John R. Houk
© January 18, 2014
Senator Diane Feinstein is the consummate Left Wing Democrat in the transforming America utopian pipedream that closet Marxists and Socialists dream is on high speed to fruition. To supporters of the U.S. Constitution Feinstein fired-up 2nd Amendment proponents by suggesting legal rules that would make the 2nd Amendment irrelevant without a Constitutional Amendment to make any such change.
That being said, if you don’t know by now, I am among other Conservative projects a Counterjihad Blogger. Essentially that means I believe Islam, Quran, Hadith, Sira or whatever; are designed to transform humanity into the Muslim view of deity, theology and way of living. That Muslim agenda must be accomplished by any means necessary. Muslims try peace first, subjugation, oppressive submission and if all else fails – a brutal form of Capital Punishment undoubtedly to set an example to those who would dare oppose Mohammed’s deity they call Allah.
Muslim Apologists and Leftist Multiculturalist literally hate people like me. AND so those two groups usually embark a path in the West where Free Speech still exists (but more and more diluted) to discredit Counterjihadists with outright lies about a peaceful Islam according to their Quran followed closely by the venomous accusation of being a racist and bigot.
I have no doubts that if a Muslim dedicated to what the Quran, Hadith, Sira or whatever says would kill me for their perception of insulting Islam. Currently I am way-way down the old totem pole of anyone a Muslim would like to silence; ergo no seeks to end my life like more notable Counterjihadists. Here are some names you may or may not recognize AND YET are probably well known among Muslim Apologists (in no particular of relevance but just from the top of my – no pun to give a Muslim any ideas intended):
o Bat Ye’or (Another Pseudonym)
o Fjordman (Another pseudonym): Among critics of the Counterjihad Movement – especially in Europe – often heads the list of the false accusation of being a Right Wing, Hate Mongering, Anti-Islam racist and bigot. If you Google his name you will find volumes of vilifying critics. This is especially the case do to a mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik who massacred mostly a bunch of youth in a Norwegian youth camp under the delusion it would inspire Europeans to bring about a New World Order by deporting Muslims. Breivik quoted Fjordman extensively in a delusional Manifesto delineating a movement in his mind to purify Europe and restructure a European government. Left Wing Europeans have used Breivik’s love of Fjordman’s writing to excoriate Counterjihadists as violent Right Wing Extremists.
I am certain I left someone out. These people are labelled extremists implying the advocacy of racist hatred or violence. The irony is that none of this applies to Counterjihad writers. The sole purpose of Counterjihadists is to shed light on what the Quran really says and exposing the deception involved with Islamic theology to convince non-Muslims to be accepting of Islam.
SO ANYWAY I began these thoughts talking about decidedly Left Wing Senator Diane Feinstein. Here is the thing that is remarkably shocking to a Counterjihad writer. The Democrat Leftist from California understands that Fundamentalist Muslims are a threat to the National Security of the United States. Not only has Feinstein identified Radical Islam as the enemy BUT as Chairman Senate Intelligence Committee has released a report that exposes the Obama Administration as negligent on protecting Ambassador Chris Stevens during the Benghazi attack by Islamic Terrorists.
I am no admirer of Senator Diane Feinstein but in this case she is awesome.
A Brigitte Gabriel email sent via ACT for America sent an email that reminded of this information. Below is that email.
A Tale of Three Senators
By Brigitte Gabriel
Sent: 1/17/2014 11:08 AM
ACT for America
In a time where courage is a precious commodity on Capital Hill, a Democratic U.S. Senator has set an admirable example of statesmanship in stark contrast to two of her former colleagues.
Senator Diane Feinstein of California, the Chair of Senate Intelligence Committee has sounded the alarm over the escalating threat from Jihadist terrorism and released a report in the pursuit of the truth about the terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11th, 2012.
Senator Feinstein’s words and deeds stand in stark contrast to those of former Senators Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, the former and current Obama administration Secretaries of State.
Senator Feinstein recently correctly defined our enemies as a “very fundamentalist jihadist Islamic community” – in a warning that terrorism is on the rise. During a December 1st interview on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley, Senator Feinstein noted,
I think there is a real displaced aggression in this very fundamentalist jihadist Islamic community. And that is, that the West is responsible for everything that goes wrong and that the only thing that’s going to solve this, is Islamic sharia law and the concept of the caliphate. And I see more groups, more fundamentalists, more jihadists, more determined to kill to get where they want to get. So, it’s not an isolated phenomenon. You see these groups spread a web of connections. And this includes North Africa, it includes the Middle East, it includes other areas as well.
It took great courage for Senator Feinstein to publicly identify the enemy and describe the basics of the doctrine that underpins their actions. She knew full well that her democratic base will be very uncomfortable with her bold truth about a problem that is devastating our country yet no one wants to identify including the president. Her words were like a breath of fresh air. Few Republicans, much less Democrats, on Capitol Hill have done as good a job of articulating the threat we face from Jihad.
Unfortunately, Feinstein’s former colleague, Secretary of State John Kerry, is not nearly as well informed as she is. He has uttered nothing to indicate that he has any grasp of the enemy threat doctrine and what makes our enemies “tick.”
In fact, just this week, Kerry parroted the long-discredited theory that terrorism is caused by poverty. In remarks delivered during a visit to the Vatican, Kerry proclaimed poverty to be the “root cause” of terrorism.
This isn’t the first time Kerry has regurgitated such nonsense. Speaking at the Global Counterterrorism Forum in the wake of the Jihadist terrorist attack on a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, Kerry called for “providing more economic opportunities” for youth to prevent them from being recruited to terrorism.
Perhaps Kerry has forgotten that Osama Bin Laden was a multimillionaire who left a life of luxury in Saudi Arabia to wage global jihad? Or maybe he forgets that the current leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was no pauper either. He was a professor of surgery and practicing physician at one time in his native Egypt before he turned to jihad. Then there is current captive Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was well off enough to come to the United States to earn a degree in engineering from North Carolina A&T.
There is no actual evidence that poverty causes terrorism. Jihadist terrorism has its roots in the doctrine known as sharia. Jihadists have come to commit acts of terror from a variety of lifestyles, nationalities and socioeconomic backgrounds. There is no evidence to indicate that poverty is a prerequisite for Jihadist terrorism, despite what Kerry says.
In fact, Kerry’s statement shows a profound confusion and naïveté when it comes to the war with which we are faced. Fortunately, Senator Feinstein doesn’t have the same problem that Secretary Kerry has.
In fact, as Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Feinstein has just released a new, bipartisan report on the Jihadist terror attack on US diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11th, 2012, that goes a long way toward dispelling some of the myths surrounding that attack and assigning accountability for what went wrong.
Among the report’s findings:
• The attack was NOT a spontaneous act of violence touched off by a protest in reaction to a video about the prophet Mohammed.
• The U.S. government did not do enough to prevent the attack or protect the diplomatic facilities.
• The Obama State Department had ample warning of a dangerous security situation in Benghazi but failed to take proper action to secure lives and property.
• The Obama intelligence community issued statements after the attack that turned out to be wrong and then was slow in correcting those incorrect statements.
Feinstein’s committee’s candid, accurate report is quite different from the testimony before the Senate delivered by Senator Feinstein’s former colleague, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on January 23rd, 2013. Who can forget the shameful prevarications and doublespeak from Hillary Clinton that day?
But worst of all was this cynical and infamous passage:
With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they would go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?
Congratulations to Senator Feinstein for identifying the mistakes for which Hillary Clinton was ultimately responsible and laying out the facts for the American people that Benghazi was PREVENTABLE, because to us, it DOES make a difference!
Counterjihadists and Senator Feinstein
John R. Houk
© January 18, 2014
A Tale of Three Senators
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
John R. Houk
© January 9, 2014
In the Republican Party the GOP Elitists wield the power and the Tea Party Conservatives get out the grassroots urging voters to vote favorably for pro-Republican issues. A marvelous revelation is beginning to emerge among Conservative activists and voters active within the Republican Party. That revelation is that Republican Elitists are only on board with Conservative principles of limited government and fair taxes only when it suits the Elitists to gain political power.
Let’s be honest in the USA political power is attained by eligible voters participating in America’s constitutional process in selecting candidates for Office in the Legislative Branch and in the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch on a Federal Level pertains to the Office of President of the United States (POTUS) and on a State and Local Level for such Offices as Governor, Lieutenant Governor, perhaps a few State-level Cabinet positions, County Commissioners, Sheriffs and Mayors.
The goal of political power to achieve political ends is for a Political Party to control the Office of POTUS primarily. The political ends are attainable when a Political Party controls both Houses of Congress. AND supposedly the political power dream is for a Political Party to control POTUS, the Senate and the House. AND it is considered favorable if the Political Party controlling the Office of POTUS is able to select Judiciary Branch Judges that favor a Political Party’s political agenda especially the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
Here is the political reality of 21st century American politics. There is a Left and Right agenda. This two-sided coin of agendas is all about how to interpret the U. S. Constitution. The 21st century American Left desires to interpret the Constitution under the reasoning of a Living Constitution.
In general a Living Constitution is interprets law on the basis of the greater good of society’s overall belief system. What is good for society uses the Constitution as a template to launch legal change to conform to society’s perceived norm.
In general the Right agenda is to interpret the U.S. Constitution under the Original Intent of America’s Founding Fathers as a foundation for law that is changed by the will of the voters rather than imposed by government to remold society’s belief system.
The Left-Right political ideals have roughly been translated in America’s development of a Two-Party political system in which neither extreme view attains absolute political power constitutionally but through the vision of the Founding Fathers’ vision of protecting American citizens from oppressive and/or corrupt government Checks and Balances were to be the hallmark of governing in the American Republic.
In the first 100 years or so of the American Republic a Left-Right political gap was nearly non-existent. The emerging political struggle in the USA seemed to center on the economic principles Big Business urbanization and the disparity with the one-time backbone of early America the economy centered upon rural industry such as family farms. People of property were the original enfranchised voters of the American Republic. The un-propertied citizens were not considered capable of participating as a political influence in government on a Local, State and especially a Federal level. The Civil War was as much about the rural political Elites of the South sensing a threat to their economic base from the Big Business urban Elites of the North. And within the North those Elites of power were centered in the North East (New York, Pennsylvania and the New England States). The backbone of the rural Southern economy was slave labor. The abolition of Slavery became the spark that ignited conflict between the agendas of Northern Elites and Southern Elites. Thank God the immorality of slavery was abolished even though the actual struggle was with Northern and Southern economics and power control. It is my opinion that President Lincoln’s obstinacy in preserving the Union of all the States in the American Republic is what led to the possibility of the USA becoming a super power today.
Thanks to a godless German Karl Marx and urbanized labor producing even Bigger Business in the Western World a new political disparity began to emerge between the working class and Industries’ Wealthy Elites. As the working class replaced the family farm as the backbone of the economy in Western Society, voting enfranchisement began to be extended to all voting age males and by early 20th century to include all voting age females. This began the change of the political dynamics in Western nations in which moral consciences began to enforce better living conditions and labor safety issues that affected the new backbone of the Western Economy. BUT still the wealthy Elites were the actual power brokers politically with votes becoming a restraint upon excesses of political Elitist agendas.
Marx’s bitter vision of the less wealthy working class rising up to forcefully appropriate industrial control the utopian dream of spreading the wealth caught emotions of the Western World’s better educated people which ironically ultimately influenced a significant people from the wealthy class to begin spreading the power in better equity among voting citizens. And those that became dedicated to the Marxist vision adopted an activism to change society by force. Hence the success of Vladimir Lenin and his cadre of followers that infected Russia’s poorest of the poor in the still existing Russian Serfs of the early 20th century. The successes of Lenin to instill a new power Elite in Russia replacing the Boyer (Nobles) led Monarchist Elites would soon lead to Russian disillusionment. The Serfs that indeed experienced a better living circumstance had to yield to the all-pervasive power structure of the top-down Soviet-Communist State. Eventually the Soviet vision of Communism was adopted by China’s Mao Zedong who adopted Leninist-Marxism to conform to Chinese culture but still making utopian promises to China’s extreme have-nots.
Before the 21st century came to be it became clear that Soviet Communism was just another form of absolute power corrupting absolutely. The USSR incentiveless economy could not bring the kind of economic liberation that the more Capitalistic Economies of the Western World brought to an entrenched Middle Class that had a better life than Marx’s so-called oppressed working class would be doomed to experience. Thanks to a Reagan-led revolution of an emphasis of a Market Economy and the incentives that prospered American ingenuity, the USA was able to outspend the Soviet economy. In the 1960s Khrushchev threatened to bury America. In reality Reagan’s America buried the Soviet Union forcing its collapse without a single actual military confrontation.
But the call of Communist utopianism and the elusive promise of an egalitarian society in which people attain a humanistic equality absent the restraining instruments of religious (in my case Biblical) morality has reared its head in stealth. Since forced Marxist-Communism has been demonstrated to be a failure with the demise of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), how can these lovers of a Communist society transform the world?
The stealth paradigm for the new Communist agenda to transform the world moves away from Leninist-Trotskyist-Stalinist principle of armed revolution. The new Communism is societal infiltration on a cultural level. The prime mover of this new Communism (maybe neo-Communism) was an Italian who died just before the beginning of WWII. At one time this Italian was considered the father of Eurocommunism. In the 1970s and 80s Eurocommunism was making serious inroads politically in Western Europe. The various national Communist Parties of Western Europe were actually gaining electoral support on a national basis in European nations. The greatest inroads accomplished by Eurocommunism were primarily in Italy and France. Eurocommunism has since receded as a political force in Western Europe. Without further study my guess for the lack of electoral interest in Eurocommunism is largely due to Western Europe adopting a Socialist political paradigm separate from Marxist-Leninist revolution.
Even so the Western European Socialist paradigm is part and parcel of the Italian person considered the father of Eurocommunism – Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci died in 1937 after years of incarceration for his Marxist political beliefs. Gramsci’s Marxist theories essentially postulated that Communism triumphs over a Capitalist society more by slow a transformation than an instant armed revolution. It is good speculation that Gramsci’s slow transformation paradigm was influential on Obama-Hillary hero Saul Alinsky. Here is an excerpt from DTN that gives a snapshot of the Alinsky methodology:
After completing his graduate work in criminology, Alinsky went on to develop what are known today as the Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power. In the late 1930s he earned a reputation as a master organizer of the poor when he organized the “Back of the Yards” area in Chicago, an industrial and residential ethnic neighborhood on the Southwest Side of the city, so named because it is near the site of the former Union Stockyards; this area had been made famous in Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel The Jungle. In 1940 Alinsky established the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), through which he and his staff helped “organize” communities not only in Chicago but throughout the United States. IAF remains an active entity to this day. Its national headquarters are located in Chicago, and it has affiliates in the District of Columbia, twenty-one separate states, and three foreign countries (Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom).
By the late 1960s, the Black Power movement would drive Alinsky and his organizing crusades out of the projects in African-American neighborhoods, leaving him no choice but to shift his focus to white communities. For this purpose, he established the Citizens Action Program (CAP), in 1970. As Stanley Kurtz writes in his 2010 book Radical in Chief: “Alinsky was … convinced that large-scale socialist transformation would require an alliance between the struggling middle class and the poor. The key to radical social change, Alinsky thought, was to turn the wrath of America’s middle class against large corporations.”
In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” — a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted — a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse — to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed. (Saul Alinsky; By John Perazzo; Determine The Networks; April 2008)
Hillary Clinton’s 1969 College Essay on Saul Alinsky shows his influence on her. Alinsky’s influence on Obama was a bit more indirect than Hillary’s but perhaps also a bit more hands on in applying the Alinsky Method. Check this out from David Horowitz:
Unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama never personally met Saul Alinsky. But as a young man, he became an adept practitioner of Alinsky’s methods. In 1986, at the age of 23 and only three years out of Columbia University, Obama was hired by the Alinsky team to organize residents on the South Side [of Chicago] “while learning and applying Alinsky’s philosophy of street-level democracy.”10 The group that Obama joined was part of a network that included the Gamaliel Foundation, a religious group that operated on Alinsky principles. Obama became director of the Developing Communities Project, an afﬁliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, where he worked for the next three years on initiatives that ranged from job training to school reform to hazardous waste cleanup.
Three of Obama’s mentors in Chicago were trained at the Alinsky Industrial Areas Foundation,12 and for several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method.13 One of the three, Gregory Galluzo, shared with Ryan Lizza the actual manual for training new organizers, which he said was little different from the version he used to train Obama in the 1980s. According to Lizza, “It is ﬁlled with workshops and chapter headings on understanding power: ‘power analysis,’ ‘elements of a power organization,’ ‘the path to power.’ … The Alinsky manual instructs them to get over these hang-ups. ‘We are not virtuous by not wanting power,’ it says. ‘We are really cowards for not wanting power,’ because ‘power is good’ and ‘powerlessness is evil.’”14
According to Lizza, who interviewed both Galluzo and Obama, “the other fundamental lesson Obama was taught was Alinsky’s maxim that self- interest is the only principle around which to organize people. (Galluzzo’s manual goes so far as to advise trainees in block letters: ‘Get rid of do-gooders in your church and your organization.’) Obama was a fan of Alinsky’s realistic streak. ‘The key to creating successful organizations was making sure people’s self-interest was met,’ he told me, ‘and not just basing it on pie-in-the-sky idealism. So there were some basic principles that remained powerful then, and in fact I still believe in.’” On Barack Obama’s presidential campaign website, one could see a photo of Obama in a classroom “teaching students Alinskyan methods. He stands in front of a blackboard on which he has written, ‘Power Analysis’ and ‘Relationships Built on Self Interest,…’”15 (Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model; By David Horowitz; Discover The Networks; © 2009 – PDF Document)
Both Hillary and Obama had a Middle Class upbringing with Left oriented families. There is no surprise that Hillary and Obama radicalized toward the Left both being attracted to activism pointed toward the underprivileged. In the 1950s and 60s such activism typically led to an attraction to Marxist principles to transform America to an egalitarian utopia.
We Conservatives like to call Republicans with a diluted to nonexistent Conservatives as Republicans in Name Only (RINO). How much diluted Conservatism do we accept as Conservative before we bend our ears back and shout RINO? Let’s take Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and former GOP Vice Presidential Nominee in 2012. After perusing OnTheIssues.org Ryan definitely has a Conservative pedigree. And yet Tea Party Conservative express vitriol towards Ryan for coming up with a give-n-take Budget that obviously only places a dent in the Budget instead of putting a Budget together that exudes Less Government, Less Government Spending and better taxes. Frankly it will be impossible to pass a Budget that will make Conservatives happy with a Socialist minded President and a Dem Party Senate dominated by the principles of Marxist-Socialism. Regardless of the criticism some movement is better than zero. My concern about Paul Ryan rather than defending his Conservative pedigree he may be joining the Republican Establishment to vacate Tea Party Conservatives from the GOP.
Tea Party Conservatives believe the GOP Establishment should excised from the Republican. Obama’s Left Wing fringe is praying (to whoever the ungodly pray to) the Republican Establishment ejects Tea Party Conservatives, Social Conservatives and those known as the Religious Right. I found a guy that is a homosexual Leftist that actually the Conservative Wing of the GOP as the Fringe Right. The reality this ungodly dude exemplifies the Fringe Left dominating the Democratic Party. Check out this support for the Republican Establishment:
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) finally told Tea Party extremists to jump in a lake. He was incensed by reflexive criticism from outside pressure groups that bitterly opposed a new budget deal negotiated by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc) and Sen. Patty Murray, (D-Wash). The Ohio Republican realized that these implacable “conservatives” had their own agenda that did not include what was best for the American people. So radical was their position, that they would risk another government shutdown, which would be a calamity for the Republican Party.
In my view, the Republican brain trust should abandon its reliance on social conservatives and Tea Party activists. They haven’t already done so out of fear that it would be political suicide that would cost them their base. However, by dumping these extremists, the GOP would almost immediately gain new credibility with Independent voters. They would also put conservative Democrats into play who lean right, but won’t vote for GOP candidates because of their retrograde views on social issues.
Dumping the Tea, as well as the Religious Right, would also increase the Republican odds of winning the presidency. In the last couple of election cycles, the GOP primaries attracted two types of presidential candidates: Those who are crazy (Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann) and those who abandoned their principles and pretended to be insane in order to win (John McCain and “severe conservative” Mitt Romney). The influence of radical elements in the primaries produced flawed candidates who appeared plastic and insincere. A worst-case scenario was the drafting of the unqualified Sarah Palin for Vice President, which badly damaged McCain’s credibility.
… (John Boehner Should Stop Fishing In the Tea Party Piranha Stream; By Wayne Besen [Leader of group Truth Wins Out]; Falls Church News Press; 12/17/13 4:16 PM)
So if the Fringe Left views the Republican Establishment as an ally in the sense of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, why indeed should Tea Party Conservatives remain a part of a Political Party in which the power structure does not desire Conservative Principles or Conservative Values? My God my fellow Americans! The Republican Establishment is calling the Conservative base that retook the House in 2012 is being vilified as fringe outside groups and basically must discover their pecking order within the GOP.
Here is Part Four of Danny Jeffrey’s “Iran, Obama and Nuclear War.” Danny continues the grand design of the Soros/Obama New World. He touches on how Obama is making the U.S. Military compliant to fire on American citizens, the probable location of where Iran will use stealth to detonate a nuclear weapon, Islamic Terrorism unleashed on American soil and more.
Iran, Obama and Nuclear War Part FOUR
By Danny Jeffrey
November 14, 2013 1:40 AM
This essay is the forth in a series about my belief that Hussein Obama is intentionally leading us into a nuclear crisis. The following are links to three prior articles on the topic:
Iran, Obama, and Nuclear War-Part Three
I have watched Obama, and his fellow progressives for years, and by rejecting the ever abundant internet tripe that ensnares so many, have gleaned an enormous amount of facts and insight into their behavior, and in doing so feel that my efforts have uncovered most of their diabolical plan, about which I have been writing for so long.
I first concluded three years ago that Obama’s policies were going to result in nuclear conflict and at that time related their plan only to the ruin of Israel, already understanding both his and George Soros’ hatred of that small nation. Time and yet more facts coming to light have led me to see a much larger picture, one that is nothing less than absolutely diabolical.
So many refer to Obama as a dictator. They are mistaken. That is his goal, but as of yet it has thankfully not come to fruition. Were he indeed a dictator, we would not be communicating freely on the internet, and the DHS would already be rounding up dissidents. That day is planned, but thus far we still have the First Amendment allowing us to communicate amongst ourselves.
There is no doubt that Hussein does indeed plan on implementing martial law when the time is right and declaring himself to be ‘The One’. That time is not yet here but is most assuredly part of his planned agenda, and I am now convinced that the success of that plan relies on a nuclear crisis. Were that not so, Hussein Obama would not be expending so much effort to guarantee that Iran is successful in their desire to construct a nuclear bomb.
In previous essays I have discussed the need for Obama to destroy our military before engaging the armed population of America, for our … READ THE REST
Some see, few know, many choose to wander aimlessly in a fog, devoid of sunlight. I seek the light of day and leave the others to their chosen realm of ignorance. They are the ones who have brought this great nation down. I write only for the benefit of those who possess the courage required to restore our birthright.
John R. Houk
© October 24, 2013
Something popped into my head while I was reading your essay. Yeah, I know, when the light comes on in the old grey matter it could be dangerous. You believe a revolution is imminent and the attempted take-over will be at the hands of the
Left … err I mean Progressives, correct? Frankly I do not disagree with that prediction.
But here’s the thing. What if a majority of the American electorate awoke from the Matrix slumber imposed by the Left and began voting against Progressive candidates and Establishment Republicans? What if true Conservatives began to have the proverbial upper hand politically at least as in the Reagan years? Would there still be a revolution in America’s immediate future?
Now here’s the thought that popped into my mind. No matter who dominates America’s political power structure a revolution would occur anyway. Why?
The reason is because the political spectrum in the USA is uncompromisingly fractured. There is the Progressive Left. There is the Conservative Right. There is an Independent electorate in the middle that is neither Progressive nor Conservative but just want the best environment to live their lives on whatever non-political path they desire to walk.
Honestly the semblance of balance has been the Center-Left and the Center-Right that have historically bargained in an agreed upon give-and-take legislative fashion. The last time that balance broke down in the USA there was a bloody Civil War with the weaponry of that time.
It is my opinion the Center-Left in America has totally disintegrated in America’s Constitutional power structure. In our current Two-Party system those we call the Establishment Republicans are the Center-Right. The problem with the GOP’s Center-Right is that the business-as-usual mentality has been infected with Center-Left or just down right Progressive thinking. The growing Conservatives of the Republican view (and rightfully so) as a betrayal of the history that brought America to the point of the most powerful yet Freest nation on the planet Earth.
This absence of political balance is what will lead to another Revolutionary War in the USA. I guess one could call a future internecine war in America the Second Civil War, but I tend to think it will be akin to America’s original Revolutionary War. Divisions in political loyalties will splinter urban areas as well as rural areas. The only reason entire States might take a side for or against a duly elected Constitutional government one political spectrum was able to subdue the other side of the political spectrum within a State.
No, the next war conflicting Americans will be whose political vision wins a bloody war with the winners Founding a new Constitution based on the victorious political spectrum.
God have mercy on us all on how such a war will culminate.
Hmm … Another dangerous thought: Perhaps a global war will set aside political spectrum conflict within the USA – at least temporarily. But again Danny isn’t the global conflict part of an International Progressive agenda to squash opposition to a Left Wing New World Order?
Time will tell.
Justin Smith writes about defunding Obamacare even if the debt ceiling is not ultimately raised. He believes the onus of the lack of budget will fall on President Barack Hussein Obama and the rest of the big spending Socialist-minded Dems. Most importantly Justin calls on individual States to utilize Article V of the U.S. Constitution to call a Constitutional Convention with a specified agenda to repeal Obamacare. A specified agenda would deal with the fear of both sides of the political spectrum that a Constitutional Convention is not a run-away convention destroying the spirit of the Founding Fathers’ revolutionary Constitution.
A Patriot’s Answer
By Justin O. Smith
Sent: 9/23/2013 11:14 AM
As the October 1, 2013 enrollment period for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) nears and Obama and a host of temporary politicians and Progressives gleefully ruminate over permanent societal changes effected by the PPACA, some Americans are preparing to submit to the ignoble lie called “Obamacare,” even though nothing exists in the entirety of U.S. history, the Constitution and the Commerce Clause that empowers any of the three branches of the federal government to force a person to enter into a legally binding contract against the individual’s will. And, no matter what nonsense Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, the majority of the American people still know Obamacare to be unConstitutional and representative of a gross overreach of power by the Obama administration and the Progressives.
Obama has “found loopholes,” that he and Progressives surely knew existed beforehand, which exempt Congress and their staffers and the Executive and staff from Obamacare. They act as if this is the Obama monarchy and they, Republican and Democrat alike, are his entourage of aristocrats!
Since when do we make laws applicable to only certain segments of society anymore? Since when are government officials above the law? And, why should I or anyone else comply with a law that even exempts the unions and does not apply evenly and equally throughout our society?
Although Obama has warned of an “economic backslide” if the Republicans bring the Obamacare fight to the continuing resolution and fight him over the budget (lack of a budget) and raising the debt ceiling, some Republicans in the Senate, such as Bob Corker (R-TN)are refusing to attempt to defund Obamacare by September 30, because they do not want the blame for any government shutdown that may result from this fight; and now that the House funded the entire government except for Obamacare with a vote of 230 to 189, the Progressives in the Senate probably will not pass the bill, Obama will not sign it and the Progressive Democrats will be the ones shutting down the government.
Why run from this battle? Let the government shut down, and place the onus on Obama; his actions during such a shutdown will surely serve to return the Congress and the Senate to solid, conservative, patriotic American leadership in 2014 and 2016. And, do not worry about the essentials of government, because they continue normally during a government shutdown, unless Obama’s inclination towards illegal activity moves him to act unConstitutionally and interfere with the military, Medicare and Social Security.
House Representatives, such as Diane Black (R-TN) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have suggested that a government shutdown will allow Obama to decide which government services are the most vital for the “protection of life and property,” and they believe he will have the government purse at his disposal through “discretionary spending”. However, the President does not have such authority anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or any of its 27 Amendments. Essentially, they are saying that Obama will fund the PPACA even if he has to take funds from numerous government departments, illegally and unConstitutionally… which has never stopped him before; and, he may do just that, since he has no regard for the law, the U.S. Constitution or Our American Heritage!
Many elected officials, as well as noted newscaster Brit Hume (FoxNews), have observed that Obama will not readily accept a delay of the individual mandate, even though he illegally delayed the business mandate, because Obama needs to get the money flowing and people hooked on the “free” subsidized benefits under the PPACA; it is nearly impossible to reduce or end such a program, once it is really up and running, as history shows.
We cannot let Obamacare become permanently embedded in the social fabric of America; good or bad, Obamacare is nowhere near ready for implementation, therefore, delay, at the very least, is absolutely necessary, but ‘We the People’ continue to demand, “Defund Obamacare!”
When will anyone stand and fight? …ever?
“We don’t have the votes”…damn you Bob Corker…tell me something I don’t know and get out there and fight for those votes! If You spent as much time fighting to defund Obamacare as you do holding Obama’s hand and stating the obvious, Obamacare would already be a thing of the past!
Obama and his administration, the U.S. federal government or any government does not have the authority to trespass on our individual sovereignty. So, I will not be signing up for Obamacare on October 1, 2013 through January 2017, or at any time during my lifetime, and I will not voluntarily answer any medical questions on IRS tax-forms; fine me $285, $975 or $2085, I will not pay; come to arrest me, I will resist.
Anyone following my example will be called “criminal” by Obama and the Progressives… the real criminals. But, there is nothing “criminal” in defending the U.S. Constitution, Our American Heritage and our freedom, as we strive to return America to governance as a Constitutional Republic, rather than under an elitist despot. You are the Patriots!
As we engage in civil disobedience, let us all start a conversation with our state legislators and ask them to start working towards a States’ Convention for the purpose of proposing an Amendment to the Constitution that repeals the PPACA. A good starting point will have one state legislature…Tennessee, Virginia, Texas?… discuss this quickly with the other 49 legislatures; as soon as they can come to an agreement on this matter, they can begin choosing their delegates for the Convention.
Each respective state legislature will vote to attend or decline participation in such a Convention, and some states may place the question to the people in a referendum. It only takes thirty-three states presenting their Applications to congress to get the ball rolling, and Congress cannot impede this process in any manner, because its role regarding Article V is purely ministerial; the President and the U.S. Supreme Court cannot interfere with this Application or a convening States’ Convention.
There is also not any need to fear the myth of a “runaway Convention,” since each state delegate is sent with a very specific agenda in mind and directed by a quorum of the state legislature. These delegates are also subject to immediate recall if they stray erroneously from previously decided guidelines. And, whatever is proposed at one of these Conventions, in this case repealing Obamacare, must receive an affirmative vote from three fourths of the states; it naturally will also take some time to organize, but it is time well invested for the future of the American people.
Freedom and the dignity of the individual has never been more available and assured than right here in America, until the advance of the Obama regime. Our ancestors paid a high price for this Freedom, and Americans are certainly poised to pay a high price now and battle Obama and the Progressives with every available means. Whether or not Congress and the Senate ultimately defund Obamacare, Americans can and will decide on their own if they will be a free, responsible and prosperous people living under a Constitutional limited government or a dependent, indolent and impoverished people living at the State’s pleasure: We are too great a nation to limit ourselves and tolerate the confines of the tranny embodied by the PPACA and Obama’s “fundamental transformation!”
By Justin O. Smith
© Justin O. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
John R. Houk
© July 24, 2013
America’s Left – which means the Democratic Party and President Barack Hussein Obama – preach the acceptance of Diversity, Multiculturalism and Equality. As benevolent as those terms are they mean one thing to Leftists and promoted as something else to the typical Joe American voter.
Joe American is told Diversity is fair and equal acceptance of belief systems and such ungodly practices as homosexuality. Compassion for all ways of thinking and lifestyle practices sounds very high minded and agreeable, right?
A Latin motto that can be seen on U.S. money and the Great Seal is E Pluribus Unum – Out of many, one. This addresses diversity in America. Below is the original intent of the motto. Also the early flow of immigrants in America expanded on the original intent:
On the Great Seal of the United States, the phrase appears in the banner held in the beak of the American eagle. The busy eagle is also holding an olive branch and a quiver of arrows in its left and right talons, respectively. The phrase is meant to symbolize the union of the 13 original colonies, and their close relationship with the federal government. Over time, people have also taken “e pluribus unum” to refer to the ethnic diversity in the United States. (What Does “E Pluribus Unum” Mean? wiseGEEK)
E Pluribus Unum does not emphasize an Out of many, ensure multiple ethnic and gender identities. Rather the motto emphasizes out of a diverse amount of people ONE America emerges. An article I found at The Road to Emmaus reproduced an essay from The Patriot Post. The essay addresses America’s immigration policy under the original intent of the Founding Fathers adoption of E Pluribus Unum. I like the assertions of the early part of the essay:
“[T]he policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word, soon become one people.”
Out of many, one.
That was the national motto proposed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in 1776. Both simple and elegant, it embodied the notion that all who had come to America’s shores, and all who would come, must be united—must all form one front—in defense of freedom and liberty. For 200 years, we were, largely, one people united behind constitutional republicanism. But soon after the social turbulence of the ’60s and the economic woes of the ’70s, that unity began to crumble. This was the era in which multiculturalism emerged—the era in which ethnocentricity became chic.
Arthur Schlesinger, a former Harvard professor and senior advisor to JFK, published a retrospective on this era in 1991 called “The Disuniting of America.” Schlesinger wrote primarily about the orthodoxy of self-interested hyphenated-American citizen groups—who, rather than unifying to become one, were diversifying to become many. He warned that the cult of ethnicity would result in “the fragmentation and tribalization of America,” the natural consequence being that these special-interest groups would be co-opted by the political parties.
“Instead of a transformative nation with an identity all its own,” Schlesinger wrote, “America increasingly sees itself in this new light as preservative of diverse alien identities—groups ineradicable in their ethnic character.” He asserts, by way of inquiry, “Will the melting pot give way to the Tower of Babel?”
The disuniting of America is a foundational concern underlying much of the debate about immigration.
The disuniting of America is a foundational concern underlying much of the current security, economic and social debate (both rational and irrational) about immigration. This is the concern that a nation, which is already ethnically fragmented internally, risks complete disunity of its national integrity in the absence of borders. (E pluribus unum? Posted by The Road to Emmaus, Written by The Patriot Post [07 April 2006 | THE Patriot Post.US http://patriotpost.us/ | Patriot No. 06-14] READ THE REST)
The Leftist concept of “Diversity” is not an American concept.
Multiculturalism and diversity go hand in hand. Multiculturalism is the practice of upholding cultural standards that are foreign to America rather than to assimilate into American culture. Assimilation brings unity of purpose to a nation. If each diverse culture separates from America in emphasizing a foreign heritage and language above that which unifies America then disunity will ensue. Disunity in a nation magnifies conflict. Conflict leads to social chaos. Intense social chaos leads to the fracturing of the fabric of a nation. When the USA fractures kiss that which has made America great goodbye. The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution which have formed a Union of States will become interests of past history rather than the center piece of American cultural unity.
Multiculturalism is a body of thought in political philosophy about the proper way to respond to cultural and religious diversity. Mere toleration of group differences is said to fall short of treating members of minority groups as equal citizens; recognition and positive accommodation of group differences are required through “group-differentiated rights,” a term coined by Will Kymlicka (1995). Some group-differentiated rights are held by individual members of minority groups, as in the case of individuals who are granted exemptions from generally applicable laws in virtue of their religious beliefs or individuals who seek language accommodations in schools or in voting. Other group-differentiated rights are held by the group qua group rather by its members severally; such rights are properly called group rights, as in the case of indigenous groups and minority nations, who claim the right of self-determination. In the latter respect, multiculturalism is closely allied with nationalism.
While multiculturalism has been used as an umbrella term to characterize the moral and political claims of a wide range of disadvantaged groups, including African Americans, women, gays and lesbians, and the disabled, most theorists of multiculturalism tend to focus their arguments on immigrants who are ethnic and religious minorities (e.g. Latinos in the U.S., Muslims in Western Europe), minority nations (e.g. Catalans, Basque, Welsh, Québécois), and indigenous peoples (e.g. Native peoples in North America, Maori in New Zealand). (Multiculturalism; Sarah Song; The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.))
Here are some excerpts from a Thomas Sowell essay on the evils of Multiculturalism:
Among the many irrational ideas about racial and ethnic groups that have polarized societies over the centuries and around the world, few have been more irrational and counterproductive than the current dogma of multiculturalism.
Intellectuals who imagine that they are helping racial or ethnic groups that lag behind by redefining their lags out of existence with multicultural rhetoric are in fact leading them into a blind alley.
Multiculturalism, like the caste system, paints people into the corner where they happened to have been born. But at least the caste system does not claim to benefit those at the bottom.
Multiculturalism not only serves the ego interests of intellectuals, it serves the political interests of elected officials, who have every incentive to promote a sense of victimhood, and even paranoia, among groups whose votes they want in exchange for both material and psychic support.
The biggest losers in all this are those members of racial minorities who allow themselves to be led into the blind alley of resentment and rage even when there are broad avenues of opportunity available. And we all lose when society is polarized. (READ ENTIRETY – The Dogma of Multiculturalism; By Thomas Sowell; National Review Online; 3/15/13 12:00 AM)
Frosty Wooldridge on the evils of Multiculturalism:
Those people with hyphenated nationalities manifest “multiculturalism.”
By its very name, it destroys one culture by breaking it into many. It’s like throwing a baseball through a window in a house, fracturing it into many pieces. The window can no longer protect that house from rain, winds or snow. Additionally, with numerous cultures come multiple languages. Linguistic chaos equals unending tension. The writer, Kant, said, “The two great dividers are religion and language.”
On the other hand, millions respond and respect their one allegiance as that of being an “American.” Thus, we grow as a country at odds with itself. We lose our national identity with every added citizen who calls him/herself a hyphenated American.
Europe provides a peek into our future. Their Muslim-British immigrants stand at odds with everything English. If you visit London, you will find two separate societies. The Muslim-French immigrants balk at everything French. The Muslim-Dutch backlash against everything in Holland. Ethiopian-Norwegians will not assimilate into Norway’s culture.
Today, America’s grand 232 year run fractures, falters and degrades under the march of “multiculturalism.” The word sounds unifying, inclusive and respectful. Yet how unified can a nation remain where a foreign language forces its way into our national character? Los Angeles provides a peek into our future where Mexican culture “overtook” its way into dominance.
A recent PEW report shows America adding 138 million people in four decades. Of that number, 90 million immigrants will reach America’s shores by 2050. One in five citizens will be born out of our country. They drag in 100 incompatible third world cultures.
The mind-boggling first question remains: should all these immigrants that arrive from failed cultures succeed in their demands that we respect the injection of their culture and language into ours?
Yes, integrity mandates respect for all cultures and people. However, when will Americans leap past “political correctness” to stop the death of America? (READ ENTIRETY – Multiculturalism – Destroying American Culture; By Frosty Wooldridge; Rense.com; 3/13/08)
Regardless of what Leftists tell you, Multiculturalism is nation destroying and NOT nation building.
“Equality” is another one of those words that evoke fairness. Here are three online dictionary definitions of equality:
1. [T]he state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities – Oxford Dictionaries
2. [T]he state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.
[U]niform character, as of motion or surface. (Dictionary.com)
3 [T]he quality or state of being equal: the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc.
▪ racial/gender equality ▪ the ideals of liberty and equality ▪ women’s struggle for equality (Merriam-Webster Learner’s Dictionary)
As a Conservative Equality and Liberty are not interchangeable as Leftists view the terms. The best concise differentiation I have found on Equality and Liberty that I have ran into so far is from the website Community Of Liberty:
Here is the overview of this lecture by Thomas West, the Paul and Dawn Potter Professor of Politics at Hillsdale.
The Declaration of Independence
The soul of the American founding is located in the universal political principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The meaning of equality and liberty in the Declaration is decisively different than the definition given to those principles by modern progressivism.
Liberty is the right to be free from the coercive interference of other people. It is derived from nature itself, and is a natural right—something possessed simply because one is a human being.
Equality means no one is by nature the ruler of any other person. Each human being is equal in his right to life, liberty, and property which the Declaration calls “the pursuit of happiness.”
Equality, liberty, and natural rights require a certain form of government: republicanism, based on consent of the governed. Legitimate government, based on the consent of the governed, must accomplish three things: the establishment of civil laws that protect man’s natural rights; the punishment of those who infringe on others’ natural rights; and the protection of natural rights through a strong national defense.
The people themselves also play a vital role in protecting their rights. They must be educated in “religion, morality, and knowledge.”
Modern liberalism uses the same language of “liberty” and “equality” as the Declaration of Independence. Yet modern liberals mean something other than what the Founders meant by those words. For the Progressives, “equality” means equal access to resources and wealth, while “liberty” means the ability to utilize a right, rather than the right in itself. Both of these ideas necessitate government programs that help mankind liberate itself from its “natural limitations.”
The Declaration of Independence and modern Progressivism are fundamentally opposed to each other. The modern misunderstanding of “equality” and “liberty” threatens not just the Declaration of Independence, but the whole of the American constitutional and moral order. (What Did the Founders Mean by Equality and Liberty? Community of Liberty)
Equality under the Founding Fathers is closer to equality of opportunity rather than an egalitarian Equality in the State that takes from some to distribute others that are less innovative or less entrepreneurial in their financial portfolio. Equality is not providing the same benefits to an immoral person as a moral person. Equality does not mean equalizing ungodly lifestyles to godly lifestyles. Equality does not mean shutting out Christianity in order for Secularism and other religions enjoy extra rights to equalize with the majority cultural religion America.
Liberty means individual autonomy beyond the collective to accomplish a financial portfolio according to one’s ability and to live a life of any ideology or religion that does not break the equal protections in the rule of law that is dispersed on a collective basis. The rule of law must be enforced equally to the entire collective of the nation regardless of Race, Religion or Personal Beliefs. If ethnicity, Religion and Personal Beliefs diverge from the rule of law then it is the ethnicity, Religion and Personal Beliefs that transform to the rule of law. In America the rule of law is influenced by the first British and Europeans that came to America for Religious Liberty not experienced in the Old World where the State Established Church was preeminent. Another group of British came to America seeking economic opportunity that was not available back on the European continent. People that became the intelligentsia of early America were trained in the classical academics and Christian theology of the period. Ancient writers from Greece and Rome were an influence in an emerging political philosophy that the Founding Fathers combined with Christian principles that coalesced the nascent socio-political structure that became a part of America’s Founding Documents culminating in the United States Constitution.
Political Correctness has been kind to ideological appellations of the left side of the political spectrum. Such names as “Progressive” and “Liberal” are as misleading as the terms Diversity, Multiculturalism and Equality. People who wittingly or unwittingly (unwitting = mesmerized by altruism) look leftward for a principal of life are LEFTISTS.
I originally intended these thoughts as an introduction to a Eugene Delgaudio email that informs about how the Leftist influenced government is silently criminalizing Christianity. The silence is because the Leftist natured Mainstream Media (MSN) does not report on the slow criminalization of Christianity on a National basis. On the other hand the MSM is quick to denounce anything related to Christianity that prays in a public forum that taxes are associated. Also the MSM is quick to denounce Christianity that confronts moral degradation in America such as homosexuality or pornography. This secret persecution of Christianity is reprehensible. I will use Delgaudio’s email in the next post so you too can feel my outrage.
John R. Houk
© July 2, 2013
Yesterday I posted an exposé from a pro-Catholic and traditional morality Vlog site called ChurchMilitantTV about a closet homosexual lobby within the Vatican itself. Homosexuality spoken about was actually a problem that has plagued the Catholic Church for some time. That moral plague is predator Priests enticing and/or forcing minor boys to have sex with them. The crime of pedophilia is an act that most Americans find disgustingly abhorrent that a man would defile a male child in such a cruel fashion. In Christianity the Clergy of Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Churches are supposed to be a paradigm of morality as established by the Holy Scriptures.
Indeed Christian-hating Leftists and homosexual activists have gone to great lengths to exploit this small lobby contagion of homosexuals within the Catholic Church as hypocrites. These Christian-haters use Pedophile Priests as a good reason to nullify the morality of Christianity to be replaced by Moral Relativity.
Leftists and homosexual activists of course are quite selective in heaping Christian-hating epithets at the Roman Catholic Church. These same Christian-haters will turn around and heap praise on Protestant Denominations that have invalidated Biblical Morality to grasp at Moral Relativity. I found a Wikipedia table diagram of Churches that are accepting of homosexuality in four categories: membership, Ordination, blessing same-sex unions and marrying same-sex couples. I am uncertain on how up to date the diagram is. Below is a list of mainline Protestant Denominations from that list that are accepting of homosexuality regardless of the Word of God condemning the vulgar lifestyle:
Christian Church-Disciples of Christ:
Reformed Church in America
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America-ELCA
Presbyterian Church USA
Religious Society of Friends-Quakers
United Church of Christ-UCC
3) Same-Sex Unions
The United Methodist Church (UMC) was not on that Wikipedia table diagram; however the UMC is amenable to homosexual membership while condemning the homosexual lifestyle. Also the UMC will probably formerly accept ordination and same-sex marriage because both aspects exist even though UMC rules says no to both.
If I missed any Denominations that have tossed out the Bible when it comes to homosexuality I am confident someone will point it out to me.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently drove America further into Moral Relativity and away from Biblical Morality by destroying the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that mandated that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Then SCOTUS overturned the will of California State voters by essentially affirming a District Court ruling in California that Proposition 8 – which like DOMA declared marriage a union between a man and a woman – was unconstitutional. SCOTUS said the legal team defending Proposition 8 had no standing in Court because it was a private organization doing the California State government’s job. Of course old Governor Moonbeam and the State legislation are dominated by Christian-Morality-Hating Democrats; thus the State government refused to defend the will of the California State voters.
I am rehashing the SCOTUS anti-Christian activism in the last near hundred years over the Original Intent of the Constitution because now further moral degradation will be in America’s future. The pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church could become legalized as the next step in Moral Relativity. If America becomes propagandized into totally accepting the moral depravity of homosexuality, Man/Boy sexual relations will not be far behind in the legal acceptance in the rule of law.
After Moral Relativism mandates Man/Boy NAMBLA style acceptance of sexual relationships then it will be illegal in the USA for the majority Roman Catholic hierarchy to discipline pederast Priests that will claim those boys voluntarily engaged in sex with adult Priests. Incidents described in this article will longer be scandalous.
Italian investigators have opened an inquiry into claims by a convicted paedophile priest that an underage prostitution ring has been operating inside the Holy Roman Church with clergymen hiring rentboys for sex inside churches.
Don Patrizio Poggi, 46, told Italian authorities that a former Carabinieri pimped boys for nine clergymen.
Poggi, who served a five-year sentence for abusing teenage boys while he was a parish priest at the San Filippo Neri church in Rome, said he made the allegations to “protect the Holy Church and the Christian community.”
The boys were chosen because they were starving and desperate, he claimed, according to Il Messaggero newspaper.
The former policeman used to recruit the boys, mostly eastern European immigrants, outside a gay bar named Twink near Rome’s Termini train station. He reportedly sat in his Fiat Panda – marked “Emergency Blood” to avoid parking fines – to make his selection.
He was helped in the recruitment process by a friend who ran a modelling agency. He lured underage boys into prostitution through “false work offers for modelling and acting roles”, Poggi said.
The agent also looked for rentboys at gay discos, saunas and gyms across Rome. An accountant was also said to be involved.
The boys were paid €150-€500 (£130-£425) to perform sex acts in church premises across the capital.
Poggi also accused the former Carabinieri of selling consecrated hosts for satanic rites.
Poggi reportedly presented documentary and photographic evidence to police in the company of two senior Vatican clergymen who vouched for his credibility.
Poggi identified the nine clergymen, including two senior church officials and a religion lecturer. Three people have been placed under formal investigation.
The allegations were rejected by the Vatican. Cardinal Agostino Vallini, head of the Catholic Vicariate of Rome, said the priest made false claims out of a desire for vengeance and personal resentment.
The Vatican refused to reinstate Poggi after he served his term.
“The cardinal expresses his full confidence in the magistracy and declares himself full convinced that this slander will be demolished, demonstrating Poggi’s claims to be untrue,” Vallini said.
“God will hold everyone accountable for their deeds.” (Vatican Rentboy and Satanism Claims Revealed by Paedophile Priest Don Patrizio Poggi; By Umberto Bacchi; IBT; 6/27/13 11:35 AM GMT)
And check this out from Leftist website Right Wing Watch. The irony is the post is meant as an indictment against Conservatives and Biblical Morality yet the article is informative of the path SCOTUS is taking Christianity in America.
Gary Bauer is joining other anti-gay activists in warning that they should prepare to face jail time as a result of gay rights victories at the Supreme Court. In the Washington Times today, Bauer claims that people who oppose same-sex marriage will “find themselves in court” and religious people may soon be “fined or jailed” because of their views.
The ultimate goal of homosexual-rights activists is not to legalize same-sex marriage. Rather, it is to silence those who disagree with them and, if necessary, to throw them in jail. In a world in which the biblical viewpoint of marriage is demonized, it does not take a constitutional scholar to predict that soon those who hold that view will find themselves in court.
How did we get to the point where homosexual-rights activists would be clamoring to redefine society’s oldest and most reliable institution and people of faith would be worried about being fined or jailed for teaching their faith?
A lot had to happen, and it’s not all the left’s fault. It took the breakdown of traditional marriage. It took churches deciding that they could accommodate the homosexual culture or ignore it altogether. It took businesses placing their bottom lines ahead of morality. It took politicians who assured voters on the campaign trail that they would protect marriage and then did nothing to keep their promises once they arrived in Washington.
As a society, we have lost the understanding of what marriage is and what the consequences will be if we redefine it. Nobody has the right to redefine marriage. Doing so ignores research that makes clear that children do best when raised by a mother and a father. Nobody has the right to force children to grow up without the unique contributions that a mother and a father provide.
Not to be outdone, Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily claims the Supreme Court may take away Christians’ right to vote:
Now where do we go from here?
It’s obvious, isn’t it?
The Supreme Court virtually declared an open season on those with whom the 5-4 majority disagree.
We are no longer relevant. What we think no longer counts. We are, after all, bigots who only want to demean homosexuals.
So when does the persecution begin?
When are we stripped of our citizen status, the right to vote, the right to bear arms and other constitutionally guaranteed liberties? Isn’t that next?
If not, why not?
It was just 10 years ago to the day of this decision that the Supreme Court issued another sweeping ruling in the Lawrence v. Texas case. It struck down anti-sodomy laws in that state and, effectively, across the country.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent in that case that the ruling would inevitably lead to same-sex marriage and polygamy. The cultural establishment scoffed at that opinion. It mocked Scalia. Why?
Because only 10 years ago, the notion of same-sex marriage was practically unheard of. It was a laughable proposition.
That’s how quickly the 6,000-year-old institution of marriage was officially and arbitrarily redefined with the imprimatur of five high priests and priestesses wearing black robes.
Will it take another 10 years for the retribution against marriage defenders to begin? I doubt it. My guess is the plans are already being drafted.
As for me and my house, however, we will continue to serve the Lord – the author of marriage and everything else. (Bauer: Anti-Gay Activists May Be Thrown in Jail Following DOMA; Posted by Brian Tashman; Right Wing Watch; 6/27/2013 12:30 pm)
Be sure to thank SCOTUS, Leftists and Homosexual Activists when Christianity becomes illegal or speaking Biblical Truths places a Christian in jail and American society devolves into a land like the Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah.
JRH 7/2/13 (Hat Tip: Solid Snake)
John R. Houk
© June 23, 2013
Here is a video I found at The Western Center for Journalism (WCJ) exposing the IRS as an Obama tool against Conservatives and Counterjihad writers/organizations. YET the IRS did not hold up one single Left Wing organization and gave so-called American-Muslim groups with ties to Radical Islam and Islamic Terrorism a path to Charity status within the U.S. tax code.
VIDEO: The IRS and Terrorists
HERE is the WCJ link to read the text version which is located below the video on their website.
Eric Holder has a past of Black militancy which if you know anything about such militancy is actually racism against Caucasians. In Holder’s world view Conservatives are White people show that racism slops over every time a rare moment of scrutiny shines a light on public, private and exposed scandals. Determine The Networks tracks political evolution from overt displays of his youth through to his stealthier present.