“Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty “

These familiar words from the Apostle Paul come from his teaching to the Corinthians that Christ has taken away the vail and given us real freedom and liberty, both individually and as a people (2 Cor. 3:16-17). In doing this He became the Redeemer of the whole world, of all mankind, of each individual soul living on the face of the earth. No other religion or belief, outside Christianity, teaches a doctrine like this. No other religion teaches of a personal, individual Savior whose atonement brought about the possibility of forgiveness, freedom, and liberty for each and every individual. Liberty and freedom from what? –from the bondage and guilt of individual sin and transgression; from the wages of sin which is death; from the grasp of that awful monster who would bind us down in everlasting chains. Freedom from these oppressions is the highest form of liberty. In the words of the song, “America”, written by Samuel Adams in 1832, the fourth verse begins, “Our father’s G od, to Thee, Author of Liberty…, is an expression of our true heritage and where all liberty originates.

Early Colonizers of America Sought Liberty for the Soul

Author Chris Esseltine describes the hunger of the soul that began to develop in people during the reformation in Europe:

“As a result of the spirit of life resulting from the Western Awakening, combined with the power of the Word, people began to see mankind differently than they had before. During the Dark Ages and the Medieval period, man was thought of as something corrupt, sinful, dangerous, and worth very little. The common belief was that only a few select persons (the ones with the power) were good enough to lead others and eventually be saved in Heaven. But as people began reading the Bible, reading some Classical literature, and as they were enlightened with new awakening life, the view of human beings started to change dramatically.

“For the first time in centuries, man was seen as a real individual, instead of just one more part of the state or the church. The individual became important and so did his or her needs, wants, and happiness. The individual human finally had dignity, value, respect. Much of this new insight came from the Bible, where the value of mankind is taught repeatedly. For example, in Luke 9:56 Jesus taught that He ‘…is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ He also taught later that ‘…there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.’ (Luke 15:10) Isaiah explains the reason for this. He proclaimed that man was ‘…more precious than fine gold.’ (Isaiah 13:12)

“Paul taught that the Lord ‘…will have ALL MEN to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.’ (1 Timothy 2:4, capitals and italics added) This great Apostle also taught that ‘The Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God : And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.’ (Romans 8:16-17) So, the biblical idea that all men and women can be saved through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and that each member of the human family is literally a son or daughter of God with divine inheritance and potential, caused people to abandon the old ideas that mankind was worthless for the correct view that mankind was instead good, productive, and capable of great achievement.

“With the development of the belief that each individual was valuable, good, and independent came the idea that no person should be forced to think, believe, or act according to the will of an unjust ruler. Every individual had the right to seek and discover according to his own conscience without fear of interference or punishment from earthly authority. This did not mean that a person has the right to do anything they wanted; law was given to keep people from harming others. But within the bounds of God’s Law, a person must be free to choose.

“The development of this belief gave birth to the Separatist spirit. This is the spirit of individualism, of the right to personal choice, of liberty of conscience. It is called the ‘Separatist’ spirit because it moved reformers to ‘separate’ themselves from several things – old ideas and traditions, corrupt churches, abusive governments, and anything that was not true to Christ, His Gospel, and His liberty.”

Christianity Will Stand On Its Own Merits

The Separatist Founders knew that pure Christianity, as it was taught by Jesus, would thrive on its own merits. It does not need the force of government to sustain it. It is not afraid of competition from other religions or philosophies for converts to its teachings. Once the Spirit bears testimony to the sincere, truth-seeking soul of the divinity and mission of Jesus Christ, all other things take second place. The Word has revolutionary power. It will change hearts. It will change people. It will change governments. It will change the world.

One of the amazing things about pure Christianity is that it requires no force to bring about change. It is so silent, so gentle, so calming and yet so persuasive that without the use of force it proves to be the most powerful means to change the hearts of men. It is revolutionary in nature, not because it uses force of arms, but because converted souls will embrace it at the cost of their own lives.

But pure Christianity does need one thing to survive-Freedom of Conscience. Men must be allowed to embrace it if they so choose. Hence the need for a government to guarantee freedom of religion. Government must be kept from either establishing religious beliefs and doctrine or preventing religious doctrines from being believed and lived.

American Constitution Written to Protect Man’s Right
to Believe According to His Conscience

With the firm conviction, then, that Christianity will abound in a society where tolerance for all beliefs will be maintained, the Founders set about creating “the greatest piece of work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.” (William E. Gladstone). It is known as the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution so divides, limits, and balances the power of government that the sacred right to worship as one chooses cannot be interfered with. Just to make sure, the Founders added the First Amendment which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The United States of America has become known as the most tolerant nation in the world. It is tolerant to all kinds of religious beliefs. A person may form his own church. He may proselyte for members. He may ask for financial support from its members. He may build church buildings and, in the name of the church receive exemptions from taxation. A Hindu or Buddhist may practice his religion in America. A Jew may practice his religion in America. A Muslim may practice his religion in America. A person is even protected in having no belief at all. As long as religion is not used as a cover for the violation of the rights of others, any religious belief is allowed to be practiced in America. And in America each believer may proselyte for his own faith.

It is interesting to note that all of this freedom to believe and to act grows out of pure Christianity which is the foundation of America. No other belief system in the world will even allow this degree of tolerance for others.

America ‘s Most Sublime Message Is The Message of Christmas

If we really understood the impact the message of Christ’s birth could have on the world, Americans would do much more to help the rest of the world enjoy Christ’s most bounteous blessings.

Dr. Skousen reminds us of how it all began 2000 years ago:

“Only about a mile distant, hovering over the outskirts of Bethlehem, were certain angels preparing to make their presence known. Below them were a group of humble shepherds, abiding in the fields and watching their flocks by night. These had been chosen to see a marvelous vision that they would be talking about the rest of their lives.

“It all commenced the moment Mary’s precious infant was born. Immediately, the shepherds saw the veil of mortality sheared back, and an angel stood before them with a glory that bathed the surrounding terrain in a radiant light.

“The shepherds thought they would be consumed and shrank back in fright, but the angel said:

‘Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

‘For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

‘And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.’

At that moment the hosts of heaven could no longer be restrained. The majestic choir of thousands of heavenly voices burst into song. It appears that these vast angelic choirs must have repeated one line of the song several times because the shepherds never forgot it. They remembered how the angels sang:

‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.’

“When the vision closed, the shepherds left immediately to go into Bethlehem and seek out the location of the child “lying in a manger.” Perhaps the flickering flame of an olive oil lamp sent its rays into the night to guide them to the stable’s portals.

“As the shepherds stood watching Joseph, Mary, and the baby, they saw that the little one was indeed wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger. There is no record of any conversation. Perhaps they just looked.

“What they saw was a humble Galilean peasant and his wife with a newborn child. There were no halos of light about their heads, no visible cherubim. Nevertheless, with the glory of the angels still fresh in their minds, the shepherds looked upon the sleeping child with devotion and awe. Jesus Christ had entered mortality!”

Have a meaningful, memorable Christmas season.

Sincerely,

Earl Taylor, Jr.

The Thanksgiving Proclamation by George Washington

The Thanksgiving Proclamation

of the

United States

signed by

George Washington


By
the President

of the

United States of America

a Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the  providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits,  and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee” requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of mighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th. day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service  of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful  knowledge and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether
in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties  properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best:

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of
October in the year of our Lord 1789.

G. Washington


From the original in the writing of William Jackson. It was
signed by Washington, who had written in the day “third” in the date.

This was the first national Thanksgiving Day proclamation
under the Constitution.

 

The U. S. Constitution and Sharia Law

Throughout the history of this world there really have only been two kinds of law. We have given these systems of law very descriptive and easy names to remember. They are Rulers’ Law and People’s Law. Every legal system can fit under one of these two broad banners. Under Ruler’s Law, the king or dictator makes the law. Under People’s Law, the people make or accept the law by which they live. It is interesting that some of the most dominant kinds of legal systems have come about when it is claimed to emanate from God. Under Ruler’s Law, if the ruler can make the people believe he has a divine right to rule, he can persuade the people to do about anything and the use of force becomes acceptable to many people if done in the name of God. Under People’s Law, as was the case in Ancient Israel, when the people accepted Jehovah as their King and accepted His laws as their laws, it had a powerful persuasiveness to right actions. The major differe nce was that there was no use of force. Not even God would force a leader or laws on a people they did not willingly accept, because He respects the agency of man. Religion has been a powerful force throughout history in either types of law.

In following the example of Ancient Israel, America’s Founders set forth laws based on the laws of nature and of nature’s God. It has catapulted the United States to an unmatched position as the most prosperous and freest nation on earth.

Now we are faced with the same kind of threat that has been seen in the past-a system of compulsory laws which has the use of force at its very core and which claims to emanate from God. It is called Sharia Law.

In 2010, an exhaustive study was published by a group of top security policy experts concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as Shariah. The study was designed to provide a “second opinion” on the official assessments of this threat as put forth by the United States government, which assessments included co-existence, accommodation, and even submission. By permission, much of the following is taken from this study.

What is Sharia?

The Arabic word “shariah,” according to one modern English-language student textbook on Islam, “literally means a straight path (Quran 45:18) or an endless supply of water. It is the term used to describe the rules of the lifestyle ordained by Allah. In more practical terms, shariah includes all the do’s and don’ts of Islam.” In other words, shariah is held by mainstream Islamic authorities – not to be confused with “radical,” “extremist” or “political” elements said to operate at the fringes of Islam – to be the perfect expression of divine will and justice and thus is the supreme law that must comprehensively govern all aspects of Muslims’ lives, irrespective of when or where they live. Shariah is characterized as a “complete way of life” (social, cultural, military, religious, and political), governed from cradle to grave by Islamic law.

While there are a few additional sources for sharia, the most notable and authoritative is the Quran. In Islamic parlance, the Quran is considered to be the uncreated word of Allah. According to Muslim belief, it has existed since the beginning of time and was revealed by the Archangel Gabriel in the 7th Century to the Prophet Mohammed in the Arabic language of his homeland. It is interesting to note that the verses in the Quran are not compiled in chronological order of revelations but are organized from longest to shortest. This presents confusion in trying to read the Quran. Also, there is really no central authority to clarify or interpret the versus, so many are left to their own understanding of the writings.

While many, many millions of Muslims around the world do not practice their faith in a manner consistent with shariah, those who do practice shariah have grounds for arguing that their version of Islam is the authoritative one because of the Islamic doctrine of abrogation-which holds that the later verses supersedes or abrogates the earlier ones. As a result, the later verses become much more violent and forceful in relation to non-Muslims. For example:

“Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Q 9:5)

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the people of the Book [meaning Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [taxes on non-Muslims] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Q 9:29)

Shariah is Anti-Constitutional

Whether pursued through the violent form of jihad (holy war) or stealthier practices that shariah Islamists often refer to as “dawa” (the “call to Islam”), shariah rejects fundamental premises of American society and values:

  1. the bedrock proposition that the governed have a right to make law for themselves;

  2. the democratic republic governed by the Constitution;

  3. freedom of conscience; individual liberty

  4. freedom of expression (including the liberty to analyze and criticize shariah);

  5. economic liberty (including private property);

  6. equal treatment under the law (including that of men and women, and of Muslims and non-Muslims);

  7. freedom from cruel and unusual punishments; an unequivocal condemnation of terrorism (i.e., one that is based on a common sense meaning of the term and does not rationalize barbarity as legitimate “resistance”); and

  8. an abiding commitment to deflate and resolve political controversies by the ordinary mechanisms of our democratic republic, not wanton violence. The subversion campaign known as “civilization jihad” must not be confused with, or tolerated as, a constitutionally protected form of religious practice. Its ambitions transcend what American law recognizes as the sacrosanct realm of private conscience and belief. It seeks to supplant our Constitution with its own totalitarian framework.

America’s Founders and Islam

America’s earliest presidents best understood these founding principles. They were not only deeply involved with their formal adoption, but they were professionally competent in explaining them. When confronted with an Islamic threat, they took the effort to consult primary sources and to conduct competent analysis of that threat.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, ambassador to France, and John Adams, ambassador to England, met with the emissary of the Islamic potentates of Tripoli to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, regarding the demands for tribute being made at the time by the so-called Barbary Pirates.

Afterwards, Jefferson and Adams sent a four-page report to the Congress describing this meeting. The relevant portion of their report reads:

“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

“The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

John Adams’ son and our sixth president, John Quincy Adams, whose formative years coincided with the founding of the republic, offers further insights into the early presidents’ views on this subject. Like many Americans, he took an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, when faced with an Islamic enemy, he understood his obligation to be educated on the factual aspects of the principles, doctrines, objectives, jurisprudence and theology of shariah that comprised his enemy’s threat doctrine.

John Quincy Adams’ 136-page series of essays on Islam displayed a clear understanding of the threat facing America then – and now, especially from the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad and dhimmitude. Regarding these two topics, Adams states:

“…[Mohammed] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…. The precept of the Quran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that [Mohammed] is the prophet of God.

“The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute. As the essential principle of [Mohammed's] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.

“The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

“This appeal to the natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Quran. The document [the Quran] does not attempt to disguise it, nor even pretend that the enmity of those whom it styles the infidels, is any other than the necessary consequence of the hatred borne by the Mussulmen to them – the paragraph itself, is a forcible example of the contrasted character of the two religions.

“The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike – all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war – it has softened the features of slavery – it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from  a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse.”

In conclusion, it is clear from the writings of several of our earliest presidents, as well as the texts of the nation’s founding documents, that American principles are not at odds with – and imperiled by – some “radical” or “extreme” version of Islam. Rather, it is the mainstream doctrine of shariah that constitutes the threat to the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it enshrines. That incompatibility has several practical implications: For one thing, the shariah legal code cannot be insinuated into America – even through stealthy means or democratic processes – without violating the Constitution’s Article VI Supremacy Clause, which requires that the Constitution “shall be the supreme Law of the land.”

Even more reprehensible is the willingness of some among America’s elites, and it would appear even a subset of its elected leaders, to accede to these groups’ increasingly insistent contention that shariah is compatible with the U.S. Constitution. In fact, based on shariah’s tenets, its core attributes – especially its intolerance of other faiths and disfavored populations and its bid for supremacy over all other legal or political systems, there can be no confusion on this score: As the Framers fully understood, shariah is an enemy of the United States Constitution. The two are incompatible.

Sincerely,

Earl Taylor, Jr.

Source: Guandolo, John; Gaffney, Frank; Lopez, Clare; McCarthy, Andrew; Cooper, Henry; Brim, Christine; Del Rosso, Michael; Coughlin, Stephen; Woolsey, Jim; Boykin, William (2010-09-22). Shariah: The Threat to America. Center for Security Policy Press. Kindle Edition.

In honor of Veterans Day here is a poem worth reading!

~ Author unknown ~

He was getting old and paunchy
And his hair was falling fast,
And he sat around the Legion,
Telling stories of the past.

Of a war that he once fought in
And the deeds that he had done,
In his exploits with his buddies;
They were heroes, every one.

And ‘tho sometimes to his neighbors
His tales became a joke,
All his buddies listened quietly
For they knew where
of he spoke.

But we’ll hear his tales no longer,
For old Bob has passed away,
And the world’s a little poorer
For a Soldier died today.

He won’t be mourned by many,
Just his children and his wife.
For he lived an ordinary,
Very quiet sort of life.

He held a job and raised a family,
Going quietly on his way;
And the world won’t note his passing,
Tho a Soldier died today.

When politicians leave this earth,
Their bodies lie in state.
While thousands note their passing,
And proclaim that they were great.

Papers tell of their life stories
From the time that they were young.
But the passing of a Soldier
Goes unnoticed, and unsung.

Is the greatest contribution
To the welfare of our land,
Someone who breaks his promise
And cons his fellow man?

Or the ordinary fellow
Who in times of war and strife,
Goes off to serve his country
And offers up his life?

The politician’s stipend
And the style in which he lives,
Are often disproportionate,
To the service that he gives.

While the ordinary Soldier,
Who offered up his all,
Is paid off with a medal
And perhaps a pension, though small.

It is not the politicians
With their compromise and ploys,
Who won for us the freedom
That our country now enjoys.

Should you find yourself in danger,
With your enemies at hand,
Would you really want some cop-out,
With his ever waffling stand?

Or would you want a Soldier–
His home, his country, his kin,
Just a common Soldier,
Who would fight until the end?

He was just a common Soldier,
And his ranks are growing thin,
But his presence should remind us
We may need his like again.

For when countries are in conflict,
We find the Soldier’s part,
Is to clean up all the troubles
That the politicians start.

If we cannot do him honor
While he’s here to hear the praise,
Then at least let’s give him homage
At the ending of his days.

Perhaps just a simple headline
In the paper that might say:
“OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING,
A SOLDIER DIED TODAY.”


Patriotism – Pass it on!

A Speech Every American High School Principal Should Give.

We watched high school Principal Dennis Prager of Colorado, along with Sara Palin and Tom Brokaw on TV a couple of weeks ago….what a dynamic, down to earth speaker. Even though Palin and Brokaw were also guest speakers they did little but nod and agree with him. This is the guy that should be running for President in 2012!

A Speech Every American High School Principal Should Give.

By Dennis Prager.

To the students and faculty of our high school:

I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.

I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers and against our country.

First, this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships. The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity — your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this
school will care about is American. This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans. If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere. We will end all ethnicity, race and non-American nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America, one of its three central values — e pluribus Unum, “from many, one.” And this school will be guided by America’s values. This includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.

Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism — an unhealthy preoccupation with the self — while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry and more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine
being interested in are those based on ethnic, racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.

Second, I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and
writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America’s citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of
the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country. And if you leave this school without excellent English language
skills, I would be remiss in my duty to ensure that you will be prepared to successfully compete in the American job market. We will learn other languages
here — it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English –but if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not
your school.

Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning’s elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for Hollywood events than for church or school. These people have their priorities backward. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.

Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school’s property — whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can’t speak without using the f-word, you can’t speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission, plus epithets such as “Nigger,” even when used by one black student to address another black, or  “bitch,” even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few your age to instinctively distinguish between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.

Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way — the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago — by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight. Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will be devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue… There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates this school and does not consider him or her inordinately lucky — to be alive and to be an American.

Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.

 

The very first public singing of the song “GOD BLESS AMERICA”

 Irving Berlin wrote this song in 1917 for use during WWI. The reason he did not release it then was
he thought it “too saccharine,” (sentimental) even for the horrific inferno that was WWI.

The link below will take you to a video showing the very first public singing of GOD BLESS AMERICA. But, before
you watch, you should also know the story of the song. The time was 1940.

America was still in a terrible economic depression. Hitler was taking over Europe and Americans were afraid
we’d have to go to war. It was a time of hardship and worry for most Americans.

This was the era just before TV, when radio shows were HUGE and American families sat around their radios in the
evenings, listening to their favorite entertainers, and no entertainer of that era was bigger than Kate Smith. Kate was also large in size, and the popular phrase still used today is in deference to her, “It Ain’t over till the fat lady sings.”

Kate Smith might not have made it big in the age of TV, but with her voice coming over the radio, she was the biggest
star of her time. Kate was also very patriotic. It hurt her to see Americans so depressed and afraid of what the next day would bring. She had hope for America, and faith in her fellow Americans.

She wanted to do something to cheer them up, so she went to the famous American song-writer, Irving Berlin (also
wrote “White Christmas”) and asked him to write a song that would make Americans feel good again about their country. When she described what she was looking for, he said he had just the song for her. He went to his files and found a song that he had written, but never published, 22 years before – way back in 1917. He gave it to Kate Smith and she worked on it with her studio
orchestra. She and Irving Berlin were not sure how the song would be received by the public, but both agreed they would not take any profits from “God Bless America”; any profits would go to the Boy Scouts of America. Over the years, the Boy Scouts have received millions of dollars in royalties from this song.

This video starts out with Kate Smith coming into the radio studio with the orchestra and an audience. She introduces
the new song for the very first time, and starts singing. After the first couple verses, with her voice in the background still singing, scenes are shown from the 1940 movie, “You’re In The Army Now.” At the 4:20 mark of the video you see a young actor in the movie, sitting in an office, reading a paper; it is Ronald Reagan. Frank Sinatra considered Kate Smith the best singer of her
time, and said when he and a million other guys first heard her sing “God Bless America” on the radio, they all pretended to have dust in their eyes, as they wiped away a tear or two.

To this day, “God Bless America” stirs our patriotic feelings and pride in our country. Back in 1940, When Kate Smith went looking for a song to raise the spirits of her fellow Americans; I doubt she realized just how successful the results would be for her fellow
Americans during those years of hardship and worry, and for many generations of Americans to follow.

Now that you know the story of the song, I hope you will enjoy it and treasure it even more.

NOW HERE IS HOW “GOD BLESS AMERICA” SHOULD BE SUNG!

http://www.israpundit.com/archives/31462?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d078e57bb39ba8d,0

 

1ST PUBLIC NEWSPAPER TO CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT!

THE WASHINGTON TIMES – 1ST PUBLIC NEWSPAPER TO CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT

President’s socialist takeover must be stopped

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
The Washington Times

President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.

He is slowly – piece by painful piece – erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there – yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela ‘s leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above – one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It’s time for him to go.

He has abused his office and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. His health care overhaul was rammed through Congress. It was – and remains – opposed by a majority of the people. It could only be passed through bribery and political intimidation. The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the $5 billion Medicaid set-aside for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson – taxpayer money was used as a virtual slush fund to buy swing votes. Moreover, the law is blatantly unconstitutional: The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power.

Yet Obamacare’s most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens. Traditionalists – evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Orthodox Jews – have been made complicit in an abomination that goes against their deepest religious values. As the law is implemented (as in Pennsylvania ) the consequences of the abortion provisions will become increasingly apparent. The result will be a cultural civil war. Pro-lifers will become deeply alienated from society; among many, a secession of the heart is taking place.

Mr. Obama is waging a frontal assault on property rights. The BP oil spill is a case in point. BP clearly is responsible for the spill and its massive economic and environmental damage to the Gulf. There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia ‘s Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee. In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda. Billions will be dispensed arbitrarily in compensation to oil-spill victims – much of it to Democratic constituents. This is cronyism and creeping authoritarianism.

Mr. Obama’s multicultural socialism seeks to eradicate traditional America . He has created a command-and-control health care system. He has essentially nationalized the big banks, the financial sector, the automakers and the student loan industry. He next wants to pass “cap-and-trade,” which would bring industry and manufacturing under the heel of big government. The state is intervening in every aspect of American life – beyond its constitutionally delegated bounds. Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper.

To provide the shock troops for his socialist takeover, Mr. Obama calls for “comprehensive immigration reform” – granting amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens. This would forge a permanent Democratic electoral majority. It would sound the death knell for our national sovereignty. Amnesty rewards lawlessness and criminal behavior; it signifies the surrender of our porous southern border to a massive illegal invasion. It means the death of American nationhood. We will no longer be a country, but the colony of a global socialist empire.

Rather than defending our homeland, Mr. Obama’s Justice Department has sued Arizona for its immigration law. He is siding with criminals against his fellow Americans. His actions desecrate his constitutional oath to protect U.S. citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. He is thus encouraging more illegal immigration as Washington refuses to protect our borders. Mr. Obama’s decision on this case is treasonous.

As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site. A Justice Department lawyer intimately involved in the case, J. Christian Adams, resigned in protest. Mr. Adams says that under Mr. Obama, there is a new policy: Cases involving black defendants and white victims – no matter how much they cry for justice – are not to be prosecuted. This is more than institutionalized racism. It is an abrogation of civil rights laws. The Justice Department’s behavior is illegal. It poses a direct threat to the integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our electoral process.

Corruption in the administration is rampant. Washington no longer has a government; rather, it has a gangster regime. The Chicago way has become the Washington way. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a political hit man.. He is an amoral, ruthless operator. It was Mr. Emanuel who reached out to Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, offering a high-ranking job in the hopes of persuading Mr. Sestak to pull out of the primary against Sen. Arlen Specter. It was Mr. Emanuel who offered another government position to Andrew Romanoff to do the same in the Colorado Democratic Senate primary. And it was Mr. Emanuel – as the trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has revealed – who acted as the go-between to try to have Valerie Jarrett parachuted into Mr. Obama’s former Senate seat. The only question was: What did Mr. Blagojevich want in exchange?

This is not simply sleazy Chicago machine politics. It is the systematic breaking of the law – bribery, attempt to interfere (and manipulate) elections using taxpayer-funded jobs, influence peddling and abuse of power.

The common misperception on the right is that Mr. Obama is another Jimmy Carter: an incompetent liberal whose presidency is being reduced to rubble under the onslaught of repeated failures. The very opposite, however, is true. He is the most consequential president in our lifetime, transforming America into something our Founding Fathers would find not only unrecognizable, but repugnant. Like all radical revolutionaries, he is consumed by the pursuit of power – attaining it, wielding it and maximizing it. Mr.. Obama’s fledgling thug state must be stopped.

If Republicans win back Congress in November, they should – and likely will – launch formal investigations into this criminal, scandal-ridden administration. Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has promised as much. Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the host of “The Kuhner Show” on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com <<http://www.talk570.com/> ) from 5 to 7 p.m.

SOURCE: KUHNER: President’s socialist takeover must be stopped – Washington Times

Making it Popular to Increase your Constitution IQ

A friend recently asked me about tests that high school students take to prepare for college entrance. We spoke about several, among which was the Scholastic Aptitude Test or the SAT. He said we ought to have a CAT for public officials—a Constitution Aptitude Test. He then asked about the PSAT, or Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test, that some high school students take in preparation for the SAT and suggested that we require that all persons thinking about running for congress take a PCAT or Preliminary Constitution Aptitude Test before they can have their names put on the ballot or at least before their party will endorse them. This conversation got me to thinking this idea could really take off in preparation for the 2012 elections. What if in every public meeting, candidates would be asked if they have taken the PCAT or the CAT yet? What if precinct committeemen would ask that question of potential candidates as a condition of carrying their petitions to be put on the ballot? What if it became the talk of the town to continue to ask all candidates or potential candidates what their Constitution IQ is? What if candidates were continually asked to tell when the last time was that they undertook a serious study of the U. S. Constitution and perhaps to name two or three areas they think may be grossly violated today?

A Sample Preliminary Constitution Aptitude Test (PCAT)

Here is a sample Preliminary Constitution Aptitude Test with questions taken from the Constitution that all persons thinking about running for congress should know. By the way, these are generated using the eighth grade level option.

  1. What is the one offense the president cannot pardon?
    1. Murder
    2. Treason
    3. Impeachment
    4. Domestic terrorism
  2. Who has the final responsibility to see that the federal laws passed by Congress are faithfully executed?
    1. The president
    2. The vice president
    3. The Cabinet
    4. The Attorney General
  3. Can a person employed by the government serve as an elector to choose the president and vice president?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  4. When the Constitution was adopted, candidates for president had to be either natural-born citizens of the United States or naturalized citizens. True or false?
    1. True
    2. False
  5. Does it violate the separation of powers when the president recommends to Congress that it pass certain laws?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  6. Could the Congress transfer the position of commander in chief from the president to some experienced military leader in time of war?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  7. Which of the following may be reasons why the Founders were opposed to placing any limitation on the number of times a president could be reelected?
    1. A limitation might require a change of leadership in a time of crisis.
    2. A limitation might deprive the nation of an experienced leader at a crucial time.
    3. It should be left to the people to decide who they want as president, regardless of previous time served.
    4. All of the above
  8. Can the compensation of the president be increased or decreased while he or she is in office?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  9. Are there any government officials who cannot be impeached?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  10. Did the original Constitution limit the president to two terms?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  11. Can the president pardon a whole group of people at once?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  12. How old must a person be to become president of the United States ?
    1. 25
    2. 30
    3. 35
    4. 40
  13. Suppose the president arranges a treaty with some foreign government. What must happen before the treaty can go into effect?
    1. The president must sign the treaty
    2. It must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate who are present when the matter comes up for consideration
    3. The Supreme Court must approve the terms of the agreement
    4. It must be ratified by a majority of the Senate who are present when the matter comes up for consideration
  14. Originally, the Founders hoped the expenses of the national government would be so modest that the entire budget for the federal government would be covered by modest taxes. What form of taxes did they envision?
    1. Taxes on imports
    2. Taxes on exports
    3. Personal income tax
    4. Property taxes
  15. Are taxes uniform throughout the United States as required by the Constitution?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  16. The passing of laws can be slow and complicated. Why might this have been the intention of the Founders?
    1. They didn’t want any more laws than were absolutely necessary.
    2. The goal was not “”efficiency”” in passing laws, but effectiveness in preserving freedom.
    3. They wanted to keep government as simple and uncomplicated as possible.
    4. All of the above
  17. Can the state militias be called up to help the federal government suppress insurrections in the states?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  18. If a person went to the Federal Reserve between 1914 and 1934, what could that person get in exchange for a Federal Reserve note?
    1. gold coins
    2. silver coins
    3. all of the above
    4. none of the above
  19. The House of Representatives currently consists of 435 voting members. How many members must be present to constitute a quorum and allow the House of Representatives to conduct its business?
    1. 175
    2. 218
    3. 250
    4. 272
  20. Can the Congress regulate interstate commerce in such a way that it requires a ship to stop at certain ports to pay duties for the “right” of passage?
    1. Yes
    2. No

Let’s popularize the building of our Constitution IQs among both voters and public officials.
Sincerely,

Earl Taylor, Jr.
 
Answers to the sample Preliminary Constitution Aptitude test: 1. c, 2. a, 3. b, 4. a, 5. b, 6. b, 7. d, 8. b, 9. a, 10. b, 11. a, 12. c, 13. b, 14. a, 15. b, 16. d, 17. a, 18. c, 19.b, 20. b.

George Washington’s Indispensable Wisdom for Today

April is an historic month for the office of President of the United States . On April 6, 1789, Congress met for the first time and proclaimed George Washington had been elected President unanimously. On April 30th , he was inaugurated. During the next eight years he was to gain priceless insights concerning the government of a free people. By the time he left office in 1797, he had become a treasure of political wisdom.
If anyone ever wants to know how the Founders would address the problems of today, which are not much different than the ones Washington faced, he just needs to consult Washington ‘s Farewell Address, delivered on Constitution Day, September 17, 1796, as he was preparing to leave office. No political document gives such clear direction to a nation in trouble, than does this message.
We ask the questions and President Washington gives the answers in these excerpts from his Farewell Address. (punctuation is updated)

Question: Of all the labels used in the country to magnify people’s differences in politics, religion, ethnicity, life styles, occupations, etc., what should be the most important unifying factor of all?

  • “The name of American which belongs to you in your national capacity must always exalt the just pride of patriotism, more than any appellation …. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes… Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole.”
  • “One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affections.”
  • “To the efficacy and permanency of your Union , a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict between the p,arts, can be an adequate substitute.”

Question: What is the problem of giving political and legal power to political parties, unions, and other combinations of people?

  • “…all combinations and associations… with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive… and of fatal tendency.”
  • “They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force, to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community… [and] to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests.”
  • “However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely… to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government….”
  • “Let me now… warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party…. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists… in all governments… but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.”
  • “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension… is itself a frightening despotism.”
  • “But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result [from wars between parties] gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.”

Question: What actually will happen to our government if run by competing parties?

  • “…the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”
  • “It [party spirit] serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration.”
  • “It [party spirit] agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.”
  • “It [party spirit] opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”
  • “There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true…. But… it is a spirit not to be encouraged… there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it.”

Question: If changes need to be made in the government, how should it be done?

  • “If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for… it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
  • “It is important likewise that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another.”
  • “The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the power of all the departments in one and thus to create…a real despotism.”

Question: What will be the result if basic constitutional principles are changed or rejected in the future?

  • “…the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state… [makes it] requisite… that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles…. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.”
  • “in all the changes to which you may be invited, remember… that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution… [and] that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypotheses and opinion exposes [you] to perpetual change….”

Question: Is Civil Disobedience a method to be used by freedom-loving people to bring about change?

  • “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which… exists–till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly�obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.”

Question: Above all else, what would you consider the absolute foundation of liberty?

  • “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”
  • “Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?”

Question: Can morality be maintained without religion? Or by those of refined education?

  • “And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever… the influence of refined education… reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
  • “It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends… to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”
  • “Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.”

Question: How does public debt effect liberty and freedom?

  • “As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace….”
  • “But remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursement to repel it.”
  • “Avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.”

Question: Our foreign relations are a mess. What shall we do now?

  • “Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct.”
  • “It will be worthy of a free, enlightened and… great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence…. Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue?”
  • “Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”
  • “Likewise a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concession to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt … to injure the nation making the concessions by …exciting jealousy, ill will and [a] disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.”
  • “The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”

Question: Should Americans seek commercial relations with other nations?

  • “Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give to trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support… conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances… will permit, but temporary and liable to be… abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate.”
  • “…it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept… that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of… being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more.”
  • “There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate, upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure [and] which a just pride ought to discard.”

Perhaps this speech should be the next document read in the halls of Congress.
Sincerely,

Earl Taylor, Jr.

Facts About Dr. Charles Krauthammer, MD

1. Born: March 13, 1950

2. Birthplace: New York City, New York

3. Raised in Montreal, Canada

5. 1972 diving accident left him paralyzed from the neck on down.

6. Directed psychiatric research for the Carter administration

7. Began writing career in 1981 with The New Republic

8. Helped develop the “Reagan Doctrine” in the 80′s

9. Appointed to Presidential Council on Bioethics in 2002

Dr. Krauthammer is frequently on the Fox News Channel. He is an M.D., a lawyer and is paralyzed from the neck down. A friend went to hear Charles Krauthammer . He listened with 25 others in a closed room. What he says here, is NOT 2nd-hand but 1st. The ramifications are staggering for us, our children and their children.

Dr. Charles Krauthammer spoke to the Center for the American Experiment.. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views . He is a fiscal conservative, and has received a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post.

The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have summarized his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally.

Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not drunk the Kool-Aid, feel free…
Summary of his comments:
1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn’t show his emotions. It’s very hard to know what’s behind the mask.The taking down of the Clinton dynasty was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.
2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton . He has a way of making you think he’s on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite.Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!
3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can’t be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain orCanada .

4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn’t care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada .. God forbid!
5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can’t work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he’s a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.
6. Obama doesn’t really see himself as President of the United States , but more as a ruler over the world.. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America , as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!
7. He is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is reelected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.
8.. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. Republicans are pining for another Reagan , but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future… We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state’s rights.
9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don’t have..This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn’t work, nor will the stimulus package.These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama’s allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.
10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.
11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it’s under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it’s between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what’s happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we’re right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it’s far too late.

All our futures and children’s futures depend on our good understanding of what is really going on in DC, and our action pursuant to that understanding!! It really IS up to each of us to take individual action!!