Starting off with the often ridiculed 1998 hyperbole from writer Toni Morrison who decided that Bill Clinton was the nation’s first black president, “Asian Pop” writer,Jeff Yang of the San Francisco Chronicle, has decided that Barack Obama could be the first “Asian American president” if elected in November. Apparently Yang is unaware of how much ridicule has been heaped upon Morrison, and deservingly so, and he is lining up for some smacking around himself with this outlandish Chronicle piece.

We all remember that Morrison claimed that Clinton was some sort of honorary black man in the 90s. Apparently, because Clinton payed attention to — and incessantly pandered to — the black power establishment in the 90s, that was all that was required for a race-graft. At least that almost makes some sense, if only metaphorically. Now Yang takes Morrison’s loose connections one better, though. Apparently, all Obama has to have done to become an “Asian” is to have known some during his lifetime. After all, Obama is not known for being a politician constantly pandering to the Asian community like Clinton pandered to the black power structure. Does anyone recall Barack Obama sitting in a church as an Asian minister “God D_mns” America? But, why heck, he did grow up with a few Asian-like folks. So maybe there’s a little sumpthin’ in this!

After commenting on Morrison’s absurdities, Yang goes on to moon over Obama.

In fact, reading Obama’s absorbing 1995 memoir “Dreams from My Father,” it strikes me that the tropes that surround and define Obama can just as easily be read as those of another community entirely. Which raises the question: Could it be that our true first black president might also be our first Asian American president?

Case closed. Obama is now neither white, nor black, but Asian.

So, how is it that Obama can be claimed an Asian instead of a black man? Let’s run down Yang’s bullet points…

• He was born in Hawaii, an island with a lot of Asians on it
• He lived in Jakarta, home of a lot of Asians
• His half-sister and her husband are Asian-Americans
• He hired a Chinese guy for his staff

Amazing is it not? Why it’s almost as astounding as the Lincoln/Kennedy Coincidences… which are also bunk.

Then Yang tries to shoe horn Obama’s life story into a story that will be “recognizable to many Asian Americans.” Claiming that his interest in education and hard work proves he’s really an Asian deep down. Yang does his best to take experiences that could describe the life of many different sorts of people and make of them the “Asian experience.”

It’s all very tenuous and silly when you get right down to it. Jeff Yang really is reaching for this one as he succumbs to the hero worship besotting the media.

So, this claim of Yang’s has got me to thinking. My 12-year-old son has grown up with goldfish. His older brothers had some, as well. And, amazingly, I had goldfish as a kid, too. Does that make my boy a possible honorary goldfish should he run for the presidency sometime in the future? Just wondering.

(Photo credit: San Diego Asian Film Foundation)

“[In a republic, according to Montesquieu in Spirit of the Laws, IV,ch.5,] ‘virtue may be defined as the love of the laws and of our country. As such love requires a constant preference of public to private interest, it is the source of all private virtue; for they are nothing more than this very preference itself… Now a government is like everything else: to preserve it we must love it… Everything, therefore, depends on establishing this love in a republic; and to inspire it ought to be the principal business of education; but the surest way of instilling it into children is for parents to set them an example.’” –Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book

There is an issue, rarely discussed in the news, which has critical implications for our national security and political sovereignty. The United States is one of the most permissive countries in the world with regard to dual citizenship. Our government recognizes dual citizenship and tolerates multiple citizenships. How did it come to this?

According to the U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8, it is the job of the legislative branch to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.

Most people are familiar with, in one form or another, the oath of citizenship which must be taken by all immigrants who wish to become United States citizens. Following a pattern set in 1795, our naturalization law, spells out the oath to which a new citizen must swear.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

So how can an immigrant take such a citizenship oath and still maintain citizenship in a foreign country?

Back in the days of King George, when the United States first declared independence, English common law dictated that only the sovereign could release a citizen from allegiance to a country. As a result, England “impressed” naturalized American citizens during wartime and treated these folks as British, instead of American in a court of law. Congress, having had enough of this tradition, passed the Expatriation Act of 1868. This stated that the restriction of expatriation is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government. The president was expected to take steps, short of war, should one of our citizens be deprived of his liberty by a foreign sovereign. Soon, the United States found itself negotiating Bancroft treaties with European states to prevent them from conscripting our naturalized US citizens when they visited their native lands. Naturalization was considered an act which severed all prior citizenship ties.

The theory of perpetual allegiance died during the late 19th century, as distance travel became easier and the industrial revolution caused migration. The consensus was that dual citizenship would cause diplomatic problems between nations. Those wanting dual citizenship were seen as opportunists who would dodge or take advantage of their citizenship obligations when it suited their private interests. Citizens lost their right citizenship if they put our nation in conflict with another nation. To prevent dual nationality, a woman who married a foreigner would lose her US citizenship. While many European states considered right of blood as providing citizenship rights, the US considered it a birth right. Those who were dual citizens had to elect citizenship with one country over another. Teddy Roosevelt said that American citizens do not lose their status when visiting another country, that foreign laws about citizenship do not usurp our own.

A change in attitude began to first occur when women were given the right to vote in this country. They mobilized to force congress to repeal the law that stripped them of their citizenship should they marry a foreigner. In l952, the Supreme Court ruled that forcing a citizen to choose between nationalities had no statutory foundation. Another court case determined that it was cruel and unusual punishment to strip citizenship away for military desertion and that it couldn’t be taken away for fighting in a foreign war. The grounds for expatriation were slowly eliminated by our judicial system. In l967, in Afroyim v Rusk, it was decided by the Supreme Court that voting in a foreign election could not cause Americans to lose their citizenship. Because the 14th Amendment says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, it has been interpreted as meaning citizenship could not be taken away without a person’s assent. But this has gone too far. Completely disregarding our naturalization law, the state department now informally advises those who aspire to American citizenship that do not really have to give up their foreign citizenship.

While to some folks the idea of dual citizenship might seem benign, it can greatly effect a person’s emotional attachment and identification with this country. Emotional attachment and identification with a country contributes greatly to a person’s willingness to make sacrifices and stand in harms way to defend our home, values, and ideals. Still, dual citizenship has become acceptable because instead of promoting assimilation, diversity has become the mantra of our public institutions, undermining what traditionally binds us together; the shared values and political beliefs that make us one people…This notion and the idea that there are no consequences for those whose allegiance to this country might be compromised.

Between l994 and 2002, over 90 percent of the immigrants to this country were dual citizens. When an immigrant to this country becomes a citizen yet continues to actively participate politically in the home country, this clearly represents a conflict of interest. Yet, the United States does not regulate whether dual citizens vote, serve, or fight for a foreign government. As a result, countries like Mexico encourage its nationals living in the United States to vote absentee in their elections. As a matter of fact, candidates for office in Mexico actually campaign in the United States as if these nationals still lived in their country. Certain Israeli political parties (Orthodox-Haredi mainly) regularly airlift their followers to Israel to vote. Dominicans actually voted at polling booths set up in New York. This list goes on. It is well known that political participation fosters and reflects an emotional bond with a country. How can an immigrant express patriotism and vote in our elections through an American frame of reference when there is no expectation of true allegiance to the home team?

There are even more compelling examples of how dual citizens exhibit conflict of interest.

When a Columbian and elected official in New Jersey, Jesus Galvis, ran for office in the Columbian senate, he stated to reporters that it was no different than a US Congressman having a district office and a Washington office. He was simply, “representing the Colombians in the United States.” How about those that weren’t Columbian?

Worse, “three Mexicans living in the United States are running for seats in Mexico’s Congress. If they win – and chances are good for at least two of them, one in Chicago and one in Los Angeles – they will live in the United States and represent Mexicans here.”

As an advisor to Mexican President Vicente Fox, American Juan Hernandez’s job was to mobilize Mexican Americans to think Mexico First.

Since 9/11, it has come to the attention of western governments that there is a problem of loyalty in immigrant populations. There are some folks living in western nations that have sympathy for hostile powers. As their numbers grow larger, this becomes more and more unmanageable. We are now in the midst of a security crisis. According to the Northeast Intelligence Network, “…there are more than 50 Islamic terrorist cells and nearly one thousand individuals identified as operable threats suspected to be presently inside the United States. (Most of the 1000 or so individuals are directly associated with the cells identified).”

In 2006, because the infrastructure in Lebanon was used to transport weapons and support to the terrorist organization Hezbollah, Israel bombed the airport, the port and the bridges to Syria. Israel bombed south Lebanon, the Bekaa, and southern Beirut, where Hezbollah had been training Al-Qaeda terrorists who travel via Syria into Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrorists trained in Lebanon were developing roadside bombs used on our marines and soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. These terrorists have cells in America and stand ready to unleash suicide bombing here in America.

During Hezbollah’s war against Israel, US tax dollars were used to transport 15,000 Shi’ite Muslim Lebanese U.S. citizens back to the US. This occurred despite the fact that many of these dual citizens are terrorist sympathizers, a large percentage living in Dearborn, Michigan. Many have been indicted and/or convicted of laundering money to Hezbollah, a group that on numerous occasions announced their intention to attack Americans on U.S. soil. Hezbollah has murdered over 300 U.S. Marines and civilians, some through torture.

General Naturalization Requirements state that any applicant for naturalization must demonstrate good moral character, a belief in the principles of the United States Constitution, and favor the good order and happiness of the United States. Furthermore, citizenship shall not be granted to anyone who opposes organized government, is a member of the Communist Party or advocates the doctrines of world communism, advocates the overthrow by force of the US government, or advocates for totalitarian rule.

Conflict of interest is undermining this country’s sovereignty. Immigrants to the United States are actively maintaining ties to their home country and their home countries are encouraging this. Furthermore, there are people living in the United States who do not feel loyalty to our country, who put foreign ideals above our own, and who are willing to put our people in harms way to further their personal beliefs. According to the Constitution, it is the legislative branch that is in charge of naturalization laws. It is up to the people to vote in legislators who will fix this mess!
SourcesDebbie Schlussel: Most Americans in Lebanon Are Hezbollah Supporters

Dual Nationality: TR’s “Self-Evident Absurdity”

General Naturalization Requirements

The Center for Immigration Studies Terrorist Cells in the United States

U.S. Prepares Huge Lebanon Evacuation
US waives fee to flee Lebanon
Nancy Salvato is the President and Director of Constitutional Literacy Program for Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational project whose mission is to re-introduce the American public to the basic elements of our constitutional heritage while providing non-partisan, fact-based information on relevant socio-political issues important to our country, specifically the threats of aggressive Islamofascism and the American Fifth Column. She serves as the Assistant Provost for the American College of Education and as a Senior Editor for The New Media Journal. She is also a staff writer, for the New Media Alliance, Inc., a non-profit (501c3) coalition of writers and grass-roots media outlets, and a frequent contributing writer to The World & I educational magazine.

As a discipline, archaeology examines the artistic and technological remains of various cultures in the attempt to learn more about them.  Often from these objects, students learn about more than the subject’s material nature but also insight into the beliefs and paradigms important to the human species at a particular time.

Probably the most prominent representative of the discipline in public culture is none other than Indiana Jones, with Stargate’s Dr. Daniel Jackson coming in at second.   As a narrative itself created at a particular point in time, the Indiana Jones movies themselves can be placed under investigation to unearth what our own culture has believed at various points in recent history as well as the ideas shaping those having such influence over our own society.

Through comparing “The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” and the other films of the Indiana Jones saga, especially with “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and “Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade”, one can detect the shifts taking place all around us as to what the broader and popular culture perceives as foundational truth.  For example, though the films should not be seen as a systematic theology upon which to base one’s faith, “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and “Last Crusade” had at their base Judeo-Christian assumption in that artifacts connected with this tradition, namely the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail (the cup used by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper) were actual historic objects and, since these objects in legend exude a power that cannot be explained by conventional science, one assumes they are connected to the divine.

In the latest film of the series, “Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull”, ultimate wisdom and power is not seen as originating in a traditional conception of God as in “Raiders Of The Lost Ark” or “Last Crusade” or even in spirits as in “Indiana Jones & The Temple Of Doom”.  Rather in the latest installment, the source of enlightenment happens to be those entities with the bulbous heads and lanky limbs we have come to know as extraterrestrials whose crystalline skulls in this story can serve as powerful tools through which to augur the future, communicate with these beings, and to gain control of the world.  Though an entertaining story, it may have considerable basis in reality — or at least in the worldviews of its high level producers.

For example, the opening scene with Indy trouncing through the military hanger is set in none other than Area 51 and the top secret project he alludes to working on 10 years prior to the events of the story is none other than the Roswell crash.  Some might flippantly dismiss these as urban legends that have taken on lives of their own beyond the significance of any incidents that may have occurred in these locations that now fire the imagination.  However, it is pretty hard to ignore the Nazca lines which were not discovered by modern man until the discovery of flight and the existence of a tribe of Indians that mutilated the shape of their skulls to make themselves appear as if they were from beyond this earth.

Even these can be dismissed as historical or anthropological curiosities as human beings have believed or done some rather bizarre things since nearly the dawn of time.  The thing is that there are those among the influential who would imbue intelligences from beyond this earth with a metaphysical prominence above that which you would bestow upon someone from another country as being different from but frankly no better ontologically than you ultimately.

While a highly creative individual, to Steven Spielberg, these creatures are much more than imaginative characters or plot elements.  Rather, the acclaimed director has had an interest and belief in the paranormal throughout much of his life beyond that of a mere narrative device and he has been reported to have had a number of encounters with the unexplained.

In the movie, the quest was not so much to verify whether or not transterrestrial life simply existed as a biological fact but rather that enlightenment was somehow obtained from these beings and as such they were worthy of the adoration and devotion once reserved for God Himself.  As the public comes to embrace this worldview more and more, we are beginning to see a shift from viewing beings like this in a solely naturalistic context of beings from another planet not all that unlike our own to, as in the case of “The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull” as coming from a realm transcendent to our own from what could be referred to as another dimension.

Thus, in essence, in terms of our paradigms, the Western mind has come full circle to an extent but on a less sure footing than when it set out on the quest to comprehend the cosmos in which we find ourselves.  It use to be believed that nonhuman intelligences originated from another realm (initially Heaven but tossed out when they followed Lucifer/Satan into rebellion).  Then as the West increasingly fell under the spell of what Francis Schaeffer termed “modern modern science” (meaning science opposed to the existence of the spiritual realm) such entities were believed to come from other planets.

However, as the New Age movement has become so entrenched that it is no longer new anymore and prefers even fancier titles such as “cosmic spirituality”, now it seems our alleged betters along the path of evolutionary consciousness take on the best and worse depending upon one’s perspective.  For example, in the latest Indiana Jones adventure, no longer are the gods of the dawning order disembodied spirits we cannot see but rather posses physical form we can relate to even if it differs vastly from our own.  And yet even though they are like us, the also come from a place apart from and above our own so as to avoid banality by providing us with the hope of somewhere possessing a transcendence we can still aspire to.

Those watching “Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull” can feel free to do so with a clear conscience as it is primarily an entertaining adventure story.  However, as with the protagonist of this series, viewers should take with them the assorted equipment necessary to avoid the pitfalls and traps they are likely to encounter as they undertake an expedition into this realm where imagination intersects belief.

by Frederick Meekins

According to the China Aid Association, Pastor Zhang Zhongxin has been sentenced to two years in a Chinese labor camp by Shandong Province authorities for participation in cultic activities.  To American ears, such allegations bring to mind images of passing around poisoned Kool-Aid or of adolescent brides forced to wed lecherous old men; however, in this case this pastor engaged in religious exercises most of us take for granted as harmless as organizing a Sunday school.

Since freedom of religion is listed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it is a duty of the United States to stand for this liberty in any way proper or possible around the world.

Radical multiculturalists will respond that it is not the place of the United States to be spreading American notions around the world as this could be construed as imposing Western values on other societies.  However, another axiom of the economic age in which we live posits that the customer is always right.

If the government of the People’s Republic of China wishes to continue to benefit from the financial patronage and cooperation of the United States, it is only reasonable for authorities over there to respect certain inalienable rights held by all individuals irrespective of what regime they happen to live under.

After all, firms here seeking to do business with the government in terms of being granted contracts are expected to honor any number of obligations that go beyond basic human rights such as minority quotas and prevailing union wages.

It is the prayer and hope of believers in Christ around the world that Pastor Zhongxin’s sentence would be commuted or suspended because in the contemporary world citizens embracing Christianity bring stability to a nation rather than disruption.  Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ assists both individuals and communities in balancing the seemingly conflicting tendencies towards order and liberty, and in so doing actually makes a nation stronger.

In the Western press, considerable debate has taken place as to the prudence of allowing China to host the 2008 Olympic games.  With the eyes of the world turning to that particular nation at this time, there would be no better gesture that China could make to prove it takes its responsibility as a leading power of the 21st century seriously than by guaranteeing that citizens within that country’s borders are free to practice their religion without fear of incarceration or reprisals.

It’s hard to ignore the fact that the Greens are going crazy, not just in the United States, but around the world. They are increasingly frantic over the opposition being voiced against global warming, one of the greatest hoaxes in modern history.

The Greens have bet everything on global warming as the reason for giving up the use of long established sources of energy such as oil, coal and natural gas. The object has been to slow everything the modern world calls progress.

In India, a spokesman for that nation of one billion people has flatly refused to accept the global warming hoax. China shows no sign of yielding to the global warming lies. The greatest agricultural and mercantile economy to have ever existed, the United States of America continues to thwart its own growth by yielding to the lies.

Recently the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, said that “coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick. It’s global warming. It’s ruining our country. It’s ruining our world.”

No, what makes us sick is listening to such preposterous lies. A Rasmussen telephone survey taken after Sen. Reid’s absurd statement found that 52% of voters surveyed rejected his views about coal and oil, double the amount of those who agreed.

What is troublesome, however, is that the same survey found the voters evenly divided on whether global warming exists or poses a threat. Fully 47% of those surveyed believe that human activity affects the climate. Both candidates for President are publicly committed to the global warming hoax by varying degrees.

Despite an intense, decades-long propaganda campaign, coupled with indoctrination in our nation’s schools, the truth is beginning to emerge.

In March, an international conference on climate change organized by The Heartland Institute brought together over 500 of the world’s leading climatologists, meteorologists, economists and others for three days of seminars and presentations that completely refuted the pronouncements of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and disputed the lies of Al Gore’s famed “documentary.”

As recently as July 8, the Space and Science Research Center held a news conference in which it stated that the warming that has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 was completely natural, i.e., had nothing to do with human or industrial activity.

More significantly, the Center went on record saying that, “After an exhaustive review of a substantial body of climate research, and in conjunction with the obvious and compelling new evidence that exists, it is time that the world community acknowledges that the Earth has begun the next climate change.” The current warming period is not only at an end, but a distinct cooling cycle has begun and will bring “predominantly colder global temperatures for many years into the future.”

Just how crazed has the environmental movement become? On July 7 it was announced that Argentine scientists have been strapping plastic tanks to the backs of cows to collect and measure how much methane gas they produce.

Methane, like carbon dioxide, is a minor component of the Earth’s atmosphere. Methane is also released from swamps, landfills and other sources. If it and CO2 played a significant role in determining the world’s climate, it would be a cause for concern, but it is the Sun that primarily drives the Earth’s climate cycles. Solar activity has gone quiet in recent years as fewer and fewer sunspots, magnetic storms, have been seen.

To maintain the global warming hoax, thousands of events and natural phenomena have been blamed on it. A recent example is the floods in America’s mid-West. The National Wildlife Federation released a statement on July 1 blaming global warming.

Climate experts at The Heartland Institute were quick to respond. Dr. Joseph D’Aleo, Executive Director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, said, “Alarmists have adopted the can’t-lose position that all extremes of weather—cold, warm, wet, or dry—are all due to global warming”, adding that, “The record snows, severe weather, and heavy rainfall have been the result of rapid cooling in the northern tier of the United States and Canada, not global warming.”

Early in July, Bret Stephens, writing in The Wall Street Journal, called global warming “a mass hysteria phenomenon”, noting that “NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world’s oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years…”

The global warming hoax has never been about the climate. It is about competing economic theories. “Socialism may have failed as an economic theory,” wrote Stephens, “but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism.”

The United States Senate refused to consider the UN Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change that requires massive reductions in carbon dioxide emissions based solely on the global warming hoax, but other nations did sign on. None have ever met their obligation to limit CO2 emissions, nor need they have bothered.

At the recent G8 conference an international agreement to cut CO2 emissions was given serious consideration despite the fact that the Earth is now a decade into a cooling cycle likely to last several decades or longer. The impact of this proposal on the lives of ordinary citizens will prove needlessly costly. Proposals in some nations for various taxes based on global warming are a form of fraud.

The sensible refusal by leaders in emerging economies such as China and India would make it impossible for any limitations on carbon emissions by Western nations to have any impact, even if such reductions had anything to do with the realities of the Earth’s climate.

The only thing that can be predicted with certainty is that the Greens will become increasingly unhinged and crazed by the failure of the global warming hoax.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com. He blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com.

  

In his speech July 2 in Colorado Springs, Denver, media darling Barack Obama said:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

What Obama meant:

“…we need a ‘civilian national security force’ that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force …”

But as reported by Joseph Farah of WorldNet Daily Obama’s comments concerning a national police force are not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks. Moreover, transcripts posted at both the Wall Street Journal and Denver Post do not have the critical passage and none of the major news media even mentioned Obama’s call for a national police force.

The transcripts have all had the above paragraph censored. But on the YouTube video you can hear the above comment.

The budget of the Defense Department is about $585 billion, over $200,000 per employee. The Heritage Foundation reports that spending on military personnel averages $70,000 per member, though it is not clear what that entails. If Obama is talking about funding his civilian national security corps at the same level as the military, he would need at least an additional $500 billion. That can buy a lot of clicking boots and Lugers and other wafen for his national Gestapo.

Joseph Farah on WorldNet Daily wrote:

“If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal. I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together? Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?”

I think Obama said exactly what he meant although as a slip of the tongue because this part of his agenda is not something to be expressed prior to the election. Obama has a socialist, near communist agenda, of government control and redistribution of wealth. A national police force would be important in achieving Obama’s goals and could be used to stifle opposition. If you think this is just conspiratorial thinking, reflect back on the days before Hitler’s rise to power in Germany.

I thought we already had the FBI, DEA, BATF, U.S. Marshals, TSA, postal inspectors, park rangers, Secret Service, state bureaus of investigation, state police, local police, sheriffs and constables, among others, to already handle domestic law enforcement; why do we need an additional national police force? The only reason would be to exercise authority the existing agencies do not have.

In all his life Obama has never managed an organization larger than a Senate staff, or that of a law school publication. And, he’s never operated a for-profit business or been responsible for any profit center within one. Yet now too many Americans seem willing to entrust him with management of the largest business in the world; and with a national police force as well.

All Obama’s experience prior to his 123 days in the U.S. Senate has been in community organizing. Among other things he worked with ACORN, the extremist community organization whose rap sheet include perpetration of numerous acts of violence, such as the destructive actions in Philadelphia where numerous buildings were burned to the ground. His other experience includes assisting in the Meals-on-Wheels programs in Illinois, training programs for Vietnamese Refugees, assembling congregations and a synagogue in a mid-sized Texas town to provide emergency assistance to low-income citizens, and being an expert witness at a Texas Senate hearing when legislation forming the state’s Commission on Human Rights was being drafted. Although some of these community action deeds may be commendable, on one level, they hardly constitute any sort of experience to justify his election to the country’s highest office, and any comparison to Senator John McCain’s experience and background is laughable.

Putting Obama in charge of a national police force is akin to giving a paper hanger (Hitler’s previous profession) an armed force funded with billions of dollars (to be commensurate with the existing military) and the power to enforce an agenda that will change every fabric of American freedom.

I do not trust Barack Obama in the least and this only adds to my mistrust. If it had been John McCain who had made this proposal, the press would have been all over it. Why does Obama get a pass from the media; because they want Obama elected president!

Do you Obama supporters still want him to be president after knowing about this part of his agenda? If you buy into Obama’s call for “change”, is this the kind of change you want?

Vincent Gioia is a retired patent attorney living in Palm Desert, California. His articles may be read at www.vincentgioia.com and he may be contacted at gioia@gte.net.

The Visual Generation – The Death of Discernment

When Chairman Mao of China wanted to reach an entire generation, many who were illiterate, he produced his communist message in “comic book” style. It resulted in an entire generation of youth jumping onboard Mao’s red wagon and subsequently tearing down the culture and traditions and the very structures of one of the oldest societies in the world.

In America it is mindless, Godless and feckless TV programming, You Tube and Hollywood’s latest offering of films that pour images on an entire generation. The result is exactly the same as it was in China but on a much larger scale and with so much more to lose.

If you asked anyone who is considering voting for Barack Obama or any liberal why they chose that candidate, the answer you will most likely hear is, “I like him.” or “he looks good to me.”

If he, she or it looks good that’s good enough for the “media generation.” No discernment needed, wisdom is too hard to acquire and who has more than a few seconds of time in this world of screen shots, blips and spot messages to look any deeper. A new language and a new media has developed that thrives on abbreviated communications; OMG could I be talking about texting?

People who read entire books and articles to learn something or to see an authors point are becoming rare. Just getting to this sentence means you probably are one of those people. You may have read some Hemingway, Joyce, even Shakespeare or at the very least the morning paper. You may be one of the rare breed of people that actually forms opinions and conclusions based on a careful weighing of all the facts.

In the Bible (1 Cor 12:10) there is mention of a “spiritual gift” known as “discerning of spirits.” Unfortunately that gift is often placed in a list of charismatic type gifts that end up being thought of as something only practiced by a few Pentecostal people. In fact the language of 1:Cor 12:10 connotes the idea of a “judging through” of any and all matters not a fleeting spiritual thought dropping out of the ether.

Discerning of spirits is a God given enterprise that does not work unless God is brought into the equation. He unveils, reveals or shows the deepest meaning of things to the deepest people. They are a peculiar people who weigh everything and refuse to make prejudiced and extraneous judgments based only on what they see or have heard from the grape vine, the media or God knows where!

It is the rarity of such people that serves as only one of a few reasons that can be found for the wholesale blindness that seems to be accompanying the decisions made by the American public about their presidential candidates.

The biblically based reason is far more obvious and it reads like this, “In whom the god of this world (Satan) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not” (2 Cor 4:4a) It is what allows people to assent to what late night talk show hosts say about candidates instead of listening to the candidates themselves and comparing that to all that has gone before. It is almost perverse, because it is a “spirit” that drives the average person to use no “spiritual” discernment at all.

It is what causes thousands to think Rick Warren is actually helping the American public to choose a better candidate by bringing John McCain and Barack Obama to “Saddleback” so they can smooth out their differences.  The program or show (side show) is partly sponsored by Meg Riley who formerly headed up her denomination’s homosexual advocacy office.  It raises the serious question of whose purpose is the author of “The Purpose Driven Life” fulfilling? It’s a show, a visual, and a media attraction with or without knowing exactly what is really driving Rick Warren’s purpose. What Evangelist Bill Keller told his over two million subscribers on his daily devotional July 26, 2008, was that Warrens sideshow is a “load of garbage.” 

Has Keller crossed the sacred PC line and sinned against society? No, what he has really done is used God given discernment based on sound scriptural teachings and mustered the guts to say it out loud to a You Tube generation that would rather watch hours of delightful nonsense and tripe  rather than discern anything that matters. Kudos to Bill Keller, shame on Rick Warren! 

Sadly, what is really happening is what the Apostle James and other biblical authors predicted would become commonplace as we approach the second coming of Christ. James said,”Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?” (James 2:4) King James Version or not this is exactly the meaning of “choosing between the lesser of two evils.” Not much discernment needed to know what that means. This is America today. 

The greatest loss from the abandoning of discernment is that America has lost the connection. We are no longer able to discern the “connection” between our morality and all the other issues. The truth is that the economy, our security, and all the other matters of our national life depend on and are inextricably linked to our morality. We have mistakenly allocated morality to an aspect of our religious life and have thereby disconnected it from our own larger national welfare and security.  

Political candidates, the news media and pundits rant about the economy, the war, taxes, crime and all the so called “critical issues” while ignoring the gross immorality of homosexuality, abortion, media filth, evolutionary dogma that passes itself of as academic freedom and general sensory driven visual tripe from Hollywood and similar sources. Morality is relegated to the churches and a few PC deficient fundamentalist Bible thumping diehards who just won’t seem to go away. 

The result of all this distraction derived from the lack of discernment is in a word: judgment. But is it inevitable? Does the sun Rise? Does the sun set? It is God’s judgment that follows the refusal to use our own better judgment.  

Using judgment is not a luxury that is reserved for a few and can be ignored by all others. In fact it is a biblical imperative that if ignored will have an immediate and devastating effect on everyone in our nation “The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.”(Isa 59:8) 

The simplest rule for using good judgment turns out to be just the opposite of what is being done in America’s visual generation. Here it is; “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” Jesus, John 7:24. 

If you have any discernment left and you must if you’ve gotten this far into this article then let me suggest that you pray for America to once again make decisions based on sound wisdom and spiritual discernment. 

Rev Bresciani is an author and columnist for several online and print publications. With over two million readers worldwide and growing you will enjoy the articles, movie reviews, commentary and much more visit www.americanprophet.org

What would you call it when a group of Bush hating, hallucinating, antiwar liberals get together for an antiwar, Bush bashing party on the taxpayers’ dime? Today, we call it a “Congressional Committee Hearing.” Most recently, it was the House Judiciary Committee discussing the “Constitutional Limits of Executive Power” - at least that is what they were supposed to be discussing. It wasn’t.

Chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mi), this hearing was based on the Dennis Kucinich points of impeachment of President Bush. Although billed as a House Committee Hearing on the Constitutional Limits of Executive Power, it was actually more like a lynch mob intent on putting Bush’s neck in a noose and pushing the articles of impeachment onto the House floor.

Repeatedly it was stated by Conyers that this was not an impeachment hearing, but rather an inquiry into presidential powers. Impeachment hearings had not been authorized by House leadership. Why? Because the House leadership knew they didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of ever passing impeachment of the president on the House floor. If you have ever wondered why Congress now has a 9% approval rating, this explains it all.

There was nothing new or different in this hearing that we haven’t been hearing from Democrats for the past 5 years. It was just a rehash of everything they hate about Bush and all of their unsupported charges thrown at the president over the years which include: lying to Congress and the American people; manipulating intelligence pertaining to WMD in Iraq; ordering the illegal use of torture; outing a covert agent; spying on the American people; firing U.S. Attorney’s for political purposes; denying the constitutional powers of congressional oversight; ignoring subpoenas; and other alleged crimes. Yet, this wasn’t an impeachment hearing.

It should be noted that throughout the hearing, Democrats rarely made mention of the attacks of 9-11, or the fact that we have been at war against terrorists ever since. As far as they are concerned, none of that exists and national defense and protecting the country from attack are irrelevant.

The Democrats have the right to pursue this nonsense, and as Mike Pence said, it’s a waste of time and will never be considered by Congress, but some of the accusations and hateful language used against the President were highly disrespectful and way over the top, if not just liberal nonsense. There was no shortage of references to Richard Nixon throughout the hearing, but only a couple of brief mentions of Bill Clinton, who also faced impeachment.

The hearing was supposed to be an investigation into the powers of the president (and the Democrats’ hopes of reducing them), not an impeachment hearing. That’s not the way it turned out. It was a clear and obvious attempt by Democrats to criminalize politics because they disagree with the policies of the president.

What hurts the most are the accusations by Democrats that President Bush has put his personal interests above the best interests of the American people; that everything he has done in defense of our country was done instead for some sort of personal gain. I don’t agree with Bush on a number of issues, but one credit I will give him is that his primary concern is for the safety and security of the country above all else. Democrats have made a big mistake by attacking him on this issue.

In their opening statements, they profess that Bush started a war in Iraq for no good reason, all on his own, and without the consent of Congress. The fact that Bush had a consensus of world intelligence in support of his reasons for going to war, that he had the full approval of Congress, and that Congress continues to fund the war in Iraq to this day, means nothing to them. They don’t care.

What they care about is getting their false charges and lies out on television and into the media to sucker in the uninformed voters; to increase their power to subvert the U.S. government; to trash the Constitution; and offer “change” - from capitalism to socialism, if not communism, and justify it all by saying they simply want to be sure the Constitution is being adhered to by the president.

An early example of liberal ignorance came from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, the same Sheila Jackson Lee who recently said the government should “socialize” and take over the oil companies. Now, Lee confuses our Constitution with international law:

“There are questions of torture, as to whether there was direction of the administration, institutional administration, to in essence to contravene international law, and thereby contravene the Constitution of the United States of America.”

Since when is the Constitution of the United States of America subservient to, or an article of, international law? Does Lee even know the difference between the government of the United States and the United Nations? I don’t think she does.

Then we had Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga) listing death and injury statistics from Iraq and making the claim that this was an impeachable offense. Code Pink must have been in the chambers as this statement resulted in an outburst of applause, which had previously been warned against by the chairman.

“Warrantless wiretapping of Americans, torturing and kidnapping and detaining of numerous prisoners - foreign, uh, enemy combatants, uh, prisoners, whatever they could be classified as.”

How about “enemies” or “terrorists,” Mr. Johnson? No, they way he sees it, they are just innocent victims of Bush.

“Political spying, uh, the attacks on academic freedom, uh, the politicization of the Justice Dept., selective prosecutions, uh, so many areas for inquiry by this congress…”

Isn’t Johnson listing things that Democrats have been doing all along? He looks at the president and sees a reflection of himself and his party. But in the end, he reminds his audience that “this is not an impeachment hearing.”

We also heard from Rep. Keith Ellison, who, as you may remember, was sworn into office on the Quran, not the Bible. All Ellison wanted to talk about was impeachment and how much he thinks it would be justified, but without any real specifics. But of course, this wasn’t an impeachment hearing.

Ellison was followed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, appearing as a witness, who simply ran down his articles of impeachment and all of his outrageous and ridiculous views on Bush and traditional America. In particular, he listed all of the justifications for the war in Iraq and in each case, said “Iraq was not…”, Iraq was not…,” making the claim that all of the points of justification for war in Iraq were false.

I guess Iraq wasn’t in violation of the ceasefire agreement or 17 U.N. Resolutions either. It’s nice to know that someone in Congress knows more about world affairs than all of the intelligence agencies and experts in the world combined. I often wonder if Kucinich is living in Alice’s wonderland, or Dorothy’s Land of Oz.

Then we had Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-Ny), who accused the Bush administration of being dominated by “corruption and incompetence.” Look who’s talking - a member of the party which is defined by corruption and incompetence - the party that has brought a 9% approval rating to Congress.

Hinchey simply dwelled on the infamous “August 6^th, 2001 memo” which was titled “Bin Ladden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” but contained no new or useful information. Hinchey professes that this should have been enough to prevent the 9-11 attacks. But he went further. He then accused Don Rumsfeld of intentionally allowing Bin Laden to escape in Tora Bora, to keep the terrorism threat alive, to justify the invasion of Iraq. Go figure. But remember, this isn’t about impeachment.

Ross “Rocky” Anderson, former mayor of Salt Lake City showed up as a witness, and spent his dime talking about torture - charges that have never produced one shred of evidence of ever happening. Remember when they couldn’t find evidence of detainee torture at Gitmo, they then set about changing the definition of torture in Congress? Now insulting, or getting too close to a woman is considered torture at Gitmo.

Occasionally (about one out of 5) we were treated to statements by someone living in the real world, a Republican. Most were in awe of what they had been hearing from the Democrats and openly expressed their displeasure and disgust with what was being said and portrayed as “truth.”

Stephen Presser, a Northwestern University Legal History Professor, made it clear that President Bush has done nothing that would constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and that his questionable “signing statements,” that overruled certain oversight by Congress, were nothing that hadn’t been done by every president throughout history in a time of war. His testimony reinforced the view that all this impeachment talk was pointless.

But Vincent Bugliosi, former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, took the cake when he outright labeled president Bush a “murderer.” Prefacing his remarks by saying that the rules of this committee do not allow for him to accuse Bush directly of a crime, so he will have to use the term “Administration” or other substitutes.

Quoting from his book “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder,” Bugliosi began with the premise that Bush “took this nation to war in Iraq on a lie, on false pretenses, and therefore under the law, they are guilty of murder of over 4000 American soldiers who have died so far, in Iraq, fighting their war. And let’s not forget the over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children who have died horrible, violent deaths because of this war.” Only 100,000? Funny that Kucinich said it was a million. Of course none of them were al Qaeda or Iraqi insurgents trying to kill Americans. Of course not.

Bugliosi went on to claim that he has “documentary evidence that when George W. Bush told the nation, on the evening of October 7, 2002, that Saddam Hussein was an eminent threat to the security of this country, he was telling millions of unsuspecting Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA had told administration officials just 6 days earlier in a classified report on October the first, that Hussein was not an imminent threat.”

There is just one thing wrong with this testimony: Bush never said that Hussein was an “imminent threat.” Bush called him a “grave and growing threat.” But Bugliosi didn’t stop there. He then went on to say that a few days later, the Bush Administration released a document known as the “white paper”, in which every reference to the CIA telling Bush that Saddam was not an “imminent threat” was completely deleted. “One of these all important words was taken out so Congress and the American people never saw any of this,” Bugliosi said. Maybe because it never existed in the first place? It’s no secret that Bush was advised against using the term “imminent”, and that’s why he didn’t use it.

That was followed shortly with “The terrible reality is that the Bush Administration has gotten away with thousands and thousands of murders and we, the American people, cannot let them do this.”

This kind of liberal Bush hating and distortion of the facts is demented.

When Bugliosi then went on to call for the Justice Department to file murder charges against people in the Bush Administration, the Code Pink crowd went wild. Chairman Conyers had to be reminded that he said he would clear the room if these outbursts happened again. Conyers refused to clear the room and Bugliosi finished his diatribe and book promotion.

Jeremy Rabkin, a George Mason University Law Professor, somewhat shocked by the previous testimony, then brought the room back to reality in a light hearted way by showing just how trivial all of these ridiculous accusations were by saying that some people in the room have suggested that there was some kind of conspiracy to take the nation into war, for no good reason at all, and that this was done knowingly.

He emphasized that if you really believed that, then you shouldn’t be wasting time on secondary issues like FISA and all the other charges being brought up, “just zero in on that.” He went on to elaborate about the Bush signing papers and how war time presidents historically “don’t particularly care about the Constitution, they care more about defending the country.” He reminded the committee that they need to look at all of these things in the context of wartime, something that has completely eluded the Democrat party.

Rabkin then talked about the partisan division that exists in the country. Looking around the room, he said “I’m really astonished at the mood in this room. I mean the tone of these deliberations, I think it’s slightly demented.” I would have to agree with that.

These are just some the highlights of the first half of this 6 hour, 15 minute hearing. I don’t have time to cover it all, but if you have the time, you can see it all at: http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=280000-1

It is a clear example of why Congress now has only a 9% approval rating.

 

JR Dieckmann is Editor, Publisher, Writer, and Webmaster of GreatAmericanJournal.com. He also works as an electrician in Los Angeles, Ca. He has been writing and publishing articles on the web since 2000. His articles appear on other publications such as: The Conservative Voice; Real Clear Politics; New Media Journal; Mich News; Daley Times-Post; Renew America, The Reality Check, American Truckers At War, and other conservative websites. JR can be contacted at http://www.greatamericanjournal.com/contact.htm.