An Example in Courage

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.


This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation -- the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775


A Part 2 to a previous post.

God Bless 1984

by Lee Greenwood

If tomorrow all the things were gone,
I’d worked for all my life.
And I had to start again,
with just my children and my wife.

I’d thank my lucky stars,
to be livin here today.
‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can’t take that away.

And I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

From the lakes of Minnesota,
to the hills of Tennessee.
Across the plains of Texas,
From sea to shining sea.

From Detroit down to Houston,
and New York to L.A.
Well there's pride in every American heart,
and its time we stand and say.

That I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

Now, those of you who know me are probably wondering why I am putting up a song like this. And dear readers (brownie points for you!!!) who remember my remake a while back are REALLY skeptical as to what is coming next.

First off, I have never felt the patriotic frenzy whipped up in me when they strike up the last verse. It reminds me of the proles in 1984...how they could be roused to patriotism whenever the moment was needed.

Second, it is not only blatantly false, but extremely manipulative of facts as well.

????

Let me explain.

1: Rights are given by GOD!!!

Yeah, you know that already. But how many of you have ever winced at this line?

"..... the men who died, who gave that right to me...."

2: Being naive about the character of politicians won't help you at all.

Ex: "the flag...stands for freedom...they can't take...away"

3:"at least I know I'm free"

If that is all you really care about (and if you call what we have currently [current = since the Great Rooseveltpression] freedom) then go live in the USSR. They were free too...to obey.

4: Being politically correct doesn't hurt either. All the politicians really need is a whole lot of bodies to make their point. If necessary, the singers of this song bind themselves to also take the bullets for the laws and treaties the politicians find expedient to their pockets. "...gladly stand up...today..."

(Note: I am sure if they looked up the meaning of "defend" {anyone hearing 1984 here again?} and stuck to it they would also protest all wars and "wars" since the American conquest of Mexico --ie. Where Andy Jackson got his Generalship)

(Note: the War of 1812 is an exception)

So....when I hear people singing or speaking of this song....I sit and muse with a bitter and amused smile on my face....it's tripleplusgood duckspeak and that is a fact

Free-card

It is here, folks!!!!

FREEDOM!!!! Freedom from having to pay that is!!!
Get this card and your life will be over! (at least, your life as a debtor!)

An Example in Prudence:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the...bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.....

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends....

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

1984 by George Orwell

Wednesday and Thursday were spent largely reading through this book. I heard about it before, but it never stood out from the pile of titles that were "important" in some way or another....

UNTIL: I read this article.

Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc

I decided to order it from the library catalogue. I find it entirely intriguing. I would love to copy-paste the entire book (well, make that a lot of the book, not all of it...*hem*) and force you all to read it. It is definitely something you have to stretch your mind to take in.

What is your personal property? How does language define civilization? What would life be like if everything you ever did/said was watched/recorded? Does anyone one else have the ability to get inside your head? Can you doublethink?

I am still reeling from all of it.

The only thing is, in the book there is no religion. Religion is not a word. It means nothing to them. However, at the end of the book, these words came to me: And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matt. 10:28)
Even if such tortures and methods and "deepest fears" were used against me, there is One more powerful than man.

Even so, on this earth:
2 + 2 = 5
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

What significance do things hold when they no longer mean anything?
Do yourself a favor, read 1984.

Doubleplusgood duckspeak, I say!

Update

Yeah...I thought I should update:

So...I have updated!


lol

OK, so I will do something substantial.
Info for those of you who weren't at TeenPact:
May 5th is Yellow Ducky Day. Stuart L. is a genius.

TeenPact was amazing....it was TeenPactic....again. I have not found an organization that can change people's lives so substantially in four little days. That is why I love TeenPact.
That is why everyone should go to TeenPact. Everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Water with your milk?"

In my history of activism, I have written to and called Doctor James Dobson’s "Focus on the Family" many times. They have usually rebuffed me, or completely written me off, Then, they procede to send me emails and newsletters.

I usually read them, and always throw them away immediately afterwards. Inconsistency of message, watering-down of responsibility to a 200 word essay, or even blatant contradiction in message (in one magazine) have made me roll my eyes and head for the trash can (Tossmass, I believe they call it!?).
For instance, in a November magazine, the feature talked about how parents should not lie to thier children. The ending "question and answer" section had Doctor Dobson himself advocating telling your children about Santa Claus (as in, telling them he is real, coming, has a flying sleigh, and a certain amount of mythical animals that can also levitate—I don’t even know how many there are!) for the "special memories" that he considered priceless and his children had also enjoyed.

In another magazine (or was it the same, memorable one) their President Jim Daly wrote about how much he enjoyed adding "holy-day traditions" to their normal family holiday routine…like celebrating the days of Advent and Lent. I threw up my hands in horror…. Now, they are not only pseudo-Baptist, we are advocating Catholic and Anglican-Orthodox heresies *hem *…….er….traditions! (yes, thats the word!)
I have considered telling them to stop sending stuff to me, because they are wasting money that they beg their radio listeners for all the time. However, being a born procrastinator, and finding amusement in the foibles of others, I have not done so.

This blog post is about the watering-down of Christianity.
Unlike my former self, ranting here a couple months ago, I now find it obvious that a poli-two-speaker like two-faced/two-party McCain would appeal to their set. They have no problems adopting and adding to their faith and doctrine. A good mix is the key to full flavor, I’m sure. They add in public schooling, adolescence theories, church going as the basis for estimating Christianity, and various shades of self-help advice. (like how to estimate the total amount of "pay withholding from a worker’s W-4")

If there is a "revival" of Christianity, it will not come from this outlet. They are entrenched firmly in their "pro-government" mentality that accepts government education (and then asks for money so they can help de-louse the youth from all their statist instruction)

I must add, in their favor ( and it even shocked/surprised me) there were actually TWO whole pages with the world (dare I say it) homeschooling on them. One, was an add for Christianbook.com and the other for a completely Biblical homeschooling curriculum.
In the entire magazine, there were 7 verses quoted (three in the main article, about death, when asking about the favorite verses of comfort). Two were references for two-hundred word essays on Transition, and "having-a-big-group-of-church-friends-so-your-kids-can-have-multi-generational-community". The last one was stuck on a bio of a guy who makes wooden crosses to give away free.

The last article, and the one that sparked this posting, was about Guitar Hero. Although I have not posted any material, I have about 5 posts buried in my drafts section about rock music and such. I have not actually had the time (or wish to read all the depressing and horrible stuff again) to format them into coherent, readable format.
The article talked about the objectionable material inherent in the system, and the guidelines some families had used (Is the singer modest; Is the concert atmosphere appropriate (i.e. not a bar?); And are the lyrics "acceptable"). Then talked about all the former/previous had-beens who are delighted with their music coming back into circulation.

They ended with these oh-so-politically-correct admonitions:

" …parents can’t afford to sit this one out. Since rhythm games are here to stay, we should strive to understand why our children connect with certain music, then channel those deep desires into healthy, positive outlets. One option is Guitar Praise: Solid Rock, a Guitar Hero alternative featuring dozens of tracks by popular Christian bands. Most important, help children sort through the values zipping at them in their music—whether they’re coming from a stereo, and iPod, or a frenetic virtual fretboard."

I don’t know how much more "Would you like some water with all your milk?" we can get.
While advocating "family worldwide" they allow the parents to cater to the children’s selfishness, tell the children that new, worldly fads are "Ok, with a ‘detox’ bath afterwards", and then wonder why so many see through the mist-screen and turn away to spit on the values they were taught.


They weren’t taught to be dumb. And their inner instincts know that when two opposing things seem to intersect, one has to be right, and one wrong.

Pro patria mori

http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html

This is a very strange and scary poem. Not for the very impressionable, or those prone to nightmares. Yet, since I read it....I have been captivated by the utter desperation and hopelessness of it. And the undertone of seething anger and sarcasm in the last couplet.

It tells of life in the "meat grinder" of the 1st World War. It tells of the futility of governments sending their citizenry out to die for the fatherland, because of handshakes, paper treaties, and "national interests" of alliances and nations across continents.

At least America had an excuse...but no... our men died as well.
And the Europeans who had been lapping up our products and begging us for help (oh! the war would end in a stalemate without us!) after giving 10 million men a "Finally!" for a welcome, left our men to die of disease and be peacekeepers afterwards while they ferried their men home to safety as fast as their dinghys could carry them.

But did we learn? Americans are fools. Oh no...in 30 years we made the same dumb mistake again....and again in less than 10 years after that, and then in another 10 years, and since then it has been war, after skirmish, after attack, after another.
Fool me one, shame on you, fool me twice, three times, and again and again....I deserved it!


War is the Health of the State.

America made Germany look like pacifists

An interesting overview of America's "imperialist agenda" from the book:

The Pity of War --- Niall Ferguson (concerning World War I and it's causes)

Another example may be given of an aggressive power which posed a direct threat to Britain in the Atlantic and Pacific; a power which shared a border over three thousand miles long with one of the Empire’s most prosperous territories. This was the United States.
Though the two powers had not come to blows since 1812, it is easily forgotten how many reasons they had to quarrel in the 1890’s. The US took issue with Britain over the border of Venezuela and British Guiana, a dispute not settled until 1899; went to war with Spain over Cuba and in the process acquired the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam in 1898; annexed Hawaii in the same year; fought a bloody colonial war in the Philippines between 1899 and 1902; acquired some of the Samoan Islands in 1899; and eagerly took a hand in the economic carve-up of China. The next stage of American imperial expansion was to construct a canal across the Central American isthmus. Compared with the US, Germany was a pacific power. Once again Britain appeased the strong. The 1901 Hay-Paunceforte Treaty waived Britain’s objection to American control and fortification of the projected Panama Canal; and London allowed President Theodore Roosevelt to ride roughshod over Colombian objections by assisting a Panamanian revolt in the chosen Canal Zone. In 1901-2 Selborne took the decision to wind down Britain’s naval capacity for war with the United States in the Caribbean and the Atlantic. (R. Williams, Defending the Empire, pp. 70f.) This appeasement had predictable results. In 1904 the Americans established financial control over the Dominican Republic; the same thing happened in Nicaragua in 1909 (with military backing in 1912). Woordrow Wilson claimed to deplore “dollar diplomacy” and the “big stick”; but it was he who sent the marines to take over Haiti in 1915 and to the Dominican Republic in 1916; and it was he who authorized military intervention in Mexico, first in 1914 to change the Mexican government and then in March 1916 to punish ‘Pancho’ Villa for a raid on New Mexico. (M. Jones, Limits of Liberty, pp. 396-411.) But no one in Britain said a word. America was powerful; so there could be no Anglo-American antagonism.
British foreign policy between 1900 and 1906, then, was to appease those powers which appeared to pose the greatest threat to her position, even at the expense of good relations with the less important powers. The key point is that Germany fell into the latter category; France, Russia and the United States into the former.

(the bold emphasis is mine)
This is from the view of an English professor. For those among us who stand by a strict, constitutional, isolationist policy....this list is not only shocking, but enlightening. Upon this foundation came about our entrance into World War I, and WW II, and Korea, and Vietnam, and the "cold war", and the first Iraq war, and the current "war on terror".

I'll bet 99% of Americans have no idea that all this happened, or that any of it is a problem.
I'll bet--no, I KNOW that a lot of them also think that the "war on terror" is a decisive battle between freedom and dictatorships. They want us to get "victory" and "liberty" before we pull out. They think that all the death and expense and destruction is justified by the social ends that we are "achieving".

I'll bet most of them don't know or won't believe the quote:
"When war comes, the first casualty is truth..." US Senator Hiram Johnson

A Vote for a Third Party is a Vote for---

Uhhhhhmmmmmmm.........................






Liberty?

People say that a vote for a third party is a vote for whomever they don't desire on the other side of the Republican vs. Democrat race, depending on whose side they are on.
Of course, the Republicans say it is a vote for the Democrats, and the Democrats say it gives the Republicans the edge.

People have accused me of trying to get McCain to lose and of underground sedition against Obama. An Obama supporter told me that any vote for anyone besides a democrat was just about a crime in her book, and giving me her signature for Ballot access was too close to risk.
One young man angrily informed me that a vote for a 3rd Party was a vote for Obama.
Then, unwilling to know anything else, he stormed away from me.

But, on November 4th....what was the real story?

The only states where the margin was close enough between the fat cats, AND the underdogs had enough votes to have swung one way or another were

Montana: There were around 14,000 major-third-party votes. (please note that Paul and Peroutka is some government mix-up, as Peroutka was not running for anything, and Paul had no VP, and was not running under the Constitution Party. Also note: McCain won the state, therefore all these 14,00 souls were not voting for Obama by default)

Indiana: It seems that the only 3rd Party there was Barr, who got upwards of 29,000 votes. Obama won Indiana. IF...and I say IF...every single one of those freedom-loving individuals voted for McCain, he would have been able to win. Even so, he would not have had enough electoral votes to win the election....so it would have been a waste...pun intended)

North Carolina: Also won by Obama. However, there were approx. 14, 000 write-ins, and Barr got a significant number.


and Missouri: (which is still being debated, it is listed as "not yet settled") McCain is winning by a margin of 10,000. If all the Nader people (who BTW see Obama as a right-wing radical) voted for Obama, it would go down to "every single vote counts" mentality. Even so, Obama would still get the Presidency. It is the Electoral College, not the mass of sheep that decides.

The Electoral College.....our last remaining scrap of Republicanism. (and I'm not referring to the party which defames that title)

Undaunted

Last night after watching speeches and hearing empty, pretty words, I told my sister"Now we get to read every one's blogs don't we?"

In the general, ignorant sorrow over McCain's loss and the general, ignorant glee over Obama's victory, people are saying very insightful things.
One McCain supporter said that we should not sit idly by and let out founding values be trashed. Many are posting Bible verses and praying.

I am glad that Obama got into office, if for no other reason than this. Christians realized not only that their apathy and ignorance has given them what they seem to most despise, but that instead of sitting back comfortable in the delusion that a conservative Republican was watching their backs, they will be armed, vigilant and diligent for the Constitution, individual liberty, personal responsibility and freedom.

I wrote in a name, because the current one-not-two party system has blocked out any competition. I am not ashamed. In fact, despite the republican well-spread lie, there was effect on the election by the best intentioned people who voted for other than the two evils offered us.
More on that in the next post.

I am undaunted by the newest challenge to American ideals. At least the rest of America is suddenly realizing the danger of an unfettered, gigantic, and monster-sized executive office.

Meditate on these things

All that I am, all that I have
I lay them down before You, oh Lord
All my regrets, all my acclaims
The joy and the pain, I'm making them Yours.

Lord, I offer my life to You,
Everything I've been through
Use it for Your glory-
Lord, I offer my days to You,
Lifting my praise to You
As a pleasing sacrifice:
Lord I offer You my life.

Things in the past, things yet unseen
Wishes and dreams that are yet to come true
All of my hopes, all of my plans,
My heart and my hands
Are lifted to You.

And Lord, I offer my life to You,
Everything I've been through
Use it for Your glory-
Lord, I offer my days to You,
Lifting my praise to You
As a pleasing sacrifice:
Lord I offer You my life.

What can we give
That You have not given?
And what do we have
That is not already Yours?
All we possess
Are these lives we're living
That's what we give to You, Lord

So Lord, I offer my life to You,
Everything I've been through
Use it for Your glory-
Lord, I offer my days to You,
Lifting my praise to You
As a pleasing sacrifice:
Lord I offer You my life.

Lord, I offer You my life.

Best:

This is one of the single best articles I have found on the voting issue so far.

The Republican party is an old wineskin, and the idea that by voting for it we can get new wine into that old wineskin is preposterous beyond imagination.

Hmmm?

Psalm 149:5-9
5 Let the saints be joyful in glory;
Let them sing aloud on their beds.
6 Let the high praises of God be in their mouth,
And a two-edged sword in their hand,
7 To execute vengeance on the nations,
And punishments on the peoples;
8 To bind their kings with chains,
And their nobles with fetters of iron;
9 To execute on them the written judgment—
This honor have all His saints.

As I was saying......

Draft: Obama thinks yes. McCain thinks yes.

Obama says yes. McCain says maybe.

At least Obama says it outright!

The naked truth:

I have been in contact with a major "moral/conservative" force about politics, and I noticed that their web page describing the stances of Presidential candidates based on a moral/traditional/family minded worldview/focus. I had been on that page early this year, and I requested that Ron Paul be included in their survey of all the Democrat and all the other Republican candidate hopefuls. They complied, although they put a very negative slant on his "laissez faire" attitude..even going so far as to say (in the video) "...government has a major place in our nation..." (implying that reducing it was NOT something positive).

I re-checked their site two weeks ago, and asked them to also place Chuck Baldwin on the list, as he fit 100% with their pro-life, pro-marriage outlook....and I received this letter in response:

Dear Jennifer:

Greetings from ( ______) and thank you for your e-mail. I consider it a privilege to reply on behalf of our staff.
We appreciate your taking a moment to share your perspective on (our views), of Senator McCain's candidacy. While your feedback is valued, I'm afraid we're not in a position to comment on his political views past what he's communicated. As for the possibility of addressing Chuck Baldwin's candidacy, while we realize it may be disappointing to hear, we've chosen to focus our efforts on providing information about the stances held by the candidates remaining in the race who are most likely to gain the presidency.
Again, thanks for contacting us, Jennifer. We trust you will join us in praying for our great nation at this critical juncture in our history. God bless you!

Needless to say, I was shocked, enraged, and highly put-off by this answer, and although with a feeling of christian love towards them, I believe it to be the most bigoted statement of all for a "conservative" group/organization who purports to be moral and God-serving.

I sent them this response: (yes, I prayed about it, and it was at least 24 hours before I responded, allowing my thoughts to be refined, and not so angry/hateful)

I suppose, since I am rather young, that life has many things in store for me, disillusionment being a part of that.
I did learn something from you, though, when I read your response. Here dumb little me thought that this election was about the future course of our nation. I thought it was about "values voters", and "traditional family values", and Biblical morality. I THOUGHT it was about saving the lives of yet-unborn babies.
How stupid of me. All that REALLY matters is getting the less-worse end of a popularity contest. As you put it--SO well-- "focus our efforts on...the candidates..most likely to gain the presidency".
Thank you for allowing me to see behind/through your rhetoric and teachings to the REAL goal.
Sincerely, (me)

Anyhow, you can be sure that I will never again listen to them/their material/their speaking with an unbiased mind. All I will hear is "most likely to win", and know that when (as one of their people said) they talk about values and family and abortion and America.....they gave up their convictions on the altar of "most likely to win" and that's all that mattered.

the Draft

As OS has been saying, the draft is my "big issue". I see it as a real danger, and one that is most definitely inevitable. With most Americans caught in the web of the hopeless one-but-two party system, our future President is destined to be a socialist with aims of carrying on the NAU and a globalist agenda.

With this globalist agenda, there will be a definite "american" tang, as the globalism will be with the goal of providing democracy and "freedom" to other downtrodden nations and peoples. Included in this scheme, will most definitely be the need for military force to put down what factions in these countries might want to resist a super-power telling them how to run their countries.

Because not enough American youth will want to volunteer to die for this globalist/terrorist agenda, there will be a need to force them. This, friends is called the draft. It entails tearing young potential from its place in the world and forcing it to sweat, bleed, and die for "The Cause". Although not explicitly stated, this violates the 5th ammendment.

"nor shall any person...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Through the draft, one is deprived of their liberty, their property (themselves), and possibly their life. Also, wars are to be defensive. Therefore, Americans should only have to fight when they are attacked unprovoked. Even then I don't believe that we will be lacking volunteers, because their fighting and dying will be in order to protect AMERICA from harm and their families from the dominance of a foreign nation.

John McCain will most definitely institute the draft. He plans (outspokenly) to continue American oppression of foreign peoples and forcing them to be free and democratic. He has openly proposed war on Iran, and undoubtedly will continue our occupation of over 120 countries around the world. This will require MASSIVE manpower. It can only be obtained through conscription.

Some links: (although a simple google search will give you more than you can handle)
Vietnam thinking

"I don't disagree with anything you said..."

In the case where so-called "conservative America" fails to drum up enough half-hearted support for McCain, and Obama wins the office (which most people say will happen no-matter-what), he will probably be better, in this case. Obama is a regular, peace/disarmament democrat, and he will probably pursue globalism with more gusto, but less militarily. I highly doubt that he will cease occupation of foreign countries, or that he will "end the war in Iraq", but he will be slow to begin a new military effort elsewhere, or to put the draft in place. Should he decide to use force, he will HAVE to use conscription, just like McCain

Links:

You might want to read down a bit after the first post. The guy also quotes a 2007 bill to make army service mandatory for "all persons" aged 18 to 42.

In a closely balanced election, with the outcome still very much in doubt, Obama hopes to win the support of the real decision-makers—the topmost levels of the financial, political and military elite. Only a Democrat, he is suggesting, with the smokescreen of “equal sacrifice” and “fairness,” can provide the millions of recruits for the US military machine that will be required for wars against countries such as Iran, Russia and China.

As a woman, the 1900's would have blushed to see me going out to fight. But I am completely sure that if any draft is instated, women will be required to go as well, lest the feminists raise such a hue and cry that all capitol hill be overwhelmed. Note wh "all persons" on the bill linked above.

I shall end with a quote from a dissenting Senator in 1917, when Wilson decided to send American young men to die for a territorial European war that was only "new" in regards to it's massive death rates. (trenches had given Japan the edge over the giant Russia only 15 years before, and machine guns and airplanes were being readily used more and more in little border battles which no one bothers to report because they were so common. Also, european wars had been going on for centuries...some actually having stretched that long--ie.the Hundred yers war)

America at War: WWI

"In the emotional fervor that followed the declaration of war on April 6, many young men rushed to volunteer for the armed forces. Yet, it was only a faction of the number needed. After hearing three years of stories about the horrors of trench warfare, it is hardly surprising that more men did not join up.
President Wilson proposed national conscription, otherwise known as a ‘draft’. Many members of Congress objected to the bill. The speaker of the House asserted that there was ‘little difference between the conscript and the convict.’"

In their OWN words:

(From the book: America at War Series: World War I)

"World War I gave birth to a centralized bureaucracy of unprecedented size. New federal agencies assumed unheard-of power. The War Industries Board, for example, took over raw materials and production and created new industries to meet war demands. The War Trade Board controlled imports and exports. The Federal Fuel Administration supervised efficient use of resources like coal and oil by industry and the public. Even the railroads were taken over and run by the government.
The Federal Food Administration was created to insure adequate food supplies for military needs and to send agricultural aid to the Allies. It monitored farm production and regulated prices. It asked Americans to plant "victory gardens" and observe "wheatless" and "meatless" days.
All this was the United States first experiment with a government-directed economy. Some of the experts who staffed these emergency boards would later use the valuable experience they gained to fight the economic Depression of the 1930’s.
Public opinion, an intangible but important resource, also had to be mobilized. This was the mission of the most controversial of the new government agencies.
The Committee on Public Information hired hundreds of writers and artists who turned their talents to wartime propaganda. Pro-war leaflets were widely circulated. The committee also sent skilled orators around the country to make speeches intended to rally the nationalistic emotions of the American people."
And "In spite of these efforts [buying war bonds, banning German from schools, etc] many German-American citizens were harassed. Thousands of German Americans, who were not yet naturalized U.S. citizens were arrested and placed in internment camps.


But what happened to all these agencies?

War Industries Board: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Industries_Board
WIB was disbanded

War Trade Board:
http://www.answers.com/topic/war-trade-board
WTB gave all its powers to the Department of State

Federal Fuel Administration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Fuel_Administration
It looks like FFA is still around, just not necessary as much anymore

Federal Food Administration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration
FFA has no information that I can find on google, only the Food and Drug Administration. Maybe they are/were the same thing.

Committee on Public Information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Information
CPI also seems to have been disbanded.

Federal Immunity

Federal immunity was given to a Mexican drug smuggler.



Why?



He agreed to testify against two American border patrol agents, and they are now in jail for 12 and 15 years resectively.



Mr. Bush has done nothing, though he has been repeatedly pressed and lobbied.

Neither McCain nor Obama care one iota about our borders....they don't even TALK about it on thier campaign! They will definitely not do anything.



Watch this Lou Dobbs interview, comment, and tell everyone you know.

Timely....

"The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just."
— President Abraham Lincoln