Obama Commits to Signing UN Arms Treaty

The number one goal of the United Nations is to become the political entity that rules all nations or in other words, the one world government.  To accomplish that goal, they have to continue to exert their authority and power over individual countries and they have been quite successful at doing this in recent years.

Profiling is OK in Obama's Banana Republic

In 1971 Woody Allen directed and starred in the comedy Bananas. The plot entailed the takeover of San Marcos, a fictional Latin American country, by military revolutionaries. The beloved leader of the revolution, once in power, implements decrees of mounting irrationality. The escalation of his paranoia becomes impossible to miss with decree that citizens must change their underwear every hour and that it must be worn on the outside so he can check.

Yet Another Democrat Tries To Assassinate An American President

laughed out loud when I learned that the man who sent poisoned letters to President Obama is a Democrat. And then I thought, “Well doesn’t that figure?”

Obeying God Rather than Men

received an email question the other day about the Christian’s responsibility to government. It is a question we receive often and it is one that must be addressed time and time again. In short, the question is this: “Should we passively accept evil in government, or should we resist it? Do we submit to evil government, or resist it?” Well, what would you say?

Most People Don’t Know Much About Second Amendment History

Posted 1 hour ago by Common Constitutionalist filed under History, Police State, Politics, Second Amendment


The first line to Sam Cookes’ song “Wonderful World” goes like this: “Don’t Know Much about history.” And that’s the way liberals want to keep most of the nation. History’s a great teacher, but too many of us found it boring. But it comes in handy when we’re trying to protect our freedoms.

Knowing some history about what our founders thought about what it means to “bear arms” can go a long way to shut the mouth of someone who does not know much about history.

In 1999, Texas U.S. District Judge, Sam Cummings ruled in a domestic abuse case that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual the right to keep and bear arms.

There was naturally blowback from this decision. His detractors claimed he neglected to follow usual judicial practice. You see, his sin was not citing legal precedent to support his decision.

That one sentence clearly defines a major problem in this country, run by pinhead lawyers — so full of arrogance that they think themselves and their court decisions superior to the Constitution and the founders. By citing only court precedent instead of original intent one bad decision leads to another and so on.

Some legal pinheads might cite the Supreme Court case U.S. v Miller (1939) wherein the court ruled the Second Amendment’s “obvious purpose . . . was to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the state militia.” In the early 1980s, the Illinois Supreme Court as well as the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there was no right for individuals to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment.

I’m no constitutional scholar or great jurist with an army of researchers, but I can read.

So did the framers intend the Second Amendment to encompass an individual’s right to carry guns for self-protection? It turns out they, the founders, had plenty to say on the subject.

The first state Declaration of Rights to use the term “bear arms” was Pennsylvania in 1776: “that the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state.” Pretty clear. No ambiguity there.

Noah Webster of dictionary fame was certainly in a position to know what the Second Amendment phrase “bear arms” meant. A prominent Federalist, he wrote the first major pamphlet in support of the Constitution when it was proposed in 1787, in which he stated:

“[B]efore a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed.”

Again, pretty straightforward, but one might expect that of a wordsmith.

In fact, in Webster’s famous dictionary, first published in 1828, “bear” is defined as “To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat.”

Continuing to the word “arms,” we find this definition: “weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.” So according to Webster, “bear arms” is to carry or wear weapons openly or concealed. Further, Webster defines “pistol” as a “small firearm, or smallest firearm used… small pistols are carried in the pocket.”

I bet most Americans don’t know this much about gun history in America.

MORE >>

‘Marriage Equality’ Spells ‘Marriage Extinction’

Posted on March 23, 2013 by J. Matt Barber

This week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the most critical cases of our time related to marriage equality. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch both for and against California’s Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden State’s pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife.

Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for purposes of federal law.

Although both cases certainly address a multitude of legal and political issues, they also involve a number of moral and cultural considerations that, if wrongly decided, will literally shake Western civilization to the core.

The stakes could not be higher. Of central concern is whether the Supreme Court will put its official stamp of approval on that cartoonish contradiction-in-terms labeled “same-sex marriage.” Ultimately, these nine justices will decide recklessly either to deconstruct, radically redefine and render functionally trivial the age-old institution of natural marriage – or leave it alone.

They’d better leave it alone.

article continues here 

Unlimited Power and Absolute Corruption

Power is a familiar topic with conservative writers and thinkers. In 1944, Ludwig von Mises published his book, Bureaucracy, which may very well be considered the authoritative work on the (in)effectiveness of centralized power. Mises wrote:


The bureaucrat is not free to aim at improvement. He is bound to obey rules and regulations established by a superior body. He has no right to embark upon innovations if his superiors do not approve of them. His duty and his virtue is to be obedient.

Mises here echoes a similar sentiment expressed by G.K. Chesterton, written nearly half a century earlier: “I’ve searched all the parks in all the cities and found no statues of committees.” Russian author Leo Tolstoy would agree:

From the day when the first members of councils placed exterior authority higher than interior, that is to say, recognized the decisions of men united in councils as more important and more sacred than reason and conscience: on that day began lies that caused the loss of millions of human beings and which continue their unhappy work to the present day.

One of the grand designs of the United States Constitution was its insistence on decentralized power. Rather than allowing the feudal mindset to inform their political thinking, America’s founders chose a republican approach, meaning government by representation, with law being the great equalizer (see Exodus 18). They well understood that unlimited power has corrupting effects on both the righteous and the wicked. Edmund Opitz observed: “No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words ‘no’ and ‘not’ employed in restraint of governmental power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.” 19th century writer Caleb C. Colton summarized it well: “Power will intoxicate the best hearts, as wines the strongest heads. No man is wise enough, nor good enough, to be trusted with unlimited power.” Colton was merely affirming what the American people had already ratified.

What modern conservatives often miss though, is that this mistrust of power was in general, and not only in the hands of those who are ideologically opposed to us. Lord Acton is famous for his quotation, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” but it should be pointed out that Acton wasn’t only aiming his words at his enemies. What we would vehemently deny to liberals, we are often more than willing to give to those who espouse some variation of conservatism. Edmund Opitz is clear in his warning: “Never advocate any more power for your best friends, than you would willingly see wielded by your worst enemies.” If absolute power corrupts, then we should be diligent to not allow it to be possessed by anyone, whether ally or opponent.


  by Eric Rauch

What Most Americans Don’t Know About Taxes

I read USA Today because it gives me a quick rundown on popular news. Every so often I find a story that surprises me. Rarely do I agree with its Founder, Al Neuharth. But in his Plain Talk article of February 1, 2013, his article on “How income tax has changed in 100 years” caught my attention:

“If you’re getting ready to file your income tax return, you should be interested to know that what you’re doing started 100 years ago. But what a difference that century has made! Examples:

“When Congress passed the income tax law in 1913, a couple making over $4,000 in taxable income after all deductions was subject to a 1% tax rate.
“With inflation that $4,000 then is equal to about $93,700 now. But the tax rate now is 25% or more for those in the $100,000-plus salary range.”

So far so good, but Neuharth doesn’t stop here. He goes on to argue that “taxing income may be one of the fairest ways for the government to raise money to pay its bills.” This begs the question. How do we determine what bills the government should have to pay? Where is the constitutional authority, for example, for a Department of Education that confiscates billions of dollars from tax payers and then returns it to some tax payers after paying a bureaucracy to implement the redistribution process? Why not let people keep their own money and make their own educational decisions with it.

Then there’s the history of the continued increase in the amount of tax being taken from us and the call for even more taxes. In 1913, the top tax rate was 7% on incomes above $500,000 ($10 million in 2007 dollars) and a total of $28.3 million was collected. Less than 1% of the population paid federal income tax at the time. The people who voted for the income tax believed that only the “rich” would be paying taxes. Like today, the people who voted for the income tax voted that way because they believed other people would be paying it. Not them.

It’s no wonder that liberals are called Progressives. They are willing to settle on very small gains in legislation at the beginning so over time they can increase its effect. This has happened with every legislative act in our nation’s history. Social Security started as a two-percent tax on income up to $3000 for a total of $60 per year (employee and employer “contribution”). Now it’s more than 12 percent on more than $105,000.


We’ve seen the growth of every government program. The Sixteenth Amendment is made up of only 30 words, but as Neuharth points out, today’s tax code is a massive 73,954 pages and counting.

Will Rogers (1879–1935), humorist and social commentator, with more than a century of congressional foibles to evaluate, said, “The difference between death and taxes is death doesn’t get worse every time Congress meets.”

Liberals contend that taxation is all about social justice. A group of philosopher kings are needed to determine what’s just and take our money to make it certain. It didn’t work for ancient Greece and it won’t work today since those in charge don’t have a fixed moral standard to determine what’s just or unjust. In fact, they are so unjust that they pass laws to take money from productive members of society so they can buy votes from the unproductive.

Walter E. Williams says it best: “Let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you, and why?”

 by Gary DeMar
MORE

Justice Scalia: The Constitution is Dead

 

 I know what Scalia means, but part of me couldn’t help but think there was a little irony in the Justice’s recent pronouncement: “[The Constiution’s] not a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead!” Speaking to a group at Southern Methodist University, Scalia was promoting what he considers a “strict constructionist” interpretation of the Constitution.

The debate on how to interpret the Constitution is older than the Constitution.
Most of the Founding Fathers were strict constructionists (as you would imagine… since they drafted the document. Of course they wanted it interpreted as it was written). Over time, as high technology and low morals altered the nature of American society and politics, the question started to arise more and more: “Isn’t this document a little outdated? But rather than re-write it, why not just interpret it freshly for our modern circumstances?” Which basically meant, “Why not just ignore the clear intent of the Founding Fathers and just draw from the Constitution whatever we want it to say…”

continue reading here

Obama is Sinking America

Although it certainly wasn’t Oscar material, I still love the 1989 film Erik the Viking, starring, among others, Tim Robbins, Mickey Rooney, Eartha Kitt and John Cleese. It’s a campy British comedy-fantasy about a band of misfit Vikings on a quest to reach Valhalla.

In one scene, the motley mob finds its way to the island of Hy-Brasil, a happy, peaceful, sunlit land populated by white-robed, free-loving, uber-pacifist morons. You know, liberals.

Through a series of immaterial events, the island begins to sink into the ocean. As it does, Erik and crew evacuate and re-board the ship while Hy-Brasil’s inhabitants blithely remain, singing out of tune and playing harps, horns, and other instruments badly.

As the crest of the island dips beneath the sea, King Arnulf – a blundering buffoon played by Terry Jones of Monty Python fame – exclaims: “Everyone, stay calm. This is not happening.”

It’d be funny if it weren’t true, but America has become Hy-Brasil, Barack Obama King Arnulf and liberals of every stripe his white-robed, mind-numbed, sycophantic subjects. Our enemies, both foreign and domestic – some of whom have “The Honorable” before their names – are laughing themselves silly.

Indeed, “progressives” are a caricature of themselves, fully given over to pseudo-utopian, relativist ideals that remain ludicrous – hopelessly unattainable – by any objective standard.

Still, our patchouli-wearing, pervert-pride-prancing, “pay-for-my-abortion”-shrieking friends are anything if not determined. They’ll let neither reality nor the U.S. Constitution stop them. Nothing, it seems – especially not those mealy-mouthed puddin’ pops running the GOP – can keep this ship of fools from sinking a once great nation.

Problem is, they’re taking us all down with them. How do you stop skyrocketing debt and deficits that even liberal economists admit, if left unchecked, spell America’s doom? You don’t. You print trillions more and spend it like game tokens at Chuck E. Cheese. The party must go on or the kiddos get cranky. Sugar Daddy Barack’s got hungry mouths to feed.

How do you stop evil nutjobs pumped full of psychotropic drugs from shooting-up “gun free zones”? Why, by leaving them heavily armed, of course. By unconstitutionally grabbing guns from the very law-abiding citizens positioned to tap two in the body and one in the head whenever these death-culture byproducts start killing.

Liberal logic: “Up is down, down is up, we’ll make it so and we won’t give up!”

In sum, you spend your way out of debt, tax your way to higher employment, fornicate your way disease-free, abort your way to non-violence and unilaterally disarm your way to national security. Any questions?

Now, some of you may say, “But wait, Obama knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s no buffoon.”

I both agree and disagree. Yes, the “progressive” dogma that courses through his veins – a mind-altering hallucinogen that gives liberals the munchies for power – is, indeed, inherently sinister. Still, he believes it with every ounce of his nicotine-hardened heart.

By deliberately deconstructing America’s constitutional republic – our free-market form of government – and replacing it with a Euro-socialist, moral relativist amalgam of his liking, this misguided anti-colonialist radical thinks – truly believes – that he’s doing the right thing. Such are the ways of the well-meaning tyrant.

People sometimes ask me how it is that I manage to stay so optimistic – to maintain deep joy as we watch our nation’s foundations crumbling around us like the walls of Jericho. They wonder how it is that I’m able to pick up and carry on with a smile as America heads careening toward cliff’s edge.


It’s easy. First, I put my full faith and trust in the Sovereign Creator of the universe who is the same yesterday today and forevermore: Christ, God incarnate, who is always faithful to those who have faith in Him.

Then, I laugh at them; liberals, that is. I make fun of their dull-witted, self-defeating, abjectly wicked worldview. I follow God’s example. Of those who align themselves against His laws and His nature, Psalm 2:4 says, “He who sits in the heavens laughs. The Lord scoffs at them.”

How can you not scoff at the silly twaddle they’re hocking?

Ultimately, I’ve read the end of the book. I know what happens. The good guys win. That keeps me smiling no matter what goes down on the culture-war front. It keeps me snickering.

Still, once I stop laughing, I get about the business of trying, with every fiber of my being, to defeat them. Not reason with them, not compromise with them, not suck up to them and certainly not trust them. Defeat them.

Oh, I’ll love them. I must. I’m commanded to by the Lord I serve. I’ll pray for them, too. Do it all the time. But I’ll never, ever, under any circumstances, trust them.

You may be surprised to learn that, in various forms, I get dozens – sometimes hundreds – of pieces of hate mail each week. My recent favorite came from a delightful bloke:

“Someday, someone may just choose to use their second amendment right (sic) to put a bullet in your worthless head. You are a disgusting waste of life you uneducated, non-human, uncivilized, evil, parasitic Nazi maggot. Shame on you.”

Right. Shame on me.

How do you reason with, compromise with, suck up to, or trust that? You don’t. You defeat it.

Abraham Lincoln forecast our current state of the union: “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

President Obama sits atop the highest perch of a nation fast-sinking. “Everyone, stay calm. This is not happening,” he assures us.

But it is happening. We’re destroying ourselves from within. We’re going down, and the only way to stop it is to utterly defeat those responsible.

In the meantime, they sure are fun to laugh at.


 by J. Matt Barber

Andrew Cuomo Should be Excommunicated

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo says he’s a practicing Catholic. He attends church with his live-in girlfriend, supports abortion on demand, and pushed for the legalization of homosexual marriage.

Gov. Cuomo’s latest directive is to make abortion on demand even easier to obtain in the Empire State by enacting the Reproductive Health Act that he says will “protect a woman’s freedom of choice. . . . Because it’s her body, it’s her choice.”

The governor and his legislative lemmings just passed a draconian gun control bill designed to protect the children of New York. Almost in the same breath, the same governor, wants to enact legislation that will kill more children every day in the state of New York than were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

Where is the priest of his parish? Where is the Bishop of his diocese? This man should be excommunicated from the church. The Church is complicit in the guilt of this man and other Church members who will vote with him on this bloody law.

And yet, he remains a member in good standing in the Church. He attends the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, in Albany. I doubt know where he is a member, but he must be a member somewhere.

All we’re getting from the Catholic hierarchy is “disappointment” in the governor:

“Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York expressed ‘great disappointment’ in Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s announcement to move forward with the state’s proposed Reproductive Health Act. . . . ‘I am hard-pressed to think of a piece of legislation that is less needed or more harmful than this one,’ Cardinal Dolan wrote in a Jan. 9 letter to Gov. Cuomo, who is Catholic.”

That’s it? “Great disappointment,” “less needed,” “harmful”? This new bill, if passed, will give women the right to kill their pre-born baby right up until the time of delivery. No wonder today’s church is viewed as irrelevant and impotent.

Is the church afraid of losing membership because there are millions of Catholics who agree with the governor’s political positions on abortion and homosexual marriage? If this is true, then it’s time to clean house beyond the governor’s mansion.

What about “separation of church and state”? Should the church get mixed up in politics? This is not a political issue. It’s a moral issue. The apostle Paul had to deal with someone in the church of Corinth who had “has his father’s wife” (1 Cor. 5:1). Paul tells the Corinthians about their toleration of such gross immorality:

“You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. . . . REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES” (vv. 2–5, 13).

Excommunication does not remove the governor from office; it removes him from the church and its sacraments. I know this doesn’t mean much to many people today, but it means a great deal to God and the long-term health of the church

by Gary DeMar

Is Congress Too Full of Lawyers?

Congressional approval is at an all-time low, somewhere around 9%. The overall feelings expressed by most Americans is that they don’t accomplish anything worthwhile and are so rich and elite that they no longer have any connection to the common working man.


In a recent poll, people indicated that they liked cockroaches, root canals and colonoscopies more than they liked their congressmen and women. There are all kinds of reason for the low approval ratings, but perhaps one man may have stumbled on to one of the key reasons Congress seems so disenfranchised with the American people.

Chris Wilson believes it’s because there are too many lawyers and not enough farmers, cowboys and military people serving in Congress. To prove his point, he turned to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress which contains a short biography on every person that has served in the US legislature from 1789 until present. He then downloaded the over 12000 bios into a searchable database and started doing word comparisons such as ‘lawyer’, ‘farmer’, ‘cowboy’, ‘Army’ and so on. The results are displayed in a bar graph that is itself searchable.

For example, type in ‘lawyer’ and look at the chart and you’ll see what Wilson means. Put your cursor on any of the green bars for more information about the lawyers in that particular Congress. Notice how the number of lawyers in Congress is steadily increasing in recent years.

Now type in ‘farmer’ and see what happens. Better yet, type in ‘Army’ and look at the results? The number of people serving in Congress that were in the Army spiked after the American Civil War, World Wars 1 & 2, Korea and Vietnam. However, the number has been steadily declining since around 1975. Military men are well trained, disciplined and make excellent leaders. They also tend to have a better understanding of national security, the US Constitution and the Second Amendment.

I spend half an hour typing in one word after another and saw some interesting things. Of all of the words I typed in, I saw that the number of lawyers is increasing to what I believe to be a dangerous level. Have you ever read a legal document with all of the language that no one but they can understand? If they do the same thing in Washington, DC, no wonder nothing gets done and when it does, no one’s sure exactly what it meant and it ends up getting challenged in court.

I think it’s time to start electing more common people like farmers, ranchers, cowboys, store clerks, nurses and especially more former military people. Now that I think about it, I propose a new bill for Congress to consider that restricts the number of lawyers that can serve in Congress and that number must be less than 1% of the total 535. Once that quota is filled, no other attorney will be allowed to run until a slot opens.

Did you know that in early colonial days, being an attorney was consider to be a profession of ill repute and some communities would not allow them to live within the city limits. Perhaps we need to take a lesson from those colonial days

by Dave Jolly

Florida Judge Quotes Christmas Movie In Ruling Obama Eligible

Florida Democrat Michael Voeltz had filed a lawsuit against Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States and claimed that he was a threat to the safety and security of the United States. Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom WatchUSA served as Voeltz’s attorney on the case.

The All-American Entitlement Mentality

John Stossel’s newest article is a welcome addition to the conservative/libertarian arsenal. Entitled “Government Gone Bad,” Stossel makes the point that laws rarely improve life. In fact, he argues, it is a difficult task to convince the average voter that fewer laws are actually better. Most voters,

Democrats’ Death Tax Hike Could Kill Half Million Farms

 

 



More than half a million family farms could be threatened with insolvency when a death tax increase rammed through the Senate by Harry Reid and the Democrats goes into effect, according to an analysis by the Senate Republican Policy Committee. That’s about a quarter of all the farms in America, according to the Washington Examiner.
CONT. READING

Could Your Family Live on $61,320 Per Year Tax Free?

 

There’s a new report out by the Senate Budget Committee that calculates that “the amount of money spent on welfare programs equals, when converted to cash payments, about ‘$168 per day for every household in poverty.’”

UK Death Panels Kill Babies

The UK’s health system is run by the National Health Service (NHS) and is funded mostly by taxes. Different “care pathways” are used to manage each patient’s health depending on the severity of illness. If the doctor decides that the patient’s condition is beyond treatable, and death is imminent, the patient is put on the “Liverpool Care Pathway for the dying patient” (LCP). The LCP functions much like hospice care here in the U.S. Its function is to keep patients as comfortable and pain-free as possible in their last hours of life. Nourishment is provided by tube, strong sedatives such as morphine are administered, and since treatment for their illness is halted, patients usually die within about 33 hours of being placed on the LCP. Nearly 30% of people who die in the hospital every year in the UK are people on the LCP. That’s about 130,000 people.

For years, people have been trying to sound the alarm that doctors are taking advantage of this particular care pathway by using it as a tool to euthanize thousands of elderly patients per year. According to Professor Pullicino, an English neurologist, many patients’ conditions are not properly analyzed prior to being placed on the LCP and are placed there simply to free up beds or to get rid of difficult-to-deal-with elderly patients. Many of these patients could have lived much longer if it weren’t for being put on the LCP prematurely.

Now, it’s being reported by the Daily Mail that newborn babies are also being put on “end-of-life” plans on the LCP. One doctor has admitted starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone. Writing in a leading medical journal, the physician revealed the process can take an average of ten days during which a baby becomes ‘smaller and shrunken.The LCP – on which 130,000 elderly and terminally ill adult patients die each year – is now the subject of an independent inquiry ordered by ministers. The investigation, which will include child patients, will look at whether cash payments to hospitals to hit death pathway targets have influenced doctors’ decisions. Medical critics of the LCP insist it is impossible to say when a patient will die, and as a result the LCP death becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They say it is a form of euthanasia, used to clear hospital beds and save the NHS money.”

 This is the future of Obamacare, and it’s one of many reasons it needs to be completely destroyed. It doesn’t need adjustment or tinkering around the edges. Obamacare needs to be euthanized and aborted.

The American culture has already accepted the practice of abortion as a woman’s right. We’ve already accepted the practice of euthanasia for elderly people when doctors decide that they’re “too far gone.” In the next several years, expect our culture to grow to accept infant euthanasia, which is nothing more than infanticide. Expect to hear more and more news stories of parents consenting to have their newborn babies “put out of their misery” when doctors tell them that their newborn child was born with an abnormality, a congenital condition, mental retardation or a genetic predisposition for some disease. Parents wouldn’t want the added responsibility of taking care of such a child, the doctors would just want to save money and free up beds, and the government would want to keep the population down to a “manageable” level. So, it would be a win-win-win situation for those involved.

This is headed our way. And it will be sold to Americans the same way abortion was sold to us. They’ll appeal to emotions and convince people that it has everything to do with protecting parents’ rights. And those who attempt to stand up for the newborn babies will be looked at as right-wing fanatics.

Atheist Bullies Shut Down Christmas Displays

Once again, atheists have shut down the First Amendment rights of Christians and Jews with the blessings of a federal court.

For 60 years, the city of Santa Monica, California, has allowed private Nativity and Hanukkah displays in its Palisades Park, which overlooks the ocean and the famed Santa Monica Pier.

But as has happened in so many other places, a tradition enjoyed by an entire community that was just intended to make the world a nicer place drew the attention of a mean-spirited atheist with his nose out of joint because he hates Christians and Christmas.

Atheist Damon Vix wasn’t content with just putting up his protest booth three years ago. Last year, he recruited a bunch of other atheists to flood the city with applications, packing what was supposed to be a fair lottery.

The atheists managed to steal 18 of the 21 spaces, leaving only three for Christian and Jewish groups. They only actually used half of the spaces, leaving the others empty. The ones they did use were filled with signs and displays insulting people who believe in God, including one featuring Richard Dawkins’ “Flying Spaghetti Monster.”

Rather than step in and do something to preserve a community tradition, Santa Monica city officials this year chickened out and just banned all holiday booths in the park.

A federal judge this week rejected the request by the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee to allow the display this year while its lawsuit against the city proceeded. The judge ruled that the city can bar Christian groups from putting up the Nativity displays in the park and that the city had provided other avenues for religious expression.

The city claimed that it wasn’t shutting down the displays because of the religious dispute, but because of growing costs. Yet, it still allows displays elsewhere in the city. The opening of the city’s other parks to displays with permits was just an effort by the city to appear blameless in all of this, and it worked.

But Palisades Park is the prime spot for community groups, providing visibility on one of the city’s main thoroughfares and on the Pacific Coast Highway, as well as from the beach and pier. It’s sort of like if the city of New York decided there could be no Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center,  but offered a spot at a neighborhood park 10 blocks away instead.

“The atheists won and they will always win unless we get courts to understand how the game is played and this is a game that was played very successfully and they knew it,” said attorney William Becker, who compared the city to Pontius Pilate.

Vix, the troublemaker who started all the problems, said, “So many people don’t understand atheists. If you read the signs we put up, one said, ‘Love is all around you.’ That’s really a better understanding of who most atheists are.”

That statement might be less laughable if atheists weren’t perpetually trying to sue Christians into oblivion with the excuse that they are “offended.” By hiding behind the law and claiming not to be religious, atheists have made serious inroads through the courts toward the ultimate goal of keeping Christians and Jews from participating in public life.

With the liberal interpretation of church-state separation — a concept not found in the Constitution — the courts are effectively installing a state religion in violation of the First Amendment.

As more and more of our Western heritage is swept aside by the courts, one day the atheist state religion will have to reckon with the power of Islam. On that day, the atheists may long for a little Christmas and Hanukkah.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/11/atheist-bullies-shut-down-christmas-displays/#ixzz2Csaf3UDu

Once again, atheists have shut down the First Amendment rights of Christians and Jews with the blessings of a federal court.
For 60 years, the city of Santa Monica, California, has allowed private Nativity and Hanukkah displays in its Palisades Park, which overlooks the ocean and the famed Santa Monica Pier.
But as has happened in so many other places, a tradition enjoyed by an entire community that was just intended to make the world a nicer place drew the attention of a mean-spirited atheist with his nose out of joint because he hates Christians and Christmas.
Atheist Damon Vix wasn’t content with just putting up his protest booth three years ago. Last year, he recruited a bunch of other atheists to flood the city with applications, packing what was supposed to be a fair lottery.
The atheists managed to steal 18 of the 21 spaces, leaving only three for Christian and Jewish groups. They only actually used half of the spaces, leaving the others empty. The ones they did use were filled with signs and displays insulting people who believe in God, including one featuring Richard Dawkins’ “Flying Spaghetti Monster.”
Rather than step in and do something to preserve a community tradition, Santa Monica city officials this year chickened out and just banned all holiday booths in the park.
A federal judge this week rejected the request by the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee to allow the display this year while its lawsuit against the city proceeded. The judge ruled that the city can bar Christian groups from putting up the Nativity displays in the park and that the city had provided other avenues for religious expression.
The city claimed that it wasn’t shutting down the displays because of the religious dispute, but because of growing costs. Yet, it still allows displays elsewhere in the city. The opening of the city’s other parks to displays with permits was just an effort by the city to appear blameless in all of this, and it worked.

But Palisades Park is the prime spot for community groups, providing visibility on one of the city’s main thoroughfares and on the Pacific Coast Highway, as well as from the beach and pier. It’s sort of like if the city of New York decided there could be no Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center,  but offered a spot at a neighborhood park 10 blocks away instead.
“The atheists won and they will always win unless we get courts to understand how the game is played and this is a game that was played very successfully and they knew it,” said attorney William Becker, who compared the city to Pontius Pilate.
Vix, the troublemaker who started all the problems, said, “So many people don’t understand atheists. If you read the signs we put up, one said, ‘Love is all around you.’ That’s really a better understanding of who most atheists are.”
That statement might be less laughable if atheists weren’t perpetually trying to sue Christians into oblivion with the excuse that they are “offended.”
By hiding behind the law and claiming not to be religious, atheists have made serious inroads through the courts toward the ultimate goal of keeping Christians and Jews from participating in public life.
With the liberal interpretation of church-state separation — a concept not found in the Constitution — the courts are effectively installing a state religion in violation of the First Amendment.
As more and more of our Western heritage is swept aside by the courts, one day the atheist state religion will have to reckon with the power of Islam. On that day, the atheists may long for a little Christmas and Hanukkah.


Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/11/atheist-bullies-shut-down-christmas-displays/#ixzz2Csaf3UDu