Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 12/30/2008 8:00:00 AM
Planned Parenthood has been shut down in the Texas panhandle.
American Life League's (ALL) Stop Planned Parenthood, or Stopp International, says it took a long time, but their campaign against Planned Parenthood finally got some results. "For 12 years in the Texas panhandle, there has been a fight against Planned Parenthood," he notes. "Planned Parenthood, in 1997, operated 19 clinics in the Texas panhandle."
Then the state reduced funding for the organization, and pro-life workers also continued in their efforts to shut Planned Parenthood's doors. "And as of December 31, there will no longer be any Planned Parenthood offices in the Texas panhandle," Sedlak explains. "They will all be gone."
The two remaining clinics in Amarillo have disaffiliated with the national organization. Sedlak says other cities can accomplish the same goal if they are determined, and information on that is available on the Stopp website.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Ammunition Accountability Act
Well... they can't take our guns because they are Constitutionally protected, but they are useless without the non-protected ammunition. Apparently, ammo, isn't protected by the Constitution. Please start writing to legislators and Congressmen to get them to stop this invasive Act. It's just one more freedom taken away. This is the sample legislation from California that is also being considered by 18 other states, so far.
Ammunition Accountability Act
SAMPLE LEGISLATION
An ACT relating to firearms and ammunition; requiring [AGENCY] to establish a statewide
database to track coded ammunition manufactured and sold for handguns and assault rifles.
Section 1. Legislative Findings.
The State Legislature hereby finds the following:
Each year in the United States, more than 30% of all homicides that involve a gun go
unsolved.
Handgun ammunition accounts for 80% of all ammunition sold in the United States.
Current technology for matching a bullet used in a crime to the gun that fired it has
worked moderately well for years, but presupposes that the weapon was recovered by
law enforcement.
Bullet coding is a new and effective way for law enforcement to quickly identify persons
of interest in gun crime investigations.
Section 2. Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter, “coded ammunition” means a bullet carrying a
unique identifier that has been applied by etching onto the base of the bullet projectile.
Section 3. Prohibition on possession or sale of non-coded ammunition.
1. All handgun and assault weapon ammunition manufactured or sold in the state after
January 1, 2009, shall be coded by the manufacturer.
a. The calibers covered by the coding requirement shall include: [LIST
CALIBERS].
2. No later than January 1, 2011, all non-coded ammunition for the calibers listed in this
chapter, whether owned by private citizens or retail outlets, must be disposed.
Section 4. Authority to establish an Ammunition Coding Database.
1. [AGENCY] shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining an Ammunition Coding
Database (ACD) containing the following information:
a. Manufacturer registry – Manufacturers shall:
i. Register with [AGENCY] in a manner prescribed by the department
through rule; and
ii. Maintain records on the business premises for a period of seven
years concerning all sales, loans, and transfers of ammunition, to,
from, or within the state.
b. Vendor registry – Vendors shall
i. Register with [AGENCY] in a manner prescribed by the department
through rule; and
ii. Record the following information in a format prescribed by the
[AGENCY]:
a. The date of the transaction.
b. The name of the transferee.
c. The purchaser’s driver’s license number or other
government issued identification card number
d. The date of birth of the purchaser.
e. The unique identifier of all handgun ammunition or
bullets transferred.
f. All other information prescribed by [AGENCY].
iii. Maintain records on the business premises for a period of three
years from the date of the recorded purchase.
2. To the greatest extent possible or practical, the ACD shall be built within the framework
of existing firearms databases. The ACD shall be operational no later than January 1,
2009.
3. Privacy of individuals is of the utmost importance. Access to information in the ACSD is
reserved for key law enforcement personnel and to be released only in connection with a
criminal investigation.
NEW SECTION: Section 5. Penalties
1. Any vendor that willfully fails to comply with, or falsifies the records required to be kept
by this bill is guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment not to exceed one
year, and a fine of $1,000.
2. Any manufacturer that fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall be liable for
a civil fine of not more than one $1,000 for a first violation, not more than five $5,000 for
a second violation, and not more $10,000 for a third and subsequent violation.
3. Any person who willfully destroys, obliterates, or otherwise renders unreadable, the
serialization required pursuant to this bill, on any bullet or assembled ammunition is
punishable by imprisonment not to exceed one year, and a fine of $1,000.
NEW SECTION: Section 6. Funding.
1. Establishing and maintaining the ACD shall be funded by an end-user fee not to
exceed [COST NUMBER, ESTIMATED AT $0.005 PER BULLET OR ROUND
OF AMMUNITION].
2. There is hereby established the Coded Ammunition Fund for deposit of the end-
user fees described in this section. Moneys in the fund, upon appropriation, shall
be available to the [AGENCY] for infrastructure, implementation, operational,
enforcement, and future development costs of this chapter.
3. Ammunition manufacturers based within this state may submit a one-time tax
credit application for cost of purchasing ammunition coding equipment. All
applications must be submitted by January 1, 2009.
-- END --
NOTE: To view a more detailed version of Ammunition Coding Database legislation that was proposed in other
states, visit www.ammunitionaccountability.org. Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs can also
provide drafting guidance. Contact Briahna Taylor at (253) 620-6640 or btaylor@gth-gov.com
Ammunition Accountability Act
SAMPLE LEGISLATION
An ACT relating to firearms and ammunition; requiring [AGENCY] to establish a statewide
database to track coded ammunition manufactured and sold for handguns and assault rifles.
Section 1. Legislative Findings.
The State Legislature hereby finds the following:
Each year in the United States, more than 30% of all homicides that involve a gun go
unsolved.
Handgun ammunition accounts for 80% of all ammunition sold in the United States.
Current technology for matching a bullet used in a crime to the gun that fired it has
worked moderately well for years, but presupposes that the weapon was recovered by
law enforcement.
Bullet coding is a new and effective way for law enforcement to quickly identify persons
of interest in gun crime investigations.
Section 2. Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter, “coded ammunition” means a bullet carrying a
unique identifier that has been applied by etching onto the base of the bullet projectile.
Section 3. Prohibition on possession or sale of non-coded ammunition.
1. All handgun and assault weapon ammunition manufactured or sold in the state after
January 1, 2009, shall be coded by the manufacturer.
a. The calibers covered by the coding requirement shall include: [LIST
CALIBERS].
2. No later than January 1, 2011, all non-coded ammunition for the calibers listed in this
chapter, whether owned by private citizens or retail outlets, must be disposed.
Section 4. Authority to establish an Ammunition Coding Database.
1. [AGENCY] shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining an Ammunition Coding
Database (ACD) containing the following information:
a. Manufacturer registry – Manufacturers shall:
i. Register with [AGENCY] in a manner prescribed by the department
through rule; and
ii. Maintain records on the business premises for a period of seven
years concerning all sales, loans, and transfers of ammunition, to,
from, or within the state.
b. Vendor registry – Vendors shall
i. Register with [AGENCY] in a manner prescribed by the department
through rule; and
ii. Record the following information in a format prescribed by the
[AGENCY]:
a. The date of the transaction.
b. The name of the transferee.
c. The purchaser’s driver’s license number or other
government issued identification card number
d. The date of birth of the purchaser.
e. The unique identifier of all handgun ammunition or
bullets transferred.
f. All other information prescribed by [AGENCY].
iii. Maintain records on the business premises for a period of three
years from the date of the recorded purchase.
2. To the greatest extent possible or practical, the ACD shall be built within the framework
of existing firearms databases. The ACD shall be operational no later than January 1,
2009.
3. Privacy of individuals is of the utmost importance. Access to information in the ACSD is
reserved for key law enforcement personnel and to be released only in connection with a
criminal investigation.
NEW SECTION: Section 5. Penalties
1. Any vendor that willfully fails to comply with, or falsifies the records required to be kept
by this bill is guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment not to exceed one
year, and a fine of $1,000.
2. Any manufacturer that fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall be liable for
a civil fine of not more than one $1,000 for a first violation, not more than five $5,000 for
a second violation, and not more $10,000 for a third and subsequent violation.
3. Any person who willfully destroys, obliterates, or otherwise renders unreadable, the
serialization required pursuant to this bill, on any bullet or assembled ammunition is
punishable by imprisonment not to exceed one year, and a fine of $1,000.
NEW SECTION: Section 6. Funding.
1. Establishing and maintaining the ACD shall be funded by an end-user fee not to
exceed [COST NUMBER, ESTIMATED AT $0.005 PER BULLET OR ROUND
OF AMMUNITION].
2. There is hereby established the Coded Ammunition Fund for deposit of the end-
user fees described in this section. Moneys in the fund, upon appropriation, shall
be available to the [AGENCY] for infrastructure, implementation, operational,
enforcement, and future development costs of this chapter.
3. Ammunition manufacturers based within this state may submit a one-time tax
credit application for cost of purchasing ammunition coding equipment. All
applications must be submitted by January 1, 2009.
-- END --
NOTE: To view a more detailed version of Ammunition Coding Database legislation that was proposed in other
states, visit www.ammunitionaccountability.org. Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs can also
provide drafting guidance. Contact Briahna Taylor at (253) 620-6640 or btaylor@gth-gov.com
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Interesting Opinion Article About Obama and Election
A plan to survive the Obama years
By Z. DWIGHT BILLINGSLY
Here is the story.
As Jack Buck once said, "I don't believe what I just saw!" Americans on
Nov. 4 turned over control of the United States of America to a management
team possessing no executive experience, having never run, as I liked to
put it, nothing.
Well, Americans usually get the government they deserve, and I urge you all
to get ready for this 21st century version of amateur hour. It's going to
be an embarrassing and dangerous time for America and American ideals.
There won't be much, I'm afraid, to be thankful for.
Bill Kristol, writing in The Weekly Standard, reminded me that every 16
years we get a Democrat president with no experience in national security
or international affairs who's elected after Republican presidents have
made and kept America safe: After Eisenhower, we got Kennedy; after
Nixon/Ford, we got Carter; after Reagan/Bush, we got Clinton. And after
Bush II, we get Barack Obama.
Every strong Republican president who succeeded in protecting America has
allowed Americans to become complacent about national security, thereby
opening the door for weak Democrats who allowed enemies to threaten and
attack America without penalty. Obama will be no different, and Americans
will have to learn again that there can be no economic security without
national security.
That's not to say that Obama's election doesn't come with a couple of
interesting side effects. For example, henceforth no black man in America
may be called unqualified for any job that he might seek, no matter his
prior education or experience level. Want to be a nuclear scientist but
lack a Ph.D. in physics? If the applicant is a black man, it's no problem.
Just offer hope to the profession and promise change from all those stuffy
theorems that have given the discipline its structure over the years, and
you're in.
That's on a par with throwing out the fact that tax cuts lead to more
investment, job creation and increasing government revenues, just because
the black man, that transcendent agent of change, says it's OK.
Another side effect has been white people contacting me to say that I
should be proud to see a black man become president. Could there be a
comment that is more condescending, more insulting, than that? If I
believed that in America a black man could not be president, then I would
be proud to see any black man elected president. But because I always have
believed that nothing in America prevents a black man from becoming
president or anything else he wants to be, I can be embarrassed, not proud,
to see someone as unqualified and inexperienced as Obama become president.
Jackie Robinson, the first black man in modern-day major league baseball,
illustrates my point. He was the right man with the right combination of
talent, temperament and character at the right time to be successful for
that important "first." Obama? An empty suit who will fail.
I'm going to approach the Obama years the same way liberals handled the
Iraq war. Just as they claimed to support our troops while opposing the
war, I'm going to support my country while opposing Obama and what he
stands for in every way that I can. It's only four years and with the
astute Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky as Senate minority leader,
Republicans can stop the Obama extremists for two years until mid-term
elections in 2010 give Republicans the boost in Congress that inevitably
will come.
And in 2012, we'll have Sarah Palin to clean up Obama's mess and remind us
again of America's exceptionalism.
Z. Dwight Billingsly is a principal of Branford Gateway Investment Co. and
a financial services industry specialist for the Missouri Department of
Economic Development. He serves as co-chair of the Missouri Spectrum
political action committee, an auxiliary of the Missouri Republican Party.
E-mail: zdbcomment@gmail.com
By Z. DWIGHT BILLINGSLY
Here is the story.
As Jack Buck once said, "I don't believe what I just saw!" Americans on
Nov. 4 turned over control of the United States of America to a management
team possessing no executive experience, having never run, as I liked to
put it, nothing.
Well, Americans usually get the government they deserve, and I urge you all
to get ready for this 21st century version of amateur hour. It's going to
be an embarrassing and dangerous time for America and American ideals.
There won't be much, I'm afraid, to be thankful for.
Bill Kristol, writing in The Weekly Standard, reminded me that every 16
years we get a Democrat president with no experience in national security
or international affairs who's elected after Republican presidents have
made and kept America safe: After Eisenhower, we got Kennedy; after
Nixon/Ford, we got Carter; after Reagan/Bush, we got Clinton. And after
Bush II, we get Barack Obama.
Every strong Republican president who succeeded in protecting America has
allowed Americans to become complacent about national security, thereby
opening the door for weak Democrats who allowed enemies to threaten and
attack America without penalty. Obama will be no different, and Americans
will have to learn again that there can be no economic security without
national security.
That's not to say that Obama's election doesn't come with a couple of
interesting side effects. For example, henceforth no black man in America
may be called unqualified for any job that he might seek, no matter his
prior education or experience level. Want to be a nuclear scientist but
lack a Ph.D. in physics? If the applicant is a black man, it's no problem.
Just offer hope to the profession and promise change from all those stuffy
theorems that have given the discipline its structure over the years, and
you're in.
That's on a par with throwing out the fact that tax cuts lead to more
investment, job creation and increasing government revenues, just because
the black man, that transcendent agent of change, says it's OK.
Another side effect has been white people contacting me to say that I
should be proud to see a black man become president. Could there be a
comment that is more condescending, more insulting, than that? If I
believed that in America a black man could not be president, then I would
be proud to see any black man elected president. But because I always have
believed that nothing in America prevents a black man from becoming
president or anything else he wants to be, I can be embarrassed, not proud,
to see someone as unqualified and inexperienced as Obama become president.
Jackie Robinson, the first black man in modern-day major league baseball,
illustrates my point. He was the right man with the right combination of
talent, temperament and character at the right time to be successful for
that important "first." Obama? An empty suit who will fail.
I'm going to approach the Obama years the same way liberals handled the
Iraq war. Just as they claimed to support our troops while opposing the
war, I'm going to support my country while opposing Obama and what he
stands for in every way that I can. It's only four years and with the
astute Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky as Senate minority leader,
Republicans can stop the Obama extremists for two years until mid-term
elections in 2010 give Republicans the boost in Congress that inevitably
will come.
And in 2012, we'll have Sarah Palin to clean up Obama's mess and remind us
again of America's exceptionalism.
Z. Dwight Billingsly is a principal of Branford Gateway Investment Co. and
a financial services industry specialist for the Missouri Department of
Economic Development. He serves as co-chair of the Missouri Spectrum
political action committee, an auxiliary of the Missouri Republican Party.
E-mail: zdbcomment@gmail.com
U.S. sides with traditional marriage...for now
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 12/26/2008 9:30:00 AM
The United States has refused to sign on to a United Nations declaration on sexual orientation.
In all, 67 nations have signed the declaration submitted by France. Piero Tozzi of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, or C-FAM, explains the document's assertions. "It basically called upon recognition of two new categories in human rights, one based on sexual orientation and the other one on gender identity," he notes.
Tozzi says the statement's purpose is to decriminalize homosexual conduct. For now, he contends there is no cause for alarm, but the situation could change in the future.
"There is no binding impact. It is purely a moral statement, but once it's in the UN system as it were, it will likely be referenced by advocates," he points out. "And the statements from the French government official Rama Yade said that this is not the end; it is only the beginning."
In spite of homosexual marriage being illegal in 70 nations, Tozzi believes it will achieve international acceptance eventually. He adds that while the United States did not sign on to the declaration, the incoming Obama administration might think differently.
The United States has refused to sign on to a United Nations declaration on sexual orientation.
In all, 67 nations have signed the declaration submitted by France. Piero Tozzi of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, or C-FAM, explains the document's assertions. "It basically called upon recognition of two new categories in human rights, one based on sexual orientation and the other one on gender identity," he notes.
Tozzi says the statement's purpose is to decriminalize homosexual conduct. For now, he contends there is no cause for alarm, but the situation could change in the future.
"There is no binding impact. It is purely a moral statement, but once it's in the UN system as it were, it will likely be referenced by advocates," he points out. "And the statements from the French government official Rama Yade said that this is not the end; it is only the beginning."
In spite of homosexual marriage being illegal in 70 nations, Tozzi believes it will achieve international acceptance eventually. He adds that while the United States did not sign on to the declaration, the incoming Obama administration might think differently.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Obama planning billion-dollar 'bailout' for abortion industry
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 12/18/2008 6:00:00 AM
A pro-life group in Washington has launched a campaign to oppose what it calls president-elect Barack Obama's planned $1.5 billion "bailout" of the abortion industry.
Last week, the Obama-Biden Transition Project posted a report on its website that calls for dramatic policy reversals on abortion, including $1 billion in taxpayer money for international abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. The report, titled "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration," also calls for a 133-percent increase in funding for the Title X program, which funds Planned Parenthood clinics across the country.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, is hoping a Republican-led effort in the Senate will block Obama's plan to substantially increase taxpayer funding of the abortion industry.
"This billion-dollar bailout of the abortion industry comes at a time, number one, when the economy is suffering dramatically with true need. And number two, it communicates an incredible depth of arrogance, especially when you consider that the vast majority of Americans -- men and women, no matter who you talk to -- they don't believe that people who don't believe in abortion should be funding it," she contends. "Most Americans don't believe that we should be funding abortions, especially in a time of economic crisis."
The Susan B. Anthony List has started a "Stop the Abortion Bailout" campaign designed to recruit thousands of activists to send letters to their senators "with the goal of securing the 41 votes necessary to sustain a Senate filibuster of the abortion bailout."
A pro-life group in Washington has launched a campaign to oppose what it calls president-elect Barack Obama's planned $1.5 billion "bailout" of the abortion industry.
Last week, the Obama-Biden Transition Project posted a report on its website that calls for dramatic policy reversals on abortion, including $1 billion in taxpayer money for international abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. The report, titled "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration," also calls for a 133-percent increase in funding for the Title X program, which funds Planned Parenthood clinics across the country.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, is hoping a Republican-led effort in the Senate will block Obama's plan to substantially increase taxpayer funding of the abortion industry.
"This billion-dollar bailout of the abortion industry comes at a time, number one, when the economy is suffering dramatically with true need. And number two, it communicates an incredible depth of arrogance, especially when you consider that the vast majority of Americans -- men and women, no matter who you talk to -- they don't believe that people who don't believe in abortion should be funding it," she contends. "Most Americans don't believe that we should be funding abortions, especially in a time of economic crisis."
The Susan B. Anthony List has started a "Stop the Abortion Bailout" campaign designed to recruit thousands of activists to send letters to their senators "with the goal of securing the 41 votes necessary to sustain a Senate filibuster of the abortion bailout."
Jerry Brown is at it again... California Attorney-General turns against Prop 8
Lisa Leff - Associated Press Writer - 12/20/2008 7:05:00 AM
SAN FRANCISCO - California's attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now joining forces with homosexual activists to overturn the results of Proposition 8.
In a dramatic reversal, Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters.
But Brown said he reached a different conclusion "upon further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution.
"It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."
Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, is considering seeking the office again in 2010. After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he personally voted against it but would fight to uphold it as the state's top lawyer.
He submitted his brief in one of the three legal challenges to Proposition 8 brought by same-sex marriage supporters. The measure, a constitutional amendment that passed with 52 percent of the vote, overruled the state Supreme Court decision last spring that briefly legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.
Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the attorney general's change of strategy "a major development."
"The fact that after looking at this he shifted his position and is really bucking convention by not defending Prop. 8 signals very clearly that this proposition can not be defended," Minter said.
The sponsors of Proposition 8 argued for the first time Friday that the court should undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters banned gay marriage at the ballot box last month.
The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief telling the court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.
"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and a former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.
Both Brown and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively.
Starr's co-counsel Andrew Pugno said Brown's decision to challenge the voter-approved measure and the argument advanced by the attorney general was "totally unprecedented."
"His legal duty as attorney general of the state is to defend initiatives passed by the voters," he said.
The state Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation in March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.
SAN FRANCISCO - California's attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now joining forces with homosexual activists to overturn the results of Proposition 8.
In a dramatic reversal, Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters.
But Brown said he reached a different conclusion "upon further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution.
"It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."
Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, is considering seeking the office again in 2010. After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he personally voted against it but would fight to uphold it as the state's top lawyer.
He submitted his brief in one of the three legal challenges to Proposition 8 brought by same-sex marriage supporters. The measure, a constitutional amendment that passed with 52 percent of the vote, overruled the state Supreme Court decision last spring that briefly legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.
Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the attorney general's change of strategy "a major development."
"The fact that after looking at this he shifted his position and is really bucking convention by not defending Prop. 8 signals very clearly that this proposition can not be defended," Minter said.
The sponsors of Proposition 8 argued for the first time Friday that the court should undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters banned gay marriage at the ballot box last month.
The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief telling the court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.
"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and a former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.
Both Brown and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively.
Starr's co-counsel Andrew Pugno said Brown's decision to challenge the voter-approved measure and the argument advanced by the attorney general was "totally unprecedented."
"His legal duty as attorney general of the state is to defend initiatives passed by the voters," he said.
The state Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation in March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.
What news is your child getting at school?
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 12/20/2008 5:20:00 AM
Parents Television Council is discussing the strengths and pitfalls Channel One news.
Channel One, a television network targeting teens, has been pumped into middle and high schools across America since 1990. Schools enter contracts with Channel One in exchange for media equipment, and those contracts require the network to be aired throughout the school.
Gavin McKernan, a spokesperson with the Parents Television Council (PTC), says although Channel One delivers important news to students, it often adds inappropriate content to its program.
"Unfortunately this station, a lot of times, has been marketing things that are not appropriate for youth," he contends. "And...on their website, for instance, [they] have been marketing for shows like 90210 and Gossip Girl and these [types of shows]."
McKernan also notes Channel One is heavy on advertising and even promotes some things that parents might not want their children to see.
According to McKernan, PTC does not receive many complaints because parents, as well as the PTC, are barred from monitoring the station's content. He adds that PTC has asked to monitor Channel One, but has been denied.
The company that owns Channel One also owns Bus Radio. Bus Radio offers a similar contract in that bus drivers are required to have the station on at all times. McKernan says some bus drivers have complained that they do not like the music or ads, but are forced to keep it on because of the contract.
He believes both Channel One and Bus Radio represent a perversion of the school system in that they basically use a captive audience in order to increase market share. McKernan says parents need to have more control over what their children are exposed to at school.
Parents Television Council is discussing the strengths and pitfalls Channel One news.
Channel One, a television network targeting teens, has been pumped into middle and high schools across America since 1990. Schools enter contracts with Channel One in exchange for media equipment, and those contracts require the network to be aired throughout the school.
Gavin McKernan, a spokesperson with the Parents Television Council (PTC), says although Channel One delivers important news to students, it often adds inappropriate content to its program.
"Unfortunately this station, a lot of times, has been marketing things that are not appropriate for youth," he contends. "And...on their website, for instance, [they] have been marketing for shows like 90210 and Gossip Girl and these [types of shows]."
McKernan also notes Channel One is heavy on advertising and even promotes some things that parents might not want their children to see.
According to McKernan, PTC does not receive many complaints because parents, as well as the PTC, are barred from monitoring the station's content. He adds that PTC has asked to monitor Channel One, but has been denied.
The company that owns Channel One also owns Bus Radio. Bus Radio offers a similar contract in that bus drivers are required to have the station on at all times. McKernan says some bus drivers have complained that they do not like the music or ads, but are forced to keep it on because of the contract.
He believes both Channel One and Bus Radio represent a perversion of the school system in that they basically use a captive audience in order to increase market share. McKernan says parents need to have more control over what their children are exposed to at school.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
“PRESIDENT?” CHESTER ARTHUR et al - WHY THEY AREN’T PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY
Very interesting article by the very person who will have his case reviewed by the Supreme Court Justices Dec. 8th.
December 5, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
- 5:34 am
This essay will discuss the eligibility of every President who had parents born abroad. As long as the parents had the future President on US soil after they became citizens, then that person is a natural born citizen.
Every President born before the adoption of the Constitution was eligible because of the grandfather clause of Article 2, Section 1 :
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
JAMES BUCHANAN
The first President we must examine then was James Buchanan, 14th President of the United States. He was born on April 23, 1791 in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. He just missed out on the grandfather clause as the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Buchanan was also the only President from Pennsylvania and the only President never to marry.
His mother Elizabeth Speer was born in Pennsylvani. His father James Buchanan emigrated to the United States from Ireland in 1783. It was an interesting year for the United States as the Treaty of 1783 was signed between the US and Great Britain. Colonists chose to be United States citizens and by virtue of the Treaty, Great Britain recognized those former subjects as United States citizens.
Before the Constitution, United States citizenship was conferred on citizens by the States. When the Constitution was ratified, each citizen of a state became a citizen of the United States. No formal naturalization was needed.
On June 21, 1788 the Constitution was ratified. The Buchanans were citizens of Pennsylvania and therefore James Sr. was a citizen of the United States. When James Jr. was born in Pennsylvania he was therefore a natural born citizen, born on United States soil to two US citizen parents.
ANDREW JOHNSON
Johnson, our 17th President, was born in Raleigh, North Carolina on December 29, 1808. Wiki has this on his father:
Jacob Johnson was born circa 1778. Some sources indicate that he was born in Newcastle, England and sailed to America around 1795, but other sources indicate that he was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, and that it was his grandfather (and possible namesake) who sailed to North America from England. Historian Rev. Nash A. Odom writes that “In the year 1760, Peter Johnson, migrated from Kintyre, Scotland to North Carolina with his large family and settled in Cumberland County. The preaching instinct broke out again and a number of the Johnsons became ministers. One was the father of Jacob Johnson, who moved to Raleigh, North Carolina and was the father of President Andrew Johnson.” Author Billy Kennedy writes that Jacob’s father, named Andrew, a Presbyterian, came to North Carolina about 1750 from Mounthill, Ireland.
The weight of authority is that Jacob was born in the US. But even if the other sources were correct, he would have been in the US for 13 years before Andrew was born. The Naturalization act of 1795 called for a five year residence before Naturalization. The Act was modified in 1798 to a 14 year requirement, but then the Naturalization act of 1802 it was put back to five years.
Jacob Johnson also served as a militia Captain of Muster Division 20 and was the city constable. I can find no allegations that Jacob wasn’t a citizen when Andrew was born. (Jacob Johnson died from complications caused by his heroic saving of a friend’s life.)
Andrew Johnson’s mother was born in North Carolina in 1782.
So, Andrew Johnson - born in North Carolina to two US citizen parents, hence - natural born citizen.
[Chester Arthur would be next, but I shall save him for last.]
WOODROW WILSON
Born December 28, 1856 - the 28th President, born in Staunton, Virginia.
Wilson’s mother was from Carlisle, England. His father was a US citizen from Ohio. Wilson’s mother gained US citizenship when she married his father according to a congressional Act of February 1855, which stated,
“any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2]
This was called derivative citizenship. This act was enacted in 1855. Woodrow Wilson was born in December 1856. He was born in the US, both parents were US citizens - natural born citizen.
HERBERT HOOVER
Hoover was born in Iowa, 1874. He was the 31st President. His father Jesse was from Ohio, a US citizen. His mother Hulda Minthorn was from Ontario, Canada. They were married in 1870. According to the 1855 act, which was in effect until 1922, Hoover’s mother became a US citizen automatically when she married Jesse.
So, Hoover was born in the US, both parents were citizens - natural born citizen.
CHESTER ARTHUR …or the strange lies of our 21st President
And here we have a very interesting story full of intrigue. Arthur became President when one of his supporters shot President Garfield with an exclamation of joy that Arthur would now be President.
More relevant to our discussion is that during his Vice-Presidential campaign, Chester Arthur was accused by an attorney named Arthur Hinman of having been born abroad. But there was absolutely no merit to the charge. Hinman first accused Chester of being born in Ireland, then he switched his claim to Canada. Hinman, a new York lawyer, wrote an accusatory pamphlet under the heading, “How A British Subject Became A President of the United States.”
The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves. It’s an exhaustive reference chock full of notes. Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible. It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history. Also, Chester Arthur burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)
“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819. His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped to Canada in 1821. They had their first child, Regina in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.
THE MYSTERY - When was William Arthur naturalized? I don’t know. The only reference historian I know who ventured a date said it was 1843, but that historian also said he got that from “Gentleman Boss” and I could not find such a reference in the book. I spent a few hours with the book today. I examined every reference to William in the index and also went over the early years with a microscope. No reference to the naturalization date.
FACTS
By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont. Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824. Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829. Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.
It gets interesting here because of the Naturalization Act of 1802. That act set the requisite of five years residence in the United States for those who wanted to become naturalized citizens. Doing the math, we know that William Arthur had moved to Vermont no later than 1824. Chester was born in October 1829. So if William had taken action on being naturalized in his first year, then he very well could have been a US citizen when Arthur was born. William studied law and taught school before he became a preacher in 1827, so he should have been familiar with the process of acquiring citizenship.
CHESTER ARTHUR’S FIRST LIE
From “Gentleman Boss”, page 5… regarding Chester’s birthday:
“…on October 5, 1829, Malvina Arthur gave birth to her fifth child. (The traditional date 1830 is incorrect. Arthur made himself a year younger, no doubt out of simply vanity, some time between 1870 and 1880…)”
Perhaps it was out of vanity, but perhaps he had a more sinister motive. Reeves establishes Chester changed his date in the decade of his most serious political career, 1770-1780. Chester was also a very skilled New York lawyer. If he had a problem with his father’s naturalization date, then moving back his birthday by a year might have fixed it. We will revisit this later. Suspend judgment for now.
CHESTER ARTHUR’S SECOND LIE
And this is where our villain Hinman returns. But was he a villain to Arthur? Hinman made a big stink in various New York publications alleging that Chester Arthur was born abroad as a British subject, much like those who are trying to say Obama is not a US citizen. It wasn’t true. Chester was born in Vermont. But this scandal had the effect of keeping public attention off of the issue of whether Chester Arthur’s father William was a British subject which would have made Chester a British subject “at birth” even though he was born in Vermont.
Does any of this sound familiar?
From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:
“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency. By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen. Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”
His mother had lived in Canada with her husband and had her first child there. This was a blatant lie.
CHESTER ARTHUR’S THIRD LIE
In the the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880. In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:
“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”
This was another blatant lie. His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 - when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada - and March 1824 - when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26. So, a third blatant lie.
CONCLUSIONS
I think we’ve discovered a bit of esoteric history tonight. I’ve not seen this analysis elsewhere.
It looks like Chester Arthur had something to hide. He burned all of his papers (but the family Bible survived). He moved his age back a year. I think vanity is a poor excuse. Only one year? He lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada.
By obscuring his parents’ past lives and time in Canada, he would have clouded all attempts at researching when his father naturalized. Think about the time period. He ran for Vice-President in 1880. His father, being a law student, and moving his family to the United States, would have probably naturalized as soon as possible. But it might not have been soon enough to make old Chester a natural born citizen.
As discussed above, the time frame between William Arthur’s five year residence requirement being met and the day Chester was born were probably very close.
Then when Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along basically demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.
William Arthur was probably not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur would have been a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.
Regardless, Chester Arthur lied through his teeth about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William. Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track. Back then it would have been impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 as a United States citizen. Had anybody been suspicious, Arthur having changed his age by a year could have protected his eligibility. And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.
Because Chester Arthur lied about his father, any precedent he might have set for Obama is nullified completely as it appears Chester Arthur may have been a usurper to the Presidency. Eventually we will probably unearth William Arthur’s naturalization records.
While he did move around alot, he was a resident of Fairfield, Franklin County Vermont, between 1829 when Chester was born, and 1832 when Malvina Almeda was born. This is the most likely time period for his naturalization. The official word from Franklin County was a fast, “We don’t have naturalization records for William Arthur.”
I have a strong feeling we’ve uncovered the truth about Chester Arthur. Looks like he was the only ineligible President we’ve ever had. And he got away with it through his lies. But the light has a way of finding the darkness.
It’s no precedent to follow.
Leo C. Donofrio
There is no dispute about Obama’s parentage. His father was a British Citizen, and his mother was a United States citizen. Therefore, Obama was both a subject/citizen of the British monarchy as well as a United States citizen “at birth”. His place of birth won’t change that no matter where he was born. This makes him NOT a natural born citizen of the United States.
December 5, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
- 5:34 am
This essay will discuss the eligibility of every President who had parents born abroad. As long as the parents had the future President on US soil after they became citizens, then that person is a natural born citizen.
Every President born before the adoption of the Constitution was eligible because of the grandfather clause of Article 2, Section 1 :
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
JAMES BUCHANAN
The first President we must examine then was James Buchanan, 14th President of the United States. He was born on April 23, 1791 in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. He just missed out on the grandfather clause as the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Buchanan was also the only President from Pennsylvania and the only President never to marry.
His mother Elizabeth Speer was born in Pennsylvani. His father James Buchanan emigrated to the United States from Ireland in 1783. It was an interesting year for the United States as the Treaty of 1783 was signed between the US and Great Britain. Colonists chose to be United States citizens and by virtue of the Treaty, Great Britain recognized those former subjects as United States citizens.
Before the Constitution, United States citizenship was conferred on citizens by the States. When the Constitution was ratified, each citizen of a state became a citizen of the United States. No formal naturalization was needed.
On June 21, 1788 the Constitution was ratified. The Buchanans were citizens of Pennsylvania and therefore James Sr. was a citizen of the United States. When James Jr. was born in Pennsylvania he was therefore a natural born citizen, born on United States soil to two US citizen parents.
ANDREW JOHNSON
Johnson, our 17th President, was born in Raleigh, North Carolina on December 29, 1808. Wiki has this on his father:
Jacob Johnson was born circa 1778. Some sources indicate that he was born in Newcastle, England and sailed to America around 1795, but other sources indicate that he was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, and that it was his grandfather (and possible namesake) who sailed to North America from England. Historian Rev. Nash A. Odom writes that “In the year 1760, Peter Johnson, migrated from Kintyre, Scotland to North Carolina with his large family and settled in Cumberland County. The preaching instinct broke out again and a number of the Johnsons became ministers. One was the father of Jacob Johnson, who moved to Raleigh, North Carolina and was the father of President Andrew Johnson.” Author Billy Kennedy writes that Jacob’s father, named Andrew, a Presbyterian, came to North Carolina about 1750 from Mounthill, Ireland.
The weight of authority is that Jacob was born in the US. But even if the other sources were correct, he would have been in the US for 13 years before Andrew was born. The Naturalization act of 1795 called for a five year residence before Naturalization. The Act was modified in 1798 to a 14 year requirement, but then the Naturalization act of 1802 it was put back to five years.
Jacob Johnson also served as a militia Captain of Muster Division 20 and was the city constable. I can find no allegations that Jacob wasn’t a citizen when Andrew was born. (Jacob Johnson died from complications caused by his heroic saving of a friend’s life.)
Andrew Johnson’s mother was born in North Carolina in 1782.
So, Andrew Johnson - born in North Carolina to two US citizen parents, hence - natural born citizen.
[Chester Arthur would be next, but I shall save him for last.]
WOODROW WILSON
Born December 28, 1856 - the 28th President, born in Staunton, Virginia.
Wilson’s mother was from Carlisle, England. His father was a US citizen from Ohio. Wilson’s mother gained US citizenship when she married his father according to a congressional Act of February 1855, which stated,
“any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2]
This was called derivative citizenship. This act was enacted in 1855. Woodrow Wilson was born in December 1856. He was born in the US, both parents were US citizens - natural born citizen.
HERBERT HOOVER
Hoover was born in Iowa, 1874. He was the 31st President. His father Jesse was from Ohio, a US citizen. His mother Hulda Minthorn was from Ontario, Canada. They were married in 1870. According to the 1855 act, which was in effect until 1922, Hoover’s mother became a US citizen automatically when she married Jesse.
So, Hoover was born in the US, both parents were citizens - natural born citizen.
CHESTER ARTHUR …or the strange lies of our 21st President
And here we have a very interesting story full of intrigue. Arthur became President when one of his supporters shot President Garfield with an exclamation of joy that Arthur would now be President.
More relevant to our discussion is that during his Vice-Presidential campaign, Chester Arthur was accused by an attorney named Arthur Hinman of having been born abroad. But there was absolutely no merit to the charge. Hinman first accused Chester of being born in Ireland, then he switched his claim to Canada. Hinman, a new York lawyer, wrote an accusatory pamphlet under the heading, “How A British Subject Became A President of the United States.”
The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves. It’s an exhaustive reference chock full of notes. Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible. It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history. Also, Chester Arthur burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)
“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819. His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped to Canada in 1821. They had their first child, Regina in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.
THE MYSTERY - When was William Arthur naturalized? I don’t know. The only reference historian I know who ventured a date said it was 1843, but that historian also said he got that from “Gentleman Boss” and I could not find such a reference in the book. I spent a few hours with the book today. I examined every reference to William in the index and also went over the early years with a microscope. No reference to the naturalization date.
FACTS
By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont. Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824. Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829. Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.
It gets interesting here because of the Naturalization Act of 1802. That act set the requisite of five years residence in the United States for those who wanted to become naturalized citizens. Doing the math, we know that William Arthur had moved to Vermont no later than 1824. Chester was born in October 1829. So if William had taken action on being naturalized in his first year, then he very well could have been a US citizen when Arthur was born. William studied law and taught school before he became a preacher in 1827, so he should have been familiar with the process of acquiring citizenship.
CHESTER ARTHUR’S FIRST LIE
From “Gentleman Boss”, page 5… regarding Chester’s birthday:
“…on October 5, 1829, Malvina Arthur gave birth to her fifth child. (The traditional date 1830 is incorrect. Arthur made himself a year younger, no doubt out of simply vanity, some time between 1870 and 1880…)”
Perhaps it was out of vanity, but perhaps he had a more sinister motive. Reeves establishes Chester changed his date in the decade of his most serious political career, 1770-1780. Chester was also a very skilled New York lawyer. If he had a problem with his father’s naturalization date, then moving back his birthday by a year might have fixed it. We will revisit this later. Suspend judgment for now.
CHESTER ARTHUR’S SECOND LIE
And this is where our villain Hinman returns. But was he a villain to Arthur? Hinman made a big stink in various New York publications alleging that Chester Arthur was born abroad as a British subject, much like those who are trying to say Obama is not a US citizen. It wasn’t true. Chester was born in Vermont. But this scandal had the effect of keeping public attention off of the issue of whether Chester Arthur’s father William was a British subject which would have made Chester a British subject “at birth” even though he was born in Vermont.
Does any of this sound familiar?
From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:
“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency. By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen. Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”
His mother had lived in Canada with her husband and had her first child there. This was a blatant lie.
CHESTER ARTHUR’S THIRD LIE
In the the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880. In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:
“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”
This was another blatant lie. His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 - when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada - and March 1824 - when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26. So, a third blatant lie.
CONCLUSIONS
I think we’ve discovered a bit of esoteric history tonight. I’ve not seen this analysis elsewhere.
It looks like Chester Arthur had something to hide. He burned all of his papers (but the family Bible survived). He moved his age back a year. I think vanity is a poor excuse. Only one year? He lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada.
By obscuring his parents’ past lives and time in Canada, he would have clouded all attempts at researching when his father naturalized. Think about the time period. He ran for Vice-President in 1880. His father, being a law student, and moving his family to the United States, would have probably naturalized as soon as possible. But it might not have been soon enough to make old Chester a natural born citizen.
As discussed above, the time frame between William Arthur’s five year residence requirement being met and the day Chester was born were probably very close.
Then when Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along basically demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.
William Arthur was probably not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur would have been a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.
Regardless, Chester Arthur lied through his teeth about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William. Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track. Back then it would have been impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 as a United States citizen. Had anybody been suspicious, Arthur having changed his age by a year could have protected his eligibility. And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.
Because Chester Arthur lied about his father, any precedent he might have set for Obama is nullified completely as it appears Chester Arthur may have been a usurper to the Presidency. Eventually we will probably unearth William Arthur’s naturalization records.
While he did move around alot, he was a resident of Fairfield, Franklin County Vermont, between 1829 when Chester was born, and 1832 when Malvina Almeda was born. This is the most likely time period for his naturalization. The official word from Franklin County was a fast, “We don’t have naturalization records for William Arthur.”
I have a strong feeling we’ve uncovered the truth about Chester Arthur. Looks like he was the only ineligible President we’ve ever had. And he got away with it through his lies. But the light has a way of finding the darkness.
It’s no precedent to follow.
Leo C. Donofrio
There is no dispute about Obama’s parentage. His father was a British Citizen, and his mother was a United States citizen. Therefore, Obama was both a subject/citizen of the British monarchy as well as a United States citizen “at birth”. His place of birth won’t change that no matter where he was born. This makes him NOT a natural born citizen of the United States.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Obama: Islamic Speech in First 100 Days
So... not sure that this is a big surprise. I truly do not know why people with the privilege of the right to vote, choose to vote ignorantly and without researching an individual's character and background before wasting their vote on a moral degenerate and socialist. What America needs is not this...
Thursday, December 4, 2008 5:14 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Barack Obama is considering making a major foreign policy speech in an Islamic capital during his first 100 days as president in an effort to mend rifts between the U.S. and the Muslim world.
Helene Cooper of The New York Times spoke to several sources, including diplomats, about which Islamic capital Obama might choose, and the consensus was Cairo, Egypt.
The reason: Process of elimination.
A speech in Baghdad would appear to validate the Iraq war, which Obama opposed. A visit to Damascus, the Syrian capital, “would look as if he was rewarding the Syrians and it’s too soon for that,” Ziad Asali, president of the American Task Force on Palestine, told Cooper.
Asali also ruled out:
Ramallah on the West Bank, noting that “Palestinians seek Jerusalem as their capital.”
Tehran in Iran. “Too soon for that.” Amman, Jordan. “Been there, done that.”
Islamabad, Pakistan. “Too dangerous.”
Ankara, Turkey. “Too safe.”
As for Jakarta, Indonesia, where Obama spent part of his youth, “people would yawn about that,” said Asali.
One of Obama’s foreign policy advisers ruled out Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and other capitals around the Persian Gulf.
Cooper concluded: “It’s got to be Cairo. Egypt is perfect. It’s certainly Muslim enough, populous enough and relevant enough. It’s an American ally, but there are enough tensions in the relationship that the choice will feel bold.”
Whatever capital Obama might choose, press reports don’t explain why the new president feels it necessary to give a speech so early in his new administration.
During the presidential campaign Obama indicated U.S. foreign policy was too skewed in favor of Israel and that he would seek to balance that approach in his administration.
He was also dogged with claims that he was a secret Muslim, an accusation he denied.
In fact, Obama had been raised a Muslim and converted to Christianity after meeting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in his 20s after he moved to Chicago.
Obama was born to a Kenyan father who was a Muslim. His mother divorced this man and later remarried an Indonesian muslim who became Obama’s stepfather.
The couple moved to Indonesia with the young Obama. There he was registered at two schools as a Muslim student.
Earlier this year, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs claimed: "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian."
But in his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," Obama mentions studying the Koran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school." Obama’s campaign web site later removed the claim made by Gibbs that Obama was never a Muslim.
Thursday, December 4, 2008 5:14 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Barack Obama is considering making a major foreign policy speech in an Islamic capital during his first 100 days as president in an effort to mend rifts between the U.S. and the Muslim world.
Helene Cooper of The New York Times spoke to several sources, including diplomats, about which Islamic capital Obama might choose, and the consensus was Cairo, Egypt.
The reason: Process of elimination.
A speech in Baghdad would appear to validate the Iraq war, which Obama opposed. A visit to Damascus, the Syrian capital, “would look as if he was rewarding the Syrians and it’s too soon for that,” Ziad Asali, president of the American Task Force on Palestine, told Cooper.
Asali also ruled out:
Ramallah on the West Bank, noting that “Palestinians seek Jerusalem as their capital.”
Tehran in Iran. “Too soon for that.” Amman, Jordan. “Been there, done that.”
Islamabad, Pakistan. “Too dangerous.”
Ankara, Turkey. “Too safe.”
As for Jakarta, Indonesia, where Obama spent part of his youth, “people would yawn about that,” said Asali.
One of Obama’s foreign policy advisers ruled out Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and other capitals around the Persian Gulf.
Cooper concluded: “It’s got to be Cairo. Egypt is perfect. It’s certainly Muslim enough, populous enough and relevant enough. It’s an American ally, but there are enough tensions in the relationship that the choice will feel bold.”
Whatever capital Obama might choose, press reports don’t explain why the new president feels it necessary to give a speech so early in his new administration.
During the presidential campaign Obama indicated U.S. foreign policy was too skewed in favor of Israel and that he would seek to balance that approach in his administration.
He was also dogged with claims that he was a secret Muslim, an accusation he denied.
In fact, Obama had been raised a Muslim and converted to Christianity after meeting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in his 20s after he moved to Chicago.
Obama was born to a Kenyan father who was a Muslim. His mother divorced this man and later remarried an Indonesian muslim who became Obama’s stepfather.
The couple moved to Indonesia with the young Obama. There he was registered at two schools as a Muslim student.
Earlier this year, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs claimed: "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian."
But in his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," Obama mentions studying the Koran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school." Obama’s campaign web site later removed the claim made by Gibbs that Obama was never a Muslim.
I just love how Obama thinks that there has been "too much" emphasis on a pro-Israel stance during the elections and thinks he is just the one to "fix" that. What happened to the loyalty to all of those liberal jews that voted for him? It isn't surprising, but it is still shameful for him to treat them in this way. It has never been a secret that he was not exactly a friend to the cause of Israel to be an autonomous country with the right to be left alone by the world to go about it's business of running their country how they see fit and not piecing it away to anyone who falsely claims to have the rights to someone else's land. Or even that they remain an autonomous country... God help us if we turn on Israel.
Monday, November 17, 2008
AG Church in Lansing Mich. Targeted by Anarchist Homosexual Group "Bash Back"
Gay rights group claims responsibility for church protest
KATHLEEN LAVEY • KLAVEY@LSJ.COM • NOVEMBER 11, 2008 • FROM LSJ.COM
DELTA TWP. - A radical gay rights group is claiming responsibility for a protest Sunday at Mount Hope Church in Delta Township.
Protesters who entered the Creyts Road church with worshippers stood up during the service, threw fliers at churchgoers and shouted slogans such as "It's OK to be gay," according to David Williams, communications director at the church. His father, Dave Williams, is the church's longtime pastor. Another group of protesters demonstrated outside the church.
A Lansing group affiliated with a radical gay organization known as Bash Back, formed to protest the Republican and Democratic national conventions earlier this year, put out a call on the Internet on Oct. 7 for activists to come to a "radical queer convergence" in Lansing Nov. 7-9.
According to a report on the group's Web site, protesters inside the church also pulled a fire alarm and unfurled a banner from the church balcony.
Mount Hope Church, affiliated with the Assemblies of God denomination, teaches followers that homosexuality is a sin.
"Mount Hope Church strives to follow Jesus' example of loving the sinner but not the sin," Williams said.
The Eaton County Sheriff's Department responded to the protest but was not immediately available for comment.
Read more in Wednesday's edition of the Lansing State Journal.
For some reason, that eludes me, this is very hard to find information on this from any mainstream media outlet, so I have compiled several articles together in order to get the full impact of what has happened here.
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Worshippers at a Bible-teaching church in Lansing, Mich., were stunned Sunday when members of a pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back interrupted their service to fling propaganda and condoms around the sanctuary, drape a profane banner from the balcony and feature two lesbians making out at the pulpit.
According to a blog posting by Nick De Leeuw on Right Michigan, the Bash Back organization orchestrated a protest in front of Mount Hope Church to draw the church's security staff away from the sanctuary.
Then Bash Backers who had dressed up and mixed in with church worshippers took action.
According to De Leeuw, "Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony.
"'Jesus was gay,' they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss," he wrote.
He cited the Bash Back organization's own announcement of other items members brought into the church, including "a megaphone, noise makers, condoms, glitter by the bucket load, confetti, pink fabric. ..."
According to the alternative Lansing City Pulse – which reported it was notified of the protest ahead of time and sent a reporter along instead of warning the church – the protesters also screamed at parishioners and pulled the church facility's fire alarm. Printed material protesters distributed said, "We specialize in confronting homophobia, transphobia and every and all other forms of oppression."
KATHLEEN LAVEY • KLAVEY@LSJ.COM • NOVEMBER 11, 2008 • FROM LSJ.COM
DELTA TWP. - A radical gay rights group is claiming responsibility for a protest Sunday at Mount Hope Church in Delta Township.
Protesters who entered the Creyts Road church with worshippers stood up during the service, threw fliers at churchgoers and shouted slogans such as "It's OK to be gay," according to David Williams, communications director at the church. His father, Dave Williams, is the church's longtime pastor. Another group of protesters demonstrated outside the church.
A Lansing group affiliated with a radical gay organization known as Bash Back, formed to protest the Republican and Democratic national conventions earlier this year, put out a call on the Internet on Oct. 7 for activists to come to a "radical queer convergence" in Lansing Nov. 7-9.
According to a report on the group's Web site, protesters inside the church also pulled a fire alarm and unfurled a banner from the church balcony.
Mount Hope Church, affiliated with the Assemblies of God denomination, teaches followers that homosexuality is a sin.
"Mount Hope Church strives to follow Jesus' example of loving the sinner but not the sin," Williams said.
The Eaton County Sheriff's Department responded to the protest but was not immediately available for comment.
Read more in Wednesday's edition of the Lansing State Journal.
For some reason, that eludes me, this is very hard to find information on this from any mainstream media outlet, so I have compiled several articles together in order to get the full impact of what has happened here.
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Worshippers at a Bible-teaching church in Lansing, Mich., were stunned Sunday when members of a pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back interrupted their service to fling propaganda and condoms around the sanctuary, drape a profane banner from the balcony and feature two lesbians making out at the pulpit.
According to a blog posting by Nick De Leeuw on Right Michigan, the Bash Back organization orchestrated a protest in front of Mount Hope Church to draw the church's security staff away from the sanctuary.
Then Bash Backers who had dressed up and mixed in with church worshippers took action.
According to De Leeuw, "Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony.
"'Jesus was gay,' they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss," he wrote.
He cited the Bash Back organization's own announcement of other items members brought into the church, including "a megaphone, noise makers, condoms, glitter by the bucket load, confetti, pink fabric. ..."
According to the alternative Lansing City Pulse – which reported it was notified of the protest ahead of time and sent a reporter along instead of warning the church – the protesters also screamed at parishioners and pulled the church facility's fire alarm. Printed material protesters distributed said, "We specialize in confronting homophobia, transphobia and every and all other forms of oppression."
The report said Bash Back issued a statement today confirming it targeted Mount Hope, which has about 5,000 church participants, because it participates in "the repression of queers."
On the newspaper's forum page, a contributor commented, "Homosexuals and anarchists. A perfect combination of human beings with no hope, no morals, no future."
Many demonstrators fled and the rest were quiet after sheriff's officers were summoned.
"Mount Hope churchgoers were unclear as to what the purpose of the demonstration was," said a statement from David Williams, a spokesman for the church.
"The leadership of Mount Hope Church does not attempt to identify the church as anti-homosexual, anti-choice, or right wing. The church does take the Bible at face value and believes what the Bible says to be the truth," Williams' statement continued.
"According to the Bible, Mount Hope Church believes homosexuality to be a sin, just as fornication, stealing, drunkenness, and lying are sins. No sin greater than the next. Mount Hope Church strives to follow Jesus' example of loving the sinner but not the sin while helping people change their lives for God's glory and their improved quality of life. Mount Hope Church also recognizes that to each person God grants freewill."
The church then offered help for people "caught up in unwanted sexual sin, drug abuse, and many other areas."
De Leeuw reported "the 'open minded' and 'tolerant' liberals ran down the aisles and across the pews, hoping against hope to catch a 'right winger' on tape daring to push back (none did).
"This is what we're up against," De Leeuw wrote. "Amidst worshiping congregants and following unifying prayers that our president-elect be granted wisdom as he prepares to lead our nation through difficult global, social and economic challenges, the Michigan left declared open war on peaceful churchgoers.
"Mount Hope, for the record, is an evangelical, Bible believing church whose members provide free 24-hour counseling, prayer lines, catastrophic care for families dealing with medical emergencies, support groups for men, women and children dealing with a wide variety of life's troubles, crisis intervention, marriage ministries, regular, organized volunteer work in and around the city, missions in dozens of countries across the globe, a construction ministry that has built over 100 churches, schools, orphanages and other projects all over the world and an in-depth prison ministry that reaches out, touches and helps the men and women the rest of society fears the most. They also teach respect for all human life and the Biblical sanctity of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman," De Leeuw wrote.
"The church's response? After things settled down, the blasphemy ended, the lewd props removed and the families safe from fear of additional men and women running into and past them the pastor took the stage and led the congregation in one more prayer ... not for retribution, or divine justice or a celestial comeuppance (that's what I'd have prayed for) but instead that the troubled individuals who'd just defiled the Lord's house, so full of anger and hate, would know Jesus' love in their lives and God's peace that exceeds human understanding," De Leeuw wrote.
His blog attracted dozens of comments, including one that said it was just as well the protesters hadn't picked his church.
"It was well within the church members' rights to respond with non-lethal force to put an immediate end to this assault. It this happened in my house, I'd have every right to throw someone out a window or two."
In a statement posted on the Internet, Bash Back confirmed its "operatives" were in the service, "stood up, declared themselves fags, and began screaming loudly. … Another group threw over a thousand fliers to the entire … congregation. The fire alarm was pulled. Queers began making out in front of the pastor. And within a matter of minutes, everyone had evaded the guards and made their escapes."
The statement continued, "Let is be known: So long as bigots kill us in the streets, this pack of wolves will continue to BASH BACK!"
The report comes just a day after video documentation of pro-homosexual protesters in California challenging a 69-year-old woman to a fight because she was affirming the biblical perspective of homosexuality.
"This screaming and shouting, name-calling and pushing by homosexual activists is not unlike a small child throwing a fit because he doesn't get his way," said Randy Thomasson, chief of the Campaign for Children and Families, a leading California-based pro-family group. "The public is getting a clue that homosexual activists don't like democracy and are willing to trample anyone and anything that gets in their way."
Incidentally, the descriptives used to describe homosexuals, i.e. queers and fags, are used by other homosexuals in their description of the event.
On the newspaper's forum page, a contributor commented, "Homosexuals and anarchists. A perfect combination of human beings with no hope, no morals, no future."
Many demonstrators fled and the rest were quiet after sheriff's officers were summoned.
"Mount Hope churchgoers were unclear as to what the purpose of the demonstration was," said a statement from David Williams, a spokesman for the church.
"The leadership of Mount Hope Church does not attempt to identify the church as anti-homosexual, anti-choice, or right wing. The church does take the Bible at face value and believes what the Bible says to be the truth," Williams' statement continued.
"According to the Bible, Mount Hope Church believes homosexuality to be a sin, just as fornication, stealing, drunkenness, and lying are sins. No sin greater than the next. Mount Hope Church strives to follow Jesus' example of loving the sinner but not the sin while helping people change their lives for God's glory and their improved quality of life. Mount Hope Church also recognizes that to each person God grants freewill."
The church then offered help for people "caught up in unwanted sexual sin, drug abuse, and many other areas."
De Leeuw reported "the 'open minded' and 'tolerant' liberals ran down the aisles and across the pews, hoping against hope to catch a 'right winger' on tape daring to push back (none did).
"This is what we're up against," De Leeuw wrote. "Amidst worshiping congregants and following unifying prayers that our president-elect be granted wisdom as he prepares to lead our nation through difficult global, social and economic challenges, the Michigan left declared open war on peaceful churchgoers.
"Mount Hope, for the record, is an evangelical, Bible believing church whose members provide free 24-hour counseling, prayer lines, catastrophic care for families dealing with medical emergencies, support groups for men, women and children dealing with a wide variety of life's troubles, crisis intervention, marriage ministries, regular, organized volunteer work in and around the city, missions in dozens of countries across the globe, a construction ministry that has built over 100 churches, schools, orphanages and other projects all over the world and an in-depth prison ministry that reaches out, touches and helps the men and women the rest of society fears the most. They also teach respect for all human life and the Biblical sanctity of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman," De Leeuw wrote.
"The church's response? After things settled down, the blasphemy ended, the lewd props removed and the families safe from fear of additional men and women running into and past them the pastor took the stage and led the congregation in one more prayer ... not for retribution, or divine justice or a celestial comeuppance (that's what I'd have prayed for) but instead that the troubled individuals who'd just defiled the Lord's house, so full of anger and hate, would know Jesus' love in their lives and God's peace that exceeds human understanding," De Leeuw wrote.
His blog attracted dozens of comments, including one that said it was just as well the protesters hadn't picked his church.
"It was well within the church members' rights to respond with non-lethal force to put an immediate end to this assault. It this happened in my house, I'd have every right to throw someone out a window or two."
In a statement posted on the Internet, Bash Back confirmed its "operatives" were in the service, "stood up, declared themselves fags, and began screaming loudly. … Another group threw over a thousand fliers to the entire … congregation. The fire alarm was pulled. Queers began making out in front of the pastor. And within a matter of minutes, everyone had evaded the guards and made their escapes."
The statement continued, "Let is be known: So long as bigots kill us in the streets, this pack of wolves will continue to BASH BACK!"
The report comes just a day after video documentation of pro-homosexual protesters in California challenging a 69-year-old woman to a fight because she was affirming the biblical perspective of homosexuality.
"This screaming and shouting, name-calling and pushing by homosexual activists is not unlike a small child throwing a fit because he doesn't get his way," said Randy Thomasson, chief of the Campaign for Children and Families, a leading California-based pro-family group. "The public is getting a clue that homosexual activists don't like democracy and are willing to trample anyone and anything that gets in their way."
Incidentally, the descriptives used to describe homosexuals, i.e. queers and fags, are used by other homosexuals in their description of the event.
Marine base bans anti-Islam decals
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 11/17/2008 9:00:00 AM
A law firm that defends and promotes America's Christian heritage has filed suit against Marine officials on a behalf of a veteran who was ordered not to express his opposition to Islamic terrorism while driving on military installations.
Jesse Nieto is a 25-year Marine veteran who served two tours of duty in Vietnam. His youngest son, Marc, was one of 17 service members killed on October 12, 2000 by Islamic terrorists who bombed the USS Cole. Since 2001, Nieto -- who is now a civilian employee at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina -- has displayed various decals on his vehicle expressing anti-terrorist sentiments such as "Islam = Terrorism" and "We Died, They Rejoiced."
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, says on July 31, 2008, two military police officers issued Nieto a ticket for displaying what they described as "offensive material."
"They decide to make an example of him, issue a ticket, force him to take off the decals -- and then say if you keep any decals on your vehicle that have anything to do with the Islamic terrorists, you can't drive your vehicle on any federal installation," says the attorney.
Thompson says the ban also prohibits his client from driving his vehicle into Arlington National Cemetery to visit the grave of his fallen son.
The lawsuit alleges that military officials have engaged in viewpoint discrimination, noting that other individuals are allowed to display anti-Christian decals of a similar nature on vehicles driving onto the installation.
"That's the Darwin fish that they have, which is an anti-Christian decal," says the Law Center president. "They're permitting those. But they are saying anything that smacks of criticism of radical Islam -- that is, the terrorists -- we're not going to allow."
Thompson describes the case as political correctness run amok.
"I suspect the next thing the Marine command will want to do is eliminate the Marine's Hymn since the phrase 'to the shores of Tripoli' celebrates the Marine victory over Islamic forces in the Barbary Coast War and the Battle of Derne," he states in a press release.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Foundations of Freedom
This is a wonderful sermon based on relevant facts about the foundations of our government and our founding fathers. It is in MP3 format...
Saturday, November 8, 2008
"Group" Status for Homosexuals and Prop 8
"Homosexuals are a group of people, bound not by ethnicity, creed, or religious affiliation, but by behavior. ... Behavior is something that is the government's business to control and regulate. The kind of protected status that homosexuals seek is something this nation has denied throughout its history. We have never allowed protected status based on behavior. Nor can we ever start, for it would be a recipe for chaos." Author Unknown
This statement is what I have always known and thought in a more abstract way and brings more clarity to the issue. The reason they are now coming out with all of the "scientific evidence" that homosexuals brains are different from heterosexual brains and that they can't help "what" they are (i.e. how they behave), is because they want to be thought of as a group and protected as such. Why aren't groups of people who exhibit other behaviors Constitutionally protected as a "civil rights" issue. Serial killers and people who are right or left handed all have differently functioning brains, as well. What about people with ADD or OCD? What about their group's civil rights? The ACLU and several city and county lawyers are already ramping up to sue the state of California to overturn our vote, once more, under the guise of civil rights. Behavior is supposed to be under control, hence the term self control.
The entire idea that Prop. 8 wasn't going to affect schools and teaching in California is ridiculous, and if not such a serious matter, laughable. The California Teachers Association donated $1,000,000 toward the no on 8 campaign. They are the single largest donor to this cause. PG&E comes in second with three quarters of a million dollars. (Incidentally, I am changing my electricity/gas service to a cheaper, private utility carrier). The CTA, the same CTA who is always complaining and protesting about how they need more tax payer dollars to improve schools and get pay increases, wasted ONE MILLION dollars trying to get Prop 8 defeated. My previous blog article about the kindergarten class in Hayward getting homosexual, etc. "tolerance cards" and having to sign them is a case in point. There are all kinds of teaching, indoctrinating and "tolerance" teachings going on now, without the passing of prop 8. Can you imagine what would have been going on in public schools if the proposition would have actually passed?
The Governor vetoed a bill on September 30th that would have instituted Harvey Milk Day, what sort of explanation would they have given the school children for having a day off to honor this person? Surely, they will have to explain the man's sexual orientation to grade school children because the only thing this person did was be openly gay and a politician who championed gay rights in San Francisco. According to Equality California's website: "This bill would require the governor to proclaim May 22 each year as Harvey Milk Day. It would encourage public schools and educational institutions to conduct suitable commemorative exercises on that date." So... according to the very people who helped to bring the erroneous anti-prop 8 propaganda, they do want to indoctrinate our children after all. "Suitable commemorative exercises" would be to explain what this person did to champion gay rights. What are gay rights, teacher? Well, gay is a sexual behavior where one chooses a person of the same sex to be intimate with. What is sexual and what is being intimate? - A slippery slope of explanations would have to ensue, thus educating children who have no need to even be aware of these topics yet in their young inexperienced lives. Also, no life experience to properly digest and fully comprehend the implications of what they would be learning and no filter, as of yet, to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong behavior. Since they would be learning it in school from their teacher, who children inherently trust, it must be the correct behavior. After all, teachers know better than parents, sometimes, in the child's mind. Even broaching this subject to someone's young and impressionable children is unacceptable and wrong. What happened to reading, writing and arithmetic? They have cut a lot of genuinely worthwhile extras from public schools such as music, art and sometimes even P.E. So, my child would not be getting art or music instruction in the classroom, but let's teach her about the differences of sexual preferences, after all, there seems to be plenty of funding for that.
Kindergartners given homosexual 'pledge cards'
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 11/6/2008 6:00:00 AM
A pro-family advocate is outraged that a California public school teacher would pass out homosexual pledge cards to her kindergarten students.
The pledge cards were produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, and featured oaths that students would not use "anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender language or slurs," that students would intervene on behalf of homosexual students when possible, and that they would actively support safer schools efforts.
Tara Miller is a kindergarten teacher at Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, California. She passed out the pledge cards to her students, which she then asked them to sign. Peter LaBarbera, the president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, is outraged at Miller's actions.
"First of all, why is homosexuality as an issue being raised at all in kindergarten? These are students who don't even know what sex is yet, and this teacher is talking to them about homosexuality," he contends. "This is an abuse of these students' minds, and it's just wrong."
According to a report on FoxNews.com, one parent was angry when she found her child's signature on the pledge card. LaBarbera believes this instance highlights the real agenda of the homosexual movement.
"This is just bizarre, and it shows how the teachers with their radical sexual agenda want to start early to reprogram these kids' minds. They want to undermine the faith teachings that the kids have at home; this is part of a plan," he suggests. "To me, this is like Hitler with Nazi Germany and the Soviets wanting to get to the youth and change the kids by getting to them at a very young age."
In the same report on FoxNews.com, a spokesperson for the school agreed that the pledge was inappropriate for the kindergarten students and said that the pledges were meant for middle school and high school students.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
I Find these Verses Extraordinarily Interesting Right Now, God is With Us, Orchestrating it all...
2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 (New International Version)
The Man of Lawlessness
1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. 3Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
5Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
The Man of Lawlessness
1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. 3Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
5Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
Hold fast to the truth with all of your strength... it will save you.
A Little Guidance on the Definition of Marriage by Its Originator
Here is a wonderfully clear and concise definition of what marriage is according to its inventor and originator: God
Obama's vision far from that of Founding Fathers
Star Parker - Syndicated Columnist - 11/3/2008 9:35:00 AM
Pushing back on accusations from John McCain that he's a socialist, Barack Obama said, "I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret Communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."
Once again, we get the Obama oratorical fog. The problem isn't what he does with his toys or sandwich, it's what he sees as legitimate to do, under authority of government, with mine and yours.
"[McCain] has called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class."
Obama's plans go much further than using the tax code to redistribute wealth.
He's got about $700 billion in so-called refundable tax credits in mind, direct money transfers to individuals, to finance his social engineering ideas in education, childcare, and environmental policy.
We're talking about a trillion dollars in new government spending to pay for his government-directed schemes to deal with just about every aspect of our lives.
Don Boudreaux, chairman of George Mason University's economics department, says it's more accurate to call Obamanomics "Socialism-lite," rather than outright Socialism, because we're not talking about overt government ownership of our manufacturing and financial entities.
But the line of distinction is fine, and the slope to overt and blatant socialism, as Boudreaux points out, is pretty slippery.
The real question is "So what?" Okay, so our country becomes more socialized and, by definition, less free. What difference does it make? After all, voters will have transmitted power to Obama in open and free elections. Isn't that what it's all about?
Thomas Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free...it expects what never was and never will be."
Obama will have succeeded in selling a vision of America that has little to do with the vision of its founding because so many Americans are now detached from and uninformed by the documents that defined the country -- the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bible.
If we randomly surveyed voters and asked, "How is the role of government defined in the Declaration of Independence?" how many could answer the question?
How many could answer that the Declaration talks about our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and, "That to secure these rights governments are instituted among Men..."?
Government's job, according to the founders, is to protect individual liberty and guard against intrusions on our life and property -- the very wholesale intrusions that Barack Obama will begin in earnest once he is empowered by American voters.
There is no freedom without law and courts. And what is law for Obama?
He'll appoint judges who have "the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old."
The Bible tells us, regarding courts and justice, "Do not glorify a destitute person in his grievance."
Our biblical tradition, which is clear that we should love our neighbor and give charity, is also clear that courtrooms are the place to objectively apply law and not for politics.
History is filled with the dismal lessons of nations where law was turned into molding clay and citizens who abdicated personal responsibility for their lives to messianic sounding demagogues. But when we stop reading, thinking, and taking seriously the eternal truths of tradition, the only thing left is to re-learn through experience what history has already taught.
Apparently this is where much of America stands today.
And the rest?
Recall the words of Samuel Adams. "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate and tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
Star Parker (parker@urbancure.org) is president of CURE, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education and author of three books.
Obama Has Links to ANOTHER '60s Radical
Barack Obama has consistently sought to distance himself from former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. But it’s a different story with another student radical from the 1960s — Marilyn Katz — who is actually on Obama’s fundraising team.
Katz, a public relations executive in Chicago, serves on Obama’s national finance committee. She is listed as a fundraising “bundler” on his Web site, has hosted fundraisers for the candidate, and attended the Democratic Convention as part of the Illinois delegation.
But during the violent protests of the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Katz was the security chief for the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which spawned Ayers and the Weather Underground.
During those protests, Katz advocated throwing studded nails in front of police cars, the Chicago Tribune reported.
In 1969, an undercover policeman named William Frapolly testified at the “Chicago Seven” trials, and prosecutors asked him to describe his collaboration with organizers of the protest the previous year.
He testified that one night in Chicago’s Lincoln Park, Katz briefed a group of protesters on the use of “guerilla nails.”
“She had two types,” he told the court.
“One was a cluster of nails that were sharpened at both ends, and they were fastened in the center. It looked like they were welded or soldered. She said these were good for throwing or putting underneath tires.
“She showed another set that was the same type of nails sharpened at both ends, but they were put through a Styrofoam cylinder.”
A prosecutor asked, “To whom was she showing these objects?”
Frapolly answered, “Everyone in the group.”
Katz was a principal organizer of the October 2002 anti-war demonstration in Chicago where Obama first expressed his opposition to the looming Iraq war.
In 2005, she co-authored the book “Stopping War, Seeking Justice” along with longtime Marxist and Obama supporter Carl Davidson.
Now she is co-chair of Chicagoans Against War & Injustice, and her public relations firm is working on contracts with the city of Chicago worth millions of dollars. She lists as her clients the city’s housing authority, law department, and departments of housing, human services, streets and sanitation, and public health, among others.
As for her relationship with Ayers, who admitted helping to bomb the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon in the 1970s, the Tribune reported that she has said, “Bill and I were in different parts of SDS. We disagreed on tactics.”
Guy Benson wrote on Townhall.com about Obama’s Katz connection: “There are so many objectionable figures in Obama’s social milieu, new revelations about yet another garden variety radical may elicit shrugs at this point . . .
“Perhaps it follows that someone who preferred lobbing guerilla nails at police over planting pipe bombs in federal buildings would be integrated into Obama’s official campaign apparatus without so much as a second look.”
Sunday, November 2, 2008
"October Surprise" Video -
Watch the "October Surprise" video on YouTube. Even if Obama is a natural born citizen, he is despicably hiding a lot of very important information about his past that the American voters have a right to know.
Obama-Farrakhan Ties Are Close, Ex-Farrakhan Aide Says
Obama-Farrakhan Ties Are Close, Ex-Farrakhan Aide Says
Saturday, November 1, 2008 2:59 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
A former top deputy to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan tells Newsmax that Barack Obama’s ties to the black nationalist movement in Chicago run deep, and that for many years the two men have had “an open line between them” to discuss policy and strategy, either directly or through intermediaries.
“Remember that for years, if you were a politician in Chicago, you had to have some type of relationship with Louis Farrakhan. You had to. If you didn’t, you would be ostracized out of black Chicago,” said Dr. Vibert White Jr., who spent most of his adult life as a member and ultimately top officer of the Nation of Islam.
White broke with the group in 1995 and is now a professor of African-American history at the University of Central Florida in Orlando.
White said Obama was “part of the Chicago scene” where Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. and radicals would go to each other’s events and support each other’s causes.
“Even though Chicago is the third-largest city in the country, within the black community, the political and militant nationalist community is very small. So it wouldn’t be uncommon for [Obama and Farrakhan] to show up at events together, or at least be there and communicate with each other,” White told Newsmax.
The Anti-Defamation League has denounced Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam as a “hate group.”
Farrakhan has called Jews “bloodsuckers,” “satanic” and accused them of running the slave trade. He has labeled gays as “degenerates.” In a 2006 speech, the ADL again condemned Farrakhan when he said: “These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood that is seeding the American people and the people of the world and bringing you down in moral strength. … It's the wicked Jews the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality. It's wicked Jews, false Jews that make it a crime for you to preach the word of God, then they call you homophobic!"
Obama was careful to “denounce” Farrakhan’s comments – but not the man -- during the Democratic primary season earlier this year, but only after Hillary Clinton called him out for benefiting from Farrakhan’s support.
Farrakhan endorsed Obama in a videotaped speech to his followers at Mosque Miryam in Chicago in February. “You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth,” Farrakhan said.
He told the crowd that Obama was the new “messiah.” See Video: Farrakhan Endorses Obama, Calls Him Messiah.
Once the news media and the Clinton campaign got hold of those comments from Farrakhan, demands mounted from all sides that Obama “renounce” Farrakhan.
But as he has done repeatedly throughout this campaign, Obama was careful to parse his words.
“You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments,” he said during one appearance on “Meet the Press.” “I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible.”
Obama hastened to point out that Farrakhan had been praising him as “an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.”
But Obama, once again, was less than candid.
In 1995, according to a profile of Obama that appeared in the Chicago Reader newspaper, Obama “took time off from attending campaign coffees to attend October’s Million Man March in Washington, D.C.”
At the time, Obama was running for the Illinois Senate from Chicago’s South Side, a seat he won after getting surrogates to challenge the signatures on nominating petitions for his chief rival, the incumbent Alice Palmer.
The march, which fell far short of attracting the million men it advertised, was organized by Farrakhan and by Obama’s then-pastor, the anti-white black nationalist Wright.
Obama spoke at length with the Chicago Reader upon his return from the Million Man March. “What I saw was a powerful demonstration of an impulse and need for African-American men to come together to recognize each other and affirm our rightful place in the society," he said.
“These are mean, cruel times, exemplified by a ‘lock ’em up, take no prisoners’ mentality that dominates the Republican-led Congress,” Obama said.
“Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and towards black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us, and that white Americans couldn't care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing."
“Black nationalism” is a current of thought and political action in the African-American community that has been championed by the likes of Farrakhan, Wright, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and Khalid al-Mansour. Obama discussed his attraction to black nationalism at length in his 1995 memoir “Dreams of My Father.”
Obama further parsed his words in a Feb. 25, 2008, presentation to a Jewish community meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, where he insisted that Wright “does not have a close relationship with Louis Farrakhan.”
And yet, just months earlier, Wright’s Trumpet magazine gave Farrakhan its Lifetime Achievement Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award, saying that Farrakhan “truly epitomized greatness.”
That award was the fruit of a long and deep relationship between the two men, White told Newsmax. In 1984, Wright accompanied Farrakhan on his much-criticized trip to meet Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, at a time when Gadhafi was considered an enemy of the United States.
Wright also accompanied Farrakhan and Jackson to Syria in 1986, where they successfully negotiated with Syrian strongman for the release of downed American pilot Robert O. Goodman.
Obama’s Speaking Style
In addition to the ideological affinity Obama expressed for the black nationalist movement, White believes that Obama owes much of his success as a public orator to speaking techniques that Farrakhan developed over the years, and exploited for years to great success.
“If you listen to the rhetoric and you take away Obama’s political jargon, you hear a religious tenor to it that is very much Nation of Islam-like. I don’t know if anyone has ever touched on it, but Obama’s speaking style is very Malcolm-like, very Farrakhan-like,” White said.
Any American who has listened to early radio or television interviews of Obama can hear how dramatically Obama’s speaking style has changed since he became a United States senator.
In clips dating from 2001 and even early 2004, Obama speaks haltingly and in long, rambling sentences packed with legalese and dense pseudo-academic rhetoric. But not today.
“As a former minister of the Nation of Islam, I know how they speak,” White told Newsmax. “I don’t know who was training Obama. But that style is not a ministerial style like in the Christian church. It’s a Nation of Islam style.”
White began in the late 1970s as a foot soldier in the Fruit of Islam, the military branch of Farrakhan’s Black Muslim group, then rose to become a minister of the Nation of Islam and a top deputy to Farrakhan himself.
Known initially as Brother Vibert L.X., and later as Minister V.L. Muhammad, he parted ways with Farrakhan not long after the Million Man March, after nearly 25 years within the organization.
White’s 2002 book “Inside the Nation of Islam” prompted death threats by Farrakhan loyalists, so he left Illinois and moved to Florida to teach at the University of Central Florida.
He told Newsmax that Obama’s remarkable speaking style, even his manner of standing at a podium to appear larger than life, is directly copied from Farrakhan.
“If the Nation of Islam can’t do anything else, it can train people how to speak. And nobody can outspeak a Muslim minister,” he said.
Earlier this year, a pro-Clinton blog run by former CIA officer Larry Johnson unearthed a 2004 photograph showing Michelle Obama and Farrakahn’s wife, Mother Khadijah Farrakhan, at an event hosted by Jackson’s Citizenship Education Foundation.
Newsmax queried Obama’s U.S. Senate office, his Chicago office and his campaign press office about his ties to Farrakhan, but did not receive a reply.
Ever since he appeared before the annual policy conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee in June, Obama has attempted to convince the Jewish community that he is pro-Israel.
But his longstanding ties to Farrakhan, Wright and Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi, among others, have disturbed many Jewish community leaders.
Sen. John McCain publicly chastised The Los Angeles Times on Thursday for not releasing a videotape the newspaper said it possessed of a 2003 dinner for Khalidi, where Obama reportedly accused Israel of carrying out a “genocide” against the Palestinians.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Huntley Brown is a black concert pianist who emailed this to his friends on why he can't vote for Obama
This article was verified by Snopes.com:
This article is from Huntley Brown - he is a fabulous concert pianist, man of God and is a black man. I appreciate so much his reasoning for not voting for Obama.
Why I Can't Vote For Obama
By Huntley Brown
Dear Friends,
A few months ago I was asked for my perspective on Obama, I sent out an email with a few points. With the election just around the corner I decided to complete my perspective. Those of you on my e-list have seen some of this before but it's worth repeating...
First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support. Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.
Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness. I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads, I follow. I can't dictate the terms, He does because He is the leader.
I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.
In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning - to name a few, then wrong economic concerns will soon not matter.
We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, "don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I don't know Obama, so all I can go on is his voting record. His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007.
<_http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/_>; NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama:Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)
To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as the most liberal senator takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.
There is a reason Planned Parenthood gives him a 100 % rating. There is a reason the homosexual community supports him. There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hama etc. love him. There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court. There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill. There is a reason he voted "No" on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
There is a reason he voted "No" on banning partial birth abortion. There is a reason he voted "No" on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.
Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue. The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedures:
A. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with
forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)
B. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
C. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
D. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are
then opened to enlarge the hole.
E. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The
child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead
baby is then removed.
God help him.
There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law.
Think about this: You can' not give a child an aspirin without parental notification but that same child can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.
There is a reason Obama went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years.
Obama tells us he has good judgment, but he sat under Jeremiah Wright's teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now?
Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 "Go and make disciples of all nations." This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you; talk like you believe what you believe etc.
The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?
Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a
1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community.
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
Would you support a President who went to a church like that?
Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside.
This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discover he'd been going to a racist church. The TRUE church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.
A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value system has to be based on biblical mandates. It does not matter if it's a white church or a black church based on racial values, it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.
Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book "The Goals of the Black Community". If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.
Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?
So what does all this mean for the nation?
In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.
Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 "Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."
Then God says:
1 Samuel 1:18 " When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles." 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."
Here is what we know for sure.
God is not schizophrenic.
He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God. Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture so I doubt it.
For all my friends who are voting for Obama can you really look God in the face and say; Father, based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four Supreme Court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.
I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends:
Since we know some one's value system has to be placed on the nation,
1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation.
2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?
Blessings,
Huntley Brown
Huntley Brown is, as described on his web site, "a Christian concert pianist whose versatile repertoire includes classical, jazz, gospel, reggae and many other styles." An e-mail to Mr. Brown about the item reproduced above, an explanation attributed to him about why he would not be voting for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, drew the following response:
"Yes, I wrote this e-mail. I was responding to my friends who asked me to vote for Senator Obama because he is black.
It was not my intention to send it around the world.
I did not post this e-mail or send out any pictures attached. I wish they had not done that.
My friends did not ask me to vote for Senator McCain which explains why my e-mail was geared towards Senator Obama.
My e-mail was not meant to influence public opinion in any way, but simply to share with my friends my views on why I could not vote for Senator Obama.
I have problems with both candidates, but the differences I have with Senator McCain are pale in comparison with the ones I have with Senator Obama.
For the record, I am not a politician. I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I am a Christian independent who just loves the Lord.
If Senator Obama wins, he can count on my prayer support every day.
I tell my friends it's like a family where you have different opinions, but you love each other just the same. I love and appreciate Senator Obama, but our views are diametrically opposed.
If I knew my e-mail would have generated this much interest on a national level, I would have left out a few points. I don't want people to think I am against gay people or against people who have had abortions. (I am not). We are all sinners saved by grace, but we need to have some absolute laws to govern society or else we will self destruct.
What has really bothered me is our beautiful black women constitute only 6% of the population, yet they comprise 36% of the abortion industry's clientele. Obama has done nothing to stop this. Most people don't know that the leading abortion providers have chosen to exploit us blacks by locating 94% of their abortuaries in urban neighborhoods with high black populations. Obama has done nothing to stop this?
To be honest I can't wait to vote for the first black President, but it has to be a person who shares the values I read in the Bible.
Thanks for checking to make sure my e-mail is legit, it is.
The sad part is I have been getting hate mail and my family is being harassed. As you can imagine not everyone is happy with my e-mail. God bless you richly.
This article is from Huntley Brown - he is a fabulous concert pianist, man of God and is a black man. I appreciate so much his reasoning for not voting for Obama.
Why I Can't Vote For Obama
By Huntley Brown
Dear Friends,
A few months ago I was asked for my perspective on Obama, I sent out an email with a few points. With the election just around the corner I decided to complete my perspective. Those of you on my e-list have seen some of this before but it's worth repeating...
First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support. Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.
Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness. I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads, I follow. I can't dictate the terms, He does because He is the leader.
I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.
In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning - to name a few, then wrong economic concerns will soon not matter.
We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, "don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I don't know Obama, so all I can go on is his voting record. His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007.
<_http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/_>; NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama:Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)
To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as the most liberal senator takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.
There is a reason Planned Parenthood gives him a 100 % rating. There is a reason the homosexual community supports him. There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hama etc. love him. There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court. There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill. There is a reason he voted "No" on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
There is a reason he voted "No" on banning partial birth abortion. There is a reason he voted "No" on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.
Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue. The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedures:
A. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with
forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)
B. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
C. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
D. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are
then opened to enlarge the hole.
E. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The
child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead
baby is then removed.
God help him.
There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law.
Think about this: You can' not give a child an aspirin without parental notification but that same child can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.
There is a reason Obama went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years.
Obama tells us he has good judgment, but he sat under Jeremiah Wright's teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now?
Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 "Go and make disciples of all nations." This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you; talk like you believe what you believe etc.
The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?
Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a
1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community.
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
Would you support a President who went to a church like that?
Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside.
This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discover he'd been going to a racist church. The TRUE church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.
A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value system has to be based on biblical mandates. It does not matter if it's a white church or a black church based on racial values, it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.
Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book "The Goals of the Black Community". If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.
Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?
So what does all this mean for the nation?
In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.
Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 "Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."
Then God says:
1 Samuel 1:18 " When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles." 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."
Here is what we know for sure.
God is not schizophrenic.
He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God. Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture so I doubt it.
For all my friends who are voting for Obama can you really look God in the face and say; Father, based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four Supreme Court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.
I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends:
Since we know some one's value system has to be placed on the nation,
1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation.
2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?
Blessings,
Huntley Brown
Huntley Brown is, as described on his web site, "a Christian concert pianist whose versatile repertoire includes classical, jazz, gospel, reggae and many other styles." An e-mail to Mr. Brown about the item reproduced above, an explanation attributed to him about why he would not be voting for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, drew the following response:
"Yes, I wrote this e-mail. I was responding to my friends who asked me to vote for Senator Obama because he is black.
It was not my intention to send it around the world.
I did not post this e-mail or send out any pictures attached. I wish they had not done that.
My friends did not ask me to vote for Senator McCain which explains why my e-mail was geared towards Senator Obama.
My e-mail was not meant to influence public opinion in any way, but simply to share with my friends my views on why I could not vote for Senator Obama.
I have problems with both candidates, but the differences I have with Senator McCain are pale in comparison with the ones I have with Senator Obama.
For the record, I am not a politician. I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I am a Christian independent who just loves the Lord.
If Senator Obama wins, he can count on my prayer support every day.
I tell my friends it's like a family where you have different opinions, but you love each other just the same. I love and appreciate Senator Obama, but our views are diametrically opposed.
If I knew my e-mail would have generated this much interest on a national level, I would have left out a few points. I don't want people to think I am against gay people or against people who have had abortions. (I am not). We are all sinners saved by grace, but we need to have some absolute laws to govern society or else we will self destruct.
What has really bothered me is our beautiful black women constitute only 6% of the population, yet they comprise 36% of the abortion industry's clientele. Obama has done nothing to stop this. Most people don't know that the leading abortion providers have chosen to exploit us blacks by locating 94% of their abortuaries in urban neighborhoods with high black populations. Obama has done nothing to stop this?
To be honest I can't wait to vote for the first black President, but it has to be a person who shares the values I read in the Bible.
Thanks for checking to make sure my e-mail is legit, it is.
The sad part is I have been getting hate mail and my family is being harassed. As you can imagine not everyone is happy with my e-mail. God bless you richly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
