Horrific human toll of 'militant atheism' exposed

by Bob Unruh 

Rwanda: 800,000 dead. Armenia: 1 million. The Holocaust: More than 6 million.
World history is littered with exhibits of the utter brutality of mankind toward his fellow man.
But now a new project under way to recount a history that has not received the attention it deserves, the “militant atheist” campaign in the former Soviet Union on people of faith.
The staggering death toll of Christians alone, estimates the documentary, “Martyred in the USSR,” is 12 million.
One and a half times the population of New York. The equivalent of 20 cities the size of Denver. Six times the number of residents of Paris.
The film examines the “militant state atheism” behind the atrocities of Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev and others.

“The goal of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” the movie makers explain, “was the liquidation of religion and the means to achieve this goal included the destruction of churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, religious monuments, as well as the mass deportation of believers to Siberian forced labor camps, which is commonly referred to as the Gulag.”
Many houses of worship were converted into bath houses, granaries and museums of atheism, they point out, while atheistic and anti-religious carnivals were frequently held to promote the mockery of religion and religious believers.
By the 1960s, a fourth Soviet anti-religious campaign was under way, and half of the Russian Orthodox Christian churches were closed, along with five of the eight seminaries.
Several other Christian denominations were devastated, including the Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Evangelical Christian Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
The League of Militant Atheists, founded in 1929, aided the Soviet government in murdering clergy and devout believers, the documentary’s promoters note.


Along with the martyrdom of an estimated 12 million Christians, millions of Muslims and Buddhists also were killed because of their faith.
In one documented case, Nikolai Khmara, a Baptist, was arrested, his tongue was cut out and he was tortured until he died.
Kevin Gonzalez, the producer and director, told WND the project fell into his lap. With a news background, he had moved into the arena of corporate video and was trying to take the next step into something more creative.
He met a woman at his church who came from Russia, and she mentioned some of the atrocities that had occurred. Gonzalez ended up interviewing her parents, grandparents and some friends, and he knew he was onto something that needed to be exposed.
His impetus is to tell the story of the attempt by atheists to stamp out belief — primarily of Christians but also Jews and Muslims .
He wants to tell the story so that today’s generation will not repeat it.


He told WND that younger generations in the former Soviet Union don’t know much about the era, because those who experienced it were told not to talk or are reluctant to relive the horror.
“The Holocaust did it to the Jews,” he said. “The Russians, they did it to a population.”
Their target was religious because it was “the biggest wall at the time that kept people from bowing to the Soviet government.”
Under the Soviet doctrine of separation of church and state, churches were forbidden to give to the poor or carry on educational activities.
Religious believers could not publish literature and churches were barred from holding special meetings for children, youth or women.
Church property was confiscated, and religion was banned from the school and university system. Students were indoctrinated with atheism and anti-religious teachings.
Gonzalez told WND there is a danger that such persecution could return.
“It is our hope that individuals can learn from the history of the persecution of believers in the USSR and therefore, recognize the harm of a new militant atheist movement today, which promotes the mockery of the religious and the believes they hold sacred.”

The movie makers want to address in future projects the atheist regimes of the French Revolution, the People’s Republic of China, the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania, North Korea and others.
Christopher March, professor of political science at Baylor, explained the communist goal was to build society without God.
To do that, one atrocity witness told the filmmakers, the Soviets would take people, “dig holes in the ground and bury them like chess pieces.”
Project creators still are raising funding for the full cost of the finished project.

Picture of 'martial law' alarms forensic profiler

oped: Congress and the Senate need to get off  'Cloud Nine' and wake the hell up...Impeach and remove this SOB/SOD before it is too late!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


by Bob Unruh 

A forensic profiler who worked on the disappearance of Natalie Holloway and the double-murder case against O.J. Simpson says he is becoming alarmed by some of the references President Obama is using.
Andrew G. Hodges, M.D., who wrote “The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury,” previously said Obama’s statement “I am not a dictator” actually meant, “I am the dictator president.”

Hodges also concluded Obama unconsciously confessed to stealing the 2012 election.
On Hodges’ website, Steven A. Egger, associate professor of criminology at the University of Houston, Clear Lake, has written that Hodges’ technique is “becoming the cutting edge of forensic science.”

“Dr. Hodges’ investigation of forensic documents in the Natalee Holloway case indicates that his ‘thoughtprint decoding method’ and ‘reading between the lines’ is, in fact, becoming a major contribution to law enforcement tools used by criminal investigators,” wrote Egger.
Hodges is not new to the field, already having identified killers by studying ransom notes, emails, letters and police interviews to spot secret confessions. He decoded Simpson’s “suicide note” to confirm Simpson had committed a double murder. He deciphered the JonBenet Ramsey ransom note in Boulder, Colo., to identify the child’s killer. He decrypted letters from BTK to predict that he was about to kill again – the only profiler to do so. He studied statements by Joran van der Sloot and Deepak Kalpoe to tie them to the slaying of Holloway. He showed how Casey Anthony secretly confessed to killing her daughter in 200 letters written to a jail mate. He even decoded Bill Clinton’s comments about Monica Lewinsky.

See all the details in Hodges’ book “The Obama Confession.”
In his newest analysis, he looks further into Obama’s statements in his press conference about the sequester issue in which he berated Republicans for not doing what he wants.

Hodges said “another spontaneous image” appeared from Obama’s “super intelligence.”
“Asked whether he couldn’t have pushed negotiations until a deal was reached, Obama replied, ‘I can’t have Secret Service block the doorway,’” Hodges explained
“He suggests the secret wish to block the Republicans from the door to the government. Failing to negotiate, he has made every effort to demonize/crush Republicans to gain total control of the government after the 2014 election. His ‘have Secret Service’ image further suggests a desire to totally control major government law enforcement agencies– to block any opposition,” Hodges said.

“The frightening image ‘of blocking the doorway’ to those who oppose him suggests progressively ideas of imprisonment/forced containment, and a picture of martial law. Extreme? Likely so for now but equally a potential major warning of his true intent – if everything fell into place,” he said.
But Hodges noted objective actions that fit the pattern, such as the government’s purchase of 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, the estimated 145,000 federal agents with firearm- carry authority and the 65,000 agents for the Department of Homeland Security alone.
Then, he said, there’s the report that a Minnesota company was selling to the federal government cutout targets “designed to ‘desensitize police’ to ‘nontraditional threat targets.”
The targets included pregnant women, children, older people and other civilians in neighborhood settings – all holding guns. The company reported law enforcement designed and ordered the targets.
“In your wildest imagination, who in law enforcement needs desensitization to such targets?
Hodges noted that even activists on the left have expressed concern. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the left-wing Code Pink, in a recent WABC radio interview with host Aaron Klein, called the potential abuse by the Obama administration’s huge domestic police power “extremely troubling.”
“Recall Obama’s earlier words which, importantly, he made spontaneously, strongly pointing toward an unconscious confession. ‘We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military].’

“What exactly was he thinking and why? Undeniably this was extreme: a civilian force just as well funded and strong as our military – implying majorly armed. The question is what exactly was Obama secretly confessing about his future plans? His unconscious super intelligence suggests a warning from a very dangerous Obama,” Hodges contends.
The violent imagery Obama used in his first inaugural stunned Hodges. He cited “sacrifices borne by our ancestors,” “perils we can scarcely imagine,” “stained with blood,” “earlier generations faced down fascism …with missiles and tanks … and enduring convictions.”
And Obama’s references to “leaders” include: “those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents,” “leaders … who seek to sow conflict, or blame their … ills on the West” and “the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.”
“As always, Obama’s super intelligence (guided by a deeper moral compass) suggests ways to stand up to him and the danger he presents,” Hodges wrote, quoting, “Work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet.”

The profiler said Obama’s behavior “shouts at us.”
“The background of murderous drone attacks he personally took delight in supervising – a suggestion of just how furious he is,” he wrote, noting Obama’s “pattern” of weakening the U.S. militarily and citizens individually by cutting budgets and restricting gun rights.
“Throw into the mix the seemingly extreme idea of using drones on the American people but still a possibility and we have yet another issue of war against the citizens,” Hodges said.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., staged a nearly 13-hour filibuster because the administration refused to confirm for him that Americans on U.S. soil would not be killed by Obama-ordered drone strikes.
“Remember, too, Obama was an Alinsky trainer. And Alinsky’s motto was “trick” – deception from within – followed by revolution and social chaos,” Hodges said.
“One thing we can say for certain is that America is in a very precarious place. And such an angry wounded president arming a civilian force to the maximum when speaking of an apocalypse, evil on the horizon and a dictator president – along with his need to control law enforcement – presents an extreme warning.”
Hodges previously noted Obama’s reference to two sci-fi movies.
“He suggested the idea, ‘I should somehow do a ‘Jedi mind-meld’ with these folks [Republicans] and convince them to do what’s right.’ He used a mixed image from two sci-fi shows,” Hodges explained. “First he alluded to a Jedi ‘mind trick’ used on weak-minded foes (‘Star Wars’ films) implying his continued mind games to trick subservient foolish Americans.

“His spontaneous ‘Star Wars’ image also references his war on the Republicans – efforts to discredit them so that he can affect the next election and control both houses of Congress in his dictatorial behavior. (He also suggests his war on the military – to weaken it.)
“Finally he implies in the ‘mind-meld’ technique he’s opening his unconscious mind up and we can read it if we know how – just as Commander Spock in ‘Star Trek’ would let others read his mind to provide them with special insightful messages,” he said.
He suggested Obama has been exaggerating the impact of the sequester to “unconsciously paint a true picture of his overall destructive plan.”
“His super intelligence looks into the future and sees the result of his plans long-term,” Hodges said.

“Middle-class families will ‘have their lives disrupted in significant ways.’ He predicts that Americans one day will know the economy didn’t have to suffer if bad decisions (his) had been averted. We ask which does greater damage: a 2 percent budget cut or his obvious long-term plan of crippling rising debt and increased taxes?”
Hodges also suggested Obama is revealing a coming “apocalypse” by saying, “There’s not going to be an apocalypse.”
“When he wonders (regarding Republicans) if he could do something else ‘to make these guys not paint horns on my head’ we indeed should be frightened beyond belief. He suggests America is in for a devil of a time to put it mildly – that deep down he harbors evil intentions,” Hodges said.

King Abdullah to Obama: Beware the Muslim Brotherhood

The Atlantic Monthly's Jeffrey Goldberg says King Abdullah is warning the U.S. of the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.

http://youtu.be/lJJ65Ov8QGE

Taxpayers Fund IRS ‘Star Trek’ Parody

oped: The US Internal Revenue Service spent $60,000+ of your money to produce this terrible Star Trek spoof. Despite being really bad, the film does demonstrate the culture of government: You, the citizens, are tax cattle to be farmed for the state. Without genius central planners civilization itself would fall.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 On the same day the media-collective coordinated to crybaby over 140 or so airport control towers being shut down due to sequester cuts, over at CBS News, investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson was digging for a real story. And then she did something amazing. Instead of playing stenographer for The State about the sequester cuts, Attkisson turned a story about frivolous government waste into a sequester story.
How does the federal government — she asks in so many words — have all kinds of money to waste $60,000 on a “Star Trek” spoof, but not enough to ensure planes land safely?
Thus begins a six-minute “Star Trek” parody starring IRS employees and paid for with your tax dollars. It’s not likely to go over well with some Americans and members of Congress, especially since federal agencies have been complaining that it’s difficult to find trims under forced sequestration.

http://youtu.be/KdFUjNqwpok






Post Continues: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/03/23/Taxpayer-Money-Finances-IRS-Star-Trek-Parody

Obama to Designate Five National Monuments: Ummm…Sequester?

Even as President Obama highlights impending cuts to national parks because of the sequester, he plans to use his power as president to designate five new national monuments Monday, according to an administration official.
The new monuments will be: the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument in New Mexico; the San Juan Islands National Monument in Washington State; the First State National Monument in Delaware and Pennsylvania; the Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers National Monument in Ohio and a monument commemorating Harriet Tubman and her role in helping black slaves reach freedom through the the Underground Railway in Maryland.
Rick Smith, of the Coalition of National Park Retirees, said that the president acted because Congress had failed to enact legislation creating more parks and protected sites.
“Americans support and want more parks and monuments because they boost local economies, preserve our national heritage and tell our diverse American story,” Mr. Smith told the paper. “In particular, all Americans can be proud with the establishment of the First State National Monument in Delaware — all 50 states are now home to an area included in our National Park System.”
Mr. Obama will use the Antiquities Act, a law dating back to 1906, to designate the national monuments. Sixteen presidents have used the law — from Theodore Roosevelt to Mr. Obama — to protect natural, historical and cultural areas such as the Grand Canyon and the Statue of Liberty, but recent Republican Presidents George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon have preferred to allow Congress to make those designations.
Earlier this month, the White House and the National Park Service warned that the across-the-board sequester spending cuts would deal a blow to the parks just as they are trying to gear up for the summer tourism season.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/

Fast And Furious Report Proves Ignorance and Mismanagement of DHS

As Homeland Secretary Janet “Big Sis” Napolitano faces mounting pressure to answer for DHS’ large solicitations and purchases of ammunition over the past year, the second of two reports looking at who is to blame in the gunrunning scheme known as Operation Fast and Furious is painting DHS operations in Arizona as inept, ignorant and mismanaged. Of course, top officials in DHS are exonerated, not that we’re surprised, but one has to question that if the Arizona office is all of those things, how much more are the top officials who have been exonerated?
Richard Serrano writes, “Even as they lost scores of illegal firearms in their Fast and Furious operation, federal ATF agents asked their Border Patrol counterparts not to pursue criminal leads or track gun smuggling in southern Arizona so they could follow the firearms themselves, and senior Homeland Security agents ‘complied and the leads were not investigated,’ according to a new Department of Homeland Security inspector general’s report.”
“The report,… also said that a Homeland Security special agent on the border was collaborating with the ATF in Fast and Furious,” Serrano continued, ” but his ‘senior leaders’ in Arizona never read his updates about fundamental flaws with the failed gun tracking operation. Had they done so, Homeland Security officials could have tried to close down the operation before one of their Border Patrol agents, Brian Terry, was killed not far from Tucson.”

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/

Police Departments Beg And Barter For Ammo

The nationwide shortage of ammunition has left many police departments scrambling to get their hands on the necessary rounds – with some even bartering among each other.
Meanwhile, Rep. Timothy Huelskamp (R-Kansas) says the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has failed to respond to multiple members of Congress asking why DHS bought more than 1.6 billion rounds in the past year.
Police Chief Cameron Arthur of Jenks, Oklahoma says, “Ammunition and assault weapons in general have skyrocketed…In addition to the fact, not only is it a lot more expensive, but the time to get it could be six months to a year, or in some cases even longer.”
Arthur says he is waiting on an order placed last October and that many departments have begun to trade and barter with each other because of the high demand.
“Most police departments are having a very difficult time even getting the necessary ammunition for handguns, shotguns and especially rifles,” Arthur said.
Read More:  http://cnsnews.com/

Government Cover-Up of Ammo Buys Implodes

The failure on behalf of the federal government to provide any explanation for why the Department of Homeland Security is arming to the teeth with high powered weapons and billions of hollow point bullets, as well as crude efforts by mainstream media mouthpieces to debunk the war-like preparations, have backfired massively, propelling the story to a viral status.
As we reported today, 15 Congressmen have written a letter to the DHS demanding to know why the federal agency is buying so many rounds of ammunition and whether the purchases are part of a deliberate attempt to restrict supply to the American people.
Big Sis has remained silent on the issue, refusing to answer questions from reporters and even from multiple elected representatives, about the ammo buys.
The continued huge orders for weapons and bullets have prompted attendances at gun shows to explode, as gun store owners say they are having to contend with significant national shortages.

Efforts to portray the very real stockpiling by the federal agency as a conspiracy theory have fallen flat on their face, and have only served to further highlight how suspect the DHS’ actions are.
When Media Matters and Raw Story both recently attacked Fox Business host Lou Dobbs for daring to raise the issue on his show, it quickly became clear that neither had any prevailing  counter point, and were dismissing the facts only by regurgitating a glib statement of a single DHS official.
Media Matters, which has been documented to be little more than an Obama administration mouthpiece, reported that, “The claim that DHS bought a 1.6 billion bullet stockpile is also misleading,” while simultaneously admitting that “DHS did buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition.”
The source of the claim that concerns over the bullet buys are a conspiracy theory or “misleading,” is a February 14 Associated Press report which did not conduct any actual investigation into why the DHS was purchasing the ammo, instead regurgitating a statement from DHS official Peggy Dixon, who claimed the bullets were bought in bulk to save money and were for training purposes only.
Read More:  http://www.infowars.com/

O’Really O’Reilly? According to Bill Jesus Was Killed Over Taxes

oped: I'm sorry but Bill O'Reilly is only conservative when it comes to his personal bank account...everything about his political views centers on money...budgets et al...have you noticed that when the topic is Gay Marriage,perversion or investigating Obama's past he gets all defensive and supports the left leaning mantra?
In the following video O’Reilly stated Wed. pm that Jesus was killed over taxes.  It’s around the 6 minute mark. This is one whacked out OPIN...I  wonder if Bill has ever really read the complete Bible...Most likely not...where pray tell  in the Bible does it say that Mr.Bill?

http://youtu.be/y3HyC-VUIxs

 

A good article on the subject can be found at : http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-oreilly-suggests-govt-might-steal-our-money-clashes-with-marc-lamont-hill-over-raising-taxes/

The Rainbow Gag

By Wes Walker 
They assured us they were fighting to gain something for themselves, not to infringe the rights of anyone else.  They assured us — promised! — that the rights of other people would remain unaffected.  
Well … they lied.
“Don’t like same-sex marriage?  Then don’t have one.”  That was the slogan.  It was catchy, and pithy. With others like it, the slogan took root in the public thinking and conversation. Such slogans went a long way to re-shaping public opinion in its favor.
But some objected, raising very specific concerns about freedom of religion, and of conscience. “Easily solved,” was the reply, “those freedoms will be preserved.”  And, like suckers, we believed them, or worse, didn’t care.

Shortly after “same-sex marriage” (SSM) became law in Canada, there was a court case.  Two women had booked a Knights of Columbus hall, but only later did KofC (a Roman Catholic Organization) learn that it was not for a “traditional” wedding reception.  The KofC objected to their using the facilities for that purpose, on grounds of faith and conscience.  Courts had them pay damages. In England, legislation is pending.  Their Equalities Minister (a wonderfully Orwellian title) said, “Registrars must agree to solemnize same-sex marriage, regardless of whether they hold a religious or moral objection.”  (Link)
Clergy and religious orders are exempted on the basis of their religious affiliation.  But the clause that protects clergy’s right to conscience specifically and intentionally does not extend to public servants.

She explains, “We need to ensure that we strike the right balance between an individual’s right to express their religious beliefs at work and the rights of people not to be discriminated against because of sexual orientation, and we think that the Bill properly draws that balance.”
So the argument is that because they are public servants, they should be compelled to solemnize a vow between two people whether or not the officiant believes that doing so is a violation of conscience.
It is astonishing how readily people accept this argument.  If you work for the State, you have to do things whether they violate your conscience or not.  Some would call this a “neutral” position, unaffected by any religious consideration.
Neutral?  Think again.  There is an illusion of neutrality toward all religious systems, preferring no single tradition above any other.  But, in reality, you are elevating an irreligious system above all religious systems.  The unspoken result:  people are expected to show greater loyalty to the State than they do to whichever God, or moral code, they might personally hold.  How is this neutrality?

They want government to supercede our conscience.  Can governments tell us what is morally right (as distinguished from “legally” right), even when our conscience tells us differently?  That’s a very dangerous precedent.  But because this issue is volatile and politically-correct, many have become cowed.
We don’t want to be labeled.  We don’t want to face Human Rights tribunals, or lawsuits.  Or, perhaps you have been convinced that this particular government coercion is “harmless” because you believe the ”homosexual rights” movement is valid and praiseworthy.  Perhaps “in this one instance” the government should overrule conscience.
Don’t fall for it.  The Government cannot legislate conscience.  You don’t believe they have that right — none of us does.  I can prove it.
Imagine a soldier claiming he “only followed orders” in a war crimes trial.  Reject his excuse, and you have acknowledged that people have a greater obligation to conscience than to government.  The moment you admit that is true, you can make no exceptions.  Implication:  at no point can any government ever demand the violation of personal conscience.
The courts are often used to bully citizens and corporations, or to reshape culture using precedent and judicial fiat.  The Church of England is predicting that British Christians will be targets of such lawsuits based on their refusal to perform SSM.

Canada is well down this road.  When our Supreme Court recently ruled that William Whatcott was guilty of hate speech for opposing homosexuality, a National Post article opined “… the Court effectively has privileged the protection of gay Canadians over the right of religious Christians to promote what they view as the established, Biblical take on homosexuality.”
What was his hate speech?  He denounced homosexuality as a practice on the basis that it was sin, and caused physical harm.  When a teen, he lived on the streets as a homosexual prostitute.
What were his accusers alleging?  It seems to be either he he hates homosexuals, including himself, or that Whatcott is an ex-homosexual that hates others.
I ask because it’s now an unquestioned axiom that “orientation” is permanent and involuntary.  If true, how is his criticism of homosexuality more offensive than Chris Rock dropping the N-word?  If false, that opens up a whole other conversation.
Meanwhile, Trinity Western University is a privately-funded Christian university, seeking to open a School of Law. Their critics claim their Christian opposition to SSM should disqualify them from doing so.  Disagreement with special interest groups should never disqualify a University from teaching, but it might.
Elsewhere, courts ruled that Eastern Michigan University expelled a psych student (Julea Ward) for her Christian faith (the case centered around homosexuality); and unexpected SSM child custody implications were aired by fellow Clash contributor Jennifer Thieme.
Against this backdrop, the “don’t like it / don’t have one” line rings hollow.  The people who promised no abridgment of rights…?  They lied.
Image: Source: http://flickr.com/photos/stibbons/481177834/; author: stibbons

 

Numb Nut Alert: Aurora Killer Converts to Islam

The man who shot up an Aurora, Colo., movie theater during a screening of “The Dark Knight Rises” last summer has reportedly converted to Islam and prays up to five times a day.

A prison source say the beard James Holmes sported in court last months represents his new-found faith. The source said Mr. Holmes has turned Muslim as a way of justifying his horrific crimes on July 20 which left 12 people dead and 58 people wounded, the Daily Mail reports.

“He has brainwashed himself into believing he was on his own personal jihad and that his victims were infidels,” the source told the National Enquirer.
Mr. Holmes now prays five times a day, sticks to a strict Muslim diet and spends hours each day studying the Koran, the source told the Enquirer.
Read more: washingtontimes.com

Pro-Gun Girl Encourages Parents to Send Her Website Pics of Their Kids with Guns

 


Earlier this week ClashDaily.com reported that a New Jersey family’s home was raided by NJ police and the Department of Youth and Family Services after the DYFS saw a picture their 11yr. old son holding a .22 rifle on Facebook. The ensuing out cry condemning this Gestapo like crap got intense.
Second Amendment activist and huntress, Regis Giles of GirlsJustWannaHaveGuns.com cried “foul” and decided to rally support for this violated family and our nation’s distaste for DYFS and the NJ’s cops unlawful behavior by calling her 50,000+  subscribers at GirlsJustWannaHaveGuns.com to submit a photo of their child or grandchild with a firearm of their choice.
According to Giles, she will post the photos up on her website for everyone to see and hopefully send this message to the Department of Youth and Family Services:  if they want to pick on one of us, they’re going to have to pick on all of us.

Here is what she needs people to do:

1. Select a photo of your child/grandchild with a firearm.
2. Send it in an e-mail as an attachment to: updates@girlsjustwannahaveguns.com
3. Submit it by Sunday, March 24^th.
4. See it posted Monday on girlsjustwannahaveguns.com

Regis is also giving away an AR-15 to those who subscribe to her website.  Offer ends 3/31/13.
Read more: girlsjustwannahaveguns.com

Dead jihadis' faces appear on Instagram

WND Exclusive
A disturbing trend on which WND reported last month – that of the photographs of jihadis after they died being posted on Twitter – now has spread, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute.
WND reported a month ago when the disturbing social-media trend came to light in the Middle East: Friends and family were celebrating the deaths of jihadists by posting photos of their corpses on Twitter.
The celebrants note that in some cases, the “martyrs” killed in “holy wars” in Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere seem to be smiling. Some even have their eyes open.

Now MEMRI reports that the images, some of the same and some new, are appearing on Instagram. (Caution: Images are graphic)
The report by Steven Stalinsky, the executive director of MEMRI, explains Instagram is an increasingly popular social media site that lets users share photos. There are some 90 million monthly users who post 40 million pictures every day.
Photos that are posted on Instagram can be seen by visiting websites such as Statigram, a web viewer, officials said.
MEMRI monitored the site for four months, and found “a tremendous increase of its use by online jihadis.”
“A common theme of the photos that they post is images of and quotes by al-Qaida leaders such as Osama bin Laden, Anwar Al-Awlaki, Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and many others,” Stalinsky reported.
Another theme is those radicals who are in jail.
But also common are the photographs of the dead jihadis, even though Instagram’s Community Guidelines say those accounts that display photographs of extreme violence or gore may be disabled.

Likewise, Statigram requires users not to use the site to publish any photograph that is “pornographic, racist, anti-Semitic, discriminatory, pedophiliac, racial, vulgar, obscene, fraudulent, illegal, injurious, defamatory” or that shows “dead animals or people.”
Earlier MEMRI reported the “martyrs” whose photographs were being uploaded were prominent Muslim sheiks, writers on online jihadi forums and ordinary Muslim men who died carrying out jihad.
The language of the tweets was particularly disturbing. Rather than conveying a sense of tragedy and loss over the deaths, the tweets are more inspirational, portraying the deceased as heroes. Most include a plea to Allah to “accept” the “martyrs” into paradise.

Twitter user @omarz7 tweeted under an image: “The Iraqi Spring #Syria #Immediate #Iraqi revolution. We inform Muslims in general, and to our family in Al-A’zamiyah in particular, the news about the martyrdom of our heroic mujahid brother, the son of Al-A’zamiyah, the pious heroic hero, Muhammad Ghassan Kilan who was martyred in the battle of Al-Yarmook Camp [fighting along] with the heroes of the FSA in defending Syria from the shabiha [thugs] and Safavids [meaning the Iranians]. Muhammad Kilan rose to defend Syria during the first days of the Syrian revolution. It’s our promise not to forget you O Muhammad Kilan, O you are our brother and beloved one. Truly, your departure is difficult for us O Muhammad, and we will not forget you, O cub of Al-A’zamiya.”
Many of the tweets also serve as a means of informing the families of their lost loved ones.
The Islamic term “jihad” is translated as “struggle.” Muslim scholars speak of a “greater jihad,” an internal, spiritual struggle, and a “lesser jihad,” or outward struggle widely interpreted as holy war.
A sampling of the tweets shows the pleas to Allah to accept the dead, and several mention the smiles the “martyrs” appear to be displaying in death.
On Jan. 19, @Qurrah000, tweeted, “Martyr Mujahid Abdulla Bawazir, may Allah accept him, his face shines [even as] a martyr #Ansar al-Sharia #al-Qaeda #Yemen.”

As reported by the Middle East Research Institute, the Comprehensive Military Library, a jihadi twitter account which uses the handle @mktbh_askreih, posted pictures of the body of Sheik Khalid ibn ‘Abd Al-Rahman Al-Husseinan, a senior al-Qaida figure who was killed in a drone attack in early December 2012.
“We bring to you the happy news of the wedding [martyrdom] of the martyr al-Sheikh Abdallah Al-Hussein from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He was martyred a few hours ago in Allepo of the martyrs” – Liwa Al-Ummah
“The martyr, whom we believe to be Zayd Al-Bawaridi ‘Abu Osama Al-Tamimi’ got martyred as we believe in the Battle of Yaacoubia in the reef of Idlib on January 24, 1434, [of the Islamic calendar]. The picture is from two months after his martyrdom. May Allah accept him. His wound doesn’t stop flowing blood.”
“[Words addressed to clerics or to rulers]: Whether you opened the gates of jihad or you didn’t, the men and the heroes of Saudi Arabia leapt to jihad in the land of Syria. Allah will bring back to life our heroic people Abdalaziz al-Jaghiman and Abdallah Al-Hussein.”
The MEMRI report contains a warning about the graphic nature of the images.
One announcement said: “Congrats to me, congrats to me … I became a martyr O my family, alive in paradise along with the beautiful hoor [al-'Ayn].”
Images from the Instagram-Statigram site were not publishable.

'Marriage equality' spells 'marriage extinction'

Remember these faces and how they vote!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Matt Barber 

Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two of the most critical cases of our time. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch both for and against California’s Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden State’s pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife.
Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for purposes of federal law.

Although both cases certainly address a multitude of legal and political issues, they also involve a number of moral and cultural considerations that, if wrongly decided, will literally shake Western civilization to the core.
The stakes could not be higher. Of central concern is whether the Supreme Court will put its official stamp of approval on that cartoonish contradiction-in-terms labeled “same-sex marriage.” Ultimately, these nine justices will decide either to recklessly deconstruct, radically redefine and render functionally trivial the age-old institution of natural marriage – or leave it alone.

They’d better leave it alone.
Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence. They want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called “marriage equality,” but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.
In a recent column headlined, “The Revolt of Intelligence Against ‘Marriage Equality,” worldview expert Rick Pearcey addressed one prominent “gay” activist’s admission that the destruction of natural marriage signifies the left’s ultimate cultural coup de grâce.
“Masha Gessen, a lesbian and a journalist, spoke frankly about this at a conference in Sydney, Australia,” he wrote. “‘It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry,’ she said. ‘But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … ‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’”
Still, if counterfeit “same-sex marriage” becomes the law of the land, then a whole lot more freaky deaky will follow before marriage extinction inevitably occurs.

One of liberals’ favorite Alinskyite defense mechanisms is to ridicule the opposition if confronted with some irrefutable argument against some hallowed left-wing delusion. Such is the tactic employed whenever a thinking person walks into the room and points out this big ‘ol gay elephant: Once the government pretends that some vague combination of “love” and “consent” are all that a “marriage” requires, then other “arbitrary” and “discriminatory” parameters beyond a binary male-female prerequisite must also go poof.
That is to say, if the Court magically divines some constitutional right to “same-sex marriage,” then full “marriage equality” necessarily demands that polygamous, incestuous and any other equally aberrant nuptial cocktail be likewise permitted.
It’s a “no-brainer,” right?
To that end, I’m very concerned with the Supreme Court’s recent history of radically redefining that which cannot be redefined. Though examples abound, I’m thinking specifically, as concerns the topic at hand, of the Court’s 2003 holding in Lawrence v. Texas.
In Lawrence, the liberal majority, for the first time in history, radically redefined male-on-male sodomy – hitherto classified “a crime against nature” – as a “constitutional right.”

In his characteristically brilliant dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia voiced my concerns better than I can: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices,” he wrote. “Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”
So, if the high court removes one natural marriage parameter for one special-interest group, then “equal protection under the law” requires that it remove all natural marriage parameters for all special-interest groups.
Liberty Counsel made these very points in a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the Supreme Court: “Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships,” noted the brief. “In fact, every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for them as well.”
Another brief filed by 18 state attorneys general voiced similar concerns: “Once the natural limits that inhere in the relationship between a man and a woman can no longer sustain the definition of marriage, the conclusion that follows is that any grouping of adults would have an equal claim to marriage,” they wrote.

The brief further observed the self-evident “no-brainer” that legitimate marriage is “optimal for children and society at large.”
It’s all very simple. If anything is marriage, then everything is marriage. And if everything is marriage, then nothing is marriage at all. “‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’”
I sincerely hope that the honorable and learned men and women who sit upon the highest bench in the land can recognize that all of these San Francisco-style social-engineering games are a deceptive means to a destructive end.
And it’s not the emotionalist end they’ve dolled-up and dished out. The left’s fierce push for “gay marriage” has nothing to do with “marriage equality” and everything to do with “marriage extinction.”
Or, as Ms. Gessen candidly put it: “[I]t’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”
I just pray that at least five justices still think it should.

Obama’s Keystone Kops

 
by John Myers 
“The only way to break this cycle of spiking gas prices — the only way to break that cycle for good — is to shift our cars entirely, our cars and trucks, off oil.” — President Barack Obama, speaking at the Argonne National Laboratory on March 15
President Barack Obama has finally brought Congress together with one common goal: to oppose his ruinous energy policies. Perhaps he can unite grass-roots Americans the way no one has since King George III.
On Thursday, a bipartisan bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate that would give Congress the sole power to approve TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline project. It is essential to America’s national security in that it channels Canada’s vast oil sands to refineries and ports in Texas.
Senators John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) introduced the measure, which proposes to ensure the construction of the 800,000-barrels-per-day pipeline.

It is no surprise that the President is fighting back. White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters last week that since the pipeline will cross international borders, the decision for its approval belongs with the State Department. This is the latest example of how the President usurps the democratic process and seizes extraordinary powers, all for the good of the environmental movement.
The $5.3 billion Keystone pipeline has become the battleground for Canada’s oil sands. The combatants are the Greens and the realists. The latter understand that for the foreseeable future America needs secure supplies of petroleum and not the fantasy of windmills and electric cars.
The Greens continue to resist and insist the pipeline will expand the oil sands projects in Western Canada, leaving a dangerous carbon footprint upon the world.

The Problem with Pelosi
Not only would the Keystone pipeline greatly decrease America’s dependency on Mideast oil, but it would also create tens of thousands of new jobs at a time when unemployment lingers close to 8 percent.
Not so, said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat and environmental activist who continues to argue that the Keystone pipeline will not deliver many jobs.
“It just is amazing to me that they can say [Keystone would create] ‘tens of thousands of jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil,’” said Pelosi at a press briefing on Capitol Hill last week to oppose the bipartisanship in the Senate. “The oil is for export and the jobs are nowhere near that.”
The Keystone pipeline may not employ as many people as Pelosi does for her hairdos, clothes and facelifts; but at least it is a start. Contradictions from Pelosi abound. If she visited Saudi Arabia as opposed to any Western democracy like Canada (America’s most reliable ally and energy source), the women’s rights advocate would have to cover her face with a scarf and she couldn’t drive around in her gas-guzzling Chevy Suburban.*
Pelosi, Obama and green advocates continue to recklessly tie the Nation’s future to Islamic oil producers like Saudi Arabia, home to most of the 9/11 hijackers.
The chart below gives you an indication of Canada’s oil wealth. It doesn’t even include Canada’s oil sands reserves. If those figures are included, Canada has oil reserves five times larger than Saudi Arabia.



Incompetency Or Conspiracy?
In November, columnist Ezra Levant summed up Obama’s energy strategy in the Toronto Sun:

Barack Hussein Obama announced America’s new energy policy: He prefers Saudi conflict oil shipped in on tankers over Canadian ethical oil in a pipeline.
It’s a bizarre decision for the president of a country with 9% unemployment, that could use the thousands of well-paying jobs that will be created building the state-of-the-art pipeline.
It’s not just jobs and the property taxes that the pipeline will pay in perpetuity. It’s the energy security. There’s no risk of a Gadhafi-style revolution in Canada.
There’s no need to spend $1 billion on a Pentagon mission to secure Libyan conflict oil, with friendly Canada to the north.
But in some ways, Obama’s decision isn’t surprising. He has adamantly opposed drilling in northeast Alaska, though his own administration estimates that would provide an additional 800,000 barrels a day, almost as much as America imports from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela.
Obama doesn’t much like drilling in the Gulf of Mexico either ­­— his moratorium there caused many deep-water rigs to move to other countries, costing more than 100,000 lost jobs in states like Louisiana, jobs that won’t come back for years.

I cannot fathom how the President is so ignorant of America’s energy and job needs. He continues to ignore the best interests of the Nation he swore to protect. Could it be there is something nefarious afoot in the Obama White House?
The party line was repeated Friday by Obama spokesman Josh Earnest, who declared that supporting projects such as the Argonne National Laboratory, where Obama was touring, is more important to America than petroleum.
The Argonne lab is just outside Obama’s home base of Chicago. Researchers there are working on advancing batteries for electric vehicles. It is part of Obama’s pledge to wean cars and trucks from oil.
The President has as much engineering expertise as I do, and I would wager that he has a lot less understanding of energy. Despite this, he has brazenly urged the establishment of a $2 billion clean energy fund over the next 10 years. How? Obama will redirect royalties the Federal government receives from offshore drilling along the Outer Continental Shelf toward research for electric vehicles, the very cars that I have derided.
Against all reason, the President continues to embrace Green energy while marginalizing Texas tea. He is robbing Peter to pay Judas.
So around and around we go with Obama, our vaulted leader who is in Jerusalem today kicking off his Mideast tour. He proposes to jump-start Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations and ease tensions in a region that sits atop two-thirds of the world’s conventional oil reserves and is on the brink of anarchy.

What Obama either doesn’t understand or understands all too well is that America’s national security needs are tied to petroleum. Without a lifeline from the Canadian oil sands, the inevitable will happen: the Mideast will explode while the U.S. economy, under the yoke of $10 per gallon gasoline, will implode.
In the end, the greatest threat to America may reside inside our borders at the very head of our government.
Yours in good times and bad,
–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

Anti-Jesus Lawyer: "Punish Chaplains for Praying.

Urgent Petition! Defend Military Chapels. Demand Congress stop desecration of Christian chapels and altars on military bases. Select here, sign petition, we will fax all 535 Congressmen and Senators (saving you time!) Or sign free option here.

Anti-Jesus Lawyer: "Punish Chaplains for Praying." Take action.

An atheist complainer threatening to sue Army Chaplains for praying just hired a lawyer.

Anti-Jesus attorney Mikey Weinstein, founder of the [Militant Religion Foes] Foundation, who recently sued me (and lost) to stop me from praying the Psalms to God (he failed), is now representing Atheist soldier Victoria Gettman.

Weinstein has reportedly demanded the Army punish a chaplain because he led a voluntary prayer at a suicide prevention class. [Earth to Mikey, the First Amendment protects the speaker, not your easily offended ears.]

Huffington Post reports "he and his litigation team intend to pursue an 'aggressive' federal lawsuit if the Army fails to rectify Gettman's complaints."

"Weinstein said the foundation's message to the Army is twofold: First, the Army should 'move with light speed' to review and remedy this case. Second, if the Army decides not to review Gettman's complaints, Weinstein said the Army should prepare to 'tell it to the judge.' [Nevermind that Weinstein has reportedly lost all 5 lawsuits he's filed.]

"Weinstein had previously contacted the Army to demand that the chaplain be disciplined for the mass prayer and that the Army provide a written apology to the soldiers."

The atheist complainer threatened to sue the U.S. Army to stop Chaplains from praying to the "Heavenly Father," even if they don't pray "in Jesus' name," reports Christian News.

"...Staff Sergeant Victoria Gettman is unpleased with the response that she has received from her superiors in regard to complaints that she had lodged over the prayer, which was delivered last September. Gettman and a number of other soldiers were attending a mandatory suicide prevention session, which concluded with a prayer. The prayer itself was voluntary as soldiers were not required to participate."

Watch Dr. Chaps' 6-minute opening commentary defending these Army Chaplains, here-->

But the Army spokesman said nothing was wrong, because the Chaplain didn't pray 'in Jesus' name.'"The chaplain's prayer had no reference to any specific deity, and ended with the words, 'through Your holy name.'"

[Dr. Chaps' comment: The Army cannot forbid Chaplains from praying 'in Jesus' name' because the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1991, Lee v. Weisman, that by censoring prayer content the government violates the First Amendment. If the atheists now threaten to sue even "generic" prayers, we might as well pray 'in Jesus' name' as is our legal right.] Who's willing to fax all 535 Congressmen and Senators, to defend chaplains and chapels?

Please select here to sign urgent petition, and we will fax all 100 Senators (saving you time!) to PROTECT MILITARY CHAPELS, CHAPLAINS AND TROOPS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM to oppose immorality, restore the good chapel amendment from H.R. 4310.

Or you may choose our Free Petition Option Here.

Obama removes Christian Cross from Army Chapels. Take action!

To mollify atheist complainers, President Obama's bureaucrats overseeing the U.S. Army have ordered the removal of Christian crosses from chapel buildings overseas, reports Fox News. The new Army Regulation 165-1 reportedly requires "permanent or fixed chapel furnishings, such as the altar, pulpit, lectern, or communion rail will be devoid of distinctive religious symbols," and "the chapel environment will be religiously neutral when the facility is not being used for scheduled worship." Christian symbols have already been removed from at least one Army chapel on a base in Afghanistan (full story below).

Obama's Pentagon further enforces allowing 'gay' wedding ceremonies in military chapels in all 50 states, in clear violation of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act which defines federal marriage as only valid between one man and one woman. Such illegal same-sex 'wedding' ceremonies have already taken place in military chapels in Florida, Louisiana, and New Jersey, three states that forbid gay 'marriage,' as reported in detail below.

To answer Obama's defiance of DOMA, one U.S. Congressman is fighting back. Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) introduced an amendment last year to H.R. 4310, on which The Hill reported: "Members of the House Armed Services committee voted to include the measure by Rep. Steve Palazzo (R-Miss.) into the panel's version of the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill...The measure, which prevents 'marriage or marriage-like ceremonies' between same-sex couples from taking place at American military bases, was approved by a 37 to 24 vote along party lines."

Unfortunately this good chapel-protecting bill was blocked by Senate Democrats last fall, but could be re-introduced by Congress this spring, IF we petition all 535 Congressmen and Senators to take action.

Would you please sign our petition? If you sign, we fax it to Congress, saving you time.

Please select here to sign urgent petition, and we will fax all 100 Senators (saving you time!) to PROTECT MILITARY CHAPELS, CHAPLAINS AND TROOPS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM to oppose immorality, restore the good chapel amendment from H.R. 4310.

Or you may choose our Free Petition Option Here.

Army removes Crosses from Chapel Buildings. Take action!

The hostility of the U.S. Army to Christian freedom continues, as atheist complainers have succeeded in forcing the removal of Christian crosses from a base chapel.

Fox News confirms: "The U.S. military ordered soldiers to remove a cross and a steeple from atop a chapel and to board up cross-shaped windows at a remote American forward operating base in Afghanistan.

"The removal of Christian symbols from the chapel at Forward Operating Base Orgun-E came after a solider complained - leading American Atheists president David Silverman to send a letter to the Pentagon.

[Army regulation bans Jesus? Watch Dr. Chaps 5 minute TV commentary on this story-->]

"Under this [Obama] Administration, the military has become a Christianity-free zone," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. "As a veteran, there's an irony here. You put on the uniform to defend freedom - chief among them is freedom of religion. And yet, you are stripped of your own freedom to practice your faith."

[Dr. Chaps' comment: MILITARY CHAPEL BUILDINGS ARE NOW DESECRATED by homosexual "wedding" ceremonies in all 50 states. Please help me take action to defend military chapels by signing our petition, and we will blast fax all 535 Congressmen and Senators...]

Please select here to sign urgent petition, and we will fax all 100 Senators (saving you time!) to PROTECT MILITARY CHAPELS, CHAPLAINS AND TROOPS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM to oppose immorality, restore the good chapel amendment from H.R. 4310.

2,000 Chaplains petition 26 Senators to protect freedom. Will you join them?

2,000+ Military Chaplains are petitioning these 26 Senators through their bishops, to protect religious freedom and stop sod omite desecration of military chapels, ADF reports.

"The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, an organization of chaplain endorsers, calls on the U.S. Congress to protect the conscience of our military personnel in the wake of the Senate's refusal so far to pass such protections.

"Earlier this year, in Section 536 of H.R. 4310, the House passed language protecting the rights of conscience of members of the armed forces, including chaplains. The House also passed language in Section 537 of H.R. 4310 that ensures military chapels are not used for any marriage or marriage-like ceremonies involving anything other than the union of one man and one woman. The Senate removed both of these sections when it passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act.

"No American, especially those who wear the uniform, should be required to give up their religious values,” said Chaplain (COL) Ron Crews, USAR retired, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. 'Men and women who courageously serve in our armed forces should be able to serve without having to violate their consciences. Service members, including chaplains, who have sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions need to be able to serve without fear of recrimination against their values.'

"The National Defense Authorization Act is currently in conference committee.

"'Americans concerned about protecting the rights of conscience of our service members should contact their senators and encourage them to agree with the language passed by the House of Representatives,' Crews said."

[Dr. Chaps' comment: Friends, NOW is the time to call 202-225-3121 for all 26 members of the Senate Armed Services committee, and all 61 members of the House Armed Services Committee, who will hash out these major decisions during conference committee.]

Don't have time to make 87 phone calls? You can fax all 87 members instantly, just...

Please select here to sign urgent petition, and we will fax all 100 Senators (saving you time!) to PROTECT MILITARY CHAPELS, CHAPLAINS AND TROOPS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM to oppose immorality, restore the good chapel amendment from H.R. 4310.

Obama desecrates Military Chapels in all 50 states. Can 2 Senators stop him?

An amazing article by our friends at Last Resistance quotes me and asks the question I've been raising for a year now. Can Senate Republicans save military chaplains from court-martial, if they refuse to facilitate homose xual "marriage" ceremonies?

In response to YOUR faxes, two Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS) and my friend James Inhofe (R-OK) have just introduced new legislation in the Senate, as "The Military Religious Freedom Act." I met with Wicker's staff this summer, and they received my suggestion clearly, since the new bill mirrors the two good amendments already passed by the House, and protects both military chaplains AND chapels from desecration.

Sadly, more homose xual "weddings" are desecrating Christian chapels on military bases, for example in this story that features a Navy Chaplain who apparently desecrates a Christian chapel in New Jersey with a sod omite ceremony endorsing sin.(And then claims nobody is offended when Christian chapels are desecrated by acts of sod omy.)

This "wedding" in New Jersey is President Obama's latest assault on military Christians, after homose xual ceremonies have already desecrated chapels in Florida and Lousiana.

All three states ban homose xual "marriage" so why do reporters lie for Obama, claiming these ceremonies are only authorized in states where gay marriage is licensed?

This is proof that what I said is true, that Obama has forced homose xual "marriage" upon all 50 states. AP reports Obama's policy: "Under current policy, these ceremonies are allowed on bases where the marriage or civil union is legal under state law."

In other words, not only does Obama abrogate federal law, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (which applies on federal land, i.e. military bases), but he also abrogates the state laws of New Jersey, Florida, and Lousiana, which clearly prohibit homose xual "marriage."

Let's stand with Senators Wicker and Inhofe, to demand all 100 Senators protect chapels.

Please select here to sign urgent petition, and we will fax all 100 Senators (saving you time!) to PROTECT MILITARY CHAPELS, CHAPLAINS AND TROOPS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM to oppose immorality, restore the good chapel amendment from H.R. 4310.

First Lesbian 'Wedding' desecrates Military Chapel. Obama violates state law.

President Obama trampled on Louisiana state law, and desecrated the Christian chapel on a military post at Fort Polk, Louisiana, by authorizing the first homose xual 'wedding' ceremony by a lesbian couple in a military chapel. Flaunting his federal power over Louisiana (whose law clearly defines Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman), and ignoring the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, Obama's Pentagon lawyer Jeh Johnson issued a memo this year forcing all military chapels in all 50 states to be open for 'gay' weddings.

Now we learn that three weeks ago, a lesbian couple was secretly 'married' upon, and desecrated the Christian altar in the base chapel with sod omy, marking the first reported homosexual wedding in a military chapel ever. A pro-homose xual chaplain presided at the 'marriage-like religious ceremony' of two lesbian soldiers, but did not issue a license, making the union illegal in the eyes of both Lousiana law, and the laws of Almighty God.

Congressman John Fleming, M.D. (R-LA) told CNSNews.com on Wednesday that "the U.S. Army had confirmed to him that the chaplain had performed the ceremony less than a month ago in the base chapel at Fort Polk, which is in Fleming's district."

"It is my understanding that this is the first ceremony of its type on an American military base and that is, as it's reported, it was a wedding ceremony between two members of the same gender who are uniformed members of the Army," Fleming said.

Former Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO), said last year this confirms the need for the Senate to pass two good pro-chaplain amendments protecting chapels and chaplains free speech: "It is very concerning that a same-sex ceremony would occur on a military base in a state where the definition of marriage has been clearly defined as between one man and one woman," Akin said. "This action is clearly in contravention of state law, and also violates the Defense Department policies issued last fall. This appears to be a case where political agenda has trumped the rule of law, which is absolutely unacceptable. This confirms the importance of the language that my colleagues and I worked to include in the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for 2013, which would protect chaplains and servicemembers from this liberal agenda. The same individuals who will violate the law to advance their agenda will persecute those around them who disagree with their views."

"Congressman Akin has led the efforts to protect traditional marriage on military bases. In 2011, Congressman Akin offered an amendment to H.R. 1540 which was stripped by the Senate. In May 2012, Akin offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013 which would protect servicemembers and chaplains from recriminations based on their concerns regarding same-sex marriage."

[Dr. Chaps' comment: Folks, I have been repeatedly saying for months, what nobody believed was true, that military chapels both Catholic and Protestant will be desecrated in all 50 states by acts of sod omy on the Christian altar, robbing all our troops of their right to a sacred worship space. Any chaplain who objects will be punished, and the keys to his chapel must be turned over to homose xual activists. Does anybody doubt that my warning has now come true?]

We must take action to protect our chapels. Please sign our petition to all 100 Senators.

Please select here to sign urgent petition, and we will fax all 100 Senators (saving you time!) to PROTECT MILITARY CHAPELS, CHAPLAINS AND TROOPS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM to oppose immorality, restore the good chapel amendment from H.R. 4310.

God Bless you, in Jesus' name,

Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt, PhD
Who is Dr. Chaps? Read bio here.

Firearms Company Leaving Colorado Over Anti-Gun Laws As Promised

by Dave Jolly 

In February, firearms company Magpul informed members of the Colorado state legislature that they would leave the state if the anti-gun laws being considered were passed and became law.
Magpul is a relatively new company founded in 1999.  Today they employ 600 people and generate close to $100 million in sales.  Their primary business is the manufacture of 30 round clips and other accessories for assault and assault-style weapons, most of which is purchased by the US military.

Doug Smith, COO of Magpul said:

“If we’re able to stay in Colorado and manufacture a product, but law-abiding citizens of the state were unable to purchase the product, customers around the state and the nation would boycott us for remaining here.  Staying here would hurt our business.”

Once word got out that they were looking to relocate out of the state, they began to receive offers from states like Texas and South Carolina to bring their business to these more gun friendly states.  Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) sent Smith a letter telling him that South Carolina believes in the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.
This Wednesday, Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) signed three of the anti-gun bills into law.  The new laws limit magazines to no more than 15 rounds and requires backgrounds checks for all private and online gun sales.

On February 27, John Morse (D-Colorado Springs) and president of the Senate, introduced a bill that would hold the manufacturer, seller or owner of any assault or assault-style weapon, liable for any damage the weapon causes in the state.  In introducing his bill into the state senate, Morse said:

“The bill I envision… it will deem these guns as unreasonably dangerous.  It will not ban them, it will just hold people strictly liable, strictly responsible for what occurs. The effect is that everyone in the chain will be responsible for the actions of that gun.”
“It will only apply to military-style assault weapons, firearms that are not handguns, bolt action rifles or shotguns.”

Holding to their promise to leave the state if any of these anti-gun laws passed, Magpul announced on their Facebook page that they are already transitioning their business out of the state of Colorado.  Their post read:

“Apparently Gov Hickenlooper has announced that he will sign HB 1224 on Wednesday. We were asked for our reaction, and here is what we said:”
“We have said all along that based on the legal problems and uncertainties in the bill, as well as general principle, we will have no choice but to leave if the Governor signs this into law. We will start our transition out of the state almost immediately, and we will prioritize moving magazine manufacturing operations first. We expect the first PMAGs to be made outside CO within 30 days of the signing, with the rest to follow in phases. We will likely become a multi-state operation as a result of this move, and not all locations have been selected. We have made some initial contacts and evaluated a list of new potential locations for additional manufacturing and the new company headquarters, and we will begin talks with various state representatives in earnest if the Governor indeed signs this legislation. Although we are agile for a company of our size, it is still a significant footprint, and we will perform this move in a manner that is best for the company and our employees.”

“It is disappointing to us that money and a social agenda from outside the state have apparently penetrated the American West to control our legislature and Governor, but we feel confident that Colorado residents can still take the state back through recalls, ballot initiatives, and the 2014 election to undo these wrongs against responsible Citizens.”
Hopefully, other firearms manufactures in Colorado, New York and Maryland will follow Magpul’s example and relocate their operations to more gun friendly states like Texas or South Carolina.  Why would they want to operate in a state that legislates against their business and forbids residents from purchasing many of their products?

Is America a Republic or an Empire?

by Dr. Robert R. Owens 

What I propose to do in this column is examine what are the hallmarks of empire and ask my readers to honestly ask themselves, “Is America a republic or an empire?”

Over the years in this column I have written about the American Empire.  I have advocated jettisoning the Empire to save the Republic.  This topic has sparked debate and controversy even among the most dedicated readers.  Usually the argument runs like this, “America is not an Empire, never has been and never will be,” or “America’s far-flung military deployments are not the garrisoning of an empire it is instead a forward defense of the homeland.”
In my most recent column along these lines, aptly entitled, “Republic or Empire?” in several publications there was spirited debate about whether or not America could be called an empire.  Some people seemed to take offense at the very idea.  Others who usually agree with my political stands find this and my other foreign policy positions such as bringing our troops home, concentrating on defending America, and equitable trade with all unacceptable.  I present and promote these foreign policy positions as requirements for restoring limited government. It is my belief that as long as we are involved in endless war there is no real possibility to re-gain control of our government, our budget, or our future.
What I propose to do in this column is examine the hallmarks of empire and ask my readers to honestly ask themselves, “Is America a republic or an empire?”

First, it makes no difference whether it is the President, the Paramount Chief, an Augustus, the First Citizen, the Dear Leader, the Great Helmsman or der Fuehrer.  It doesn’t matter if it is an executive branch, a Politburo, a Central Committee, the Cabinet, or the collective leadership.  Whatever form it takes, an empire is always dominated by a highly centralized executive power.
America was designed not to be an empire but instead to be a federal republic made up of a central government and state governments which were the precursors and creators of the central government.   This central government founded upon and constrained by a written constitution originally presented the world with something new, a national government made up of divided co-equal powers.  The Congress to make the laws, the executive to enforce the laws, and the judicial to judge if the laws conformed to the Constitution: the guiding light and touch-stone of American limited government.  This worked well to establish and maintain a republic but it would not foster nor perpetuate an empire.
Thus the Constitution established the framework of what became known as the system of checks and balances.  Only congress could make laws, but the President could veto them.  Congress could over-ride a president’s veto, but the Supreme Court could declare laws unconstitutional making them null and void.  The president is in charge of foreign policy and is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, but the Congress controlled the purse and could cut off funding.  Upon petition the Supreme Court could declare the actions of the president unconstitutional yet the president could appoint justices to the Supreme Court.

Did this work perfect?  No, there were always swings one way or another.  There have been powerful Supreme Courts such as under Chief Justices Marshall or Warren that changed the complexion of the country.  There have been powerful Congresses such as the one from 1865 to the mid 1870’s that virtually ignored presidents and set policy.  There were powerful presidents such as Jackson or Lincoln.  However the pendulum always swung back and forth.  If you examined all three institutions there was one thing missing.  Where was the sovereignty?  Who was the nation?
In the highly centralized state, which is an empire whether personal or national, the leader or leadership operates according to the sentiments of the Sun King, Louis XIV of France who said, “I am the State.”  During the birth of the American system, our Founders had spent more time debating this than any other aspect of the government, who would be the sovereign power.  They had just fought and defeated one tyrant and they did not want to exchange one for another.  They didn’t trust the sovereignty of the nation in the hands of an executive because of the long and bloody history of Europeans with absolutism and divine right.  They didn’t trust an assembly after their recent history with the tyranny of the British Parliament and their Stamp Act, Quartering Act and other attempts to bring the colonies to their knees.  They couldn’t place it in the hands of the Supreme Court for that body would be merely judicial.

Instead they came up with a new idea in the world.  They placed the sovereignty of the nation in the hands of We the People.
The Constitution is designed to empower the people not the government.  Though today it is stretched and interpreted to give the government the power to do whatever it wants whenever it wants originally it was constructed to limit government.
We the People could vote the Congress in or out, we could choose our own president, and if the Supreme Court said something was unconstitutional that we wanted we could change the Constitution using a mechanism embedded within the document itself.  For the first time no leader or oligarchy owned the state, instead the state belonged to the citizens.
What do we see in America today?  We have a president who says, “We can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will.”  When Congress after deliberation decides not to pass the Dream Act giving amnesty to millions, the President uses an executive order to make it law by decree.  When the Congress refuses to pass a cap-and-trade law that many believe will hamstring our industry and hobble us in the race with other nations, the president orders his EPA department to enforce it anyway.  Without consulting Congress the President takes us to war against Libya and deposes a government.

These are the actions of an executive out of control.  Under the original American system if anyone would have asked, “Who speaks for the people?” the answer would have been the House of Representatives because they were elected every two years and were thus closest to the people.  It wouldn’t have been the Congress as a whole because under the original system the senate was chosen by the various state legislatures and was designed to represent the states.  It was the House which spoke for the people.  Today it is the President who uses the bully pulpit magnified by a subservient press and a thousand government media pressure points and outlets saying in effect, I have a mandate from the people.  I am the embodiment of their will.  I am the state.
The next hallmark of an empire we will look at is that domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy.  The American President is constitutionally in charge of foreign policy so there is no better place for the holder of that office to act without any restraint.  Treaties must be ratified, so our presidents began in the 1940’s to forge personal agreements with the leaders of other countries that had all the force of treaties with none of the messy Senate confirmation required.  Using their power as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces modern presidents have also used their authority to start wars as in Kosovo and Libya, to sign cease fires as in Korea, and to commit America to the support of dictators and tyrants through deployments and equipment transfers, all without any Congressional oversight.

If we ask ourselves, has domestic policy really become subordinate to foreign policy think about whose infrastructure are we being taxed to rebuild?  In Afghanistan and Iraq our money and our companies are building new schools while ours fall apart, we are building new roads in Afghanistan while we watch our own bridges crumbling.  We give billions to countries and governments that despise us.  We borrow money to give it away and then sometimes borrow it back all in a bizarre dance balancing foreign interests at the expense of We the People.
Another hallmark of an empire is that the military mindset becomes ascendant to the point that civilians are intimidated.  Think about the Defense budget.   In 2012 it was over 600 billion dollars.  Does anyone believe Congress or anyone else really knows where all that money is going?  The size, scope, and unbelievable waste in the defense budget stagger the imagination.  However, to even question the defense budget will immediately get someone labeled as an isolationist who wants to gut our defense and surrender to the enemy.
Many people will argue that we are in a war and that during war of course the defense budget will be bloated.  Can you remember any time since 1942 that we haven’t been in a war?  Yes, there were the brief days of the “Peace Dividend” under Clinton after the Soviet Union dissolved which actually became the rational for increased defense spending.  And during those brief days of peace back in the 1990’s we fought a war and enforced a decade long no-fly zone in Iraq, attacked Serbia, sent troops, planes or other assets to Zaire, Sierra Leone, Bosnia (numerous times), Herzegovina, Somalia, Macedonia, Haiti, Liberia, Central African Republic, Albania, Congo and Gabon, Cambodia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, Afghanistan, and East Timor.  And this was our only decade of peace since the 1940’s, and to question any of this is considered tantamount to treason.  We must ask ourselves, “Has the military mindset become ascendant to the point that civilians are intimidated?”

Perpetual war for peace has led the peaceful American people to be ensnared in the clutches of the military-industrial complex as president Eisenhower warned it would in 1961.
All empires develop and maintain a system of satellite nations.  When we hear of this we immediately think of the old USSR and their slave states in Eastern Europe.  Advance the idea that America has satellite nations and people become irate.  “How could you say such a thing about America?”  Look at our so-called allies.  Do they fit the description as satellite nations?  A satellite nation is one that the empire deems is necessary for its own defense.  It is also one that feels it cannot stand alone and wants the empire’s protection.
That is the deal.  The empire commits to protect the satellite and the satellite agrees to stand with its back against the empire facing a common foe.  Add to that the fact that we supply money and material to build the national defenses of our satellite/allies as well as economic aid and a preferential trade system.  Think about these ideas and decide for yourself whether or not America has satellite nations ringing the heartland of the empire.

Another hallmark of empire is that a psychology or psychosis of pride, presumption, and arrogance overtakes the national consciousness.   We are all familiar with the twenty-first century incantation of “Too big to fail.”  That was applied by our bailout happy leaders to their pet banks and companies during the opening days of the Great Recession.  It is also an apt description for the way in which most Americans view our position as the most powerful nation on earth or as the silver tongued talking heads like to say, the world’s sole superpower.  Since the end of World War One the United States has been the unchallenged mega power among the western block of nations.  Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union we have towered like a colossus over the rest of the world.  In the memory of most people now alive it has always been this way.
To most people the way it has been is the way it shall be.  We speak of embracing change and of realizing that change is the only constant but few can really think that way.  The familiar seduces us into thinking that the momentary circumstances of today are the unshakable foundations of tomorrow.  To the children and grandchildren of the greatest generation the world will always gaze in awe at the great American eagle soaring above the world.  Our navies rule the waves, our masses of fighters, bombers, and drones can reach out and touch any corner of the globe, our troops are the best trained, best equipped, and best led armies the world has ever seen, so such a mega power could never fall.

So it seemed to the inhabitants of Rome the eternal empire.  So it seemed to the British when the sun never set upon the union jack.  And so it seems to us.  Even though a rag-tag group like Al Qaeda defies our attempts to destroy them and continues to grow and multiply around the world.  Even though the Taliban not only have withstood more than a decade of war they stand poised to reclaim their country as soon as we leave.  Even though our deficit spending and the national debt it creates is leading us to a financial collapse that our own military leaders have identified as the greatest threat to our security, and our leaders only answer is more spending.  This pride, presumption, and arrogance blinds us to the enduring truth of what comes before a fall.
Finally an empire is the prisoner of history.  A republic is not required to act upon the world stage.  It can pick and choose its own way seeking its own destiny as a commonwealth of citizens.  An empire must project its power for fear that if it doesn’t another leviathan will arise to take its place.  A free republic that has maintained its independence is able to decide where and when it will become involved.  An empire is always the leader of a center heavy coalition comprised of the imperial core and the associated or satellite nations.  As such it is the collective security against the barbarian, the other that drives the actions of the empire.
In the parlance of our day it is our turn.  It is our turn to be the policeman of the world, our turn to keep the peace, to guard civilization from the unwashed hordes who seek to turn back the clock and bring darkness into the world.  We are a vanguard of stability in a world beset by chaos, and so were the British and the Romans before them.

Other writers may say something has been left off these hallmarks while others may say some of these don’t apply.  To all I would recommend a study of former empires to see if they agree these properties are found in all of them.  Then ask ourselves, “Are these properties present in America today?”  Once we have completed this process we will be able to answer the question for ourselves, “Is America an Empire?”  If we decide, yes it is, we have to realize that there is a trajectory all empires follow: they rise and they fall.
We might decide that,we as the first empire that is not set-up to plunder wealth but instead to distribute wealth, are different, and therefore we will break the mold.  We will stand while others have fallen.  One look at our debt should persuade anyone that what we have built is as unsustainable as the British, the Roman, or any other empire we wish to use as a standard.
Do you say, “We can’t be an empire because our president is elected.”  So were the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, so were the kings of Poland. It is the empire that empowers our executive.  Do you say, “We can’t be an empire because we have a Congress.”  So did Athens,Rome, and Britain.  Do you say, “We can’t be an empire because we have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, why we even have the freedom to own weapons.”  So did Athens, so did Rome, and so did Britain.
While we are yet on the glory side of the fall let us abandon the empire to save our republic.  Let us resign from the great game of thrones, rebuild America, secure our own borders instead of those of Korea, or Afghanistan, and reaffirm our dedication to be the last best hope of mankind: a federal republic operating on democratic principles, securing our God given liberties, providing personal freedom, individual liberty, and economic opportunity to all its citizens.

Before the Fed turns one-hundred this December, let’s make sure it gets audited! 2013 can be the year that the House and the Senate pass legislation to Audit the Federal Reserve Bank!

Tell Congress: Audit the Federal Reserve – Send Free Messages to Lawmakers!