Pure Evil

Woman have abortions because they CARE ABOUT MOTHERHOOD???????
Good Heavens!



The far left, the progressives have denigrated the Bible, the standard of humanity for so long, that they've forgotten something:

Exodus 20:13
"Thou shalt not kill;"
You know, part of the Decalogue or "The Ten Commandments". It's not ambiguous, the Lord is very clear.

Here is what Isaiah has to say:
Isaiah 5:20
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Look at the Progressive agenda; it is evil, pure evil in its scope, with eugenics playing a major role.

Abortion is NOT about a woman's right to choose; if it were truly,about a woman's right to choose what happens to her body, prostitution would be legal; after all, it's her body.

No, it's about population control; it is about attempting to thwart God's plan.
The family is ordained of God "multiply and replenish the earth"; women are co-creators with our Heavenly Father.
Motherhood is a divine calling, yet this far left lunatic would have you and I believe that abortion is necessary for all, and that having an abortion shows just how much you care about motherhood and children.

This calling of evil good, must be Dr. Newhall's way of ensuring she can sleep at night; when I look at her, I see her literally dripping with blood; evil.
As a mother this makes me livid; outraged! How DARE she sully the divinity of motherhood with her evil, insidious words. I can't even express how very, very angry this makes me.

I think we need to pay close attention to Isaiah; weigh his words against the Progressive agenda, and choose our path accordingly.

Call Me Senator

David Zucker has done it again; this is too funny, enjoy!

Calling All Christians and Anyone Who Values the First Amendment

This is something that makes me very, very angry:

Michigan Woman Faces Civil Rights Complaint.

Here is the text to the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Can you see ANY inconsistencies here???

The First Amendment doesn't tell you what youCAN do; it tells the GOVERNMENT what it CANNOT do, and the biggest thing it cannot do is infringe upon your natural rights; natural rights come from God, and cannot be taken away by anything short of force. They can be given away, but they cannot be taken without your consent.
Yet, the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan seems bent on violating the Constitution.

Here is my letter to the city of Grand Rapids; it will likely be tweaked some:

Grand Rapids City Hall
Mayor George Heartwell
300 Monroe Avenue NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2206

Fair Housing Center of West Michigan
Director Nancy Haynes
20 Hall Street SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49507

To Whom it Concerns,

It has come to the attention of freedom loving Constitutionalist everywhere that you plan to violate the First Amendment rights of one of the residents of your beautiful city. I would like to remind you of the text of the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

How do you suppose your case makes any legal sense? Any moral sense?
The resident in question has every, EVERY constitutional right to choose not only who she associates with, but also, what fashion she will practice her religion.

As an American, and as a Christian, I will do everything in my power, with the Internet at my disposal to pass the word, that your fair city is not only unfriendly to the Constitution, but also to Christians if you go forward with this unconstitutional stance. With the speed the Internet affords us, it’s quite possible you will see a drop in tourism numbers as soon as December 1.

Please reconsider the issue; as natural rights are at stake, it’s a losing proposition for the city of Grand Rapids, and for the state of Michigan.


Sincerely,

(my name)
(my city)


Here is the address to the Grand Rapids City Hall; Mayor George Heartwell:

Grand Rapids City Hall
300 Monroe Avenue NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2206

And, the Fair Housing Center; Director Nancy Haynes:

Fair Housing Center of West Michigan
20 Hall Street SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49507


Feel free to use my letter as a template if you wish, but PLEASE, let's flood the Grand Rapids City Hall and the Fair Housing Center with letters.
It is this type of instance where our voices must be heard; the Progressive mindset,the destructive notion of political correctness must be stamped out and our Republic must be restored; one city hall at a time.

A Time for Choosing

“The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.”
~Ronald Reagan; October 27, 1964

We face a great challenge in America, our Republic is on the brink of ruin, and much like Rome of old, and those in power are collecting power for nefarious purposes.

We've come to a crossroads of sorts, and the right path, while it looks scary and possibly difficult, is indeed the best path; the wisest path.

That path leads directly to the Tea Party.
I'm hearing murmurings that the "Tea Party" candidates aren't experienced, don't know what they are doing (has ANYONE looked at Obama's resumé?); that they will damage our Republic.

Nothing is further from the truth.

Aside from penning the Declaration of Independence, what experience did Thomas Jefferson have in political office?
George Washington was a farmer and a general; how did this qualify him to be president?
James Madison?
Benjamin Franklin?

Our country is SUPPOSED to be run by the common citizen; the very design is for average people to take the reins; do the job, and go home. “Next!” People who desire to do the right thing for their country, NOT always the best thing personally.
One of THE biggest problems we have is career politicians. Those who make themselves fat on the taxpayer dollar.
How many millionaires are there in the House and the Senate? Check how long they’ve been in office and you’ll see that what they are spending is OUR money! You have to work over three months of the year to pay your taxes; Americans will pay more taxes in 2010 than they will have spent on food, clothing and shelter combined for the year; part of those taxes go to pay the wages of the Congress and the Senate; take a hard look at those career politicians.

Will the inexperienced make a mistake? Probably, but that is nothing compared to what’s happening now, right now, in Washington D.C.

The candidates of the “Tea Party” as a whole are truly the best hope we have to break the stranglehold of career politicians.
We went to the Town hall meetings, they were a joke; we’ve had the rallies, the Left has denigrated our voice.
It’s time to stand up and vote for the BEST candidate you can; the candidate that will represent limited government as the Constitution requires, fiscal responsibility for the sake of our children and grandchildren and someone who has the integrity to do the right thing, to make the hard decisions that need to be made.

Our Founding Fathers had no Republican experience; they didn’t have a model for a Constitutional Republic to follow, and we’ve made it two centuries down the road; the Constitution is battered and bloodied, but if you look closely, you’ll see it’s not that way due to inexperience, but cold, calculated rejection.

It’s time to put new kids in the sandbox.

A Moral Republic

From Charles Carroll; delegate to the Continental Congress:
"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

And this from Sam Adams:
"The Public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men."

How about this from George Washington:
"Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government."


If you believe to your core that it is wrong to steal, murder, and destroy; that you are responsible to God to benefit those you are able to benefit, as you have opportunity (all Biblical precepts), then you are a lot more likely to follow those beliefs when you get into a position of government power. The problem is that a lot of the people in positions of government power today never really believed and/or practiced any of these precepts to start with.

John Adams said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Take a long hard look at Washington D.C., and you'll see in graphic color why these Founders said what they did; we have a morally bankrupt elected body, and in less than three weeks we can begin to remedy the situation.

But don't stop there. Change yourself; improve your relationship with your Heavenly Father; serve your fellow man; pray. We must end the moral shortcomings in our own lives, so that our children will see us as good and noble; so they'll want to emulate us and not the trollop of the week.

Democratic Socialists in our Government

Do your homework; find out the voting records of these people, call them, fire them.


Originally posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:16 PM

The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus.

This admission was recently posted on Scribd.com:

American Socialist Voter–
Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy

Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez,
Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].

Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below

Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

The Blame Game

Here is a video I'd like to share. I'd never heard of Sonja Schmidt before, and I fancy myself a PJTV fan too. What she has to say is important; it's important for every child in America:

The Princess and the Peon

I'd like to introduce you to Vancouver,Washington city council member Jeanne Harris. Councilwoman Harris seems to believe that as an elected city council member, she has the right to bully and harass those who came to speak to the city council; even going so far as to tell the Mayor how to conduct the people's business.
Make no mistake, this kind of mentality is what's going on in the minds of those in the federal government as well; remember Barbara Boxer?

If indeed the topic was closed, as it seems it was, this is NOT how you handle the people who elected you.

You and I are no longer looked upon as the boss, but the peon.




I would challenge each of us, myself included, to attend these meetings, get a feel for what's going on; begin reminding those we've elected who's business it is that they are elected to do. If you encounter someone as rude and out of line as councilwoman Harris, do all you can to make it known; this kind of elitist attitude has got to stop.

Constitution Day Repost

I've been incredibly busy this week, so I'm reposting last year's Constitution Day post.

Say a prayer for our Republic today, we're on the brink of ruin.

In 1787, a group of men came together, initially to revise the Articles of Confederation which were barely holding the newly independent nation together. When it became apparent that this would not be sufficient, they began the awesome task of hammering out a Constitution, establishing a fundamental system of government heretofore unknown in the world.

What they did was remarkable on many counts, not the least of which was the fact that they had vast disagreements on what exactly should be included. (Patrick Henry, remember him? Mr. "Give me Liberty or give me death"? He opposed the ratification because it gave the Federal government too much power-I wonder what he's thinking about it NOW?! He also refused to sign it.)*

These Founding Fathers as they are affectionately known, were diverse in their backgrounds, occupations and temprements. It proved to be an interesting mix.

Fifty-five men met together to establish this, our beloved Republic.  The day, May 14th, that the Convention was to begin, only 8 delegates were present. It would be 11 more days before the Convention started in earnest; on the 25th of May, George Washington was elected president of the proceedings, and things got underway.

The debate raged for four long months, through the heat of a Philadelphia summer. Would we have a strong central government or would we have a limited government? Would the central government run the show, or would "we the people"?
Each article, each section was debated, and voted on; piece by piece the Constitution took shape.

In the end, 222 years ago today, the Constitution of the United States of America-a title not in use until this day, was ratified and signed by 39 of the delegates. A new nation was born, "concieved in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" as Abraham Lincoln would later remind us.

As I ponder the incredible responsiblity we all have to uphold the Constitution, I am awed by what has transpired to bring freedom to this land. The intricate weaving of lives that were knit together by "divine Providence"
The Book of Mormon talks about this land as the Promised Land, and I know with all my heart that this is true.
In a prophecy to Joseph Smith, the Lord tells us that he raised up good men to establish this Constitution for us, His children.

These fifty-five men, raised up and inspired, created a nation that would change the political landscape forever. The question remains as to whether we can keep the gift they bequeathed to our care.

*Patrick Henry didn't actually attend the Convention, he was an ardent states rights fan, and, while asked to be a delegate, refused.

The Seventeenth Amendment

Article I
Section 2:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States…”
Section 3:
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.”

It seems rather simplistic in its scope, and maybe that’s why it was so easily overcome, but our Founding Fathers were genius in their ability to protect us from tyranny.
They weren’t however able to protect us from evil and designing men who do, and will have intentions to overthrow the Republic.

The way the Constitution is set up we have two houses of Congress, one house, the House of Representatives, was designed to represent the people as individuals; representation is based on population, so a census is taken each decade to establish the number of Representatives from each state; the bigger the state, the more representation.

The second house, the Senate was designed to represent each state as a whole; states were to be equal in the eyes of the Federal government, so two and only two Senators from each state. These Senators were to be chosen by the state legislatures, not by popular vote. They were representing the states as a whole, and the state was to choose who to send; the Founder’s even had the crazy idea that the Senators would be well respected men with varying backgrounds and varying expertise; in other words, people who would represent the State with dignity and knowledge.

James Madison, writing to Thomas Jefferson said “The Senate will represent the States in their political capacity, the other House will represent the people OF the states in their INDIVIDUAL capacity” (emphasis mine).
They didn’t want the rights of individuals and states to be subject to the whims of popular opinion.

Enter the Seventeenth Amendment, ratified February 3, 1913.

The United States Senate was NEVER intended to be a mini House of Representatives; there is good reason to have the state choose the Senators.

Think about all of the unfunded mandates that have been dumped on the States--take no Child Left Behind for example.
NCLB dictates, unconstitutionally I might add, that the state has to meet certain benchmarks and standards, but provides little to no funding to accomplish that goal.
Take Obamacare as another example.
With either of these mandates, if the Senators had been subject to recall, when their state objected to the mandate the Senator would vote how the STATE wanted him or her to vote, not along party lines, and not at the whim of special interests.
The Patriot Act
The Real ID (act)
I think you get the picture.
If our Senators had been subject to the STATE, it’s a VERY good chance none of these unconstitutional bills would have passed.

The Seventeenth Amendment took away the voice of the state; left the state to flounder at the whim of the Federal government.
Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) pointed out that “Ever since the safeguard of State legislatures electing U.S. Senators was removed by the 17th Amendment in 1913, there has been no check or balance on the Federal power grab for the last 97 years.”
He’s absolutely right!

In 1913 Woodrow Wilson, leader of what is known as the “Progressive Era” saw the Constitution as old and cumbersome, in need of reform. Using the term “Democracy” which is nothing more than mob rule, something deliberately shunned by our Founding Fathers, the Progressives pushed for “democratically elected Senators”; using the approved method of amending the Constitution, the Seventeenth was passed on April 8th 1913.

Wilson doesn’t get all the credit however; as early as 1826 efforts were afoot to undermine the Constitution, and by the early 1900’s, Oregon had begun electing Senators by direct election, in DIRECT opposition to the Constitution, followed by Nebraska.

William Randolph Hearst, another Progressive, used his magazine “Cosmopolitan”, a general interest magazine at the time, to push for direct elections, reaching around 100,000 readers.

The cry for “democracy” was heard and felt; when the Seventeenth was ratified our Constitutional Republic took a giant step backwards towards Democracy, removing one genius roadblock the Federal government had to go through to step on the rights of the states.
Money is always the root of evil, and the Seventeenth removed a final hurdle to the people being able to vote themselves more money from the treasury--Bastiat calls this “Legalized Plunder”, but that’s another post.

Repeal must be discussed; must become a bigger issue if we are to regain Constitutional integrity.
It won’t be easy, “democratic” is a term that is bandied about, wrong as it may be; we need to help people understand we don’t HAVE a Democracy, we have a Constitutional Republic; we must use the correct terms if we are to gain ground in the battle for the Restoration of the Constitution.
Let it start with us.