If you support our national security issues, you may love and appreciate the United States of America, our Constitution with its’ freedoms, and our American flag.
If you support and practice our fiscal issues, you may value worldly possessions.
If you support and value our social issues, you may love Judeo-Christian values.
If you support and practice all these values, that is all good; an insignia of “Wisdom” . - Oscar Y. Harward
National Debt Clock-Click Here-Real Time
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20100209
Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!
"You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream." -- C. S. Lewis
Aroma therapists have been teaching us for years that certain scents wake us up while others mellow us out by causing the brain to release various chemicals. Take advantage of this effect by showering in the morning with soap that perks you up—peppermint and citrus are particularly effective. But don't use them at night when you want to mellow out! -- Susannah Seton
We cannot find the light until we acknowledge the darkness. This is called owning. -- Mina Parker
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
The power of the life-giving Spirit has freed you through Christ Jesus from the power of sin that leads to death. (Romans 8:2)
A distorted view of holiness causes many Christians to stop short of complete surrender to God. They imagine a holy person as some kind of religious fanatic or an isolated monk. Others think that holiness has only to do with the way a person dresses or socializes.
Tragically, some believers continue to wrestle with their childhood experiences with strict, legalistic parents or churches. I have heard some confess, "I tried to live up to the high expectations of my parents or pastor, but I have failed many times. I just can't live the Christian life!" I agree. It is impossible to live a holy life on your own. Even with our best efforts, we will always fail. We can never become holy in our own strength.
This is the secret: We can live a holy life if we yield to the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the only person to ever live a holy life, and now He resides within every believer through His Holy Spirit. His presence and power give us the strength to live a holy life moment by moment.
Holy, righteous living is the secret to a life of joy, power, victory, and fruitfulness. When we are holy, we are set apart and separated from sin for God's special use. God gives us the power to experience a whole new life based on His holiness and purity.
Your View of God Really Matters …
Benjamin Franklin said, "Continuing to do the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is the definition of insanity." Today, stop trying to live a holy life through human effort. Instead, yield to the indwelling Holy Spirit moment-by-moment and let Him be in control.
"The Patriot Post"
"The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public moneys." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Shelton Gilliam, 1808
"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Ludlow, 1824
Quote of the Week
"Martha Coakley's resounding defeat in the Massachusetts Senate race is hardly the sort of anniversary gift President Barack Obama could have predicted. Yet there it was, wrapped in a bow and plopped on his doorstep like a flaming bag of dog poo to mark the end of his first year in office." -- Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch of Reason magazine
From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File
Sen. John Kerry, in a fundraising appeal for Martha Coakley, continued Democrat ridicule of the Tea Party sentiment bubbling up in Massachusetts. He warned that Scott Brown's "allies in the right wing dream of holding a 'tea party' in Kennedy country."
Uh, John, the original Tea Party was in Boston..
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton took the opposite tack, though at least he acknowledged the first Tea Party. "The Revolutionary War was first won here," Clinton told a Boston crowd. "It started with the Boston Tea Party, and the right-wing Republicans have appropriated that on the premise the Tea Party was against government. What they were against was abuse of power."
Try parsing that one in a way that favors Democrats.
This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award
"That I do think is a mistake of mine -- I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we're making a good rational decision here, then people will get it." -- Barack Obama on his proposed health care takeover
Got that, folks? Even when he's admitting a "mistake of mine," he's throwing the blame onto others. His failures are your fault because you just don't get it. That's called pathological narcissism.
New & Notable Legislation
Senate Democrats want to raise the federal government's debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion to a mind-boggling total of $14.3 trillion. The current debt limit was just established by an increase of $290 billion snuck in at the end of December 2009, but will be reached by mid-February. If the ceiling is not raised again, then the government will default on payments to millions of Social Security recipients, defense contractors and other beneficiaries of government disbursements. Just 10 years ago, an increase of this size would have covered government spending for an entire year. Now, they're sweating just getting through February.
The proposal is coupled with a new PAYGO proposal that would offset increased spending with tax hikes and cuts in other areas of the budget. Previous attempts at PAYGO fell by the wayside in recent years, as both Republicans and Democrats have given up on even the appearance of fiscal responsibility -- which is all PAYGO is.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Evan Bayh (D-IN) have indicated they will not support PAYGO or a debt increase unless they are accompanied by a bipartisan commission that would create fiscal reform measures. House Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, are against the idea of a commission because it would take power away from their own budget committee leaders. The Obama administration attempted to bridge this logjam by announcing the creation of a similar commission at the executive level that would include Democrats and Republicans appointed by both Congress and the president. Any commission created by Obama, however, wouldn't release any recommendations until after the November elections. How convenient. The dodge around fiscal responsibility continues.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee is considering the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which, in essence, would allow the Obama administration to nationalize the student loan industry. Currently, federally subsidized loans through the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program make up approximately 80 percent of the industry. The government subsidizes or profits from a set interest rate and also guarantees loans for both student and lender. The bill under consideration would drop private lenders entirely and turn student lending over to the government. The proposal originated in Obama's 2010 budget, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, it would save the government $87 billion over 10 years. Forget the Constitution -- not that the status quo holds to it -- Obama's solution to every problem is nationalization
Halls of Justice: SCOTUS Overturns Part of McCain-Feingold
The Supreme Court of the United States overturned two precedents and struck down limits on corporate political spending in a 5-4 ruling this week, with the usual suspects in dissent. The Court found that at least part of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as McCain-Feingold, violates the First Amendment by prohibiting corporations from funding political ads leading up to an election.
As The Wall Street Journal reports, "The case before the court, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated in a 2008 feature-length movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, wanted to promote the film, but the election commission called it an 'electioneering communication' subject to McCain-Feingold restrictions." In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the law.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority in a 57-page opinion, "The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."
Additionally, of requiring that money be funneled through political action committees -- those now-hated 527s -- Kennedy wrote, "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful."
Barack Obama called the decision a victory for Wall Street, Big Oil and other special interests hated by the Left, and he promised to work with Congress on a "forceful response." That's nothing but hypocrisy coming from the first major-party presidential candidate to reject public funds, opting instead to run solely on money from special interests.
The BIG Joke
"When you think about the First Amendment ... you think it's highly overrated." --White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, joking (or so he says) at the May 9, 2009, White House Correspondents Association Dinner
Department of Military Correctness: Hood-winked
The Pentagon just released its report on the Ft. Hood massacre, and having reviewed it, we have some questions: Has anyone been fired yet? If not, why not? And what's wrong with naming Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the terrorist who killed 14 people, including an unborn child, in the report? Or what's wrong with mentioning "radical Islam" -- the fuel fanning Hasan's fire -- and perhaps a discussion of its role in why this attack happened?
We can't understand how the deaths of the innocent could be so spackled over by 86 pages of politically correct twaddle that identified neither the terrorist nor the root cause of his action. While the report indicates that commanders must be provided suitable tools and guidance to differentiate between appropriate religious practices and those leading to "violence or self-radicalization," it offers little, if anything, to accomplish that task.
With this in mind, we suggest a starting point for commanders, supervisors and pretty much everyone else on the planet to help navigate these complex religious nuances. If someone under your command not only acts wacky but also professes a profound hatred for America -- the same America he or she, upon entering the military, swore an oath to support and defend -- rip up that person's security clearance. "Nutjob" and "hate-my-country" are excellent reasons to deny someone access to national secrets and secure sites. Next, relieve the individual of duty and bring administrative action toward a discharge. Serving in the military is a privilege, not a right. Moreover, that privilege is not extended to those with an acknowledged hatred of their country, whatever their religious preference. Finally, have the courage to do the right thing, which is almost always diametrically opposed to the politically correct thing, for you too have sworn an oath to "support and defend."
Notwithstanding the red herring, armchair-quarterbacking communication between domestic law enforcement and military agencies, the real issue in this case isn't intelligence or intelligence sharing. It's naming the evil and doing something about it. Hasan's activities and mindset were known well before he became an active threat. These indicators were ignored for the sake of political correctness, so Hasan was passed like a bad penny from one assignment to another. However, the failure of any of Hasan's supervisors or commanders in his chain of command to stand up and act on information they had -- or at least should have had -- is not just "a failure of the system." It's personal and professional cowardice on the part of each individual in Hasan's supervisory and command chains.
Judge Napolitano, Congress, and Government Healthcare
You are studying apologetics.
The Temporal and Eternal Significance of God
by Gary DeMar
Why is the topic “Does God Exist?” important? Because it has both temporal and eternal significance. Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great, says that religious faith “will never die out, or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other.” Being afraid of the dark and other people hardly have eternal consequences. The unknown can harbor things that should make us fearful, especially if the unknown means judgment based on what we do in this life. Hitchens has no empirical knowledge of what happens after death. Harry Houdini promised to return from the dead if he could, but he hasn’t. Vigils to his grave on Halloween were made religiously by his wife Bess and others for years. So he’s no help. Jesus has, so we might want to listen to Him. Hitchens is blind to his own earthly future and what awaits him after death. Since he believes there is no God, he can only believe that there is no judgment by God. If he is wrong about there being nothing after death, the results are forever. He seems to be willing to take that chance.
There is temporal significance to a belief in an eternal “dirt nap” with no judgment to follow. If after death a mass murderer and a mass philanthropist receive the same end, then why should there be a difference in their actions this side of the grave? Katherine Hepburn, a prominent atheist and one of Hollywood’s most celebrated actresses, told the Ladies’ Home Journal in the October 1991 issue, “I’m an atheist, and that’s it. I believe there’s nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for other people.” If there’s nothing we can know, then how did she know about the kindness thing? Are we obligated to be kind to other people? Who ultimately makes the judgment if there is nothing greater than molecules in the vastness of the cosmos? Certainly molecules aren’t telling us to be kind. If they are, then who told them? Hitchens argues that religious faith is the result of the evolutionary process. Why can’t the same thing be said for views of morality? Maybe Adolf Hitler was ahead of the evolutionary curve, and we have not evolved enough to see it.
Atheists are making their “this-is-the-only-life-you-have” worldview an advertising slogan. London buses have been outfitted with the following banner ads: “There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Life.” The sponsors hope the postings will get people to question the existence of God: “This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think—and thinking is anathema to religion,” the promoters argue. “[Richard] Dawkins said that as an atheist he ‘wasn’t wild’ about the ad’s assertion that there was ‘probably’ no God.” If there is no God, then who gets to say what constitutes enjoying life? Are there any restrictions on enjoying life? If there are, then who gets to set the restrictions and why?
The issue is not whether atheists are moral people. Some are and some aren’t. The greater question is, How do atheists account for morality given the fact that they believe humans are a “mess” of evolved chunks of gooey matter that only look like they are designed. For example, atheists have started collecting donations for the earthquake victims in Haiti. In a single day an atheist charity received donations of $80,000 from as many as 3,400 donors. By day three they had raised $113,000. Atheist evangelist Richard Dawkins committed to match donations up to $9,300. Bravo! But other atheists could make a case that sending money to help people who can’t help themselves is contrary to the survival of the fittest doctrine. Again, it’s not that atheists can’t do moral things; rather, it’s the things that they do are not moral or immoral given the materialistic parameters and limitations of their worldview. Douglas Wilson explains it this way:
One of the common features of these atheists is a very high level of moral indignation [against Christianity.] But given the premises of their worldview, they have no basis for their indignation. If there is no God, and everything is really just atoms banging around, why should it matter which way the atoms bang? Actually, all of these atheists surreptitiously borrow many of the standards of Christianity in order to assail Christian belief.
An atheist is an “interloper on God’s territory. Everything he uses to construct his system has been stolen from God’s ‘construction site.’ The unbeliever is like the little girl who must climb on her father’s lap to slap his face. . . . [T]he unbeliever must use the world as it has been created by God to try to throw God off Hs throne.” Atheists know they cannot be truthful about the full force of their worldview otherwise they would not be able to sell it to the world. Who, except an evolutionary scientist who has a career and reputation in the scientific community to protect, would identify with a worldview that at its base is founded on a materialistic premise that claims that humans are a conglomeration of mixed atoms that have worms as one of their biological relatives, worse, that “the worm represents a very simple human”?
According to prominent biochemist and Editor-in-Chief of Science magazine Dr. Bruce Alberts, our study of genes has made us “realize humans are more like worms than we ever imagined.” This is like saying the literary works of William Shakespeare and the novels of Amanda McKittrick Ros, which Mark Twain described as “hogwash literature,” are comparable because they use the same 26 letters of the English alphabet or that Plan 9 from Outer Space and District 9 are artistically similar because they both have the number “9” in the title. The fact that other life forms have DNA and that some or even much of it is found in humans in no way means that worms, bananas, or chimpanzees are in any way related to humans. All automobiles share common functioning parts, but this does not mean they are related by evolutionary extension.
The rigorously consistent evolutionist is left with treating humans as highly functioning sound machines.
The story is told of a visit of the behaviourist psychologist Professor Burrhus Skinner to lecture at Keele University [in England]. After Skinner had given his formal lecture, in which he emphasized an objective, mechanistic description as a total explanation of man’s behaviour, he was invited to have an informal chat with the professor who had chaired the meeting. Skinner was asked whether in fact he was at all interested in who he, the chairman, and others were. Implacable, Skinner replied: ‘I am interested in the noises that come from your mouth.’
Skinner was trying to be as consistent as his deterministic worldview would allow him to be. There are no words with real meaning that emanate from one of our frontal orifices; they are only noises. In a similar way, the same can be said for moral attributes. They can only be observed and noted as things these sound machines do. So even if an objective morality were proven to exist in a world explained in terms of atheistic assumptions, there is no inherent obligation to observe any of it.
City officials under fire for pro-Christian comments
Jody Brown - OneNewsNow
Two city officials in a California town are being targeted for possible hate crimes over comments they made recently about the Christian and Muslim faiths.
Speaking to a group of Christian ministers on January 27, Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris stated: "We are growing Christian community -- and don't let anybody shy away from that." And Councilwoman Sherry Marquez has been criticized for posting biblical references on her Facebook site encouraging Christians to defend themselves -- along with quotes from Muslim leaders exhorting followers to convert the world to Islam.
Now, according to the Antelope Valley Press, the local human relations task force will convene on Monday evening to discuss whether those remarks could potentially be "hate incidents." Darren Parker, chairman of the task force, tells the newspaper that if the mayor's comments are so deemed, "a complaint will be made to the [federal] Justice Department" and to state and county district attorneys.
In addition, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has filed a federal civil rights complaint over Parris's comments. CAIR says the mayor violated the civil rights of non-Christians by stating, during his annual State of the City address, that Lancaster was "growing a Christian community." (See earlier story)
CAIR says the mayor should not have used his official capacity at the event to advance a particular religion. Parris has told a Los Angeles newspaper that would "absolutely not" apologize for his remarks.
Marquez posted comments on her Facebook page in reaction to a New York trial involving a Muslim man who had been charged with second-degree murder for allegedly beheading his wife, who was seeking a divorce. Like Mayor Parris, the councilwoman has refrained from apologizing for her comments, but she has apologized to her follow council members for any problems it may have caused them.
China's debt bomb
America's No. 1 creditor holds the ultimate weapon
By ARTHUR HERMAN
'He who pays the piper calls the tune": That old saying captures perfectly America's growing dependence on our No. 1 creditor in the world, Communist China.
By their carelessness Congress and the Obama administration are steadily handing over control of America's economic and financial future to a handful of Chinese officials and generals in Beijing. Those who think the Chinese won't use that control if they feel they have to are ignoring history -- and the Chinese.
The ancient military strategist Sun Tzu said that the best strategy was to render an opponent's army helpless even before the battle began. America may still have the biggest and best military in the world.
But many at the Pentagon are starting to realize that, thanks to our growing fiscal irresponsibility, we may be surrendering control of America's destiny to a rival superpower -- and all without a shot being fired.
Consider the scale of the problem.
With President Obama's 2010 budget, 42 cents of every dollar the federal government spends will have to be borrowed. In the last decade, foreign investors have wound up lending us roughly half of all federal debt -- with just two countries, China and Japan, providing nearly half of that sum, or 44 percent, through the purchase of US Treasury securities.
China now tops Japan as our biggest lender by some $30 billion a year, at $789 billion. (By comparison, our No. 3 lender, Great Britain, comes in at a measly $277 billion).
But that's not all. As its booming economy becomes more global, China is also the world's largest holder of foreign-currency reserves. Most of that is in US dollars. Indeed, without most Americans realizing it, China has become the largest foreign holder of US dollars in the world. How many dollars foreign exchange traders at the Bank of China decide to sell or buy on any given day is increasingly determining whether the dollars in our purses and wallets buy a little or a lot.
Seen from one angle, this dependence on China for the value of our national currency and the funding of our debt is like our dependence on inexpensive Chinese exports for our standard of living: the inevitable fruit of today's interlocking global economies -- and poor planning on our part.
Seen from another, more strategic angle, it may spell disaster.
History shows that nations that can't control their economic fortunes don't control much else. Debt freezes destinies -- as every credit-card holder knows.
Europeans discovered that after World War II, when they lost the power to make major decisions without first checking with their lender-in-chief, the United States. At that time, we used our economic dominance to rebuild Europe, not reduce it to impotence.
On the other hand, If US-China relations continue to deteriorate -- over arms sales to Taiwan, Internet freedom issues, Chinese industrial espionage and a Chinese military build-up that looks more and more like it's directed at challenging US power in Asia -- our lenders-in-chief in Beijing may not be so scrupulous.
Indeed, back in 1999, the Chinese literally wrote the book on how to use economic asymmetries as a blunt instrument, entitled "Unrestricted Warfare."
It draws no meaningful distinction between military, economic and political force (including using cyberspace) as means to defeat an enemy. Instead, it shows how a nation can dominate its opponents not with planes, ships and soldiers, but with foreign exchange rates, trade embargoes and armies of computer hackers.
Eating our lunch: Female workers in the southern Chinese city of Dongguan assemble telephones for export to the United States. The vast trade imbalance has left China the largest foreign holder of US dollars.
Suppose that in retaliation for some slight China decides to stop buying Treasury bonds, forcing our debt to cost us even more. A furious US Congress hits back with trade sanctions. China then responds by driving up the price of the dollar, crippling US exports -- or, alternately, it crashes the dollar by dumping its foreign reserves, even as Chinese computer hackers slow down our banks' ability to respond to the crisis.
No one will call this a war. But it will certainly fit the classic definition of war as politics by other means. And the Pentagon knows it.
Last March, the Pentagon held its first-ever economic-warfare war game, with China as the putative opponent and with economists and bankers (including from UBS) helping out.
Details of what unfolded are still classified. However, sources told Fox Business News that the scenario played out as planned. That was the good news.
The bad news is that China won.
Today, some experts argue that rational self-interest will prevent China from waging this kind of economic warfare, because crippling the US would also severely wound its own economy. However, on an issue like Taiwan or Japan, rational judgment can take a backseat to national pride, and the desire to reverse old humiliations.
That war game was almost a year ago, when the Federal deficit was half of what it is today. And China is moving out of its short-term debt positions -- although slowly enough not to roil the credit markets.
In any case, Bracken and others argue that we need more coordination between the Treasury and the Pentagon on ways to deal with a vulnerability that seemed entirely theoretical then, but now seems all too real. Still others are pushing for rules restricting the future sales of Treasury securities to foreign buyers.
All this, however, is only playing catch up. The real issue is whether we get our fiscal house in order, and realize that a $12 trillion national debt and a crippled economy could leave us as vulnerable as we once were on a December Sunday morning 69 years ago, at Pearl Harbor in 1941.
Arthur Herman's most recent book, "Gandhi and Churchill," was a Pulitzer Prize finalist last year.
Obama's new pick: Gov. of state that linked Christians, violence
Missouri report tied 'domestic terrorists' with opposition to abortion, immigration
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Missouri Gov. Nixon
President Obama has picked to advise him on military actions inside the U.S. the Missouri governor whose state "Information Analysis Center" last year linked conservative organizations to domestic terrorism and said law enforcement officers should watch for suspicious individuals who may have bumper stickers from Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin.
Missouri Gov. Jeremiah Nixon, a Democrat, is being joined on the Obama's special advisory panel by the governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno, and Arizona Gov. Janice Brewer, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's replacement when she moved to Washington.
They are among Obama's nominations for the 10 positions on Obama's new "Council of Governors" that he will use for advice on "military activities in the United States."
WND reported earlier when Obama announced the council to advise on military actions in the U.S. and "to protect our nation against all types of hazards."
A subsequent WND report confirmed when a rebellion developed to the order, and a new push was launched for states to adopt laws limiting the use of their National Guard units unless there is an invasion, insurrection or other limited circumstance.
The original announcement said the new council is to include governors and administration officials to review "such matters as involving the National Guard of the various states; homeland defense, civil support; synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."
However, there was no definition of the group's authority. Can the council recommend "military activities" and can the governors, who already are in command of their own state guard units, mandate activities outside of their areas of jurisdiction? The White House did not respond to WND questions on the issue.
A new announcement from the White House lists Nixon as one of the nominees.
"He is responsible for operating Missouri's innovative fusion center, the Missouri Information Analysis Center," the announcement confirmed.
It was in 2009 when the MIAC issued a report that not only linked conservative groups to domestic terrorism and warned law enforcement to watch for vehicles with bumper stickers promoting Paul and Baldwin, it also warned police to watch out for individuals with "radical" ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes.
Ultimately, Chief James Keathley of the Missouri State Patrol said the release of the report caused him to review the procedures through which the report was released.
"My review of the procedures used by the MIAC in the three years since its inception indicates that the mechanism in place for oversight of reports needs improvement," he said at the time. "Until two weeks ago, the process for release of reports from the MIAC to law enforcement officers around the state required no review by leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol or the Department of Public Safety."
He said the report warning about those who hold Christian views was "created by a MIAC employee, reviewed by the MIAC director, and sent immediately to law enforcement agencies across Missouri. The militia report was never reviewed by me or by the Director of Public Safety, John Britt, at any point prior to its issuance. Had that report been reviewed by either my office or by leaders of the Department of Public Safety, it would never have been released to law enforcement agencies."
Keathley said the report simply "does not meet" the needed standard for "intelligence." So he ordered its distribution to be halted.
But that warning had prompted Americans for Legal Immigration to issue a "national advisory" against relying on any such reports.
The Missouri document, it said, "attempted to politicize police and cast suspicion on millions of Americans. The 'Missouri Documents,' as they came to be called, listed over 32 characteristics police should watch for as signs or links to domestic terrorists, which could threaten police officers, court officials, and infrastructure targets.
"Police were instructed to look for Americans who were concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living, gun restrictions, FEMA, the IRS, The Federal Reserve, and the North American Union/SPP/North American Community. The 'Missouri Documents' also said potential domestic terrorists might like gun shows, short wave radios, combat movies, movies with white male heroes, Tom Clancey novels, and Presidential Candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin!" ALIPAC wrote.
"When many of us read these Missouri Documents we felt that the false connections, pseudo research, and political attacks found in these documents could have been penned by the SPLC and ADL," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "We were shocked to see credible law enforcement agencies disseminating the same kind of over the top political propaganda distributed by these groups."
The Missouri situation was just the tip of the iceberg, however. WND reported only weeks later when a Department of Homeland Security report warned against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singled out returning war veterans as particular threats.
The report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, 2009, stated that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."
However, the document, first reported by talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock, went on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."
The report from DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis defined right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
Most notable was the report's focus on the impact of returning war veterans.
"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," it said. "DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities."
Now Gov. Nixon will advise Obama on those military and National Guard actions inside the U.S.
"I am pleased that these governors of exceptional experience have agreed to join the Council of Governors," Obama said in the newest White House announcement. "This bipartisan team strengthens the partnership between our state governments and the federal government when it comes to ensuring our national preparedness and homeland defense."
"I look forward to working with them in the years ahead," Obama said of the council, which was created Jan. 11 by his executive order.
The nominees are:
Gov. James H. Douglas of Vermont, a Republican who is chairman of the National Governors Association. He established his state's Homeland Security Advisory Council to review its security policies.
Gov. Chris Gregoire of Washington, a Democrat who is on the National Governors Association executive committee as well as its special committee on Homeland Security.
Gov. Janice Brewer of Arizona, a Republican who took office when Napolitano was named Homeland Security secretary. She served on the governor's Military Task Force dealing with base closures.
Gov. Luis Fortuna of Puerto Rico, a Republican who is on the National Governors Association Economic Development and Commerce Committee.
Gov. Brad Henry of Oklahoma, a Democrat on the Education, Early Childhood and Workforce committee for the governors association
Gov. Robert McDonnell of Virginia, a Republican elected last year. He is on the governors' Health and Human Services committee.
Gov. Jeremiah Nixon of Missouri, a Democrat on the governors' Health and Human Services Committee who operates his state's fusion center, the Missouri Information Analysis Center.
Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland, a Democrat who serves on the governors' committee on Education, Early Childhood and Workforce as well as its committee on Homeland Security.
Gov. Beverly Eaves Perdue of North Carolina, a Democrat who is a lead governor for the National Guard. She's on the governors' Economic Development and Commerce committee as well as the committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety.
Gov. Michael Rounds of South Dakota, a Republican who previously headed the Western Governors Association.
The rebellion to Obama's plans regarding the Council of Governors had come from the Tenth Amendment Center, which is recommending a model legislation that states can use to limit the activities of their own National Guard members.
The model legislation states: "The governor shall withhold or withdraw approval of the transfer of the National Guard to federal control in the absence of: a) A military invasion of the United States, or b) An insurrection, or c) A calling forth of the guard by the federal government in a manner provided for by Congress to execute the laws of the union, provided that said laws were made in pursuance of the delegated powers in the Constitution of the United States, or d) A formal declaration of war from Congress."
The organization said the requests to state legislatures already have begun with a letter on the issue dispatched by Walt Garlington, founder of the Louisiana State Sovereignty Committee, to state Rep. Brett F. Geymann.
The model legislation proposed by the Tenth Amendment Center says the law is, "For the purpose of requiring the governor to withhold or withdraw approval of the transfer of this state's National Guard to federal control in the absence of an explicit authorization adopted by the federal government in pursuance of the powers delegated to the federal government in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the U.S. Constitution."
Los Angeles Times blogger Andrew Malcolm poked fun at the announcement, writing Obama "has determined that, a) there is an insufficient number of advisory bodies among the gazillion already in existence for the federal government in general and said president and his White House specifically."
Obama also, Malcolm said, "chooses to ignore the existence of the National Governors Assn., the Republican Governors Assn., the Democratic Governors Assn. and the secure telephones within arms-reach of virtually everywhere said president chooses to sit and/or recline."
Ultimately, he said, Obama has decided, "One more meaningless advisory body probably couldn't hurt anything, and might actually look good."
At Canada Free Press, commentary writer Judi McLeod said, "Like the 30-plus czars running America with neither the people's nor the Congress's blessings, the Council of Governors is already a done deal."
Blogger Nicholas Contompasis suggested it was the "first step towards martial law in America" because it sets up the "use of federal troops and the combination of state and federal agencies under the Defense Department."
Participants on his forum page said the order appears to be in defiance of posse comitatus, which restricts U.S. military action within the United States. One contributor noted the order talks about "hazards" but then addresses only military hazards.
"The very notion of the executive branch (good intentions or not) issuing executive orders/presidential directives that apply to anything or anyone not specifically within the executive branch is tyrannical," the forum participant said.
This is what the terrorists did to me -- and why they should be tried at Gitmo
By LOUIS PEPE
President Obama finally listened to the outcry of New York, and is considering moving the trial of 9/11 terrorist Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other al Qaeda members out of the city, perhaps to Guantanamo Bay.
Finally, some wisdom.
It would be better there. It's military. They're not going to mess around. These dangerous terrorists will not be allowed to spread their hate, or hurt anyone else.
Nobody knows better than me.
I was a federal prison guard at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan. In 2000, I was with a prisoner, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, taking him back to his cell. His cellmate was Khalfan Khamis Mohamed. They were accused of bombing two embassies in Africa in 1998. Later they said that they worked with Osama bin Laden and that they helped set up al Qaeda.
We were back at their cell. It's only me and those two guys. No supervisors. Just the three of us. Somehow, they slipped out of their handcuffs.
They sprayed me with some kind of hot sauce. I couldn't see. They pulled me into the cell and hit me — boom, boom. They hit me so much, I swear to God, like a hundred times.
I hit my radio. I thought help would come.
They wanted the keys for the other prisoners, but they couldn't find them. They were in my front pocket. I used to be big, 300 pounds, and I was laying on them. I gave them my car keys.
About halfway through, they used a comb — thick and long, about 10 inches, with a handle. They'd taken the teeth out and sharpened it like a knife.
They put it in my left eye. It went three inches into my brain.
Nobody came. I kept calling and nothing. I was in there with them for an hour. It was f- - -ed up.
With my blood, they made the sign of the cross on my chest because they thought I was dead.
Finally, 12 guards came to my aid. They said they had the wrong keys.
When it was over, I got up and walked down toward the infirmary. I wanted to show them I could do it.
I thought I would go to a doctor right away. They kept me at the infirmary.
Finally, I was taken to Bellevue. I thought I was dead. I went into a coma.
They did surgery. I lost my left eye and suffered some brain damage. It was like I had a stroke.
For two years, I couldn't speak. I couldn't write. I couldn't walk. My right eye is perfect — straight ahead. But I can't see to the side. It's like a horse with blinders.
It's better now. I have a gym in my apartment in Coney Island. I do 500 sit-ups a day. I have a speech therapist and a massage therapist. I get up at 3 in the morning, eat some breakfast, cereal and a banana. I can dress myself.
But for 10 years, I was pretty much in isolation. Now I can walk a little. I go to the boardwalk twice a day. I have a cellphone and sometimes talk to girls. I'm 52. I'd like to have a girlfriend, maybe a baby.
And I have my family — my mom, my sister. They're right here. I have a nice home.
I'm not really friends with the other guards. They know they messed up.
Do you know they never found the handcuffs for Salim? After the attack, his set was not there. They still don't know where the cuffs went 10 years later. It looks very stupid.
They won't give out the results of the investigation into the attack. I think there's something fishy.
I'm still afraid of Salim. When I was in the hospital, there were death threats. Salim wants to do something one more time.
These people want to kill and go to Allah and have 10 girls. That's just the way they are.
They want to become martyrs. They want jihad. They want to kill people. And that's all they want.
Federal prison officials are still naive. They give these terrorists toothbrushes, squirt bottles, items that can be used as weapons. Caught up by political correctness, they let them out of handcuffs to pray, leaving guards unprotected.
It's going to happen again — unless the trial gets moved to where it belongs, a military prison.
We don't need Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York City. President Obama should do the right thing and keep him at Guantanamo Bay.
"The e-mail Bag"
How many rednecks does it take to eat a 'possum?
Two. One to eat, and one to watch for cars.
Why did God invent armadillos?
So that rednecks can have 'possum on the halfshell.
Two Tennesseans are walking down different ends of a street toward each other. One is carrying a sack. When they meet, one says, "Hey Tommy Ray, whatcha got in the bag?"
"Just some chickens."
"If I guess how many there are, can I have one?"
"Heck, I'll give you both of them!"