Saturday, May 19, 2012

Can you believe this video? It's a phenomenon~ Health Sciences Institute

Guns & Patriots Marketplace
Below please find a special message from one of our advertisers, Health Sciences Institute. From time to time, we receive opportunities we believe you as a valued customer may want to know about. Please note that the following message reflects the opinions and representations of our advertiser alone, and not necessarily the opinion or editorial positions of Guns & Patriots, Human Events or Eagle Publishing.
Dear Reader,

Can you believe this video? It's a phenomenon. In fact, it was sent to more than 289,000 people in just the first 24 hours!

But you might not see it at all.

Why? Because, for the first time, mainstream medicine's deadliest conspiracy has been EXPOSED. Finally, this video is the 'shot heard around the world' the establishment prayed would never come.

To be honest, I'm not sure how long this video will be available. There are powerful interests hell-bent on minimizing the damage it is doing to corporate medicine's profit machine.

Before it's banned. Watch it here.

To your best days,

Paul Amos
Associate Director, HSI

P.S. Wow. 366,062 people and counting. It's taking on a life of its own. Get the facts now.

Obama Gives Speech in a NV Couple’s Garage, hosts still Unsure if they will Vote for Him

by: Admin

As leader of the free world President Obama will be used to making speeches to millions of people around the globe.
So he might have felt the occasion was a little beneath him yesterday when he stopped off in Reno, Nevada, to deliver an address outside a couple’s garage.
In what could be a disastrous photo opportunity for the President’s campaign, Mr Obama spoke to ahandful of people in the crucial swing state.
The president’s 15 minute address outside the home of Paul and Val Keller on Friday afternoon, drew a small audience of neighbours and supporters – though even his hosts said they were not sure if they would vote for him in the coming election.
Despite this benefit, and a one-on-one meeting with the president in the couple’s kitchen, the couple reported themselves still divided on who they expect to vote for come November.
‘I like him, but I’ve always liked him,’ Mr Keller, a 67-year-old retired electrical contractor told a reporter with the Wall Street Journal.
He said he voted for the president in 2008 and plans to once again this year. His wife remains uncertain.
‘I don’t know yet,’ she answered when asked how she’ll vote. ‘I want to wait and see what happens in the economy,’ she told MyNews4.
(Photo: AP)
ROFL So hows Nevada working out for ya Obama...not so exciting eh'? Nevada is on to the Duke of DC..: Maybe Hollywood will offer ya a 'B' Movie contract after ya leave the WH 2013 or sooner....dunno

What the First Amendment Really Says about Religion

by: Gary DeMar
 Many people incorrectly maintain that the First Amendment was designed to remove any and all religious precepts and considerations from civil affairs. An example of this misinterpretation can be found in the Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court:
The two men most responsible for its inclusion in the Bill of Rights constructed the clause absolutely. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison thought that the prohibition of establishment meant that a presidential proclamation of Thanksgiving Day was just as improper as a tax exemption for churches.[1]
The historical facts dispute this interpretation of the First Amendment. James Madison issued at least four Thanksgiving Day proclamations. Note the language used by Madison in his 1814 proclamation: “public humiliation and fasting and of prayer to Almighty God . . . their humble adoration to the Great Sovereign of the Universe, of confessing their sins and transgressions, and of strengthening their vows of repentance and amendment.”[2]
If the Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court has accurately captured the meaning of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, then Madison “violated both his oath of office and the very instruments of government that he helped write and labored to have ratified.”[3] In the same way, if Jefferson “construed the establishment clause absolutely, he also violated his oath of office, his principles, and the Constitution when, in 1802, he signed into federal law tax exemption for the churches in Alexandria County Virginia.”[4]
Of course, neither Madison nor Jefferson violated the First Amendment by these official State acts. It is the modern day secularist interpreter of Madison and Jefferson who have misread, misinterpreted, and misapplied the First Amendment. This misreading of the First Amendment has come about through “the change in the intellectual climate of the universities, and consequently in the media and the courts. It is these opinion-making centers that have influenced common thinking about law, morality, and religion. These centers have thrown the credibility of  religious witness into doubt.”[5] Too many debates over the meaning and implementation of the First Amendment are confused by a failure to cite it accurately:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

An accurate interpretation of the amendment must refer to the following points:
  • There is no mention of the words Church, State, or separation in the First Amendment or in the body of the Constitution.
  • Included in the amendment are additional items which relate to the free exercise of religion. Usually these constitutional protections are narrowly applied so they are not a part of the freedom of religion provision: the right to talk about religion (freedom of speech), the right to publish religious works (freedom of the press), the right of people to worship publicly, either individually or in groups (freedom of assembly), and the right to petition the government when it goes beyond its delegated constitutional authority in these areas (the right of political involvement).
  • The prohibition is addressed to Congress. Individual states and governmental institutions (e.g., public schools, capitol building steps, national parks, etc.) are not included in the amendment’s prohibition. As clear as this is, some try to rewrite the First Amendment in order to fit their misconceptions about its meaning and implementation. For example, “The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the direct descendant of Jefferson’s Virginia resolution, and its words are quite clear. Congress, and by extension the states, ‘shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.’”[6] If the constitutional framers wanted to include the phrase “and by extension the states,” they would have done so. If they had, the states would never have ratified the Constitution.
  • There is no mention of a freedom from religion. The First Amendment offers no support of a position that would outlaw religion just because it exists or offends those of a different religion or those who have no religion at all (agnostics or atheist). 
  1. Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to the United States Supreme Court (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1979), 461. Quoted in Robert L. Cord, “Church-State Separation and the Public Schools: A Re-evaluation,” Educational Leadership (May 1987), 28. []
  2. The four proclamations in their entirely are published in Robert L. Cord, Separation of Church and State: Historical Fact and Current Fiction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, [1982] 1988), 257–260. []
  3. Cord, “Church-State Separation and the Public Schools,” 26. []
  4. 2 Statutes at Large 194, Seventh Congress, Sess. 1, Chap. 52. Quoted in Cord, “Church-State Separation and the Public Schools, 28. []
  5. Jude P. Dougherty, “Separating Church and State,” The World & I (December 1987), 683. []
  6. Editorial Page, Atlanta Constitution (November 15, 1994), A18. []

Obama’s God Complex Changing History and Destroying a Nation

by: Giacomo
I’m sixty years old and I’ve seen my share of politicians.  I’ve even had the opportunity to sit on committee with some.  I’ve seen politicians that I would entrust my life to and I’ve seen others that were so arrogant and self-centered that I wouldn’t trust them with the key to the bathroom.
But there has never been such an arrogant and self-centered politician as Barack Hussein Obama.
For example, last week, ABC’s Robin Roberts had the opportunity to speak with President Obama.  During that interview, Obama told her,
“When I think about — those soldiers or airmen or marines or — sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf…”
He didn’t say anything about our service men and women fighting on the nation’s behalf, but on HIS behalf.  In his eyes, they are giving up their lives and getting wounded for him, not the nation or the American people.
Last month, the Obama campaign’s Truth Team website posted a list of Republican donor’s names.  Behind each name they posted things about them to make them seem to be of ill-repute.  The comments for each individual ranged from being successful in a business that was not in sync with Obama’s views or they had out-sourced some of their business.  The whole intent of the list was to smear GOP donors, to make the entire Republican Party appear to be as corrupt as the Democrats.
The sad part of this is that some of the individuals whose names appeared on the list are the subject of personal investigations by people of all walks of life, many of which have no other motive except to dig up trash on them.  Their private lives are being scrutinized and dissected is such a way that it is interfering with the person’s ability to go about their normal life.
Then earlier this week, President Obama stated that if anyone does not support his policies, it is not because of philosophical differences, but because of his name.  Basically, if you don’t agree with him, you’re prejudiced against him and it has nothing to do with your politics or beliefs.

Worst of all, the Obama White House has meticulously gone through a number of the official biographies of former presidents that have been posted on and inserted something about Obama into each one.  They have also edited out some things about some of the presidents in order to tarnish their history.  Here are a few examples,
Calvin Coolidge: “On Feb. 22, 1924 Calvin Coolidge became the first president to make a public radio address to the American people. President Coolidge later helped create the Federal Radio Commission, which has now evolved to become the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).   President Obama became the first president to hold virtual gatherings and town halls using Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, etc.”
Franklin D Roosevelt: “On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama Administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations.”
John F Kennedy: “President John F. Kennedy famously suggested the American people: “Ask what you can do for your country.” In 1961, the Peace Corps was created, facilitating service among citizens working toward peace in developing countries. In 2011, President Obama celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps with a Presidential Proclamation.” Richard Nixon: “In 1973, Richard Nixon created The President’s Export Council, which was expanded and reconstituted under President Jimmy Carter in 1979. Today the PEC continues to work towards reaching President Obama’s goal of doubling the nation’s exports by 2014’s end.”
Ronald Reagan: “President Reagan designated Martin Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday; today the Obama Administration honors this tradition, with the First and Second Families participating in service projects on this day.
In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.”
George W Bush: “In 2002, President George W. Bush’s State of the Union was the first to be live broadcast on the Internet. In 2011 and 2012, President Obama’s State of the Union speeches were available in an enhanced live stream version that featured infographics, charts and data side-by-side in real time with the President’s speech.”
No other president in history would have ever dared to submit such campaign motivated comments into the posted histories of their predecessors.  A number of historians are decrying the editing and claim it exemplifies just how arrogant and god-like Obama is.

Ed Meese, former US Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan and current Heritage Distinguished Fellow commented,
“They should not use the biographies of past presidents as campaign vehicles. What they have done is to spoil the integrity of the historical narrative. At the very least, the Reagan biography should be restored to the accurate version provided by the White House Historical Association. I’m sure those associated with other past presidents would feel the same.”
Barack Obama is the most narcissistic and egomaniacal president in American history.  From his actions and statements, he has proven that he doesn’t care about the nation or anyone except himself.  He will and is stooping to the lowest levels of decency in his attempt to be re-elected.   Obama and his campaign leaders seem to be unwilling to stop at anything, whether it be lying, slandering, re-writing history, or misrepresenting himself, in order to renew his option for another four years in the White House.
My fear is that if he is successful in winning the November election, that this may be the last free election in America.  His ego and self-centeredness is so strong that he would not have any qualms in destroying the economy, declaring martial law and taking dictatorial control of the nation.

Comedy Central Writer Whines That Conservatives Are Ruining Twitter

So what do you get when you cross Gonzalo Cordova with Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart..a Edsel another Ford Lemon!
Comedy Central’s programming lineup is littered with liberals, from Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart to the new “Key & Peele” show. No matter how hard you squint you won’t find a show catering to the Right.
So what does the network do when it sees conservative jokesters trumping their liberal peers on Twitter?
Whine, whine whine.

Check out this Comedy Central "Indecision" blog post dubbed, "Conservative Hashtag Games Are Ruining Twitter." The author, Gonzalo Cordova, is kevetching that every time those wonderful liberals start a social media meme conservatives hijack it for their own cause.
Everyone in power deserves to be ridiculed. If that wasn't true, we'd be wasting our time with this blog (instead of just wasting your time with this blog). I don't have a problem with these hashtag games politically. I have a problem with these hashtag games comedically....Liberals, hashtags rarely work in your favor and they're often hijacked by obsessive conservatives. Conservatives, please be funnier.
Liberals clearly are dismayed by the power of Twitter and how its level playing field plays to the Right's advantage. Unlike, say, movies ... TV shows ... music ... universities ... the media in toto ... which all lean decidedly to the Left.

Continue Reading on

Obama Cites His Poor Kenyan Family Members As Reason Why “Economic Growth Can’t Just Be For The Lucky Few”…

Yes, the same family he doesn’t lift a finger to help
President Barack Obama invoked his poor family members in Kenya as a reason why “economic growth can’t just be for the lucky few at the top, it’s got to be broad-based, for everybody.”
Obama delivered remarks Friday at the Symposium on Global Agriculture and Food Security in the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington where he talked about plans for the United States and developed countries from the Group of Eight (G8) nations to assist African countries in agriculture.
“I’ve spoken before about relatives I have in Kenya, who live in villages where hunger is sometimes a reality — despite the fact that African farmers can be some of the hardest-working people on Earth,” said Obama, who along with first lady Michelle Obama have a net worth of between $2.6 million and $8.3 million, according to financial disclosure forms released by the White House on Tuesday.

Continue Reading on 

Look who else confused about Obama birthplace

by:AAron Klein
President Obama’s literary agent is not the only one who was confused over the politician’s birthplace.
The U.S. government is on record questioning Obama’s citizenship status as early as when he was 5 years old, stating it lacked documentation to determine his citizenship, WND previously exposed.
The citizenship inquiry dated back to 1966, when Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was attempting to secure a waiver so her second husband, Indonesian citizen Lolo Soetoro, could return to the country after his visa had expired.
Dunham and Obama Sr. are reported to have divorced in 1964.
In 1965 in Hawaii, Dunham married Soetoro, an Indonesian, and moved to Indonesia in October 1967.
Soetoro had been studying at the University of Hawaii as part of a State Department-initiated student exchange program.
Soetoro’s student visa had been sponsored by the University of Hawaii’s Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange between East and West. The program enforced strict visa limitations, requiring foreign students to return to their home countries after two years.
According to U.S. immigration files obtained and reviewed by WND, Soetoro was approved for a 21-month study grant beginning Sept. 1, 1962, at the East-West Center.
A memorandum from the center dated July 7, 1965, relates how Soetoro had his Class J visa briefly extended after he married Dunham, due to a claimed illness on the part of Dunham. His visa had been set to expire June 15, 1964.
“He gave his wife’s illness as the reason for his visa extension request,” stated the center’s memo.
The memo said Soetoro claimed Dunham had been “suffering from a stomach ailment which may, according to her physician, require surgery.”
“When I pressed Mr. Soetoro for more information regarding the name of the physician, etc., he claimed that he could not remember exactly,” continued the memo, signed by Robert Wooster of the University of Hawaii’s exchange program.
Further notes from the exchange program that year indicated Soetoro worked at the time for Hawaii-Pacific Engineers Surveyors.
An additional memorandum, from July 13, 1965, advised that Soetoro no longer was associated with the East-West Center and that the University of Hawaii exchange program could not further help him renew his U.S. visa.
Soetoro had turned to the center to make a special exception in his case and to hold his return travel for another year, or until June 22, 1966.
“I gather that he intends to make every attempt to remain indefinitely with or without East-West Center approval although his manner throughout our interview was polite and cordial,” stated a memo from the center.
The memo, from Robert Zumwinkle, executive director of the East-West Center’s Institute for Student Interchange, said the program received a special cable from the Indonesian government that Soetoro, a civilian employee of the Indonesian army, must “immediately terminate his studies and return to Djakarta, Indonesia.”
Soetoro apparently was expected to devote four years of service to the Indonesian government in return for its subsidizing geography studies at the country’s Gadjah Mada University, as well as for his participation in the student exchange program.
The memo made clear the East-West Center would not help Soetoro extend his U.S. visa.
It complained Soetoro did not comply with its previous instructions to return to Indonesia at the end of his studies.
Soetoro departed the U.S. for Indonesia on June 20, 1966. Once back in his home country, Soetoro attempted to secure a waiver from the U.S. immigration authorities for his immediate return to Hawaii, according to immigration files reviewed by WND.
Dunham and Soetoro both filed petitions with U.S. Immigration in hopes of persuading the American government to grant a waiver allowing Soetoro to return.
The petitions claimed Dunham would suffer undue “psychological hardship” because of Soetoro’s departure.
Some petitions referenced hardship that may be suffered by Obama, then aged 5.
In a Nov. 22, 1966, interview with Robert Schultz, immigrant inspector in Honolulu, Dunham talked about financial hardships for her son.
“I buy personal things for my 5-year-old boy. I also pay $50.00 a month for a babysitter from 2:30 to 5:00 p.m,” she wrote, referring to Obama.
That petition was denied, with immigration authorities determining that according to remarks from her own interview, Dunham made enough money to support both herself and her son.
A document to the Assistant Region Commission Travel Control in Honolulu from December 1966 stated, “It was also determined that the applicant’s spouse is now employed and can adequately maintain both herself and her 5-year-old child by a former marriage.”
Facing repeated denials, Dunham decided she would apply for a visa to Indonesia to live with Soetoro.

‘Nothing on file’ to document Obama’s citizenship
Before that, immigration authorities exchanged queries about Obama, with one noting questions about Obama’s citizenship.
One critical exchange is dated Aug. 21, 1967, from Sam Benson, an officer at the Southwest Immigration and Naturalization Service office in San Pedro, Calif.
Benson’s query stated: “There is nothing in the file to document the status of the spouse’s son. Please inquire into his citizenship and residence status and determine whether or not he is the applicant’s child within the meaning of Section 101(b)(1)(B) of the Act, who may suffer exceptional hardship within the meaning of Section 212(a).”
The reference is to the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which defined a “child” as an unmarried person under 21 years of age who, among other qualifiers, could be a “stepchild,” whether or not born out of wedlock, provided the child had not reached the “age of eighteen years at the time the marriage creating the status of stepchild occurred.”
A response to Benson’s inquiry came from one “W.L. Mix” of the central immigration office, who determined Obama was a U.S. citizen.
Mix replied: “Pursuant to inquiry from central office regarding the status of the applicants’ spouse’s child by a former marriage.”
“The person in question is a United States citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii, Aug. 4, 1961. He is living with the applicants’ spouse in Honolulu, Hawaii. He is considered the applicant’s step-child, within the meaning of Sec. 101(b)(1)(B), of the act, by virtue of the marriage of the applicant to the child’s mother on March 5, 1965.”
The files do not state how the office determined Obama was born in Honolulu.
With research by Brenda J. Elliott

Michael Savage: Romney following McCain's losing strategy

WMD Exclusive
The political gurus who advised Mitt Romney to condemn a plan by a “super PAC” to use Barack Obama’s influential relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright against him in the 2012 campaign will lead the presumed Republican nominee to the same fate as John McCain four years ago, said talk-radio host Michael Savage.
“Romney’s finished,” Savage told his “Savage Nation” audience yesterday. “He’s a fall guy. I’m the only one in the media who told you.”
Savage said Romney was “being misdirected by the very same people who misdirected McCain – who should have won the last election.”
“McCain said, ‘No, I won’t go there, I won’t do that,’ and lost the election.”
Republicans in 2008 naturally voted for McCain, Savage explained, but the independents who decided the election “did not come out for him, because he was nothing but a two-faced RINO,” a Republican In Name Only.
“I can only conclude Romney doesn’t even understand what he’s doing, or Romney is a straight-out fall guy for the Republican establishment, offered a huge payout at the end of the term in the form of contracts, books, lecture tours or whatever,” Savage said.
In an interview with, Romney said, “I repudiate the effort by that PAC to promote an ad strategy of the nature they’ve described.”
Romney said he wants his campaign to “focus on the economy, on getting people back to work, on seeing rising incomes and growing prosperity – particularly for those in the middle class of America.”
McCain told Fox News four years ago that he didn’t believe Obama should be held accountable for the things that Wright said from the pulpit.
But Obama once counted Wright as his chief spiritual adviser, the man who led him to Christian faith, married him and his wife and baptized his family. Obama, who attended Wright’s church for two decades, insisted he never heard the pastor spew the anti-American, anti-white venom now  well-known through video clips of sermons played on news shows and posted on the Internet during the 2008 campaign.
But Wright’s adherence to the Marxist-based Black Liberation Theology that animates his preaching is well documented, and it’s implausible that the published clips were anomalies.
Middle-of-the-road advisers
As WND reported, Savage warned in March that Romney will lose in November if he is unwilling to strongly confront President Obama.
Savage took advantage of an interview with Donald Trump, who was campaigning for Romney, to send a message to the former Massachusetts governor.
“If there’s anything I can implore you, beg you even, to tell him, he’s got to understand that if he listens to those middle-of-the-road advisers the way McCain did, he’s going to go by the way of McCain,” Savage told the celebrity real estate magnate.
Savage pointed to Romney’s indication in an interview the previous day with CNBC that, unlike his Republican opponents for the nomination, he would not attack Obama.
Romney said the nation needs “to come together to recognize that even though we have differing views about the country and about where we should go, we all love the country.”
“I’m not going to say outrageous things about the president or about my opponents,” the former governor emphasized.

Trump insisted that Romney will be tough on Obama.
“I believe he will be very, very strong and very tough, and he’ll be very much opposed to what’s happening with this president,” Trump said.
Savage, pointing to issues such as the $500 million administration loan to the failing Solyndra “green energy” company, asked whether Romney would address “the gross corruption that we the people see on a daily basis.”
“I think he will be very, very strong,” Trump replied.
After the interview, Savage told a caller, however, that Romney says “nothing about so many of the issues that plague us today.”
“Mitt Romney speaks in platitudes,” Savage said. “He speaks in platitudes like a kid running for the presidency of a high school class.”
Savage said Romney needs to heed the wisdom of the late Republican senator and presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, who famously said “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” and “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
“He has to get visceral, he has to get specific, and he has to be more extreme in the defense of liberty,” Savage said of Romney.
Savage later explained that Romney “doesn’t have to get mean and nasty and get insulting.”
“He just has to talk about the corruption and graft and greed,” Savage said.
The talk host read a line from his bestselling book “Trickle Down Tyranny” to underscore the stakes in the November election.
Savage prefaced it as “advice to the next president”: “Economies can be rebuilt, armies can be repopulated, but once a nation’s pride is gone, it can almost never be restored.”
“The Savage Nation” airs live Monday through Friday from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Eastern. It can be heard online through stations such as KSTE in Sacramento.

Friday, May 18, 2012

A Cause worth fighting for...Lt Behenna


On March 20th, 2009, Army Ranger 1st Lieutenant Michael Behenna was sentenced to 25 years in prison for killing Ali Mansur, a known Al Qaeda operative while serving in Iraq. Mansur was known to be a member of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the lieutenant’s area of operation and Army intelligence believed he organized an attack on Lt. Behenna’s platoon in April 2008 which killed two U.S. soldiers and injured two more. Army intelligence ordered the release of Mansur and Lt. Behenna was ordered to return the terrorist to his home.
During the return of Mansur, Lt. Behenna again questioned the Al Qaeda member for information about other members of the terrorist cell, and financial supporters. During this interrogation, Mansur attacked Lt. Behenna, who killed the terrorist in self-defense. The government subsequently prosecuted Lt. Behenna for premeditated murder.
Not only is this a miscarriage of justice on the behalf of Lt. Behenna, who was acting to prevent further loss of life in his platoon, it is demoralizing to the U.S. troops who continue to fight on behalf of the freedom and security of our nation. Whether it is U.S. border patrol agents, members of the armed forces, or FBI agents, no individual who is serving on the frontlines in the War on Terror should be so blatantly mistreated.
We urgently need your help to correct this terrible wrong against a loyal and faithful soldier. Please contact your congressman and ask them to intervene on behalf of 1LT Behenna. Below is a brief recap of the relevant aspects of Lt. Behenna’s case.
  • September 2007: 1LT Michael Behenna deployed to Iraq for his first tour of combat.
  • April 21, 2008, Al Qa’ida operatives attacked LT Behennaʼs platoon. The
  • IED attack resulted in the death of two of LT Behennaʼs platoon members, two Iraqi citizens, and wounded two additional soldiers under LT Behennaʼs command.
  • May 5, 2008: Based on information from US Army intelligence, LT Behenna’s platoon detained known terrorist Ali Mansur at his home for the attack on LT Behennaʼs platoon. Mansur had illegal weapons and a passport indicating trips to Syria.
  • May 16, 2008: Without explanation, Army Intelligence ordered the release of Mansur.
  • LT Behenna, who lost two members of his platoon just weeks earlier, was ordered to transport Mansur to his home.
  • LT Behenna attempted a final field interview of Mansur prior to his release.
  • During the interview, Mansur attacked LT Behenna, and LT Behenna reacted to defend himself by firing two shots which killed Mansur.
  • July 2008: The U.S. Army charged LT Behenna with premeditated murder for the death of the Al Qa’ida operative and terrorist Ali Mansur
  • February 23, 2009: 1Lt. Behennaʼs trial begins.
  • Defense experts testify that Mansur was standing with his arm outstretched when shot.
  • On the evening of February 25th, prosecution expert witness Dr. Herbert MacDonell told the prosecution attorneys the only logical explanation for what happened was that Mansur had to be standing, reaching for LT Behennaʼs gun when he was shot. This contradicted the prosecution’s theory that Mansur was executed while seated on a rock.
  • On February 26th LT Behenna testified that while he was interrogating Mansur he turned his head towards his interpreter, and when he did, Mansur lunged for his gun. The LT fired a controlled pair of shots. This explanation was identical to what Dr. MacDonell told the prosecution team in a private meeting the night before.
  • During a recess after 1LT Behennaʼs testimony, Dr. MacDonell met with the prosecution team and told them again that the LT’s testimony was exactly what he had demonstrated to Prosecutors the day before and that the LT must be telling the truth. The prosecutors sent Dr. MacDonell home to New York. Leaving the courtroom, Dr. MacDonell told defense counsel he would have made a great witness for LT Behenna.
  • The defense counsel asked prosecutors if they have any exculpatory evidence about Dr. MacDonell, and the prosecutors denied possession of such evidence.
  • In the prosecution’s closing arguments they argued LT Behennaʼs testimony that Mansur was reaching for his gun was “impossible” based upon the evidence (despite knowing that their own expert witness had told him it was the only logical explanation.)
  • Later that Friday night a military panel of seven officers, none of whom had combat experience, convicted LT Behenna of unpremeditated murder and assault.
  • After LT Behenna was convicted, but before sentencing, Dr. MacDonell sent an email to the prosecution team requesting that the information provided in his demonstration be turned over to the defense.
  • A mistrial was requested by the LT’s defense counsel, but on March 20, the military judge denied both defense motions to declare a mistrial and to order a new trial.
  • LT Behennaʼs attorneys are appealing the verdict based on the denial of a fair trial. An oral argument has been scheduled before the highest military court – The Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces – on 23 April 2012 in Washington D.C.
  • LT Behenna is currently serving a 15-year sentence in Ft. Leavenworth (the original 25 year sentence was reduced five years by the commanding General of 101st Airborne and the Army Clemency Board reduced it another five years.) The earliest he would be eligible for parole is after serving a third of his sentence. Without parole or a new trial Lt. Behenna will get out of prison for the shooting an Al Qaeda terrorist in self defense when he is 40 years old.
1st Lieutenant Michael Behenna was an excellent officer. He received his call to serve his country while attending the University of Central Oklahoma. He is from a family of public servants, his mother being an Assistant United States Attorney and his father a retired Special Agent with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. He has served the Army and the United States with honor and dignity. To sacrifice the life of this Oklahoma soldier over the death of a known terrorist, is a breach of faith with all who are serving our country.  Please stand with us and demand justice for this American hero!!!  He fought for you; now please fight for him! 

Go to site to support Lt Michael Behenna :

Video: Michael Savage: FBI Should Be Investigating Obama’s Eligibility To Be President

Thank you Michael Savage for having the courage to speak out on the important issue of Obama’s Eligibility.
The FBI must follow the Constitution and take due diligence to assure our leader meets the requirement to hold the office of  POTUS . Several US Military personnel have been drummed out of the service for challenging Barack Obamas eligibility to give orders as CIC... Sheriff Joe Arpiao is being harrassed by the DOJ under USAG Eric Holder who is covering for the fraud Barack Obama has used to gain the highest office in the United States of America...The FBI is obligated to investigate all of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's  allegations against Barack Obama et al!

Obama citizen-detention plan in trouble

by: Bob Unruh
A district-court judge has suspended enforcement of a law that could strip U.S. citizens of their civil rights and allow indefinite detention of individuals President Obama believes to be in support of terror.
The Obama administration has refused to ensure that the First Amendment rights of authors and writers who express contrary positions or report on terror group activities are protected under his new National Defense Authorization Act.
Targeted in the stunning ruling from U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest of New York was Paragraph 1021 of the NDAA, which Obama signed into law last Dec. 31. The vague provision appears to allow for the suspension of civil rights for, and indefinite detention of, those individuals targeted by the president as being in support of terror.
Virginia already has passed a law that states it will not cooperate with such detentions, and several local jurisdictions have done the same. Arizona, Rhode Island, Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Washington also have reviewed such plans.
The case was before Forrest on a request for a temporary restraining order. The case was brought on behalf of Christopher Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.
Video mania: The instruction manual on how to restore America to what it once was: “Taking America Back” on DVD. This package also includes the “Tea Party at Sea” DVD.
Constitutional expert Herb Titus filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the sponsor of the Virginia law, Delegate Bob Marshall, and others.
Titus, an attorney with William J. Olson, P.C., told WND that the judge’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of paragraph 1021 “affirms the constitutional position taken by Delegate Marshall is correct.”

The impact is that “the statute does not have sufficient constitutional guidelines to govern the discretion of the president in making a decision whether to hold someone in indefinite military detention,” Titus said.
The judge noted that the law doesn’t have a requirement that there be any knowledge that an act is prohibited before a detention, he said. The judge also said the law is vague, and she appeared to be disturbed that the administration lawyers refused to answer her questions.

The opinion underscores “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to,” Titus said.
The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is “constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.”
She noted the government “did not call any witnesses, submit any documentary evidence or file any declarations.”

“It must be said that it would have been a rather simple matter for the government to have stated that as to these plaintiffs and the conduct as to which they would testify, that [paragraph] 1021 did not and would not apply, if indeed it did or would not,” she wrote.
Instead, the administration only responded with, “I’m not authorized to make specific representations regarding specific people.”

“The court’s attempt to avoid having to deal with the constitutional aspects of the challenge was by providing the government with prompt notice in the form of declarations and depositions of the … conduct in which plaintiffs are involved and which they claim places them in fear of military detention,” she wrote.
“To put it bluntly, to eliminate these plaintiffs’ standing simply by representing that their conduct does not fall within the scope of 1021 would have been simple. The government chose not to do so – thereby ensuring standing and requiring this court to reach the merits of the instant motion.

“Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the 1st Amendment,” she wrote.
Forrest found that the plaintiffs had a reasonable fear of detention based on the language of the statute. She ordered the provision not to be enforced until further proceedings in her court or “remedial” action by Congress that would restore those protections.
During a hearing, Hedges, a longtime international reporter, testified that in connection with his reporting he interviewed members of Hamas, met with leadership and even stayed in their homes.

The brief was on behalf of Marshall and other individuals and organizations including the United States Justice Foundation, Downsize DC Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Gun Owners of America, Western Center for Journalism, the Tenth Amendment Center and Pastor Chuck Baldwin.
“The government was given a number of opportunities at the hearing and in its briefs to state unambiguously that the type of expressive and associational activities engaged in by plaintiffs – or others – are not within [paragraph] 1021. It did not. This court therefore must credit the chilling impact on 1st Amendment rights as reasonable – and real,” Forrest said.
Marshall’s HB1160 passed the Virginia House of Delegates by a vote of 87-7 and the Virginia Senate 36-1. Since the vote was on changes recommended by Gov. Bob McDonnell, it was scheduled to take effect without further vote.
Marshall then wrote leaders in state legislatures around the country suggesting similar votes in their states.

Marshall’s letter noted Virginia was the first state in the nation to refuse cooperation “with federal authorities who, acting under the authority of section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), could arrest and detain American citizens suspected of aiding terrorists without probable cause, without the right to know the charges against them, and without the procedural rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Our new law goes into effect on July 1, 2012.”
He told lawmakers, “While we would hope that the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives would be vigilant to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens, even when addressing the problem of international terrorism, those efforts in Congress failed at the end of last year, and President Obama signed NDAA into law on December 31, 2011.”
Endorsing Marshall’s plan was the Japanese American Citizens League, which cited the detention of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II on no authorization other than the president’s signature.
Titus said in adopting the law, McDonnell “would fulfill the historic role of the states as being guardians of the people from usurpations of authority from the central government.”

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Further Evidence of Obama’s Kenyan Birth?

Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama’s then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”
The booklet, which was distributed to “business colleagues” in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel.
It also promotes Obama’s anticipated first book, Journeys in Black and White–which Obama abandoned, later publishingDreams from My Father instead.
Obama’s biography in the booklet is as follows (text below):
Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.  The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation.   He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.
read more Breitbart :

The So-Called ‘Science’ Behind ‘Gay’ Marriage

by: Gary DeMar
 A letter writer to USA Today equates “gay marriage” with “equality,” “science,” and “rationality.” Here’s how he puts it:
As our nation and the world move forward with advances in science and medicine, rationality inevitably follows. Conservatives will have a more difficult time defending their bigotry.

If there’s one thing homosexual behavior isn’t, it’s rational. Anyone doing an objective study of sexuality would conclude that same-sex sex (homo = same + sexuality). No matter how many times persons of the same sex engage in sexual activity, there will never be any offspring. If everybody only engaged in homosexual sex, within 100 years the human race would be extinct. This is a mathematical, scientific, and medical fact. Bigotry has nothing to do with opposition to homosexual behavior.

One must consider the objectivity of someone who claims that sticking a penis into an orifice that deposits into a toilet is comparable to a man and woman having intercourse. The scientific case for homosexual behavior will have merit when a man gives birth from another man’s rectum.
Once homosexual marriage is sanctioned by law in the name of science and rationality, anything goes. A woman from San Francisco (surprise) with an “object fetish” married the Eiffel Tower. “Objectum-sexuals are people who fall in love with inanimate objects, like buildings, cars, and Hammond organs. And I don’t mean appreciation of good design, I mean l-o-v-e.”
Are these types of “love” relationships also rational and other categories of equality? Who’s to say?

Here we go again John McRomney..(Mitt&John)RINO candidates

Well folks just as I predicted...Mitt Romney is going down the same failed road as John McCain did..and isn't it hilarious how John McCain jumped right in there to support Mittens...I do believe they are poured
from the same RINO mold along with John Boehner!

Let's look at the happenings lately...Mittens is speaking out against negative attack ads directed at Barack Obama re: the Rev Wright as well as other hard hitting issues by the super GOP Pacs...well golly gee Mr Wizard ~ Mittens  had absolutely no problemo when they attacked Gingrich,Perry,Bachmann and Santorum....hello... akin to John McCain eh'

Mitt Romney's distancing and speaking out against the PAC attacks on Rev Wright are a direct slap in the face of Sean Hannity ~Fox News who is doing the same thing...keeping the issue to the vetting of  the President...why is Mitt Romney and John McCain afraid to attack fire with fire..? John McCains failure cost him the election 2008 no matter how hard Sarah Palin tried to bring the GOP up to speed on attacking the opposition using their same tactics against them!

I do believe Mitt Romney should recuse himself from the race and let the choice go to convention between Gingrich,Perry,Bachmann and Santorum hell even Ron Paul bringing up the rear!
We sure as hell do not need another John McCain loss...we need to remove Barack Obama from office not duplicate his policies!

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

This Democrat may actually beat Obama in primary

by: Joe Kovacs
Who’s afraid of the big, bad Wolfe?
Possibly President Obama, who could lose the upcoming Arkansas Democratic primary to a relatively unknown attorney named John Wolfe Jr.
In the latest Talk Business-Hendrix College Poll, conducted May 10, an astonishing 38 percent of Democratic primary voters say they’re casting ballots for Wolfe, while less than half, a mere 45 percent, are planning on voting for Obama. Seventeen percent were undecided.
Dr. Jay Barth, the pollcrafter with the Hendrix College Department of Politics and International Relations, said the May 22 Arkansas primary “may produce a somewhat embarrassing result for the president.”
In an interview with the Weekly Standard, Wolfe called the poll results “unbelievable” and said a defeat for Obama in the state that produced President Bill Clinton would be “politically cataclysmic.”
“It says the momentum is good,” Wolfe said. “This is democracy in action.”
He predicted Democrats would move his way in the final days before the May 22 primary, despite his tiny campaign budget.
“There’s not been a single TV ad. There’s not been a single radio ad,” he told the Standard. Wolfe, who actually lives in Tennessee, is also competing against Obama in Texas May 29 primary.
He’s been critical of the president for being too close to Wall Street and its interests, and he’s looking to repeal Obamacare, claiming it does not lower health-care costs despite Obama’s assertions to the contrary.
“I don’t think it’s right in principle to force people to buy from monopolies,” Wolfe told the Standard. “The thing about Obamacare is it’s the best thing for the stock prices of insurance companies.”
Last week, federal inmate and Democratic presidential candidate Keith Judd collected a whopping 42 percent of the West Virginia primary vote against Obama.
Meanwhile, a new Rasmussen poll shows Obama trailing likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney in North Carolina – home of the upcoming Democratic Convention – by eight percentage points.
Radio giant Rush Limbaugh today said that’s encouraging news for Republicans: “I’m telling you that Obama is in deep trouble. The Democrat Party is in deep trouble here.”
“This is not at all where they thought they would be,” he added. “The problems that they have are not at all the problems they thought they were going to have. They really believed that they could re-create this whole Messianic-type mindset that people had for Obama from 2008. They really thought they could simply tie Romney to Bush and send people running back to Obama in droves.”

Obama Is Letting China Buy Our Energy Fields; Is Your State On This List?

by: Kevin "Coach" Collins
Obama Bows to China SC Obama is letting China buy our energy fields; is your state on this list?
Everybody knows that Barack Obama wants America to be energy independent; just ask him, and he’ll tell you so. What he won’t tell you is why he is standing by and watching while China is buying American oil and gas in alarming amounts. In an era that demands America use energy as wisely as possible, Obama is stopping us from searching for energy sources on our own soil, which is bad enough, but now Obama is allowing  the Chinese to buy up as much of our oil and gas as they want.
Using two front corporations, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation and the State-Owned Assets Supervision as well as the Administration Commission of the State Council, the Chinese Communists have entered into a  $570 million deal that gives it a third interest in an oil and gas field in Colorado and Wyoming.  What’s worse is that language in the agreement has given the Chinese government the right to a third of ANY NEW oil or gas discovered in areas encompassed by this energy site.

Aside from having their tentacles in Colorado and Wyoming, other states where China has a sizable presence are as follows:
Louisiana – a $2.5 billion deal for 1/3 of a 265,000 acre energy field. China did likewise in buying a one-third share of a Michigan energy field.
The Chinese Communists have acquired a one-third share in energy producing fields in Ohio – Utica Shale field.
Oklahoma has them as well. The Chi-Coms own 1/3 of a 215,000 acre field based on a deal with Devon Energy. In Texas, China owns 1/3 of the 600,000 acre Eagle Ford Shale energy field, and they own a small piece of the energy producing sections  of the Gulf of Mexico.
What’s happening here is very obvious.  The Chinese are Barack Obama’s loan shark. He can’t begin to pay them back what he has borrowed from them, so they are willing to take oil deals in partial payment. After all, he can’t give them the deed to the Grand Canyon – can he?

Has Obama Really “Come Out Of The Closet” On Gay Marrige?

by: Tim Powers
Obama and sexual assault allegations at Harvard have been revealed. Apparently, at least two former collegues received severence packages to leave their positions and to remain silent.
And then we have the Larry Sinclair affair that was swept under the rug by the lame stream media.
And then we have Obama’s affiliation with “Mans Country,” a gay men’s bath house in Chicago. I personally confirmed this information with members of Hillbuzz, a gay web site,via e-mail. They confirmed to me that their people who frequent the club have deemed this information as true.
It must be a very tough job to juggle being a gay, Communist Muslim when we all know what Muslims do to homosexuals. Stay safe, and be aware of your surroundings.

Time To Declare A War On Liberal Stupidity

by: Susan Stamper Brown
America is not the “social issue fixer-upper in disrepair” Progressives make her out to be. Instead, America is the “world’s last great hope” and will continue to be, just as soon as we are able to get our head above the water economically.
The wave upon wave of “wars” on race, women, class, and now gay marriage  were devised to sink this magnificent “city on a shining hill” into the depths of the sea and replace her with a European-style socialistic utopian theme park I affectionately call “Progressive World.”
Progressives, there is a much simpler way to get to that happy place filled with e-ticket rides and no work: Hop on a plane to Greece and send us a postcard to let us know how it’s working out for you.
God bless them; it seems Progressives honestly thought the sun, moon, and planets had lined up just for them that magical Greek column-themed Inauguration night in 2009 when Democrats owned Washington.
President Obama and Democrats had two years to do something about gay marriage if they wanted to. Instead, the president waited to make his “public service announcement” until now. Obama made no promises; he simply stated his opinion. The shrewd politician he is, Obama understood the power of words and threw out a few to rally his base and raise Hollywood big-dollar campaign donations — which goes to show you that intelligence is not a prerequisite for fame. Rally, he did; within days, Newsweek canonized Obama as America’s “First Gay President” and plastered his face on their front page, rainbow flag colored halo and all. I shall bite my tongue here for further comment and leave the editorializing to readers.
Especially during these days of pending economic ruin, the “war” on gay marriage is a waste of time. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that as long as gays stay within the same legal boundaries we are all bound to, they can do whatever they want behind closed doors. It’s their business. I’m sure the GOP would be happy to accommodate them with reasonable things like hospital visitation rights. Sexual activity is between an individual, God, and the fly on the wall and has nothing to do with civil rights.
Conservatives must sit this one out and let nature take its course. If liberal men marry men and liberal women marry women and those who want to abort their babies do so, it won’t be long before liberals will “social right” themselves out of existence. In this case, patience is a virtue conservatives should wholeheartedly embrace.
Meanwhile, our ship is sinking, and Democrats are dressing themselves for dinner.
Focusing on non-issues intended to pit Americans against each other rather than acknowledging the iceberg we’re about to crash into was an exercise in futility. How far this one, who once promised to bind us together, has fallen.
It truly is “still about the economy, stupid.” Maybe someone needs to declare a war on “stupid.”

Why Obama Won’t Be Able To Hide Behind The 10th Amendment On Gay “Marriage”

by: Kevin "Coach" Collins
One hundred and sixty years ago, Democrats picked up guns and attempted to violently overthrow our government in the name of “States’ Rights.” They LOVED the 10th Amendment then because it suited their aim of keeping black people in chains. More recently, they have HATED the 10th Amendment that says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” when it has been cited by conservatives as grounds for various states to allow their citizens to refuse to be forced to buy individual health care insurance policies.
They HATE the 10th Amendment when Southern States argued that abortion should and could be prohibited within their borders because it is the right of a state to determine whether it will allow or prohibit abortions.

Now they LOVE the 10th Amendment because they see it as a way to run away from being forced to take a position on the question of support for gay “marriage.” “It should be up to the states,” says today’s crop of phony Democrats.
When Barack Obama made his quickly-thrown-together announcement declaring himself in favor of gay “marriage” he effectively ended any chance of reelection he might have had. His disingenuous support for states to decide the issue for themselves swung the Democrat weather vane back to LOVE for the 10thAmendment as evident from statements issued by Democrats up for reelection. How the issue is playing
Despite liberal media talk about how “brave” Obama was to come out for gay “marriage,” the truth is that his announcement was a gift to those who want him and his Party defeated in November.
While Obama has improved to just a – 4 points against his Republican opponent – as per Rasmussen – once the issue settles in, it promises to be a deal breaker for many voters. A Gallup poll released Friday held that by a count of 26% to 13%, voters say they are less likely to vote for Obama – and by extension Democrats in general.
A 13% swing is huge – let no one say otherwise.
A net minus 13 points is a lethal number.
Hiding behind the 10th Amendment on gay “marriage” won’t help Obama get his foot out of this bucket no matter what the media says.

Study: Obama economy wrecking NASCAR

by: Joe Kovacs
With President Obama at the wheel of the U.S. economy, the car-racing industry appears to be wrecking, with few signs of getting back on the right track.
That according to a new study examining the financial state of NASCAR, the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing.
 The study by Dr. J. Brian O’Roark at Robert Morris University says the economic downturn reveals how much NASCAR relies on a healthy, growing economy.
The report notes:
  • As the unemployment rate began to climb starting in 2008, a rising attendance started to fall, and in 2010 attendance dropped below the 4 million for the first time since 2003. As people either lose or fear losing their jobs, they cut back on trips to the track.
  • Team sponsorship is expensive, so when the economy slows, and choices need to be made about which costs to cut, advertising through race sponsorship is a likely first place to start cutting and teams can race less often.
  • The stock prices for the two major track ownership groups, International Speedway Corporation and Speedway Motorsports, Inc., were rising on average from 2002 until 2007, when the stock prices of each firm began to fall. The prices bottomed out in early 2009 as the economy has floundered.
  • During bad economic times, sponsors, looking for their money to gain a bigger return, choose to focus their attention on the larger, more noticeable teams. This has caused the income gap from rich to poor to expand, leading to a greater concentration of success in a few teams.
  • When inflation and prices rise, putting a race team together gets more expensive.
The study said unemployment and even the fear of being jobless have a major impact on the industry, explaining if enough people become unemployed, changes can be seen in the choices people make.

“Those without a job will cut back on things they deem to be unessential,” the study said. “Here is where NASCAR begins to feel the pinch. No matter how much you want to see a race, if you have a lack of funds, you cut the trip to Daytona out of the budget. That much we understand, but there are other forces at work that may impact the bottom line of NASCAR more than just those who are directly out of work.
“As the unemployment rate rises, even those who have jobs begin to get a little nervous. Seeing their neighbors and co-workers losing their jobs makes the employed start to wonder, ‘Am I next?’ Thus, they are likely to cut back on extra spending as well. So, next year’s trip to Daytona gets cut from their budget, just in case. Ticket sales start to fall not only because the unemployment rate is rising, but also because people are feeling less secure in their finances.”

The study shows a direct relationship between rising unemployment and lower track attendance
Elizabeth Dyar, strategy and outreach manager of Race Fans 4 Freedom, commented on the report, saying: “This study illustrates that NASCAR has seen a marked downturn since the beginning of the recession, but more importantly the fans of this great sport are suffering the consequences of a bad economy.
“High gas prices, a high unemployment rate and uncertainty over their future has limited the fans’ ability to enjoy and participate in one of our country’s most popular sports.”

read more:

God-Like Panel of Judges Declares National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional

by: Gary DeMar
Another National Day of Prayer has come and gone, but it hasn’t stopped ill-informed judges from trying to rewrite our nation’s history. “A Colorado appeals court ruled last week that the state governors’ previous proclamations regarding the National Day of Prayer were unconstitutional as they implied a ‘government endorsement of religion over nonreligion.’”
This isn’t the first time wayward judges have displayed their ignorance of history and the meaning of the Constitution. Wisconsin U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb ruled that “the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience. . . . The government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual’s decision whether and when to pray.” She and the Colorado judges need a history lesson from the Founders who drafted the First Amendment and also called for national days of prayer and thanksgiving.
In 1789, the same day the wording of the First Amendment had been finalized, Congress called on President Washington to declare a national day of prayer and thanksgiving. The proclamation stated that “it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”
John Adams, in his 1798 Proclamation, stated something similar:
[T]he safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and blessing of Almighty God; and the national acknowledgment of this truth is . . . an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him.
Then there are the official documents that called for national days of prayer. On March 16, 1776, “by order of Congress” a “day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer” where people of the nation were called on to “acknowledge the over ruling providence of God” and bewail their “manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness.”[1]

Congress set aside December 18, 1777 as a day of thanksgiving so the American people “may express the grateful feelings of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor” and on which they might “join the penitent confession of their manifold sins . . . that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance.” Congress also recommended that Americans petition God “to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consists in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.”[2] Here’s a proclamation from 1799, more than ten years after the Constitution was drafted, during the administration of John Adams:
[That April 15, 1799] be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain, as far as may be, from their secular occupation, and devote the time to the sacred duties of religion, in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore his pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to his righteous requisitions in time to come; that He would interpose to arrest the progress of that impiety and licentiousness in principle and practice so offensive to Himself and so ruinous to mankind; that He would make us deeply sensible that “righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people [Proverbs 14:34].”[3]
National days of prayer and thanksgiving have been a part of our nation’s history before its founding, during its founding, and since its founding.
If the above judges don’t know this history, they shouldn’t be judges. If they do know this history and don’t account for it, they shouldn’t be judges.

[Editor's note: Please email or mail this article to your state and federal congressmen and women and Senators. Tell them you are tired of Christianity being systematically outlawed.]

Why is All Girl Muslim Prom Not a Violation of Separation of Church and State?

by: da Tagliare
When was the last time you heard about a public high school holding a Baccalaureate Service for their Christian students who were graduating?
When was the last time you heard about a public school holding a Christmas (not holiday), Easter or Hanukkah program?
When was the last time you heard about a public school that did anything positive for Christian or Jewish students?
I bet your answer is, not for some time.  The ACLU and various atheist groups have successfully driven them out of the public school system.  Any show of religion (except atheism, humanism and secularism) is a violation of the separation of the church and state.

So why aren’t the ACLU and atheist groups hollering about the girls only prom held by Hamtramck High School.  Muslim girls are not allowed to dance or socialize with boys, and since the school has such a high number (65%) Muslim students, the school held a separate girls only prom just for the Muslims.
Hamtramck, Michigan is a northern suburb of Detroit and not that far from Dearborn, who has the largest percentage Muslim population of any city in the US.  Many of the Muslims are originally from other countries such as Palestine, Bosnia, Yemen, Poland and a number of African countries.
The girls only prom gained national attention when the New York Times ran a feature story on the Muslim event.  Yet no one from the ACLU has said anything to condemn the obviously religious event.  Barry Lynn from Americans United for Separation of Church and State has also remained silent.  Perhaps they have all remained silent about the public school endorsed Muslim prom because they are so busy attacking Christian and Jewish programs elsewhere in the county?
The acceptance of the Muslim prom is another warning sign that Islam is taking over American culture and law.  They are being allowed to trod where no other religion can.  They are being given special treatment while Christians and Jews are being stripped of their rights and freedoms.  If left unchecked, it won’t be long before it will be officially known as the United Islamic States of America.

THE KAGAN DECEPTION Subversion on the Supreme Court

Subversion on the Supreme Court
It has become abundantly clear that Elena Kagan was put on the Supreme Court, not to uphold and defend our Constitution as her oath requires, but to destroy that grand document and fundamentally transform America into a new Socialist state.
We must stop Elena Kagan!
Fill out the KAGAN INJUNCTION FORM - right away!
Elena Kagan's actions and questions as a Supreme Court Justice hearing the ObamaCare case were telling enough...but as reported earlier, (see below), her long history of public display of anti-Constitutionalism provide the proof.
The fact is:
Elena Kagan is committed to destroying the Constitution.
Elena Kagan is intent upon implementing Socialism in America.
Elena Kagan is unfit for duty as a Supreme Court Justice and MUST be immediately removed from the court.
We MUST protect the Constitution and the integrity of the court.
Elena Kagan MUST be removed from the bench.
It is therefore absolutely imperative that you SIGN THE KAGAN INJUNCTION FORM TODAY!
...And if you can afford it, please generously give a contribution of $15, $25, $50, $100 or more to AmeriPAC.
But your KAGAN INJUNCTION FORM alone will be enough.
In fact, my staff has estimated it could take a minimum of 1 to 2 MILLION Injunctions to have a real impact on Capitol Hill.
And, at roughly 36 cents apiece, it will cost us more than $355,000 to print and distribute this minimum amount.
What's more, we will need funds above and beyond this amount to help make our case on radio, TV, in newspapers and on the Internet.
So please sign your KAGAN INJUNCTION FORM today!
Our major enemies are time and the lack of funds. Remember, every 20 seconds another contribution to safeguard Elena Kagan, goes to our opponents.
What would you say if you learned that a member of the highest court in the land has spent the last 30 years openly advocating for the destruction of the US Constitution and even went so far as to accept $20 million from Shariah Law proponents to accomplish her goal?
That Supreme Court Justice is Elena Kagan.
The year after Ronald Reagan entered the Oval Office with the goal of restoring America to greatness; Elena Kagan penned a telling and disturbing senior thesis titled "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933." In that body of work, Kagan lamented that "a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States"; and that," no "radical party" had yet "attained the status of a major political force." Kagan went on to sound a rally cry for "those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America."
Apparently, this was no mere college dalliance, as the Elena Kagan has spent the rest of her career working to remove the underpinnings of freedom and destroy the American Constitution from within. And Kagan's grand plan has worked very well indeed.
After graduate school Kagan went on to become Dean of Harvard Law, where she removed Constitutional Law classes from the curriculum, and replaced those necessary and time honored classes with required studies of international law. And in what appears to be a game of using a mutual enemy's resources to accomplish ones' true objective, Kagan also accepted a $20 million grant from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal - a noted Shariah Law proponent - to implement an "Islamic Studies" program.
Lest we think Kagan's intentions are ancient history, take a look at her line of questioning when hearing the ObamaCare case last week. Rather than question the thinly veiled socialist Trojan horse as an affront to our Constitution, Kagan almost seemed willing to defend ObamaCare and salvage the master plan to fundamentally change America into a new Euro-socialist model.
By definition, our Supreme Court is charged with upholding, defending and preserving the United States Constitution. The Judges on the Supreme Court are meant to protect our freedom, not destroy it. To do otherwise is nothing short of treason.
"Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as an attempt to 'overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].'"
Destruction of the Constitution is an attempt to overthrow and seriously injure America. Elena Kagan's lifetime of actions lay bare a clear intention to subvert our Constitution and its founding principles, thereby rendering her UNFIT FOR DUTY as a Supreme Court Justice.
ObamaCare is not the end of the line. The Supreme Court will continue to weigh the Constitutionality of numerous cases. The fact is that Elena Kagan is an activist judge with hatred toward the very document she is sworn to protect. As such, Elena Kagan must immediately be removed from the bench if our Constitution and America is to survive.

Defend America,

Alan M. Gottlieb
Chairman, AmeriPAC