What Concord Hath Christ With Belial?

2 Corinthians
[14] Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
[15] And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
[16] And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
[17] Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
[18] And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

And what are these doing? Are they not flying in the face of Scripture? But then, these are of the ungodly emergent church and the purpose-driven church...it should be no surprise then that they ally themselves with Belial, unrighteousness and idols!

Should Christians Fast During Ramadan With Muslims?
The answer to this question is unequivocally no!
1.When do Muslims reciprocate?
2.Under Islam, Jesus is supposed to come back and destroy the cross. How can any Christian show respect to a religion that says that?

Unfortunately some so called Christian leaders do not have the guts to face reality. Two of them are Pastor's Brian Mclaren, and Rick Warren. Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center gets it.

Should Christians Fast During Ramadan With Muslims?

Church leaders and observers weigh in on a current debate.
Compiled by Ruth Moon 10/26/2009

"I would say it's absolutely appropriate, particularly if one does it for spiritual reasons, combining it with prayer and strengthening your discipline and submission to God. If there are side benefits, like showing some solidarity with your Muslim friends, that's fine too. It's best not to be bragging about it. (But) it has to be a personal decision."Donald Wagner, co-founder, Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding

"The idea of Ramadan and the feast of Eid is Muslims are asking that they would encounter God more. What that means to them varies from place to place and person to person, I'm sure, and Islam has so many different manifestations, that varies dramatically across the globe. But still—that's something we can agree with, that we pray and get to know God more."Lynn Green, international chairman, Youth With a Mission

"In order to bridge the gap between the East and West Muslim and Christian cultures, rather than condemning and criticizing, here's something very easy that we could do as followers of Jesus that's consistent with the teachings of Christ and the scriptures. Not that we're supporting every viewpoint and doctrine, no—we're supporting them as neighbors in the spiritual journey. We're all on a spiritual journey."Mark Siljander, author, A Deadly Misunderstanding: A Congressman's Quest to Bridge the Muslim-Christian Divide

"There's such fragmentation between the Christian community and the Muslim community that it makes sense to me that we participate in something that is both inherently Christian and, for Muslims, inherently Islamic, to build bridges of peace."Ben Ries, pastor, Sterling Drive Church of Christ, Bellingham, Wash.

"Muslims believe that fasting is an essential component during the month of Ramadan, essential to their obedience to God. So they assume anyone who is seeking to be serious about God will show that dedication by fasting as well. Muslims have a hard time understanding how Christians can be serious about wanting to follow God without also fasting during Ramadan. If Muslims see a Christian fasting, they tend to respond with a development of very positive rapport. They say, "Here's someone who is serious about obeying God as much as we are." It builds ties with Muslim friends and acquaintances."Mateen Elass, Christian from a Muslim family background and senior pastor of First Presbyterian Church, Edmond, Okla.

"If we are using traditional Christian disciplines just as a matter of solidarity then we are missing the point. The whole thing rides on motive. If one is doing it just to be a nice person and identify with a Muslim neighbor, then I don't think it's appropriate, because you're using a spiritual discipline not as a spiritual exercise but as a social connection. If one is saying, 'During Ramadan, I'm going to fast too because that's part of our history and I want to be drawn closer to Christ and be more like Christ,' then it's totally appropriate."Joel Hunter, senior pastor, Northland Church, and member, President's Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships

"It depends on the attitude and the biblical understanding of prayer and fasting. We are not praying and fasting in the name of Allah. Yes, we will pray and fast with Muslims, to a certain extent; but we will pray and fast in Jesus' name, and do it for their salvation."Ron Kernahan, cofounder, 30-Days Prayer Network

"Christians may fast alongside Muslim friends, either as a gesture of friendship or in order to open dialogue, but not as part of Ramadan itself. Christian fasting is fundamentally different from Muslim fasting. Christians must make clear that their view of God, God's approach to us, and therefore fasting as part of our relationship to God, are each different from Muslim views."Gerald McDermott, Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion, Roanoke College

"In Isaiah and the minor prophets, you fast and pray to really meet God, to humble yourself and cry out to God … Muslims fast during Ramadan for different purposes. They fast to fulfill the five duties. I'm not against fasting, but I think biblically the reasons for fasting are quite different than those for what Muslims do. The form of fasting during Ramadan is so filled with Islamic meaning that you can't separate the two. I think some Christians today think they're separating the form from the meaning—the form is good, fasting is good, and they're extracting the meaning from it. I don't think that's possible, because the form and the meaning are so closely connected.Warren Larson, director, Zwemer Center for Muslim Studies at Columbia International University

"It is not appropriate to fast alongside Muslims. I wouldn't make a point, if I were in a heavily Muslim state where everybody is fasting during the day, of fixing a hot dog and walking outside and eating it … but to observe Ramadan along with your Muslim neighbors and friends, letting them know that you're observing Ramadan as an act of some sort of religious or spiritual solidarity, is simply a fundamental compromise. They're observing Ramadan in the service of a false God and a false gospel, and we shouldn't be trying to express our solidarity with that."Douglas Wilson, senior pastor, Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho, and senior fellow of theology, New St. Andrews College

2Thes.2
[1] Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
[2] That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
[3] Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
[4] Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
[5] Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
[6] And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
[7] For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
[8] And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
[9] Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
[10] And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
[11] And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
[12] That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

THEREFORE; I will take the words from Jude seriously, and 3] Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
And I will also let it be known that there are wolves in the flock, and they seek to pervert the Truth of Christ into that which will profit them on the earth...but not in Eternity.

Flee from these false teachers!
Hat tip to AOW and Islam In Action!

I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream...Part Deux

As an American AND as a Christian, I have a real problem with this proposal...looks to me like obama & crew are trying to sneak in another treaty regulation that would supercede the Constitution...just like the LOST treaty would.

The presidents and congress critters have, for the most part, been compliant or extremely naive(or bought off with political favors) to sell out America to her enemies and detractors.

This government of ours is NOT looking to defend and promote America, but rather, is seeking to place us under the rule of outsiders. This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind, in fact, there was the point made that we were to keep ourselves out of foreign entanglements.!

Europe and Ameria were and are two separate entities...the culture, government, philosophy and place of 'citizens'/subjects are totally different. We have forgotten this...and we are being taken to the cleaners in the process. We are on the verge of losing everything that made America the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Throw in mohammadisms penchant for brutal domination of others who aren't of their particular tribe...and they are VERY tribal, as is Europe...Christians and Jews have tiny places, buddhists, atheists, polytheists on the other hand have NO security at all. And slavery is a given in mohammadin societies...and we are yoked together with a mohammadin country, to deny rights to non-mohammadins?

How unAmerican!

I am ashamed of my country.

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
U.S. sponsors plan to restrict free speech
Joins Egyptians in proposal to United Nations Human Rights Council

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 19, 2009
9:25 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


A proposal sponsored by the Obama administration at the United Nations that purports to seek protection for "freedom of opinion and expression" actually is a call for a worldwide crackdown on freedom of speech and a mandate for nations to ensure "that relevant national legislation complies with … international human rights obligations" – a clear threat to the First Amendment, according to critics.

The resolution was submitted recently by the United States and Egypt. It was approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council as a first step in its process through the international organization.

It demands that all nations condemn and criminalize "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation told WND the issue is not about free speech at all but about installing international precedents to stifle any criticism of Islam.

Find out how Obama is planning to throttle free speech for America's talk show hosts. Get Brad O'Leary's 'Shut Up, America!' for $4.95 today only, save $21!

WND has reported on "anti-defamation" plans at the U.N., including when a proposal was made that would have made such speech restrictions mandatory on member states.

Groves has written for the Heritage Foundation on the issue, citing the demands from members of the Organization of Islamic Conference that national legislatures pass laws to ensure protection against "defamation of religions."

"Such a ban … could not withstand legal scrutiny in the United States," he wrote. "The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free speech and expression, even when speech is offensive or insulting. Moreover, a religious 'speech code' would disrupt the assimilation of religious minorities that has occurred throughout U.S. history and could breed resentment rather than understanding among America's religious communities."

He also cited the need for the U.S. to oppose strongly any such move, "given the penchant of some federal judges – including justices on the U.S. Supreme Court – to rely on the decisions and opinions of international courts and organizations."

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice as well as the European Centre for Law and Justice, which has been involved in fighting "defamation of religion" plans at the U.N., said the "free speech" resolution itself "incites discrimination."

"The proclamation of the Gospel in Muslim countries has been called incitement of religious discrimination," he told WND. "The U.S. backing of this is a mistake. The Universal Declaration of Human rights protects free speech.

"I am very concerned the U.S. is co-authoring something like this," he said.

Sekulow cited the wording in several parts of the proposal, which was reported widely by other media at the time of its adoption by the U.N.'s Human Rights Council in stories that cited almost exclusively the "free speech" concept.

But Sekulow noted the proposal also raises "concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges states to take effective measures, consistent with their international human rights obligations, to address and combat such incidents."

Likewise, in paragraph 6, the U.N. writing stresses "that condemning and addressing, in accordance with international human rights obligations, including those regarding equal protection of the law, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence is an important safeguard to ensure the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms of all, particularly minorities."

The U.N. General Assembly has approved a "defamation of religious" resolution in each of the three sessions from 2005 to 2007. The text always has been similar, and it always has had major support from Islamic nations with opposition from Western democracies, including the U.S.

Groves' evaluation noted that even "offensive speech and expression" is protected by the U.S. Constitution except in narrow areas such as obscenity and libel.

"Blasphemy, sacrilegious statements, and any other speech or expression that insults or denigrates organized religion is, for better or worse, protected by the First Amendment," he wrote.

Online critics of the administration were alarmed that it now is the United States pursuing a plan that would protect "freedom of opinion and expression" by cracking down on statements critical of issues, groups or religions.

In a column published on Europe News, Robert Spencer of JihadWatch wrote that while reducing "advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred" sounds like a good idea, there is plenty wrong with it.

"First of all, there's that little matter of the First Amendment, which preserves Americans' right to free speech and freedom of the press, which are obviously mutually inclusive. Any law that infringed on speech at all – far less in such vague and sweeping terms – would be unconstitutional," he wrote.

"'Incitement' and 'hatred' are in the eye of the beholder – or more precisely, in the eye of those who make such determinations," he continued. "The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their views as 'hate speech.' The Founding Fathers knew that the freedom of speech was an essential safeguard against tyranny: the ability to dissent, freely and publicly and without fear of imprisonment or other reprisal, is a cornerstone of any genuine republic. If some ideas cannot be heard and are proscribed from above, the ones in control are tyrants, however benevolent they may be."

The resolution cites the "right to freedom of opinion and expression" as "one of the essential foundations of a democratic society."

It also expresses deep concern over "violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression."

But it also cites the responsibility of states to "encourage free, responsible and mutually respectful dialogue."

The resolution then "calls upon all states … to take all necessary measures to put an end to violations of these rights and to create the conditions to prevent such violations, including by ensuring that relevant national legislation complies with their international human rights obligations and is effectively implemented."

It also demands that nations "promote a pluralistic approach to information and multiple points of view by encouraging a diversity of ownership of media and of sources of information."

Egyptian spokesman Hisham Badr told the assembly, according to a U.N. report, that freedom of expression sometimes has been "misused to proliferate negative racial and religious stereotyping and incitement to racial and religious hatred."

He said "every state must condemn and resolve to combat them in according with the obligation stipulated in human rights law," the U.N. said.

Speaking for the United States on behalf of the plan, Chargé ad interim Douglas M. Griffiths said the effort was intended to build on the commitment from President Obama in a Cairo speech that the U.S. was ready to "help bridg[e] the unhelpful divide regarding freedom of opinion and expression," according to the U.N.

Zamir Akram of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference noted the "duties and responsibilities" of nations to fight hate speech. He cited the need to protect not only individuals but religious and belief systems from "negative stereotyping."

"Now no less distinguished a personage than the president of the United States has given his imprimatur to this tyranny; the implications are grave," Spencer continued. "The resolution also condemns 'negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups,' which is of course an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism – for that, not actual negative stereotyping or hateful language, is always the focus of whining by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and allied groups. They never say anything when people like Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed issue detailed Quranic expositions justifying violence and hatred; but when people like Geert Wilders and others report about such expositions, that's 'negative stereotyping.'"

Eugene Volokh, who teaches free speech law, criminal law, tort law, religious freedom law and other subjects at UCLA, and also founded the Volokh Conspiracy weblog, said that the First Amendment protecting speech in the United States isn't so secure all of a sudden.

"If the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech, presumably we are taking the view that all countries – including the U.S. – should adhere to this resolution," he said.

"If we are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we're implicitly criticizing that constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it,' he said.

The administration, he opined, would "presumably be committed to filing amicus briefs supporting changes in First Amendment law to allow such punishment, and in principle perhaps the appointment of justices who would endorse such changes (or even the proposal of express constitutional amendments that would work such changes).

"I'm worried that it might be a step backward for our own constitutional rights, because of what seems to be the U.S. endorsement of the suppression of 'any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence' and possibly of 'negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups,'" Volokh said.

"Advocacy of mere hostility – for instance advocacy that people should hate and be hostile to radical strains of Islam (and its adherents), or to Scientology, or to Catholicism, or to fundamentalist Christianity, or for that matter to religion generally – is clearly constitutionally protected here in the U.S.; but the resolution seems to call for its prohibition," he said.

"Beyond that, I'm worried that the executive branch's endorsement of speech-restrictive 'international human rights' norms will affect how the courts interpret the First Amendment, so that over time, 'an international norm against hate speech ... [would] supply a basis for prohibiting [hate speech], the First Amendment notwithstanding,'" he said.

Spencer reported in 2008 the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic States, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, warned, "We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed" regarding free speech about Islam and terrorism.

"The official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked," Ihsanoglu continued, according to Spencer's report.

On Volokh's Web forum, one participant said, "Just another example of how the Chicago Mafia that is now running this country is going to destroy it, in advocacy of their beloved New World Order, in which the USA is secondary to 'international groups,' and indeed is held equal with, let us say, the Congo, or perhaps Belize, or Luxemburg, etc."

Added another, "Future liberal academics and judges will cite resolutions like this to claim the existence of a 'compelling interest' in banning 'hate speech' that overrides free speech rights. … In practice, hate speech laws are used in most of the world to silence dissent, not protect vulnerable minorities."

The 57 member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have lobbied for the "anti-defamation" plan, which is based on the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, since 1999. The Cairo declaration states "that all rights are subject to Shariah law, and makes Shariah law the only source of reference for human rights."

The U.S. State Department also has found the proposal unpalatable.

"This resolution is incomplete inasmuch as it fails to address the situation of all religions," said a statement from Leonard Leo. "We believe that such inclusive language would have furthered the objective of promoting religious freedom. We also believe that any resolution on this topic must include mention of the need to change educational systems that promote hatred of other religions, as well as the problem of state-sponsored media that negatively targets any one religion."

Oath Keepers; Remembering The Constitution

Also at this newspaper. It's good to see that there are those who respect the Constitution and treat it like the foundational document of the American Republic...not like toilet paper, only useful to garner votes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Soldiers pledge to refuse disarmament demands
Campaign urges members of military to 'steel resolve' to 'do the right thing'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 17, 2009

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

An invitation to soldiers and peace officers across the United States to pledge to refuse illegal orders – including "state of emergency" orders that could include disarming or detaining American citizens – has struck a chord, collecting more than 100,000 website visitors in a little over a week and hundreds of e-mails daily.

Spokesman Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers told WND his organization's goal is to remind military members their oath of allegiance is to the U.S. Constitution, not a particular president.

He said the organization deliberately does not collect the names of those who subscribe to Oath Keepers' beliefs because of their status mostly as active duty soldiers.

He told WND he is scheduled to talk about the issue on G. Gordon Liddy's radio program tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time, and he's begun working with "Gathering of Eagles" on several projects, including a Pro Troop Events gathering scheduled in Washington in June.

Rhodes said his goal is to "teach them more about what they swore to defend so they will be better able to see when an order violates the Constitution and the rights of the people, and is thus unlawful."

That review must be done immediately, so they have an opportunity to decide what is right and wrong and then to "steel their resolve to take a stand and do the right thing, whatever the cost," the organization says.

The U.S., Rhodes noted to WND, was launched as a natural law republic, meaning the founders recognized all rights come from God, not the government.

The founders, many of whom ended up active militarily in the revolution, rebelled "against the principle" that a king or parliament could rule them.

"That's where we are. We want to make sure men in the military understand in advance what the line is they won't cross," Rhodes said.

One testimonial posted by an active duty Army soldier, who was kept anonymous, said that message already has gotten through.

"I want you guys to know I'm with you 100 percent and so are a lot of my fellow soldiers. These kinds of discussions go on between us often, and we all know that we did not swear an oath to any politician (of either party)," he wrote.

"And just for the record not me or anyone else in my platoon would ever follow an order to disarm the American people," he wrote.

The organization describes itself as a non-partisan group of members of the military as well as peace officers "who will fulfill our oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God."

Among the orders the soldiers are pledging NOT to obey:


1-We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people. … Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.


2-We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects – such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons. … We expect that warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, under some pretext, will be the means used to attempt to disarm the people.


3-We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to trial by military tribunal. … Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic "militia" groups the government brands "domestic terrorists," is an act of war and an act of treason.


4-We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state's legislature and governor. … It is the militia of a state and of the several states that the Constitution contemplates being used in any context, during any emergency within a state, not the standing army.


5-We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.


6-We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. … Such tactics … by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto, and by the Imperial Japanese in Nanking, turn[ed] entire cities into death camps. Any such order to disarm and confine the people of an American city will be an act of war and thus an act of treason.


7-We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. … Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason, regardless of the pretext used.


8-We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control" during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.


9-We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.


10-We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
"We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic," the organization's website states. "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually affirm our oath and pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Rhodes said the organization has not even had time to complete its website, but the word is spreading so quickly through its blog that thousands of people are investigating the site each day.

Plans had been to wait on the campaign until a website was established, but recent events accelerated the effort, he said.

One such situation was a training exercise planned by the National Guard in Iowa on which WND reported.

Rhodes said the effort is not a response to President Obama or his policies.

He said the accumulation of power in the executive branch in recent years has been alarming. The fears crystallized when Obama took office and suddenly had access to the accumulated power.

That, he said, is a "powderkeg."

"We do feel in our hearts that this effort has the potential to change history for the better and to forestall or even prevent this nation from ever experiencing the horrors that plagued so many other nations in the 20th Century," the website says.

"We are convinced that it is not too late, that there can be a turning of the tide – if we (and that means you too!) can reach enough of our brothers in arms and remind them of their oath, teach them more about what it is they swore to defend, and steel their resolves to stand firm if/when their oath is tested. We feel honor bound to do all we possibly can to achieve that mission."

WND already has reported on several members of the U.S. military who have raised concerns about the implications of Obama's possible ineligibility to be commander-in-chief.

One officer who signed onto a case filed by attorney Orly Taitz, the California activist with the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, immediately was ordered by his commanders not to speak to the media.

The officer's identity was withheld to prevent further actions against him.

Taitz said she's working with more than 100 members of the military in her case.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

WELL, EXCUSE ME!!!!!!!!!

Added commentary is mine

Bill forces citizens to list guns on taxes?
Firearms tracking act gives authorities access to your 'mental health records'
Posted: October 12, 2009
10:30 pm Eastern


By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily




A firearms tracking bill has many bloggers up in arms over a federal requirement that would purportedly force gun owners to list their firearms on federal income tax returns.

But while the bill implements sweeping gun-control measures – including one that would prohibit citizens from owning a gun without a license – the income tax provision doesn't exist.
Praise be to GOD for SMALL favors!
The Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act, or H.R. 45, was introduced Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Il., on Jan. 6. While the bill does not include stipulations about reporting guns on tax forms, it does contain numerous gun-control proposals that are drawing fierce criticism from gun-rights advocates.

If enacted, the bill would forbid any person from owning any handgun or semiautomatic firearm that accepts a detachable ammunition feeding device, not including antiques, without obtaining a license.
Wonder how much THAT would cost, how many classes and psych evaluations would be required(and paid for)?
Under the legislation, a person who is seeking a firearm license must submit to the attorney general an application including the following information:

1) current passport-sized photo

2) name, address, date and birthplace

3) any other name the applicant has used

4) a clear thumbprint

5) a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited by federal or state law from obtaining a firearm

6) certification that the applicant will keep the firearm safely stored and out of the possession of minors
What they consider safely stored and what I consider safely stored would most certainly clash! But then, I spanked my 2 when they were little...
7) certificate showing applicant has passed a written firearms examination on the safe storage of firearms, safe handling of firearms, use of firearms in the home and risks associated with use, legal responsibilities of forearms owners and "any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate"
How many bloody hoops can you jump through in 1 go?
8) authorization to release "to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant"
I would probably be disqualified, since I have endogenous depression...even though I'm NOT suicidal.
9) the date on which the application was submitted

10) applicant signature

The bill makes it illegal for "any person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a qualifying firearm [any handgun or semiautomatic firearm that accepts detachable ammunition feeding device, not including antiques] to, or for, any person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, or to receive a qualifying firearm from a person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector" without verifying that the transferee has a valid license. However, this requirement does not apply to "infrequent transfer of a firearm by gift, bequest, interstate succession or other means by an individual to a parent, child, grandparent, or grandchild of the individual, or to any loan of a firearm for any lawful purpose for not more than 30 days between persons who are personally known to each other."
mutter...mutter...mutter...how very generous of them...:spit:
Licensed dealers would be required submit to the attorney general or appropriate state authorities the following information within 14 days of a transfer of a qualifying firearm: 1) manufacturer, 2) model name or number 3) serial number 4) date of transfer 5) number of the transferee's valid firearm license 6) name and address of person who transferred the firearm.
And will we have to be TATTOOED with the above information?
Within nine months of the bill's passage, the attorney general would be required to establish and maintain a federal system to track sales, including all of the identifying information submitted during a transfer of ownership.
Time for the birth of a new bureaucracy.
Under H.B. 45, it would be illegal to fail to report lost or stolen firearms or to fail to report change of address within 60 days of the change.
Wonder about any snowbirds who are down here for the winter? If they are robbed while they are out of town for 3-4 months?
To ensure compliance with the act, the attorney general would be authorized, during regular business hours, to "enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held."
Busybodies...
The act does not apply to governmental authorities.
Heck no! Can't let us interfere with the governmental abuse of powers...

"This bill validates the concerns of sportsmen and gun owners about what … Congress and administration portend for Second Amendment rights," Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice-president/general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told ESPN Outdoors.

Keane continued, "The U.S. Supreme Court definitively said in District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment provides individual civil rights to law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. (They don't have to be in a militia to own and keep guns.) This bill, however, would treat those citizens who exercise their civil liberties like criminals."

National Rifle Association spokeswoman Rachel Parsons told ESPN the bill focuses primarily on guns as instruments as crime instead of penalizing the people who commit criminal acts. She said, under the bill, law-abiding citizens might become violators of the law.
Too right, punish the tool, not the tool user, or misuser!
"Several provisions in this bill would make compliance nearly impossible," she said. "For instance, the bill spells out that if a firearms license holder fails to notify the Attorney General of an address change within 60 days, that person would be subject to a 5 year prison term and a fine of up to $250,000."

She also condemned the licensing requirements in the bill.

"Any kind of bill that would require photographing and fingerprinting for simple possession of a firearm is fundamentally different in opinion from that which the NRA holds," she said. "Any law should target the criminal element, but this law would simply further burden law-abiding people."
I do not need anymore "help", thank you!
The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security and does not have a single co-sponsor, leading many to believe passage is highly unlikely.
Praise be to GOD for that!
Keane said the legislation is far too far-reaching and repressive to become law.

"If this bill passes, Democrats would likely lose (control of) their chamber in upcoming mid-term elections (2010)," he said. "The leadership in the House knows that."
Politics and politicians!
In April, a group of more than 450 gun-rights advocates sent a letter signed by more than 3,000 people to lawmakers in condemnation of H.R. 45.

"We are tired of our rights being denigrated and destroyed," it said. "[A]ny politician who votes for this bill or any bill of this type will be noted, and voted against when they come up for re-election."

The letter noted that more than 200,000 existing gun laws "do nothing to stop or curtail criminals." It states that history and statistics both prove that such bills are destructive to the citizenry.

"If this bills' purpose is to truly 'protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death' then the Congress should realize that the only threats to the public are from a criminal element that this bill … will not address, and from the government itself."
BINGO! We need to fear our government...it is attempting to scarf up everything that makes us Americans. And make us into Amerikans...I AM NOT A SLAVE!
"With guns, we are 'citizens,'" the letter concludes. "Without them, we are 'subjects.'"
I am a subject of GOD Almighty, not human beings!

My dear sister in the LORD, Z...

...has joined that sisterhood of widows. Her beloved and cherished, Mr. Z, went Home to be with The LORD, Saturday morning.


I had the opportunity to get to know him a little, both on the telephone and in e-mails. He had such a refreshing sense of humor, an artists eye with a camera and straight forward common sense. I nicknamed him, "the big lug", and always told Z to give him a hug for me...and he had to give her another hug from me too.

I'm going to miss him, but I'm not the only one. All who talked to Z on the phone, I'm sure, got him instead of her on occasion...a happy surprise!

Z-We love you and are with you in spirit, even though miles separate us...but, the one Hope we have, is that he is waiting with our Lord Jesus Christ, for the rest of us to catch up with him! And my late was probably there to greet him!

This fine American soldier was laid to rest yesterday. As I was driving past Trinity Presbyterian on my way to run some errands, traffic was held up for awhile. The Patriot Riders were there in force, the Satellite Beach police department, both attending and directing traffic, the Indian Harbor Beach fire department had a contingent, the parking lot of this rather large church was packed.

The Patriot Riders could attend the service because the only people on the bike path were holding their hands over their hearts or waving flags! Since I live next to Patrick AFB, there were Air Force personnel driving in...lots of retirees in the area showed up to pay their last respects.

(From the Orlando Sentinal)

A soldier from Central Florida was killed in Afghanistan, the Department of Defense announced late Saturday.

Sgt. Roberto D. Sanchez, 24, of Satellite Beach, died Oct. 1 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device.

Sanchez was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Hunter Army Airfield, Savannah, Ga.

My concern now is, is Afghanistan going to be obama and the dhimmicrats Vietnam? Are they going to so mishandle the military, are they going to want impossible goals accomplished with inadequate troops and equipment? Are they going to force out the good officers and sergeants? Is morale(already dropping) going to fall to the levels of the '60's? Are these fine young men and women going to be wasted by fools who know nothing?

LORD, may it not be so! Sgt. Sanchez and his brothers in arms deserve so much better! AS DO THEIR FAMILIES! AS DO AMERICANS!

Remembering 9-11, Remembering Lawrence Patrick Dickinson...

Where was I on 9-11?


At my car repair shop...watching the second plane fly into the Twin Towers.



Where was Lawrence Patrick Dickinson?



In the WTC, at his brokerage job with Harvey Young Yurman, Inc. This 35 year old husband and father was going about his lawful occasions. Doing his job, providing for his family...just doing what responsible adults do, mature adults, law abiding adults...not hate-filled and fanatical terrorists. Just an average man.

He leaves behind a wife and son...a son that he has not had the joy of watching grow up, take his first steps, say, "Da-da", for the first time. A son that he hasn't held, celebrated birthdays with, seen have his first day at school.

And a wife that he hasn't celebrated the joys of married life with for the past 8 years. No anniversaries, birthdays, picnics, ball games, no making up after an argument, no laughter or tears shared...

Just an ordinary American, with a mortgage a wife and a son...I truly wish that he and all the others who were victims of unreasonable hatred, were here to LIVE among us...we are poorer for their loss, and the world is poorer for the fanaticism of that death cult, known as mohammadism.




Lest we forget...

May the G*D of all comfort be with; the victims, the families, friends, coworkers and this nation!