SelwynDuke.com

Obama Reacts to House Prohibition of Abortion Funding

2009-11-11T11:03:34-05:00

By Selwyn Duke

In a legislative clash that pitted Democrats against their fellows, the House voted Saturday to pass the Stupak Amendment. Sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), Brad Ellsworth, (D-Ind.) and Joe Pitts, (R-Pa.), the measure prohibits federal money from being used to fund abortion through the Democrats’ 1,990-page healthcare plan.

The amendment passed by the comfortable margin of 240-194, with every Republican and 64 Democrats voting yay. Alex Wayne at CQ.com provides the details, writing:

Read the rest here.

Jihad and America: The Land that Cried Sheep

2009-11-09T09:40:16-05:00

By Selwyn Duke

People were shocked when Major Nidal Malik Hasan brutally targeted fellow servicemen at Texas’ Fort Hood with pistol fire, murdering 12 and wounding 31. Yet, there is an aspect of this story that is far more shocking — or, at least, one that would be considered so in a sane society.

We now know that Major Hasan did not hide his true loyalties, often expressing pro-Islamist sentiments. For example, the Telegraph quotes former Hasan colleague Col. Terry Lee as saying, “[Hasan] was making outlandish comments condemning our foreign policy and claimed Muslims had the right to rise up and attack Americans,” that Hasan admitted to being “happy” upon learning of the Muslim who killed a soldier at an Arkansas military recruitment center and that he once said “maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Time Square.” Chron.com reports that Hasan had created “Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats” and that “One of the Web postings that authorities reviewed is a blog that equates suicide bombers with a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.”

Read the rest here.

2009-11-08T13:12:45-05:00

Member of Major Hasan's Mosque: "I honestly have no pity for them [the Fort Hood victims]"

By Selwyn Duke

Here is a BBC interview with "Duane," a member of the Fort Hood shooter's mosque. A good example of the jihadist mentality harbored by some within our borders, he says that he won't "condemn" Nidal Malik Hasan because the murderer is a "brother."

In all fairness, the interviewer, Gavin Lee, points out that Duane's was a minority view at the mosque. Still, though, we have to wonder how many jihadist-minded Muslims there are in our nation. And how many others are sympathetic enough to remain silent?

An even better question is: How many leftists who facilitate anti-American movements and encourage the invasion of our nation are there?

Answer: tens of millions.

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. — Marcus Tullius Cicero, 58 B.C.

The Blasphemy Resolution Story: A Clarification

2009-11-06T19:41:47-05:00

By Selwyn Duke

Recently I wrote a piece titled "Obama Pushing Secular UN Anti-Free Speech Resolution," wherein I reported on Barack Obama's support of a Muslim-inspired United Nations anti-blasphemy resolution. In it I cited a liberal professor named Jonathan Turley, who wrote the following:

While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any "negative racial and religious stereotyping." The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians.... It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the "Muslim street" and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion.

Shortly after I submitted the piece for publication, I learned that Hillary Clinton said the following, as reported by MSNBC:

"Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters. "I strongly disagree."

Clinton said the United States was opposed to negative depictions of specific faiths and would always fight against belief-based discrimination. But she said a person's ability to practice their religion was entirely unrelated to another person's right to free speech.

This prompted the criticism that I was peddling a lie, a claim which itself is untrue. I had every reason to believe that the story reported by Professor Turley — who I will emphasize again is in Obama's camp ideologically — is true, and I still have no reason to believe it is completely off base. Yet there is a contradiction here that needs to be reconciled.

So I did a little more research. There are many news organs that were criticizing the Obama Administration for advocating the blasphemy resolution, including the Weekly Standard here, although, admittedly, most of them seem to cite Turley as their source. So, what gives? Did Turley get it wrong and did many of us in the "right" media take the bait? Not so fast.

In this WorldnetDaily.com piece, Bob Unruh perhaps clarifies Turley's point, writing:

WND recently reported on the U.S. sponsorship – along with Egypt – of a separate plan at the United Nations that purportedly would protect free speech.
Vessey said the move was an effort on the part of the U.S. to advocate for free speech in a way that would defuse the threat of "defamation" proposals. However, critics of the resolution said even that would be a failure.
That's because the "free speech" resolution would have nations criminalize "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."
Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation told WND the issue is not about free speech at all but about installing international precedents to stifle any criticism of Islam – the same goal as the defamation proposal.

So let us be clear on the issue here: The Obama Administration has co-sponsored a second resolution, one that, as Turley said, is weaker than the first.

And here is the crux of the matter: Presumably, the administration would claim that the measure does no violence to the principle of free speech. Critics claim that this isn't the case, that it still constitutes a capitulation to the Islamic states.

So what is the truth? It won't come as a shock to you to hear that I trust Obama and company about as much as a merchant in an Arab bazaar. It's entirely possible that President Hussein is trying to have it both ways, pandering to the Arab street and lending support to another hate-speech principle on the one hand, while having his secretary of state issue a bold proclamation in defense of free speech to mollify critics at home on the other. Note, though, that at the end of the day, Hillary Clinton's words are just that, words. Actions speak far louder.

Of course, it should also be mentioned that such "weakened" resolutions with fuzzy language are subject to interpretation and make rationalization, that liberal bailiwick, easy. Thus, it's entirely possible that the Obama Administration believes its rhetoric.

It's also possible you're being manipulated.

Whatever the case, if my report can be shown definitively to be in error, I'll gladly print a retraction. As of now, however, it would be premature.

Yes, it is confusing, but that is always the case when dealing with ideological shape shifters.

The Fort Hood Massacre: Is it Really True that All Mainstream Religions are Peaceful?

2009-11-06T11:30:18-05:00

An apparent Muslim jihadist strikes again — this time at Texas’ Fort Hood.

By Selwyn Duke

We’ve all heard about yesterday’s tragedy at Fort Hood military base in Texas. At 1:30 p.m., army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan went on a rampage, targeting fellow soldiers and others for destruction at the base’s Soldier Readiness Processing Center and the adjacent Howze Theater. Using two semi-automatic handguns, Hasan claimed 12 lives and wounded 31 people before being shot multiple times by local police (it appears the other soldiers weren’t armed). The gunman was then taken into custody and brought to a local hospital. It’s said his life is not in danger.

While there’s no “official” word on Hasan’s motives, it’s not hard to connect the dots. A man of Jordanian descent and a pious Muslim, the major’s loyalties didn’t seem to lie with the nation he’d sworn to protect. Instead, he had often expressed support for Islamic jihadists, once saying that Muslims needed to “rise up” against the aggressors (presumably the U.S. and the West in general). Expanding on this, Philip Sherwell at the Telegraph reports on the testimonials of retired officer and former colleague of Hasan’s Col. Terry Lee, writing:

Read the rest here.

Catholic Bishops: The Faithful Should Not Support Current Healthcare Reform Bills

2009-11-04T01:36:23-05:00

By Selwyn Duke

Upset about the inclusion of abortion funding and mandates in the healthcare reform bills currently before Congress, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is blanketing 19,000 parishes across the nation with a bulletin insert instructing the faithful to oppose the bills in their present form.

The USCCB relates the substance of the insert in a news release, writing:

"Health care reform should be about saving lives, not destroying them," the insert states. It urges readers to contact Senate leaders so they support efforts to "incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights" in health reform legislation.

"If these serious concerns are not addressed, the final bill should be opposed," it adds.

Read the rest here.

Reader Email: Agenda 21 for Dummies

2009-11-02T01:53:16-05:00

By Savant Noir

Sustainable Development is a framework of thought to "save our planet" by harmonizing eco-systems with industry and population. In its most modern iteration (inasmuch it has been around a long time), it is the outcome of the Earth Summit, and is organized around "climate change," man's impact on environmental resources and the organic biosphere we live within. It is currently getting notoriety as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which is the Treaty that legally binds all nations to Agenda 21. Although much larger than this, we could summarize that it is the outcome of the Rio Earth Summit where Al Gore unveiled his Inconvenient Truths. It is a blueprint to radically change the entire world in the name of Economic, Social, and Environmental equity.

We ask ourselves, where did Obama’s entire team of Czars’ come from? What is their role? Where did the language for all these massive Bills come from? Most of Obama's czars are from the world of academia and had been contributors to the thoughts that went into this Global Vision as perceived and outlined by the United Nations.

At the Earth Summit meeting Al Gore said: "Americans are going to have to face a wrenching transformation of Society." Mr. Sagar of the Eden Foundation submits, “It is inherently illogical and otherwise irresponsible to suggest that human activity does not possess the potential to alter the Earth’s climate.” Alexander King, Founder of the Club of Rome adds: "Unless we find the means to change our thinking I can see little hope in solving the supreme problem for humanity – its impending extinction.”

And they are steadily putting these "truths" into practice. Just a few weeks ago, the United Nation held the Conference on the World’s Financial and Economic Crisis. UN General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto blatantly moved the conference to denounce the free market system, saying, “Capitalism cannot be reformed…”He went on to say, “Egotism and greed cannot be corrected ...we must go beyond controls and corrections... to create something that strives towards a new paradigm of social coexistence.”

Based upon so-called ‘scientific proof’ that man is killing the planet, an entire framework of thought has evolved to reshape the globe. It makes no difference that this evidence doesn’t even conform to the principles of the Scientific Method, nor even if it did, that it proves man has created climate change. The conclusions from these scientific tests are speculative. What does matter, though, is the importance it has to foisting a political agenda!

The scientific proofs of this political agenda are based on conclusions that are extrapolated from a school of thought known as the "precautionary principle." In a nutshell, the precautionary principle translates to this: If there is any possible risks, stop. If evidence is inconclusive, stop. If there is no proof, stop anyway. As a political agenda, the latter is transformed to mean that in the absence of proof; just repeat what you want others to believe long enough so that they also believe it, then pass legislation to prevent its’ outcome. Clever, isn’t it? This is the "science" created by politicians, and it is this irrationality that is the driving force behind the notion of man-made climate change. It is this irrationality that has concluded that pets and babies are destroying our planet. If politics was not engaged in the influence of people, a better case could be made that fish poop in the ocean, therefore fish are destroying our planet. Sadly, fish don’t pay taxes, so they are allowed to poop us into oblivion.

Although 31,708 U.S. scientists have published research and tried to argue vehemently against the data upon which "the radical transformation of our Society" is being predicated upon, have you heard any of them? They have been silenced, ridiculed, driven out of teaching positions, had Grants cut off, and some even allegedly imprisoned. 'The Plan" will not tolerate dissent. The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is "authored" by approximately 600 scientists. These "authors" are not permitted power of approval over the publication. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.

Sustainable Development theory has encroached upon every American in ways they have not even recognized. The language of Sustainable Development has pervaded our society. When Bush signed us into UNESCO, the education of our children was to teach them global citizenship and environmental stewardship. Globally acceptable "truths" are now:

Global Warming is globally-acceptable truth.

The United Nations’ Declaration on Human Rights is globally-acceptable truth.

Universal health care is globally-acceptable truth.

Environmentally friendly transportation is globally-acceptable truth.

The common good over the individual is globally-acceptable truth.

Sovereign nations as a source of war is globally-acceptable truth.

Global governance for the future peace of man-kind is globally-acceptable truth.

Global citizenship is globally-acceptable truth.

Severe reduction of the population is globally-acceptable truth.

Many people have been forever speaking of some major "conspiracy theory" afoot, and alluding to The North American Union, or the New World Order. They were partly right, although wrong. There is no conspiracy...there is no secret. If this is a conspiracy, it is the worst kept secret ever made by mankind, as it is published everywhere. You can type Sustainable Development in your search engine, and the millions of hits it will return will range from the U.S. Government, the United Nations, every major University, Corporation, NGO's (non-government organizations), and on and on. Wow! Stealthy, aren't they? When last I looked, there were over 26 million hits. Some secret!

Remember, Sustainable Development is the theory. The 'bad guy' is Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is the means to implement the theory. Again, shhhhhh...this is very hush-hush stuff, returning only 58 million hits when put into the search engine! If you want to find out when the noose will tighten about your neck, well that too is well published and is called the Marrakech Transition Process. It only returns a paltry 1 million hits.

G.H. Bush signed Agenda 21 in 1992. He did not need ratification or congressional process because this is not a treaty; it is merely a set of "soft-laws." In 1993 Bill Clinton, by Executive Order, created the President's Council of Sustainable Development. The Council of Czars, if you will.

So while Conservatives flop around ineffectually because they have been so easily duped into dissecting all the content of the massive bills being thrown at us, the context from which it all stems from has been marching forward. Conversely, while Liberals are unwittingly cheering a universal Utopia because the context is being packaged behind a cascade of obfuscations, they fail to look at any content that could dispel the myths. Agenda 21 is completely bi-partisan, for when the coffin lid on America and personal freedoms shuts, we all suffocate together. Meanwhile, the Politicians are laughing at us, realizing how easily manipulated the people are.

The framework for all the language contained in these massive bills coming out of the House is straight out of Agenda 21. Just by reading the 40 chapter titles of this document would give one a pretty good understanding of what is going on if he is in the least politically aware and can connect the dots.

"All biological life has natural cycles of birth and death, and we should learn to accept these natural cycles and teach people that saving lives at birth or extending life at our times end is non-sustainable." In other words, what these Sustainabilists are saying is, "Can't you just have the good grace to simply die, rather than be a strain on Society?" Or "Why can't you just accept your baby was born defective and can never be a contributing member to Society and have the decency to simply let 'it' die." Can this really be happening?

Yes, it is happening.

Every re-iteration of Health Care Reform bills have heavy taxes to be levied against Medical Devices. These devices are the ones used to sustain life, to extend life. Tax them out of business! There are heavy restrictions and taxes to be levied against any/all homeopathic supplements and other natural supplements that will force subscription to only those drugs that are supported by our Regime. Those drugs will become vastly reduced as well, as life extending drugs will be increasingly limited. Cures that make economic sense will be endorsed. Prevention and Extension are deemed non-sustainable.

Two major components of Sustainable Development are de-population/population control and bio-equity. As Cass Sunstein announced, "Animals and all living creatures have equal rights to humans." We may laugh, but they are laughing harder as they reshape the map of the United States in nefarious ways to meet the objectives of Sustainable Development. The political goal (in the name of "climate change") is to have all population living in government-controlled urbanized enclaves, where private transportation choices will become a thing of the past. We are to live, work, and socialize within these cities, brought to you under the lexicon of "smart growth," and all its derivative language.

This can't be true, you may say. Yes it is. The San Joaquin Valley is being starved as their economy is shut-down to protect the smelt. Over 400,000 square miles of the United States is currently being ‘grabbed’ by the Government in the name of the Agenda 21 Wildlands Project, referred to hereafter as TWP (The Wildlands Project). There are currently 39 massive WPs ongoing in the United States this very moment with the objective to engineer population distribution.

TWP is just one of many different ways our land is being grabbed so we can be shuffled into the pre-planned zones of population. Wildlife Preserves, National Parks, National Forests, Heritage Lands, etc., are some of the other numerous ways. It's real noble sounding too! Over the last 10 years the United States has added 27 species to the endangered species list. Over the last 6 months, Cass Sunstein has added 681. What does this mean? It means you have got to go, because this bug has equal rights to you, and you are encroaching upon its equitable rights.

This link will take you to maps that show how our country is to be organized and how our population is to be redistributed. Notice the language used on the map legend. We get to live in "Normal Use -Zones of Cooperation." I could go into great detail about what "Zones of Cooperation" actually means. But trust me, you won't like it. Without delving into this subject matter, suffice it to say there is a plethora of cooperation ongoing with Local and Federal Government Agencies as we speak. These alliances are created via Public/Private Partnerships (PPPs), Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), and Stakeholder Councils. Every State, every County, and most cities already have "cooperative agencies"; this link taking you to just one of hundreds.

I would be remiss if I failed to point out that the Supreme Court upheld the legality of Eminent Domain. Who will get eminent domain privileges? Why cooperating entities of course! Those PPPs are companies that agreed to keep their mouths shut and play ball with this agenda in order to get the goodies and protection of the U.S. Government. Cronyism extraordinaire!

Private property and single family homes are deemed non-sustainable. Cap and Trade is clearly outlined in Agenda 21, and, as you may be aware, if this passes it gives the Federal Government almost full control over your property. The EPA will determine if your house meets the standards it decides (for the moment) are acceptable to them so you can re-sell your home. This is one insidious slippery slope. Yes, your name will still be on the deed, but the choices on how you live in your house will not be left up to you. You get to pay the bills, you have to pay the taxes, and you will have to pay the fines levied against you as the Government starts handing out violation notices. Your house will become your nightmare! Your electricity, air conditioning, heating, water, insulation, roof, windows, doors, etc., will all be subject to new regulations.

Another aspect of Cap and Trade (straight out of Agenda 21) is sustainable water usage. This plays a major role throughout all aspects of Agenda 21. Currently, the average American household uses 100 gals/day of water; this will be limited to 26 gals/day. Cows are non-sustainable, as they require too much water and land and emit too much methane. Both Healthcare and Cap & Trade are taking care of this pesky problem. Hope you like tofu and bean sprouts. These are just a couple of examples among thousands.

It all can be summarized this way: Sustainable Development is essentially the "land grab." The Wildlands Project is the "water grab." Health Care Reform is the "body grab." Cap and Trade is the "private property grab." It is much more complex, of course, but it can readily be discerned when you consider all the new Codex Laws for Agriculture that have been passed, all the enumerated powers given the USDA, EPA, FDA, OSHA, etc. These "grabs" are being enacted in numerous ways, but they all flow from Agenda 21.

This is meant only as a primer, to open your eyes, to make you aware of this "secret" plan to "radically transform America." If you are among the youth of today, feeling a bit aimless and uncertain of your future, the good news is you have a Life Plan, so no need to fret. If you are a citizen that has diligently organized your life and you are obtaining the goals of your Life Plan, well, I have some bad news for you---your plan is being replaced by someone else's plan.

Until you know where the battlefield is, you have no chance of winning the War.

Learn more by participating in a Blog Talk Radio show discussing this matter and what we can do at: http://spinpolitico.com/events/blog-talk-radio-meeting-sunday

The School Where Minorities Weren't Punished for Fear of "Racism" Charges

2009-10-29T23:29:05-04:00

By Selwyn Duke

Recently I wrote about the Tucson Unified School District, where the powers-that-be decided that punishment should be meted out based on racial quotas. And during the last couple of days I posted videos of British citizens being punished for expressing politically incorrect ideas (one couple ran afoul of the "law," to use the term loosely, because they had the temerity to debate religion with a Moslem). Now there is another story out of the U.K. that's in the same vein. It concerns a school named Ridgeway, a place in which the administrators were so afraid of being branded "racists" (among the other psychological problems with which they, being thoroughly modern liberals, are no doubt afflicted) that they refused to hold minority students accountable for misbehavior. What was the result?

A gang of Pakistani students who became so brazen that they graduated from adolescent misbehavior to the criminal variety, beating a white student to within an inch of his life.

The victim is named Henry Webster, and the Daily Mail reports on his ordeal, writing:

Instead of preparing for college or university, he has been left with learning difficulties, short-term memory loss, and epilepsy. Henry will settle for that because the alternative would have meant not being here at all.
This is the only upside of being attacked with a claw hammer that left an inch-deep impression on his skull.
One claw hammer and 12 teenage thugs versus one young man. Those were the odds when a gang of Asian youths ambushed him.
After their work was done, his attackers punched the air in triumph - 'that's what you call Paki bashing,' they yelled.

Given that the school was guilty of grave sins of omission that facilitated this brutal attack, its administrators would have to now see the light, right? Well, read the comments of Ridgeway's headmaster, Steven Colledge, and tell me what you think. The Mail writes:

'I think there is always a danger where there is a mixture of races and peoples which reflect the community we live in that any tension that might exist, any little scuffle or fight, can be twisted to be much more of a major thing than it really is,' he [Colledge] told the cameras.
No, this is not a misquotation. He really did use the words 'little scuffle' to describe the attack in which Henry Webster was left brain damaged.
Furthermore, in the immediate aftermath, neither the 'outstanding' Mr Colledge nor any of his colleagues visited the Webster family or even sent a get well card. Mr Colledge later told a governors' inquiry that gestures such as sending cards or flowers 'were not in his nature'.

Leftists are not only completely lacking in anything approximating true compassion, they are, to be blunt, defective people. They really won't perceive reality until a jackboot comes down on their necks.

I strongly recommend that you read the whole Daily Mail piece. It's a good example of what lies in store for us Americans unless we can right the cultural ship.

The rest of the Mail piece can be found here.

Guest Commentary: The Importance of Values and Principles

2009-10-28T19:57:50-04:00

Hope comes from the Great State of Tennessee

By Marilyn Barnewall

A copy of Susan Lynn’s email came last Thursday. She is a member of the Tennessee General Assembly and serves on the Commerce Committee. She is Chairman of the Government Operations Committee and also chairs the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Commerce Task Force.

Ms. Lynn’s message was or will be sent to 49 State Legislatures around the country. That means if you live in the United States, a copy was likely sent to your state’s governing body on October 20, 2009. It represents the first ray of hope I have seen that local legislators are taking action to stop the abuse of federal power so rampant in Washington, D.C.

Ms. Lynn’s email said:

We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly. On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen.
The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
• Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
• Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
• Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
• Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
• It is for those purposes that this letter addresses your honorable body.

A couple of paragraphs about the history of our country and intent of our founding fathers follows. Then Ms. Lynn continues with her personal message to State Legislators:

There are clear limits to the power of the federal government and clear realms of power for the states. However, the simple and clear expression of purpose, to secure our natural rights, has evolved into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness.
The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.
Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his . . . medical choices will be.
Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.
To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.
Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.
We invite your state to join with us to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.

It’s a powerful message – or, should be. With the known bullying tactics used by the Obama Administration, the Tennessee state legislature can expect reprisals. I’m sure they are aware of that. They deserve a salute and a thank you from each and every one of us. It is a brave line they have drawn in the sand!

Have State Legislators begun to realize the federal government is usurping the powers given them by the Constitution of the United States? If I read this message from Tennessee accurately, the answer is “yes.” I hope that message jolts every politician, bureaucrat and government lawyer who reads it. I hope it makes them remember that if they have been involved in covering up criminal activities associated with fraud or treason, their feet may yet tread a final despot walk from which they thought their government status protected them. That status may, indeed, be the very thing that places them in great danger.

I became fascinated with the laws of nature a long time ago. There are governing principles that exist in life. I believe principles are black and white. Throughout history, societies have survived because they learned to recognize and honor positive principles.

But humans do not live by principles, alone. They have social values, too. What is the difference between these two things – values and principles?

Values derive from principles. Understanding this is key to understanding the meaning of “values.” If a changing social value is not strongly connected to an unchanging principle, it is not a value. Society may choose to call a mode of behavior a social value, but it cannot be defined as holding value unless it is tied to an unchanging principle. For values to change so society may progress, changing values must be tied to unchanging principles.

Some people believe values should reflect what they feel, what they want, what they need. If people want drugs, they should be legalized. If they want promiscuous sex, it should be okay. If pregnancy results, get rid of the baby. If a hole can be found in contract law that allows one person to steal another person’s money, it should be celebrated as a victory, not viewed as a crime – which is what it is.

Nature’s laws tell me that actions have consequences. Because those people for whom unchanging principles have no import see no reason to keep values tied to unchanging principles, they do not believe consequences exist. Why is no one accountable for anything these days?

They have no values. Too many people see no reason for accountability and it has become an acceptable “value.” In reality, such behavior reeks of a lack of value, a lack of character. But then, many people do not live in the real world. They prefer to think their little world of make believe will last forever. It will not. Tennessee has just taken a huge step towards making such an announcement.

I love nature’s laws. They are clear. They are as old as the earth. They are our guides while we dwell in Caesar’s world. All we need do is observe and learn what Mother Nature teaches us.

What things has nature pointed out to me? The same things you see: What goes up must come down. The line of least resistance makes crooked rivers (and crooked people). For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For every cause, there is an effect. All living things grow to maturity, level off and die. A garden left untended is quickly filled with weeds. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Values based on relative truths represent the philosophic perspective that nothing is ever totally wrong, nothing is ever totally right. All situations have gray areas. Truth is in the eye of the beholder. The values that result from relative truth are always gray.

Black and white truths are never relative. Values based on unchanging principles represent the philosophic perspective that all things can be judged right or wrong and that nothing is ever relative – especially truth.

Values of right and wrong, untied to unchanging principles and which change from business-to-business, family-to-family, or courtroom-to-courtroom, lack the very stability society needs to thrive. Yet, that is precisely what we have in Washington, D.C. today, from Executive Office to Supreme Court to the Congress.

Nature achieves balance by pitting two forces of equal strength against one another. We cannot have success if failure doesn’t exist. We cannot have light without dark nor love without hate or good without bad.

Deciding what things I stand for requires me to walk out of the gray areas of life and take a stand that certain things are right, certain things are wrong. They are black and white, not gray. By selecting the things for which I stand, I define my character – or, lack thereof.

Everyone does. Where do you stand?

I hope you stand close to your telephone where you will call your state legislator and ask what they are doing about this invitation from the Great State of Tennessee! And I hope you will write Ms. Lynn an email and say “thank you.”

To verify what has been quoted in this article, please visit Ms. Lynn’s blog site.

Marilyn Barnewall received her graduate degree in Banking from the University of Colorado Graduate School of Business in 1978. She has authored seven non-fiction books about banking, two are listed at Oxford and Cambridge University libraries in Great Britain. Her current book, When the Swan’s Neck Breaks, details the banking problems she foresaw in 2006. Of the 24 predictions made in the book, 22 have happened. It is fiction but readers refer to it as docu-fiction.

Barnewall was named one of America's top 100 businesswomen in the book, What It Takes (Dolphin/Doubleday; Gardenswartz and Roe) and was one of the founders of the Committee of 200, the official organization of America's top 200 businesswomen. She can be found in Who's:Who in America (2005-08), Who's Who of American Women (2006-08), Who's Who in Finance and Business (2006-08), and Who's Who in the World (2008).

2009-10-28T00:54:00-04:00

Elderly Woman Persecuted for Expressing Christian Beliefs
This is yet another story about an English Christian being persecuted for voicing her beliefs. In this case the victim is Pauline Howe, who received a visit from the police after writing a letter to local authorities expressing displeasure with a homosexual parade.