to concur in time. Correlation in time cannot guarantee a causal link.

Al Gore’s False Cause

One of the concerning examples I use comes from Al Gore’s crusade against global warming. In his video An Inconvenient Truth, he uses correlational data to back his points: “If you look at a thousand years worth of temperature, and compare it to a thousand years of CO2, you can see how well they fit together.” He admits that the relationship between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and temperature is very complicated, but states that the most important relationship is this: “when there is more Carbon Dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside.” Gore, famously now, presents pictures of melted glaciers and icecaps, along with warnings of increases in hurricanes and storms, flooded port cities due to rising ocean levels, and other climate catastrophes should we not immediately begin to reduce carbon emissions and our use of hydrocarbons (a scare-tactic, or Appeal to Fear). More importantly, he correlates modern human activity with the increase in carbon dioxide levels, implying that since humans cause global warming we must take drastic measures to reduce it.

Of course, all of this abuses the “With This” correlational fallacy many times over. To begin with, CO2 is not the primary cause of the “greenhouse effect” that results in higher temperatures. At least two other factors greatly outweigh it: solar activity and another more important greenhouse gas, water vapor. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine argues in a detailed paper, “Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity … by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H₂O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood.”[1] Changes in solar radiation correlate more closely and for a longer period of history with temperature changes than do Gore’s graphs of CO2. As well, “While major greenhouse gas H₂O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO₂ have little effect.”[2]

On top of this, while global temperatures have indeed risen in recent decades, proponents of Gore’s scare-tactics rarely mention that temperatures for centuries prior cooled considerably. The current rise merely corrects the previous “Little Ice Age.” The warming trend has occurred for much longer than Gore emphasizes, and has created effects that belie more of his claims:

[M]easurements show that the trend of 7 inches per century increase in sea level and the shortening trend in average glacier length both began a century before 1940, yet 84% of total annual human hydrocarbon use occurred only after 1940. Moreover, neither of these trends has accelerated during the period between 1940 and 2007, while hydrocarbon use increased 6 fold.[3]

This scientific paper, which stands behind a petition signed by over 31,000 American scientists, concludes,

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperature, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO₂, CH₄, or other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed.[5]

So it seems that—despite Al Gore’s claims about having a “scientific consensus” (a fallacious Appeal to Authority)—other obvious, more relevant, and powerful causes exist to explain global temperature changes other than those claimed by Al Gore (as well as the United Nations and those who follow it). Al’s An Inconvenient Truth contains little more than one big craftily presented With This Because of This Fallacy (packaged with a few other fallacies).

So why would Gore and others present the story this way? Note how he and other liberals intend to “solve” the problem: they propose a tax on carbon emissions as well as a global system of “cap-and-trade” on hydrocarbon usage. In plain language, these measures amount to a redistribution of wealth where more prosperous people and nations that use more fuel end up paying tons of money to third-world nations that do not. “Global Warming” simply acts as a mask and a fear factor for advancing the leftist political agenda, and increasing global government control of free and prosperous nations like the United States. Global warming is not an “inconvenient truth,” it is a convenient lie.[5]

Al Gore’s Slippery Slope

The Fallacy of Slippery Slope involves the claim that if a particular action is taken it will inevitably lead to another particular and undesirable event, or series of events. The idea imagines, for example, that a person who takes a first step onto a steep slope will slide all the way to the bottom. Therefore, it argues, it is better to avoid that first step altogether. But this assumes a number of things (keeping with the metaphor): 1) that the slope actually exists; 2) that the slope is steep enough to cause someone to slip; 3) that the person stepping has not prepared some means of adequate footing, for example, special boots or ropes; and 4) that the slope actually leads exactly where the arguer claims it does. All of these assumptions, and probably more, indicate that Slippery Slope thinking is fallacious without lots of supporting qualifications.

Al Gore creates a gross Slippery Slope argument with his claims about increasing greenhouse gases in the future. The now-debunked graph that his film An Inconvenient Truth popularized earned the nickname “the hockey stick” because it shows only mild fluctuations in the amount of CO2 until the last few decades, and then drastically shoots upward—thus forming the shape of a hockey stick. Even if his graph represented the data accurately (it does not), this would still not warrant the conclusion that Gore draws from it. In order to make his rhetorical point he mounts a man-lift and elevates it several feet high. He then points to the top of a big screen where the spike on his graph goes “off the charts.” Such is the radical future we face if we do not cut CO2 emission!

Of course this unwarranted extrapolation commits classically fallacious Slippery Slope thinking. Anyone could make any kind of radical prediction like this by simply extending the last upswing or down-tick of data indefinitely. The real question remains, “Is such an extrapolation warranted?” (Remember the books DOW 30,000, DOW 36,000, and DOW 40,000, all predicting wild extrapolations for the stock market?) And still then, even if the data warrants such a speculation, it cannot prove such a speculative event will come to pass, simply because many factors could yet affect the future.

Peter corrected a reverse application of “Slippery Slope to doomsday” thinking in his day. Instead, God’s judgment did loom very near on the Jewish people as Jesus had predicted. Critics of the promised return of Christ argued that since Christ had not yet returned for sometime (probably nearing 40 years) therefore the promise was a hoax and Christ would never return. Peter relates their fallacy:

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation” (2 Pet. 3:3–4).

Peter corrects their fallacy by reminding them who actually controls the slope of history:

But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:8–9).

Like so many fallacies that people commit, the remedy lies in the fact that God reigns supreme, and His Word shall come to pass. Any human reasoning that deviates from this standard risks all manner of fallacy. Al Gore may have learned that had he not quit divinity school. Instead, he is abusing human reason hoping to further break God’s law: to steal from some nations and give to others. At least it’s easy to see through.

Endnotes:

[1] Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 12:3 (Fall 2007):79. Available at http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson.pdf (accessed February 11, 2009).
[2] Arthur B. Robinson, et al, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” 79.
[3] Arthur B. Robinson, et al, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” 82. Emphasis mine.
[4] Arthur B. Robinson, et al, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” 89.
[5] See also Christopher C. Horner, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007).

---

Obama Lie: “I won’t try to take your guns away from you.” Yeah, right.

Wise Americans feared that a Candidate Obama turned president would attempt to take away many of our liberties.

Obama has felt free to take any liberty not expressly forbidden to him by the general public.  Don’t confuse that with the constitution, because Obama obviously doesn’t care about that.  He thinks the constitution is merely a document of “negative liberties.”

Any time citizens feared Obama would attempt to grab a specific liberty or right, he has merely lied about his intentions to placate the weak minded among us.

During the financial and automotive meltdown, Obama said he had no desire to be in the banking or automotive business.  Yet, the federal government headed by Obama owns banks and auto makers, and dictates salaries, bonuses, and more.  In the health care “debate” he claimed that illegal aliens would not be paid for, yet again he lied (thank you, Joe Wilson).  He said there would be “not one thin dime” of new taxes on 95% of Americans under his administration.  That promise/lie went the way of the do-do.  It is living in the same place as the pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per  year.

So when Obama waves his hand in an attempt to push a Jedi mind trick on us saying he has no intention of taking our guns away from us, based upon his track record of dishonesty, why should we believe him?  Simple.  We shouldn’t. Despite what he says, his record on the 2nd Amendment shows that he has no desire whatsoever to let you keep your firearms.  Let’s look at some examples.

• Opposed bill in Illinois that asserted the right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, quantifying that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession.
• Double-speak: “I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.”
• Obama lied about endorsing Illinois handgun ban
  • “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
  • Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
    • 35. Do you support state legislation to:
    • a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
    • b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
    • c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
• Elitist Obama revealed how he truly feels about mainstream America when he said “It’s not surprising they get bitter.  They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
• More Obama double-speak:
  • Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
  • A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.
• 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month (if you’re not a criminal, why should it matter if you buy more than one gun per month?)
• Surprisingly, Obama votes in favor of law allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons.  Why?
  • Obama said “I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done–and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.“
  • However, another reason for Obama’s uncharacteristic vote soon emerged.  Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.
• Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
  • Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
  • Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
  • Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
• Voted AGAINST prohibiting civil liability actions against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.  ANOTHER BACK DOOR WAY OF CONTROLLING GUNS.

When Obama said “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns,” he forgot to add “right now.”  Obama and his henchmen like Eric Holder, along with the anti-constitution and liberty liberals in congress and the senate will continue to do all they can to EVENTUALLY take our guns away from us.  But in the meantime they will do all they can to make gun ownership and possession by law-abiding citizens as expensive and inconvenient as possible.  One of the proposals being floated by anti-gun advocates is to make all ammunition and powder for reloading such that the powder will break down and become useless after a certain period, one to two years.  There are several other such proposals outlined below.

Do you oppose ownership of guns by private citizens?  If you do, what do you think stands between you and criminals or an oppressive government?  The government and legal system have paralyzed the police to the point that they CAN’T protect us.  When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.  As for governments, remember that throughout history those who have pounded their guns and swords into plowshares have plowed for those who did not.

If you don’t fight for your constitutional rights and freedoms, who will?

---

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=34932

Ammunition Control by the Obama Administration

by A.W.R. Hawkins
Posted 12/22/2009 ET

Without bullets, a gun is no more useful as a weapon than a rock or a hammer. Although an unloaded gun could be thrown at an intruder or a tyrant, the lack of ammunition ultimately reduces it to the status of a glorified paperweight.

And this is not lost on the nearly 100 million gun owners in America, a number of which are asking if the current shortage of bullets is the result of backdoor efforts at gun control (via ammunition control) by the Obama Administration?

The quick answer to that question is — not exactly.

In other words, the reasons behind the current shortage, as the well as the price increases on what little ammunition is available, are both governmental and nongovernmental in nature.

As for the government’s role, a prime example arose in March 2009 when the Department of Defense (DOD) suddenly changed its policy about selling old brass from spent military rounds to Georgia Arms, an ammunition manufacturer located in Winston, Georgia.

According to Curtis Shipley, President of Georgia Arms, on March 12, 2009, the DOD, which had been a longstanding source of cheap brass for the ammo manufacturer, decided that brass could only be purchased from the military if it was “mutilated.” In other words, it would not longer be possible to buy empty brass casings that Georgia Arms could then clean, quickly reload, and sell to the public at a low price.

When I spoke to Shipley, who had been accustomed to buying spent brass in increments of fifteen tons from the DOD, he said, “This portended higher prices because it required us to either mutilate perfectly good brass when we picked it up from a military base or have a DOD employee travel with us (and the brass) to verify that we did indeed mutilate it at a another site.”

Once mutilated, Georgia Arms would have had to melt the brass down, re-alloy it (casings for each caliber require a specific alloy blend that can sustain the pressures for that caliber), and then re-shape it into the proper casing for whichever caliber they were manufacturing. Said Shipley: “Such a process would add approximately $90 to the cost of one thousand rounds of 9mm ammunition right off the bat.”

Fortunately, the public outcry against this DOD maneuver was so great that the order to mutilate all brass was rescinded after just five days. However, those five days were enough to contribute to another problem the government had been causing since November 2008 – namely, fear of an all out Obama-led assault on guns and ammo.
Speaking to this fear, Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, said: “You can go to gun stores all over the country and many of them will have a picture of President Obama hanging on the wall. However, when you get up close to the picture and look at the caption on the bottom, instead of saying ‘President’ it says ‘Gun Salesman of the Year.’”

Pratt said gun owners are rightly leery of this administration. Obama supports the new California law that will require every semi-automatic pistol sold in that state to come equipped with a special firing mechanism that makes a distinctive mark – a “fingerprint” – on every bullet casing it fires. And currently, some Democrats in the House of Representatives want to take that law a step further and enact legislation that would force ammunition companies to place serial numbers on every shell casing they manufacture.

Let me just say that if you think ammunition is scarce and expensive now, wait till manufacturers have to put a serial number on every casing and maintain records containing the names, addresses, etc., of everyone who purchases such casings.

No wonder Pratt said: “None of this is about safety. Rather, it’s about finding ways to create an ammo and gun registry that will allow the government to finally figure out which son got daddy’s gun when daddy passed away.”

And while the government is doing its part to make ammunition harder to find, either directly, via episodes like the one between Georgia Arms and the DOD, or indirectly, by scaring citizens to death through anti-gun posturing that has caused a run on ammo sales, the market plays a role as well. With demand outpacing supply the market sustains higher prices for ammo under Obama than it was able to sustain for that same ammo during the presidency of a pro-gun politician like George W. Bush.

Add to this the fact that we’re now sending the majority of the lead from our recycled car batteries to China, instead of selling that lead to ammunition manufacturers who can cheaply reclaim it to make affordable bullets for their casings, and it’s no wonder consumers are scrambling to find ammunition and then paying a fortune for it when they do.

Did I fail to mention that millions upon millions of rounds of ammunition are currently being diverted to our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere right now as well? While this is understandable, it further highlights the fact that we gun owners are in a tight spot, as far as getting ammunition for our guns is concerned.

With all these variables affecting the availability of ammunition, this would be a great time to join a group like Gun Owners of America. By so doing we would assure the politicians in D.C. that if they use their offices to further deny us bullets for our guns, we will use the voting booth to deny them the very offices they now hold.

---

HUMAN EVENTS columnist A.W.R. Hawkins holds a Ph.D. in U.S. Military History from Texas Tech University. He will be a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal during the summer of 2010.

---

Obama ‘Sacrifices’ Hawaiian Jobs for His Vacation

Mr. and Mrs. Obama, the undocumented occupants of the White House, have said that we all have to sacrifice.

Demonstrating their commitment to shared sacrifice, the Obama’s scaled back their Christmas, I mean HOLIDAY, vacation in Hawaii to ONLY TWO WEEKS! He has earned it, after all.  After a year where his only accomplishment was calmly watching legislators from his democrat party drain the treasury, anybody can see why Mr. Obama would be exhausted and in need of a vacation. The Obama’s even went on Priceline to bargain shop for accommodations.  Would you believe ONLY $4,000 per night for their modest 7,000 square foot mansion?  And in a further demonstration of sacrifice, the Obama’s elected not to spend excessive amounts of taxpayer money by renting all of Hawaii for their two week stay.  They cut back to just renting the two houses next door for all the friends and “associates” they flew in for the holidays.

Can you believe that?!?!  What amazing solidarity with the average American!  What compassion for those out of work, and for those working their a$$es off to pay for Obama’s vacation!  Our Dear Leader never ceases to amaze me.

And what’s even better, the Obamassiah is helping others to sacrifice as well.  By staying in Hawaii for two weeks, Obama is giving many workers on the island two weeks off from their dreadful jobs while sacrificing their paychecks.  As a side benefit, the revenue that these people will not be forced to generate won’t be available to the companies for which they work, possibly causing them to close down.  This will ensure that the spirit of sacrifice lives on for weeks, months, and perhaps years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Obama!  We couldn’t have sacrificed so much without you!

---

http://www.kitv.com/print/22031180/detail.html

Some Businesses Say They Will Be Grounded By Restrictions

POSTED: 4:58 pm HST December 21, 2009
UPDATED: 12:05 pm HST December 22, 2009
HONOLULU — President Barack Obama is expected to be in the islands for the holidays. The nearly two-week-long vacation may prove costly to some island businesses.

For many local flight schools and air tour operators it has been a difficult economic year. Now, their companies will encounter even more financial turbulence with the president’s visit.

Mark Jones prepares planes to take off at George’s Aviation. The business heavily relies on flight training for a big part of its income. Those training flights will be largely grounded as part of the safety measures in place during Obama’s stay in Windward Oahu as temporary flight restrictions, or TFRs, will be in place.

“Within a 10-mile radius around Kaneohe Bay, only airlines, air am will be able to fly. That excludes the area around Honolulu Airport. There is another restricted area between 10 to 30 miles from Kaneohe Bay,” Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Ian Gregor said.

“Flight training is not approved of 30 miles of the president. So, effectively that will shut down the flight schools from training,” Jones said.

Some helicopter tours and charter flights may be allowed to fly. However, Pat Magie’s seaplane tours will be sunk by the restrictions.

“We can’t fly tourists. We can’t train. We’ve got an enforced two-week vacation without pay,” Magie said.

Why will some flights go up and other not? It comes down to security. The same security you face when you go to the airport.

Tour companies have been told they may be allowed to fly if Transportation Security Administration inspectors check out passengers and aircraft at a central airport location.

“We can’t do that. We’re on floats. We can’t land at the airport. So, they said, ‘You can’t fly then,’” Magie said.

For many air tour companies, things were just starting to take off after a rough fiscal year. Now, some, like Magie, will face more financial uncertainty after a very costly Christmas.

“We’ll probably lose $20,000 to $30,000 out of this,” he said.

Air tour companies have already had one meeting with federal agencies over the restricted air space. Some still hope to come up with a solution that will keep them flying and the president safe over the holidays.

---

In Other Words…

Ann Coulter does a good job in this article of debunking a false attack by the left on Senator Coburn of Oklahoma, and of reiterating why the left is lying about their health care “reform” plan.

They are lying, and it’s not hard to uncover.

The liberals said the goal was to insure EVERYBODY.  By their own admissions 20 million people will still be uninsured by 2019.

The liberals said access to health care would increase.  By cutting compensation to doctors, the doctors will either quit taking new patients on the plans that don’t sufficiently compensate them, or leave medical practice altogether if forced to operate at a loss.  Since we already have a shortage of doctors, and the democrats intend to add between 30 and 50 million new people to the insurance rolls, how is access to doctors and health care going to INCREASE?

The liberals said health care would be cheaper.  Here’s what came out of their own bill.  An UNMARRIED couple each making $30,000 per year would pay approximately $1,500 to $3,000 more for health care under the new plan.  A MARRIED couple would pay approximately $12,000 more for health care under the democrat plan.  Double whammy.  Everybody pays more, and you further promote the destruction of the American family by HEAVILY penalizing MARRIED couples.  There are myriad other taxes and fees associated with this bill that impact EVERYBODY, not just the top 5% of wage earners in the country as Mr. Obama promised.

The bill they are trying to pass is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment.  The government does NOT have the authority to force anyone to buy their insurance.  Hate to break it to you liberals (i.e. Diane Feinstein) who think they do, but the commerce clause and general welfare clause don’t give them that authority.

Assuming that the senate and congress are able to reconcile their versions of the bill and get it to Chairman Maobama’s desk for signature, there will be immediate constitutional challenges.

Can you afford $1,500 to $12,000 more in medical insurance costs?  Can you afford it when Obama’s economic development plan costs you your job, or at least results in a pay cut?  Will you choose to pay your mortgage, or pay the mandatory health care insurance premium levied unconstitutionally by the government?  What about your car payment?  Are you willing to risk jail time for not paying the mandatory insurance bill?  These and many other choices are ones you are about to be forced to make.

---

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=34993

by Ann Coulter
Posted 12/23/2009 ET
Updated 12/23/2009 ET

Irritated at the bumps on the road to the Democrats’ Thousand-Year Reich, liberals are now claiming that Republican Sen. Tom Coburn requested a prayer for the death of Sen. Bob Byrd during the health care debate last Saturday night.

Here is what Coburn actually said: “What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can’t make the vote tonight. That’s what they ought to pray.”

After reporting Coburn’s remark, The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank added: “It was difficult to escape the conclusion that Coburn was referring to the 92-year-old, wheelchair-bound Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.).”

Contrary to Milbank’s claim, I find it extremely easy to get away from that conclusion. In fact, I’m a regular Houdini when it comes to that conclusion. That conclusion couldn’t hold me for a second.

There are a million ways a senator could miss a vote, other than by dying. Ask Patrick Kennedy. At 1 a.m. on a Sunday night in the middle of a historic blizzard in the nation’s capital, I don’t think the first thing that came to anyone’s mind was death. More likely it was: “Last call.”

Milbank was employing the MSNBC motto, “In Other Words,” which provides the formula for 90 percent of the political commentary on that network. The MSNBC host quotes a Republican, then says “in other words,” translates the statement into something that would be stupid to say, and spends the next 10 minutes ridiculing the translated version. Which no one said. Except the host.

Also, by the way, Sen. Coburn did not “go to the Senate floor to propose a prayer,” as Milbank reported. He was giving a floor speech in which he used the turn of phrase, “What the American people ought to pray is …”

Inasmuch as liberals want to talk about anything but their plan to take over one-sixth of the American economy, let’s talk about health care!

Democrats tout Medicare as their model for a government-run health care system, bragging about what an extremely popular government program it is.

Medicare is tens of trillions of dollars in the red. It is expected to go bankrupt by 2017. In order to pay for Medicare alone, the government will either have to cut every other federal program in existence, or raise federal income taxes to rates as high as 77 percent.

Medicare is like a $500 hamburger: I assume it’s good — it had better be — but no one would say, “THAT’S A FANTASTIC SUCCESS!”

Until 10 minutes ago, the liberal argument for national health care was that it wasn’t fair that some people — “the rich” — have access to better health care than others.

In liberals’ ideal world, everyone lives in abject poverty and stands in long lines, but we all live in the same abject poverty and stand in the same long lines — just like in their beloved Soviet Union of recent memory! (Except the commissars, who get excellent health care, food, housing, maid service and no lines.)

Instead of being honest and telling us that their plan is to make health care worse and more expensive — but fairer! — liberals have recently begun claiming that providing universal health care will actually save money. Overnight, they went from wailing about basic human needs being “more important than bombs” to claiming: “Our plan will be cheaper!”

Hmmm, I didn’t make any notes to debate the manifestly insane points. But I’m pretty sure that extending full medical benefits to 30 million people who don’t currently have them — 47 million once the federal health commission rules that illegal aliens are covered — will not be less expensive than the current system.

You can say — mistakenly — that the liberals’ plan is more compassionate. You can say — also incorrectly — that it will be fairer. On no set of facts can you say it will be cheaper.

Democrats keep citing the Congressional Budget Office’s “scoring” of their bills as if that means something.

The CBO is required to score a bill based on the assumptions provided by the bill’s authors. It’s worth about as much as a report card filled out by the student himself.

Democrats could write a bill saying: “Assume we invent a magic pill that will make cars get 1,000 miles per gallon. Now, CBO, would that save money?”

The CBO would have to conclude: Yes, that bill will save money.

Among the tricks the Democrats put into their health care bills for the CBO is that the government will collect taxes for 10 years, but only pay out benefits for the last six years. Will that save money? Yes, the CBO says, this bill is “deficit neutral”!

But what about the next 10 years and the next 10 years and the next 10 years after that? Will the health care plan continually pay benefits only in the last six years of every 10-year period? I think their plan assumes we’ll all be dead from global warming in a decade.

Also, I note that the Democrats claim it’s urgent that we pass ObamaCare by Christmas, but the bill doesn’t get around to paying out any benefits until 2014. Poor uninsured chumps.

In other words … Democrats are praying for the death of Bob Byrd!

---

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Slander,” “”How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” “Godless,” “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans” and most recently, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and their Assault on America.

---

Couple Sneaks Into White House Without Credentials

Can you believe the enormous security breach of letting someone into the White House without a background check or any legitimate credentials?

How could such a thing happen?

In case you didn’t see the picture of the undocumented intruders, here it is.

---

Undocumented, and couldn't pass a legitimate security or background check for any federal job.

---

Merry Christmas!

I apologize for the belated wishes, but the great mid-west blizzard of 2009 got in the way.

I am thankful for the birth of Christ, for family and friends, and good health during this Christmas and holiday season.

Here’s wishing you and yours a (belated) Merry Christmas, and a happy New Year!

Historical Perspective: If You Preach It, They Will Fall

America has been slowly detouring from the road of freedom, liberty, and prosperity ever since its founding.  Those who despise the foundation upon which America was founded have been chipping away at that foundation one hammer blow and court decision at a time.

One shining example of erosion of the American way is the 1954 amendment of the Internal Revenue Code §501(c)(3), offered by our good buddy Lyndon Johnson, which restricted the speech of non-profit tax exempt entities, including churches.

After the amendment, churches faced a choice of speaking freely on any and all issues addressed by Scripture and potentially risking their tax exemption, or remaining silent and protecting their tax exemption. Unfortunately, many churches have allowed the 1954 Johnson amendment to effectively silence their speech, even from the pulpit. (http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/Pulpit_Initiative_executive_summary_candidates_2009.pdf)

In other words, it forced churches to choose between money and the Gospel.  Keep the doors open by watering down the Gospel and not choosing sides politically, or have someone who doesn’t like being talked about sic the IRS on you and tax you out of business.  This was all done because there were several ministers who were openly speaking out against LBJ, and he simply didn’t like it.  So he pushes this amendment that was a stepping stone to where we find ourselves today.

Now flash back to Cold War Hungary, and flash forward to the Fractured Socialist States of Obamastan.  The story below illustrates what can happen when the Gospel (good news, truth) is spoken boldly.  Truth is light, and the Gospel is truth.  That is why totalitarian regimes and despot leaders try so desperately to cover it up.

Will pastors and ministers have the courage to stand up and speak the truth?  Some will as evidenced by the Pulpit Freedom Sunday that took place in September.  But will it be enough?

Each and every one of us MUST speak the truth boldly and without reservation.  I’m not just talking about preaching the Gospel, but speaking out against wrongs and injustice.  If you don’t, you can’t complain about what the tyrants do to you.  If we are all shining the light of truth on the dark places of tyranny, there is no darkness left for it to hide.

---

http://www.americanvision.org/print/printpage.php

If You Preach It, They Will Fall

by Bojidar Marinov, Dec 16, 2009

Exactly 20 years ago, on December 15, 1989, a small crowd of parishioners of the Hungarian Reformed Church in TimiÅŸoara gathered in front of the church flat where their pastor lived. The occasion was the eviction orders to their pastor set for that day by a Romanian civil court. The group formed a human chain around the flat. When the police arrived to remove the pastor from the flat, the crowd had grown to several hundred strong; they were singing hymns in the brutally cold weather and from their words the police guards understood that the people were determined to stay and prevent the eviction of their pastor. The police guards returned with agents of the dreaded Communist secret police Securitate, but to no avail, the crowd refused to let them pass. For the first time in the history of Communist Romania someone was refusing to obey Securitate.

On the next day the mayor of TimiÅŸoara—the second largest city in Romania—arrived and tried to persuade the crowd to disperse. He arrived with the pastor’s family doctor to persuade the pregnant wife of the pastor to come with them to the hospital. She refused. By that time the crowd had grown beyond the numbers of the congregation, with young ethnic Romanians joining the Hungarian Reformed believers in the vigil and the human chain in the cold December day. The mayor then left, threatening to return with police watercannons.

On December 17, instead of police watercannons, Army troops took positions against the now significant demonstrations that had grown from the humble crowd of Reformed parishioners. They fired into the crowd. This did not stop the demonstrators. On December 18 tens of thousands of industrial workers in TimiÅŸoara left their jobs to join the demonstrations. By December 20 the city was out of the control of the Communist government. The insurrection spread to other cities in Romania, and on December 22 the most brutal and maniacal Communist dictatorship in Eastern Europe—that of Nicolae Ceausescu—fell.

The fall of the bloodiest and most inhumane Communist dictatorship in Eastern Europe started there, in the small humble church of the 37-year old Pastor László Tökés. Dr. Joseph Pungur of the University of Alberta in Canada writes about him:

And in the midst of all this arose that one person, Reverend László Tökés, a minister of the Hungarian Reformed Church in Romania in charge of the church of Timisoara (Temesvár) who, with his heroic resistance to the dictatorial Church and State authorities, single-handedly triggered a popular revolution in Romania. Within days it toppled the Ceausescu regime.

Who was László Tökés? What made him so terrifying to the regime to deserve such attention? Why did the Communist government have to send agents of the Secret Police, and later the army, to make sure he is evicted? What made those thousands of people keep vigil in the cold December nights around his house to protect a humble, unimportant religious minister? Why was it that even unbelievers were willing to lay down their lives but not let the government troops pass to his house?

Was he a military organizer of the resistance? Did he lead an opposition party? May be he was a skillful politician, experienced in the art of bureaucratic machinations? Did he make explosives, blow bridges, start insurrections in the army?

No. He was only a preacher. No, he wasn’t only a preacher. He was a preacher with a heart for God, a preacher who believed that the pulpit was entrusted to him to preach against principalities and powers, no matter what the consequences were. He preached against the Communist regime, he preached against the oppressive policies, against the nationalist crackdowns of the regime on the Hungarian minority, and against the lack of freedom, religious and political, in his country. László Tökés wasn’t there just to preach “believe and get saved.” He was on the pulpit to speak for King Jesus in every area of life, and especially in those areas where the government was oppressive against those politically weak and poor. László Tökés was there to tell Caesar that “there is another King, one Jesus.”

And that was enough to make him so dangerous to the regime. Government institutions on all levels—police, courts, the secret police—were employed to make him stop preaching. Members of his congregation—fully supportive of their pastor—were “suicided” by the Securitate agents. His pay was stopped and his ration-card was taken away, making it impossible for him to buy even food (and his wife was pregnant at the time). One night a group of thugs hired by Securitate broke into his apartment and Tökés and members of the congregation had to fight them off with kitchen knives.

The Bishop of Transylvania, László Papp, a puppet of the Communists and a collaborationist with the government, ordered Tökés to stop preaching and officially closed his church. Interestingly enough, he appealed to the “separation of church and state,” and claimed that Tökés violated the laws of both the church and the state. The congregation stood firm, and the young pastor kept preaching. A few weeks before the events described above he wrote an open letter explaining the situation he was in:

I speak out for I cannot do otherwise, or else the stones themselves will speak, the stones of our demolished towns and monuments…. I am not a courageous man but I have overcome my fear. I am waiting for a trial at a Romanian civil court, indicted by my own bishop in order to evict me from the manse of the church at Temesvar, and to banish me in medieval style not only from this “closed” town but also from the priesthood. . . The fight is no less bitter than it was in the past, though this time the weapons are different. And the price of the siege is the same; when the castle falls, a piece of our country goes with it . . . The self-defence of the Reformed Church in Temesvár symbolizes a “pars pro toto,” it displays the “particular” as a representative of the “universal.” We are called in question, one by one, as Calvinists and as Hungarians living here. To the challenge the congregation tries to answer like David . . . it takes its stand only on a tiny foothold of the Spirit, from of the Word of God: “Fight for your brethren, your sons, your wives and your homes” (Nehemiah 4:14). “A mighty fortress is our God” sings the church congregation on Sundays, identifying themselves with its strength; they rely on that strength throughout the week.

László Papp, the Bishop of Nagyvárad, has been besieging the Church in Temesvár since April. He has banned services in the church and the works of renovation. . .He has limited the activity of the minister and the session; he has frozen a great deal of the congregational finances . . . This was the introductory phase of the siege . . . the phase of “starve them into surrender” . . . the mocking of Goliath.

But God’s plans trumped the mocking of Goliath, and the giant fell within a week after the start of the final showdown. And it all started with the humble sermons of a humble pastor in a small parish church.

If you are a Christian, and if you care about teaching your children in the way of our Lord, you should have a gallery of Christian heroes for them to imitate and be inspired by. Add a name there: László Tökés. He is part of your Christian history.

* * * * *

About a year ago I visited a worldview conference organized in our town by Brannon Howse. Mr. Howse was outstanding. He didn’t pull any punches. Nothing in this country was outside of God’s Sovereignty, everything was a legitimate sphere for action for us Christians. Government? Yes, government too.

On the way back a local pastor was with me in my car. I was excited about the conference, and I naturally was optimistic about what we as Christians could do to restore America to its Biblical roots.

In the middle of the conversation the pastor just said, “You know, this is all good, but I don’t think we can accomplish too much in these last days. We may be able to save a few souls, but we can’t stop the drift to darkness in this country. We should expect the times to be worse and worse for us Christians.”

I thought of László Tökés. He was against the worst political and government machine we can imagine. He couldn’t buy food, he was about to be evicted from his house. There was no institution to come to his defense, and there was no hope, humanly speaking. He was in a situation that no American pastor in the 20^th century has been or had to be. And yet he compared himself to David against Goliath, firmly convinced of his victory, against all human odds.

He just preached against the government, against the principalities and powers, against the forces of darkness in the high places of the land. And they fell. Our pastors should learn from his example.

+

---

Tetelestai: The Democrat Betrayal of America is (almost) Complete

Tetelestai. The democrat liberals have 60 votes to betray America.

“Tetelestai” doesn’t translate simply, we have to make a phrase out of it – “It is finished.” But still some of its power is lost in the translation. In the Greek it implies that something has come to an end, it has been completed, perfected, accomplished in the full and that something has consequences that will endure on and on.

“Tetelestai.” The most powerful single word of all of Jesus ministry. It was also his last word. It was the word that turned this apparent tragedy into a scene of Victory that shook the earth, split rocks, changed history, raised saints from the dead and tore away the temple curtain that kept people out of the Holy of Holies.

“Tetelestai” the most powerful word in history. Even more powerful than the words of creation in Genesis chapter 1 where God spoke and the universe came into existence. This word could not simply be spoken. The son of God had to die to speak it.

In this case, what has come to an end is the naivety and innocence of America.  Some may not get it now or ever, just as most during the time when Jesus was among us and was eventually killed did not realize the significance of His sacrifice.  The imminent passage of the health care bill following the bribery and extortion of many democrat senators by Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and Harry Reid will indeed have “consequences that will endure” for generations, if not forever.

Tetelestai.

The death of Jesus appeared to be the end of the story, but actually turned out to be the opening act of His ultimate victory.  In the same way, this Judas kiss betrayal of America has the potential to be the opening act of America’s resurgence and return to preeminence.  As Americans soon realize the depths of the betrayal that has befallen them, the earth will shake, the rocks will split, and history will change.  While many of the “saints” who have perished for America may not be raised from the dead, they will indeed be honored and remembered.  However, the curtain that has been erected between the American people and our sacred constitution will indeed be ripped asunder.

The tremors of revolution are about to be felt across this nation.

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/19/AR2009121900797_pf.html

Sen. Ben Nelson announces support for health-care bill

By Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 19, 2009; 10:55 AM

Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the final Democratic holdout on health care, announced to his caucus Saturday morning that he would support the Senate reform bill, clearing the way for final passage by Christmas.

“We’re there,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), as he headed into a special meeting to outline the deal.

Democratic leaders spent days trying to hammer out a deal with Nelson, and worked late Friday night with him on abortion coverage language that had proved the major stumbling block. Nelson also secured other favors for his home state.

Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in insurance exchanges the bill would set up to serve individuals who don’t have employer coverage. Plus, enrollees in plans that do cover abortion procedures would pay for the coverage with separate checks – one for abortion, one for rest of health-care services.

Nelson secured full federal funding for his state to expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Other states must pay a small portion of the additional cost. He won concessions for qualifying nonprofit insurers and for Medigap providers from a new insurance tax. He also was able to roll back cuts to health savings accounts.

“I know this is hard for some of my colleagues to accept and I appreciate their right to disagree,” Nelson told reporters at the Capitol, of the many changes made at his behest. “But I would not have voted for this bill without these provisions.”

With Nelson on board, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid unveiled the final version of a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health insurance system that would expand coverage to an additional 31 million Americans, coming closer to attaining the Democrats’ long sought goal of universal medical coverage.

The package closely tracks the $848 billion measure Reid (D-Nev.) drafted this month, before he entered into negotiations aimed at winning the 60 votes he needs to avert a GOP filibuster, aides said. Since then, Reid has made numerous concessions to moderate Democrats, scrapping an effort to create a government-run insurance plan and beefing up prohibitions on spending federal funds for abortion coverage, a change demanded by the final holdout, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Instead of a public option, the final product would allow private firms for the first time to offer national insurance policies to all Americans, outside the jurisdiction of state regulations. Those plans would be negotiated through the Office of Personnel Management, the same agency that handles health coverage for federal workers and members of Congress.

Starting immediately, insurers would be prohibited from denying children coverage for pre-existing conditions. A complete ban on the practice would take effect in 2014, when the legislation seeks to create a network of state-based insurance exchanges, or marketplaces, where people who lack access to affordable coverage through an insurer can purchase policies.

Insurers competing in the exchanges would be required to justify rate increases, and those who jacked up prices unduly could be barred from the exchange. Reid’s package also would give patients the right to appeal to an independent board if an insurer denies a medical claim. And all insurance companies would be required to spend at least 80 cents of every dollary they collect in premiums on delivering care to their customers.

Every American would be required to obtain coverage under the proposal, and employers would be required to pay a fine if they failed to offer affordable coverage and their workers sought federal subsidies to purchase insurance in the exchanges. Reid’s package would offer additional assistance to the smallest businesses, however, increasing tax credits to purchase coverage by $12 billion over previous versions.

The overall cost of the package was not immediately available, but aides said it would be more than covered by cutting future Medicare spending and raising taxes in the health sector, including a 40 percent excise on the most expensive insurance policies. The package would reduce budget deficits by $130 billion by 2019, aides said, and by as much as $650 billion in the decade thereafter.

Reid officially filed the package early Saturday with plans to hold a first critical vote after midnight Sunday. Barring unexpected delays, Democrats were still hoping to push the package to final passage by Christmas Eve.

---

Allen West: A Patriot Who Deserves Our Support

This is not some lilly-liver, business as usual, tax-and-spend, bad-mouth America politician.  Allen West is a patriot who has proven himself on the field of battle.  He has proven that he values his country and the lives of his men above the enemies of America.  He is a patriot.  He reveres our constitution, and takes seriously the oath he took to defend it unlike the spineless power-grabbers in Washington who seem to be doing all they can to destroy the constitution.

When his men were in danger, he did what it took to get the information necessary to protect them.  He scared a terrorist, but never harmed him, and successfully stopped the attacks on his men.  He did this knowing full well that he was jeopardizing his career.  Yet he did what was RIGHT.

Listen to the words of a patriot in the video below.  If these words do not ring true with you, you may need to find another country to call home.

---

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119346

ELECTION 2010

Viral video: ‘Fight with me to take back America’

Passionate retired Army officer Allen West echoes founders in bid for Congress

Posted: December 18, 2009
12:15 am Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Allen West hasn’t changed his core message since falling short in a run for Congress last year, but with the political winds now at his back, the retired Army officer’s passionately delivered emphasis on constitutional principles of liberty, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense and free-market solutions is attracting an audience well beyond Florida’s 22nd district.

A video of his rally cry to the party base in preparation for a 2010 run has drawn more than 1.2 million views on YouTube.com.

See Allen West’s speech:

done

West was introduced to the nation in 2003 when he faced criminal charges for using shock interrogation tactics to protect his soldiers in Iraq.

Taped at the Revolution Nightclub in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., in October, the video captures West giving supporters a taste of what it must have been like to prepare for combat in Iraq with the lieutenant colonel.

“It’s OK to come out here and cheerlead,” he told the enthusiastic crowd. “But you’ve gotta get your butts out there and understand there’s a fight – and you’d better be willing to fight for this country.”

Recalling the oath he took as an Army officer to support and defend the Constitution, West said “there’s no statute of limitations on that oath, and, tonight, everyone of you needs to take that oath.”

Calling 2010 a defining moment for the nation, he cited Thomas Paine’s famous “times that try men’s souls.”

“If you’re here to shrink away from the duties, there’s a door. Get out,” West said. “But if you’re here to stand up – to get your musket, to fix your bayonet, to charge into the ranks – you’re my brother and sister in this fight.”

Allen West

West said Americans need to gather together and “start talking about restoring our liberty and fighting back against a tyrannical government.”

Recounting his own story of being raised in inner-city Atlanta by lower-middle class parents, he stressed America offers equal opportunity, not equal achievement.

He pointed out he received an education and earned a commission in the Army, where he served 22 years, “not because the government came down and tried to make the rules and change it for me.”

“We cannot live in a country where the government sits around and tries to design results and outcomes,” he said in the taped speech. “Every time they try to do that – Everyone has a right to own a home – how does that end up? Everyone has a right to health care – how does that end up?

“The Constitution says promote the general welfare, not provide welfare,” he said. “It is about setting conditions for our success.”

West said big government has produced an entitlement class, exemplified in a widely viewed video clip during the 2008 presidential campaign in which an Obama supporter exulted that if the Democrat won the White House, he would put gas in her car and pay her mortgage.

“If we are not willing to take a stand right now and take this country back and put it back on the right track with the principles and values it was established on, you’re complicit,” West said. “It’s your fault.

“It’s your fault,” he continued, pointing to different sections of the auditorium. “It’s your fault up there.”

West, who captured 45 percent of the vote in his Florida swing district in 2008 against incumbent Democratic Rep. Ron Klein, says his positions on the economy and national security are resonating in South Florida. And while he received no support from his party last year, the National Republican Congressional Committee has identified him as one of its most potent recruits.

Allen West leading a briefing in Afghanistan in 2007

As WND reported in 2003, West was threatened with court martial for tactics he used to flush out information from an uncooperative Iraqi policeman. Threatening to kill the Iraqi if he didn’t talk, West fired a pistol near the policeman’s head, producing an immediate flood of information that purportedly led to the arrest of two insurgents and cessation of attacks on West’s 4th Infantry Division battalion.

In an interview during last year’s campaign, West told WND his controversial ordeal in 2003 – during which he drew support from congressmen and many Americans who regarded him as a hero – should tell voters what kind of a lawmaker he would be, particularly when it comes to issues of defense.

“If you’re a bad guy, and you try to get between me and the safety and lives of American citizens, you’re going to lose,” West said.

Army prosecutors charged West with aggravated assault, and he faced the possibility of up to eight years in prison. At a hearing, West was asked by his defense attorney if he would do it again.

“If it’s about the lives of my men and their safety, I’d go through hell with a gasoline can,” he said.

West eventually accepted a non-judicial punishment, the forfeiture of two months’ pay, about $5,000. He retired from the military and moved with his wife, Angela, and two young daughters to Broward County, Florida, where he taught high school. He served in Afghanistan as an adviser to the Afghan army until November 2007.

---

Barry Obama Gets Lesson on Efficient Government

And I thought they were going to conclude that the Queen of England was Obama’s mom…

---

Barack Obama meets with the Queen of England. He asks her, “Your Majesty, how do you run such an efficient government? Are there any tips you can give to me?”
“Well,” says the Queen, “the most important thing is to surround yourself with intelligent people.”

Obama frowns “But how do I know the people around me are really intelligent?”
The Queen takes a sip of tea. “Oh, that’s easy. You just ask them to answer an intelligent riddle.”

The Queen pushes a button on her intercom. “Please send Tony Blair in here, would you?”

Tony Blair walks into the room. “Yes, my Queen?”
The Queen smiles. “Answer me this, please, Tony. Your mother and father have a child. It is not your brother and it is not your sister. Who is it?”

Without pausing for a moment, Tony Blair answers, “That would be me.”
“Yes! Very good,” says the Queen.

Obama goes back home to ask Joe Biden, his vice president, the same question.

“Joe. Answer this for me. Your mother and your father have a child. It’s not your brother and it’s not your sister. Who is it?”

“I’m not sure,” says Biden. “Let me get back to you on that one.” He goes to his advisors and asks every one, but none can give him an answer.
Finally, he ends up in the men’s room and recognizes Colin Powell’s shoes in the next stall.

Biden asks Powell, “Colin! Can you answer this for me? Your mother and father have a child and it’s not your brother or your sister. Who is it?”

Colin Powell yells back, “That’s easy. It’s me!”

Biden smiles, and says, “Thanks!” Then, he goes back to speak with Obama.

“Say, I did some research and I have the answer to that riddle. It’s Colin Powell.”

Obama a gets up, stomps over to Biden, and angrily yells into his face,

“No, you idiot! It’s Tony Blair!”

---

Latest Victim of Presidential Extortion: Sen. Ben Nelson

How many people have Obama and his thug chief of staff Rahm Emanuel bribed and threatened already?  The list is very long now, and it is growing at a faster rate than we can research and document.  The denials on the part GambinObama and his wiseguys ring hollow now because they have no credibility.

They bribed Mary Landrieu with $300 million dollars.  They threatened and harassed Joe Lieberman by going after his wife.  Why is it so hard to believe that they would threaten Ben Nelson with closing Offutt AFB?  Not hard to believe at all.

Sen. Nelson needs to say “OK. You play that game and watch me expose you for what you’re doing.”  Doubt that will happen.

---

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=119239

Thursday, December 17, 2009
DOCTOR’S ORDERS
WorldNetDaily

20 senators demand probe of health-care vote ‘threat’

Did White House say it would close Air Force base if Nelson didn’t play?

Posted: December 16, 2009
8:16 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs

Twenty senators are demanding an investigation into reports the Obama administration threatened to close Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska if that state’s Democratic senator, Ben Nelson, didn’t join other Democrats in voting for health-care reform.

The group of 20, all Republicans, today called for a hearing in a letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and the committee’s top Republican Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

The text of the letter states:

It has been reported that the Obama Administration threatened the closure of a U.S. military installation for political purposes, thereby bringing into question the integrity of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. The BRAC process was established to remove political influence so that the decision to close or not to close a military installation could be based upon military utility. Specifically, various media reports have stated that the Obama Administration would put Offutt AFB in southeastern Nebraska on a future BRAC list because of a vote on healthcare reform. While we recognize the importance of Offutt AFB as the headquarters of U.S. Strategic Command and the approximately 10,000 individuals that work there, we feel that this installation should remain open or be closed on its own merits.

Therefore, we respectfully ask that a hearing be held as to whether the BRAC process has been compromised. We do not want to see the name of a base from our state on a BRAC list and think it has been put there to settle partisan scores. We also do not want our bases to be more vulnerable to closure because political arm-twisting has taken another installation off the table. National security not partisanship should determine how BRAC decisions are made.

Weekly Standard columnist Michael Goldfarb was among those raising the issue in a post in which he said: “According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska’s Offutt Air Force Base on the BRAC list if Nelson doesn’t fall into line” on health-care reform.

For just $29.95, you can send every member of Congress a “pink slip” with the warning: Don’t mess with my health care, our you’re outta there!

Both the White House and Nelson are denying any such threat ever existed.

“This rumor is absolutely false, as the people spreading it well know,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director. “This is nothing but a cynical, crass political game that is designed to maintain the status quo. Let’s be clear: the people spreading these falsehoods think nothing is wrong with a system under which families and businesses continue to bear the brunt of skyrocketing costs, insurance companies are allowed to discriminate and drop at will, and thousands of Americans lose their coverage every single day.”

Despite the denials, some WND readers have expressed outrage if a threat were indeed made.

“It is time for some spines on the Hill to impeach Obama and charge him with treason,” said reader Tom Bender.

“This is simply amazing that we the people are permitting this type of politics in our country,” noted another, Mike Kovach. “Not that this hasn’t been done before, but this administration is on a course to destroy our nation. I am beginning to wonder why there has not been calls of subversion, treason and sedition against this administration. I’m am a Democrat and I would like to see all of those in cohorts with this administration put in jail and charged accordingly.”

The Republicans signing the letter were Sens. John Ensign of Nevada, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, John Thune of South Dakota, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Kit Bond of Missouri, Michael Enzi of Wyoming, George LeMieux of Florida, Pat Roberts of Kansas, David Vitter of Louisiana, Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker of Mississipi, John Cornyn of Texas, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Bob Bennett of Utah, Johnny Isakson of Georgia and Chuck Grassley of Iowa.

---