-- Winston Churchill
"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
-- Winston Churchill Received via email this morning:
The following message is brought by our sponsor, Gordon James Klingenschmitt, PhD. Former Navy Chaplain Finally Endorses a Presidential Candidate (not who you think) In my capacity as a private citizen, I have finally decided to endorse a candidate for President of the United States, (and it's not who you might think). As you know, I have not yet endorsed any candidate. I have instead faxed non-partisan voter guides to tens of thousands of churches, comparing the voting records of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul. This election year I received a personal phone call from Newt Gingrich, and we talked privately for several minutes about his strategy to reach pastors. His campaign ultimately did not follow my advice, nor did he reach out to my thousands of pastors as I suggested. So I am not endorsing Newt today. This year I conducted a non-partisan "straw poll" and over 1,000 of my constituents voted approximately 42% Santorum, 21% Gingrich, 12% Paul, and 3% Romney. But I am not endorsing Rick Santorum today. On May 5th I will attend my 3rd college graduation ceremony, earning my PhD in Theology from Regent University, where my fellow alumna Michele Bachmann will give the commencement address. I personally donated to Michele's campaign this year. But I am not endorsing Michelle Bachmann today. Last fall I co-sponsored a big prayer rally with Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) called "The Response: A Call To Prayer For A Nation In Crisis," and held a solemn day of fasting and prayer for America, in Houston Texas. But I am not endorsing Rick Perry today. Yesterday I personally attended the Colorado GOP convention, and I ran for national delegate to the RNC convention in Tampa Florida, and I was not elected, which is fine, because I'm relatively new to the Colorado process, and I did not expect to win. Sadly, I discovered a terrible injustice to the Colorado voters. Romney won 35% of Colorado's public vote, but got 70% of pledged delegates to Tampa. Santorum won 40% of public vote, but got 18% of pledged delegates to Tampa RNC. Because Colorado caucuses are "non-binding" the peoples votes DO NOT COUNT, and the pro-establishment process is entirely unfair and contradicts what the voting public intended. Colorado must move to a "binding caucus" process, or the Denver establishment will continue to run rough-shod over the Colorado Springs Christian community, whose votes were effectively thrown in the trash. Mitt Romney will likely be the GOP nominee, but I am not endorsing Mitt Romney today. If you want a list of ten reasons I will NEVER support Mitt Romney for President, you can read the article I wrote last October for Worldnet Daily, here. I know all the arguments, but I just cannot violate my conscience by supporting a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Republican. I just can't do it. SO WHO IS CHAPS ENDORSING FOR PRESIDENT? Few of you know I serve as the national chaplain to America's Party, which was founded by a group of us who served with Alan Keyes for President in 2008. I was Alan's driver, chaplain, and I was one of several Vice-Presidential candidates with Alan. But our dear brother is not running this year, so I am not endorsing Alan Keyes today. But conservative Christians (who care about principle over party) really do have an alternative to Mitt Romney this year. If you wish to preserve your conscience, as I do, you can still vote for a principled, conservative candidate for President. I hereby publically endorse, and I will vote for Tom Hoefling for President of the United States in 2012, and for his vice-Presidential candidate J.D. Ellis. If possible I will help Tom and J.D. gather signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states, and I request pastors and principled, Christian conservatives please help them. If they fail I will write them in. If you want to know why I support Tom Hoefling for President, get to know him here, and you will soon understand my reasons. If you stand for Christian liberty, the right to life, traditional marriage, please consider affiliating with America's Party with me, and dial into one of Tom's free, weekly conference calls every Tuesday or Thursday night at 9pm EST. You are not required to leave the GOP to affiliate with America's Party. They have open membership rules allowing many affiliates from many political parties to join. You do not need to donate. (In fact both the Party and the Candidate REFUSE your money.) You simply must agree to uphold their principles, which exactly match those of our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. I've looked at other "third party" options. They're all flawed in major ways. But this one has the potential to become the real deal. Pro-life, Pro-defense, Pro-economic freedom. Something is wrong in America. Something is wrong in the GOP. We all sense it. By affiliating with America's Party, we don't have to renounce the GOP entirely, but neither must we support pro-abortion, pro-homosexual candidates endorsed by the establishment. I can't do it, and I know many of you can't either. As Christians, we dare not stay home, but we still have a choice. As a Christian American, I will support Tom Hoefling for President of the United States. God Bless you, in Jesus' name, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt, PhD For media interviews, select here. The preceding email was paid for by Gordon James Klingenschmitt in his private capacity, not by any party, group, or corporation. Provided courtesy of SayNOtoSocialism.com
With America Headed Towards Socialism, Most Care Not Enough to Resist Canada Free Press Kelly OConnell The relentless encroachment of socialism upon America’s economic, cultural and governmental landscape is like a bad dream to most red-blooded Americans. When society changes it can seem like the ineluctable drift of evolution or chance. But in the case of America’s ongoing continued expansion of government powers, spiking taxes, and shrinking military, it’s all part of a planned elitist push into socialism. And one need not believe in secret conspiracies when contemplating this shift. In fact, for those paying attention, it was all outlined long ago by the Fabian Socialist society, and other groups such as the Frankfurt School, as explained below. I. Basic Socialism: History & Dogma Socialism is a European phenomenon, beginning after the French Revolution with writers from Paris and London forming the core. The definition of socialism is: “a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production.” While most believe Karl Marx (1818-1883) was the father of socialism, he wrote very few specifics on the topic. In fact, one of Marx’s most signal shortcoming was his failure to describe his own working economic system. Instead, it was Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924), first leader of the new USSR who developed the theory in situ, according to the Library of Economics & Liberty. Lenin’s attempts at creating a profit-free economy was a spectacular failure, only bettered by Joseph Stalin’s larger failure. A. Vladimir Lenin’s ad hoc Socialism The Library lists Vlad’s four critical factors he believed necessary for economic success: Lenin began from the long-standing delusion that economic organization would become less complex once the profit drive and the market mechanism had been dispensed with—“as self-evident,” he wrote, as “the extraordinarily simple operations of watching, recording, and issuing receipts, within the reach of anybody who can read and write and knows the first four rules of arithmetic.” The four laws were apparently insufficient to drive en economy towards productivity: In fact, Soviet economic life under these first four rules was so disheveled within four years of the 1917 revolution, productivity fell to 14% of its pre-revolutionary level. By 1921 Lenin was forced to institute the New Economic Policy (NEP), a partial return to the market incentives of capitalism. This brief mixture of socialism and capitalism ended in 1927 after Stalin instituted forced collectivization meant to mobilize Russian resources for its leap into industrial power. Suffice it to say that no version of socialism has ever provided longterm economic growth or security anywhere in the world, because it lacks a cohesive economic theory. B. Karl Marx’s Vision: Revolution Karl Marx claimed to have discovered a “science” of economics that proved his ideas true. In fact, according to author Paul Johnson in Intellectuals, Marx was a moralizing journalist, with the faculty of a poet, masquerading as a science-minded intellectual. Writes Johnson: But in a deeper sense he was not really a scholar and not a scientist at all. He was not interested in finding the truth but in proclaiming it. There were three strands in Marx: the poet, the journalist and the moralist. Each was important. Together, and in combination with his enormous will, they made him a formidable writer and seer. But there was nothing scientific about him; indeed, in all that matters he was anti-scientific. Further, according to Marx’s writing partner, lifelong benefactor and friend, Frederick Engels, Marx should be remembered as a revolutionary. He said grave-side at Marx’s burial: For Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being… So Marx’s main interest in writing was to foment revolution, because without the collapse of capitalism, the promised paradise of total government control would never have room to occur. Knowing this, American leftists have long done whatever they could, in small and large ways to help birth the revolution upon American soil. The following is a partial history of that struggle. II. Congressional Record January 10, 1963 On January 10, 1963, Florida US Representative Albert Sydney Herlong, Jr gave a speech outlining what he believed to be the 45 methods communists were using to take over America. Ponder the staggering number of these goals already achieved, much to our mortal damage. 11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. 15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. 16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights. 17. Control schools. Use them to transmit socialist & Marxist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Infiltrate teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks. 20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions. 21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures. 22. Discredit American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. 23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. Promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art. 24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press. 25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” 27. Infiltrate churches. Replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit Bible & emphasize need for intellectual maturity, rejecting a “religious crutch.” 28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.” 29. Discredit US Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations. 30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.” 31. Belittle American culture & discourage teaching of American history because it’s only part of the “big picture.” 32. Support any socialist movement to centralize control over any part of the culture: education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. 40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. III. Frankfurt School The Frankfurt School were a group of German intellectual Marxists who established the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University, modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. This became known as the “Frankfurt School.” After Hitler came to power, these Marxist professors fled to the West to preserve their lives. Setting up shop in Columbia University, they decided to launch a mission to convert America to Marxism via a soft war. According to one source they did certain things to aid this: To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution - but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future - the Frankfurt School recommended (among other things):
A main idea of the Frankfurt School was exploiting Freud’s ‘pansexualism’ - the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:
IV. Fabian Society: Slow Conquering Socialism The Fabian Society of Britain was named after Roman general Fabius Maximus, famed for a warfare style that eked out victories via patience and attrition. Fabian socialists likewise seek to take over their host countries by slowly changing standards until the dumbed-down populace no longer has the wit to notice or care. A sociological analogy might be—how predators groom their victims, often waiting years for a chance to exploit their prey. An author sums up their strategy: Like their namesake, today’s Fabians avoid open confrontation with the forces of freedom and, subsequently, tend to shield their true agenda from the light of day. The creed of the Society, written in 1887, was as follows: “It (The Fabian Society) therefore aims at the reorganization of society by the emancipation of land and industrial Capital from individual and class ownership…The Society accordingly works for the extinction of private property in land.” The Fabian plan was to infiltrate America by targeting our legal system. Fabian convert Felix Cohen, a law professor at Yale, wrote the following: “It is possible to attempt the overthrow of capitalism as an economic system without at the same time attacking the substance of capitalist law…Socialists can learn from their adversaries that it is always possible to attack existing law, in the name of democracy, justice, and liberty, in the name of the great ideals of the American Constitution, and in the name of law itself.” Fabians sought to overthrow our system by changing the meaning of our stated legal concepts, and to codify those changes with cases brought by Fabian lawyers before Fabian Judges. The effect of this has been that while the technical wording of American law hasn’t changed much, the implementation has been transferred from the citizen and his elected representatives, to appointed bureaucrats. The Fabians have, diabolically, used our own laws to change the law. Freedom is the victim of these Socialist manipulations. Conclusion America is infiltrated by Marxists active so long in undermining our institutions and ideals that socialism is now in our collective DNA. They seek an end to private property, representative democracy and rule of law. But once America has turned over leadership to committed liberals, who will be left to protect the world from takeover by globalists intent on universal tyranny? Unfortunately, the question answers itself. Kelly OConnell Most recent columns Kelly O’Connell hosts American Anthem on CFP Radio Sundays at 4 pm (EST). Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico. Kelly is now host of a daily, Monday to Friday talk show at AM KOBE called AM Las Cruces w/Kelly O’Connell Kelly can be reached at: hibernian1@gmail.com Article published here in full by the kind permission of the author. Provided courtesy of IndependenceForever.com
The American - The online Magazine of the American Enterprise Institute By Rep. Fred Upton It is an exciting time for American energy, but only if American energy policy spurs innovations rather than stifling them. U.S. energy policy needs a reboot—a broad reassessment of our strategies—because much of what we thought we knew has either dramatically changed or turned out to be plain wrong. When I first became involved in these issues, President Jimmy Carter told us our domestic energy supplies were running out and a foreign cartel would determine everything from the cars we drove to the temperatures in our homes. The future he painted looked bleak. Consider oil and natural gas. Not long ago, many believed supplies had peaked and it was only a matter of time until we were left with nothing but dry holes in the ground and increased dependence on foreign imports. Based on this belief, Washington decided that American taxpayers needed to spend dramatically on developing alternative supplies to replace hydrocarbons. [Alleged] President Obama continues this policy today. During his recent energy public relations tour, he repeatedly referred to Republicans as subscribers to the “flat earth” worldview because we do not share his affinity for massive taxpayer spending on more expensive energy sources. But if anyone is stuck in the past, it’s [Alleged] President Obama, as he has refused to acknowledge the great potential of America’s energy resources thanks to new technologies that help us unlock them. New discoveries and production of resources like shale oil and gas are dramatically altering our energy supply outlook and the entire global geopolitical landscape. And the pace of change—particularly in the past few years—continues to accelerate. When it comes to energy supply, efficiency, and environmental safety, our prospects are better than they have been in a long time. And the outlook will only improve if the government unleashes the private sector and stops getting in the way. North Dakota’s story is illustrative. As recently as 2006, the state ranked ninth in the country in oil production. By 2013, the state could move to the number three spot, behind only Texas and Alaska, according to The Institute for Energy Research. In fact, North Dakota's January oil output eclipsed the current third place holder, California. Production may more than double again within five years. Private sector breakthroughs created this new energy boom; the federal government is not involved. By fully harnessing the power of our own previously inaccessible energy resources—and by forging strong partnerships with neighboring nations—America is on the cusp of being able to chart a course toward North American energy independence. It is an exciting time for American energy, but only if American energy policy spurs these innovations rather than stifling them. Despite imperfect knowledge about what lies ahead, we have learned important lessons from the past that are guiding our reforms. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, of which I’m chairman, has already begun this fundamental reform effort and we will continue our activities in the months ahead. First, government choosing technology winners does not work. Instead, we too often pick losers. In the late 1970s, billions were wasted on synthetic fuels. Today it’s Solyndra. It turns out that our energy outlook has changed not due to government subsidies, but to private sector technology innovation. For example, America is now the largest natural gas producer in the world and could become the largest oil producer by 2017. Why? Because private sector know-how and market forces helped unlock previously inaccessible supplies. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is conducting an exhaustive review of the limits of government-sponsored energy production, and hopes to release our findings in the next several months. Second, we need not stifle resources to protect the environment. We can develop energy resources as we improve environmental safeguards. For example, horizontal drilling technology means that a single surface operating structure can replace several surface structures. Likewise, the pipelines we build to carry oil and natural gas will employ, wherever needed, state-of-the-art inventions such as automatic or remote control shut-off valves and leak detection systems that didn’t exist just a few years ago. I made sure that provisions for those technologies were included in the pipeline safety reauthorization bill that [Alleged] President Obama signed into law on January 3. This year, my committee will provide the American people even more information about how technology has improved the energy and environmental outlook. Third, we need an “all may compete” energy policy. In this hyper-partisan age, vilifying certain types of energy has become a common way of promoting others. This will not improve energy affordability. It’s a mistake to declare war on any source of supply because, if we have learned anything about energy, it is that future technology will not be what is now predicted. My committee will continue to assess whether current policies advantage some energy sources over others. Finally, given our new knowledge about resource abundance, including the power of technology to unlock supplies and use them in cleaner, more efficient ways, we should do all that we can to reduce barriers to responsible development of domestic resources. Approving projects like the Keystone XL pipeline or streamlining the extensive permitting process for energy projects are two examples of how we can get government out of the way. Before the end of the year, the House will pass measures to spur energy development by cutting through the red tape. We stand at a unique and bright moment in our energy history. To take full advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead, it is imperative that we reconsider our basic assumptions about energy policy, including rethinking the correct role of the federal government. Ingenuity and freedom have produced a more abundant energy future than we ever imagined. Misguided Washington interference is the biggest threat to these gains. Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan) is chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce. FURTHER READING: Nick Schulz interviews Upton in “Revolution in the Rust Belt.” Kenneth P. Green contributes “Not Free to Choose: The Reality behind Clean Energy Standards” and “Government Is a Lousy Venture Capitalist.” Mark J. Perry says “Unleash Private Sector to Produce Energy, Create Jobs.” Jon Entine asks “Future Energy: Natural Gas Fracking—Who Blew Up the 'Bridge to the Future'?” Arthur Herman adds “Framing the Keystone Debate.” "Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it."
-- John Adams "There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage."
--John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men, 1776 "Freedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think. But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing."
--Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791 "Information is the oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped by barbed wire, it wafts across the electrified borders."
-- Ronald Reagan "Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of. Our enemies are numerous and powerful; but we have many friends, determining to be free, and heaven and earth will aid the resolution. On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important question, on which rest the happiness and liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves."
-- Joseph Warren, Boston Massacre Oration, March 6, 1775 |
SelfGovernment.US
"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government."
|