Last week, we discussed the rise (or unmasking) of anti-semitism.  However, that is not the only aspect of the 1930’s that seems to be rearing its ugly head.  There are some groups out there that are bent on conquest.

Factor Two:  Open Calls for Conquest/Expansion.

The 1930’s were marked by calls for territorial expansion.  Hitler demanded his “Lebensraum,” translated: “living space.”  Mussolini called for a revived “Roman Empire.”  Japan demanded territorial expansion to secure the raw materials to grow its industrial economy.  In the case of Hitler and Mussolini, the intentions to expand were openly stated.  It was no mystery.  The intent was clearly stated in print, and said in speeches. Mussolini got a head start when he invaded Ethiopia in the 30’s, but all and all, most of the world failed to take these statements seriously.   After all, these were loud,  silly men that wore silly uniforms…right?

Then, the world was amazed when those silly men actually followed through on those plans.

But what about now?  There are two groups (that have great relevance to Americans) who are speaking of conquest.  The first is Islam.

The Caliphate:

The term Caliphate refers to an Islamic system of government based on Shariah Law.  There is a worldwide desire to form a new Caliphate, which would eliminate boundaries of all Islamic nations.

Before you think that this is simply out of the mouth of Osama Bin Laden, take a look at this from American Thinker:

Nearly a century later, the preponderance of contemporary mainstream Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia, apparently share with their murderous, jihad terror waging co-religionists from al-Qaeda the goal (if not necessarily supporting the gruesome means) of re-establishing an Islamic Caliphate. Polling data just released (April 24, 2007) in a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org interview survey of 4384 Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007-1000 Moroccans, 1000 Egyptians, 1243 Pakistanis, and 1141 Indonesians-reveal that 65.2% of those interviewed-almost 2/3, hardly a “fringe minority”-desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate”), including 49% of “moderate” Indonesian Muslims. The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 65.5% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require a strict [emphasis added] application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.”

Notwithstanding ahistorical drivel from Western Muslim “advocacy” groups such as the Muslim Association of Britain, which lionizes both the Caliphate and the concomitant institution of Shari’a as promulgators of “a peaceful and just society” , the findings from the University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org poll are ominous.

Now, this call to unite the Islamic world is just one part of a larger concept.  First, the conquest of Europe.

Britain is not alone in its Muslim plight.  In 2005, France experienced massive Muslim riots in 300 cities.  Public buildings were firebombed, 200 policemen were injured, and 4,000 were arrested.[2]   This is not unusual as a Muslim response to perceived offenses.  Remember the Danish cartoons?

The central problem is assimilation.  Most Muslims don’t move to a country with the purpose of becoming real citizens of that country.  Muslims don’t want to be British or French.  Muslims come for the wealth of the west, and to make the west Muslim.  The evidence is transparent to anyone paying attention.  The Parisian riots of 2005 were committed by second and third generation children of Muslim immigrants.

The ultimate aspiration of Muslims is total, global dominion within a theocracy known as a “caliphate.”  Be they peaceful Muslims or radical Muslims, all share in this goal.

The problem of Muslim integration is so sensitive that 751 areas have been willingly ceded to Islamic residents by the French government.  Called “no-go zones” by many, these areas are off-limits to non-Muslims who value their lives. The UK is home to an indistinguishable number of “no-go zones,” with violence toward non-Muslims increasing in once peaceful areas.

Does this sound like a people that wishes to immigrate and assimilate?  Or does this sound like a group that wants to take over?  I think the evidence is rather clear.

The Reconquista:

While the Europeans are in a precarious situation with Islam, we in the US are not without our challenges.  For details, kindly give this long excerpt from Human Events a read.

Radical ‘Reconquista’ Agenda

Behind the respectable front of the National Council of La Raza lies the real agenda of the La Raza movement, the agenda that led to those thousands of illegal immigrants in the streets of American cities, waving Mexican flags, brazenly defying our laws, and demanding concessions.

Key among the secondary organizations is the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.

“Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we…should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot…Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas … It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny.” (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)

MEChA isn’t at all shy about their goals, or their views of other races. Their founding principles are contained in these words in “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan” (The Spiritual Plan for Aztlan):

“In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. … Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. … We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.”

That closing two-sentence motto is chilling to everyone who values equal rights for all. It says: “For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing.”

If these morally sickening MEChA quotes were coming from some fringe website, Americans could at least console themselves that it was just a small group of nuts behind it. Nearly every racial and ethnic group has some shady characters and positions in its past and some unbalanced individuals today claiming racial superiority and demanding separatism. But this is coming straight from the official MEChA sites at Georgetown University, the University of Texas, UCLA, University of Michigan, University of Colorado, University of Oregon, and many other colleges and universities around the country.

This plan is what is referred to as the “Reconquista” or reconquest, of the Western U.S.

But it won’t end with territorial occupation and secession. The final plan for the La Raza movement includes the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent out of “Aztlan.”

As Miguel Perez of Cal State-Northridge’s MEChA chapter has been quoted as saying: “The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to it]. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled — opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power.”

Former MEChA members include Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was officially endorsed by La Raza for mayor and was awarded La Raza’s Graciela Olivarez Award. Now we know why he refuses to condemn a sea of foreign flags in his city. California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante is also a former MEChA member. He delivered the keynote address at La Raza’s 2002 Annual Convention.

The National Council of La Raza and its allies in public office make no repudiation of the radical MEChA and its positions. In fact, as recently as 2003, La Raza was actively funding MEChA, according to federal tax records.(Emphasis mine)

Note that these quotes of from MECha; not from me, and not Human Events-their words-their plans.  Their stated intent is to “retake” the southwestern US, and then “remove” all other races.  How this “cleansing” will occur remains to be seen.  If we use history as our guide, can we predict that this “cleansing” might result in millions of deaths?  After all, most communist takeovers are followed by a massive bloodletting, as anyone who might resist are killed.

Some will say that this is an extreme “fringe.”  I must disagree.  As the article from Human Events points out, MECha has chapters all over the country.  They are vocal in their intent.  While we cannot determine the full numbers, just as we cannot determine the exact number of illegals in this country, we can safely guess that there are many thousands, if not millions of people that are here illegally, and have no interest in joining our society.

Here is a map that shows the distribution of Hispanics in the US.

One can say that they are simply staying near the border, but compare the above map to the map of Aztlan.

Notice the similarities there?

The Verdict:

It’s very clear that the two groups discussed here are openly stating their intention to take over territory, at first, by infiltration, and then, use any means necessary to secure their power.

In the 30’s, both Hitler and Mussolini stated their intent to expand.  Mussolini stressed a new Roman Empire.  Hitler, at least initially, looked to regain territory lost at Versailles, as well as to “restore”  German populated areas to greater Germany. No one took them seriously, and then were shocked when they did what they said they were going to do in the first place.

If we ignore the two groups described in this post, do we risk a similar disaster?  History has repeatedly shown that when potential tyrants are ignored, they can, and sometimes do, become literal tyrants.

I think it is also important to discuss that not all people in either group will participate in repression, violence, or even genocide and other crimes against humanity.  Once again, let history be our guide.  In the 30’s and 40’s, not every German was a Nazi.  Not every Italian was with Mussolini.  However, the majorities in those countries decided to simply “go along” with fascism.  They thought that their lives were getting better, and they just looked the other way when the Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and political dissidents “disappeared.”  They chose to ignore the riots and the beatings of those that spoke out.  They chose to ignore the trains filled with people going by.  They chose to ignore the smokestacks that belched funny smelling smoke.  They chose to ignore that Hitler was only doing what he SAID he was going to do.  That’s what might happen in the US and in Europe.  There are many Hispanics here in the US (Including one of our own contributors, AG) that came here legally, love this country, and will fight (rhetorically or literally) at our side.  There are also MANY others that might not participate in violence, but they won’t fight it, and  may assist it with their silence and complacency.

That is the danger that we face here.  Too many Americans are ignoring the stated threat from the people from MECha and La Raza.  And, just like in the fascist states, will people not wake up until it is too late?

While it seems grim, we are not yet lost.  People are waking up.  We can still communicate openly, and expose those that would enslave or kill us.  We are still armed, and therefore able to defend ourselves.  No, I’m not advocating an armed conflict with illegals, I’m instead discussing the reality that people tend not to openly attack an armed populace.   It may not entirely stop an armed insurrection, but it would limit the damage.  I say this with history in mind as well.   To quote Adm. Yamamoto…

“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

But what of Europe?  They are facing a far more grave situation.  They are largely more socialistic in their governments.  Their populace, by in large, is disarmed.  Political correctness has a greater foothold there, and those that do speak out are slammed as racists.  In some European countries, I would face the risk of arrest for quoting the movements that I did in this very post.

In the end, I fear that Europe is already lost.  If they dared to defend themselves against attack by an Islamic nation, their Islamic populations could likely rise up in rebellion.  With a disarmed populace, the slaughter would be horrific.  Their governments, I don’t think, would have the will to keep their nations intact. In the war scenario, they would not be able to protect their own people and infrastructure as well as mount of meaningful defense, let alone an offense.  They could collapse under attack from without and within.  There simply would not be a coherent culture strong enough, or even willing, to defend itself.  The end game scenario would be an Islamic Europe, with the British and French nuclear arsenals in the hands of jihadists.

Even is the status quo remains, the cruel mathematics of demographics would take it’s toll, and the result will be exactly the same.  Frankly, I can see no solution to the European dilemma.  I hope I’m wrong.

It’s not a pretty picture, but at least the US can be saved, if we can seal our borders and deal with the problem of illegal immigration by the rule of law.  If we fail to do this, maps will change, and there is a real danger of  a massive loss of life.

What I really fear is that our own government will continue its negligence, and fail to follow the most important Constitutional mandate:  To protect us from foreign threats.  In that event, it will be up to us to protect ourselves.  While we could do that, it would lead to many unnecessary deaths.

Do you favor the restoration of our Republic?

Do you dislike the nanny state?

Do you believe that our Constitution should be followed?

Have you joined the RESISTANCE? .

Be part of the solution!

© Matt Ross

Originally posted at Conservative Hideout 2.0

 

WesternFront America

This should come as no surprise to anyone!

According to an article at CNSNEWS.COM entitled: “Americans Who Don’t Attend Church Form Base of Obama’s Support, Gallup Polling Indicates,” Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief writes the following:

“Gallup reports the breakouts from its presidential approval survey for three different types of church-goers: people who attend church weekly, people who attend church nearly weekly or monthly, and people who seldom or never attend church. Among these three groups, Obama’s approval rating tops 50 percent only among those who seldom or never attend church. In fact, among this group it was at 56 percent for the week ending May 8.”

Jeffrey went on to write: “Obama’s approval rating dropped to a low of 38 percent among weekly church-goers in the week that ended on April 4. By contrast, Obama’s presidential approval rating has never dropped below 50 percent among those who seldom or never go to church. (Read the entire story HERE.)

Surely you are not surprised by these findings – are you? You should not be. As far back as the presidential campaign, Obama was supported by the less religious among Americans.

In an article from the “Christian Post UK,” and posted on “Directions Orthodoxy” dated July 9th, 2008, it is noted: “Presidential candidate Barack Obama has stronger support among less religious Americans than rival John McCain, a survey revealed.” The article goes on to say: “The survey, conducted by The Gallup Poll and released Tuesday, found 55 percent of Americans who say religion is not important in their life backed Obama, compared to 36 percent for McCain. The reverse was true for Americans who said religion was important in their life, with 50 percent to 40 percent preferring McCain over Obama. WE recommend you visit their site HERE.

Little has changed, at least for Obama’s support. A little deeper in the Christian Post UK article it is noted: “The finding that religious voters prefer a Republican candidate is not new. Evangelical Christians, who are viewed as highly religious, have traditionally been stalwart voters of the Republican Party…” You may read the entire article HERE.

As a conservative Christian I am not surprised by these findings. What troubles me is that ANY Christian could support Obama and the American political left. With every passing day it becomes more and more obvious the American political left has embraced socialism.

It is the opinion of this scribe that the Christian faith and socialism cannot co-exist. They are totally incompatible.

Simply put — Christians believe in God and believe that man needs God. Socialism, on the other hand, sees no need for God. The “State” takes over the duties of the “Supreme Being.”

“Socialist philosophy assumes that the masses [are] as dumb as children, and they don’t need a god to reach their fondest dreams, but a government to hand out the goodies… .“ Thus states Julie Behling in an article titled: “Why I Believe Socialism and Christianity Are Wholly Incompatible.” Ms. Behling goes on to say: “In Christian philosophy, individuals are responsible to care for the needs of the poor, the sick, the widow, and the orphan, but not compelled. Those who rise to the challenge will find themselves on the right hand of God because of their CHOICES, and those who don’t — will not receive the blessings reserved for those who do.

In Socialist philosophy, all are compelled to care for the needy whether they want to or not (through taxation), and this care comes through the administration of a notoriously inefficient bureaucracy.”

Ms. Behling explains: “Christian philosophy causes men and women to rise up, work for their sustenance depending oftentimes on faith that help will come if and when it is needed. It is hard, it is risky, but the rewards of making the proper use of God-given free will are great. The consequences of poor choices can be brutal.

Socialist philosophy seeks to soften the blows of consequences to natural laws, both positive consequences – financial abundance for the thrifty, wise, hard-worker — and negative consequences – poverty to those who break the natural laws that govern abundance.”

As one who subscribes to the Christian faith, I believe Ms. Behling is “spot on” when she says: “Socialism falsely informs men and women there is another way to reach their ultimate dreams besides faith in any god.” (We urge you to read Ms. Behling’s article in its entirety HERE.)

In summing up Ms. Behling says: “The degree to which taking care of the poor and the needy is instituted and administered by government is the degree to which freedom is abdicated.” (Editor’s note: The italics used here for emphasis are totally mine.)

We applaud Ms. Behling’s article and recommend it to you. You will find it HERE.

It may seem that we have moved far a field here, in this commentary, from the original intent. I assure you — we have not. My intention was to try to explain why the majority of the religious in America, the Christians especially, cannot support Obama en masse. Obama’s socialism flies in the face of the Christian faith. In fact Obama’s socialism is seen, among many Christians, as a religion in, and of, itself. It is a secular religion, without God, but a religion, nonetheless.

I suspect my conclusion above will not sit well with Obama followers, but the truth, oftimes, brings pain.

Evangelical Christians have only to consider Obama’s stance toward Israel to find reason to renounce his particular brand of socialism.

For evangelicals the fate of Israel and the fate of the United States are inextricably interwoven. The promise of God to Abraham that God would bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel is taken literally. According to their belief, Obama’s rebuke of Israel and his obvious fondness for Israel’s enemies will bring the wrath of God down on America. In fact, many Christians believe that has already begun. They believe that God’s protection of America has been lifted and America’s future holds only crisis after crisis and disaster after disaster until America once again embraces God’s “Chosen People.”

Americans have slowly come to realize the leadership they chose in 2006 and 2008 was a huge mistake and has brought nothing but pain and suffering to the American people. Elections have consequences. Decisions have consequences. America is living through the consequences of choosing a socialist government, which is incrementally dismantling our constitutional republic right before our eyes.

One of the signs given man as to when to expect the “End of Days’ was when people began living their daily lives as they did in the time of Noah. We have certainly reached that point in the evolution of our American society. And, unfortunately, just as Noah preached over and over again, to the masses, that the rains WERE coming and the ensuing flood would consume every one unless they changed their ways, they refused to listen and even rebuked and made fun of the old man building a huge boat in that dry land. Even the unchurched and the non-religious supporters of Obama know how that story turned out.

All the signs are there. Just as Israel paid a terrible price for demanding an earthly king, Saul, just so they could have a king of their own, just like their neighboring countries, America will be required to pay a price, of biblical proportions, for demanding a leader who remake America into the image of the socialist countries with whom we share this globe.

To say the end is nigh would be kind – and wrong. Unfortunately, America has much suffering in her future long before anything resembling the end rises above her clouded horizon.

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at INSIGHT on Freedom at:  http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/
E-Mail:  longstreet1862@gmail.com
Join Christians Against Leftist Heresy
*****************************************

Conservative? Then visit “INSIGHT on Freedom” at http://csadispatch.blogspot.com/. Find conservative comment on nearly everything at “INSIGHT on Freedom!”

 

WesternFront America

…when God is replaced by man.

Between the government bureaucrats who want to impose abortion on the African nation of Kenya http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=22728 and the World Bank http://www.worldbank.org/ choosing to mix it up with the pro-aborts, there resides an axis of demonic agendas the likes of which we have not seen in many a year. It would seem that the reign of President Obama is bringing out aspects of the culture of death that used to creep in the shadows and is now proud to expose itself to the light of day without fear of opposition.

This is why it was heartening to learn that Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ), http://www.ewtnnews.com/new.php?id=640 Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) are exposing possible violations of federal laws being perpetrated by the Obama administration. The administration publicly advocated for a new constitution in Kenya that would “enshrine a new constitutional right to abortion in Kenya and dramatically change Kenya’s abortion law.” Smith’s office points out that this is a violation of the Siljander Amendment, which is contained in the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act and prohibits lobbying for or against abortion using U.S. funds.

The Kenya situation has been heating up since January, when it was reported that an expansion of so-called “abortion rights” could derail the acceptance of the new constitution, which is scheduled for a vote in August of this year. Religious leaders in Kenya, who are unaffected by the undue pressure from the U.S., have said, http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=22728

It must be understood that pregnancy is God’s design, results from sexual contact between a man and a woman. God, therefore, holds the man and woman responsible to control themselves and engage in sex as a husband and wife. In any case, that a pregnancy results, it is not the problem of the unborn child. Why kill the innocent, helpless human life when it has resulted from the behavior of adults?

It is hoped that as Smith and his colleagues move forward with their request for an urgently needed audit of the government funds used in Kenya, the entire truth comes to light and the press toward unfettered abortion is defeated.

The cartel that continues to pressure third-world nations to abort babies as a solution to poverty is composed of not only the U.S. government, but other entities such as the World Bank, which has resources and exerts political pressure of its own. The World Bank has a new five-year “Reproductive Health Action Plan.” http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64A53620100511 While claiming that the new plan is designed to prevent maternal deaths due to complications from childbirth, the truth beneath the surface resides in the expressed concern that the fertility rates in the third world are too high. And the answer to putting the breaks on babies, according to the news reports about the World Bank plan, is more birth control and more “reproductive programs” to stem the tide of births.

While publicly we read that http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/41135 “the Bank considers unsafe abortion a serious public health issue for women and supports family planning services that help to prevent or reduce unsafe abortion as part of a country’s basic health program,” one has to wonder if indeed its definition of “family planning” incorporates abortion. The question becomes, is the World Bank collaborating with the U.S. government to provide access to abortion in the same way as the culture of death achieved its victory in America? Perhaps behind closed doors, the pursuit of protecting abortion as a so-called “constitutional right” is ongoing in the poor nations of the world. We will not know the answer to this, of course, until those committed to population control actually begin talking honestly about their agendas.

As the poor countries suffer under the efforts of the powerful to oppress the weak by killing their babies, wealthier nations are experiencing an increasing interest in techno-babies for those who are desperate to have designer children. The business, for example, of purchasing eggs from women rather than encouraging women to “donate” them has actually become a concern among certain ethicists. The New York Times reports, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/health/11eggs.html “Demand for human ova has been growing in recent years, fueled by infertility treatments and increased investment in stem cell research. Young women at top colleges and universities, long a prized source of eggs, are now being recruited not just through advertising in student newspapers but on web sites like Facebook and Craigslist, even on highway billboards.”

But the problem is that ethicists are beginning to question, not the practice of donating eggs but rather the business angle of fertility clinics purchasing the eggs for thousands of dollars. It does not seem to have occurred to these so-called concerned professionals that the crux of the problem is not the buying or donating of female ova but the fundamental problem of man attempting to fashion human beings in his image and likeness. It is that practice that should be getting the headlines, not the money being spent to acquire the perfect egg donor.

In case the culture has forgotten, there are many in the reproductive technology industry who consider the practice of egg acquisition by payment or donation to be nothing more than another form of reproductive technology, fertility treatment or genetic investigation. In man’s quest to replace God, nothing is off limits these days. Just ask the folks at Pathway Genomics, http://www.pathway.com/ the company that is marketing genetic testing kits for sale in your local drug store.

Among this Pandora’s box of unknowns is the pregnancy planning test, which, according to at least one reporter, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/10/AR2010051004904_2.html?wprss=rss_health “could prompt couples to decide not to get married or have children when their risk of having a baby with a disorder could be small. Or it could lead those who decide to proceed to seek genetic testing of the fetus, which could lead to more abortions.”

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has told the Washington Post that it “planned to investigate the test,” Pathway argues that, under current regulation, the test does not need to be approved. Whether or not this is the case remains to be seen, but it is clear that the company is in business to make a profit and all it needs are curious customers ready to spit in a vial so they can assure themselves of their health, or lack thereof, or even whether or not they ever want to “risk” bearing an imperfect child.

Pathway’s web site says it all: http://www.pathway.com/more_info

If you’re like most people, you’ve always wondered about the genes you have inherited and what traits you will pass on to future generations. Discover your genetically inherited predispositions and characteristics and whether they are beneficial or potentially harmful. You may also find that some traits are simply fun to uncover. Take the time to know who you are. It’s the science of you.”

In other words, forget about who you are and how you came into being, but rather get down to your molecular substance so you can more easily understand the fact that you, as a human being, are not a child of God but a mere product of your genetics. Yes, that’s the message and I have a sneaking suspicion that in this world of ever-burgeoning paganism, these tests could sell like hot cakes.

It’s clear to me that between Big Brother looking in on the third world to make sure fewer babies are born and the genetic manipulators plying their trade among those seeking to achieve perfection through technology, nothing good can possibly result. But much havoc can and will continue to be wrought.

As Saint Peter warned his fellow Christians in the early days of the Church (2 Peter 2:1-2), “[Y]ou too will have your false teachers, who will insinuate their own disruptive views and disown the Master Who purchased their freedom…. [T]here will be many who will copy their sinful behavior and the Way of Truth will be brought into disrepute on their account.”

Obviously, our day is no different. A plethora of false teachers abound. One can only hope and pray that people will, one by one and with strength of purpose, see through the evil and do all they can to undo the harm. Until enough of us courageously stand up to these ministers of death and deception, such atrocities committed against human dignity and human personhood will continue.

© Judie Brown

 

WesternFront America

It’s been a few days since the May 5 incident where students were disciplined for wearing t-shirts bearing the image of an American Flag on Cinco de Mayo. I have paid close attention to the reports, commentary and punditry in the aftermath, and I am astounded that no one has yet made the points I am about to expound upon. Once you consider them, you may also find it surprising that such obvious conclusions could be so easily overlooked!

The school has demonstrated offensive prejudicial “racism” against its Hispanic students!!

Huh? Come again?

Yes, That’s what I said, and when you think about it, I think you’ll agree!!

In the statements of the District Superintendent, as he trotted out the Principal’s supposed apology, he stated quite matter-of-factly that the school’s ostensible justification for demanding the flag shirts be turned inside out was to “maintain order and prevent fights”.

So, then, the school was presuming that:

1) The Hispanic population of the school is unwilling to accept the culture of the United States even to the point of respecting the flag of the nation in which they choose to live. They expected the Hispanics to take offense to the US Flag, though many of the Hispanic students were themselves US Citizens!

2) Still more offensive, the school acted on the presumption that the Hispanic students would respond to this anticipated offense by resorting to thug-like violence.

Isn’t this a wee-bit prejudicial? Might it even fall under the banner of “racial profiling”? After all… isn’t the presumption of anticipated behavior on the basis of one’s ethnicity the very DEFINITION of racial profiling which the Left is SO vocally opposed to?

Furthermore, the school seems to be implying that the US should be modifying its culture to accommodate its immigrant population rather than expecting our immigrants to become PART of that culture and participate in the “great melting pot” that has characterized the American Experience since our founding. Is this the message our schools should be imparting to our young people?

So it seems the “apology” is as offensive as the act toward the flag-wearing students itself!

[Ed Note: Just out of curiosity; if I wear a flag shirt on St Patricks Day… should I expect violence from our Irish population? I would think not, as the Irish-American population has generally become an “AMERICAN” population. While even non-Irish Americans join in the celebration of St Paddy’s Day, (Heck – we ALL love a reason to have a party and drink a beer – and really isn’t that the REASON Cinco de Mayo is celebrated in the US anyway… a marketing ploy of Corona Beer?), there is no duality of cultures between the Irish and the rest of the nation’s populace.]

Some are calling for the firing or resignation of the Principal. It would not seem to me to be inappropriate for this individual to depart the position. Unfortunately, however, this would do little to diminish the pervasive, endemic problem of progressivist politically correct thought found throughout public education today!

Still… I would be remiss if I did NOT point out the hypocrisy of those who claim to be DEFENDING these Hispanics against so-called racism – by presuming they are separatist La-Raza type reconquistadores prone to violence!

Was I right? Are you amazed no one recognized this before now?

Copyright © 2010 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political analyst and commentator, and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice. His work is also seen on Western Front American, Small Government Times, Western Journalism, News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House and more. Mr. Edelman is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://starboard.blogtownhall.com.

 

WesternFront America

“We traditionalists who love the culture and country we grew up in are going to have to deal with this question: Do we simply conserve the remnant, or do we try to take the culture back? Are we conservatives, or must we also become counterrevolutionaries and overthrow the dominant culture?

Calling opponents Nazis, fascists, and Klansmen, when it carries no penalty, can be rewarding. It places an opponent outside the company of decent men, discredits in advance what he says, and forces him to defend his character rather than his positions. And there are psychic rewards. After all, if one is standing up to Nazis or night riders, that is surely more heroic than standing up to Denny Hastert or Dick Armey. The more one demonizes an enemy, the more one ‘heroizes’ oneself.”

Patrick J. Buchanan

The people of Arizona have now determined that they will no longer kowtow to spurious charges leveled by Marxists and enemy aliens swarming this nation from Mexico. The gig is up, the American people know that people who possess no valid political position, revert to the ad hominem attack mode of fingering laws they don’t like as “racist.”

“We call things racism just to get attention. We reduce complicated problems to racism, not because it is racism, but because it works.” ~ Alfredo Gutierrez, political consultant, as quoted by Richard de Uriarte, The Phoenix Gazette, March 14, 1992 (quoted in The ProEnglish Advocate, 1st quarter, 2002).

The attitude of the citizens of Arizona, mirrors the larger consensus among the American people that they are mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore. The residents of Arizona regard the Mexican incursion as a free-for-all crime wave coming from illegal aliens. They have made their own declaration of independence, to reclaim their country, which they see being absorbed and annexed by a third world basket case.

“Arizona will set the pace for the rest of the nation,” according to State Senator Russell Pearce and the anti-“immigration”/invasion bill will be legal, as it has been drafted by attorney Chris Kobach, who made sure that it falls into direct alignment with precepts of the U.S. Constitution. Since the Arizona law directly mirrors federal law, there should be no bone of contention, unless it be the bone stuck in the throat of an illegal alien “president” and his attorney general, who considers Americans “cowards” in regard to questions of race.

Let’s see if Obama can tinker with the Constitution once again.

The Obama administration is poised and ready to strike the people of Arizona to trump their right to self-determination and national defense.

The justification for this action to thwart the direct will of law-abiding citizens, will manifest as closing the door to “irresponsible” actions of the people by the federal government. In short, an entire state of the United States of America has been denounced as racist and extremist by the Marxist administration of Obama.

This is the face of tyranny.

Barry Soetoro had better tread very carefully on this one, as the people of Arizona–like all Americans– are desert sidewinders who will strike anyone who dares to tromp on their resolve for defense and self-determination.

By standing firm for American law, the citizens of Arizona have affirmed their right to end the reign of terror inflicted by illegal alien squatters from Mexico. They will not handcuff their own law enforcement agencies in order to kowtow to Washington.

Attorney General of the United States of America, Eric H. Holder called his fellow Americans “cowards” for failing to address the issue of race; but when they finally do, he doesn’t like it.

The people of Arizona are hardly “cowards,” insofar they have now directly acknowledged the overt race war prosecuted against the United States of America by Mexico and come to the conclusion–by vigorous discussion, no less–that they feel no obligation whatsoever to continue as the kidnap capital of America, nor to endure the thousands of stolen cars, vandalized property, thousands of tons of trash and drug trafficking. The people of Arizona will no longer continue to put themselves at the disposal of illegal alien criminals, who come to rape, rob and murder Americans. These illegal aliens have also proven to be an expensive drain on the social safety net, courts, hospitals and prisons.

These Mexican nationals have come–by their own admission– as an invader and as such, should be profiled as “enemy combatants” by the people of the United States, who are predominately Anglo-Saxon and intend to stay that way, with no apologies.

“– The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset ‘the equilibrium of the national demographics.’ How’s that for racial and ethnic profiling?”

Michelle Malkin

The American people are only too willing to discuss racial matters, as well as the necessary steps needed to ensure the survival of the American way of life.

Professional grievance monger, race hustler and shakedown artist–with a bad conk–Al Sharpton, has indicated that he is personally “outraged” and ready to step forward to commit civil disobedience, in the name of alleged “civil rights” for Mexican interlopers.

The Constitution of the United States of America does not apply to foreign hostile powers which break into our country as an act of war. That document is reserved exclusively for citizens of our country.

“Civil rights” for Mexican nationals in the commission of criminal acts, is no more legitimate than the granting of a civilian trial to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Al Sharpton’s outrage is his stock in trade. Sharpton projects the angry demeanor of a man who thinks the American people are going to fear his ugly grimace. Another “Frederick Douglass,” what.

What amazes this writer, is that these Uncle Tom negroes (Holder and Sharpton) think they are doing their fellow black Americans a favor, by seeking to grant equality to Mexican nationals, who come to steal jobs which properly belong to blacks, as they did with the Hurricane Katrina clean-up, when black Americans on the job site were sent packing on the arrival of the illegal aliens.

Eric Holder and Al Sharpton cannot differentiate a valid immigrant from a Mexican national who breaks into our country, so how are they ever going to have any kind of honest discussion of race, when they sell their own people downriver? They would rather grant legitimacy to burglars in our national house, than help advance the lot of black people, by working to keep interlopers out of our nation, thereby ensuring the  hard-won civil rights of the black race.

If anyone is a “coward,” it is the alleged “president” of the United States, whom everyone knows is really a Kenyan usurper–who cannot and will not step forward to prove his own  American birth, as qualification for high office.

Comrade Obama talks of the so-called “sacred trust” of the citizen for his government, but real Americans follow the dictum of The Father of Our Country: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
- George Washington

Let the Justice Department “see if it’s legal” to protect the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, then they can proceed to examine an illegal alien American “president” with no paper trail, to see if he too is “legal.”

Only in America, can a stranger from nowhere get elected president, only to thwart the will of the people.

These invaders from Mexico and those traitors who support them in their bid for the fabled “Aztlan,” can plan a “boycott” of the entire nation, for all of the states will soon follow Arizona’s fine example of national defense. There will be no “sanctuary” anywhere in this country for the Mexican occupation army–not even San Francisco.

Degenerate politicians who support La Reconquista, are systematically being culled out from power and dealt with, by those who are extremists in defense of liberty. Even senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham have now become “true believers” in border security.

The American people did not start this Second Mexican War, but they will certainly finish it, in a decisive manner.

What must be especially rankling to the Obama administration, is that enactment of S.B. 1070 will force a renewed interest on the part of Washington in securing the border from the Mexican incursion, lest other “irresponsible” acts from the states should snowball into national mobilization for the Second Mexican War.

The people of Arizona have redefined the word “irresponsible” to include the granting of any illegal alien amnesty, under the rubric of an alleged “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”

The overriding message coming from Arizona is: “We win; get over it!”

Gov. Brewer and the Arizona legislature are proving “Yes we can,” for the sake of the nation.

Illegal aliens: declaring war on the enablers By Devvy Kidd

The Nation of Aztlan
3 min 53 sec – Mar 28, 2006
www.youtube.com

VIDEO CLIP THREATENING ARMED REBELLION

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDlutO0KK7g

© Thor H. Asgardson

 

WesternFront America

It is no accident that April 22, Earth Day, is also the birth date of Vladimir Lenin, an acolyte of Karl Marx, the lunatic who invented communism as an alternative to capitalism.

Earth Day is naked communism.

To begin, it substitutes a worship of the Earth, Gaia, for the worship of God, creator of the universe and the instructor of moral behavior for mankind.

The Earth does not demand a moral code of personal behavior. Indeed, the lesson it teaches is “the survival of the fittest “and an indifference to suffering. The “natural events” mankind fears most all involve the potential for significant loss of life and for injury.

The Earth is a beautiful place, but it is utterly merciless. Man has learned to adapt to it and, by adapt, I mean to use its resources to build shelter and protection from it, to plant and harvest crops from it, and to domesticate some of its species while hunting and fishing for others for food.

Earth Day postulates that man is the cause of harm to Earth by virtue of his cities, his highways, his use of its sources of energy, and even the garbage that results from the normal course of maintaining life. For centuries mankind routinely burned and buried garbage. Now we are told we must separate and recycle it. We are told that everything plastic is bad even though it is one of the great inventions of modern times.

Communism reached its zenith in the last century. Its imposition in the former Soviet Union, in China, and elsewhere is a litany of murder and oppression. In the 20^th century, a minimum 110 million people died as a result. It enslaves mankind wherever it can.

Environmentalism has been built on the foundation laid by communism because both exist to control everyone’s life. They are opposite sides of the same coin, both are opposed to the ownership of private property and both regard man as state property to be drained of his earnings through taxation.

Environmentalism’s preferred method is coercion and the mechanism for this is government.

While America was established to ensure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, environmentalism exists to exert more and more control over our lives by limiting our choices, our liberty. Environmentalism redefines happiness as doing without the advances of science and commerce that protects and prolongs our lives.

There is nothing voluntary about environmentalism.

There is nothing voluntary about having to recycle. There is nothing voluntary about having to fill your tank with a mixture of gasoline and ethanol. There is nothing voluntary about the imposition of mileage standards for cars. There is nothing voluntary about losing access to beneficial chemicals that control countless insect and rodent pests that spread disease and destroy property.

While the vast majority of Americans clamor for the government to permit access to our nation’s vast natural resources of coal, oil, and natural gas it stands in the way, claiming always that drilling and mining pose a threat to the environment. At the same time it acquires more and more of the nation’s landmass to deter access and economic growth.

In the name of the environment, the U.S. government is set to impose a Cap-and-Trade law on Americans that has no basis whatever in science and is, in fact, based on the greatest hoax of the modern era, “global warming.”

Cap-and-Trade will tax energy use and directly control how much energy individual Americans can use to heat or cool their homes through “smart grid” technology controlled by the utilities, not the consumer.

Environmentalism is the reason the U.S. has not had a single new refinery or nuclear plant built since the 1970s. Think about that every time you drive your car or turn on the lights.

The spread of endless environmental propaganda has been taken up by the nation’s mainstream media and has infiltrated the nation’s schools through its textbooks and other means of instruction. Earth Day will be the occasion for an orgy of media coverage.

Just as communism failed the former Soviet Union and just as Red China abandoned communism as the model for its economy, environmentalism continues its relentless quest to deter economic growth and security in America. It is the infrastructure of a New World Order.

Do not celebrate Earth Day. Denounce it.

Caruba blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. An author, science and business writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center, a clearinghouse for information about scare campaigns designed to influence public opinion and policy.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

 

WesternFront America

by Amanda Lord

We often shake our heads at the prevailing cultural attitude that sees adoption as somehow worse than killing a preborn child outright—but are we pro-lifers partially responsible for propagating that myth?

I became pregnant at 18 years of age. I was terrified, I had very little money and even less knowledge about how to raise a child. When I was about seven months pregnant, I moved into Sunlight Home http://www.sunlighthome.org/ in Naples, Florida. Sunlight is an amazing maternity home that helps women in crisis pregnancies.

The day I moved in, Miss Linda, the director, asked me about my plans for my baby. I didn’t have an answer. To this day, I thank God for Miss Linda, a wise lady who cared enough to suggest adoption to this confused 18 year old. Although there was nothing easy about the decision, I placed my beautiful son William Martin for adoption two days after his birth.

Even before making the final decision, I was berated with negativity. I was told, “a woman who loves her baby wouldn’t give him away” and even told that my son would “surely hate me for giving him up.” Shortly before signing the papers that would legally relinquish my parental rights, a social worker confided to me: “If a girl decides to have sex, she needs to deal with the consequence of raising her child.”

Despite the negativity, it has been almost five years since I placed William into the loving arms of his adoptive parents. To this day, I still face criticism and false stereotypes from those inside and outside of the pro-life movement. It is imperative that pro-lifers distinguish the facts from the myths surrounding adoption. If not, adoption will continue to be clouded in negativity and many women will decide it is easier to abort instead of considering the loving act of adoption.

Myth 1: Birthmothers have long been stereotyped as uneducated and helpless.
In fact, a 1988 study by Steven McLaughlin showed that unmarried birthmothers who placed were more likely to continue their education and were less likely to receive public assistance than women who chose to parent their children.

Myth 2: Birthmothers don’t love the child that they place for adoption.
This statement is simply not true. As a proud birthmother, I can say that I don’t believe I could love my son more. Even though I have not seen my child in almost five years, his life brings so much joy to me. The poem “All I Have Missed” by Amy L. Chenault http://e-magazine.adoption.com/issue/10Jun08.html expresses the love a woman feels for her child perfectly:
“Through all I have missed
my love still abound(s)
I thank God each day
for you, Mom and Dad, I found.”

Myth 3: Birthmothers suffer irrevocable damage from placing.
“Contrary to popular belief, mothers don’t go on in this world after ‘giving up’ a child, enjoying their lives and forgetting the child ever existed. Even though people would love to think this is true, it’s not the reality of the situation for most of us. Our lives are colored by the traumatic event and we are never the same afterwards. Most of us grieve for years ….” said Jaymie Frederick http://www.exiledmothers.com/ , who prefers the term “natural (first) mother” and is now a professional searcher and private investigator http://www.prlog.org/10586651-expert-adoption-researcher-joins-forces-with-leading-adoption-search-firm.html . It is true that some women feel like “exiled mothers” once they place their child for adoption, but that is not the norm now. Ms. Frederick’s experience echoes that of many women who placed children during what has been called the “baby scoop era” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_scoop_era of the 1940s through the early 1970s, when unmarried mothers were basically shunned by society and forced into adoptions.

These days, you are more apt to hear a birthmother say, “It was not an easy decision any way I decided. I chose adoption. Looking back, it was the right decision and I have no regrets, not at all” (anonymous). The key is that she “chose” adoption. There are many web sites started by women who have found peace and joy in the choice of placing their child for adoption: http://birthmotherofadopted.blogspot.com and http://www.birthmothersunite.com.

However, if you encounter a woman who continues to feel an intense sorrow from placing her child long after she relinquished her parental rights, it is our duty as pro-lifers to help her gain the peace of mind she deserves by sharing the love of Christ with her.

Myth 4: Placing a child for adoption means a woman “gave up” that child.
First off, the term “giving up a child for adoption” is not at all helping the pro-life movement. Using the term “give up” likens the act to giving up sweets when on a diet. To change minds, one must use the correct wording and remove the false rhetoric. No one gives up a baby. If a woman chooses adoption, she is placing her child into the adoptive parents’ care. And actually, many adopted children are thankful that they were given a life they may not have been able to have if their birthmother hadn’t decided to place them for adoption: “I often receive calls from adult adopted children who ask our agency to locate their birth mother so that they can say ‘thank you’ for placing them for adoption. Placing a baby for adoption can be a self-sacrifice of heroic proportions,” said Susan Sedensky, J.D., an adoption coordinator with the Diocese of Norwich, Connecticut. http://npaper-wehaa.com/norwich-bulletin/2010/03/08/s2/#?article=788360

If you speak with adoptees, they will almost always tell you that they don’t feel that they were “given up.” They recognize the blessing it is to have been placed for adoption. An adopted friend of mine had this to say about her birthmother and adoptive parents: “I am so thankful to both sets of my parents. They selflessly gave me a gift that cannot be equaled. The love that they shared is incomprehensible. And I know how special and loved I am because of the sacrifices my parents made for me. An adopted kid is one of the most loved kids because of the humongous sacrifices of the biological parent,” said Krista Fagan-Cox, adopted two months after birth.

Myth 5: Abortion is easier and “a lesser heartache” than adoption.
“[Women considering abortion] will say, ‘I know it’s killing my baby,’ but they still think that it would be worse to have the baby, see the baby, know they have a baby, and then give it away,” revealed Peggy Hartshorn, president of Heartbeat International http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/12/last-days-of-adoption/print/ in a recent article about the dwindling number of adoptions.

It’s hard for many in the pro-life movement to understand this frightening mindset, but it’s literally a matter of life and death that we try. For many women, abortion seems easier; it ends the turmoil of pregnancy right away: One short “procedure” and normal life can commence without the “stigma” of adoption. You don’t want to coldheartedly hand over your baby, do you? It will all be over soon, one can imagine Planned Parenthood telling vulnerable women. We know this is a dirty lie of the worst kind, but nonetheless, this is the mentality of many women who choose abortion over adoption.

Counseling and birthmother support services can change the longing for a beloved child into joy that, because of the selfless act of adoption, a child is alive and thriving. I truly believe the reason I recognize the blessing of placing William for adoption is because I received Christ-centered counseling and surrounded myself with people who not only love me but also my son.

Myth 6: Adoption is against God’s will.
There is no question that most pro-life activists see the importance and beauty of adoption. They understand that if a woman feels as though she is not yet ready to parent, she can place her child into a pair of loving arms instead of killing that child through abortion. But there is a prominent mindset in the movement that views adoption as an ungodly alternative to abortion. Teresa M. McDonough, the director of the adoption program at Catholic Charities for the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, http://www.ccda.net/programs_children.php has come across such pro-lifers: “[W]e have occasionally encountered people who are pro-life activists who do not support adoption due to a belief that the pregnancy is God’s will and, therefore, it is God’s will that the woman parents the child.”

If you are a believer, God has become your heavenly Father. In a sense, you were adopted into the family of God. And did not Joseph adopt Jesus into his own family? Can we deny that the child Moses was adopted? Then how can it be said that adoption is against God’s will if the Bible is overflowing with stories of babies being parented by those other than their own flesh and blood? Declaring that adoption is not the will of God is not only causing indecision in the minds of women who are considering adoption but it belittles the beautiful sacrifice a birthmother has made for the child she placed.

Women who find themselves in unplanned pregnancies often feel trapped into either parenting the child in circumstances that they don’t see as ideal or aborting. If we as pro-lifers would work to break the stereotypes that negatively categorize birthmothers, I believe there would be a dramatic decrease in abortions.

I have a picture of William on my desk. While writing this article, I found myself looking at his picture with such joy. I want to do everything in my power to end the needless killing through abortion. And when a woman feels like she cannot possibly parent a child, she and her child deserve to learn of the selfless love and beauty of adoption. Breaking stereotypes and debunking the myths about adoption very well may save the lives of some of the most vulnerable human beings among us.

Amanda Lord is American Life League’s communications assistant.

 

WesternFront America

By Johanna Dasteel

It is hard to believe. Many of us are still pinching ourselves, hoping that it was only a dream or, rather, a nightmare, but the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as “the Senate bill” is now law. We now stand face to face with a brave new America, home of a nationalized health care system complete with taxpayer-financed murder, most commonly committed by surgical and medical abortions. Not only does brave new America, under this law, usurp our personal responsibilities to charitably care for our neighbors but a few other dastardly delinquencies will also be carried out under its dominion:

1. It gives Planned Parenthood the financial boost it has been posturing to receive for decades, essentially making it the government family planning agency. STOPP National Director Rita Diller outlined the financial (and deadly) boon in her March 26 commentary entitled “Planned Parenthood’s Obamacare Grand Slam.”

2. It funds abortifacient contraceptives through the new insurance option.

3. It does not provide any conscience protection for health care providers, insurance companies or taxpayers with moral objections to providing and funding fatal assaults on vulnerable human beings, particularly the preborn (medical, surgical and chemical abortions, human fetal research, fertility “treatments”), infirm (severely mentally and physically handicapped, people artificially aided with food and hydration) and elderly.

4. Building on the stimulus package’s health information technology, it will use a cost-efficiency model of health care to determine the course of treatments for U.S. citizens—an affront to the dignity of the human person, especially the vulnerable infirm and elderly.

5. And worst of all, it directly funds abortions; notwithstanding the executive order that merely reiterates the language of the health care law, so now those who did not fit in the “status quo” of the traditional abortion funding bans on Capitol Hill will also face taxpayer-funded deaths.

While some in the pro-life movement talked about upholding the “status quo,” Denver’s Archbishop Chaput instead discussed the “minimum moral standards” necessary for Catholic support of the Senate health care bill in his March 17 column for the Denver Catholic Register http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3583 :

It does not meet minimum moral standards in at least three important areas: the exclusion of abortion funding and services; adequate conscience protections for health-care professionals and institutions; and the inclusion of immigrants.

Archbishop Chaput’s message fell on the deaf ears of Catholics in the House of Representatives, and, worse, what Archbishop Chaput articulated as the Catholic Church’s “minimum moral standards” are not even met by the “status quo”:

- America funds Planned Parenthood, but this occurred even before the passage of HR 3590. Every cosponsor of Rep. Mike Pence’s amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Service’s Appropriation Bill’s Title X, banning Planned Parenthood from receiving any of those grant monies, will tell you that we have been funding abortion for decades. Funding Planned Parenthood is funding for abortions, not to mention the pornographic materials it bills as “comprehensive sex education.”

- America currently directly funds abortions that kill children conceived in rape and incest. Stupak’s language http://www.necn.com/03/21/10/Stupak-Maintaining-status-quo-on-abortio/landing.html?blockID=201691&feedID=4215 perpetuates this discriminatory policy and maintains this “status quo.”

- The “status quo” perpetuates the fallacy that mothers’ lives must be pitted against their childrens’, that doctors are incapable of providing equal care to both mother and child, that when a mother’s health is compromised while with child, that it is not only justifiable to kill her child because it tugs at the strings of our empathetic sentiments, but that it is necessary. It is never necessary to kill one human being so that another might live. The Hippocratic Oath http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=20909 , which requires doctors to provide equal care to every person, just as the government is required to give equal protection to every person, is undermined by this “status quo.” Stupak’s language is a continuation of this lie commonly referred to as the “life of the mother” exception.

Stupak’s language, although lauded as adhering to the “status quo”, was clearly not acceptable. So, why were pro-life groups promoting his amendment, saying that it barred the bill from funding abortion and creating the illusion that it would solve the “pro-life problem?” Of course, his language didn’t survive the process, and now many of these same leaders and their faithful grassroots support are feeling deeply betrayed by their gone-in-the-night hero, Rep. Bart Stupak.

Unavoidably, compromise breeds compromise, and, aside from the parliamentary tricks used to pass HR 3590 into law, it is safe to say that the support of now-infamous and so-called “Catholic” and pro-life organizations was instrumental in the passage of the final bill.

In the wake of this health care nightmare, American Catholics have been left confused and asking that dreaded question: “What now?”

I offer a humble suggestion; one that stalwart pro-lifers have been calling for as well: A recommitment to our original focus and intent to win back the right to life of the preborn, essentially ending all of the compromises.

Murder is not negotiable. Lives are not negotiable, nor are they political “issues” with which we can bargain. It is not the role of government to mitigate injustice, but to prosecute and correct it. Until it is formally and legally recognized that the preborn are persons, the prospect of publicly funding their executions will always be on the table and used for political gains.

In a time in which states’ rights are being discussed at length in order to combat Obamacare, it must be noted that there has been a movement afoot for several years now that has been doing just that.

Meet the answer to “what now?”

The human personhood movement has active initiatives in ten states, among them, Amendment 62 in Colorado, to define the term “person” as one that applies to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being. In a time when the federal government is demonstrably turning its back on the will of the people, it is time to reclaim our liberties through our local and state governments. The human personhood movement realized this sooner than the rest of us. I suggest we hop on board and ride the wave of the states’ rights movement so that the preborn, whose very lives are at stake, have a fighting chance.

Let us pray, recollect ourselves and unite on the only thing that can save the pro-life movement: The bedrock principle that every human being is a person, each possessing inherent dignity, and with a claim to certain inalienable rights that we have an obligation to defend, chiefly the right to life, without exception and without compromise. Personhood Now!

Johanna Dasteel is American Life League’s senior legislative liaison.

 

WesternFront America

Yes, it IS a crime to break into the US by stealing across the border! Yet, millions have done it and continue to do it even as this scribe taps out these few words on the keyboard.

Those wonderful Democrats, now scared witless they are going to be mauled politically at the polls this coming November, have to move as quickly as possible to get those millions of illegal aliens citizenship and, even more important, get them registered to vote so they can vote for the dems who secured their citizenship while overlooking the fact that they are criminals. Remember, Latino voters were crucial to President Obama’s win in 2008.

Does any of this strike you as a little bit weird? It ought to – because it IS weird! But, then, that is the America we live in today — an America led by its first Marxist President and it’s first Socialist/Marxist/Progressive Congress.

The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, told a throng in Las Vegas over the weekend: “We’re going to come back, we’re going to have comprehensive immigration reform now.” Reid continued: “We need to do it this year.” He was emphatic when he said: “We cannot wait.”

Reid promised that Congress would begin working on an immigration overhaul when they return to Washington this week from their recess.

Judging from Mr. Reid’s assured demeanor we expect he, and his cohort in the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, will make every attempt to ram this bill down the throats of Americans just as they did the ObamaCare bill. Heck, Reid admitted it! Speaking to the pro-immigration reform crowd Reid stated — flat-out: “We’re going to pass immigration reform, just as we passed health care reform,”

It is time, fellow conservatives, to get the phone calls, the faxes, the e-mails, flowing again and make those personal visits to the offices of your Congressperson and your Senators and tell them to their faces you expect them to vote NO on immigration reform. We HAVE to stop this bill just as we stopped it twice in the recent past.

While you are writing or speaking to your Congressperson or Senator, please tell them that if they are serious about doing something constructive about illegal immigration they should begin by sealing the border between Mexico and the United States. Just as in a leaky rowboat, bailing does little good until you plug the leak!

Remind the politicians there is BIG trouble brewing on our southern border. When local law enforcement admits, openly, they cannot protect those in their charge from violence perpetrated by illegal immigrants stealing across the border and advises legal citizens to arm themselves for protection, it is only a matter of time before all hell breaks loose.

To say the southern border of the US is porous is an understatement. The nation is at risk from terrorists, organized crime cartels, and “transnational gangs” while the federal government shirks its responsibility to secure the border.

“Recently, Gov. Rick Perry, of Texas, sent a letter to U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano requesting that the federal government utilize Unmanned Aircraft Systems, also known as predator drones, for missions over the Texas-Mexico border. This would provide an additional surveillance element, supplying valuable information to local, state, and federal law enforcement along the border. Currently the three predator drones assigned to the southwest border are based in and operating exclusively in Arizona.” (SOURCE) To view the Governor’s letter to Napolitano go HERE.

“In the absence of adequate federal resources to secure the state’s southern border, Gov. Perry launched the state’s recent border security enhancement using highly skilled Ranger Reconnaissance (Ranger Recon) Teams to address the ever-evolving threat along the Texas-Mexico border. Additionally, under the governor’s leadership, and thanks to action taken by the Legislature, the state has dedicated more than $110 million to border security efforts in each of the last two legislative sessions.” (SOURCE)

The problems with our non-secure southern border are past being serious. They are now critical.

So, Mr. President, Congresspersons, and Senators don’t try to pass another Amnesty for Illegal Aliens bill before you seal and secure the borders of the US. Once that is done to the satisfaction of the American electorate, then — and ONLY then — will we be the least bit interested in discussing immigration reform.

© J. D. Longstreet

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at INSIGHT on Freedom at: http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/

 

WesternFront America

by Michael Hichborn

An old parable http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html tells of an incident between a frog and a scorpion. As the story goes, a frog was about to swim across a river when a scorpion asked him for a ride. The frog, knowing of the scorpion’s deadly tail, said, “How do I know you will not try to kill me?” The scorpion replied, “If I sting you, we will both drown because I cannot swim.” Seeing the logic of his argument, the frog agreed to give the scorpion a lift. However, halfway to the other side, the scorpion stung the frog on its back. As the poison began to take effect, the frog asked, “Why did you sting me?” The scorpion replied, “It’s my nature.”

Last August, I revealed in the ALL Report http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip1-MCsZ5Kg that the Catholic Health Association was promoting President Obama’s health care reform efforts, even though it called for the expansion of government-funded abortion, birth control, sex education and euthanasia. In an attempt to clarify her position, Sr. Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, agreed to discuss her support of Obamacare with ALL President Judie Brown on Raymond Arroyo’s The World Over on EWTN. http://vimeo.com/6252379 In the interview, Sr. Keehan said, “We are working closely with our bishops, and have been working with our bishops for years now. We are not at cross purposes with our bishops.” Sr. Keehan stated—at least four times—that CHA would compromise on preferences, but not on principles. And when asked if she was willing to withdraw support for health care reform should it not include strict protections for the preborn, the elderly and the infirm, Sr. Keehan said, “We’ve already said clearly, unless our principles are met, we are not going to be supportive.”

Other organizations, such as NETWORK http://www.networklobby.org/ and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (currently being investigated by the Vatican made similar statements: They said that they supported the efforts of the bishops and called for protections for the preborn, the elderly and the infirm. However, when the cards were on the table and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops lobbied against the reform bill, CHA, NETWORK and LCWR all broke ranks with the bishops and, instead, supported Obamacare.

What happened? Why did these “Catholic” organizations and individuals directly countermand the USCCB and themselves by supporting a bill that expands abortion, birth control and euthanasia? While Sr. Keehan acknowledged a “major concern on life issues,” she focused primarily on what she hopes the reform law will do. http://www.chausa.org/Contenttwocolumn.aspx?pageid=2147484509&terms=%22major+first+step%22

The following is a brief, but sobering, analysis of the health care reform bill signed into law by Barack Obama last week. H.R. 3590 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590enr.txt.pdf contains the following sections:

SEC. 1302 – ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS REQUIREMENTS

Under subparagraph (b), the Secretary is charged with defining “essential health benefits” to be included in all federally funded health care plans, such as “preventative and wellness services.” Considering that the phrase “pregnancy prevention service” is rapidly becoming the new code for birth control and contraception, the possibility that essential health benefits will include birth control is a real concern.

But that’s not all that’s wrong with this section. Subsection 4 states:

(4) REQUIRED ELEMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION – In defining the essential health benefits under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—

…

(D) ensure that health benefits established as essential not be subject to denial to individuals against their wishes on the basis of the individuals’ age or expected length of life or of the individuals’ present or predicted disability, degree of medical dependency, or quality of life;

Should birth control be deemed “essential health care” under the former provision then none of the health care plans may deny coverage for it for any reason.

SEC. 1553. PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ON ASSISTED SUICIDE

(a) In General – The Federal Government, and any State or local government or health care provider that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or under an amendment made by this Act) or any health plan created under this Act (or under an amendment made by this Act), may not subject an individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the entity does not provide any health care item or service furnished for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.

…
Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to apply to, or to affect, any limitation relating to—

(1) the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment or medical care;

(2) the withholding or withdrawing of nutrition or hydration;

(3) abortion; or

(4) the use of an item, good, benefit, or service furnished for the purpose of alleviating pain or discomfort, even if such use may increase the risk of death, so long as such item, good, benefit, or service is not also furnished for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of assisting in causing, death, for any reason.

So, you can’t take direct actions toward killing a patient, but you can take away food, water and oxygen, and administer “dangerous” doses of pain medication (even though it may cause death), so long as that is not the intention. Meant to be a conscience protection clause, this section completely redefines acts that “provide any health care item or service furnished for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing.” Specifically excluded from this definition is the withdrawing of medication or treatment, the withdrawing of nutrition and/or hydration and abortion, which is to effectively redefine euthanasia, assisted suicide, mercy killing, etc. Chillingly, clause (4) implies the notion that doctors and offices can be discriminated against if they refuse to administer dangerous “lethal” doses of pain medication so long as their “intent” is not to harm or kill the patient. The double-edged sword there is that doctors who do such things are protected under the Act and doctors who refuse to administer such doses will be discriminated against. So much for prohibiting discrimination!

SEC. 2303. STATE ELIGIBILITY OPTION FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES

This section is extremely confusing because it amends multiple sections of the voluminous Social Security Act, however it is possible to ascertain certain points by following the leads. After making several alterations to the Social Security Act, Section 2303 amends section:

1902(a)(10) of the Social Security Act … (B) by inserting ‘, and (XVI) the medical assistance made available to an individual described in subsection (ii) shall be limited to family planning services and supplies described in section 1905(a)(4)(C) including medical diagnosis and treatment services that are provided pursuant to a family planning service in a family planning setting …

Section 1902 (a)(10) outlines what MUST be included in state plans for medical assistance, and section 1905(a)(4)(C) merely says, “family planning services and supplies furnished (directly or under arrangements with others) to individuals of child-bearing age (including minors who can be considered to be sexually active) who are eligible under the State plan and who desire such services and supplies.”

Current law requires family planning in all state Medicaid programs. However, this new language will allow states to set up special programs to provide family planning (including artificial contraception) to people who are otherwise ineligible for Medicaid—for example, if the individual makes too much money to get Medicaid unless she is pregnant (there is a higher income eligibility limit for pregnant women than non-pregnant women). Under this provision, she would be allowed to receive family-planning-only Medicaid in states that choose to participate. In addition, Section 2202, under the title, “Permitting hospitals to make presumptive eligibility determinations for all Medicaid eligible populations” allows family planning clinics to enroll women in family planning under Medicaid on the spot.

Now, “Family planning services and supplies” are not specifically defined in section 1905 (a)(4)(C), and it only provides a circular definition. Since Planned Parenthood and other such organizations define family planning as including all forms of birth control and even abortion, it is reasonable to conclude that this is how it will be defined here as well. To this end, we can say that the new law, as written, requires state plans to provide the full range of birth control, including abortion.

SEC. 2953. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION

Title V of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701 et seq.), as amended by sections 2951 and 2952(c), is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘ SEC. 513. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION.
…

‘ (2) PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION PROGRAMS-

‘ (A) IN GENERAL- In this section, the term ‘personal responsibility education program’ means a program that is designed to educate adolescents on—

‘ (i) both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS, consistent with the requirements of subparagraph (B); and

‘ (ii) at least 3 of the adulthood preparation subjects described in subparagraph (C).

‘ (B) REQUIREMENTS – The requirements of this subparagraph are the following:
…

‘ (iv) The program places substantial emphasis on both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy among youth and sexually transmitted infections.

Title V of the Social Security Act is the MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH SERVICES BLOCK GRANT. Section 2953 of the new health care law creates a new section under that title, which amounts to sex education. This new section expands new title funds for organizations such as Planned Parenthood for the purpose of indoctrinating children in all forms of birth control. Planned Parenthood already receives social security grants through Titles III, VI and X of the Public Health Service Act and Titles XIX and XX of the Social Security Act; this section provides yet another vein of blood-money to the nation’s largest abortion chain.

Continuing in the same section:

(b) Purpose –

‘ (1) IN GENERAL – The purpose of an allotment under subsection (a)(1) to a State is to enable the State (or, in the case of grants made under subsection (a)(4)(B), to enable a local organization or entity) to carry out personal responsibility education programs consistent with this subsection.

Clearly, the intention of the program is to indoctrinate kids in all forms of birth control. Regardless of whether or not there is an “opt-out” clause for individuals to whom this education applies, the fact of the matter is that more federal funds will be used to indoctrinate kids in immoral practices.

SEC. 4101. SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CENTERS

(1) PROGRAM – The Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subsection referred to as the ‘Secretary’) shall establish a program to award grants to eligible entities to support the operation of school-based health centers.

This section opens funds for grants to create school-based health centers. These health centers provide a vast array of services and, while this section specifies that it will not allow for the performance of abortions, it says nothing of birth control or contraception. Given broad statements such as “comprehensive primary health services,” it is not unreasonable to assert that this language includes birth control. And considering the parameters set for establishing and operating these health centers, it is possible that Planned Parenthood could potentially become such an entity.

There have been numerous analyses of this particular piece of legislation explaining other areas of concern, so the real question is why did CHA, NETWORK and LCWR break with the USCCB and support this law? Either these groups did not carefully analyze the bill, as they claimed, or they willfully deny that these sections exist. Either way, one thing is clear. These progressive organizations, which have enjoyed a long relationship with the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, did exactly what they will always do; they placed political expediency above Catholic principle. In other words, the USCCB—and by extension, millions of preborn babies now in greater danger because of this law—was stung by these groups because “it’s their nature.”

Michael Hichborn is director of American Life League’s Canon 915 project http://www.canon915.org and a researcher for Reform CCHD Now. http://www.reformcchdnow.com

 

WesternFront America