Recent Posts

Monday, July 4, 2011

America is...

click image for larger view


The Great Anniversary Festival

The words that launched this country on its journey to greatness were written by Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, and we can only wonder if, as he scratched his quill pen across a clean sheet of parchment, he knew the extent to which he would be shaping the history of the world.

By early June of 1776, the Second Continental Congress had decided that a formal document needed to be created, one that would inform the King, the people of Great Britain, and the governments of the world that the will of the American people was unshakeable and unmistakable: the thirteen American colonies, united, would have nothing less than complete independence from the British crown.

The declaration that Jefferson produced a scant month later shook the foundations of Europe -- and signaled the rise of what would become the greatest nation in history.

Today, as we have on every Fourth of July since 1776, we celebrate that Declaration of Independence and the nation that was born on the day it was affirmed. Of the adoption of the declaration by Congress, John Adams wrote to his wife "I am apt to believe it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the Great Anniversary Festival."

All too often we take for granted the men who signed that parchment, but we should always be mindful that in the eyes of King George and the British Parliament -- rulers of a nation that possessed the most formidable military in the world -- the signers were nothing more than traitors, deserving of nothing less than execution. By his affirmation of the declaration each man knew he might be signing his own death warrant -- so we would do well to remember that our nation was born because men of steel nerves and raw courage willed it to happen.

Ronald Reagan Statue Unveiled in London

It is appropriate this statue of Ronald Reagan was unveiled on July 4th and we must remember...

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” - Ronald Reagan




The Blue Angels at Lynchburg Regional Airshow

Since this is a day of celebration, let's go to a U.S. Navy Flight Demonstration Squadron, The Blue Angels, airshow. These pilots and the Boeing F/A-18 Hornets they fly are spectacular to watch!

It was during their Lynchburg show that they experienced a safety issue so they were grounded after that. Because of that issue, the C.O. voluntarily resigned but they are now back on schedule.

I have had the pleasure of seeing The Blue Angels several times and even though the show is the same every time, it is still exhilarating to see! If you ever get a chance to see these guys perform, don't let it pass you by. It is an experience you will not soon forget.

A friend of mine used to be one of the maintenance crew for the Blues and he has tons of memorabilia from his time there.  He gave me a really cool poster and the official patch below. - Reggie

The Blue Angels patch


This show is from May 21, 2011

The Declaration of Independence

This video has several professional actors reading the Declaration of Independence. I have also included the text from The National Archives, below, so you may follow along. - Reggie






IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Red Skelton's Pledge of Allegiance

In this video, you will hear Red Skelton reference his hometown of Vincennes, Indiana. I'm sure few know that during the Revolutionary War, there was a pivotal Battle of Vincennes won by patriot, Lt. Colonel George Rogers Clark. The victory at Vincennes greatly weakened British influence in the Northwest Territory and was one of the greatest feats of the American Revolution.

Like Red Skelton, I was born in Vincennes and one of the strongest memories of my childhood there was of my grandmother taking my brother and me to the George Rogers Clark Memorial.

- Reggie

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Obama’s Declaration of Dependence

Mark Steyn
The self-reliant citizenry is history.

Dozens of countries have “Independence Days.” November 25th, for example: Independence Day in Suriname. In that instance as in most others, the designation signifies nothing more than transfer of de jure sovereignty and de facto operational control from a distant European capital to a more local regime. 1975 in Suriname’s case. They had the first military coup seven years later.

But in America “Independence” seemed as much a statement about the character of a people as a designation of jurisdictional status. The first Americans were British subjects who had outgrown a British king as benign and enlightened as any ruler on the planet. They demanded “independence” not from foreign rulers of another ethnicity but from their own compatriots with whom they had a disagreement about the nature of government. Long before the Revolutionary War, small New England townships governed themselves to a degree no old England towns did. “Independence” is not about the replacement of a king in London with a president in Washington but about the republican virtues of a self-reliant citizenry free to exploit its own potential.

Please, no snickering. The self-reliant citizen? In the damning formulation of contemporary American vernacular, he’s history — as in over and done with, fuhgeddabouttim. What’s left of that founding vision on this less than Glorious Fourth of July 2011 in the Brokest Nation in History? “You go talk to your constituents,” President Obama taunted Republicans on Wednesday, “and ask them, are they willing to compromise their kids’ safety so that some corporate-jet owner continues to get a tax break?”

In the Republic of Brokistan, that’s the choice, is it? Give me safe kids or give me corporate jets! No corporate aviation without safe kiddification! In his bizarre press conference on Wednesday, Obama made no fewer than six references to corporate-jet owners. Just for the record, the tax break for corporate jets was part of the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” — i.e., the stimulus. The Obama stimulus. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid stimulus. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Democratic-party stimulus that every single Republican House member and all but three Republican senators voted against. The Obama–Corporate Jet stimulus that some guy called Obama ostentatiously signed into law in Denver after jetting in to host an “economic forum.”

Charles Krauthammer did the math. If you eliminate the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Corporate Jet Tax Break, you would save so much dough that, after 5,000 years, you would have clawed back enough money to cover one year of Obama’s debt. Five thousand years is the year 7011. Boy, our kids’ll really be safe by then. I see some leftie at MSNBC has just been suspended for characterizing the president’s performance on Wednesday as that of a demotic synonym for the male reproductive organ. So I shall be more circumspect and say only that even being a hollow unprincipled demagogue requires a certain lightness of touch Obama can’t seem to find.

Speaking of corporate jets, did the president fly commercial to Denver? Oh, but that’s different! He’s in “public service.” A couple of weeks before he flew Air Force One to Denver, he flew Air Force One to Williamsburg, Va. From the White House (well, via Andrews Air Force Base). That’s 150 miles, a 30-minute flight. He took a 747, a wide-bodied jet designed to carry 500 people to the other side of the planet, for a puddle-jump across the Potomac.

Reflections on Ronald Reagan: The Man and the President

June 13, 2011

YouTube description: Lou Cannon is an American journalist, non-fiction author, and biographer. He was state bureau chief for the San Jose Mercury News in the late 1960s, and later senior White House correspondent of the Washington Post during the Reagan administration. He is a prolific biographer of US President Ronald Reagan, having written five books about him. Cannon is currently a columnist and editorial adviser to State Net Capitol Journal a weekly publication focused on state legislation and politics.

The Islamizing of America's Churches

A close friend just sent this to me. Honestly, I haven't read it yet and I've never heard of the people that put it out. However, I know my friend and I trust my friend. - Reggie

HOW SOME PASTORS ARE SELLING OUT THE FAITH

By Albert James Dager

It started with Bill Hybels, pastor of Willowcreek Community Church in Barrington, Illinois. Shortly after the 9-11 attacks, Hybels brought Egyptian Muslim imam, Fisal Mammauda onto his church’s stage as an opportunity for his congregation to exercise “discernment” in understanding Islam. Islam, of course, was the real victim of 9-11, at least from Hybel’s perspective. Prior to giving ear to Mammauda, Hybels preached a sermon entitled, “Religion Gone Awry.” The message was that Christianity is the religion that has gone awry because of backlashes against the Muslim community in America. He stressed that Islam is not a violent religion, and that Christians should get their facts straight before airing their views on the subject.

The performance was a defense of Islam, with Hybels lobbing softballs to Hammauda, asking him to explain what Islam really teaches. The answer, in short, was that true Muslims are peaceful and were against what took place on 9-11. In the process, Hybels allowed Hammauda without protest to preach his gospel of salvation by good deeds in the name of Allah. Hybels appealed to Christians that they should respect and understand Islam. (See “Hybels appeals for tolerance toward Muslims,” Media
Spotlight, Vol. 24 – No. 3)

Next came Rick Warren, a disciple of Hybels, and internationally recognized as the pastors’ pastor. Warren has called for cooperation between Muslims and Christians to implement his P.E.A.C.E. plan.

Little-by-little, church-by-church, Muslims are purposefully gaining access to Christians in order to propagate their faith and to disarm Christians to the reality of Islam’s violent nature—a nature that was spawned with the emergence of their “prophet” Mohammed in the early seventh century. Mohammed and his later disciples have spread Islam across the world through the power of the sword. But that is not allowed to be mentioned. Instead Christians are treated to the earlier, more benign suras of the Koran that spoke well of Christians and Jews while Mohammed was trying to convert them to Islam; his later call for Christians and Jews to be killed for rejecting Islam are never mentioned.

Nor are the countless wars in the name of Allah occurring all over the world today ever spoken of.

The Islamizing of the churches has been a relatively silent process. But with each inroad into a church the Muslims have become more bold in proclaiming their false teachings that denigrate Jesus and blaspheme the true God, YHWH.

The putsch from Islam is largely being carried out by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Sunni Muslim movement founded in Egypt in 1928. The Muslim Brotherhood is the motivation behind most of the terrorist movements in the world including al-Qaeda and Hamas. Its goal is world domination by Islam. Working closely with the Muslim Brotherhood is the Center for Christian and Muslim Understanding at Georgetown University, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR is the non-profit fund-raising organization that has been documented financing Islamic terrorism. Former Muslim, Brigitte Gabriel, states in her book, Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America:

Of all the Islamic organizations in America, CAIR has risen to the top as the most visible, most outspoken defender of Muslims in the United States. Masquerading as a civil rights organization, CAIR has had a hidden agenda to Islamize America from the start. Its cofounder and chairman, Omar Ahmad, a Palestinian American, told a Muslim audience in Fremont, California, in 1998: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.…

Despite its links to terrorism or providing support to terrorists, CAIR grew to become a major player in Islamic American politics. The organization is lobbying in Washington, D.C., and working hard in fighting the United States government under the name of civil rights and civil liberty while complaining against every security measure our government is trying to take to fight terrorism at home.

CAIR has refused CAIR has refused to come out and condemn terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al Qaeda, al Gamaat al Islamiya, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hezbollah by name. (pp. 137-138)

These same facts are confirmed by the daughter of a Muslim shahid (jihadist martyr for Islam), Noni Darwish, in her book, Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Rejected the Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror, (Sentinel, 2006).

CAIR’s statements against terrorism are so vague as to be meaningless. They never call out Islamic terrorism by name, and never speak ill of any Islamic terrorist organization.

CAIR is essentially an unofficial arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. These organizations are attaining increasing inroads into churches in America under the pretense of dialogue for greater understanding of Islam and Christianity. The problem is that the programs presented as “dialogue” are totally one-sided promotions of Islam and denigrations of biblical faith, designed to disarm Christians and lay a guilt trip on anyone who would think ill of Islam—even its most radical elements.

Hitting close to home was a recent “dialogue” at a Renton, Washington, church on March 30. Harambee Church, which identifies itself as “Reformed,” partnered with the Washington state chapter of CAIR to host such a dialogue in which three pastors and one minister from this area took the stage with a number of Muslims to instruct the congregation on the teachings of Islam and how they differ with what that church teaches. Attending were some 300 people—a mixture of Christians and Muslims.

(Harambee is a Swahili term that means, “Together pushing forward.” The idea is to join with diverse groups in a common cause. The stated common cause of Harambee Church is “the Glory of God, and the living, embodied proclamation of His Son through His Spirit living within the community.”)

Somehow, in this dialogue with Muslims, the glory of God and the proclamation of His Son through His Spirit, were miserably lost.

The Koran is one of the holy books:

Read the full report here.

Obama's Final Solution

The author of this article is correct. My question is this: Why isn't President Obama being impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors?

It is quite obvious, on an almost daily basis, that he is breaking the laws of America whenever he pleases and nothing is done.  He has forced an unconstitutional law down our throats and is considering ignoring the debt limit if the Republicans don't bow down to his wishes.

On top of that, he is vigorously working against our European and Middle East allies. Don't we have treaties with NATO and, possibly, Israel that he is about to abrogate? 

Where are the cries for impeachment? President Obama, like few others before him, merits impeachment and removal from office. If that is not done, and quickly, his Marxist army will make sure the illegal and the dead re-elect him in 2012. Who has the courage and authority to begin the impeachment of this man?

Reggie
07/03/2011

President Barack Obama is the most dogmatic and dangerous leftist we have ever seen in this country. He is not hard to understand. Obama is very simple. All his ideas were frozen in concrete a hundred years ago by Marxist-Leninism around 1920. In Dreams from My Father, Obama celebrates third-world Socialism, but that's just Marxist-Leninism with a racial overlay. Obama's ideas are all old and discredited. They have failed from the Soviets to Cambodia. North Korea is facing another mass famine today, so terrible that it can't even feed its own army. That is yet another failure of Marxist-Leninism. Over and over and over again. For radicals it doesn't matter. You have to break a lot of eggs to make that omelet.

Just as Jimmy Carter kicked over the Shah, a crucial pillar of support for American and Israeli security thirty years ago, Obama has just done with Egypt. By forcing Mubarak to resign, Obama has sabotaged the Egypt-Israel peace treaty of the last 30 years.

Turkey has also radicalized, and nobody in the American media seems to be taking notice. They must know the facts, but they are not telling us.

The United States is standing by or actively sabotaging the moderate Arab states while Turkey and Egypt fall into the "Death to Israel!" camp. Those are the three biggest states, with three of the most modern armies in the Muslim world. It means that some 200 million people from moderate or friendly states have joined the rejectionist camp, and that Obama has actually reversed the progress toward peace made in 30 years.

It is significant that Jimmy Carter hasn't said a word about the breakdown of a treaty he "negotiated" (or rather, Anwar Sadat and Menahim Begin did), which is the only foreign policy success of his presidency. Jimmy Carter being who he is, his silence speaks volumes. Carter is now a Hamas and Hezb'allah supporter. The only formal peace treaty of the last 30 years will be a dead letter if the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt.

The window of opportunity for attacking Iran's fast-moving nuclear and missile development has now closed.  This is equivalent to the Allies in World War II allowing Hitler to develop nuclear weapons and long-range missiles.  In the field of nuclear proliferation, if you don't preempt, you are enabling proliferation.  Obama has now reversed sixty years of American and Western efforts to reverse rogue nuclear proliferation.  The horse of Armageddon is out of the barn.

Read that sentence again if you didn't quite get it the first time, because it's the biggest, wildest gamble an American president has ever taken.

It is a world catastrophe, and as far as I can tell, it has been done with malice aforethought.

At the same time, Obama has demanded, in public, that Israel give up defensible borders. The so-called "1967 borders" are in fact the ceasefire lines of the 1948 War of Independence, which left Israel nine miles wide at the waist. Obama has therefore actively legitimized sixty years of radical Islamist assaults designed to destroy Israel.

This must be purposeful.

This is simply unbelievable! I have never seen anything like this and the reporter never challenged the politician! I am including the entire text of the post with this video from a British newspaper. - Reggie


Could an American politician survive an interview as disastrous as Ed Miliband's?

I can’t believe there can be many Britons who haven’t seen this extraordinary interview by that earnest, googly-eyed automaton Ed Miliband, Labour’s leader of the Opposition. But here, for the benefit of American readers, is one of the most extraordinary political interviews of modern times.

In the UK there is something of a cottage industry of mocking American politicians – George W. Bush’s flubs, Barack Obama’s Teleprompter, Sarah Palin’s stumbles, Joe Biden’s lapses and Michele Bachmann’s gaffes cause endless mirth. I wonder, though, how many of my fellow countrymen are pausing to wonder whether any US presidential candidate could survive after a performance like Miliband’s.

Shariah: The Threat to America

This lengthy report is the product of the Center for Security Policy. You may buy the book form of this at Amazon or you can download the PDF for free. - Reggie

I N T R O D U C T I O N

In 1976, the then-Director of Central Intelligence, George H. W. Bush, commissioned an “Experiment in Competitive Analysis.” Its purpose was to expose to critical scrutiny the assumptions and factual basis underpinning the official assessment of the totalitarian ideology that confronted America at the time: Soviet Communism. That official assessment was rooted in the belief that, through a policy of engagement known as détente, the United States and the USSR could not only avoid horrifically destructive conflicts, but could peacefully coexist permanently.

DCI Bush invited a group of known skeptics about détente to review the classified National Intelligence Estimates and other data concerning Soviet objectives, intentions and present and future military capabilities. The object was to provide an informed second opinion on the U.S. policy toward the Kremlin that was, ostensibly, warranted in light of such information. The conclusions of this experimental initiative – which came to be known popularly as the “Team B” study – differed sharply from those of “Team A”: the Ford Administration and the intelligence community.

Team B found that the Soviet Union was, pursuant to its ideology, determined to secure the defeat of the United States and its allies and the realization of the worldwide triumph of Soviet Communism. As a result Team B found that not only was détente unlikely to succeed the way the U.S. government had envisioned, but the U.S. national security posture and policies undertaken in its pursuit were exposing the nation to grave danger.

The effect of this authoritative alternative view was profound. Among others, former California Governor Ronald Reagan used the thrust of its findings to challenge détente and those in public office who supported this doctrine. Drawing on the thinking of Team B with regard to national security issues, Reagan nearly defeated President Gerald Ford’s bid for reelection in the 1976 primaries. Four years later, Reagan successfully opposed President Jimmy Carter, with their disagreement over the latter’s détentist foreign and defense policies towards Moscow featuring prominently in the former’s victory.

Most importantly, as President, Ronald Reagan drew on the work of Team B as an intellectual foundation for his strategy for destroying the Soviet Union and discrediting its ideology – a feat begun during his tenure and finally accomplished, thanks to his implementation of that strategy, several years after he left office.

THE CONTEMPORARY THREAT

Today, the United States faces what is, if anything, an even more insidious ideological threat: the totalitarian socio-political doctrine that Islam calls shariah. Translated as “the path,” shariah is a comprehensive legal and political framework. Though it certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of shariah as a “religious” code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere – economic, social, military, legal and political.

Shariah is the crucial fault line of Islam’s internecine struggle. On one side of the divide are Muslim reformers and authentic moderates – figures like Abdurrahman Wahid, the late president of Indonesia and leader of the world’s largest libertarian Muslim organization, Nahdlatul Ulama – whose members espouse the Enlightenment’s embrace of reason and, in particular, its separation of the spiritual and secular realms. On this side of the divide, shariah is a reference point for a Muslim’s personal conduct, not a corpus to be imposed on the life of a pluralistic society.

By contrast, the other side of the divide is dominated by Muslim supremacists, often called Islamists. Like erstwhile proponents of Communism and Nazism, these supremacists – some terrorists, others employing stealthier means – seek to impose a totalitarian regime: a global totalitarian system cloaked as an Islamic State and called a caliphate. On that side of the divide, which is the focus of the present study, shariah is an immutable, compulsory system that Muslims are obliged to install and the world required to adopt, the failure to do so being deemed a damnable offence against Allah. For these ideologues, shariah is not a private matter. Adherents see the West as an obstacle to be overcome, not a culture and civilization to be embraced, or at least tolerated. It is impossible, they maintain, for alternative legal systems and forms of governments peacefully to coexist with the end-state they seek.

THE TEAM B II CONSENSUS

Read the rest of the report or download it here.

Allen West: First Principles for National Security

June 27, 2011

YouTube description: Allen West spoke at a Center for Security Policy event in New York City on the national security threats America faces, specifically in the Middle East.

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Time’s Orwellian Story on U.S. Constitution Refuted by Real Resurgence

Time magazine’s cover story shows the U.S. Constitution and asks, “Does it still matter?” Reading this story, we kept waiting for Emmanuel Goldstein to show up for the Two Minutes of Hate. It was difficult to discern whether we were reading Time, or George Orwell’s 1984.




It portrays the Constitution as an outmoded document that we should ignore to whatever extent is expedient to pursue someone’s vision of a better society: “We cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to a future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, and evolving sense of civil and political rights.”

The story shows all sorts of poll questions that present a false choice, such as, “The 14th Amendment says that any person born in the U.S. automatically becomes a U.S. citizen… Should [it] be revised?” The Citizenship Clause says no such thing, because it adds that anyone not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. is not a citizen.

That’s why children of foreign ambassadors, prisoner soldiers and heads of state born here do not become citizens. Federal law excludes them, but that exclusion would be unconstitutional if what Time said were true (which it’s not). The question is how broad that “jurisdiction” clause is. Could Congress exclude children of illegal aliens? It’s an active debate in legal circles, with no clear answer.

Instead, the questions should have included: “Are you more interested in the Constitution today that you were four years ago?” “Do you agree or disagree with candidates discussing the Constitution more in their campaign speeches this year?” “Are you now aware that the Constitution only vests the federal government with power over specific areas of life, leaving the states sovereign to decide  all other issues?”

Read the rest of the article

Thaddeus McCotter, U.S. Rep., Enters Presidential Race

Thaddeus McCotter
Thaddeus McCotter, U.S. Representative from Michigan, is the latest to join a wide-open Republican presidential field. McCotter will officially announce his candidacy Saturday evening at a music festival.

McCotter will likely gain some support from the Tea Party movement. He voted against the Targeted Assets Relief Program (TARP), supports repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010, and wants a balanced budget amendment added to the Constitution.

Reflecting the blue-collar district he represents, the five-term congressman has also been supportive of the U.S. auto industry, which received government bailout money, and opposes free trade, a position that sets him apart from the rest of the Republican field.

He is known for his quick wit and, sometimes, scathing remarks. In a post on his campaign website, McCotter calls Democrats “educated idiots.”

“Embodying the arrogant intellectuals unacquainted with real life who foist their insane ideas on the rest of us, these ideologically addled Democrats: 1. feel they are smarter than you; 2. believe they can run your life better than you; and, 3. consider themselves your masters, not your servants,” writes McCotter.

American History in Black & White

This has to be one of the most fascinating and enlightening documentaries I have ever seen. I now know why liberal Democrats have painstakingly revised the history of our country and refuse to allow the truth to be taught in our public schools. For if the truth be known, it is they that have brought much misery, poverty and destruction upon our nation and it is they that continue to inflict the same wreckage on all of us today.

This documentary is broken into 12 parts and after watching these 4 episodes, click here to begin the 5th episode. I cannot stress enough how important it is to view this entire documentary. Actually, I recommend that you click here to purchase the DVD and see the full 157 minute documentary (these 12 videos only show a little over 111 minutes). Viewing this is well worth your time and you will learn things that will enable you to better fight the liberal view of the history and future of America.

Reggie
07/02/2011







A Conversation with Glenn Beck

Below is the exclusive, GBTV interview of Glenn Beck shortly after his last show on Fox News Channel, June 30, 2011.









h/t The Right Scoop

Walking into Mordor

YouTube description: Oikophobia -- fear and hatred of one's own culture and people. It has brought down civilizations since there have been civilizations. And now we're infected, too.

Find out how the negativity and self-loathing of modern Hollywood is just a small gear in the machine that brings down entire nations. What can we do about it? Well, we can walk right into the heart of Mordor and destroy the Ring of Power.

Official Calls For 13 Counties To Secede From California

This is a cry of desperation from a County Supervisor that is watching California politicians destroy his state without any hope or power to stop them. Our country is starting to implode. I suspect more of this is coming and, undoubtedly, even worse things in the future.

President Obama's policies, lawlessness and disrespect for America and it's people have deeply fractured the population. Every time I see video or stories about the riots in Greece, I find myself wondering if the riots that come here will only be on the coasts or if they will be in the heartland of America. God forbid! We must hold on to the heartland if we have any hope of rebuilding our nation. I've said for months, and I still believe, the worst is yet to come.

One day, last week, I was buying something and when the cashier told me I was getting $17.76 in change, I said, "1776. That was a good year."

She looked at me with a blank face and I said, "Do you know what happened in 1776?"

"No," she replied.

In two days, we will celebrate Independence Day. How many Americans know what it means, anymore? God help us.

Please, click on the link to finish reading the story and watch the video they have with it. At the end of the story, they have a poll about secession. I was amazed at the lopsided results.

Reggie
07/02/2011

New state would have no term limits, part-time legislature

RIVERSIDE (CBS) — Is the state of California about to go “South”?

Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone apparently thinks so, after proposing that the county lead a campaign for as many as 13 Southern California counties to secede from the state.

Stone said in a statement late Thursday that Riverside, Imperial, San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino, Kings, Kern, Fresno, Tulare, Inyo, Madera, Mariposa and Mono counties should form the new state of South California.

The creation of the new state would allow officials to focus on securing borders, balancing budgets, improving schools and creating a vibrant economy, he said.

“Our taxes are too high, our schools don’t educate our children well enough, unions and other special interests have more clout in the Legislature than the general public,” Stone said in his statement.

Senator Rubio Talks Budget & Debt On Senate Floor

YouTube description: June 30, 2011. Senator Marco Rubio spoke on the floor along with fellow Freshman Republican Senators about the seriousness of our massive debt and the need for a balanced budget.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

The Daily News: June 30, 2011 - The Final Episode

Glenn Beck's empty Fox studio
Photo courtesy of The Daily Beck

This is the last episode of The Glenn Beck Program on Fox News Channel. As you will see, so much has happened in a little over two years.

I really don't remember when I first started posting The Glenn Beck Program on this blog but it was many months ago. When I first started posting it, I noticed that it would disappear from YouTube and I would have to go back in my archives and delete the posts because the video was gone. (I'm sure there are other archived posts on here that need to be deleted because the video has been pulled).

Finally, I stumbled upon a site that posted the show every day. I noticed they changed the name of the source YouTube account quite often and I realized 'my source' was trying to be incognito about the content he was posting (Fox News was on the prowl and would have it removed!) so I decided to be incognito, as well. Hence, The Daily News was born.

My source, for all of these months, has been Joe Seales of The Daily Beck. I even got the above picture from his site today. Please, take the time to read his Thank You post and put his site in your bookmarks alongside Republic Heritage.

Reggie
06/30/2011

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

The Daily News: June 29, 2011

Tomorrow is the very last show on Fox News. Thirty minutes after the show is over, Glenn will be appearing, live, on GBTV for a special interview. Don't have GBTV? What are you waiting for?? - Reggie

Texas Governor Calls America to Fast, Pray and Repent

A call for America to meet in Houston, Texas at Reliant Stadium on August 6, 2011. Click The Response USA for more information. - Reggie

Monday, June 27, 2011

The Daily News: June 27, 2011

A Man and a Message Whose Time Has Come

If Mark Levin isn't the leading conservative of the day, he's certainly one of them. I contend he is the most articulate and sagacious renowned conservative. A debate between Levin and Barack Obama would be something to behold.

Levin held several positions in the Reagan administration. He's a constitutional lawyer, an accomplished author, and host of one of the top syndicated radio programs, The Mark Levin Show.  He's also president of Landmark Legal Foundation, which has, among other things, provided support to Virginia in its lawsuit against the Obama Administration over ObamaCare.

After recently re-reading Levin's best-selling  Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, I was struck again by how concise and compelling a case the author makes for conservatism vis-à-vis statism.

On his Thursday, June 23rd, radio show, Levin did a magnificent job of deconstructing point-by-point what is, in effect, a modern-day "progressive manifesto" in the form the current Time cover story titled "One Document, Under Siege." The piece is written by the magazine's managing editor, Richard Stengel, and was the subject of a recent AT blog post. Levin's excellent retort to Stengel can be heard  here (from here).

Why we don't hear a steady drumbeat from the mouths of Sen. Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, et al. of the fundamental conservative points and principles enunciated by Levin is a mystery and a source of frustration.

Read the full article

Michele Bachmann Enters 2012 GOP Field

Bachmann made it officially, official today (how many times do they do this?).

Herman Cain: Everything Is Looking Up For My Campaign

Sunday, June 26, 2011

'Are You a Flake?'

Is Chris Wallace going to ask Ron Paul this question? Jon Huntsman? Mitt Romney? Newt Gingrich? Tim Pawlenty? Arguably, all of these candidates have done and said some flaky things so will he ask them the 'Are you a flake?' question? No. He won't.

He chose to attack one of the only real conservatives in this race (Herman Cain & Rick Santorum are the others). The candidates mentioned above are not real conservatives so they will get a pass. Chris Wallace was the flake today, however. - Reggie

David Limbaugh: What Was Chris Wallace Driving At?

Mark Levin reacts here.


Confirmed: Palin to attend Iowa premiere of “The Undefeated”

If she’d refused, I would have taken it as the most compelling sign yet that she’s not running.  It’s simply too golden an opportunity to make a splash in a key primary state to pass up.

“We are very excited to visit historic Pella and its opera house and look forward to seeing the finished film for the first time with fellow Americans from the heartland,” Palin, who was Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s running mate in 2008, said in a news release this morning…
Longtime GOP campaign strategist Robert Haus said he thinks Palin deliberately chose to come to Iowa “smack dab in the middle of two other big events in the state.”
“Her timing is impeccable,” said Haus, of Urbandale. “Clearly she has not ruled out a run for president.”…
“She’s made a very good career out of confounding conventional wisdom,” Haus said.


Saturday, June 25, 2011

Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West

Content Warning: Viewer discretion is strongly advised!

The Palestinian Wall of Lies

YouTube description: A short film by the David Horowitz Freedom Center that uncovers the lies of "Israel Apartheid Week"

A Spiritual Heritage Tour of the U.S. Capitol

Host David Barton, of Wallbuilders, takes us on a journey through the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. and reveals American history that is no longer taught in public schools. - Reggie













John Adams: Was He Really an Enemy of Christians? Addressing Modern Academic Shallowness

by David Barton

At WallBuilders, we are truly blessed by God, owning tens of thousands of original documents from the American Founding – documents clearly demonstrating the Christian and Biblical foundations both of America and of so many of her Founding Fathers and early statesmen. We frequently post original documents on our website so that others may enjoy them and learn more about many important aspects of America’s rich moral, religious, and constitutional heritage that are widely unknown or misportrayed today.

We recently posted a December 21, 1809, letter from John Adams to Dr. Benjamin Rush (a close friend of Adams and a co-signer of the Declaration of Independence). That letter was Adams’ reply to a remarkable letter written him by Dr. Rush on October 17, 1809, describing a dream Rush believed God had given him about Adams. WallBuilders providentially obtained this original letter from an amazing presidential collection of a 100+ year old Floridian woman.

We often use quotes from that letter, including Adams’ bold declaration that:
The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this Earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government – but that which is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words, damnation. 1
This letter certainly contains profound Christian content, but that is not particularly surprising, for Adams wrote dozens of letters with similarly powerful Christian declarations. Also not surprising is the fact that liberals and atheists have attacked this letter and its content; they dismiss it with the excuse that Adams didn’t really mean what he said in the letter, or that it was code for something different from what he actually said. But what was surprising and unexpected is that this letter and its remarkable content did not set well with some Christians, especially Chris Pinto. Pinto has produced videos claiming not only that America does not have a Biblical foundation but specifically asserting that the Founding Fathers were largely pagans who represented the spirit of the Anti-Christ. He believes that Christians should not be involved in the political arena or similar areas of culture. 2
 
Pinto seems to have developed a fixation with WallBuilders, joining with liberals and atheists to demean it and the Founding Fathers. For example, in one video he prepared against me and the Founding Fathers, he specifically addressed the John Adams letter we posted, claiming:
Barton makes it appear as if John Adams was speaking favorably about the Holy Ghost in a letter he wrote to Benjamin Rush. In reality, Adams was mocking the idea of “Holy Ghost authority” and called Christians “dupes” for believing in it. 3
Pinto concludes:
In truth, the letter Barton is presenting provides some of the most damning evidence found anywhere, and is consistent with many of the writings of the Revolutionaries, proving their contempt for Bible-based Christianity. In this letter, John Adams was not speaking in approval of the Holy Ghost, but was rather mocking the idea of it and of the faith of true Christians. . . . Adams did not believe the Holy Ghost was real, and he spoke about it in what can only be called insulting and irreverent terms. 4
Normally, we simply ignore these types of absurd claims, for we believe that the truth speaks for itself and that it will always eventually prevail. In fact, this is why we post so many original and hand-written Founding documents and letters online – we want individuals to see and read them for themselves to be personally aware of what is and is not true. It is important to follow the model praised by the Apostle Paul in Acts 17:11: always check original sources to establish truth. This is why we heavily document quotes and facts back to original sources – such as our best-selling book Original Intent: it contains some 1,700 footnotes, the vast majority of which are dated to primary-source documents published while the Founders were still alive.

(By the way, a notable ACLU attorney decided he would disprove our thesis that the Founding Fathers were largely Christian. He therefore took Original Intent and undertook a project to expose what he considered to be its falsehoods; he went back and checked our quotes against the original sources cited in the book. At the end of his research, he concluded that we had understated the faith of the Founders – that there was actually much more evidence to support their Christian faith than even what we had cited. This ACLU attorney was completely converted and went on to become an eminent court of appeals judge – all because he followed Paul’s model of Acts 17:11 and checked the evidence for himself. We have numerous similar testimonials of the dramatic change that has occurred in individuals who investigated the original facts for themselves.)

So although we typically do not respond to critics such as Pinto, in this case, his videos have confused many Christians who have respectfully asked us to help them sort out the facts and discern the truth. Hence we have chosen to address Pinto’s patently false claims about John Adams.

Significantly, Pinto reached his conclusions that John Adams was mocking the Holy Spirit only by ignoring, omitting, or not understanding lengthy and important segments of Adams’ letter (which is why we posted the complete letter online: to make it much harder for individuals to twist and distort its true meaning). When the segments that Pinto ignored or did not understand are returned to the letter, it becomes obvious that his premises have been infected with three of the five historical malpractices that characterize the current study of history: Modernism, Minimalism, and Deconstructionism (the other two of the five are Poststructuralism and Academic Collectivism, which Pinto also uses in other areas of his videos).

Modernism is the practice of analyzing historical incidents and persons as if they lived now rather than in the past. Modernism separates history from its context and setting – a practice that regularly produces flawed conclusions.

Friday, June 24, 2011

In Defense of ‘Hurtful’ Speech

I was tried for a thought crime despite being an elected politician and the leader of the third-largest party in the Dutch parliament.

24 June 2011

Yesterday was a beautiful day for freedom of speech in the Netherlands. An Amsterdam court acquitted me of all charges of hate speech after a legal ordeal that lasted almost two years.

The Dutch people learned that political debate has not been stifled in their country. They learned they are still allowed to speak critically about Islam, and that resistance against Islamization is not a crime. I was brought to trial despite being an elected politician and the leader of the third-largest party in the Dutch parliament. I was not prosecuted for anything I did, but for what I said.

My view on Islam is that it is not so much a religion as a totalitarian political ideology with religious elements. While there are many moderate Muslims, Islam’s political ideology is radical and has global ambitions. I expressed these views in newspaper interviews, op-ed articles, and in my 2008 documentary, “Fitna.”

I was dragged to court by leftist and Islamic organizations that were bent not only on silencing me but on stifling public debate. My accusers claimed that I deliberately “insulted” and “incited discrimination and hatred” against Muslims. The Dutch penal code states in its articles 137c and 137d that anyone who either “publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in any way that incites hatred against a group of people” or “in any way that insults a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their hetero- or homosexual inclination or their physical, psychological or mental handicap, will be punished.”

I was dragged to court for statements that I made as a politician and which were meant to stimulate public debate in a country where public debate has stagnated for decades. Dutch political parties see themselves as guardians of a sterile status quo. I want our problems to be discussed. I believe that politicians have a public trust to further debates about important issues. I firmly believe that every public debate holds the prospect of enlightenment.

My views represent those of a growing number of Dutch voters, who have flocked to the Party for Freedom, or PVV. The PVV is the fastest-growing party in the country, expanding from one seat in the 150-seat House of Representatives in 2004, to nine seats in 2006 and 24 seats in 2010. My party’s views, however, are so uncommon in the Netherlands that they are considered blasphemous by powerful elites who fear and resent discussion.

That’s why I was taken to court, even though the public prosecutor saw no reason to prosecute me. “Freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society,” the prosecutors repeatedly said during my trial. “That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable.”

The Netherlands is one of the few countries in the world where a court can force the public prosecutor to prosecute someone. In January 2009, three judges of the Amsterdam Appeals Court ordered my prosecution in a politically motivated verdict that focused on the content of the case. They implied that I was guilty. The case was subsequently referred to the Amsterdam Court of First Instance.

The judges who acquitted me yesterday already had a peremptory ruling from the appeals court on their desk. They decided, however, to follow the arguments of the public prosecutor, who during the trial had once again reiterated his position and had asked for a full acquittal.

Though I am obviously relieved by yesterday’s decision, my thoughts go to people such as Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard, Austrian human rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and others who have recently been convicted for criticizing Islam. They have not been as fortunate. In far too many Western countries, it is still impossible to have a debate about the nature of Islam.

The biggest threat to our democracies is not political debate, nor is it public dissent. As the American judge Learned Hand once said in a speech: “That community is already in the process of dissolution . . . where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists to win or lose.” It has been a tenet in European and American thinking that men are only free when they respect each other’s freedom. If the courts can no longer guarantee this, then surely a community is in the process of dissolution.

Legislation such as articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code disgraces our democratic free societies. On the basis of such legislation, I was prevented from representing my million-and-a-half voters in parliament because I had to be in the courtroom for several days, sometimes up to three days per week, during the past year and a half. Such legislation should be abolished. It should be abolished in all Western countries where it exists-and replaced by First Amendment clauses.

Citizens should never allow themselves to be silenced. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak.

Mr. Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and the leader of the Party for Freedom.

America Continues to Decline

A few minutes ago, the state of New York voted to legalize homosexual "marriage." Very sad.

Every state where this is "legal" is because the politicians have dictated it and shoved it down the throats of the people. Every state that has given their people the chance to vote yea or nay - the people have voted nay. Even liberal California has voted against homosexual marriage twice, banning it both times with a state constitutional amendment but the homosexuals won't take "No" for an answer so they have taken it to the courts to have the law and will of the people overturned.

We the People do not want homosexual marriage validated by the State. Once again, the dictators in government have overruled the people.

Where is the representative Republic our Founders gave to us?

Reggie
06/24/2011