A Slave's View

Ask and you shall receive .. your car key

2017-05-16T08:58:00.000-04:00

Last night I got home late. I usually forget to hang up our only car key (expensive to get another). Usually, I find it immediately where I lay it down. Well, this morning I could not find it.

Our whole family acted crazy and frantically looked all over the house to find it instead of us calmly asking God "where is it?", and then trusting He would show us where it was.

After we arranged to get Erica and Alana to school, I continued frantically looking to no avail. Then suddenly a thought came (which was God) and said "ask the Holy Spirit to show you where the key is. He can show you because He is all knowing".

So I calmed myself and said, "Holy Spirit, show me where the key is". Well, IMMEDIATELY, He lead me to the car and it was right next to the car on the ground where I/we had frantically walked by looking for it five times. All I/we had to do was ask the Holy Spirit then trust him and He would have shown me/us immediately. But instead, I/we freaked out and frantically looking for it for 20 minutes, not once thinking to ask Him.

#AskGod #AsktheHolySpirit #TrustGod #HearingGod #Lostmykeys

911 – We Will Never Forget!

2014-09-11T07:28:00.001-04:00

Remember the Fallen.!

Virginia proposal would limit size of gatherings at private homes..could this violate freedom of assembly, religion?

2014-05-06T14:00:00.000-04:00

Commentary by Kirby Harris

Could this be political or religious persecution in the guise of public safety and being a good neighbor or just be an unintended consequence of such laws?

Could this really be aimed at House Church Fellowships or Grassroots Political Gatherings?

Could this infringe on, not only the right to assemble (which includes grassroots political activity), but on the freedom of religion as well?

First we have the right to assemble protected by under the US Constitution, which includes gathering for political and religious reasons, not just in public but in homes.

Many patriot groups and smaller Tea Parties meet in homes for lack of other venues or to organize their neighborhoods.

Also, as far as house churches, many Christians believe God wants them to only meet in homes like the early church, while others just prefer home fellowships to mainstream church buildings. My wife and I ran an active house church for years.

How might this law mess up house churches or political gatherings you might ask?

Well "the proposed zoning ordinance limits “group assembly” at residences to 49 people a day. Such gatherings “shall not occur more frequently than three times in any 40-day period.”

Now I know that there has to be a limit to the amount of people you have gathering in a residential home for safety reasons, but you don’t need a one size fits all number for all residences. You all ready have occupancy laws based on square foot. And if this doesn’t apply to residential homes in your area, then just add homes to the business occupancy law that your area already has in place. Though this could be a slippery slope.

Another issue is that many political groups meet once or several times a week, and this definitely is true of churches, so no more than three gatherings in a 40 day period definitely infringes on them. Some churches even have a mid week service or other church related bible studies, not to mention it limits growth. Sorry your number 50..go away.

I understand for safety reasons limiting the number of occupancy in any dwelling, but the frequency of how many gatherings you have is ridiculous and frankly none of the government’s or your neighbor’s business. I will add this to my previous comment, if you have regular gatherings in your home be a good neighbor and consider parking, noise level and times that don’t interfere to much with your neighbors as best you can.

Comment on Below Article by Mark Wood:

“What bothers me even more than even the thought of proposing such a law is the thought, "Who is going to keep track of the number of people entering each house?"

To enforce such a law, there must be proof of breaking such law. So, even those not breaking the law must have their visitors counted - just to show innocence. Those breaking the law must be counted in order to prove guilt.

Not a good law by any means or scenario.”

ARTICLE:

Fairfax aims to downsize home assemblies

By Kenric Ward - Published May 05, 2014 - watchdog.org

FAIRFAX, Va. – A plan to ban “frequent and large gatherings at neighborhood homes” is a lawsuit waiting to happen, a Fairfax County supervisor predicts.

Officials will get an idea Wednesday when public-comment hearings begin in Virginia’s most populous county.

“I believe the county is risking a lawsuit and/or a constitution challenge by interfering with peoples’ right to assemble,” Supervisor Pat Herrity said in a statement.

The proposed zoning ordinance limits “group assembly” at residences to 49 people a day. Such gatherings “shall not occur more frequently than three times in any 40-day period.”

County officials say they have received complaints about group meetings at homes. But Herrity said “they haven’t even reached 1 percent of the thousands of complaints our Department of Code Compliance investigates a year.”

“This is yet another instance where we appear to be punishing the many for the actions of the few,” said Herrity, who reported a total of six complaints were received last year.

Church groups, scouting organizations or even sports fans drawn to a home’s big-screen TV during playoffs could be potential targets of the proposed county law. Realtors worry that even open houses would invite civil penalties.

John Whitehead, an attorney and president of the civil-libertarian Rutherford Institute, calls the Fairfax plan “nefarious.”

“Broad enactments like these have governments assuming that private property is their property,” Whitehead said in an interview with Watchdog.org.

“If you can’t determine what goes on at your own residence, you have surrendered your rights. The Constitution is founded on property rights.”

Nevertheless, some courts have upheld aggressive zoning restrictions. In Phoenix, a minister was sentenced to 60 days in jail for conducting Bible study classes with 10 people at a home.

Herrity, who beat back a controversial dance-hall regulation two years ago, said Fairfax County already has several codes that address neighborhood nuisances.

“We should be focusing on dealing with the issues and not restricting groups’ rights to assemble,” he said.

The Board of Supervisors is moving ahead with three public-comment sessions on the staff-drafted ordinance:

Wednesday, May 7, South County Government Center, 8350 Richmond Highway, Alexandria.
Monday, May 12, Fairfax County Government Center, 12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax.
Monday, May 19, Lemon Road Elementary School, 7230 Idylwood Road, Falls Church.

All meetings run from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Kenric Ward is a national reporter for Watchdog.org and chief of the Virginia Bureau. Contact him at kenric@watchdogvirginia.org or at (571) 319-9824. @Kenricward

Our Constitution was made ‘for a moral and religious people’ views from a Devoted Christian and a Devoted Atheist

2014-04-24T16:00:00.000-04:00

By Kirby Harris

This article is about what it means to be ‘a moral people’ and how it relates to the US Constitution and Individual Liberty. Here you will read a perspective from a devoted Christian and a devoted Atheist.

First as a gentleman, I will let my guest poster Phil Mccanless give his point of view from an devoted Atheist perspective :

I've often heard conservatives who "lean libertarian" quote or paraphrase the John Adams quote about how "our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other" as a defense for anti-liberty laws which ban or prohibit drug use or consenting sex between adults.

As an atheist, I object to the insinuation that only the religious can be moral, but I couldn't agree more that our constitution was made for and can only be of benefit to moral people. Surprised?

You shouldn't be. But, here's where I diverge from those who would use this as an excuse to violate human rights: it isn't the morality of those who would use (certain, unpopular) drugs or have (socially unacceptable) sex, whether those acts be deemed "moral" or not, who are the reason our constitution is failing us. It isn't the peaceful person with a bad habit or the those who would explore the dark, unknown areas of human sexuality which can threaten a moral and free people.

The morality (or obvious lack thereof) of the individuals who would attempt (ironically, in the name of law and morality) to violate the rights of others by kidnapping and caging peaceful, honest adults is the problem. If the peaceful, honest actions of people with bad habits can be used as an excuse to violate human rights, then cannot ANY habit, any excuse, even other peaceful, honest behaviors, be used to justify such an infringement?

It has been suggested that the "immorality" of the drug user or sexually active person somehow justifies the decimation of the fourth amendment right to be safe in our homes from unreasonable searches and safe in the courts from unlawful evidence, but this begs the question: what on earth could a peaceful, honest drug user, seller or grower do; what could two or more people having consenting sex possibly do, that could threaten the liberty of others more than than the enforcement of immoral, anti-libertarian laws prohibiting peaceful, honest, behavior?

If using (certain) drugs and having sex with consenting adults is immoral and a threat to liberty, then how much of a threat to liberty is a person or group of people using the violence and coercive police powers of the state to kidnap and lock in cages peaceful, harmless people for merely pursuing their happiness in their own ways?

So, I concur fully with those politicians who suggest only a moral people can be free . . . and I suggest that they look in the mirror and face the immorality inherent in laws which prohibit peaceful and honest activities among adults. Immorality IS a threat to liberty, but it isn't the immorality of the people's actions, but of the politician's laws, which threaten both liberty and safety. Peace now!

Now here is my (Kirby Harris) perspective as a devoted Christian:

Let me start by saying what you read here about liberty, human nature and morality isn’t what you might normally hear from a lot of Christians, rather they be liberal or conservative.

I am a devoted Christian. And I say a devoted Christian because I don’t like the term ‘good’ our ‘devout’ Christian, because there is no such thing.

I say this because all Christians, including me, are sinners saved by grace, NOT of our (my) own good deeds. And because when saved we don’t loose our human nature that causes us to sin. That is why I and all others need Jesus to redeem us.

So now having said all that, I will go on to say NO Christian is any better than the drug addict, the homosexual, the thief, the murderer, ect., because again ALL Christians are still sinners and still sin because we are human. Just because God supernaturally saves us, doesn’t mean our human nature stops. So that means, just because I am a Christian, I don’t always automatically act morally, especially when I attack others for their sin.

Jesus did call sin sin, but he never attacked the sinner. Instead he loved people, told them what he thought of their actions, what he thought it meant for their life here and in eternity, but left it up to them to change said behavior. Also Jesus never tried to get the government to stop people from engaging in sin.

To the Christian I ask, am I excusing sin? NO, not in the least. Would you, my fellow Christians, tell Jesus he was excusing sin for handling the this the same way I am? No of course not! But that is exactly what the religious folks of Jesus day accused him of doing.

We are all responsible for recognizing what is sin or immoral and what is not, and rather we believe in God or not, and how to move on from there. And if our actions harm others directly and cause tangible harm, then we suffer the consequences with human authorities.

Now, most of the Christian Founders knew that being or becoming a Christian did NOT cure us of our human nature. That is why they set up the system they did, because they knew human nature was by nature selfish, and that unchecked without any moral training then we would take what we wanted from others. And that we needed to learn morals to fight the urge to be selfish and take forcefully form others what they had.

That is why they John Adam's said "our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other". Did he mean don’t get high off drugs, get drunk off alcohol or have sex forbad in the Bible? Who knows? But I doubt he would have been for the “decimation of the fourth amendment right to be safe in our homes from unreasonable searches and safe in the courts from unlawful evidence” as my friend Phil Mccanless.

So do I believe doing drugs, getting drunk or homosexual sex is wrong and sinful? Yes. DO I believe Jesus or the most of the Founders thought so? Yes. DO I believe Jesus or most of the Founders would want government (at any level) to violate the 4th amendment rights and liberty of any human to basically be left alone unless they harmed another tangibly? NO! They didn’t want the 4th amendment rights of those guilty to be violated much less the accused person innocent of the crime.

Have done some deep soul searching and I Have come to the Conclusion That I am now an atheistic, macro evolution believing, manmade global warming believing, and a big government advocate. - REVISED April 2nd - April Fools!!

2014-04-01T09:00:00.000-04:00

by Kirby Harris - REVISED April 2nd - April Fools!!

As the title suggests I have done some deep soul searching. This has been a long time coming. I have fought it with all of my being. But I have come to a few conclusions:

1) That God is a fairy tale, to help man get through. I realized this has to be true, because many people who are smarter than me have said s, and these people would never say anything exists without hard evidence. And there is NO hard evidence for God’s existence. Again these very smart people would ever say something exists or may exist without proof. So I am sure they don’t believe in other unprovable nonsense like Multiple Universe Theory, Dark Matter Theory, belief in other dimensions and the like.

2) That Macro Evolution (the earth is billions of years old) is fact, and the evidence is overwhelming. The evidence is that many very smart people, smarter than me, say its true because they have come up with educated guesses (or theories) that MUST be true based on them looking at observable data. And we know that IF ALL scientists have come to the same conclusion, then it must be correct. Why would they lie or make this up?

3) That Global Warming is true, because there is No evidence to the contrary, and 97% of scientists agree that there is man-made global warming. 97% of scientists Can’t be wrong. That’s to many. Its not like the majority of people in the USA wanted slavery back in the day, because that many people can’t be wrong. So the 97% of scientists number can’t be wrong, and there is NO way that the 97% number could be fudged.

Besides NASA says its true, and there is NO way a government agency could be compromised or agenda driven. Only private corporations can be compromised (by greed) and have an agenda, not public corporations like the government. The government, with the right people, unlike Bush or Hitler, does care about us people. The Bush’s and Hitler’s were poisoned by private corporate mentalities.

4) And finally, I realized how silly conservatism and libertarianism is. How selfish it is. How it robs the poor of the things they deserve like internet access, cell phones, free birth control, free food, free housing, free healthcare, free transportation and anything else the greedy people have. Besides its not really those greedy rich people’s money, since it ALL belongs to the Federal Reserve, the US government’s own private bank. So what IF it is owned by nameless faceless 1%ers since they are some of the benevolent ones, like George Soros and Warren Buffet, who help the people through the government and aren’t greedy with their billions at all.

The government with the right people, who care, actually is good for us. Look at all the greedy, stupid things we the people do, and how we harm each other. The government can stop all that harm and greed, IF we just let it get big enough. And with the support of the GOOD 1%ers , then we can take what’s ours from these evil selfish greedy folks>

Government should make those other rich jerks take care of me and my children. Why should I or anyone work for this stuff our selves when these rich people and corporation shave enough money to take care of us all.

FINALLY, It was hard to come to this conclusion, but I had no choice, since its ONLY logical, and any other way of thinking is ignorant. And the people like I once was, are ignorant propaganda fed. None of us are smart enough to figure it out without ALL the great intellectuals out there.

Hope I haven’t shocked any of you who have known me for a very long time.

Love without limit -- Today's Devotion from Mike MacIntosh

2014-03-27T16:30:00.000-04:00

By Mike MacIntosh

From there He arose and went to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And He entered a house and wanted no one to know it, but He could not be hidden. For a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him, and she came and fell at His feet. The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter.
But Jesus said to her, "Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs." And she answered and said to Him, "Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children's crumbs." Then He said to her, "For this saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter." And when she had come to her house, she found the demon gone out, and her daughter lying on the bed.

Mark 7:24-30

In one short passage from the book of Mark, we see Jesus breaking all stereotypes and going to people that need to be loved. Jesus is in a hostile and foreign country just north of Israel (modern day Lebanon), a nation whose Greek people were considered "unclean." But it is no accident that this passage is placed right here in Mark. I mean, think about this; the previous incident shows Jesus wiping out all distinction between clean and unclean food, and now Jesus shows us that there is no distinction between clean and unclean people (the Jews and the Greeks). You see, in Jesus Christ we are all one people of God; all able to love Him, live for Him, and serve Him. And He loves us just the same. John tells us that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever (even a Greek, Syro-Phoenician woman) believes in Him would have eternal life!

Maybe you are a person that didn't have a dad or a mom, or your relationship with them was strained. Or maybe you've been struggling because you've never really received love from people. Well, you are just the prime candidate for the Lord to show you. He loves you! He loves the lovable and the unlovable. Do you see it here? There are no geographical borders to God's love. There are no religious things that you have to do in order to get God's love. Jesus Christ shattered all of that. Your relationship with the Lord, and His love for you, isn't about a religious activity; it's a relationship with Him. Jesus traveled miles to seek and to save those who were lost (Luke 19:10), and He's doing the same today. He is reaching out to you in love and compassion. It doesn't matter where you've been, where you're from, or what your social or economic status is. God loves you and is setting you free from your bondage. For whom the Son sets free is free indeed (John 8:36).

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed" (Luke 4:18).

An undefiled heart -- Today's Devotion from Mike MacIntosh

2014-03-26T11:44:00.001-04:00

by Mike MacIntosh

When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man."
Mark 7:17-23

Steeped in legalism and tradition, the Pharisees (and the disciples) had a difficult time understanding God's love and grace. You see, it's not what you eat or drink, or what rules and regulations you follow that make you a Christian. Likewise, it's not the absence of any of these things that make you a better Christian. We can get so hung up on rules and regulations, on making sure others around us don't do this or that, that we lose all perspective of Jesus' words here: It's not the physical stuff in life that defiles us; it's our hearts. Your actions are merely a by-product of your heart.

The Pharisees were so caught up in their rules and regulations (a.k.a. playing church) that they totally ignored the things that really defiled their lives. I mean, look at the list Jesus gives of evil things that defile us: evil thoughts, adultery, fornication, murder, stealing, coveting, wickedness, deceit, slandering anot! her's character, pride, and foolishness. These are the things that we should be concerned about -- issues that begin in our hearts. This list was written over 2,000 years ago and it's more relevant than ever! If our hearts are in the wrong place, our actions will follow. Our hearts need to be focused on Jesus!

Maybe you're prone to watching soap operas or questionable prime-time shows where inevitably you see people undressing and making out. What do these shows do? They plant lustful thoughts in your mind. One way you can tone down the lustful thoughts is to get rid of the lustful books and magazines, and turn off the lewd television shows you once thought were so great. Instead of letting evil thoughts control you, "be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Romans 12:2). When thoughts come up that are lustful, sensual, and wicked, you need to say out loud, "Stop! Lord, I turn these thoughts to you." God will take those thoughts and He will bring them under control.

Don't let the enemy destroy your life, your marriage, or your relationship with your family. Don't allow these things to defile you, all the while thinking that you're "a good person" because you don't smok! e or drink or eat unhealthy foods. Don't get me wrong; it's important to take care of yourself and to be a good steward of the body that God has given you. But don't let that be your sole focus when there are so many things (as Jesus lists here) that you need to control. Have a heart that seeks after the things of the Lord.

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty through God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled" (2 Corinthians 10:3-6).

Listen and understand -- Today's Devotion from Mike MacIntosh

2014-03-25T11:00:00.000-04:00

By Mike MacIntosh

When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, "Hear Me, everyone, and understand: There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man.
Mark 7:14-15

We are all very busy people, pulled in many different directions by distractions that, at times, hinder our ability to hear the Lord. But despite all the distractions, Jesus is speaking to us.
Jesus says here two things that are so important for us to remember. First, He says, "Hear Me." In Mark 7:16, Jesus says, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Jesus is talking to you and with you, so you need to be in a place where you can hear Him. He is there with you, right now, as you read this. Make it a priority to find that quiet place where you can just listen to Him.

The second thing Jesus says is, "Understand." Not only does Jesus want to be heard, but He wants you to understand what He's saying to you. He is communicating deep, rich, and important truths to you that will change your life. Not only do you want to be in a place to hear those things, but you need to understand them, take them to heart, and let them soak into you.

You may be involved in a lot of religious activities, and you may have bumper stickers that say so. But none of these things mean that you have a relationship with the Lord, or that you are listening to, and heeding, His words. Jesus is giving you words of comfort and encouragement. He is giving you words to help you through life. Listen to Him, and take to heart what He's saying.

Is Yelling the New Spanking for Parents? 5 Tips for Screaming-Prone Moms and Dads

2014-03-24T10:03:00.001-04:00

by Jim Daly

Parenting children at any stage can be a real challenge. From the toddler who throws a lay-flat-on-the-floor-and-cry tantrum to the school-age brother and sister who won’t stop fighting, parents regularly navigate a wide array of situations that require dealing with unacceptable behavior.

The Today Show recently ran an interesting post exploring a growing trend among parents to manage these discipline issues through screaming rather than spanking. Maybe this tendency is due to a growing reluctance among some moms and dads to use spanking as a tool of discipline. Maybe it’s because our lives are becoming more hectic and fast-paced, so we have less patience with our kids.

Whatever the reason, most moms and dads will agree that constant yelling is no fun – it’s not what parents prefer to do, and it’s not what kids need. It’s not even an effective parenting strategy.

That begs the question: how can parents curtail the yelling habit? Here’s some advice from Focus’ parenting experts.

To Read the Five Advice Tips Click Here

Is your faith lacking?

2014-03-22T14:00:00.000-04:00

Developing a Life of Prayer

Do you ever struggle with "a lack of faith"? Faith is not something we merely have or do not have. It involves a process of ups and downs, victories and setbacks, triumphs and disappointments with every passing day. That's because faith is an aspect of our relationship with God—a product of our walk with Christ and the constant, gentle influence of His indwelling Holy Spirit.

Every Christian has to wrestle with doubt, fear, failure and inconsistency. In a certain sense, this is the only reliable road to a true and lasting faith that can weather the storms of life. Even the disciples of Jesus ("men of little faith" in the Lord's affectionate phrase) had to find their way through this dark, discouraging tunnel. Just at that moment when belief should have come easiest to them—when the Risen Christ Himself stood before them on a mountaintop in Galilee—Matthew records that "some doubted" (Matthew 28:17).

So if you sometimes question, know that you're not alone; as a matter of fact, you're in very good company. Meanwhile, you can take courage in the thought that even the merest shred of faith—faith as tiny as a mustard seed (Matthew 17:20)—is all that it takes to elicit an approving smile from your heavenly Father (Hebrews 11:6).

Do you see people as Jesus sees them? -- Today's Devotion from Mike MacIntosh

2014-03-21T13:47:00.001-04:00

By Mike MacIntosh

But the multitudes saw them departing, and many knew Him and ran there on foot from all the cities. They arrived before them and came together to Him. And Jesus, when He came out, saw a great multitude and was moved with compassion for them, because they were like sheep not having a shepherd. So He began to teach them many things.
Mark 6:33-34

Isn't it wonderful to know that Jesus is full of compassion? This is one of the things that makes our Lord distinct from the religions in our world. God is not angry with you, nor does He desire you to accomplish works in hopes that you will appease and please Him. He sees you and has compassion on you.

The Greek word for compassion is very strong. It has to do with the emotion you feel way down deep in your gut. Have you ever had butterflies in your stomach? Or have you ever felt so much pain or stress that you could hardly breathe? When you're emotional to the extreme, your whole physical being feels it. And that's the kind of compassion Jesus had; when He saw the people who desperately needed Him, He was moved through His whole being. This is how much Jesus loves you. He has so much compassion for you.

And imagine what it would be like if we showed just an ounce of this kind of compassion for others. When you see people, do you see them as Jesus sees them? Or do you judge them and criticize them for not being like you? Jesus saw their need and, from His entire being, felt compassion for them. But it just wasn't a feeling; He did something about it! So, how are you showing Christ-like compassion to others?

"But You, O Lord, are a God full of compassion, and gracious, Longsuffering and abundant in mercy and truth" (Psalm 86:15).

"The Lord is gracious and full of compassion, Slow to anger and great in mercy" (Psalm 145:8).

"Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous" (1 Peter 3:8).

Slander is Indestructible

2014-03-05T15:11:00.001-05:00

By ALAN JACOBS • January 30, 2013, 2:02 PM

Few American publishers these days will fact-check an assertion about the perfidy of Christians (or of religious believers more generally). And Yale University Press apparently continues that practice of benign neglect of gross error in publishing Susan Jacoby’s new book about Robert Ingersoll. My friend and colleague Tim Larsen reviews Jacoby’s book:

If American atheism is a struggling subculture that is still producing hagiographies, it is also a sectarian enclave which is given to its own, alternative, conspiracy-theory views of events. Mainstream scholars have long debunked the myth that Christianity has been historically opposed to science. Even a 20th-century agnostic scientist such as Stephen Jay Gould knew that historical scholarship made such a view untenable. This discredited perspective continues to circulate in the echo chamber of popular atheism, however, and Jacoby has imbibed it.

Worse, in order to illustrate it, she leads with the most damning example she knows: that Christians opposed the use of anesthetics for women in labor because Genesis is supposed to teach that childbearing should be painful. Especially Calvinists, we are informed, believed that “new drugs to ease pain were ungodly.” Alas, this is completely an urban legend perpetuated by an ill-informed atheist subculture. If the warfare-of-faith-and-science myth is the equivalent of thinking that President Obama is anti-American, then the anesthetics clincher to prove it makes one a “birther” in another sense. (For a scholarly demolition of this atheist urban legend, see Ronald L. Numbers (ed.),Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion, Harvard University Press, 2010.)

Here’s another example:

The first of Jacoby’s two appendices is a letter that Ingersoll wrote against vivisection. This is the humane Bob that we all love at his best. Nevertheless, for Jacoby’s polemical purposes, it is still a part of her enclave’s groundless and twisted conspiracy thinking. She imagines that cruelty to animals was happening because it was “justified by biblical precepts.” It is strange to imagine this counter-factual history in which ministers of the Gospel were giving addresses across the nation in favor of vivisection.

Who was actually doing that? The scientists and medical researchers who Jacoby has heroically benefiting mankind by defying and supplanting the clerics. Who actually founded the American Anti-Vivisection Society? Caroline Earle White, an adult convert to Roman Catholicism (a form of Christianity that comes in for Jacoby’s special ire.)

It’s fascinating, in a dreary sort of way, to see how many things people write about religion that they just know to be true, and that are never looked up because editors and proofreaders also just know them to be true. Consider for instance the myth that Christians long believed and taught that the earth was flat.
Myths of this kind are ineradicable, for reasons Mark Twain explained long ago when giving his “Advice to Youth”:

There is in Boston a monument of the man who discovered anesthesia; many people are aware, in these latter days, that that man didn’t discover it at all, but stole the discovery from another man. Is this truth mighty, and will it prevail? Ah no, my hearers, the monument is made of hardy material, but the lie it tells will outlast it a million years. An awkward, feeble, leaky lie is a thing which you ought to make it your unceasing study to avoid; such a lie as that has no more real permanence than an average truth. Why, you might as well tell the truth at once and be done with it. A feeble, stupid, preposterous lie will not live two years — except it be a slander upon somebody. It is indestructible, then of course, but that is no merit of yours.

Read the entire article and other stories like it here

Tenn. State University Requires Students to Wear Trackable IDs

2014-03-05T13:26:00.001-05:00

By Alec Torres - February 28, 2014

Beginning Saturday, March 1, students and staff at Tennessee State University will be required to present identification badges at any time that can also track their movements in and out of buildings, according to a local-news report.

Read the Entire Story Here

WATCH THE ENTIRE VIDEO BELOW

AMERICAN ATHEISTS PRESIDENT: CONSERVATIVES 'PRETEND CHRISTIANITY STILL HOLDS WATER' IN USA

2014-03-02T23:18:00.001-05:00

by DR. SUSAN BERRY 1 Mar 2014

In an interview with Salon, the president of American Atheists reviewed the decision of the American Conservative Union (ACU) to rescind his organization’s invitation to CPAC. David Silverman charges that the ACU is both “pretending” that “atheists aren’t relevant” and that “Christianity still holds water in American society.”

When asked about his reported “pledge” to “attack the very idea that Christianity is an important element of conservatism,” Silverman responded that while “I did say that I was going to attack the idea that Christianity and conservatism were inseparable,” he was not waging “an attack on people of faith.”

“I wanted to raise the awareness that there were atheists in the ranks, and I wanted to raise the awareness that those atheists – at least some of them – think that Christianity can easily and should easily be divorced from conservatism,” Silverman told Josh Eidelson of Slate.

Practically in the same breath that Silverman said Christianity no longer “holds water in America,” he also stated, “There is nothing in my tone that sounded aggressive toward a person, or trashed Christianity in any way.”

Eidelson reminded Silverman that American Atheists’ public relations director recently wrote:

Setting aside the fact that religions are dangerous and false, separation of religion and government is absolutely necessary because if any religion co-opts legislature, it means that no other religion is free to practice as that legislature pertains to their beliefs. The range of applications is nearly unlimited: Marriage equality, right-to-die, abortion, birth control, sex ed, science education, science funding, religious school funding, liquor sales, business hours, employment discrimination, the list goes on and on and on.

“If your group has different politics on these issues than CPAC – and most of the people at CPAC – why should they have you at their conference?” Eidelson asked.

“The reason I wanted to go is to raise the awareness that CPAC is throwing away conservatives. CPAC is shoving conservatives off to the side,” Silverman replied. “Conservatism is declining, obviously… And the reason that they are suffering is because they are doing the wrong thing, by taking the fastest growing… religious demographic in the country… and shoving it off to the side for the sake of Jesus.”

Ironically, Silverman conceptualizes atheism itself as a “religion” at the same time he also wants Christians, at least, to cast to the side those ideas and people Christian conservatives hold in reverence. Somehow, Silverman comes across as sounding intolerant.

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

KKK flyers appear in Chesterfield neighborhood. Should hate speech be outlawed or is it freedom of speech?

2014-03-02T12:40:00.001-05:00

Posted by Kirby Harris

First, I must say I find any kind of hate or hate speech despicable and whish it didn’t exist. But do I or many of us through our government have the right to silence it?

The First Amendment protects free speech. Should that include hate speech? What is hate speech? Who decides what hate speech is and hate speech is not?

Is saying you believe homosexuality is immoral hate speech? When a black leader says white people are this or white people are that and stereotype them negatively is that hate speech?

If I say black people are A or B based on my assumptions could that be considered hate speech?

If a person whose ancestors are from India says a lot of white people in West Virginia inner cities are uneducated (note I did not say stupid) and poor. This is a fact for whites in West Virginia inner cites just like it’s a fact for blacks in many other inner cities around the nation based on the statistics. Are facts hate speech?

Does the old adage about indecency, smut or pornography apply? I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.

What if someone decides something is hate speech that isn’t hate speech? Could you find yourself at the wrong end of law based on your statements? Should we try and define hate speech in legislation that could be wildly misinterpreted or liberally applied, making criminals out of people who are not criminals? Are people free to espouse their hate, no matter how unpopular?

A Facebook Friend of mine, Randal Loftland, eloquently put it like this:

“The first amendment protects speech, however popular or unpopular the speech might be.

Likewise, freedom of association protects us from the government managing our relationships however popular, unpopular or distasteful others might find it and a free market capitalist economic system punishes (see Paula Deen) businesses that partake in practices that run counter to the sensibilities of our culture. Businesses that are openly bigoted will pay the price in the free market.”

Again, I personally find any kind of hate or hate speech despicable and whish it did not exist. But I also am a strong advocate of the First Amendment and the that it protects Free Speech, no matter how disgusting or popular. This is because I am against the tyranny of the majority against the minority just as I am against the tyranny of the minority over the majority like we witnessed during apartheid in South Africa, where the minority of whites tyrannized the majority black population.

No majority should harm minority and no minority should harm a majority. We should all be equal under the law, that includes haters. If we want our speech to be always free, then we must protect even the vile speech of bigots.

Sir Thomas Moore, expert legal scholar said it best in this exchange:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Replace the word devil with Hater, Bigot, Klansman, Nazi, Westborough Baptist, Black Supremacist or some may replace it with Christian, and then you should see the flaw in taking away the right of vile or unpopular speech.

It fully sums up the fact that if you allow the government to create a law that takes away any man’s rights, afforded to him by nature, no matter how vile or unpopular, then when the vile and hateful people come into power, like they did under Apartheid in South Africa, then they can use those same laws to take that right from you.

Source Article for Commentary:

KKK flyers appear in Chesterfield neighborhood

Posted on: 11:43 pm, March 1, 2014, by Chelsea Rarrick, updated on: 09:39am, March 2, 2014

To Discriminate or Not to Discriminate, That is the Question?

2014-03-01T19:03:00.001-05:00

By Kirby Harris

The government forcing a Christian who opposes homosexual marriages to bake a cake for a homosexual couple’s wedding IS like the government forcing a black man to bake a cake for KKK wedding. Or government forcing a Jew to sell to a Nazi.
Now please don’t send me nasty comments saying that I am comparing gays to Nazi’s or Klansmen, because I unequivocally am NOT!!!

I just believe that a person who owns a business should be able to refuse to do business with anyone they choose for any reason. That they have a right to, no matter how repugnant or noble their reason. Its called freedom.

I personally would refuse to serve or sell a product to a Klansman, a Nazi or a black supremacist.

Besides why would you want the government to force someone, who hates or opposes you, to sell you a product and make them rich? Again, why would you want one who hates or opposes you to profit off you?

A Facebook Friend of mine, Randal Loftland, eloquently put it like this:

“If we're going to err on the side of personal liberty, a business person should be able to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason however untoward others might find it. The first amendment protects speech, however popular or unpopular the speech might be.

Likewise, freedom of association protects us from the government managing our relationships however popular, unpopular or distasteful others might find it and a free market capitalist economic system punishes (see Paula Deen) businesses that partake in practices that run counter to the sensibilities of our culture. Businesses that are openly bigoted will pay the price in the free market.”

Now many of you may say, well does this mean you want to go back to segregation or the Jim Crow Period? Well, if you are genuinely asking me this, and its not a strawman question designed to derail the argument, then I will answer you this:

No, of course not! That’s absurd. I am personally against discrimination without a valid reason. And by valid reason I mean you are morally opposed to something another human does. But I add that person even has the the right as outlined in the Constitution to freely associate or not associate with whom they chose, this includes to discriminate, even through their business, for any reason, not just a reason I, the government or others see as valid.

Remember Jim Crow and the lunch counter’s were because of government laws discriminating against blacks, not necessarily from all the private business owners wishing to discriminate, though many did choose to discriminate like Woolworth's, who continued this policy through the 1980s, but the free market caused them to finally close because of their racist policies.

So I must clarify, that even though private people and entities may discriminate against any one for any reason, the government should NOT ever be allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason, because they serve ALL the people not just some. The people are the government’s creator and give it all its authority to govern. But a business is created only to serve it’s creator aka the business owner. So a private person is different, no matter how wrong he may be or you think he may be for discriminating, he has that right, including through his business.

Recently, a law in Arizona was passed in both houses and sent to the governor to sign. Advocates said it was a ‘religious freedom’ bill. Those who oppose it say it is a bill that makes discrimination legal and would send us back to Jim Crow. The Republican Governor vetoed it, stating:

Brewer said, “Senate bill 1062 does not address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona. I’ve not heard of one example in Arizona where business owner's religious liberty has been violated.”

She said the bill was too broadly worded and could result in “unintended and negative consequences.”

Myself and most Libertarians that I have talked to or read disagree with the part of the law that prohibits lawsuits agaisnt businesses who discriminate based on religious reasons because anyone should be able to sue anyone for any reason. But as far as allowing anyone to discriminate for any reason concur with the quote I posted above by Randall Loftland. That basically says that an individual, even through their business, should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason, though they don’t agree with discrimination itself. Like the the Token Libertarian Girl Julie Borowski does in her new video:

Should Businesses Be Allowed to Discriminate Against Gay People?

Many conservatives and religious freedom advocates claim it protects religious freedom. Here’s what a recent Breitbart News article says about the Bill and the veto:

The vetoed bill was similar to existing Arizona law, except that it made explicit that small business owners could make such claims. It is thought small business owners are already covered under existing federal and even Arizona law, but similarly covered small business owners in other states have been prosecuted for refusing to provide services to same-sex weddings. The owners of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado faced jail time for declining such a request, as did a photographer in New Mexico.

Brewer was under tremendous pressure from moderate GOP leaders, including her own home-state Senator John McCain and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney. A coalition of 80 large corporations threatened that such a bill would harm business interests in Arizona. And statements from the NFL stoked speculation that the sports giant would pull out of Arizona for the scheduled 2015 Super Bowl, something that would have cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars.

The veto capped weeks of intense debate during which opponents to the bill made increasingly wild claims, including that under the bill gays could be denied medical service or even simple cups of coffee or slices of pizza. Proponents insisted that claimants under the bill would have had a high bar to prove their claim and that the courts could still assert a substantial interest in striking the claim down.

Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation and one of the leaders in the national marriage fight told Breitbart News, “The Arizona religious liberty bill was a good piece of public policy. But because of constant misrepresentation in the media, a bill that never mentioned gays, lesbians, marriage, or same-sex anything was labeled anti-gay Jim Crow legislation. In truth, the bill merely protected religious liberty and took nothing away from anyone.

“Everyone should be free to live and love as they choose, but no one should demand that government coerce others into celebrating their relationship. All Americans should remain free to believe and act in the public square based on their beliefs about marriage without fear of government penalty.”

Read the entire story here

Liberals and gay marriage advocates hailed it as a victory against hate and discrimination as shown in the picture by AP: I believe this is just the beginning of this battle where those who stand by their religious convictions and follow their Constitutional right to not associate with people and actions they see as morally and religiously objectionable continue to follow their convictions, and those who believe they don’t have a right to do this continue to use government to force these people to go against their convictions in the name of fighting hate and discrimination.

Who Is Jesus? How to know God Personally!

2014-02-20T11:54:00.001-05:00

You were created to know God in a personal way—to have a relationship with Him, through His Son, Jesus Christ. How do you start a relationship with God?

Realize that you are a sinner.

No matter how good a life we try to live, we still fall miserably short of being a good person. That is because we are all sinners. The Bible says, "No one is good—not even one." We cannot become who we are supposed to be without Jesus Christ.

Recognize that Jesus Christ died on the cross for you.

The Bible tells us that "God showed His great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while were still sinners." This is the Good News, that God loves us so much that He sent His only Son to die in our place when we least deserved it.

Repent of your sin.

The Bible tells us, "Repent of your sins and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped away." The word repent means to change our direction in life. Instead of running from God, we can run toward Him.

Receive Jesus Christ into your life.

Becoming a Christian is not merely believing some creed or going to church. It is having Christ Himself take residence in your life and heart. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in . . ." If you would like to have a relationship with Christ, simply pray this prayer and mean it in your heart:

"Dear Lord Jesus, I know I am a sinner. I believe You died for my sins. Right now, I turn from my sins and open the door of my heart and life. I confess You as my personal Lord and Savior. Thank You for saving me. Amen."

If you said above prayer and want to know more then:

Click Here for more information and guidance

*Above Excerpt From Harvest.org

Click Here to Learn more about Jesus, Knowing God and Salvation

Sovereign Living that is self sufficient, off the grid and as far away from government rule as possible.

2014-02-08T16:10:00.001-05:00

by Kirby Harris ~ WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW ~

Our family, the Harris family, are trying to be as self sufficient, healthy, raise our own food, not be dependent on centralized systems for anything, wishing to be off the grid and currently to do it in a suburban setting as much as humanly possible.

We are not perfect and are far from this goal, but its actually a journey and a life long process. So we are learning and trying to pass along any information that can help others to travel on this same journey.

Also, many are seeing that fighting and fixing this political system from within the system may be a lost cause. And instead of wasting their lives to the detriment of their families are opting to focus on living lives outside of the system as best they can and instead living happy productive lives with their family and like minded friends in community. Opting to teach others about liberty and self sufficiency within community.

I found this online reality based video series that does just this, and it is just as high quality and is just as excellent in entertaining content as most corporate TV/Cable created shows.

Sovereign Living is a docu-reality TV show that follows the Blush family as they transition from a lifestyle of hardcore political activism to the farm life.

Rather than fighting a system they find tyrannical, John and Cat want to lead by example and live a sovereign lifestyle. This means providing their own food, water, energy and community defense needs.

In an age of large governmental influence, the Blush family aims to explore and learn about how they can take care of themselves and their community, voluntarily.

Themes include: Self-sufficiency, Resolving crime without police, Alternative economies, Alternative education, Home birth, Natural health

Warnings: There is some mild cussing, and though I don’t share the spiritual faith as those on the show, the lessons mentioned above and in the video can be used by those of all faiths or those with none.

Local Law Enforcement Using NSA Spying Techniques

2013-12-10T15:13:00.001-05:00

More tools for an all powerful anti-christ to keep tabs on the entire world using technology against us?

~ Comment by Admin

LAW ENFORCEMENT USING METHODS FROM NSA PLAYBOOK

John Kelly, USATODAY - 5:10 p.m. EST December 8, 2013 - Posted by Site Admin

The National Security Agency isn't the only government entity secretly collecting data from people's cellphones. Local police are increasingly scooping it up, too. Armed with new technologies, including mobile devices that tap into cellphone data in real time, dozens of local and state police agencies are capturing information about thousands of cellphone users at a time, whether they are targets of an investigation or not, according to public records obtained by USA TODAY and Gannett newspapers and TV stations.

Armed with new technologies, including mobile devices that tap into cellphone data in real time, dozens of local and state police agencies are capturing information about thousands of cellphone users at a time, whether they are targets of an investigation or not, according to public records obtained by USA TODAY and Gannett newspapers and TV stations.

The records, from more than 125 police agencies in 33 states, reveal:

• About one in four law-enforcement agencies have used a tactic known as a "tower dump," which gives police data about the identity, activity and location of any phone that connects to the targeted cellphone towers over a set span of time, usually an hour or two. A typical dump covers multiple towers, and wireless providers, and can net information from thousands of phones.

In most states, police can get many kinds of cellphone data without obtaining a warrant, which they'd need to search someone's house or car. Privacy advocates, legislators and courts are debating the legal standards with increasing intensity as technology — and the amount of sensitive information people entrust to their devices evolves.

Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) say the swelling ability by even small-town police departments to easily and quickly obtain large amounts of cellphone data raises questions about the erosion of people's privacy as well as their Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

"I don't think that these devices should never be used, but at the same time, you should clearly be getting a warrant," said Alan Butler of EPIC.

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

TAGS: NSA, local, law enforcement, cops, state, police, Virginia, fourth amendment, privacy, warrant, civil liberties, cellphone, data, tower dump, National Security Agency, government entity, USA TODAY, Gannett newspapers and TV stations, identity, activity, location, EPIC, advocates, legislators, courts, legal standards, technology, sensitive information, devices

Amazon to Launch Drone Delivery … The Jetsons or Surveillance Dystopia?

2013-12-02T16:39:00.001-05:00

COMMENTARY BY KIRBY HARRIS

Amazon.com has announced it wants to use drones to deliver your packages in 30 minutes. Is the widespread use of drones flying around everywhere more than likely with two way video and audio technologies good or bad for us and our privacy?

Could a dictator come to power and rule a nation or the entire world with an iron fist, controlling all who buy and sell. WILL THESE TYPES OF DRONES ALLOW HIM TO DO THIS MORE EASILY?

These drones will know your name, address and what you buy from a central database to deliver to you what you order. Will they talk, listen, video you? Will they have the capacity to spy on you at your front door?
Amazon said: "One day, Prime Air vehicles will be as normal as seeing mail trucks on the road today."

If this is true of Amazon vehicles being as normal and frequent as mail or delivery trucks, then this will also be true of many other companies and government agencies. Will this be like the Jetsons and be no big deal or will it make life a surveillance and control dystopia by giving the a dictator the tools to control us through surveillance and commerce.

STORY AND VIDEO BELOW

By Alistair Barr, USA TODAY - 9:27 a.m. EST December 2, 2013

Amazon.com is testing delivering packages using drones, CEO Jeff Bezos said on the CBS TV news show 60 Minutes Sunday.
The idea would be to deliver packages as quickly as possible using the small, unmanned aircraft, through a service the company is calling Prime Air, the CEO said.

Bezos played a demo video on 60 Minutes that showed how the aircraft, also known as octocopters, will pick up packages in small yellow buckets at Amazon's fulfillment centers and fly through the air to deliver items to customers after they hit the buy button online at Amazon.com.

The goal of the new delivery system is to get packages into customers' hands in 30 minutes or less, the world's largest Internet retailer said. Putting Prime Air into commercial use will take "some number of years" as Amazon develops the technology further and waits for the Federal Aviation Administration to come up with rules and regulations, the company added.

Bezos told 60 Minutes that the service could be up and running in as few as four years — although he noted that he is an optimist when it comes to such things.

"One day, Prime Air vehicles will be as normal as seeing mail trucks on the road today," the company said.
This is the latest futuristic effort by Bezos, who was an e-commerce pioneer in the 1990s and more recently popularized the e-reader — while pursuing personal projects such as private spaceflight and a 10,000-year clock built inside a mountain.

Read Entire Article Here

CLICK BELOW TO WATCH VIDEO

TAGS: Drone, Amazon, Delivery, 30 minutes, Surveillance, Dystopia, Jeff Bezos, 60 Minutes, CBS, Alistair Barr, USA TODAY

Virginia 2013 Election Results in Map in Real Time

2013-11-05T16:23:00.001-05:00

We are proud to present:

Virginia 2013 Election Results in Map in Real Time

brought you to you by the Huffington Post

Watch Video of Ron Paul Touting Ken Cuccinelli at Rally the evening before the election and urges ‘nullification’

2013-11-05T03:41:00.001-05:00

Watch the video of Ron Paul Touting Ken Cuccinelli in

Richmond Virginia, Monday, November 4th, 2013

Virginia Liberty Party Gubernatorial Endorsements Statement

2013-11-04T20:15:00.001-05:00

By the Virginia Liberty Party Board

The Virginia Liberty Party Board has had quite a problem deciding whom to endorse in the Governor’s race, and felt as a body that we could not put our endorsement stamp 100% on any candidate for Governor, Lt. Governor or Attorney General, but felt a statement should be made before the election, even in this late hour.

We endorse no candidate for Governor, Lt Governor or Attorney General, but we have stated who we suggest are the best candidates closest to Liberty to vote for on on Tuesday, November 5th.

Our Statement on the Governor’s race:

We feel the two candidates who come close to being Liberty Candidates are Ken Cuccinelli and Robert Sarvis. Though both candidates fall short in various areas to be a true Liberty Candidate, we all agree that Cuccinelli is the most electable of the two. We encourage Liberty minded folks to vote their one of these two men as their conscious directs.

We can in no way shape or form endorse or encourage Liberty minded people to vote for Terry McAuliffe. He is as anti-Liberty as you can get, and would destroy personal Liberty in Virginia.

Cuccinelli and Sarvis would fight for Liberty for the most part, though not in every area. So again we encourage you to vote for Cuccinelli or Sarvis.

Our Statement on the Lt. Governor’s race:

We feel the candidate who comes close to being a Liberty Candidate in this race is E. W. Jackson. Though he falls short in various areas to be a true Liberty Candidate, we all agree that E. W. Jackson is the best choice.

We can in no way shape or form endorse or encourage Liberty minded people to vote for Ralph Northam. He isn’t very Liberty oriented in most of his positions.

Jackson would fight for Liberty for the most part, though not in every area. So again we encourage you to vote for E. W. Jackson.

Our Statement on the Attorney General's race:

We feel the candidate who comes close to being a Liberty Candidate in this race is Mark Obenshain. Though he falls short in various areas to be a true Liberty Candidate, we all agree that Mark Obenshain is the best choice.
We can in no way shape or form endorse or encourage Liberty minded people to vote for Mark Herring. He isn’t very Liberty oriented in most of his positions.

Obenshain would fight for Liberty for the most part, though not in every area. So again we encourage you to vote for Mark Obenshain.

A Liberty Analysis for Voters in the Governor’s Race

2013-11-03T17:16:00.001-05:00

By Jamie Radtke, Donna Holt, Robert Dean, Chris Stearns and Russ Moulton

KEY FACTORS TO CONSIDER for Liberty-minded Voters

1. Economics / Role of Government. McAuliffe clearly advances the Keynesian/Big Government spending approach. Sarvis has recently repudiated Austrian Economics in a Reason.com interview, saying he prefers more “mainstream economics”1. Cuccinelli is the closest to the Austrian Economics model and the most likely to succeed in paring back state government, spending and taxes. He has said, "I'm all-American except for my economics - and I consider that part of myself Austrian." His aggressive pursuit against ObamaCare and the EPA, his support of the Firearm Freedom Bill to restore federalism, and his high-profile tax cut proposal are indications of his reliability here.

2. Taxes. McAuliffe’s massive spending promises would require at least a $1700 per year tax increase on a family of four. Sarvis refused to support any tax cuts when pressed repeatedly in his MSNBC interview with Chuck Todd2. Cuccinelli has proposed a tax cut plan that will reduce a typical family of four’s tax burden by $700 per year.

3. Electability. A recent Quinnipiac poll shows the race has tightened to within 4% (+/- 2.9% MOE) with Sarvis at 9% and falling3. A Wentzel strategies poll yesterday also has the race within 1%4. Cuccinelli is clearly gaining, while McAuliffe and Sarvis are slipping. McAuliffe and Cuccinelli are the only candidates with any realistic chance of winning and impacting public policy dramatically on Liberty issues.

4. ObamaCare. Medicaid expansion is the real issue in terms of what states can actually do to pushback against ObamaCare. The proposed Medicaid Expansion in Virginia under ObamaCare includes adding some 400,000 people to the permanent Medicaid rolls at a cost of some $3B per year to taxpayers. McAuliffe has been a strong advocate of ObamaCare, and is pushing this Medicaid Expansion as a centerpiece of his campaign. In the Chuck Todd interview2, Sarvis came out in favor of Medicaid Expansion and declined to denounce ObamaCare. Cuccinelli is the only candidate who will block Medicaid expansion as Governor, and of course was a national leader contesting ObamaCare and the unconstitutional mandate in Federal Court. This race has become a referendum on Obamacare for many voters.

5. Transportation’s $6 Billion Tax Hike. McAuliffe has been “all-in” on McDonnell’s $6 billion tax hike for transportation. Cuccinelli opposed it, and offered alternatives without raising taxes. Sarvis has been promoting higher gas taxes and a new, ultra-invasive “Vehicle-Miles-Driven” tax5. In this scheme, the state government puts a GPS transponder on your car, so they can track your movements and tax you per mile driven. Among the many horrible problems with this invasive tax: it tells the government WHERE you are at any time (i.e. the liquor store, a political rally, an AA meeting, gun-shop, etc). It is also extremely regressive, hitting the working poor who tend to travel from more rural low-cost areas into the cities for employment.

6. Life Issues. McAuliffe and Sarvis do not support liberty for all, only those they deem worthy. Both strongly favor unrestricted abortions for sex-selection, partial-birth abortion, and abortion as a means of birth control. Cuccinelli is pro-life with the exception of when the mother’s life is in danger. We believe ALL individual’s rights, including the right to life, must be protected and defended.

We respectfully conclude that not only is Ken Cuccinelli the ONLY choice for Liberty-minded voters -- Ken is the BEST choice Liberty-minded voters have EVER had for Governor of Virginia.

We are proud to join Ron Paul, Rand Paul and thousands of other Liberty-minded activists in voting for Ken Cuccinelli for Governor on Tuesday Nov 5th. REGISTER HERE

Please join us and Ron Paul at Monday Night's Ron Paul Rally for Ken 8pm at the Richmond Convention Center, Hall C! This is the Keynote and final Rally for Ken before Tuesday's Election.

In Liberty,
Jamie Radtke
Donna Holt
Robert Dean
Chris Stearns
Russ Moulton

PS. Ken is the best and only choice for Liberty in VA. Latest polls today show this race is a dead-heat. We encourage all Liberty-minded voters to donate to Ken's campaign now, and vote for Ken Tuesday Nov 5th! If you won't be around on Tuesday -- or think you might not -- please vote in-person absentee at your local Voter Registrar's office this Saturday (all Registrar's offices are open Saturday for 8 hours).

References:
1. Reason.com interview. http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/02/robert-sarvis-libertarian-candidate-for
2. MSNBC Chuck Todd Interview. http://video.msnbc.msn.com/daily-rundown/53145353#53145353
3. Politico Article on Quinnipiac Poll. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/virginia-governor-race-ken-cuccinelli-terry-mcauliffe-poll-99080.html
4. Washington Examiner article on latests polls. http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2538183
5. Virginia Prosperity Project Interview.

Paid for Authorized by Russ Moulton.

Not authorized or paid for by any candidate or candidates committee.

KEYWORDS: Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Governor, Ken Cuccinelli, Liberty, Movement, Jamie Radtke, Donna Holt, Robert Dean, Chris Stearns, Russ Moulton, Obamacare, Chuck Todd, Terry McAuliffe, Virginia, Medicaid Expansion, Higher Taxes, Lower Taxes, Robert Sarvis, abortions for sex-selection, partial-birth abortion, abortion, birth control, pro-life, individual’s rights, right to life, protected, defended, Liberty-minded, activists, Economics, Role of Government. Keynesian, economics, Big Government, spending, Austrian Economics, Reason.com, interview, mainstream economics, state government, spending and taxes, EPA, Firearm Freedom Bill, federalism, $1700 per year tax increase, family of four, MSNBC, $700 per year, Electability, Quinnipiac poll, Wentzel strategies poll, public policy, Liberty issues, block Medicaid expansion, unconstitutional, individual mandate, Constitution, Transportation, $6 Billion, Tax Hike, Bob McDonnell, higher gas taxes, ultra-invasive, Vehicle-Miles-Driven, state government, GPS transponder, car, black box, NSA, per mile driven, liquor store, political rally, AA meeting, gun-shop, regressive tax, working poor, travel, rural, low-cost, cities, employment,

Sarvis responds to the attacks by his campaign on Donna Holt and calling Agenda 21 a conspiracy theory

2013-11-02T15:45:00.001-04:00

by Kirby Harris

Recently there was an attack by the Sarvis Campaign on Liberty Movement Hero and Activist Donna Holt and calling Agenda 21 a whacko conspiracy theory that Donna was spreading. I sent a letter to Sarvis directly through his Facebook Accounts.

My letter to him is laid out here in this article by me.

Robert Sarvis has responded to me directly. The him referred to in his response is his campaign manager John Vaught LaBeaume:

Robert Sarvis

Hi Kirby. I haven't actually seen the tweet but have heard there's quite a reaction to it. I certainly wasn't involved in the tweet and have already raked him over the coals for injecting his own editorial comments. I previously answered a question about Agenda 21 in this video at 2:10 http://youtu.be/cwM8CwhESkg

As for Donna Holt, I know she is involved in the liberty movement. I haven't met her, I don't think, but I have recently seen her name explicitly associated with blatant and clearly intentional misrepresentations of my positions. I don't know what was said about her in any tweets but the smear campaign is just rank dishonesty.

Here is the screen capture:

Keywords: Donna Holt, Robert Sarvis, Agenda 21, John Vaught LaBeaume, campaign manager, c4l, Campaign for Liberty, Ron Paul, Ken Cuccinelli, Terry McAuliffe, Sarvis Press Shop, conspiracy theories, UN, Twitter

@SarvisPress @bluesidetales @David_Boaz