According to the release on Planned Parenthood’s website, the award citation stated the following:

“Facing jail, abuse and physical danger, Dr. King’s unceasing efforts — in behalf of all Americans — to win freedom for the Negro people parallel closely Mrs. Sanger’s fight over the last half-century for the emancipation of women from the burdens of perpetual child-bearing and the emancipation of children from a future of poverty and hopelessness.”

This is sick. Freedom for Black people is NOTHING like the fight for legalized slaughter of children. One was just and the second was evil. “Emancipation from perpetual child bearing?” Did they even read what they wrote? Did King read it? How could he accept such an award? Not only did he accept it, but here are some excerpts from his acceptance speech (emphasis mine):

There is a striking kinship between our movement  (civil rights) and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist — a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.

 

The Negro constitutes half the poor of the nation. Like all poor, Negro and white, they have many unwanted children. This is a cruel evil they urgently need to control.

 

Some commentators point out that with present birth rates it will not be long before Negroes are a majority in many of the major cities of the nation. As a consequence, they can be expected to take political control, and many people are apprehensive at this prospect. Negroes do not seek political control by this means. They seek only what they are entitled to and do not wish for domination purchased at the cost of human misery. Negroes were once bred by slave owners to be sold as merchandise. They do not welcome any solution which involves population breeding as a weapon. They are instinctively sympathetic to all who offer methods that will improve their lives and offer them fair opportunity to develop and advance as all other people in our society.

For these reasons we are natural allies of those who seek to inject any form of planning in our society that enriches life and guarantees the right to exist in freedom and dignity.

King considers family planning (a la planned parenthood) essential! He considers “population wars” immoral, but has no problem with innocent blood being spilled in so called clinics! Did not the good Reverend know the verse: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)

In case Planned Parenthood didn’t understand how much King loved their efforts, he wrote the following thank you letter to the chairman of the Executive Committee of the PPFA — World Population Emergency Campaign:

Dear Mr. Canfield:

 

Words are inadequate for me to say how honored I was to be the recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award. This award will remain among my most cherished possessions. While I cannot claim to be worthy of such a signal honor, I can assure you that I accept it with deep humility and sincere gratitude. Such a wonderful expression of support is of inestimable value for the continuance of my humble efforts.

 

Again let me say how much I regret that at the last minute urgent developments in the civil rights movement made it impossible for me to be in Washington to personally receive the award. My wife brought glowing echoes of the wonderful reception and impressiveness of the total occasion.

 

I am happy to be the recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award and I can assure you that this distinct honor will cause me to work even harder for a reign of justice and a rule of love all over our nation.

Sincerely yours,

Martin Luther King Jr.

It caused King to want to “work harder” for justice! Where is the justice in murder? Didn’t the good Reverend know the passage:

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. (Proverbs 6:16-19)

The raw immorality of abortion coupled with the scheme of Eugenics espoused by Margaret Sanger, which served as inspiration for the National Socialists, should abhor any man who claims to know the scriptures, let alone an ordained minister!

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
(2 Corinthians 6:14)

Given King’s embrace of Sanger and her perverse and wicked organization, it would do well to celebrate this Martin Luther King Day by praying specially for the unborn in the urban communities targeted by Sanger’s murderous organization, for the women lied to about “masses” of cells or “non-life” in their wombs, and for the women who courageously and against the odds and expectations work to rise above their circumstances choosing life over the convenience of death. They deserve the prayers and support of men and women of faith among our churches and worship centers. It is the height of injustice, classism and racism to deny someone the right to live merely because they are born in lowly circumstances. King may have claimed the moral high ground when he proclaimed his dreams of black and white children together in harmony but his moral plateau was surrounded by the blood filled valleys of Planned Parenthood and the lives unlived by untold numbers of the poor black children targeted specifically by Ms. Sanger in her quest euphemistically entitled “reproductive freedom” and “population control.”

 I have a dream that one day racist Margaret Sanger’s murderous organization would be starved of government funding and societal support and would wither away and die. I am sorry that King didn’t share the same dream.

Source: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/reverend-martin-luther-king-jr-4728.htm 1/15/2012

It seems the downward spiral that started with Ms Coulter’s acceptance of GOProud to her embrace of it as their spokes queen has finally come full circle. Now, abandoning all pretense of fiscal conservatism, Ann has decided to jump the gun and throw her diminishing conservative capital behind the most liberal of the Republican candidates: Mitt Romney. This isn’t a post primary call for unity around whatever candidate is selected, this is a call to embrace the liberal IN THE PRIMARY! The who implemented ObamaCare before we knew of ObamaCare, the guy who implemented gay marriage in Mass by executive fiat, the guy who believes in global warming, the guy who petitioned Ted Kennedy for federal money for his state-run government mandated healthcare. The guy who shed his pro-abortion, gay marriage record for some shiny new election season campaign rhetoric about being “pro-life” and marriage. Point blank, the guy doesn’t even qualify for a fiscal conservative.

Ann concludes her embrace of Romney by basically telling us we shouldn’t bother vetting candidates, or revealing the unsavory liberal things we find:

“Instead of sitting on our thumbs…conservatives ought to start rallying around Romney as the only Republican who has a shot at beating Obama. We’ll attack him when he’s president.”   It’s fun to be a purist, but let’s put that on hold until Obama and his abominable health care plan are gone, please. “

Anyone who is a geniune conservative, or I should say, anyone who learned a lesson from the 2008 election, should support VET VET VETTING these candidates. John McCain was the “electible” candidate in 2008. Where did that get us?  Keep us in line Ann!

A summary of Ann’s points for Romney (With my counterpoints, sorry Ann!) are:

1. He can “trick liberals into voting for him.” Duh! Obviously if you are running ON a liberal platform, you will attract liberal votes. It wasn’t a trick. It was called a liberal record. Ted Kennedy certainly approved.
2. He came close to beating Ted Kennedy. So what? Ann, he appealed to Ted to get government money to fund his ObamneyCare! Ted accepted! Remember the DeDe Scozzafova Newt endorsed? Yeah, that’s the kind of republican Mitt Romney is.
   Where was Romney when he came “close to beating” Ted?
   Here’s a brief reviewof Romney’s public record on gay rights in his 1994 campaign against Senator Edward Kennedy.
   • Supports federal legislation to prohibit discrimination in the workplace against homosexuals.
   • Supports President Clinton’s “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy for gays in the military.
   • Says homosexuals should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts.
   • Endorsed by the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans. – ontheissues.org
3. He’s “not part of the washington establishment.” So what! Need I remind you, Ann, that Obama was not “part of the washington establishment” either!
4. He can talk? Again, so what? He can talk so well he can do it out of both sides of his mouth! Just like Obama!
5. Yes Ann, Federalism gives us the opportunity to see what a would be president will try to do with his executive power in a more unfettered fashion. Romney chose to empore the executive branch, fiat gay marriage and signing health care mandates. Its called abuse of privilege, and we should not trust him at the federal level.
6. Who cares if the heritage foundation supported mandates at that time? That doesn’t make it a good thing.
7. You’re right Ann, he probably will try to “repeal” ObamaCare. I mean, he is really good at talking, and he never ever talks out of both sides of his mouth. You can trust him. 16 months of smooth conservative rhetoric means he has abandoned a lifetime of liberal progressivism. But remember, its a “repeal and replace.” It certainly won’t be a full repeal, and it will involve big government “solutions” and intrusions. That is, if a crises doesn’t arise and call DC’s attention to something else long enough to forget about ObamneyCare. Remember, Mitt doesn’t oppose ObamaCare on PRINCIPLE, he opposes it for political expediency. It he opposed it in principle, he NEVER would have signed it into law in Mass. Remember, when he was “tricking” progressives into voting for him! Come on Ann, what has happened to you?

Ann, I can forgive you for being so infatuated with Chris Christie. I mean, at least he was a loud and proud geniune conservative on one important issue, and most serious conservatives applauded his handling of that matter. But I cannot forgive you for trying to delude people into dispensing with vetting candidates and embrace a candidate who has spend most of his political career as a gay affirming-global warming-gun hating, healthcare-mandating progressive. You have done all of conservatism a huge disservice with your “cease and desist” order on vetting Romney.

Here’s what I say Ann: Mitt Romney is a Dede Scozzafava Republican

Source: http://governor.state.tx.us/news/speech/10688/

Thank you Senator Lucio. President Nevarez, UT-Pan American is to be commended for its vision and leadership in hosting this unprecedented border summit in the beautiful Texas town of Edinburg. My friends from Mexico, including Governor Tomas Yarrington Ruvalcaba of Tamaulipas, and Governor Fernando Canales Clariond of Nuevo Leon, it is an honor to be in your presence. I want to extend my gratitude to our Mexican neighbors for hosting me this July as I sought to learn one of the world’s great languages, Spanish. I enjoyed your hospitality, and was grateful for your patience as I worked on my vocabulary. No longer do I refer to “la verdad” as “la verdura.” I am delighted to see friends from the U.S. side of the border as well, including our distinguished members of the Legislature, and our county and city leaders along the border.

Today we begin a new dialogue about our shared future, a future of promising potential if we work together to solve the challenges we both face. It is fitting that we convene this summit where the great, meandering river known as the Rio Grande – or the Rio Bravo – forms the long border between Texas and Mexico. In years past, that famed body of water has been seen by many as a dividing point, If you were to walk along its banks and look to the other side, based on the stereotypes of the past, you would think you were seeing things a million miles away, instead of a stone’s throw away. But I am here today to say that while we have honest differences, there is more that unites us than divides us. The Rio Grande does not separate two nations, it joins two peoples. Mexico and the United States have a shared history, and a common future. And it is along this border where we will either fail or succeed in addressing the education, health care and transportation needs of our two peoples.

 It is not up to an American governor to address the needs of the citizens of a foreign country. That is the duty and sworn responsiblity of their own national government. If private citizens want to launch a private charitable venture, that is perfectly fine.

Critical to our future is meeting our border infrastructure needs. We must get traffic moving along the border so that businesses along the border and thousands of miles away can deliver products on time, and continue to grow. Companies from Spokane, Washington to Concord, New Hampshire depend on Texas highways and Texas bridges to move their products south. Seventy percent of all U.S.-Mexico truck traffic goes to, or through, the Lone Star state. Fifteen of our twenty-seven border crossings with Mexico are located in Texas. Fifty-four percent of all U.S.-Mexico trade crosses just between Brownsville and Laredo. This year the Texas legislature appropriated approximately $1 billion more in transportation funding. But more can be done.

With Texas serving as the Gateway to Mexico, it is time that we receive congressional funding that reflects the instrumental role our state plays as a port of entry. With a Texan in the White House, I believe there is no greater opportunity to end the funding discrimination that crippled Texas infrastructure under the previous administration. Good infrastructure is essential to the free flow of commerce. It is a matter of economic fact that free trade lifts the tide for all the boats in the harbor. U.S. trade with Mexico has increased by 500% since 1994. Exports and imports between Texas and Mexico now exceed $100 billion dollars annually. Thousands of jobs have been created for Texas and Mexican workers, confirming the indisputable fact that trade with Mexico is big business for Texas.

The fruits of NAFTA have just begun to ripen. At the same time, we must not allow the roots of the tree to become poisoned. The NAFTA agreement not only signaled a new era of economic possibility, but a new era of bi-national cooperation. That is why it is wrong, and inherently detrimental to our relationship with Mexico for the U.S. Congress to pursue a protectionist policy that forbids Mexican trucks from U.S. roadways. It is bad public policy, and it violates the terms of the NAFTA agreement we agreed to. Mexican trucks that meet our safety standards should be given the same access to U.S. roads as our Canadian neighbors to the north.

 Indeed, the fruits of NAFTA have ripened, and we wonder why manufacuring is moving out of the US. The truth is the US cannot cede its domestic authority to an unacountable international bureacracy. That is the fruit of NAFTA. Gov. Perry feigns conservatism and yet here his is appealing to INTERNATIONAL law to complain about US domestic policy. He also completely ignores the considerable abuses occuring along the Mexican border. Also, need I remind anyone that the European Union began as a mere trade agreement?

Mexico, too, must be vigilant in realizing its treaty obligations. For more than half a century, under the 1944 Water Treaty our two nations have cooperated so that the water needs of both countries are met. But as of late, Mexico is behind in delivering the water it has promised to the U.S. A Mexican judicial injunction now threatens the livelihood of our Rio Grande Valley farmers, and has become a source of contention between our two nations. It is time to end this dispute. I would ask that the Mexican government meet its obligation under the treaty, Texas growers are depending on it.

 Why are US citizens dependent on the actions of another nation’s government? This is unacceptible.

There are other challenges that require a unified approach, especially in the area of health care. A lack of preventative medicine means conditions that could have been eliminated through childhood immunizations show up in disturbing numbers later in life. Limited availability of medical specialists means conditions like heart disease and diabetes go untreated at alarming rates. In Texas, we recently placed a strong emphasis on preventative care when we expanded access to Medicaid for more low-income children by making the Medicaid enrollment process simpler. We allocated an additional $4 billion to the Medicaid program, and more than $900 million to the Children’s Health Insurance Program. I urged legislators to pass a telemedicine pilot program that will enable, through technology, a sick border resident of limited financial means to receive care from a specialist hundreds of miles away. But the effort to combat disease and illness requires greater cooperative efforts between our two nations. It is a simple truth that disease knows no boundaries. An outbreak of drug-resistant tuberculosis, for example, endangers citizens of both our nations. We have much to gain if we work together to expand preventative care, and treat maladies unique to this region.

Gov. Perry, how can you complain about ObamaCare when you expanded government healthcare in your own state? Both you and Obama have done it in the name of compassion but at the end of the day its wealth redstribution and things that government ought not be involved in. Oh and yes, like with RomneyCare, the states do have more leeway than the federal government, however you should be careful with that authority, because by exercizing it, you show what things do not bother you, and negate any moral challenges you may claim to have against forced government medicine, because when the discretion was yours, it was “compassionate.” How do you expect us to believe you have qualms with national programs when you were ready willing, and able to support state healthcare?

Legislation authored by border legislators Pat Haggerty and Eddie Lucio establishes an important study that will look at the feasibility of bi-national health insurance.This study recognizes that the Mexican and U.S. sides of the border compose one region, and we must address health care problems throughout that region. That’s why I am also excited that Texas Secretary of State Henry Cuellar is working on an initiative that could extend the benefits of telemedicine to individuals living on the Mexican side of the border.

 If you are so excited about extending tax payer funded medicine to residents of another country, I have to ask, on what grounds do you oppose ObamaCare? WHY is the government of TEXAS working on MEXICAN healthcare?

As a compassionate state, we know that for our children to succeed, they must not only be healthy, but educated. The future leaders of our two nations are learning their fractions and their ABC’s in classrooms all along this border. Immigrants from around the world are being taught in Texas classrooms, and our history is rich with examples of new citizens who have made great contributions. We must say to every Texas child learning in a Texas classroom, “we don’t care where you come from, but where you are going, and we are going to do everything we can to help you get there.” And that vision must include the children of undocumented workers. That’s why Texas took the national lead in allowing such deserving young minds to attend a Texas college at a resident rate. Those young minds are a part of a new generation of leaders, the doors of higher education must be open to them. The message is simple: educacion es el futuro, y si se puede.

 ”Yes we can?” What a familiar sound that has to it… I was referring to the slogan, but the instate tuition for illegal immigrants sounds familiar too, kind of like the repeat of a bad DREAM… Way to go Perry, isn’t it great that Texas took the “national lead” in accomodating and pandering to illegal aliens?

We also know that poverty is not unique to either side of the border. Some of Texas’ poorest citizens live in colonias all along the border. They often lack basic infrastructure many of us take for granted. Just today, the North American Development Bank announced it will provide $6.3 million in funding to hook up colonia residents in six border cities to water and wastewater lines. More than 18,000 residents will benefit from these water or wastewater hookups. And this November, by approving Proposition 2, Texas voters can ensure that their neighbors in colonias have quality roads so that school buses, emergency vehicles and postal trucks can reach residents, and residents can get to a job or a school reliably.

 No it isn’t unique, and as our governments work harder and harder to provide illegal immigrants with more and more services, healthcare, education, it will only continue to become more common.

President Fox’s vision for an open border is a vision I embrace, as long as we demonstrate the will to address the obstacles to it. An open border means poverty has given way to opportunity, and Mexico’s citizens do not feel compelled to cross the border to find that opportunity. It means we have addressed pollution concerns, made substantial progress in stopping the spread of disease, and rid our crossings of illicit drug smuggling activity. Clearly we have a long way to go in addressing those issues. At the same time we must continue to deepen our economic ties, expanding opportunities for Mexican and U.S. companies to do business on both sides of the border. The outlook is promising, even if the road to prosperity is a long one. We share a bond as neighbors, and we find our culture north of the Rio Grande to be increasingly defined by the strong traits of people of Hispanic descent. Texas has long enjoyed a unique identity, an identity forged by an independent spirit, and the convergence of many different peoples. We must welcome change in the 21st Century as we have in every century before it.

Then why do you constantly throw up the “obstacles” that make it an issue? Why do you try to give state benefits to illegal aliens? Don’t you know that such actions subsidize illegal immigration? If you want to have anything close to “open borders” you have no choice but to eliminate ALL subsidies of ANY kind to illegal immigrants.

Today, as we look to the south, we see a rising sun. It is perched above a people whose best days are in front of them. Let us endeavor to make the most of this new day through a new dialogue. Let us work together to combat disease, expand trade and provide educational opportunities. If we do, there are no limits to what we can accomplish for the betterment of all of our citizens. Thank you, and God bless you.

It is not the governments duty to provide educational opportunities for citizens of foreign nations. Private colleges want to do so, private universities, perfectly fine! But it is not government’s role to do so. Expanding trade is great, as long as it doesn’t erode our freedoms and sovereignty.

What is shocking about this speech is that this transcript is still posted on Perry’s official governor’s website (see link at begining) as of today (9/13/2011). Please circulate this article or even just the official speech link and help get the word out about Perry’s progressive globalist tendencies.

Point 1: Cuts government spending

• Reduces government spending by a greater amount than it increases the debt limit
• The CBO estimates the bill would initially reduce deficits by 917 billion over 10 years
• guarantees future additional cuts of up to 1.5 trillion making the total deficit cuts of at least 2.1 trillion over 10 years.

Does anyone really believe that 2.1 trillion in deficit cuts (that is a reduction of the rate at which the deficit grows, NOT an actual cut in real and current spending levels, which will continue to increase even if future congresses follow the absolute letter of the law) over 10 years is anywhere near the 2 trillion dollar debt increase given to status quo politicians through 2012 and likely to continue every year over the next 10 years? This bill is nothing but a campaigning smokescreen. Two trillion over 10 years does not equal 2 trillion this year, it breaks down to 200 billion per year, which is a joke, and which makes the very generous assumption that future congresses will adhere to what amounts to a non-binding resolution. And again a reminder this is not an actual spending reduction, but merely a promised decrease in the rate at which spending increases. So, claiming this bill’s decade long stretch of  promised “deficit cuts” are equal to the 2 trillion dollar give away THIS YEAR is, to be polite, a lie.

Point 2: Controls government spending

• Caps discretionary spending immediately
• Imposes spending caps that would set clear limits on future spending and serves as a barrier against government expansion while the economy grows

Capping is not reducing. What are we going to do, freeze spending at 2011 levels? Is that fiscal responsibility? These spending levels helped downgrade our credit rating (along with this irresponsible piece of legislation). This is status quo, and unacceptable and unenforceable. If it is as the mailer says a “barrier against government expansion,” then it is a barrier built of air and wagging fingers. Neither of which is capable of stopping the creation of new departments, new regulations, or new and expanded regulations.

Point 3:  Fights for a balanced budget

• Requires both the house and Senate to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment after October 1, 2011 but before the end of the year.

How is forcing congress to vote on an amendment “fighting for a balanced budget”? Do you expect an amendment with any real teeth to make it through a still-progressive congress? Moreover, with the government’s constant attempts to end run the Constitution over even just the past couple years, what honest good do you think adding another amendment would do? The most it would do is add another sheet of paper to already massive bills explaining how the bill is “fiscally responsible” and inline with the amendment. It is another smoke and mirrors campaign in lieu of actual government spending.

Another point, though not listed as a point, but rather in big bold letters to the right: NO TAX HIKES! As a major victory for families and businesses, these budget and spending reforms were accomplished without raising taxes. There will be NO TAX INCREASES as part of the Budget (outta) Control Act of 2011.

What it doesn’t mention is that the extra constitutional Super Congress created by the Budget (Outta) Control Act can and will likely increase taxes. In fact, Stivers doesn’t mention this new body anywhere in the mailer. Further, where is the spending reform? Caps on current rates? Laugh out loud! Promises of future reductions in the rate of spending increases by future congresses? Kicking any meaningful reductions down the road? This bill does NOTHING now, EXCEPT give progressives a 2 trillion dollar credit card extension through the 2012 elections. It is laughable for this bill to be touted as some kind of victory for fiscal responsibility.

Mr Stivers, voting against this monstrosity would have shown that you had a genuine commitment to fiscal responsibility. Perhaps you could confer with Congresswoman Bachmann, Congressman Paul or perhaps even fellow Ohio Republican Jim Jordan on what it means to stand up for fiscal integrity even in the face of intra-party opposition.

Quite literally, our government has adjusted the meaning such that Americans who: protest taxes, access alternative media (such as what you are reading now), protest abortion, illegal immigration, fear communism. From WND:

“Rightwing extremism,” the lexicon defines as those “who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented, and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. This term also may refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Just recently, the government added those who pay with cash and those who shop places such as military surplus stores and people who take the government’s own advice on emergency preparedness purchasing. Obama’s team may well have floated the idea for a trial for the 911 mastermind as a way to inoculate the American population against the idea of trying anyone branded as a “terrorist” in a civilian court. You can see that the government’s definition is overtly broad and likely encompasses a fair portion of the population of the United States. Further, have you considered the terrorist nature of the following crimes, and how easy it would be to include anyone suspected of such things in a terrorist list, thereby depriving them of their constitutional rights:

Suspects in a rape

Suspects in mass shootings

armed bank robbery

Certainly, most crime has a terrorist element in it, and yet according to the Constitution, “no person is to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

We must be vigilant and not fall into the knee-jerk reactions the progressives at high levels are directing us towards.

1. Sugar Coating:

~2 trillion parts cuts

10 years

Promises

Mix together thoroughly, making sure everyone thinks that 2 trillion dollars of cuts over 10 years equals 2 trillions of dollars of deficit spending in one year. Further, pretend you can pin down and require future congresses to act on your desires. Ensure further that they don’t see that the cuts will actually be in the rate of spending increase, not actual cuts. In other words, don’t let them know that spending will continue to increase at a “drunken sailor” rate even if future congresses agree to these cuts.

2. Sandwich.

12 parts super congress

1 part shredded constitution.

Mix together 6 members from each house. Imbue them with power from below, to leverage “revenue enhancements” and “cuts.” Put a gun to their head (forced cuts) with noone to pull the trigger. Discard the one part shredded constitution, as this super committee/congress violates the constitution’s granting of the power of the purse to the House.

3. Nancy Pelosi’s side order of Satan Fries.

100 parts partisanship

10 parts grand strategy

Dilute the constituency into thinking this Budget Control Act is a complete capitulation to the tea party. Conceal that Obama got everything he wanted in this legislation (a historic increase in the debt ceiling with only promises of cuts later, along with a super congress that will help the next progressive president sidestep a pesky house with a conservative majority with a good liberal coating of hot partisan rhetoric.

4. Blame Sauce.

By presenting this fine dish as a product of the tea party, when the inevitable fallout comes (debt downgrade, stocks, inflation, all the stuff that was supposed to happen if NO “deal” was reached!). The progressives will be able to blame the tea party for the mess. Unfortunately, in as far as tea party freshmen and supposed conservatives voted for this bill, it will be their fault. However, Stalwarts like Jim Jordan, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul voted against serving this toxic Sugar Coated Satan Sandwich to the American people as a tonic that will move us closer to a responsible and restrained government. But the media doesn’t care about facts, and you can bet the conservative Republicans in the house will be slammed by the MSM.

Here’s a breakdown of who voted how:

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011/07/boehner-budget-control-act-vote-who-voted-nay/

One of my friends had this to say about the deal, and I think its worth repeating here:

2008: Pass the bailout, or we’ll have a financial crisis! 2009: Pass the stimulus, or we’ll have 9% unemployment! 2011: Raise the debt ceiling, or we’ll lose our AAA rating! Are you starting to see a pattern here?

A recent redistricting meeting where myself and others questioned the integrity of the system after an article mentioned some anonymous sources purportedly “close to the redistricting process” indicated that Jordan’s disloyalty to the debt plan could cost him his district. As much as we are willing to call out politicians who renege their pledges to their constituencies, we must be willing to stand up with and for those statesmen who risk it all to do what is right. Is there not a cause?

However, despite historic fear mongering (everything done by Obama is “historic”), team Obama can not justify ending social security payments. Though insolvency resides for it in the future, right now, money that was payed into Social Security is there to continue making payments to those who were forced into the system and who paid into it. Obama is shamelessly lying about these payments for political gain.

There are those who urging the tea party GOP freshmen in the house to surrender their fight, calling any victory on the debt ceiling, ceremonial and empty, instead urging the old “go along to get along” strategy of the past 100 years that got us to the mess where we now find ourselves. Whether it is McConnell’s outright surrender of the power to the white house to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, or for the House to rubber stamp any old budget that Obama comes up with in the name of “saving face” from the lies and scaremongering about unsent social security checks. They harken back to Newt and the 1995 government shutdown scare. Never mind the fact that Newt may well have sabotaged the GOP on that issue (this is speculation based on Newt’s ideology as a progressive futurist and his complete failure to repeal the Department of Education as part of the Contract with America) with his comments about wanting to shut down the government. The house has made a budget. The White House doesn’t want it. The answer is not to give Obama what he wants. The answer is to buck the trend of the past hundred years and stand firm, no matter how much the TV talking heads scream about electability and no matter how much Obama lies about Social Security payments. The freshmen GOP were not elected to enable runaway government, but to check it. It is fiscal insanity to vote a budget where almost have of each dollar is deficit spending.

While they may not be able to get a budget that Obama will endorse (unless they pass HIS budget), they can halt the process by refusing to allocate money for his programs. It is risky, since people are not familiar with politicians holding their ground on principle. No doubt the lying attack adds will be launched. But then again, if they DO endorse the Obama budget and do whatever they can, surrender what ever principles they have to in order to prevent a government shutdown, they will be attacked. The left will not give them a moment’s rest. They will alienate and neutralize their base. And America will continue, unabated, on its road to perdition…

STAND FIRM. Keep the debt ceiling on ice.

I had the opportunity to meet up with members of the John Birch Society in 2009. They were hosting a speech by the Society’s president McManus, a speech about the economic crises and I decided to go and see what they were about. As it turned out, what they were saying was in line with the Tea Party’s stance on the size and scope of government spending. Afterwards I was able to grill some members about the Society, most notably the racist issue because I will not ever knowingly associate with a group that does harbor racist ideologies. As it turns out, the nebulous charges I had heard as a youth were as accurate as those thrown against the Tea Party today. To sum it up. I joined two organizations and one movement in 2009: The Union County 9/12 Group, the John Birch Society and the Tea Party. All of these are, in a sense, radical organizations, but to those concerned with liberty, they are hardly radical, but are practical and essential allies to the cause. But the empty charges of “out of the mainstream” really aren’t holding water any more as more and more people continue to wake up to the dangers presented by an out of control federal government.

An interview with the president of the JBS on the floor of the We The People Convention.

If you would like to find out more about the John Birch Society, and how they have been aiding the cause of Liberty in America, check out the following sites:

http://www.thenewamerican.com

http://www.jbs.org

Robert Owens, The Ohio Liberty Council’s Tea Party PAC endorsed 2010 candidate for Ohio Attorney General is the head of the Delaware, OH Chapter of the John Birch Society.

It takes courage to stand up. Especially when it was something you had grown up believing in since childhood. But for Anita it came during Obama’s campaign, when she saw first hand that “her side” was cheating to get ahead, as if law was of no concern. It started her on a journey that has led to the total severing from organizations and a political party that she believed to be helping the downtrodden and voiceless. But how many of us have been charged with denying their culture, their heritage, merely because they decided that liberty was precious and that the freedom to innovate and earn ones own way would pull more people out of poverty than billions of dollars in government redistribution programs? Did you know that by today’s standards historic leaders like Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman and David Walker would be denounced? Reading their stories and works show that these were by and large God fearing men and women who laid it all on the line, NOT for a government handout, but for the chance to be a person- an individual, to have the simple rights laid out in the Declaration of Independence: Life – to live free, Liberty – to own themselves and their time, and the pursuit of happiness, the right to have the chance to buy a house, pursue a career, make a life for themselves! I’m sure these are ranks she would deny, but having heard Anita teaching, preaching and pleading for people to wake up and clean up our system and defend their freedoms, her spirit definitely puts her among these leaders.

It seems that there is a reason the progressives, typically headed by the Democratic party, have worked so hard to target the Black community is that Blacks in America are the least removed from the abject abuses of a state run amok, and were thus most capable of blowing the whistle on progressive intrusions on the liberties of all. The passionate spirit as in David Walker‘s Appeal had to be squelched. So the progressives, the communists, everyone in America with a desire for a totalitarian welfare state, targeted the Black community. Whether it was spiritual destroyers such as Rev Wright and Black Liberation Theology, or political destroyers, or the cultural usurpers, it was part of a push to make Black synonymous with progressive. Further, even president Obama, in his book Dreams from my Father, denies that cultural identity is a personal choice, denigrating a lady he calls Joyce because she refused to identify with political activities she didn’t want to identify with. Modern progressivism has some common ideological foundations with the slavery system.

#1. Man is an animal. Frederick Douglass hated being considered an animal, slaves were seen as mere animals. Today, progressives assert by and large that all men are animals, accidental byproducts of an unguided “process” called evolution. Evolved animals have no unalienable rights, because they have no creator. The slaver’s denial of black personhood is just as false as the “modern” progressive’s denial of personhood, of unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.

#2. Slaves have no right to private property. Slave owners owned everything used or possessed by the slave. Progressives likewise believe that private property, outside their own, is evil, that it stands in the way of “equality” and “progress.” They believe that it is okay to deny property rights for “the greater good.”

#3. Slaves had no right to the fruits of their labor. Some slavers were “generous” and sometimes let their slaves keep a pittance of the income from any extra work they did above and beyond the things assigned to them by their master. The master enjoyed the fruits of the labor of the slave, believing that the rewards of the slave’s labor rightfully belonged to him, the master. Progressives today revile private wealth, again with the exception of their own, which the super rich amongst the progressives sometimes shift to tax-exempt foundations like the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, or the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. They support “progressive income taxes” and believe that private wealth actually belongs to their government. They also support redistributing this wealth to people who did not earn it, but who none the less feel entitled to receive it.

#4. Slaves had no parental rights. The master owned any children brought into this world, and could separate families, sell children, or do whatever they wanted with any member of the family. Today, progressives fight against parental rights at every step, whether its the right of parental consent for abortions, mandated sex education in schools, and many other areas where the state usurps or attempts usurp the parent’s rights.

#5. Slaves had no right to pursue education. Educated slaves were dangerous to the slavers’ power structure. A slave that could read and write could learn and become independent and start longing for more freedom. The state of the public schools as the federal government has taken ever more authority over them should show how much progressives like the NEA value true education, preferring that students learn to feel good about themselves, exercise, use condoms, and that its cool for Heather to have two mommies.

#6. Slaves had no right to religion, namely Christianity. Slaves were only permitted snippets of the Bible, proof texts for embracing a life of servitude and slavery. A full knowledge of the liberty in Christ, that God is no respecter of persons, that all are one in Christ Jesus, was extremely dangerous, the slave might end up thinking that they too were created “in the image of God” and that they too were human.  They might be inspired by the accounts of captives set free in the Bible. Today, the progressive is at war with “fundamentalist Christianity.” From the contents of David Walker’s Appeal, it is clear that a concise and face value understanding of the scriptures predates the label “fundamentalist,” and that such truth preached without compromise threatens tyrants and progressives. And so we have the war against God. God must be kicked out of every public square, the 10 commandments removed and repealed (so to speak, the folly of man who think they can revoke divine law), and any religious critique of the culture or government must be silenced. Of course they also have their counterfeit religion, led by people like Jim Wallace and Dr. James Cone, who preach a collectivist gospel that is so much like communism, the Communists are willing to partner with such churches as Trinity United Church of Christ to spread communism among the Black community! Even today, we can see how slavery can sneak up on a people in the words of scripture.

Of course the chief difference between the two ideologies is that of private ownership. Under slavery, individuals owned other individuals. Under progressivism, the individual is “owned” by the state. The state has right to his person, his children, his property, his wages.

One other difference is that the slavers embraced a distorted creation account, somehow factoring that Black persons were not people. They had to cringe when the 3/5th’s compromise identified slaves as “3/5ths of all other PERSONS.” Progressives embrace the hypothesis set up by Charles Darwin that man is an animal with no creator, the byproduct of some unknown accidental process spanning billions of years. Thus many have no problem with things such as abortion, euthanasia, and early progressives like George Bernard Shaw had no problem with committing genocide on those who could not “justify their existence.” They have no problem lying to prove their case, and they are doing just that when they pose as the defenders of the rights of minorities. And that’s the kicker, they don’t even believe individuals have unalienable rights. They seek to accumulate wealth and power while suppressing a people, giving them only collective identities and enough pottage in exchange for the chance to legislate away the very freedoms fought for so fiercely by people like Tubman and Walker. They prattle away, claiming that those fighting for individual liberty are using race as a wedge, when these progressive leaders are the  very ones driving the wedge. Because they know this truth: United We Stand, but divided we will fall.

God bless those who are willing to stand up.

Quotes on Faith, Freedom and Tyranny

 

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.  -Frederick Douglass

I didn’t know I was a slave until I found out I couldn’t do the things I wanted. -Frederick Douglass

One and God make a majority. -Frederick Douglass

I had reasoned this out in my mind, there was one of two things I had a right to, liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other. -Harriet Tubman

I would fight for my liberty so long as my strength lasted, and if the time came for me to go, the Lord would let them take me.  -Harriet Tubman

If I could have convinced more slaves that they were slaves, I could have freed thousands more.  -Harriet Tubman

We must and shall be free I say, in spite of you. You may do your best to keep us in wretchedness and misery, to enrich you and your children, but God will deliver us from under you. And wo, wo, will be to you if we have to obtain our freedom by fighting. Throw away your fears and prejudices then, and enlighten us and treat us like men, and we will like you more than we do now hate you; you are not astonished at my saying we hate you, for if we are men we cannot but hate you, while you are treating us like dogs. – David Walker (the Appeal)

Should tyrants take it into their heads to emancipate any of you, remember that your freedom is your natural right. You are men, as well as they, and instead of returning thanks to them for your freedom, return it to the Holy Ghost, who is our rightful owner. If they do not want to part with your labours, which have enriched them, let them keep you, and my word for it, that God Almighty, will break their strong band. – David Walker (the Appeal)

PDF of the appeal here: http://www.jpanafrican.com/ebooks/eBook%20David%20Walker%27s%20Appeal.pdf

O’Reilly just advocated (7-7-2011) “Caylee’s law” be passed in all 50 states, and then demanded Casey be “locked up a long time” even though there is not yet a law that makes it a felony to fail to report a missing child after a certain amount of time. O’Reilly’s advocating Ex-Post Facto lockup based on a law that doesn’t even exist yet!

Our knowledge of the trial is filtered through the media. We only saw the facts and testimony that the media decided to show us. I didn’t see the trial. None of us know if any evidence that would have vindicated her or served as a smoking gun was withheld, suppressed, or otherwise thrown out due to a tainted chain of custody or some other reason. Rest assured God knows, and if she is guilty, she will have to answer to Him

In order to render a guilty verdict, you would need more time to go over all the evidence. Once you have one piece of evidence that proves reasonable doubt, that’s really all you need an ocean of circumstantial evidence can be refuted by one piece of evidence that provides a clear level of reasonable doubt.

Consider this. Let’s say someone was killed in your house, with your knife, your shoe prints were found at the scene, pieces of fabric from your shirt, and to top it off, it was someone you disliked. You’ve got a jury about to convict you. Then they are given one more piece of evidence: you were unconscious in a hospital 2 and a half hours away undergoing surgery. As soon as that was known, the rest makes no difference, time to acquit and look for the murderer… Someone could have broken in stole your shoes and clothes, and used your knife to kill the person, knowing you would be blamed because it was someone you hated, occurred on your property, with your belongings used in the crime.

If she’s not really innocent, she will not escape God’s justice. That’s all there is too it.

Keep in mind we are seeing only what the media has shown us. I am not coming down on one side or the other, because I do not have any evidence one way or the other.

Something else to consider: let us imagine something catastrophic happened in your life. How would you respond? Lets say if you turned it in, you would immediately be labeled a suspect. How would you cope with the crises? Lets say that some months later, you are pulled into trial. Someone has gone over your activities for the past X weeks or months and selectively pulled out witnesses who saw you living riotously, or engaging in activities that mourning people don’t usually engage in. How long should sorrow engulf an individual? I wonder if a selective view of our lives would create an image of guilt strong enough to bend the emotions, yet would not be conclusive enough to prove that individual X committed crime Y. Enough proof exists to prove that crime Y was committed, but not enough to prove X committed that crime.

I support the death penalty. I believe the burden of proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt because there is no way to provide restitution to a man killed unjustly. You do not kill a person based on light or transient evidence. In order for the death penalty to result in justice, the executed MUST be guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

I also believe that if someone with genuine blood on their hands escapes temporal justice, that they cannot escape divine Justice.

It is terrible to contemplate a courtroom given over to empathy and emotion. If empathy and emotion is allowed to trump facts and figures, then we may as well bring in Sonya Sotomayor.

Remember her? Obama’s judge who wants to emphasize empathy over FACTS. Conservative America was up in arms (rightfully so!) when it was found out that she would elevate empathy over evidence. Do we want courtrooms based on empathy or evidence?

Evidence must be provided in a court room. That is how it must be. It is terrifying to see the raging vitriol that has consumed people. The MSM is driving this! They are providing what we can only speculate are incomplete facts, filtered through their lens of bias. I’ve heard the prosecution did poorly in their case. In other words, they didn’t prove it beyond reasonable doubt. If a case is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, a jury cannot in good conscience render a guilty verdict.

We must also consider that there are those who dislike our whole system. If the MSM is denouncing this verdict, could it be because they want to discredit the system? Because you never let a crises go to waste, and there are plenty of individuals (perhaps Sonya Sotomayor, Barack Obama, and others) who would like to “fundamentally transform” all aspects of our country. It is just one more thing to consider when you see talking heads talking about this “miscarriage of justice.” Even if Casey is a miserable person, I don’t know her, none of us do, the law must be upheld. I can’t help but wonder if the MSM outrage is to convince more and more people that our justice system is broken and “in need of fundamental change.” Remember, you never let a crises go to waste…

May justice be done for Caylee, whoever cut her young life short.