Sunday, November 22, 2009
Geert Wilders is a Dutch Member of Parliament.
America As The Last Man Standing
'In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe ?'Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands , at the Four Seasons, New York , introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem .Dear friends, Thank you very much for inviting me.I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe . Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem .The Europe you know is changing.You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe . These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe , street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe . With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille and Malmo in Sweden . In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin . The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan.Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya , Israel . I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe . San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France . One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel . First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines , Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan , Lebanon , and Aceh in Indonesia . Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.The war against Israel is not a war against Israel . It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel , Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel , they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands , 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a danger greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome , Athens and Jerusalem .Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe , American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.
We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.
We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.
Obama's Mind Game
It's a chilling moment when the light goes out in someone's eyes. A once-radiant child hardens from abuse. A woman's heart shrinks after her husband's abandonment.
The person looks the same, maybe acts the same. But something is gone, and what's lost is irretrievable. It's like when a person dies: in a heartbeat, the soul vanishes.
I witnessed this alteration recently when I visited my goddaughter, a radiant girl. Her mom, a hardcore progressive, has started exposing her to the darkest elements of the left. And the last time I looked in the girl's eyes, the light had gone out. Disappeared. Just like that.
I see this phenomenon every day: a light dimming. The friendly shopkeeper snaps at me. My cheerful neighbor seems flattened.
And you hear it in the news: people acting strangely, going off the deep end. The most bizarre behavior becoming the new normal.
A thug bites off a finger. Sarah Palin's church is torched. Bullies intimidate voters.
Last week, an esteemed Columbia University black architecture professor punched a white female coworker in the eye for not doing more about white privilege.
He has no history of violence. So why now?
Why now? This may be the most important question of our time. Why are some people reaching the boiling point? Why do many others look vacant, like an Invasion of the Body Snatchers? The shootings at military bases, from Little Rock to Fort Hood -- why now?
It's Obama, of course.
Liberals will excoriate me for writing this. They'll insist that bad behavior is not Obama's fault. He's a man of peace.
But study the phenomenon of cults, and the dynamics are always the same. The leader can incite violence without ever getting his hands dirty. Obama is controlling the marionette of the masses.
If Obamamania is a cult, then Obama is the cult leader. Cult leaders routinely pull the strings of their followers. The most extreme example is Charles Manson. He rots in prison for murders he never committed. He didn't have to do the dirty work. His brainwashed charges did his bidding.
I'm not saying Obama is a Charles Manson. There are varying degrees of manipulation, from using sexy blondes to entice men to buy cars all the way to hypnotizing them to drink poisoned Kool Aid. But there's a common denominator in all mind control: manipulating people through mind games.
As soon as Obama came on the scene, the programming began. His face was plastered everywhere like Mao. In his speeches, Obama lulled audiences with a melodious voice and feel-good phrases repeated over and over. And he began inciting people with his charming smile.
First, the vultures starting swooping down on Hillary. Obama chose not to call off the dogs.
Then thugs invaded caucuses. Again, silence.
Which led to vicious misogyny against Sarah Palin and threats on her life. From Obama: not a peep.
We even saw armed thugs at polling places. Ignored and not prosecuted by Obama's Attorney General.
The moment Obama became president, he upped the signals. At the swearing in, the entire family eerily chose to wear black and red, colors associated with communism and black nationalism. Obama's first radio address was broadcast in the Arab world.
Obama returned Britain's gift of a Winston Churchill statue while embracing dictators. He gave a white police officer a dressing down for doing his job, in effect calling him a racist.
Obama's greatest magic trick? Brainwashing the masses to believe that racism is a greater danger than radical Islam, and that Obama himself is in constant peril.
Opposing health care means you oppose Obama. Oppose Obama and you're part of a vast right-wing racist conspiracy.
Thus, more and more people are finding themselves on the receiving end of a fist, figurative or literal. After the White House released a directive for his followers to strike back hard, a frail, diabetic black man at a Town Hall was beaten up.
Even women can get slugged in the face. Obama signaled during the primary that women were fair game.
Obama and the Left are making sure that there ia an increasing number of persuadable people. By displacing workers, panicking business owners with Draconian laws, and whipping up rage and paranoia, they amass more lackeys.
The American Hard Left knows how to create a cult because it is a cult, one with a violent history. The Black Panthers, Symbionese Liberation Army, Weathermen, Black Muslims -- all nefarious cults.
Members of the Weathermen, for instance, had their spirits broken through forced wickedness, such as animal abuse. Patty Hearst morphed into bank robber Tania after weeks of isolation, rape, and beatings by the SLA. Huey P. Newton sent his Black Panthers to the hospital or to the grave if they didn't practice total obedience.
So what's the end game here?
The first goal is power. The Left has an insatiable need to control every aspect of our lives.
But there's a deeper reason, one much more insidious.
The Left wants to tear Americans down. Just as the Weatherman did to those naïve lost kids, they want to break our spirits. This goal of degradation is more crucial than their one-world government.
The progressives want to turn us into them, to make us feel as deprived and depraved and deadened. It's the only way that they can silence the roar of shame and self-loathing.
What they don't understand is this: it's not going to happen. There are too many of us who won't be hypnotized.
We can see right through them. We know who they are: the most piteous of human beings, and the most dangerous. Men without a country, orphans far from home. The forsaken and disowned.
They're "hungry ghosts," to use a Tibetan phrase: tormented beings who are starving to death from their inner nothingness.
Mother Teresa was once asked how she coped with serving the poorest of the poor in Calcutta. She responded that what she saw in the cities of the United States was much more disturbing, because it was a "poverty of the spirit."
Poverty of the spirit. No truer words can be spoken of the progressive Left.
Orthodox Jews Attack Christians In Israel
When the congregation at St. Nicolay church in this northern Israeli town gathered on that quiet Friday morning of May 29, they never expected to be showered with stones.The Russian Orthodox worshipers, including many women, children and the elderly, had filled the small building to overflow with several outside when they were stunned by the rain of stones. Some were injured and received medical care.“The church was crawling with people – the worshipers stood not only inside the church, but also outside, as the building is very small, when suddenly a few young men started throwing stones at the direction of our courtyard,” Oleg Usenkov, press secretary of the church told Compass. “Young children were crying, everyone was very frightened.”The church had also been attacked earlier that week, during a wedding ceremony. Stones and rotten eggs were thrown from the street, hitting guests as they arrived.The same night, the Rev. Roman Radwan, priest of St. Nicolay church, filed a complaint at the police station. An officer issued a document to confirm that he had filed an official complaint and sent him home, promising that measures would be taken. But within 24 hours, the attackers again appeared at the church’s doorway and no police were present to deter them – although the police station is located a few dozen meters from the church.The identity of the assailants is unknown – a police officer said the complaint “lacked the exact description of the attackers” – but eye-witnesses claimed they were ultra-orthodox yeshiva students who frequently cursed the church on their way to the school or synagogue.“They often assault us verbally, curse and yell at us, although we tried to explain that this is a place of worship, a holy place,” said a frustrated Usenkov, adding that the police inaction amounts to nonfeasance.Another member of the congregation identified only as Nina, born in Moscow and now living in Nazeret Ilit, said that she didn’t understand where all the hatred is coming from.“They are heading to the yeshiva or going back home after praying at the synagogue – are they inspired to attack us during their prayers?” she said. “I hope not. We are all Israeli citizens, we pay taxes, serve in the army and are entitled to freedom of choice when it comes to religion.”She and other members of the congregation fear hostilities could escalate quickly if measures are not taken soon. Already the small building, which barely accommodates the worshipers, is surrounded by a stone fence by order of Migdal ha-Emeq officials following a series of arson attempts and other attacks.Members of the congregation, a few hundred Christians from Migdal ha-Emeq, Afula, Haifa, Nazareth and other Israeli cities still remember how their building was vandalized in June 2006. Under cover of darkness, unidentified men broke in and broke icons and modest decorations, smashed windows and stole crosses.The identity of those responsible remains unknown.Established in 2005, the church building was constructed to meet the needs of Christians who do not belong to the Arab Christian minority, mostly Russians who came to Israel from the former Soviet Union in the 1990s. Besides the Christians, these immigrants included other non-Jews, as well as atheistic Jews and Jewish converts to Christianity.No official data on religious make-up of the immigrants are available, especially since many fear deportation or persecution for talking openly about their faith, but Usenkov – a Russian Jew who converted to Christianity after immigrating to Israel in the 1990s – said he believes there are at least 300,000 Christians of Russian or Russian-Jewish origin who live in Israel today.According to Israeli law, non-Jewish relatives of a Jew are also entitled to citizenship, but Jews who have converted to other faiths are denied it.Most of the Russian and Russian-Jewish Christians in Israel belong to the Russian Orthodox Church and find it difficult to adjust to Greek or Arabic services common in the Greek Orthodox churches of Israel. Since St. Nicolay’s church opened its doors, hundreds of worshipers from across Israel have visited it.“Many people fear they might pass away without seeing a priest, or they dream of a Christian wedding service,” said Radwan, an Israeli-Arab whose family once owned the land on which the St. Nicolay church is located. “Here we can answer their needs. We do not want to harm anyone and wish that no one would harm us."
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The 16th Amendment Was Illegally And Unconstitutionally Ratified
The traitor - Philander Knox
My Fellow Citizens we have been ignoring the U.S. Constitution For A Long Time, the 16th amendment is a case in point.
In 2000 The We The People Foundation offered a $50,000.00 reward to anyone who can prove the 16th amendment was constitutionally ratified.
The 16th Amendment is merely the tip of the iceberg. our country is in a predicament because we have ignored our constitution for a hundred years. Before we pass federal laws we need to scrutinize them to make sure they meet the constitutional test.
HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT
HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT
Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.
The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.
Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.
In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!
In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.
Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.
If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.
The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.
Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.
Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.
When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.
These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.
Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal government authority they did not have.
The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).
The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.
Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.
In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!
In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.
Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.
If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.
The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.
Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.
Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.
When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.
These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.
Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal government authority they did not have.
The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).
Turkey Would Lead An Islamic Union
Daniel Pipes notes the extreme importantance of Ahmadine"jihad", a Shi'ite, praying behind a Sunni imam while he visited Turkey.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113602
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113602
Gay Intimidation Destroying Constitutional Rights
Americans believe in a secret ballot. No one should know how you voted. But should we also keep secret the names of those people who put an amendment or proposition on the ballot? This is the question in the state of Washington.
Gay rights groups have demanded to know the names of the 138,000 people who signed a petition to put Referendum 71 on the November ballot. It would remove the state's same-sex domestic partner law. The gay groups want to put these names online. But if they do, the signers are sure to be harassed.
Don't think so? Look at what happened to donors to Proposition 8 in California last year. Those who opposed the amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman went after donors who supported the amendment with a vengeance.
Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical Theater in Sacramento, was forced to resign because he donated money to the "Yes on 8" campaign. The same fate befell Los Angeles Film Festival Director Richard Raddon. And Majorie Christofferson, manager of the famous Los Angeles restaurant El Coyote, resigned after her restaurant was subjected to a month of boycotts. Her crime? She contributed a mere $100 to the Proposition 8 campaign.
At the moment, the names of those in Washington are not being released due to the actions of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. I suspect he was well aware of what took place in California and wanted to prevent a repeat in Washington.
Justice Kennedy had to step in because of a previous ruling. A U.S. District Court judge originally ruled that releasing the names could infringe on the First Amendment rights of those who signed the petition. The Ninth Circuit Court disagreed and overturned the ruling.
At least for the moment, common sense reigns. But you have to believe that the attempt to publish the names of those who signed the petition will have a chilling effect on future initiatives. I fear many citizens will be less likely to sign a petition or donate to a cause because of the harassment others have received. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.
Gay rights groups have demanded to know the names of the 138,000 people who signed a petition to put Referendum 71 on the November ballot. It would remove the state's same-sex domestic partner law. The gay groups want to put these names online. But if they do, the signers are sure to be harassed.
Don't think so? Look at what happened to donors to Proposition 8 in California last year. Those who opposed the amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman went after donors who supported the amendment with a vengeance.
Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical Theater in Sacramento, was forced to resign because he donated money to the "Yes on 8" campaign. The same fate befell Los Angeles Film Festival Director Richard Raddon. And Majorie Christofferson, manager of the famous Los Angeles restaurant El Coyote, resigned after her restaurant was subjected to a month of boycotts. Her crime? She contributed a mere $100 to the Proposition 8 campaign.
At the moment, the names of those in Washington are not being released due to the actions of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. I suspect he was well aware of what took place in California and wanted to prevent a repeat in Washington.
Justice Kennedy had to step in because of a previous ruling. A U.S. District Court judge originally ruled that releasing the names could infringe on the First Amendment rights of those who signed the petition. The Ninth Circuit Court disagreed and overturned the ruling.
At least for the moment, common sense reigns. But you have to believe that the attempt to publish the names of those who signed the petition will have a chilling effect on future initiatives. I fear many citizens will be less likely to sign a petition or donate to a cause because of the harassment others have received. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.
Dear Friend,
One year to go! Thanks to you and thousands of other Team Portman members, we have built a solid foundation in 2009 to take us to victory in November of 2010. We are raising the funds we’ll need to get our message out and respond to the attacks we know are coming. And we are building the statewide grassroots network we’ll need, starting with a volunteer leadership team in every one of the Ohio’s 88 counties.
I want to give you an update on our recent visits to some key counties, but first I think it’s important to recognize the significance of the elections yesterday in Virginia, New Jersey, and elsewhere. People in these states have spoken. They are frustrated and worried – with good reason – about the economy, unprecedented deficit spending, higher taxes, bigger and more intrusive government, and the job-killing proposals coming out of Washington and many state capitols.
I certainly hear these concerns in my travels around Ohio, and I share them. In fact, it’s why I chose to run for the U.S. Senate. I hope Washington hears the clear message sent yesterday: it’s time to stop the risky deficit spending and job-killing policies.
Since the last campaign update, I’ve continued to travel the Buckeye State and listen to the concerns of workers who fear their job could be the next one lost, and to small business owners who are scared to take a risk in today’s economy because of what they see coming down the pike: higher taxes, higher health care costs, higher energy costs, more government regulations, and an exploding federal debt that threatens to keep our economy stalled.
People are looking for common-sense conservative solutions that will help turn things around in Ohio and the country. They are looking for a focus on fiscal discipline and creating jobs and better economic conditions.
Campaign Travels
I recently traveled to Summit County where I visited an inspirational K-8 school for at-risk kids called Emmanuel Christian Academy, spoke with students at a political science class at the University of Akron, and gave a policy speech at the Akron Press Club. I talked about my proposals for new incentives for creating jobs and economic growth, especially through helping small businesses. We had a full house at the Press Club, including three of our great Summit County PFS Co-Chairs - Karen Arshinkoff, Bryan Williams, and Debbie Owens.
I have also had the chance to see some of our other county leadership teams in action on separate trips to speak to crowds in Allen and Ashland Counties. PFS Chair Dave Rodabough introduced me to more than 500 enthusiastic Republicans at the Allen County GOP BBQ – an impressive event put together by GOP Chairman Keith Cheney. Over in Ashland County, GOP Chairman Bob DeSanto and his team put together another energized crowd for the Ashland County GOP Ox Roast. Really good steaks and lots of good conversations about the need for conservatives to do a better job promoting our alternatives to the policies of the Obama Administration and Congress.
While in Allen County, I toured National Lime and Stone, a proud Ohio family business that provides the raw materials necessary for everything from road construction to solar panels. We talked about how the cap-and-trade proposal could hurt this energy-intensive business that creates good jobs in our communities around the state. Company officials are also concerned about the job-killing mandates and higher costs included in the health-care proposals being written in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s offices.
Helping Fellow Ohioans
During these tough times, I continue to be impressed with the compassion of our fellow Ohioans such as West Ohio Food Bank Executive Director Bambi Markham. She knows how important community support is to the organization’s mission to help 170 charities throughout 11 counties in Western Ohio. Under Markham’s direction, the West Ohio Food Bank relies on hundreds of dedicated volunteers, businesses like Wal-Mart and Procter & Gamble, local farms, and government surplus to help stock food pantries. Markham has also developed innovative programs to provide healthy lunches for low-income school children and meals for seniors.
Just One Year From Now …
Your continued support is critical to building on the grassroots network that’s powering this campaign. Go here to volunteer, see how you can recruit your friends, or give your support to ensure we have the resources we’ll need to get out our message and counter baseless attacks.
Thanks again for all you do!
Take The Pledge
My Fellow Citizens,
I believe our great nation and republic is in mortal danger from enemies and traitors from within. I urge you to take the following pledge to protect our nation and its Christian heritage.
PLEDGE
"I will never sit on the sidelines and watch my country be taken from me again. Like our Founding Fathers, "I pledge my life, fortune, and my sacred honor to protect the rights given to us by God in the U.S. Constitution." Furthermore, I will not commit an unforgivable, unconstitutional act against my fellow citizens, an act that sacrifices the constitution and the future of our Republic at the expense of our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I stand with thousands of like minded people across this nation, and each day we grow stronger, smarter, and more organized. This is just the beginning of the end to tyranny in our great republic." I'm proud to call myself an American, and I am inspired by daily sacrifices of my fellow citizens to defend this great nation. May God shed his grace upon us in this endeavor and may God be with our Republic in these tumultuous days.
Sincerely,
Alan Wilhelm
The Grassroot Conservative
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Falling Dollar
Remember the phrase, sound as a dollar? It meant that something was solid, trustworthy, and dependable. Those are not the characteristics of today's American dollar.
This is what happens when a government spends in unprecedented ways, runs up massive debt, and borrows too much from foreign countries. America's financial future does not look good. The Obama administration predicts a permanent pattern of federal deficits for the foreseeable future.
Judy Shelton, author of Money Meltdown, notes that U.S. debt is set to exceed 100 percent of GDP in 2011. It's no wonder other countries are looking for alternative ways to preserve wealth. Why would another nation want to accumulate assets denominated in dollars when its value is sinking? Holding dollars means you are holding onto a shrinking unit of account. Judy Shelton asks: "If you were a foreign government, would you want to increase holdings of Treasury securities knowing the U.S. government has no plans to balance its budget during the next decade, let alone achieve a surplus?"
It's worth noting that in the European Union, countries that want to adopt the euro as their currency must limit that government debt to 60 percent of GDP. They do so mindful of the runaway inflation of Germany's Weimar Republic. Imagine what Europeans must think of the American dollar given that the U.S. debt load could not even meet the current European Union qualifications.
Over the last few weeks, we have been hearing of countries proposing other currencies to replace the dollar. The Obama administration is also advancing a plan from an agreement at the recent G20 meeting that would set up special drawing rights at the International Monetary Fund. One or more of these proposals may end up replacing the U.S. dollar as a global currency.
We shouldn't be surprised that countries are looking for alternatives to the dollar when politicians pursue political and economic policies that make our currency no longer sound as a dollar. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.
This is what happens when a government spends in unprecedented ways, runs up massive debt, and borrows too much from foreign countries. America's financial future does not look good. The Obama administration predicts a permanent pattern of federal deficits for the foreseeable future.
Judy Shelton, author of Money Meltdown, notes that U.S. debt is set to exceed 100 percent of GDP in 2011. It's no wonder other countries are looking for alternative ways to preserve wealth. Why would another nation want to accumulate assets denominated in dollars when its value is sinking? Holding dollars means you are holding onto a shrinking unit of account. Judy Shelton asks: "If you were a foreign government, would you want to increase holdings of Treasury securities knowing the U.S. government has no plans to balance its budget during the next decade, let alone achieve a surplus?"
It's worth noting that in the European Union, countries that want to adopt the euro as their currency must limit that government debt to 60 percent of GDP. They do so mindful of the runaway inflation of Germany's Weimar Republic. Imagine what Europeans must think of the American dollar given that the U.S. debt load could not even meet the current European Union qualifications.
Over the last few weeks, we have been hearing of countries proposing other currencies to replace the dollar. The Obama administration is also advancing a plan from an agreement at the recent G20 meeting that would set up special drawing rights at the International Monetary Fund. One or more of these proposals may end up replacing the U.S. dollar as a global currency.
We shouldn't be surprised that countries are looking for alternatives to the dollar when politicians pursue political and economic policies that make our currency no longer sound as a dollar. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.
A Spectacular Failure
Dr. Geoffrey P. Hunt is a social and cultural anthropologist. He has had nearly 30 years experience in planning, conducting, and managing research in the field of youth studies, and drug and alcohol research. Currently Dr. Hunt is a Senior Research Scientist at the Institute for Scientific Analysis and the Principal Investigator on three National Institutes on Health projects. He is also a writer for American Thinker.
Subject: Another Failed Presidency
Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson. In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China 20. But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame. But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on? No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan. But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task--all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience. In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too." Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that. Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.
Some Religious Leaders Sell Out On Abortion
For months there has been an ongoing debate about whether abortion will be part of any health care reform bill. Last month, a coalition of religious leaders published an open letter calling abortion a moral decision.
They want "to create a world where abortion is safe, legal, accessible, and rare."
Although the preamble focuses on abortion worldwide, it is fairly obvious that the timing of the letter coincides with the debate about abortion as part of the health care bills being considered in Congress. Then they set forth their religious convictions for affirming that abortion is a morally justifiable decision.
The key section in the letter addresses the Bible. The group claims that: "Scripture neither condemns nor prohibits abortion." While it is true that the word "abortion" does not appear in the Bible, it is hard to understand how these religious leaders could come to such a sweeping conclusion.
There are verses that show God's call to Old Testament prophets while they are still in their mother's wombs. Jeremiah 1:5 says, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you." Isaiah 49:1 says, "The Lord called me from the womb; From the body of my mother He named me."
In Psalm 139, David is reflecting on God's omnipresence. He then says, "For you formed my inward parts, You wove me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:13-14).
The Bible teaches the sanctity of human life. But these religious leaders argue that the sanctity of a human life only applies if our parents wanted us to be born. This is what they say about this in the so-called "respect for life" section of the letter: "The sanctity of human life is best upheld when we assure that it is not created carelessly."
This is wrong. A child's dignity and worth should never be determined by what the parents were thinking when they created that child. The Bible teaches that all of us are created in the image of God and thus have value and dignity. Unfortunately, these religious leaders seemed to have missed that part of the Bible. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.
They want "to create a world where abortion is safe, legal, accessible, and rare."
Although the preamble focuses on abortion worldwide, it is fairly obvious that the timing of the letter coincides with the debate about abortion as part of the health care bills being considered in Congress. Then they set forth their religious convictions for affirming that abortion is a morally justifiable decision.
The key section in the letter addresses the Bible. The group claims that: "Scripture neither condemns nor prohibits abortion." While it is true that the word "abortion" does not appear in the Bible, it is hard to understand how these religious leaders could come to such a sweeping conclusion.
There are verses that show God's call to Old Testament prophets while they are still in their mother's wombs. Jeremiah 1:5 says, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you." Isaiah 49:1 says, "The Lord called me from the womb; From the body of my mother He named me."
In Psalm 139, David is reflecting on God's omnipresence. He then says, "For you formed my inward parts, You wove me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:13-14).
The Bible teaches the sanctity of human life. But these religious leaders argue that the sanctity of a human life only applies if our parents wanted us to be born. This is what they say about this in the so-called "respect for life" section of the letter: "The sanctity of human life is best upheld when we assure that it is not created carelessly."
This is wrong. A child's dignity and worth should never be determined by what the parents were thinking when they created that child. The Bible teaches that all of us are created in the image of God and thus have value and dignity. Unfortunately, these religious leaders seemed to have missed that part of the Bible. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.
More White House Corruption
It is pretty sad that we have to depend upon an excellent Canadian Newspaper to get the truth that we can't get from U.S. newspapers. No wonder Obama wants to bailout U.S. newspapers!
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652
America Needs Another George Marshall
General George W. Casey, Jr.
Chief of Staff of the Army
Marshall Foundation Award Luncheon
16 October 2009
Thank you all very much. You’ve seen the Secretary of State. You’ve seen the Secretary of Defense. And now, you get me. Drawing the after-lunch speaker slot is just another reminder that, in Washington, you are never too senior to be junior.
It’s great to have you all here. And I’ll tell you, I have had a lot of fun reading up on Marshall again. He’s just a fascinating leader. So it’s great for me to spend some time with you talking about his role as the Army Chief of Staff.
There have been thirty-six Army Chiefs of Staff since the turn of the last century, and every day, I’m reminded of how we – as serving Chiefs – stand on the shoulders of our predecessors. There are two of my predecessors, former Chiefs, here today; General Shy Meyer, Shy, in 1980, went to the President and Congress and said, “Your Army is hollow.” And with that, we began the resurgence of the U.S. Army after Vietnam. General Carl Vuono, Carl continued that transformation and – really more than any other leader – was the architect of the Army that was so victorious in Desert Shield and Desert Storm. So thank you for that.
When I think of Marshall, I’m struck by his over four decades of military service and how our knowledge of that service helps us understand what it means to be a Soldier in the United States Army. I’m struck by his selfless service. I’m struck by his respect for civilian control of the military. I’m struck by his absolute competence and by his immutable sense of duty. In the service of his country, Marshall was always a Soldier first and a Soldier in his very heart.
For most of us, promotions to positions of greater responsibility are milestones to celebrate. On the first of September 1939, when George Marshall was sworn in as the Army Chief, it was a tough day. In his own words, he recalled, “My day of induction into office was momentous,” he said, “with the starting of what appears to be a World War.”
He was right. In An Army at Dawn, Rick Atkinson put the looming crisis that accompanied that first day in perspective. The first of September 1939 was the first day of a war that would last for 2,174 days. On that day, Germany attacked Poland with 60 divisions, unleashing a war that would put Hitler in command of Europe in a matter of months. It was a war that would claim an average of 27,600 lives every day. It was a war that was staggering in its scope and enormous in its consequences. When it began, the United States Army had less than 200,000 soldiers. In terms of size and combat power, it ranked 17th … just behind Romania. Compared with Germany’s 160 divisions, the United States Army could field five. Few of us can doubt that the Chief of Staff of that Army had a lot on his plate that very first day in office. We’re here today – in part – because George Marshall survived that first day and, over the next six years, did a remarkable job for this Army and for this country.
In those six years, Marshall oversaw the dramatic expansion of the Army and built the forces that were ultimately victorious in the war. He also played a key role in running the war and in crafting a unified global strategy for victory. In the deliberations of the Combined Chiefs of Staff, the strategy-making body of the Anglo-American alliance, it was Marshall who represented the American military position. He was, in reality, if not in title, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. So basically, he’d be doing my job and Mike Mullen’s job during six years of war. The thing about Marshall was that he always saw the big picture. He realized that victory over the Axis meant balancing lots of different requirements; allies, industry, the air and naval services, not just the Army. He was much broader than that.
Perhaps one of Marshall’s greatest legacies is the example he set for the character and competence of a military professional in a time of crisis. This can be seen, I believe, in his interaction with two American political institutions; Congress and the presidency.
Marshall engaged Congress with admirable energy. In the spring and summer of 1940, he spent 21 days testifying in 15 separate hearings. In one critical week, he made 7 trips to the capitol. Marshall understood Congress, and, in turn, members regarded his position as representing the national interest. Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn attested to Marshall’s credibility and to his integrity. Here’s what he said: “Of all the men who ever testified before any committee on which I served, there is no one who has the influence that General Marshall has. When he takes the witness stand, we forget whether we are Republicans or Democrats. We remember that we are in the presence of a man who is telling the truth.” We should all do so well on the Hill.
Marshall’s relationship with his Commander-in-Chief is also an interesting one. But it underscores Marshall’s respect for the fundamental principle of civilian control of the military. When his Commander-in-Chief asked him at a meeting one day, “Don’t you think so, George?” Marshall answered, “I am sorry, Mr. President, but I don’t agree with you at all.” That was the last time Roosevelt called the general “George” in public. But it wasn’t Marshall’s disposition that made him a trusted advisor. It was his candor, and it was his integrity.
Of course, there were disagreements. The biggest one came in 1942 in the debate over whether to launch an Allied operation in North Africa or to conserve resources for a cross-channel attack. Marshall advocated conserving resources for the invasion of Europe. Against the advice of Marshall, Roosevelt sided with Winston Churchill and ordered the North African Torch landings in November of that year. While Marshall strongly disagreed with this decision, he fully supported the President when it came to planning and executing that operation. True to form, the general admitted later, “We failed to see that the leader in a democracy must keep the people entertained. That may sound like the wrong word,” he said, “but it conveys the thought. People demand action.” In this case, Americans needed to see Allied progress against Germany … to strike back … sooner rather than later. The President saw this crucial political consideration, whereas Marshall had not.
His credibility in the President’s eyes only grew as the war went on. Deciding to keep Marshall in Washington rather than send him off to command the Allied armies for the invasion of Europe, Roosevelt admitted to Marshall: “I feel I could not sleep at night with you out of the country.”
This brings me to another legacy of Marshall, his lifetime of selfless service, which has been acknowledged today in his service as Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Army Chief of Staff.
Marshall probably would’ve been content if his last piece of official correspondence was the letter of resignation that he wrote to President Harry Truman on August 20, 1945. It’s typical. It said: “Now that hostilities have terminated, the demobilization of the Army is under way, the major military decisions have been taken, and postwar planning is in an advanced state, I feel free to propose my relief as Chief of Staff. I have been on duty in the War Department continuously for more than seven years, six as Chief of Staff. Aware of the wear and tear of the job, I am certain it would be advantageous to make a change.”
The President reluctantly granted Marshall’s request and the general retired in November. But one week later … one week later, the phone rang. Marshall answered. It was Truman. There was a political crisis in China, and the country was on the brink of civil war. “General, I want you to go to China for me.” “Yes, Mr. President.” Selfless service.
Marshall never even took time to write his memoirs. He apparently turned down an offer of one million dollars from the Saturday Evening Post to tell his story because he didn’t want to embarrass other generals and statesmen he had worked with. His focus was on his country and his duty.
In closing, I’m going to quote from Winston Churchill, who could always turn a phrase. He captured Marshall’s legacy as the indispensable “organizer of victory,” as the professional soldier, and as the selfless public servant. He wrote to Marshall after the Allied victory in Europe: “It has not fallen to your lot to command the great armies. You have had to create them, organize them, and inspire them … under your guiding hand. There has grown in my breast through all these years of mental exertion a respect and admiration for your courage and massive strength … which has been a real comfort to your fellow toilers, of whom I hope it will be recognized that I was one.”
High and well-deserved acclaim for America’s greatest soldier. Thank you for allowing me to participate and to honor a man who was a soldier in every sense of the word. Thank you.
Learn From Haman's Sin
So Haman took the robe and the horse, arrayed Mordecai and led him on horseback through the city square, and proclaimed before him, “Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delights to honor!” Afterward Mordecai went back to the kings’ gate. But Haman hurried to his house, mourning and with his head covered. When Haman told his wife Zeresh and all his friends everything that had happened to him, his wise men and his wife Zeresh said to him,” If Mordecai, before whom you have begun to fall, is of Jewish descent, you will not prevail against him but will surely fall before him.” Esther 6:11-13
Haman’s wife foretells of her husband’s impending demise. She and the wise men surrounding Haman also declare the divine protection that surrounds the Jews. Biblical curses followed the Amalekites because of their long standing conflict with Israel. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob swore in Exodus 17:16 that He would be at war with every generation of Amalekites. Haman, the Amalekite, plotted the destruction of the Jews, as did his ancestors, therefore his downfall was eminent.
The Lord is the same, yesterday, today and forever. He promises to bless those who bless His chosen and curse those that curse Israel and her people
Haman’s wife foretells of her husband’s impending demise. She and the wise men surrounding Haman also declare the divine protection that surrounds the Jews. Biblical curses followed the Amalekites because of their long standing conflict with Israel. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob swore in Exodus 17:16 that He would be at war with every generation of Amalekites. Haman, the Amalekite, plotted the destruction of the Jews, as did his ancestors, therefore his downfall was eminent.
The Lord is the same, yesterday, today and forever. He promises to bless those who bless His chosen and curse those that curse Israel and her people
More On The Climate Treaty
Many of us have been receiving e-mails about a speech given by Lord Christopher Monckton. The YouTube clip of his speech sets forth his concerns about a UN plan to created a world government based upon concerns about global warming.
He believes that if the U.S. signs any climate treaty coming out of the December climate change conference in Copenhagen, that it could move us closer to a global government. He contends that the treaty defines government in such a way as to lay the foundations for a world government that will "transfer wealth from the wealthy countries, such as the United States most of all, to Third World countries-and the excuse for this transfer is so-called reparation."
Why should the U.S. pay reparations? According to those promoting the treaty, the U.S. owes the world a "climate debt" because we have been using fossil fuels, which in turn are responsible for man made global warming.
Is it likely that President Obama would sign such a treaty? I think it is quite likely. But is it likely that two-thirds of the U.S. Senate would ratify such a treaty? I don't think that will happen. Will 67 out of 100 senators ratify a treaty that is more radical than the Kyoto Protocol? No. Remember when the Senate voted on Kyoto, it was defeated 99 to 0.
Constitutional lawyer Kelly Shackelford did point out that a federal judge might use the existence of the treaty to implement certain provisions. Cathie Adams (newly elected Chairwoman of the Texas Republican Party) has been to various U.N. meetings going all the way back to those that produced the Kyoto Protocol. She believes that Carol Browner (President Obama's Energy Czar) could use the treaty to enact various governmental initiatives and regulations in order to reduce carbon emissions.
Lord Monckton believes that the U.S. "is the cradle of freedom" and is hopeful that we will fight this treaty and "remain the beacon of freedom for the world." I have the same hope. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view
He believes that if the U.S. signs any climate treaty coming out of the December climate change conference in Copenhagen, that it could move us closer to a global government. He contends that the treaty defines government in such a way as to lay the foundations for a world government that will "transfer wealth from the wealthy countries, such as the United States most of all, to Third World countries-and the excuse for this transfer is so-called reparation."
Why should the U.S. pay reparations? According to those promoting the treaty, the U.S. owes the world a "climate debt" because we have been using fossil fuels, which in turn are responsible for man made global warming.
Is it likely that President Obama would sign such a treaty? I think it is quite likely. But is it likely that two-thirds of the U.S. Senate would ratify such a treaty? I don't think that will happen. Will 67 out of 100 senators ratify a treaty that is more radical than the Kyoto Protocol? No. Remember when the Senate voted on Kyoto, it was defeated 99 to 0.
Constitutional lawyer Kelly Shackelford did point out that a federal judge might use the existence of the treaty to implement certain provisions. Cathie Adams (newly elected Chairwoman of the Texas Republican Party) has been to various U.N. meetings going all the way back to those that produced the Kyoto Protocol. She believes that Carol Browner (President Obama's Energy Czar) could use the treaty to enact various governmental initiatives and regulations in order to reduce carbon emissions.
Lord Monckton believes that the U.S. "is the cradle of freedom" and is hopeful that we will fight this treaty and "remain the beacon of freedom for the world." I have the same hope. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view
4% Of Israelis Have Confidence In Obama
Joel Rosenberg ranks Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and French President Sarkozy the most pro-Israel leaders in the Western alliance right now. President Obama wouldn't even be on the list. Last Friday night, Joel gave an address to the Christian Embassy banquet in northern Virginia. The title of his talk was, "Train Wreck: The Coming Collision of U.S.-Israeli Relations." With deep concern and regret, he noted that just as the Iranian nuclear threat is worsening, we are currently witnessing the worst strains in U.S.-Israel relations in memory. Before January, polls showed 88% of Israelis believed President Bush was pro-Israel. In May, a Jerusalem Post poll found that only 31% of Israelis believed President Obama was pro-Israel. By August, a Jerusalem Post poll found only 4% of Israelis believed President Obama was pro-Israel. Israel's plummeting confidence that the White House truly understands their security needs and will stand with them as a faithful ally is the results of numerous actions and statements by the President and his senior advisers. These are just a few reasons for the meltdown in Israeli confidence in White House support for the Jewish State. But such trends have real-world effects. How could the Israeli people be expected to postpone a preemptive strike against Iran much longer if they don't believe the White House has a serious and effective plan to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them? How could Israeli people be expected to make major concessions in return for peace with the Palestinians if they don't fundamentally believe Israel's most faithful historic ally will truly be there for them if the going gets rough? On April 14th of this year, Joel said on the Glenn Beck show that he believed we were witnessing a coming "train wreck" in U.S.-Israeli relations over the Iran and Palestinian issues. The situation has only worsened since then. That's why Joel's in Israel for the next few weeks, leading a Joshua Fund "prayer & vision trip" - to better understand the dynamic that's underway, and to mobilize evangelical Christians in the U.S., Israel and around the world to bless Israel in real and practical ways, pray for the peace of Jerusalem, pray for wisdom for Israeli leaders, and pray for a change of heart in the Obama administration.