Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Whose Side is Obama on...as if we didn't already know

Why Is Obama ARMING Our ENEMIES Against Us?!!
We, America, are currently at war against:
Al Qaeda
The Taliban
The PLO...
...so WHY are we arming them to the teeth?!!

We gave Hamas $900,000,000! 
We gave The Muslim Brotherhood 200 M1 Abrams Tanks! 
We gave Hezbollah 200 Armored Personnel Carriers! 
We gave Egypt 20 MORE F-16's! 
and, lastly,
Here is an excerpt from The Counter-Jihad Report-

Obama Gives Hezbollah 200 Armored Personnel Carriers

By  in Front Page
It’s only fair that with the Muslim Brotherhood getting 200 Abrams tanks, Hezbollah should get 200 armored personnel carriers.  While tragically there was no money available to provide security for the US mission in Benghazi, there’s always room for giving billion dollar weapons packages to the terrorists who attack US embassies.
In 1983, Hezbollah carried out the suicide car bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut killing 63 people, including US soldiers, and wounding 120. The suicide vehicle of choice was a delivery van. But now Hezbollah will be able to attack the next US embassy in style with the M113 Armored Personnel Carrier.
When Hezbollah overturned the Lebanese government and replaced it with a coalition dominated by the Shiite terrorist group, backed by Iran, there were worries that this might prevent Lebanon from receiving US aid.
But those worriers had clearly never met Obama who will never unfairly deprive Islamic terrorists of the weapons that they are entitled to under the code of social justice....
For the Liberal or skeptic that does come to spy on us- IF 9 references and sources are "not enough for you"... then nothing ever will be...oh, and don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord Split ya on you're way out.
If any reasonable, rational person IS still was not convinced that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is indeed a Traitor...this article should remove that doubt.

-Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer- P.A.N. Admin II.
"Disobedience to tyrants is Obedience to God." -Benjamin Franklin.

Monday, January 28, 2013

Obama’s Gun Grab A Path To Totalitarianism

The Left weeps loudly for the dead children massacred at the Sandy Hook Elementary school, but then dance on the graves of millions of children murdered by Planned Parenthood. Their proposed assault weapons ban has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with disarming Americans in order to set up a totalitarian government.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Tyranny is coming in America No Need For Guns In America

- Erik Rush (Bio and Archives)  Friday, January 25, 2013
(8) Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

For those of you who know me, you can pick your jaw up off the floor (after reading the title) and move on. There is a pseudo-discussion taking place all over America about gun ownership which consists of the actual “need” for firearms in citizens’ hands and limits that should be placed on American gun owners. As unlikely as it might seem, this is pure distraction.
In an earlier life – the one the press refuses to report – Obama summarily declared that he believed Americans should not own guns. That declaration seems to have been forgotten by some who are attributing to Mr. Obama scruples, morals, and decency that he does not possess – not to mention his demonstrated disregard for the Constitution of the United States in general. Reasonableness is what the American public generally displays and expects in return.
I’m sorry to burst the bubble here, but that is not what is happening on the Obama side of that ledger. Lies, obfuscation, the sweet smile, the demonization or marginalization of those who uphold the Second Amendment, assurances of faithfulness to the Constitution and a love for the children are merely diversionary precursors to his totalitarian end game. All are bogus, all staging and melodrama for the cameras.
Tyranny is coming in America, despite the fact that more than half of her citizens are too deluded, arrogant, or stupid to see it. If Obama’s policy processes continue unchecked, America will experience cataclysmic civil unrest; again, unfathomable to most Americans, this is precisely what Obama intends.
The words of this President are so rife with fraud and deceit that good people simply cannot believe anyone appearing so benevolent could possibly be so bad. At this juncture I would ask the question, Do you believe that the President really wants to have an open and honest discussion with the American people about the “problem” of violence and the misuse of guns in crime?
Has he ever followed through on conducting an open and honest discussion with the American people about anything? So we have our answer.
A second question might be this: Do you believe that the President will alter his long-standing belief that no American should own a gun after this discussion is over? The third and final question, assuming the answers to the first two questions are “no,” is Might the training of American military and police in guerilla warfare techniques coupled with manuals in the “How to” of gun confiscation be an indicator of where this “discussion” is really going?
If the answer to that one is “yes,” then have Americans just been convinced into thinking that the President is “open” to changing his thinking, and is “transparent” enough not to have a hidden agenda?
Obama, with the eager cooperation of the American press and the anti-gun lobby, are creating the perception of Second Amendment proponents as manifestly evil. Not misguided, not wrong – but evil. As such, he will set the stage for all “reasonable” Americans to support the wholesale dismantling of the Second Amendment, and if this means wholesale firearms confiscation and the bloodshed to which this will no doubt give rise, so much the better. This will give him legitimacy in his move of declaring martial law – in fact, he will have “no choice,” so it will appear.
This will be, as we’ve seen in so many other nations, the move across the threshold into totalitarian rule. We must never forget that this is a person who grew up studying and admiring Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and Castro – men who murdered hundreds of millions in their ascent to total dominion over their respective nations. Just this week, it was reported that a former senior military staffer revealed Obama’s new litmus test for top military brass: Can they give the order to fire on American citizens?
P.T. Barnum (of Barnum and Bailey Circus fame) was a practiced con artist. He taught his people well in the art of distraction; while folks were watching the right hand, the left hand was pulling the trick off right under the nose of the audience. Amazed, they would declare in wonder, “How did they do that?” The answer, of course, was that it happened right under their noses, while they were watching, and they had just been misdirected. Those who have researched the President’s multitudinous executive orders alone know that the Obama administration has mastered this technique.
There is no real discussion in America about gun ownership in America at any level that matters; Obama will confiscate them all – or at least he will attempt to do so. The question is: Will America see how it is being tricked before it is too late?
Erik Rush is a New York-born columnist, author and speaker who writes sociopolitical commentary for numerous online and print publications. In February of 2007, Erik was the first to break the story of President (then Senator) Barack Obama’s ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright on a national level, which ignited a media firestorm that smolders to this day. His latest book, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal ~ America’s Racial Obsession,” examines the racist policies by which the political left keeps black Americans in thralldom, white Americans guilt-ridden and yielding, and maintains the fallacy that America remains an institutionally racist nation. Links to his work are available at Erikrush.com.

Gun Control Advocates Need to Listen to Gun Owners, Obama Says

WASHINGTON – President Obama said that he and his guests go skeet shooting at Camp David “all the time” and that gun control advocates need “to do a little more listening” to understand why so many Americans are wary of government limits on firearms.
In an interview released Sunday morning, Mr. Obama acknowledged that getting his package of gun proposals through Congress could be tough, and he expressed empathy for the strong sentiments of gun owners. Like Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has mentioned that he owns two shotguns, Mr. Obama tried to associate himself with those who enjoy firing guns.
“Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time,” he told The New Republic in the interview, conducted Jan. 16, just after he unveiled his gun proposals.
Asked about his family, he said, “Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there. And I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake.”
He added that the experience with guns in rural America differed dramatically from that in urban America. “If you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were 10, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family’s traditions, you can see why you’d be pretty protective of that,” he said.
“So it’s trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months,” he added. “And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes.”
Mr. Obama has proposed reinstating and strengthening an expired ban on new assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, expanding criminal background checks for nearly all gun sales except those within families, and cracking down on straw purchasers who buy firearms for others who would not be able to pass a background check. He also used his executive authority to try to improve the background check database and to revive government research into gun violence.
In the interview, Mr. Obama also expressed concern for the state of football in America, particularly at the college level, where there is no union to represent the interests of players.
“I’m a big football fan,” he said, “but I have to tell you, if I had a son, I’d have to think long and hard before I let him play football. And I think those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to reduce some of the violence.”
Asked about the continuing rebellion in Syria that has led to tens of thousands of deaths, Mr. Obama made clear that he has declined to intervene because he is haunted by a series of questions that he cannot answer satisfactorily.
“In a situation like Syria,” he said, “I have to ask, can we make a difference in that situation? Would a military intervention have an impact? How would it affect our ability to support troops who are still in Afghanistan? What would be the aftermath of our involvement on the ground? Could it trigger even worse violence or the use of chemical weapons? What offers the best prospect of a stable post-Assad regime? And how do I weigh tens of thousands who’ve been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo?”
The interview was conducted by Chris Hughes, a founder of Facebook who bought The New Republic last year, and Franklin Foer, the magazine’s editor. Mr. Hughes was coordinator of online organizing for Mr. Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and has contributed money to him since then. The president gave the interview as the magazine is reintroducing itself in the coming days.

Polish Refugee Warns Of Communism Taking Over America (Video)

Beware gun registration – It's coming Exclusive: Patrice Lewis warns of impending national registry system for all firearms

by Patrice Lewis Email | Archive
rss feed Subscribe to feed
Patrice Lewis is a freelance writer whose latest book is "The Simplicity Primer: 365 Ideas for Making Life more Livable." She is co-founder (with her husband) of a home woodcraft business. The Lewises live on 20 acres in north Idaho with their two homeschooled children, assorted livestock, a

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” – Unknown
In the spirit of never letting a crisis go to waste, President Obama recently issued 23 new executive orders on the subject of gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings. “Liberals have an uncanny knack for designing solutions that do not address the problem at hand,” noted David Limbaugh. And as William S. Burrough famously said, “After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.”
Controlling firearms, you see, is deemed necessary by progressives to achieve some sort of nebulous theoretical bucolic pacifistic utopia that has literally never occurred on the face of the earth. Their actions prove they’re attempting to take the closest approximation of that utopia that has ever existed (America) and replacing it with their simplistic notions of what America should be (by violating every principle in the Bill of Rights, which they’ve never like anyway).
Obama’s executive orders lay the groundwork for the next inevitable step toward that mythical utopian fantasy: a national registry system for all firearms (H.R. 34, H.R. 117). Gun registration, they argue, is necessary because we have to know what kind of unstable people might possess firearms and thus become the next Adam Lanza.
So let’s engage in a mental exercise and pretend the government has already passed an edict requiring all guns to be registered, no exceptions. Naturally this is done in the name of public safety – “for the children,” if you will.
OK, so now all guns are registered. Now what? What has that achieved? How would registration change anything? How would it make gun-free zones like schools any safer?
Answer: It won’t. Think about it. Gun registration contributes nothing toward a safer society. Nothing. There is no value in registration unless you intend to do something with it.
In his sobering 2003 essay, Robert A. Waters briefly relates the history of gun control in England and concludes with these eerie words: “When the Dunblane Inquiry ended [in 1997], citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply. Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens. How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.” [Emphasis added.]
This, folks, is the inevitable path gun confiscation follows. Register guns, and confiscation is the logical next step. Ah – but confiscation will only happen among the law-abiding, because criminals will never register their firearms in the first place. So where does that leave moms trying to protect their children from intruders? Dead. Because make no mistake: home invasions and other violent crimes invariably skyrocket when firearms are removed from the hands of citizens.
Our federal government is setting up the framework for our total disarmament. Oh not right away, of course. There’s still too much opposition by people who know their history and their rights. But over the next 10 or 20 years, federally funded public schools will continue to brainwash children about the evils of gun ownership. These children will grow up ignorant of their heritage and will be taught to despise their parents and grandparents, who know precisely why the Second Amendment is so important. Within a generation or two, our nation will be as emasculated as England is now – a place where violent crime has gone through the roof, people are locked away for defending themselves from thugs and where even knives are being banned.
And then the door will be opened for the rest of our rights to be dismantled. It’s well-known and well-documented that gun control doesn’t control crime. Why, then, is the government eager to control guns if it knows crime will escalate as a result? Easy. The government doesn’t give a rip for crime control. It wants citizen control. Remember, once we lose the Second Amendment, the rest of the Bill of Rights is meaningless. We the People will have no means to protect it.
When the progressives cheer additional gun-control measures, such as limiting magazine size, they argue that no one needs magazines holding more than 10 rounds for home defense or for hunting. But that argument (right or wrong) totally and entirely misses the point of the Second Amendment. Do you honestly think deer hunting or home invasions were on the minds of the Founding Fathers when they composed the Second Amendment? Or perhaps – just perhaps – fresh from the hideous tyranny of George III, they wanted to make sure their infant nation would never face a similarly abusive government? These men knew that the people of America had a natural right to arm themselves with whatever powerful firearms were necessary to ensure a home-grown tyrant never arose on our soil.
Believe me, when the Department of Homeland Security buys up 1.5 billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition, citizens need something a little better than a steak knife for defense. If our government ever decides to move en masse against innocent citizens, it must know there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
Did you know that worldwide, the leading cause of unnatural human death is government? Democide is defined as “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder. Democide is not necessarily the elimination of entire cultural groups but rather groups within the country that the government feels need to be eradicated for political reasons and due to claimed future threats” (emphasis added).
The only purpose of gun registration is to let the government know who has guns – so they can be taken away. Remember that. Gun confiscation is historically followed by democide against the disarmed; this is an undeniable historical fact.
I applaud the recent massive attendance of every gun show in the nation, which is putting millions of firearms into the hands of decent law-abiding people. It demonstrates that American citizens are intelligent enough to know that the government is taking advantage of a crisis to increase its tyrannical and unconstitutional powers.
Gun registration: It’s coming. Be warned. Be ready.

Sheriff David Clarke's radio ad says 911 not best option, urges residents to take firearms classes

By Bruce Vielmetti, Steve Schultze and Don Walker of the Journal Sentinel     Jan. 25, 2013

Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. set off alarm bells Friday with a radio spot some view as a call for citizens to arm themselves.
In the radio ad, Clarke tells residents personal safety isn't a spectator sport anymore, and that "I need you in the game."
"With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option," Clarke intones.
"You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back."
Clarke urges listeners to take a firearm safety course and handle a firearm "so you can defend yourself until we get there."
"You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We're partners now. Can I count on you?"
The spot aired at least once - during the last hour of the Mark Belling show on WISN-AM (1130) on Thursday. Clarke spokeswoman Fran McLaughlin posted it to the department website on Friday. She said she did not know where else or how often the spot would be broadcast, or how much the department spent to air it.
Clarke has served as lightning rod before, most recently when he called for schools to arm teachers after the Newtown, Conn., massacre of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school. News of the sheriff's gun ad quickly generated feedback.
Jodie Tabak, Mayor Tom Barrett's spokeswoman, released this statement:
"Apparently, Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie."
"Dirty Harry" was one in a series of films in the 1970s and '80s starring actor Clint Eastwood as Detective Harry Callahan of the San Francisco Police Department.
The Greenfield Police Department issued advice on its Facebook page, saying none of its officers was laid off or furloughed, that violent crime is down and the department's response time to violent crime is less than two minutes.
"The decision to arm yourself with a firearm is a very personal and private decision that should not be driven by fear that our officers will not respond to your calls for help," the department said.
Jeri Bonavia, executive director of Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, said she hears "over and over" from most law enforcement officials that the community should work to "take more guns off the streets, not add more."
"What (Clarke's) talking about is this amped up version of vigilantism," Bonavia said. "I don't know what his motivations are for doing this. But I do know what he's calling for is dangerous and irresponsible and he should be out there saying this is a mistake."
Asked about Clarke's assessment of 911, James Fendry, director of the Wisconsin Pro Gun Movement, said, "It's never been a great option (calling 911). Unless you can take care of yourself, you're kind of SOL."
Fendry, a former police officer, said that he tells citizens, "You're not armed to be law enforcement. You're armed to protect your own life and the lives of your family until law enforcement arrives. Do not go on search and destroy missions in your home."
County Executive Chris Abele said Clarke is sending the wrong message.
"I think it's irresponsible and it doesn't help public safety to tell the public there's some kind of imminent danger that they need to go buy guns," Abele said. "Essentially, you've got a (public service announcement) that's recommending people need to go buy guns because they can't rely on the response they'll get from 911. I'm here to tell you, we have phenomenal police departments."
Roy Felber, president of the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs' Association, said the ad sounded to him like a call to vigilantism.
"That doesn't sound smart," Felber said. "That's why society has police officers."
Instead of promoting vigilantism, Felber said, money should be found to hire more police officers and deputies.
County Supervisor Mark Borkowski, chairman of the County Board panel on public safety, said Clarke was "preaching to the choir" on gun ownership. Most people who want guns already have them, Borkowski said.
McLaughlin, Clarke's spokeswoman, said the announcement does not encourage gun ownership.
"His message says to consider taking a certified course. His message says to fight back to protect yourself. People need to decide for themselves if they want to own a firearm," she wrote in an email.
She said the Department of Homeland Security advises that in an active shooter environment, victims should run, hide, or, if those options don't exist, they should fight - aggressively.
Clarke did not respond to an interview request.
Asked to comment on Clarke's remarks, a spokeswoman for state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said that Van Hollen "believes strongly in both the 1st and 2nd amendments" to the Constitution on free speech and gun rights.
Mark Johnson of the Journal Sentinel staff contributed to this report.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Fred Thompson's America (What Difference Does It Make?)

Does the truth behind the Benghazi attack and the murder of our Ambassador to Libya really matter? Or is Hillary Clinton right in saying, "What difference does it make?" Fred shares his thoughts in this installment of Fred Thompson's America.

Does God give us the “right” to keep and bear arms?

Posted by Jake Baker
January 22, 2013

Today, someone on Twitter asked the question, "Where does God give you the right to bear arms 
First, let me begin by defining government.  According to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the American government is tri-partied.  It consists of We The People, the States, and the Federal Government (not national which implies power over the people instead of a federal government, which is assigned certain tasks to complete on our behalf).
This is an important concept as concerns both U.S. and biblical law.  Government is not just the federal government or the state government, it is us all of us.
Therefore, all duties of government belong to us all.  However, we tender to the federal and state governments certain duties to be carried out on behalf of the whole government, which includes us.  So, when someone says that only government should have guns, remember we are one-third of the government structure in this country.
Further, we are the first nation in the history of this earth which had no subjects.  Every other nation considered their heads of state as rulers and the people as its subjects.  Even Great Britain had—and still has—as a basis of government, the concept of their people as subjects.  As Americans we have never subjects.  We are free men who are citizens and government is subject to us and to our designs, not the other way around.
Our history includes numerous wars with Great Britain, beginning with the Revolutionary War. That war was fought for a number of reasons, including religious persecution.  However, the catalyst for the commencement of hostilities was the British hubris believing they could simply march in and take our guns.  Men bled and died; fortunes were committed and lost; families destroyed, and lives forever changed, but in the end, America prevailed and history was forever changed.
This land remained free for a number of spiritual reasons, but also because we believed that every man should be armed. We the People were the government and to disarm us was to disarm the United States.
Now, with the same imperial hubris, the strutting peacocks calling themselves “representatives” fire about legislation that pretends as if we have no history.  They assume to themselves the position of royalty—not loyalty—in assuming they can pass gun control or confiscation legislation and steal the rights of We the People granted under the Second Amendment.
How would the nation feel if we decided tomorrow to end their rights under the First Amendment?  What if government declared tomorrow that everybody has to be a Mormon and no one is allowed to criticize the President, the Congress or the Courts?  Would they then say it is not an infringement, just a defining, or would there be an outcry that shattered every glass in the great halls of Washington D.C.?  I suspect the latter.
Obviously, there have been stains on our history, such as those left by the blood guilt of slavery, but even that, after a long hellish century, was cured by the second Great Awakening as men of faith and compassion refused any longer to tolerate the ungodly, cruelty, and horrors of slavery.  In the end the might of righteousness prevailed and the scourge of slavery was ended.
But it was the preaching of men such as George Whitefield (sometimes referred to as Whitfield), Charles Spurgeon, Charles Grandison Finney, and Jonathan Edwards that planted the seeds of faith and spiritual courage in the hearts of what would become the Christian Abolitionist movement.  And this rare blend of compassion, courage and righteous indignation fueled what would become a demand for justice for all people, with an understanding that if one man was enslaved, then all were enslaved because We The People is all of us, united as one of the three branches of government.
Remember, in those days the army was comprised of the militias of the several states. It was We The People who often brought their own arms to the conflict that engaged in the bloody four year conflict that claimed the lives of 650,000 Americans.  Remarkably, that was the same number of slaves that were present in the United States at the height of slavery. That amounts to one death for each man stolen from his land and brought here to the states as slaves.
So, were they right to take up arms to end slavery in America?  More importantly, in the larger sense, are we today—their progeny—right in our demand to keep and bear arms?  Do we truly have God-given rights protected by the U.S. Constitution; and more importantly, are these truly God-given rights in the light of scriptures?
The first answer is easy. Yes, we are both allowed and, in fact, I would argue we are expected to keep and bear arms.
The Militia Act of 1792
"Passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.
The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct. The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the President in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second Act. Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders."(Source:  Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792)
Further, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The definition in Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines infringed as “broken, violated: transgresses.  Clearly the Founding Fathers believed that everyone should be armed.
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people’s liberty’s teeth.” - George Washington
I will proceed no further with the hundreds of quotes that could be applied, but suffice it to say, both history and the law support our unabridged right to keep and bear arms – of any sort – without limitation.  We are the government. We are not subjects of the government that may be stripped of our rights.
We The People are one-third of the government.  You cannot strip this third of government of guns while allowing the other two-thirds to keep theirs.  That would be as unlawful as Congress attempting to control the executive or judicial branches of the federal government.
So this discussion once again asks:  Does God give us the right to keep and bear arms?
What about the sixth commandment which is oft quoted, “Thou shalt not kill.”  Does that on its face not annul the right to keep and bear arms?  Let’s look and see what the commandment really says.
The Hebrew word used for “kill” is ratsach.  The word literally means to murder or shed innocent blood.  Therefore, the command is not prohibition against killing, but against murder or the shedding of innocent blood.
In point of fact, scripture demands the death of murderers because murder requires the scales of justice to be balanced by the blood of the murderer.  That is why we can be both prolife and pro-death penalty.  Both are just.
Therefore, the sixth commandment is not a prohibition against keeping and bearing arms; nor is it a prohibition against shooting a home invader in the dark of night —someone who presents deadly force or even for the defense of others.
Let’s look at Psalm 82:3 and 4 where we are commanded to: “Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.”
The Psalmist says that to do otherwise is judging unjustly.  If the wicked are strong and we are to deliver them—to rid them from the wicked hand—how are we to do it?
Here is what the Lord commanded David in 1 Samuel 30 when his family was kidnapped and his goods stolen:
8 "And David enquired at the Lord, saying, Shall I pursue after this troop? shall I overtake them? And he answered him, Pursue: for thou shalt surely overtake them, and without fail recover all.
9 So David went, he and the six hundred men that were with him, and came to the brook Besor, where those that were left behind stayed.
10 But David pursued, he and four hundred men: for two hundred abode behind, which were so faint that they could not go over the brook Besor.                    
11 And they found an Egyptian in the field, and brought him to David, and gave him bread, and he did eat; and they made him drink water;
12 And they gave him a piece of a cake of figs, and two clusters of raisins: and when he had eaten, his spirit came again to him: for he had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights.
13 And David said unto him, To whom belongest thou? and whence art thou? And he said, I am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me, because three days agone I fell sick.
14 We made an invasion upon the south of the Cherethites, and upon the coast which belongeth to Judah, and upon the south of Caleb; and we burned Ziklag with fire.
15 And David said to him, Canst thou bring me down to this company? And he said, Swear unto me by God, that thou wilt neither kill me, nor deliver me into the hands of my master, and I will bring thee down to this company.
16 And when he had brought him down, behold, they were spread abroad upon all the earth, eating and drinking, and dancing, because of all the great spoil that they had taken out of the land of the Philistines, and out of the land of Judah.
17 And David smote them from the twilight even unto the evening of the next day: and there escaped not a man of them, save four hundred young men, which rode upon camels, and fled.
18 And David recovered all that the Amalekites had carried away: and David rescued his two wives.
19 And there was nothing lacking to them, neither small nor great, neither sons nor daughters, neither spoil, nor any thing that they had taken to them: David recovered all."
How well do you think this same David would have done against Goliath had he not been armed with a deadly weapon.  He certainly was nowhere near physically strong enough to take on the almost 10 foot tall giant.  No, he need personal protection.  He rejected military hardware, armor, sword and shield and opted instead for personal protection, a “handgun” if you will.  He killed Goliath and saved his people from the Philistines.
There are times when only force will do.  Here is the Lord’s commandment in Exodus 22: 2 “ If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.”
But one might ask, What about the New Testament?  Are we not commanded to love, forgive and turn the other cheek?
Yes, we are, but we are not commanded to be enslaved by weakness.  If we are enslaved without any means to protect ourselves, how do we deliver the hand of the oppressed from the hand of the wicked?  No, Yeshua says in Luke 22:36: “[Christ] said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:8: “8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”
This passage is a very wide intent.  The words “provide not” are all inclusive.  This passage does not define provision as food and shelter. No, this passage is purposely open ended. It means total provision, including protection from whatever may come.  It is foolish not to assume that whatever means of protection it takes to guard ones family is both legitimate and required.
For Paul declares that one who provides not for his family has “denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.”  Infidel means someone who is outside the faith.  Yahweh forbid that we get caught falling short of this mandate to protect our families.  We then are charged to protect our household by whatever means necessary, be it “assault” rifle, or hand gun, or any other weapon essential to the protection of our family.
Others will remind us that our protection is in the strength of the Lord for he will provide all things.  Does that mean we sit down, do nothing, and expect a roof to magically appear over our heads, food to mystically appear on our tables, and money to wondrously show up in our pockets?
What foolishness!  We work to provide a home, food, income and, yes, guns and ammo that we might be able to care for our loved ones needs, comfort, and safety, while keeping in mind that we are also responsible for delivering the downtrodden from the oppressor.
What about turning the other cheek?  Just as in the example above, where the thief is breaking in, we are allowed to use deadly force when it is required.  However, turning the other cheek is applicable for insults, theft, when no life threatening force is presented, etc.  Romans 12 says that we turn the other cheek saving room for the wrath of God.  Romans 13 describes government as that wrath and it carries not the sword in vain.  For they (government) are to be a rewarder of good and a terror to evil.  In fact, that is the test to determine if an entity is just corrupt power or government.
We often hear quoted Romans 13:1-2:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.  2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."
There are two problems with the way this quote is often used.  First, one must continue reading the rest of the passage which says:
3 "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
But if what is called “government” is not following the command to be a terror to evil and not a terror to good, not being a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil,” then it is not government by this definition and must be opposed.  Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to Yahweh.
The second problem with this quote is the verbiage. In this passage the word “power” is mistranslated.  Historically we need to remember that King James was at that time in history usurping a throne that was not his.  He had the power to ascend the throne, but not the authority.  Therefore, he often use synonymously the words power and authority.
The word that was translated “power” is not the Greek word dynamis which means power (as in dynamite) but the word exousia which means power derived from just authority.  Therefore, we are to be subject only to power derived from just authority.  If the entity calling itself government does not derive its power from just authority, then it is just tyranny not government.
The federal branch of American government attempting
to disarm one-third of the American government
is not government, but tyranny.
Therefore, I must conclude that any attempt to disarm the people in any way, is sedition because it is in violation of our history, deprives one-third of the government—the people—of a right inherent to all, and despotically limits armaments to only two parts of government.  Further, it nullifies the ability to carry out the divine command to one-third of the American government—the people—to deliver the poor and oppressed from the hand of the wicked.  Additionally such a disarmament dramatically reduces or eliminates one’s ability to protect their family, home and nation.
As a citizen we are bound to protect this nation against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.  Any attempt to disarm We the People of this country is immoral, illegal and therefore violates the First Amendment as well as the Second Amendment, in addition to violating the commandments in the holy scriptures.  To disarm the people is at once an act of war, and, in fact, a coup d'├ętat.  It is treason and sedition against the government of the United States, comprised of We The People.    
Finally, any home that is not prepared to protect its children, women, aged, infirmed, or weak is living in an unbiblical state of wanton disregard of a Biblical edict, historical precedent, and common sense.  As a result, we have not only been given the “right” by Yahweh to keep and bear arms, we have been given the obligation to keep and bear arms both as a spiritual matter and as a matter of U.S. law and historical understanding.

'Obamacare' to hit smokers with huge penalties

Published: 26 January, 2013, 01:00
AFP Photo / Justin Sullivan
AFP Photo / Justin Sullivan
Smokers, beware: tobacco penalties under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act could subject millions of smokers to fees costing thousands of dollars, making healthcare more expensive for them than Americans with other unhealthy habits.
The Affordable Care Act, which critics have also called “Obamacare”, could subject smokers to premiums that are 50 percent higher than usual, starting next Jan 1. Health insurers will be allowed to charge smokers penalties that overweight Americans or those with other health conditions would not be subjected to.
A 60-year-old smoker could pay penalties as high as $5,100, in addition to the premiums, the Associated Press reports. A 55-year-old smoker’s penalty could reach $4,250. The older a smoker is, the higher the penalty will be.
Nearly one in every five U.S. adults smokes, with a higher number of low-income people addicted to the unhealthy habit. Even though smokers are more likely to develop heart disease, cancer and lung problems and would therefore require more health care, the penalties might devastate those who need help the most – including retirees, older Americans, and low-income individuals.
“We don’t want to create barriers for people to get health care coverage,” California state Assemblyman Richard Pan told AP. “We want people who are smoking to get smoking cessation treatment.”
Nearly 450,000 US residents die of smoking-related diseases each year, making the unhealthy habit a serious concern for lawmakers. One legislator is trying to criminalize smoking in his state, while others have raised taxes on cigarettes and the Obama administration has tried to inflict hefty fines upon smokers’ premiums.
Karen Pollitz, a former consumer protection regular, told AP that no insurers want to provide coverage for Americans who have been smoking for decades, and that the penalties might prompt people to abandon the habit.
“You would have the flexibility to discourage them,” she told AP.
But quitting is not easy, and charging older smokers up to three times as much as younger ones could make it difficult for them to seek care in the first place. A 60-year-old smoker charged with the penalty could be paying about $8,411 per year for health insurance, which is about 24 percent of a $35,000 income and is considered “unaffordable” under federal law.
“The effect of the smoking (penalty) allowed under the law would be that lower-income smokers could not afford health insurance,” said Richard Curtis, president of the Institute for Health Policy Solutions.
Ultimately, the law that is meant to make health care more affordable could have the opposite effect on older smokers at a time when smoking-related illnesses usually arise.

Deadly GM flu research that could 'wipe out significant portion of humanity' set to restart

  • Flu experts overturn self-imposed ban on creating mutant firms of the H5N1 bird flu virus
  • They claim the risky research is needed to prepare in case it naturally mutates to human transmissible form
  • But leading experts condemn decision to restart research into genetically modified versions of the virus
  • Humans can only currently catch H5N1 from infected birds, but when they do it is usually fatal
By Damien Gayle

Scientists last night ended a voluntary ban on creating mutant forms of bird flu, despite warnings that an accidental release could kill millions of people.
Research into H5N1 transmission stopped a year ago amid fears information about how to create potentially dangerous viruses could be used for bioterrorism.
The self-imposed moratorium came after two teams independently discovered how to mutate the virus so that it could be transmitted through the air between humans.
Deadly: The H5N1 strain of bird flu can currently pass from birds to birds, and from birds to humans, but not between humans. When it does infect a human, it is usually fatal.
Deadly: The H5N1 strain of bird flu can currently pass from birds to birds, and from birds to humans, but not between humans. When it does infect a human, it is usually fatal
However, other leading scientists condemned the decision to go ahead with the research, with one warning an 'accidental release could wipe out a significant portion of humanity.'
Forty of the world's leading flu researchers voluntarily halted investigations into the airborne transmission of the H5N1 avian flu strain last January, following public outrage over the work.
Announcing the decision to resume studies in a letter published in the journals Science and Nature last night, they said the work would only be carried out in the most secure sites in countries that agree it can go ahead.
That will allow work to start again in key laboratories in the Netherlands and elsewhere but not yet in the U.S or U.S.-funded research centres, pending further safety and security guidelines there.

Flu experts said they have recognised the fears over their risky studies of the pathogen and worked hard to calm them, and now it is time to push on.
They say the studies are essential for a deeper understanding of H5N1, which many fear could one day spark a lethal pandemic in humans.
'We want the world to be better prepared than we currently are when an H5N1 virus causes a pandemic,' said Yoshihiro Kawaoka of Tokyo University, a leading researcher on avian flu.
'We understand the risks associated with our research and we take every precaution to conduct H5N1 virus experiments safely.'

'Should we be trying to engineer in the laboratory a virus so dangerous that a release could wipe out a significant portion of humanity? I vote no'

 Sir Richard Roberts, genetic engineering expert and Nobel Prize winner

He told reporters on a teleconference the research would boost efforts to develop global flu 'biosurveillance', early warning systems, as well as better flu drugs and vaccines.
But other scientific experts warned that the potential risks of going ahead with the research outweighed the possible benefits.
Former government chief scientist Professor Lord May told The Independent: 'As this research become more widely known and disseminated, there is the opportunity for evil people to pervert it.
'My other concern is the statistics of containment are not what they ought to be.'
Genetic engineering expert Sir Richard Roberts, who won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1993, said the decision had been 'made by a small group of self-interested scientists' and made 'a mockery of the concept of informed consent'.
'Should we be trying to engineer in the laboratory a virus so dangerous that an accidental release could wipe out a significant portion of humanity?' he asked. 'I vote no.'
Hazard to public health: A bird flies away from an Indonesian public health officer who tries to catch it as they kill birds in Jakarta, Indonesia following an outbreak in the country in 2006
Hazard to public health: A bird flies away from an Indonesian public health officer who tries to catch it as they kill birds in Jakarta, Indonesia following an outbreak in the country in 2006
In the open letter announcing the lifting of the ban, flu researchers from the U.S., China, Japan, Britain, the Netherlands, Canada, Hong Kong, Italy and Germany admitted their research was not without risks.
'However, because the risk exists in nature that an H5N1 virus capable of transmission in mammals may emerge, the benefits of this work outweigh the risks,' they added.
Wendy Barclay, a flu virologist at Imperial College London and one of the letter's signatories, said lifting the moratorium would lead to scientific discoveries that would have 'direct consequence for human and animal health'.
All research into H5N1 transmission was halted last January after teams at the University of Wisconsin and the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam made mutant forms that can be transmitted directly among mammals, meaning they could in theory also pass between people.


There are serious concerns that the H5N1 bird flu virus poses an enormous pandemic threat.
The first avian influenza virus to infect humans occurred in Hong Kong in 1997 in an epidemic that was linked to chickens.
Human cases H5N1 have since been reported in Asia, Africa, Europe, Indonesia, Vietnman, the Pacific, and the near East.
Hundreds of people have become sick with this virus, with slightly more than 60 per cent of those who catch it dying of the illness.
The more the avian flu virus spreads, the greater the chances of a worldwide outbreak in humans. 
Currently, bird flu can be transmitted from birds to birds, and birds to humans, but not from humans to humans.
When it does pass from birds to humans, it is usually fatal. Scientists are concerned the same mutations needed to make it transmissible among mammals in a lab could one day happen in nature.
When news of the work emerged late in 2011, it prompted the U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity to call for the scientific papers about it to be censored to prevent details falling into the wrong hands.
The censorship call sparked a fierce debate about how far scientists should be allowed to go in manipulating infectious agents in the name of research.
Professor Barclay said this had been a 'knee-jerk response from certain quarters previously naive of this approach, expressing horror that scientists were brewing up deadly diseases.'
During the moratorium, the World Health Organisation recommended that scientists explain the biological and other security measures they use to contain the virus and make more effort to show why the research is so important.
'The laboratories have expanded on their containment and security system ... and I think the value of the results has been recognised,' said John McCauley, director of the WHO collaborating centre for flu research at Britain's National Institute for Medical Research.
Ron Fouchier, from the Rotterdam lab which led one of the studies, said his team would start fresh research on H5N1 viruses 'in the next few weeks'.
'We really need to understand how these viruses become airborne,' he told reporters in the teleconference, saying that was the primary goal of the work.

We Need Hearings on Un-American Activities, Now!


The destructive actions and agenda of President Obama and his Executive Branch can no longer be tolerated by Americans. Obama has no plans to respect our laws and founding principles. He only wishes to weaken them and cripple what once was a country worthy of the title World Superpower. A country that the planet could count on to lay down our lives to defend good against aggression and shake compliance out of the stupidly arrogant and dangerous.
Obama’s priority is to destroy his opposition and complete his dream of transforming our Republic into a government controlled hell where citizens obey the government—over our faith in God and morality—or he will see us marginalized and subjugated. If he is allowed to advance his un-American delusions the United States future is certain. We will all be sacrificed to his world view.
Unlawful acts that rise to the level of treason and espionage cannot be abided to accommodate a dishonest man’s claim of privilege. Lies do not grant a criminal absolution for his mistakes nor his fabricated victories. Political patronage is graft and Obama is the spawn of this insidious illness that he has encouraged as President of our country.  Obama has no respect is devoid of a conscience and his dangerous addiction to power and fame is destroying our nation.
Yesterday, I watched our Secretary of State refuse to answer to the American people for her failures and the deaths of four Americans serving our country.  Incompetence is not an excuse Madam Secretary, it is criminal when you run our State Department and you watch four of your staff murdered and take political cover to protect your boss’s re-election and your political future. You Madam are not an American and you should be tried for your ineptitude and resolute betrayal of your fellow countrymen.
Manufacturing crisis is a form of sedition and it is a crime in America. Our President is fabricating carefully scripted crisis in order to assault our Constitution. Arbitrary and meritless gun bans are illegal in the United States of America. So is auctioning off sensitive U.S. assets and technologies to foreign governments. The mere thought of or plotting to undertake such a venture can carry the death sentence. It’s called espionage. Both of these crimes are being committed by our Executive Branch every day to satisfy their lust for deficit funding.
Our elections and our rights to vote for legitimate candidates openly vetted have been compromised by foreign money laundered through shell corporations, tax exempt charities, unions and lobbies. Not only does Obama willingly except this corruption, but he is now moonlighting on our time and dime for his campaign turned his tax free interest lobby. Conflict of interests abound and laws are broken as the Chicago school of machine politics rules the day and destroys what is left of a representative government and free and open elections. This too is against the law in the United States. This too is a crime.
Obama denies his Islamist loyalties. He strategically weakens U.S. military threats to his global brethren and exploits U.S. taxpayer money to provide terrorists camouflaged as Arab reformers with the equipment and aid they require to flourish and strengthen their anti-American offensive. Subterfuge is his ally, as he boldly claims victory where none exists; all to allow Islamist ideology to advance on American rights, laws and sovereignty. Access to the White House is now purchased by Sheiks and their errand boys. This too is a crime.
The United States of America is not a social engineering project. No President is ever elected to tinker with the inalienable rights that provide the foundation of our freedom and liberty. They all swear an oath to protect and defend these rights. Obama has proven to us he has no respect for the oath he took 4 years ago and re-took 4 days ago.  His loyalties are un-American and he is no longer afraid to show his true intent. Obama’s ultimate target, our countries fiscal and social destruction, is no longer a secret. This is treason and it too is a crime.
President Obama is the greatest domestic threat our nation faces. This man possesses the power to soothe and heal our nation, yet he arrogantly chooses the path of confrontation, corruption and denial furthering the disintegration of our American way of life and our exceptionalism.
Whatever heroes that still remain in our government and in our communities must demand investigation into this administrations serial corruption and willful disregard for their oaths and the breaking of our nation’s laws. We must take the fight for our rights to the White House. We must rid our nation of the sinister threat that has stolen the high political high ground and doomed us to 4 more years of Obama’s Amerika. Un-American activities can no longer be forgiven for they have become the new norm and eventually they will take us all.

Communist Party USA Cheers On Obama’s Gun Grab

William F. Jasper
New American
Jan 25, 2013
It should come as no surprise that the Communist Party USA is on board with President Obama’s plan to attack Americans’ right to keep and bear arms as a means to “end gun violence.” A cardinal feature of communist regimes, like all dictatorships, is the prohibition of private ownership of arms, creating a monopoly of force in the hands of the State.
In a January 18 article, People’s World, an official publication of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), declared that “the ability to live free from the fear or threat of gun violence is a fundamental democratic right — one that far supercedes any so-called personal gun rights allegedly contained in the Second Amendment.”
The article, entitled, “Fight to end gun violence is key to defending democracy,” written by People’s World labor and politics reporter Rick Nagin, claims that “the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans.”
“It is for that reason,” declares Nagin, “as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.”
The Communist Party’s “journalist” continued:
As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly “gin up fear” that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.
However, gun rights advocates don’t need to “gin up fear” that President Obama’s “common sense” proposals will lead to even more onerous infringements than the current calls to ban or restrict so-called “assault weapons”; the gun control zealots have been quite emphatic about intending to severely restrict (and many have called for a total ban on) all privately owned firearms. A December 21 article for the Daily Kos is one of the candid admissions against interest by the Left that the real end goal is a total monopoly of gun ownership by the government. Entitled, “How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process,” the regular Daily Kos writer “Sporks” says:
The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.
The writer then outlines the piecemeal plan by which the federal government can begin with registration and end up with confiscation. The Daily Kos article also cites the need to delegitimize hunting as well. “We should also segway [sic] into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK,” it says. “By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.”
Nagin surely must know that it is not merely groundless paranoia exploited by “extremists” inspiring fear that President Obama’s multi-part gun control plan is but the opening wedge in a new drive for ever-expanding federal restrictions and infringements of the Second Amendment. And Nagin surely is aware that his comrades ruling China, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and other communist countries have never stopped at partial restrictions on private ownership of weapons.
As The New American reported recently, Communist China’s ruling mandarins, sounding very much like our own media commentators, have blasted the United States for our “rampant gun ownership.” A Chinese government report last year detailing alleged human rights violations in the United States declares:
The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens’ lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership.
More recently, on December 14, 2012, the Beijing regime’s Xinhua news agency editorialized:
Twenty-eight innocent people, including 20 primary students, have been slaughtered in a mass shooting at an elementary school in the U.S. state of Connecticut. Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control.
“Action speaks louder than words,” concluded the Xinhua editorial. “If Obama wants to take practical measures to control guns, he has to make preparation for a protracted war and considerable political cost.”
Communist China, of course, is no paragon of virtue when it comes to liberty, safety, and human rights. Its total ban on private ownership of guns under Mao Tse-tung (Zedong) guaranteed that the Communist Party would have unchallenged power. And, as Professor R. J. Rummel has pointed out in his several published studies on democide (mass murder by governments): Power kills and absolute power kills absolutely. In the case of Communist China, the mass murder by the communist government under Mao was somewhere in the neighborhood of 38 million souls!
And China remains a rigidly controlled police state to this day, notwithstanding the limited market reforms that the Party has allowed for pragmatic purposes to obtain the capital and technology it needs to modernize. Only Party officials and the police and military (who must be members of, and be vetted by, the Communist Party) are allowed to possess weapons.
Mao’s comrades in Russia, Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin, likewise disarmed the civilian population before initiating mass murder. As did Adolf Hitler and every other “successful” mass-murdering tyrant throughout history. Vladimir Gladkov, a radio propagandist on Vladimir Putin’s “Voice of Russia” program, expressed disappointment on December 20 that the Sandy Hook mass shooting probably would not generate the support President Obama needs to implement his desired gun controls. “Unfortunately, there are grounds for very serious doubt that even after this terrible massacre, a ban on selling weapons will be introduced in the US,” said Gladkov.
Again, considering that rigid, absolute, centralized power is the essence of all totalitarian regimes, those regimes must, therefore, automatically strike down all checks and balances that would limit their central authority. It is not surprising that spokesmen for these totalitarian governments would endorse policies that give the government a monopoly on deadly force.
The American Founding Fathers, on the other hand, recognized that the armed private citizen is the ultimate check and balance against the centralized monopoly of force which invariably turns tyrannical and deadly. Nagin and People’s World, not surprisingly, side with communist tyrants and deride American commitment to our natural rights enshrined in our Constitution.
“The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans,” says Nagin. Nagin, according to the profile provided on Keywiki by Trevor Loudon, has been a member of the CPUSA for several decades and a writer for the People’s World and other communist publications since 1970. He is a member of the Newspaper Guild and the Communications Workers of America as well as a political coordinator for the AFL-CIO in Ohio. In 2012 he was the Democratic Leader in Cleveland Ward 14 and served on the County Democratic Party Executive Committee.
We recognize the totalitarian ideology and objectives of Nagin and other communist propagandists when they advocate disarming of civilians and a total monopoly of force in government. Many of the other people advocating the same gun control policies may not have those totalitarian objectives in mind — but by their support of these policies they would lead us down the same deadly path nonetheless.
See more important reports at TheNewAmerican.com.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Muslim Brotherhood group to 'connect all U.S. schools' Partners with State, Education departments on international initiative.

by Aaron Klein Email | Archive 

JERUSALEM – A Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization has partnered with the U.S. Department of Education and the State Department to facilitate an online program aiming to connect all U.S. schools with classrooms abroad by 2016.
Vartan Gregorian, a board member of the organization, the Qatar Foundation International, was appointed in 2009 to President Obama’s White House Fellowships Commission.
WND previously exposed that Gregorian served as a point man in granting $49.2 million in startup capital to an education-reform project founded by former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers and chaired by Obama.
Documentation shows Gregorian was central in Ayers’ recruitment of Obama to serve as the first chairman of the project, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge – a job in which Obama worked closely on a regular basis with Ayers.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration of Washington is exposed in “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America”
Obama also later said his job at the project qualified him to run for public office, as WND previously reported.
Connecting schools to fulfill Obama pledge
The Qatar Foundation International, or QFI, in 2011 partnered with the Department of State and the U.S. Department of Education to facilitate matchmaking between classrooms in the U.S. and international schools through something called the “Connect All Schools” project.
QFI, funded by the Qatari government, explains on its website the initiative was founded in response to Obama’s call in his June 2009 speech to the Arab world in Cairo, Egypt, to “create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.”
QFI relates how more than 100 U.S. schools and organizations have already connected on the interactive website.
The stated goal of the initiative is to “connect every school in the U.S. with the world by 2016.”
This is not the QFI’s first foray into the U.S. education system.
WND reported last May the Qatar-based foundation awarded “Curriculum Grants” to seven U.S. schools and language organizations to “develop comprehensive and innovative curricula and teaching materials to be used in any Arabic language classroom.”
QFI, based in Washington, D.C., is the U.S. branch of the Qatar Foundation, founded in 1995 by Qatar’s ruling emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani.
Thani is still the group’s vice-chairman, while one of his three wives, Sheikha Moza bint Nasser, chairs the organization’s board.
Thani also launched Al Jazeera in 1996 and served as the television network’s chairman.
The Qatar foundation is close to the Muslim Brotherhood.
In January 2012, it launched the Research Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics under the guidance of Tariq Ramadan, who serves as the center’s director.
Ramadan is the grandson of the notorious founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al Banna. Ramadan was banned from the U.S. until 2010 when the Obama administration issued him a visa to give a lecture at a New York school.
QFI, meanwhile, named several institutions after Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the top leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Many regard Qaradawi as the de facto spiritual leader of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.
The foundation instituted the Sheikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi Scholarships and in 2009 established a research center named the Qaradawi Center for Islamic Moderation and Renewal.
Qaradawi has personally attended scores of foundation events, including conferences at which he served as a keynote speaker.
Qaradawi achieved star status because of his regular sermons and interviews on Al Jazeera.
The Investigative Project on Terrorism documents Qardawi openly permitted the killing of American troops in Iraq and praised the “heroic deeds” of “Hamas, Jihad, Al-Aqsa Brigades and others.”
Obama, Ayers connection
Gregorian, president of Carnegie Corp. charitable foundation, was appointed by Obama in 2009 as a White House fellow. Born in Tabriz, Iran, Gregorian served for eight years as president of the New York Public Library and was also president of Brown University.
As Brown president, Gregorian served on the selection committee of the Annenberg Foundation, which funded Ayers’ Chicago Annenberg Challenge with a $49.2 million, 2-to-1 matching challenge grant over five years. Ayers was one of five founding members of the Annenberg Challenge who wrote to the Annenberg Foundation for the initial funding.
Steve Diamond, a political-science and law professor and a blogger who has posted on Obama, previously posted a letter from Nov. 18, 1994, in which Gregorian, serving as the point man on Annenberg’s selection committee, asked Ayers to “compose the governing board” of the Challenge’s collaborative project with “people who reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of Chicago.”
Ayers and other founding Challenge members then recruited Obama to serve as the project chairman.
WND was first to expose that Obama and Ayers used the project grant money to fund organizations run by radicals tied to Ayers, including Mike Klonsky, a former top communist activist who was a senior leader in the Students for a Democratic Society group, a major leftist student organization in the 1960s from which the Weathermen terror group later splintered.
National Review Online writer Stanley Kurtz examined the project archives housed at the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago, finding Obama and Ayers worked closely at the project.
The documents obtained by Kurtz showed Ayers served as an ex-officio member of the board that Obama chaired through the project’s first year. Ayers also served on the board’s governance committee with Obama and worked with him to craft project bylaws, according to the documents.
Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Obama. Ayers also spoke for the Chicago School Reform Collaborative before Obama’s board, while Obama periodically spoke for the board at meetings of the collaborative, the project documents reviewed by Kurtz show.
WND reported Obama and Ayers also served together on the board of the Woods Fund, a liberal Chicago nonprofit that granted money to far-left causes.
One of the groups funded by the Woods Fund was the Midwest Academy, an activist organization modeled after Marxist community organizer Saul Alinsky described as teaching tactics of direct action, confrontation and intimidation.
WND reported Jackie Kendall, executive director of the Midwest Academy, was on the team that developed and delivered the first Camp Obama training for volunteers aiding Obama’s campaign through the 2008 Iowa Caucuses.
Camp Obama was a two- to four-day intensive course run in conjunction with Obama’s campaign aimed at training volunteers to become activists to help Obama win the presidential election.
Obama scholar linked to ‘Ground Zero’ imam
Meanwhile, WND reported Gregorian is closely tied to the Muslim leaders behind the controversial Islamic cultural center to be built near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Gregorian also serves on the board of the Sept. 11 Memorial and Museum. The museum is reportedly working with the American Society for Muslim Advancement, whose leaders are behind the mosque, to ensure the future museum will represent the voices of American Muslims.
“[The Sept. 11 museum will represent the] voices of American Muslims in particular, and it will honor members of other communities who came together in support and collaboration with the Muslim community on September 11 and its aftermath,” stated Daisy Khan, executive director of the society.
The Sept. 11 museum’s oral historian, Jenny Pachucki, is collaborating with the society to ensure the perspective of American Muslims is woven into the overall experience of the museum, according to the museum’s blog.
Khan’s husband, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is the founder of the society as well as chairman of Cordoba Initiative, which is behind the proposed mosque to be built about two blocks from the area referred to as Ground Zero.
With Gregorian at its helm, Carnegie Corp. is at the top of the list of society supporters on the Islamic group’s website.
Carnegie is also listed as a funder of both of the society’s partner organizations, Search for Common Ground and the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations. Gregorian was a participant in the U.N. body’s first forum, as was Rauf.
Rauf is vice chairman on the board of the Interfaith Center of New York, which honored Gregorian at an awards dinner in 2008.
World domination
Gregorian is the author of “Islam: A Mosaic, Not A Monolith.” According to a book review by the Middle East Forum, his book “establishes the Islamist goal of world domination.”
A chapter of the book, “Islamism: Liberation Politics,” quotes Ayatollah Khomeini: “Islam does not conquer. Islam wants all countries to become Muslim, of themselves.” Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, is quoted stating it “is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its laws on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”
Gregorian himself recommends for Muslims a system he calls “theo-democracy,” which he defines as “a divine democratic government” that, according to the book review, “would have a limited popular sovereignty under the suzerainty of Allah.”
With additional research by Danette Clark and Brenda J. Elliott