Search This Blog

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Obama Seeks to Silence Free Speech Through Blasphemy Laws

Obama Seeks to Silence Free Speech Through Blasphemy Laws
Written by James Heiser
Friday, 23 October 2009

There was outrage — in some circles, anyway — when the news broke several weeks ago that the Obama administration had essentially aligned our nation with the Egyptian government’s efforts to stifle free speech. There has been an effort on the part of Muslim regimes to make it illegal to speak out against Islam; after all, why meaningfully address issues such as (a) the gross injustices of coerced conversions to Islam, (b) the brutal mistreatment of women around the world, and (c) the truth that Jihadist butchery has been a fundamental element of Islam since the time of Mohammed — to cite just a few examples — if one may simply legally coerce all opposition into silence? After all, the curtailing of free speech may not be quite as effective as imposing sharia law on the Western world, but it would keep the imams happy for a while.

Jonathan Turley, a professor of Law at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. wrote in the USA Today:

Around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.

While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the “Muslim street” and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion.

Presumably the whole issue of anti-Islamic ‘blasphemy’ laws is a little confusing for the American left. Still, those who have built a career touting “free speech” in defense of anti-Christian obscenity and pornography have often simultaneously supported ‘politically-correct’ speech, which aims at reshaping the categories of thought by making certain forms of expression socially unacceptable, or even illegal. This is what an entire movement has come to: those who once took up the slogan “speaking truth to power” end up supporting a President whose policies support the anti-free speech agenda of vicious tyrants who silence their opponents with a gun shot, branding them “apostates.”

The absurdity of the position taken by the Obama administration is that while it is attempting to present the issue as if it were simply an international extension of American notions regarding the fight against racism, the truth is that any sort of ‘international blasphemy law’ acceptable to the world’s Islamic regimes would in fact prove impossible to ratify in the United States in the form of a treaty because it would de facto criminalize any expression of orthodox Christianity.

How could this be? To cite one example: Although Islam purportedly honors Jesus as a ‘prophet,’ a central tenet of the Christian faith — that Jesus is both divine and human, the incarnate Son of God — is universally rejected as blasphemy by Islam. Any of the historic creeds of the Christian Church would by definition be rejected by Muslims as blasphemy.

Part of living in a free society is tolerating the right of citizens to believe what they will, according to the dictates of their own consciences. Individuals may even celebrate “Blasphemy Day”— even as those who disagree with them retain the right to denounce such a non-holiday.

The nightmare of the international blasphemy law which Obama and the Muslims are pushing is that it denies this fundamental right. As Turley observes,

Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.

Turley is right. Freedom of thought and freedom of expression are fundamental human rights — and a key element of this freedom is the ability to say that you believe that someone else’s position is wrong. The advocates of blasphemy laws wish to restrict this freedom to themselves alone: they would sit above all of us, dictating what may be said and thought on the most fundamental questions which confront us as human beings. No greater tyranny is imaginable than to seek to compel another man’s conscience through coercion of law.

Copyright 2009. The John Birch Society



Rt. Rev. James Heiser has served as Pastor of Salem Lutheran Church in Malone, Texas, while maintaining his responsibilities as publisher of Repristination Press, which he established in 1993 to publish academic and popular theological books to serve the Lutheran Church.  Heiser has also served since 2005 as the Dean of Missions for The Augustana Ministerium and in 2006 was called to serve as Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). An advocate of manned space exploration, Heiser serves on the Steering Committee of the Mars Society. His publications include two books; The Office of the Ministry in N. Hunnius' Epitome Credendorum (1996) and A Shining City on a Higher Hill: Christianity and the Next New World (2006), as well as dozens of journal articles and book reviews.


 Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit


Friday, October 30, 2009

You Might Be A Constitutionalist If . . .

You Might Be A Constitutionalist If . . .
By Chuck Baldwin
October 20, 2009

I originally published this column back in January of 2005. Since then (and especially lately), many people have called and written with requests to republish it. So, with a few minor revisions, here it is.

More than thirty years as a student of American history, constitutional government, and the Holy Bible leads me to the conviction that the two major political parties in this country (at the national level) are equally culpable in stripping America of its founding principles. In my opinion, both the Democrat and Republican parties in Washington, D.C., have zero fidelity to the U.S. Constitution and zero respect for America’s foundational precepts.

In my studied opinion, neither the Democrat nor Republican Party (at the national level) has any intention of slowing the out-of-control expansion of government. Neither party has demonstrated any loyalty to preserving and protecting our constitutional form of government.

Like National Socialists and Soviet Socialists of old, the only thing that concerns Democrats and Republicans today is who is in power. Both are equally willing to destroy the freedoms and liberties of people without conscience or regret as long as their party remains in control.

I am absolutely convinced that without a renewed allegiance to constitutional government and State sovereignty, there can be no resolution to America’s current slide into socialism and oppression. Therefore, it is critical that we cast aside our infatuation with partisan politics and steadfastly stand firm for the principles of federalism and freedom, as did America’s founders.

Might you be a modern-day Minuteman who understands the principles of freedom and federalism? I offer the following test. Read it and see if you, too, are a Constitutionalist. (Yes, Martha, this is another Jeff Foxworthy spin-off.)

1. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that every congressman, senator, President, and Supreme Court justice is required to obey the U.S. Constitution.

2. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that before the United States invades and occupies another country, Congress must first declare war.

3. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government should live within its means, like everyone else is forced to do.

4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking away people’s liberties in the name of security is not patriotic, nor does it make the country more secure.

5. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see politicians be forced to abide by the same laws they make everyone else submit to.

6. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that we have three “separate but equal” branches of government that are supposed to hold each other in check and balance.

7. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government has no authority to be involved in education or law enforcement, or in any other issue that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States, or to the People.

8. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that gun control laws do nothing but aid and abet criminals while trampling the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

9. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the income tax is both unconstitutional and immoral, and, along with the I.R.S. and the Federal Reserve, should be abolished.

10. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government had no authority to tell former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore that he could not display a monument containing the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery; or to tell a Pace, Florida, high school principal that he could not pray before a meal.

11. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that Congress or the White House or any sovereign State is not required to submit to unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings.

12. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that freedom has nothing in common with illegal immigration.

13. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that outsourcing American jobs overseas is not good for America.

14. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the United States should get out of the United Nations and get the United Nations out of the United States.

15. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that it is not unconstitutional for children in public schools to pray or read the Bible.

16. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the Boy Scouts are not a threat to America.

17. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government should honor its commitments to America’s veterans and stop using U.S. military personnel as guinea pigs for testing drugs and chemicals.

18. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops should never serve under foreign commanders or wear the uniform or insignia of the United Nations, and that they must never submit to illegal orders, such as turning their weapons against American citizens, or confiscating the guns of U.S. citizens.

19. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government has no business bribing churches and faith-based organizations with federal tax dollars.

20. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that federal agents who murder American citizens should be held to the same laws and punishments that any other citizen would be held to. (Can anyone say, “Waco” and “Ruby Ridge”?)

21. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and the FTAA (and similar agreements) are disastrous compromises of America’s national sovereignty and independence.

22. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see congressmen and senators be required to actually read a bill before passing it into law.

23. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that it is the job of government to protect and secure God-given rights, not use its power to take those rights away.

24. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that there is nothing unconstitutional about the public acknowledgement of God and our Christian heritage.

25. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that government bailouts and “stimulus” expenditures defy virtually every principle of free enterprise and are a flagrant leap into socialism.

26. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that airport screeners have no business touching women’s breasts, using sophisticated machinery to look through passengers’ clothing to see their naked bodies, confiscating fingernail clippers, or denying pilots from carrying handguns.

27. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that many public schools’ “zero-tolerance” policies are just plain stupid.

28. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that parents have a right to homeschool their children.

29. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that governmental seizure of private property is plain, old-fashioned thievery.

30. You might be a Constitutionalist if you are personally determined to not submit to any kind of forced vaccination.

31. You might be a Constitutionalist if you oppose any kind of national health insurance.

32. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops are not the world’s policemen, that they are not “nation-builders,” and that their purpose is only to defend American lives and property, not to be the enforcement arm of international commercial interests or global elitists.

33. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that the county Sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer of his district and that federal law enforcement (much of which is unconstitutionally organized, anyway) is obligated to submit to his authority.

34. You might be a Constitutionalist if you are determined to oppose America’s merger with any kind of regional, hemispheric, or international government, such as the North American Union.

35. You might be a Constitutionalist if you oppose sending billions of taxpayer dollars as foreign aid; the U.S. State Department meddling into the private affairs of foreign countries; and ubiquitous foreign entanglements that require vast sums of money, create animosity and hostility towards us, and expose us to foreign wars and conflicts in which we have no national interest.

36. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to meet one single congressman or senator besides Ron Paul who acts as if he or she has ever read the U.S. Constitution.

Well, how did you fare? Are you a Constitutionalist? If so, your country desperately needs you to stand up and fight for freedom’s principles before they are forever taken from us. This means never again voting for anyone—from any party—who will not preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. So, don’t just take the test; make the pledge!

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:


© Chuck Baldwin 



NOTE TO THE READER:
To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
Chuck Baldwin’s commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck’s web site address is included.
Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida. When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.
Please visit Chuck’s web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com


 Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit


Thursday, October 29, 2009

How Crazy Are Those Birthers?

How Crazy Are Those Birthers?
Written by JB Williams
Wednesday, 14 October 2009

In case you don’t know, after the terror attacks of 9/11/01, there were indeed a few Americans who honestly believed that the federal government was so corrupt that it was behind and responsible for the events of September 11. Even though we all watched in shock, as hijacked planes flew into the twin towers, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field, these folks imagined that someone in Washington DC might have blown up those buildings instead.

Not that our federal government isn’t capable of such things, mind you... but they are not likely to pull off such a thing without anyone spilling the beans sooner or later.

These believers were labeled “truthers” - and were often the same folks who claimed to have seen UFOs or even to have been abducted by aliens from outer space at some point in their lives.

Most Americans passed these folks off as crackpots - mentally unstable individuals in need of help, not a seat in congress.

So when very normal people starting asking who this grand nobody from Chicago was, who appeared out of thin air with a blank résumé and a billion dollar campaign fund from donors around the globe, they were labeled “birthers” for questioning the “Natural Born Citizen” status of a mystery messiah seeking the Oval Office.

Every mainstream media outlet in America has either ignored the question, or joined the chorus of pro-Obama propagandists in discrediting “birthers” as the same crackpots known as “truthers.”

What had “birthers” done that was so over the top? They asked to see Barack Obama’s birth certificate, and to date, they have been denied that “crazy” request. In fact, multiple law suits have been filed across the country in numerous forms, simply seeking access to Obama’s personal history, and most recently, a judge has fined one of those attorney’s $20,000 for “filing frivolous law suits” on the matter.

Meanwhile, taxpayers have picked up the tab for over $1.5 MILLION in Obama legal defense fees, used to keep Obama’s birth certificate, his school and college records, his passport and travel records and his law practice files Top Secret. So far, the “transparent president” is anything but “transparent.” He is the ONLY president in US history to hide his entire past.

Now, how reasonable is Obama’s behavior, and how unreasonable is the behavior of the so-called “birther?”

Natural Born Citizen

Article II - Section I - Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires that ONLY a “natural born citizen” hold the office of President. It’s no secret what they meant or why that clause exists. It is a matter of national security.

Lets not play any games here... too many games have been played with this phrase already. It’s a very simple term that anyone with a dictionary can figure out.

Not just any ole “citizen...”

Ø      Not Native - “belonging to a particular place by birth”

Ø      Not Naturalized - “to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship” (as with an immigrant)

Ø      But NATURAL - “Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power.”

The US Senate got it exactly right in 2008 in their unanimous resolution proclaiming John McCain a “natural born citizen” of the Unites States of America, based upon the well-known fact that BOTH of his parents were indeed legal citizens of the United States at the time of John’s birth. In other words, by “divine power” and the “laws of growth,” “produced by nature” of the fact that his parents were US citizens, so was John McCain, by birth right via natural ancestry.

However, no such Senate resolution concerning Barack Obama exists, and the standard applied to John McCain is NOT being applied to Barack Obama.

The Birth Certificate

Obama supporters like Snopes and FactCheck claim to have a copy of Obama’s birth certificate, but they do NOT. I challenge any reader of this column to send me a certified copy of Obama’s actual birth certificate and I will gladly disclose it to the public along with a retraction of this statement.

I won’t get one, because no such document has ever been released by Obama. End of story!

Officials in Hawaii have issued their “opinion” that Obama is a “natural born citizen” of the United States. But they have thus far refused to make public the documents used to arrive at that opinion, and until they do so, their “opinion” is nothing more than inadmissible hearsay from a third party NOT present at the time of Obama’s birth, and they are therefore, unable to support such a claim.

Not one, but THREE different COLBs, (Certification of Live Birth, not to be confused with an actual birth certificate) have been posted online by Team Obama, Snopes and FactCheck. But none of the three contain any verifiable information necessary to vet the documents and since three have been offered, all must be treated as forgeries until one of them can be authenticated.

Some “birthers” believe Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. That’s because Obama’s Kenyan relatives have stated under oath, that they were present at Obama’s birth in Kenya.

But where he was born isn’t so important. The fact that he was born to a father who was at no time a citizen of the United States, is the problem. On this basis alone, Obama is NOT a “natural born citizen” of the United States and that makes him an “unconstitutional president” at best!

Proof of Constitutional Standing

Other than the three different COLBs posted online by Obama, Snopes and FactCheck, Obama has offered NO other proof of legal US citizenship, much less “natural born” status as required by Article II of the Constitution. NONE! If you think I’m wrong, send me the proof you have!

We know that he traveled to Pakistan, among other places in the Middle East, during his college years, and that he did NOT hold a US passport at that time. We know that he received his first US passport as a “diplomat,” while he was a state senator in Illinois, which also allowed him to bypass the normal process of getting a US passport.

But because he will not open up his records, we do NOT know what passport he traveled on during those college trips to the Middle East.

We know he attended three of the most expensive colleges in the United States. But we do NOT know how he was able to pay his tuition without any job, why he changed schools, or why former Black Panther Godfather Dr. Khalid al-Mansour (aka Donald Warden, Saudi Royal Family front man) and New York Panther Percy Sutton, helped him into Harvard.

Bottom line, Obama is one great big secret mystery!

What’s the BIG Deal?

The BIG deal is national security! Like it or not, the Unites States has enemies, some of them obvious and others less overt in their strategies.

After nine months of Marxist agenda advancements at odds with most Americans, leaving Obama with record sinking approval ratings in the states, no imagination is required when wondering what damages can be done to the USA from within the halls of our corrupt federal government.

So, how crazy are those “birthers” to ask a question as basic as a birth certificate?

Standard National Security Clearance

Not only has Obama never passed any standard security clearance, he has never been asked to apply for such clearance and couldn’t pass that clearance if his life depended on it.

Yet, he is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America, the highest office in our land and the most powerful office in the world, without so much as a simple birth certificate to prove his eligibility for the lofty office he holds.

What if he had to pass security clearance before having access to Top Secret information, as any other American citizen would have to pass?

The security check will begin with you filling out a 17-page questionnaire. Most of the questions seek information that can be investigated, such as past residences and employment. It will also ask for contact information for people who know you. Fill out the form thoroughly and honestly. Providing false information on a U.S. security form is punishable with a fine, jail time and/or a dishonorable discharge if you are in the military.

None of this information has been made available on Barack Obama... He has filled out no such form, has no “employment history” - won’t discuss any of the people he spent twenty years hanging out with, some of whom are known terrorists, all of whom have a very funny view of America.

Next, the actual security check...

A security check involves investigation of your life, including federal records, criminal checks and credit checks. Higher level checks will also involve field interviews not only with you, but with people who know you. Investigators will be looking into your character, criminal history, emotional stability, trustworthiness, loyalty and reliability to see if you should be allowed to access confidential information, most notably national security information. So you don’t want to have committed serious crimes, be deep in debt or associate with groups that act against the government.

Oops! --- No record of how he paid for college, where he traveled or on what passport, or why. Twenty years in the pew of a racially charged anti-American church run by an overtly racists preacher. Friends like Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, Saudi Royal front man Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, criminal Tony Rezko, Communist Frank Marshall Davis, and many - MANY more!

Adjudicative Process

The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines. The adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person concept. Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination. In evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the adjudicator should consider the following factors:

a. The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;
b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation;
c. The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d. The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e. The voluntariness of participation;
f. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes;
g. The motivation for the conduct;
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and
i. The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.

When information of security concern becomes known about an individual who is currently eligible for access to classified information, the adjudicator should consider whether the person:

a. Voluntarily reported the information;
b. Was truthful and complete in responding to questions;
c. Sought assistance and followed professional guidance, where appropriate;
d. Resolved or appears likely to favorably resolve the security concern;
e. Has demonstrated positive changes in behavior and employment;
f. Should have his or her access temporarily suspended pending final adjudication of the information.

Maybe “birthers” are nuts! They have only asked for a simple birth certificate, which any other legal American citizen with nothing to hide would have released immediately upon request! Maybe it is “crazy” that “birthers” are only concerned with the missing birth certificate at this late date?

Most American citizens have a job, a bank account, a post office box, a driver’s license, and some even have high level security clearances. What was asked of you before you can have any of these things?

Something more than a simple birth certificate, yes?

Yet somehow, it isn’t Obama who is in trouble here, but rather those crazy “birthers” who simply want to know who in the hell this mystery messiah from Kenya is and why he is so damned anti-American, and anything but transparent?

The US citizen is becoming aware of the fact that they have an entire administration of foxes guarding their hen house and they are growing desperate in their attempts to seek peaceful redress in the courts, which are supposed to be the unbiased defenders of the Constitution and rule of law in this country.

It’s clear that neither the executive or legislative branches of the federal government represent the will of the legal US taxpayer anymore. Before we commence to “altering or abolishing” a government which has indeed become “destructive” of the individual right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, we must exhaust the peaceful means of redress established in the courts.

But it appears that we may have already arrived at this point in time, as NO court in the land believes that average American citizens have the “proper standing” to ask who in the hell this mystery man really is?

That being the case, I suppose all peaceful means of redress have been exhausted and it is time to take matters into our own hands while there is still a country left to save and a Constitution around to uphold.

Before citizens allow people who won’t even disclose a birth certificate to control life and death by way of nationalized medicine, they had better wake up and take a stand.

“whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

If it’s true that NO American court will allow the people access to peaceful redress of such a fundamental concern, then I’m afraid we have indeed arrived at the moment in history when the people are left to their own remedies.

I will NOT call for violent actions, but I sure have no hesitation in predicting that violent action is the natural result of no access to peaceful solutions. The people are tirelessly, relentlessly and patiently hoping that some court somewhere will rise to the duty of their oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, before the people themselves have to rise in defense of their beloved country.

If the courts continue to run interference of Obama & Co., I predict it will be a grave error of enormous proportions...

In the end, citizens of this country will demand freedom and a constitutional government. They will seek peaceful solutions first, but when all else fails, they will once again arise to the call of duty, in defense of the greatest nation ever known to mankind. For freedom to exist anywhere on earth, it must exist in the United States of America.

I sincerely pray for wisdom in the courts, before the people run out of patience.

The “birthers” aren’t crazy. They’re right! The Constitution either means what it says or it means nothing at all. If it means nothing at all, then the people are on their own and the time to alter or abolish has arrived. 



 Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit




Wednesday, October 28, 2009

What Lord Monckton Said At Dinner . . .

Hello All,

I have gotten material both pro and con as to the ifs of international treaties overriding our constitution.  I plan on doing more reading on the topic and see what I can learn. 

In any case, I am not a fan of any of these international deals that seem to only serve all others and cost us the most.  The powers that be seem to regularly forget we are a sovereign nation.   

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit



What Lord Monckton Said At Dinner . . .
Written by Kirsten Lombard
Saturday, 17 October 2009

On Monday, October 12th, I was extremely privileged to spend time with Lord Christopher Monckton and his wife, Lady Juliet Monckton. You never know the unexpected ways in which God will bless you.  In passing the evening with this exceptional couple, I was doubly blessed not only by the pleasure of their excellent company but also by their clear insight into matters of great import—matters that have the potential utterly to destroy the sovereignty of the United States. This entry recounts what Lord and Lady Monckton shared with myself and others over the course of a pre-lecture dinner conversation. His Lordship also worked a portion of this information into his talk at the University of Wisconsin-Madison later that evening.

Lord Monckton is one of the few people who has thorough familiarity with a recently completed draft of the treaty President Obama will sign in Copenhagen in just a matter of weeks. He does not mince words about what he has found in the course of his reading of the document.

The treaty is not just a foot in the door for one-world government. It IS communist, one-world government. And because of the high regard in which our Constitution holds foreign treaties, this document, if ratified by Congress, would supercede the Constitution.

The treaty will, of course, be signed under the banner of coming together internationally to “save the environment” through the reduction of carbon emissions. Except, oh dear, cat’s out of the bag...global warming is a giant lie.

While Lord Monckton has become one of the most visible and vocal apologists for this fact, he is hardly alone. MANY credible scientists with solidly conducted research to back them up, have revealed the meme of human-caused climate change as a complete farce.

With wealth comes a cleaner environment. When nations have money and a sense of civic responsibility—such as that present in this nation—they tend to clean up after themelves. Even if global warming, or “climate change,” were a reality, the United States and other Western nations could never, in honesty, be called the world’s most egregious polluters (I’m sure we all have an awareness of who would be on that list). Except, that’s exactly how this treaty labels us. And in so labeling, not only does it attempt to rob us of our sovereignty, it also wants to drain us of our wealth via a huge reparations scam. As the “big polluters,” we will be forced to pay a substantial portion of our GDP to the Third World for “ruining the environment.” If we do not pony up, we will be subject to even heavier penalties under international law. As I understand it from Lord Monckton, the treaty implements its chains very cleverly and on many levels. It will bind us more closely, for example, to other organizations of dubious reputation and merit such as the UN, the IMF, and the World Bank. We will be surrounded and pinned.

We have all watched redistribution of wealth occurring on an international scale for some time now. TARP involved the transfer of billions of dollars to other nations. But this treaty would RATIONALIZE, INSTITUTIONALIZE, and ACCELERATE the redistribution.

To be abundantly clear, the American people will have no voice or say in this matter—or likely many others—once the treaty is signed. Lord Monckton expressed very frankly that the words democracy, electorate, and voting are conspicuously absent from the treaty language. This document is intended to make America powerless and poor.

The Copenhagen Treaty Must Not Be Ratified!!!

The Copenhagen conference is scheduled for early December. We have only a few short weeks to educate our fellow Americans and make a very loud noise to our wily legislators so that they do not end up enslaving us through a foolish or underhanded vote against U.S. sovereignty.

The best place to start is to become familiar with the content of the treaty draft itself, which you can find here.

Also, arm yourself with facts on the matter of climate change. Lord Monckton is, of course, an excellent source. Many organizations, such as the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and Americans for Prosperity (AFP) frequently offer free copies of Monckton’s 2007 video, Apocalypse? No! The video doesn’t contain all the most recent damning science, but it’s an excellent start. His Lordship is very engaging. You won’t be bored.

You can also view Lord Monckton’s October 14th, 2009 lecture at Bethel College in St. Paul, MN here.
Or read the text of one of his lectures here.

Glenn Beck’s Arguing with Idiots also contains some well-constructed, pithy arguments against the climate change lie. If you haven’t picked up a copy, I recommend it. Marvelous tool.

As we are reading, let us also be passing this information on to everyone else we can lay hands on...including well-meaning but misguided greenies. Not all of them are hard-core idealogues. If those who are simply misguided could see where this will take us—the crushing cost to our freedom and our finances—they might begin to take a different view of what they have been told is best for them—indeed, what is “best” all of us.

There is much we can do. Let us work together...as quickly and as effectively as we can.

One team, one goal: Stop the Madness



Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit



Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Democratic Tyrants Rule The U.S.

Democratic Tyrants Rule The U.S.
By Sheriff Jim R. Schwiesow, Ret.
October 21, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

“And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If any man have an ear, let him hear.” Revelation 13:7-9

The people of this country, and in fact of the entire world, are witnessing the concluding constituents of an ancient and diabolical plan, an infernal contrivance that is as evil and fiendish as the spirit behind it, Satan the god of this world. It is the quest for world conquest through the institution and insinuation of fear, which is a mystery only to those who lack the illuminating power of God’s Spirit. It is a demonic - formerly clandestine and now forthright - sinister weaving together of finance religion and politics by the Order of the Illuminati an order that envelopes and encompasses the earthly sons of Satan. These are no less wicked and evil than their demonic counterparts of the dark and dirty Mephistophelean spirit world that guide them, lead them, and possess them in spirit.



Go to this link to read in full this very interesting article:  http://www.newswithviews.com/Schwiesow/jim157.htm

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit






Monday, October 26, 2009

Blessed Are the Lame? The Mute Christian Media and the ACORN Scandal

Blessed Are the Lame?
The Mute Christian Media and the ACORN Scandal
By Doug Giles
Oct 17, 2009

Since ACORN’s crass corruption came into sharp focus a few weeks ago, Andrew Breitbart has not only been part and parcel of cracking ACORN’s nuts, but he has also been pointing out the ludicrous lack of reporting on ACORN’s asininities by what used to be the mainstream media.

Breitbart, via the ACORN controversy, has shown the “mainstream” to be everything but conventional and more akin to an irrelevant, unwatched drip of ideological flotsam that’s entirely in the septic tank for the lunatic left.

The Daily Show’s John Stewart-hardly a right-winger-also pointed out this willful ACORN media blindness this past month, as only Stewart can. Yep, it appears the motto of the generic broadcasting boys who’re bent to the left has become: “We distort. We decide.”

Most folks who have a lick of sense have long understood that the media has been mollycoddling the Left and their lovers for quite some time, but this ACORN controversy pummeled us over the flippin’ head with this hypocritical fact.

Now . . . I get that the former MSM is the mouthpiece for the Amerika that embraces Eurosocialism and all its weirdness, but the question I have, as a goofy sinner who’s part of Christ’s church, is this: Who the heck is the Christian media in the tank for? Their reportage on this ACORN slop has been conspicuously inconspicuous.

Why the silence of the lambs, Jesus people? I would have thought you guys would be all over this stuff like stink on a monkey. But alas, the holy ones are wholly silent. Well ... almost.

So, why should there be interest and serious reporting of this mega-tale by the broadcast brethren? Well, I’m glad you boys finally asked, seeing that we’re now about six weeks out.

Here’s a reason why: Two Christian kids, instead of sitting on their butts in church singing Kum Ba Yah and pulling lint out of their navels in some vapid youth group, saw a multi-million dollar Goliath of crime and corruption fueled by our tax dollars and rose to the occasion, creatively infiltrating an insidious environment and bringing a despicable organization to its knees. That’s why. Giles and O’Keefe went biblical. Note that.

Hey, Icthus crowd . . . is that not good enough for you to broadcast? It happened yesterday and was-and still is-huge. I would think you would jump on it because I’ve watched your Christian shows, listened to your radio programs and surfed some of your hallelujah websites, and they could use a Red Bull because they’re bo-ring. Geez people, South Park is even on this!

You’ve ignored this colossal story as you stand on the sidelines of the culture war, watching history being made by two gutsy believers as you ogle some spike-haired Dove award winner or some cheesy, horse-toothed minister who puts the “ky” in icky. You ladies and gents must have some kind of crazy job security.

No doubt some program directors and GMs are getting in a hissy right now and are saying, “Our shows only focus on Jesus!” Try to tell me with a straight face that the Christ of the Bible would be disinterested in two of His young followers devastating an organization that is on film aiding and abetting the sex trafficking of 13-year-olds. Go ahead. I’ll wait. (Insert the sound of crickets chirping here.)

Here’s a new motto I have for your networks: “Don’t Report. Don’t Complain.”

Look, boys, this Giles and O’Keefe caper is nothin’ but a nation-shaking event spawned by believers that has saved our nation millions of dollars, crippled a nefarious enterprise and encouraged a generation of young people to pull up their pants and get a life. As the Christian media, I would think you guys would be shouting that from a rooftop. So, why aren’t you?

As Breitbart called the MSM out, I’m calling you gents out: Why the lack of reporting and support? We understand MSNBC’s silence. We don’t understand the mute Christian media.

FOX gets the power of this story. Talk radio gets it. The Treasury Department gets it, as does the DOJ, the House and Senate, the IRS, the US Census Bureau, Stewart, Leno, South Park, bloggers on the left and right, DC think-tanks, major publishers, Hollywood and leading speakers’ bureaus-they all get it. It appears as if everyone gets the gravity and glory of this story except you and the secular left, who refuse to report on it. Interesting. Very interesting . . .

*Special thanks to the few Christian TV shows, talk radio hosts, websites and columnists that did tackle this hot topic.  






305.788.6485
P.O. Box 800554 ·

Aventura, Fl. 33280  








Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit











Sunday, October 25, 2009

The Process of Reimagining Christianity

The Process of Reimagining Christianity
Roger Oakland
October 19, 2009

Perhaps we as Christians today are not only to consider what it means to be a 21st century church, but also and perhaps more importantly—what it means to have a 21st century faith.1--Doug Pagitt

Emergent church leaders often provide testimonies explaining how they became involved in their journey to reinvent Christianity. In his book Church Re-Imagined, Doug Pagitt tells how and why his church originated:

Our attempt at being a church began in January 2000 in a small second-floor loft space in a hip little neighborhood of Minneapolis called Linden Hills. The church was actually birthed much earlier, from conversations between a few friends who shared a desire to be part of a community of faith that not only had a new way of functioning but also generated a different outcome. At that point I had said, on more than one occasion, that I didn’t think I would be able to stay Christian in any useful sense over the next 50 years if I continued with the expression of Christianity I was currently living—pretty disconcerting stuff for a pastor.2

Pagitt explains why he felt he needed to find a new expression of Christianity that was different from what he had been accustomed to previously. He states:

This was not a crisis of faith in the typical sense; I never doubted God, Jesus, or the Christian faith. And yet I had a deep sense, which has actually grown deeper since, that I needed to move into a Christianity that somehow fit better with the world I lived in, not an expression reconstituted from another time.3

Pagitt goes into more depth on how he views fitting “better with the world” he lives in:

We also understand ourselves as part of a global community. We are required to live our local expressions of Christianity in harmony with those around the world. The beliefs and practices of our Western church must never override or negate the equally valid and righteous expressions of faith lived by Christians around the world. It is essential that we recognize our own cultural version of Christianity and make ourselves open to the work of God’s hand in the global community of faith.4

Notice the emphasis on a “global community of faith” that permits all “expressions of faith” by anyone and everyone who claims to be Christian. As we are going to see, Pagitt bases his ideas of changing the profile of Christianity on an ecumenical view that permits beliefs and experiences not found in the Bible. Not only are they not found in the Bible, the plan can’t work with an intact Bible. In order for the emerging church to succeed, the Bible has to be looked at through entirely different glasses, and Christianity needs to be open to a new type of faith. Brian McLaren calls this new faith a “generous orthodoxy.”5 While such an orthodoxy allows a smorgasbord of ideas to be proclaimed in the name of Christ, many of these ideas are actually forbidden and rejected by Scripture.

Pagitt believes that he is part of a cutting-edge response to the new postmodern world. It’s a response he and others see as completely unique, never having been tried before in the history of man. Pagitt states:

It seems to me that our post-industrial times require us to ask new questions—questions that people 100 years ago would have never thought of asking. Could it be that our answers will move us to re-imagine the way of Christianity in our world? Perhaps we as Christians today are not only to consider what it means to be a 21st century church, but also and perhaps more importantly—what it means to have a 21st century faith.6

Many people I meet at conferences who come from a wide variety of church backgrounds tell me the church they have been attending for years has radically changed. Their pastor no longer teaches the Bible. Instead, the Sunday morning service is a skit or a series of stories. The Bible seems to have become the forbidden book. While there are pastors who do still teach the Bible, they are becoming the exception rather than the rule.

Emergent leaders often say the message remains the same, but our methods must change if we are going to be relevant to our generation. The measure of success for many pastors today is how many are coming, rather than how many are listening and obeying what God has said in His Word. Let’s consider how Doug Pagitt uses the Bible in his own church. He states:

At Solomon’s Porch, sermons are not primarily about my extracting truth from the Bible to apply to people’s lives. In many ways the sermon is less a lecture or motivational speech than it is an act of poetry—of putting words around people’s experiences to allow them to find deeper connection in their lives... So our sermons are not lessons that precisely define belief so much as they are stories that welcome our hopes and ideas and participation.7

What Pagitt is describing is a contextual theology; that is, don’t use the Bible as a means of theology or measuring rod of truth and standards by which to live; and rather than have the Bible mold the Christian’s life, let the Christian’s life mold the Bible. That’s what Pagitt calls “putting words around people’s experiences.” As this idea is developed, emerging proponents have to move away from Bible teachings and draw into a dialectic approach. That way, instead of just one person preaching truth or teaching biblical doctrine, everyone can have a say and thus come to a consensus of what the Bible might be saying. Pagitt explains:

To move beyond this passive approach to faith, we’ve tried to create a community that’s more like a potluck: people eat and they also bring something for others. Our belief is built when all of us engage our hopes, dreams, ideas and understandings with the story of God as it unfolds through history and through us.8


(This is from chapter 3, Faith Undone. To read the entire chapter, including a section on contextualizing the Gospel, click here http://www.lighthousetrails.com/fa_ch3.pdf .

Notes:

1.       Doug Pagitt, Church Re-Imagined (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), pp. 17, 19.
2.       Ibid., p. 41.
3.       Ibid.
4.       Ibid., pp. 27, 29.
5.       Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004).
6.       Pagitt, Church Re-Imagined, op. cit., pp. 17, 19.
7.       Ibid., p. 166.
8.       Doug Pagitt, Church ReImagined, op. cit., p. 167.


 

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit