Sunday, November 16, 2014


I had the privilege of Officiating a Christian Wedding Ceremony yesterday, November 15, 2014. What makes this unique is that it was for two kids of Chinese decent. They were adamant that the ceremony include God. We worked on this ceremony for about two months until they got what they wanted. 

The reason I bring this up is that I have performed several ceremonies this summer where the couple wants no mention of God whatsoever. Why is this? Have we digressed so much as a nation or a people that we no longer acknowledge God. That without Him, there would be no us. 

When I heard the Democrats denounce God three times at their convention, I was totally shocked. They are a Godless Party and believe only in the Government as the Supreme Being. 

When did this happen? It is my belief that they have been eroding our very foundation as a Christian Nation since God, Prayer, and The Bible were removed from our schools in the 1960's. That's when the brainwashing of our kids began. Reference the attached article from 1988.

Banning Prayer in Public Schools Has Led to America's Demise

By Editorial Staff
Published May 1, 1988
by Gary Bergel
A recent statistical analysis by David Barton graphically illustrates how America has plummeted from righteous living, prosperity and success in the last quarter century. Consider the following chart compiled from his study, America: To Pray or Not to Pray. 1
As you might have already noticed on Mr. Barton’s graph, America’s moral decline rapidly accelerated following one event – the U.S. Supreme Court’s removal of prayer from our nation’s schools. On June 25, l962, 39 million students were forbidden to do what they and their predecessors had been doing since the founding of our nation – publicly calling upon the name of the Lord at the beginning of each school day.
The New York school children which prompted the Engel vs. Vitale ruling had simply prayed: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee and beg Thy blessing over us, our parents, our teachers and our nation.”
America has experienced radical decline in each of the four areas which the children’s prayer touched upon: youth, family, education, national life. Minor recovery has occurred only since 1980 when the election of President Reagan brought forth a renewed emphasis on “traditional” values.
The removal of prayer from our schools was a violation of the third commandment which commands us “not to take the name of the Lord in vain.” By the judicial act of forbidding invocation, the Court audaciously elevated a secularized system of education beyond the authority, reach and blessing of God Himself. Worse than taking the Lord’s sacred name in vain is treating it with contempt, denying it rightful place and stripping it from public use and even from the lips of children. Jesus’ own expressed desire, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them” was also violated by these judges, many of whom were raised in Christian homes.
But there was actually a gross violation of the third commandment by the U.S. Supreme Court a year earlier. A ruling in 1961, I believe, paved the way for stripping the Lord’s name from our children’s lips. In Torcaso vs. Watkins, the court overruled a provision of the Maryland Constitution which made “a declaration of belief in the existence of God” mandatory for holding public office.
Roy R. Torcaso, a Maryland resident and an avowed atheist, was refused a notary public commission when he would not subscribe to the required oath. His case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled to sanction atheism and overruled the Maryland Constitution.
Rev. T. Robert Ingram records columnist Felix Morley’s shrewd observations on this 1961 ruling in his study, The World Under God’s Law. Mr. Morley, writing in the Nation’s Business September 1961, pointed out “the absurdity of having an official administer to others oaths in the sanctity of which he does not himself believe.”
The effect of this ruling is not just to eat away at the sacredness of the name of God, but to eliminate the sacredness and thereby the substance of the oath itself. With solemn oaths and binding contracts between individuals removed, the state eventually sits where God ought, and only the state’s cause is held valid. There is no longer an absolute and just legal basis for judging “between a man and his brother,” much less a man and his neighbor (Deuteronomy 1:16, 17). All affairs of life become subject to state, rather than individual control.
Rev. Ingram documents and points out that “a broad, organized attack reaching into high places is under way to remove the third commandment from legal standing in the United States and throughout the world.” He points out that, “the World Court, for example, presumably the new fountain of justice, or a prototype of the socialist dream of world government, has no provision for’taking the name of God’ – no oath.” The Socialist agenda of world domination makes no place for solemn “swearing” between individuals.
Jesus’ teaching on oath-taking recorded in Matthew 5:33-37, while often misinterpreted, is actually a strong affirmation of the third commandment and a clear warning that “the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7).
Besides forbidding perjury, (calling God to witness a lie) and false swearing, this passage also forbids all rash and unnecessary swearing, and especially warns against promissory oaths – that require a performance. Our “Yes” should be “Yes,” and our “No” should mean “No.” If understood, our word uttered in integrity should of itself be a sufficient and proper bond.
The “evangelical prophet,” Oswald Chambers (1874 – 1917), saw that the empty promises made by so many Christians actually result in great “spiritual leakage.” He admonished his followers: “Always beware of vowing, it is a risky thing. If you promise to do a thing and don’t do it, it means the weakening of your moral nature. We are all so glib in the way we promise and don’t perform and never realize that it is sapping our moral energy.“2
Think then, what happens to a nation rife with perjury, broken marriage covenants, unforgiveness, cults with demonic covenants, extortion, bribery, libel, slander, profanity, hypocrisy, idle talk, and lawsuits initiated solely for revenge and personal gain. We are living witnesses that truly “the Lord does not hold such a nation guiltless.”
Regardless of how the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, we must each, as Oswald Chambers declared, realize that “God’s laws are not watered down to suit anyone; if God did that He would cease to be God. The moral law never alters for the noblest or the weakest; it remains abidingly and eternally the same.”
After more than 25 years of severe moral decline is it not time to repent, reverence the name of the Lord, re institute and keep the third commandment?

It has only gotten worse since then. 

If we are to save Our Nation and Our Children, we must, as parents, reverse this process. It is not Governments responsibility to define God and Moral Structure. We MUST return to Our Founding Principles. The Silent Majority must remain silent no longer. 

It is my Prayer that we, as individuals take on the responsibility for educating our children. That we do not let Government and the Liberal School System re-write history. Read The Declaration Of Independence and The Constitution of the United States. Take these words to heart and Share with others.

Let's put God back in Our Nation And In MARRIAGE!

The Patriot Factor

The Patriot Factor

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

"Stop The Coming Civil War"

Reading Dr. Savage's "Stop The Coming Civil War". Awesome read. Should be in everyone's library. Totally backed up by Factual References. I urge all my friends and Patriots to pick up a copy and share with all your Liberal Friends!

Friday, September 19, 2014

Reagan's Speech at the 4th Annual CPAC Convention: A New Republican Party

February 6, 1977 

I’m happy to be back with you in this annual event after missing last year’s meeting. I had some business in New Hampshire that wouldn’t wait. 

Three weeks ago here in our nation’s capital I told a group of conservative scholars that we are currently in the midst of a re-ordering of the political realities that have shaped our time. We know today that the principles and values that lie at the heart of conservatism are shared by the majority. 

Despite what some in the press may say, we who are proud to call ourselves “conservative” are not a minority of a minority party; we are part of the great majority of Americans of both major parties and of most of the independents as well. 

A Harris poll released September 7, l975 showed 18 percent identifying themselves as liberal and 31 per- cent as conservative, with 41 percent as middle of the road; a few months later, on January 5, 1976, by a 43-19 plurality those polled by Harris said they would “prefer to see the country move in a more conservative direction than a liberal one.” 

Last October 24th, the Gallup organization released the result of a poll taken right in the midst of the presidential campaign. 

Respondents were asked to state where they would place themselves on a scale ranging from “right-of-center” (which was defined as “conservative”) to left-of-center (which was defined as “liberal”).

  • Thirty-seven percent viewed themselves as left-of-center or liberal 
  • Twelve percent placed themselves in the middle 
  • Fifty-one percent said they were right-of-center, that is, conservative. 

What I find interesting about this particular poll is that it offered those polled a range of choices on a left-right continuum. This seems to me to be a more realistic approach than dividing the world into strict left and rights. Most of us, I guess, like to think of ourselves as avoiding both extremes, and the fact that a majority of Americans chose one or the other position on the right end of the spectrum is really impressive.

Those polls confirm that most Americans are basically conservative in their outlook. But once we have said this, we conservatives have not solved our problems, we have merely stated them clearly. Yes, conservatism can and does mean different things to those who call themselves conservatives.

You know, as I do, that most commentators make a distinction between they call “social” conservatism and “economic” conservatism. The so-called social issues—law and order, abortion, busing, quota systems—are usually associated with blue-collar, ethnic and religious groups themselves traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. The economic issues—inflation, deficit spending and big government—are usually associated with Republican Party members and independents who concentrate their attention on economic matters.

Now I am willing to accept this view of two major kinds of conservatism—or, better still, two different conservative constituencies. But at the same time let me say that the old lines that once clearly divided these two kinds of conservatism are disappearing.

In fact, the time has come to see if it is possible to present a program of action based on political principle that can attract those interested in the so-called “social” issues and those interested in “economic” issues. In short, isn't it possible to combine the two major segments of contemporary American conservatism into one politically effective whole? 

I believe the answer is: Yes, it is possible to create a political entity that will reflect the views of the great, hitherto, conservative majority. We went a long way toward doing it in California. We can do it in America. This is not a dream, a wistful hope. It is and has been a reality. I have seen the conservative future and it works. 

Let me say again what I said to our conservative friends from the academic world: What I envision is not simply a melding together of the two branches of American conservatism into a temporary uneasy alliance, but the creation of a new, lasting majority. 

This will mean compromise. But not a compromise of basic principle. What will emerge will be something new: something open and vital and dynamic, something the great conservative majority will recognize as its own, because at the heart of this undertaking is principled politics. 

I have always been puzzled by the inability of some political and media types to understand exactly what is meant by adherence to political principle. All too often in the press and the television evening news it is treated as a call for “ideological purity.” Whatever ideology may mean—and it seems to mean a variety of things, depending upon who is using it—it always conjures up in my mind a picture of a rigid, irrational clinging to abstract theory in the face of reality. We have to recognize that in this country “ideology” is a scare word. And for good reason. Marxist-Leninism is, to give but one example, an ideology. All the facts of the real world have to be fitted to the Procrustean bed of Marx and Lenin. If the facts don't happen to fit the ideology, the facts are chopped off and discarded. 

I consider this to be the complete opposite to principled conservatism. If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free for slavish adherence to abstraction, it is American conservatism.

When a conservative states that the free market is the best mechanism ever devised by the mind of man to meet material needs, he is merely stating what a careful examination of the real world has told him is the truth.

When a conservative says that totalitarian Communism is an absolute enemy of human freedom he is not theorizing—he is reporting the ugly reality captured so unforgettably in the writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

When a conservative says it is bad for the government to spend more than it takes in, he is simply showing the same common sense that tells him to come in out of the rain. 

When a conservative says that busing does not work, he is not appealing to some theory of education—he is merely reporting what he has seen down at the local school. 

When a conservative quotes Jefferson that government that is closest to the people is best, it is because he knows that Jefferson risked his life, his fortune and his sacred honor to make certain that what he and his fellow patriots learned from experience was not crushed by an ideology of empire. 

Conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanatacism that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world. The common sense and common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way—this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before.

The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations—found through the often bitter testing of pain, or sacrifice and sorrow. 

One thing that must be made clear in post-Watergate is this: The American new conservative majority we represent is not based on abstract theorizing of the kind that turns off the American people, but on common sense, intelligence, reason, hard work, faith in God, and the guts to say: “Yes, there are things we do strongly believe in, that we are willing to live for, and yes, if necessary, to die for.” That is not “ideological purity.” It is simply what built this country and kept it great. 

Let us lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of a small group of ideological purists trying to capture a majority. Replace it with the reality of a majority trying to assert its rights against the tyranny of powerful academics, fashionable left-revolutionaries, some economic illiterates who happen to hold elective office and the social engineers who dominate the dialogue and set the format in political and social affairs. If there is any ideological fanaticism in American political life, it is to be found among the enemies of freedom on the left or right—those who would sacrifice principle to theory, those who worship only the god of political, social and economic abstractions, ignoring the realities of everyday life. They are not conservatives. 

Our first job is to get this message across to those who share most of our principles. If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as ideological shock troops without correcting this error we are doing ourselves and our cause a disservice. Wherever and whenever we can, we should gently but firmly correct our political and media friends who have been perpetuating the myth of conservatism as a narrow ideology. Whatever the word may have meant in the past, today conservatism means principles evolving from experience and a belief in change when necessary, but not just for the sake of change. 

One we have established this, the next question is: What will be the political vehicle by which the majority can assert its rights? 

I have to say I cannot agree with some of my friends—perhaps including some of you here tonight—who have answered that question by saying this nation needs a new political party. 

I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over. Rather than a third party, we can have a new first party made up of people who share our principles. I have said before that if a formal change in name proves desirable, then so be it. But tonight, for purpose of discussion, I’m going to refer it simply as the New Republican Party. 

And let me say so there can be no mistakes as to what I mean: The New Republican Party I envision will not be, and cannot, be one limited to the country club-big business image that, for reasons both fair and unfair, it is burdened with today. The New Republican Party I am speaking about is going to have room for the man and the woman in the factories, for the farmer, for the cop on the beat and the millions of Americans who may never have thought of joining our party before, but whose interests coincide with those represented by principled Republicanism. If we are to attract more working men and women of this country, we will do so not by simply “making room” for them, but by making certain they have a say in what goes on in the party. The Democratic Party turned its back on the majority of social conservatives during the 1960s. The New Republican Party of the late ’70s and ’8Os must welcome them, seek them out, enlist them, not only as rank-and-file members but as leaders and as candidates. 

The time has come for Republicans to say to black voters: “Look, we offer principles that black Americans can, and do, support.” We believe in jobs, real jobs; we believe in education that is really education; we believe in treating all Americans as individuals and not as stereotypes or voting blocs—and we believe that the long-range interest of black Americans lies in looking at what each major party has to offer, and then deciding on the merits. The Democratic Party takes the black vote for granted. Well, it’s time black America and the New Republican Party move toward each other and create a situation in which no black vote can be taken for granted. 

The New Republican Party I envision is one that will energetically seek out the best candidates for every elective office, candidates who not only agree with, but understand, and are willing to fight for a sound, honest economy, for the interests of American families and neighborhoods and communities and a strong national defense. And these candidates must be able to communicate those principles to the American people in language they understand. Inflation isn’t a textbook problem. Unemployment isn’t a textbook problem. They should be discussed in human terms. 

Our candidates must be willing to communicate with every level of society, because the principles we espouse are universal and cut across traditional lines. In every Congressional district there should be a search made for young men and women who share these principles and they should be brought into positions of leadership in the local Republican Party groups. We can find attractive, articulate candidates if we look, and when we find them, we will begin to change the sorry state of affairs that has led a Democratic-controlled Congress for more than 40 years. I need not remind you that you can have the soundest principles in the world, but if you don't have candidates who can communicate those principles, candidates who are articulate as well as principled, you are going to lose election after election. I refuse to believe that the good Lord divided this world into Republicans who defend basic values and Democrats who win elections. We have to find tough, bright young men and women who are sick and tired of cliches and the pomposity and the mind-numbing economic idiocy of the liberals in Washington. 

It is at this point, however, that we come across a question that is really the essential one: What will be the basis of this New Republican Party? To what set of values and principles can our candidates appeal? Where can Americans who want to know where we stand look for guidance?

Fortunately, we have an answer to that question. That answer was provided last summer by the men and women of the Republican Party—not just the leadership, but the ones who have built the party on local levels all across the country.

The answer was provided in the 1976 platform of the Republican Party. 

This was not a document handed down from on high. It was hammered out in free and open debate among all those who care about our party and the principles it stands for.

The Republican platform is unique. Unlike any other party platform I have ever seen, it answers not only programmatic questions for the immediate future of the party but also provides a clear outline of the underlying principles upon which those programs are based. 

The New Republican Party can and should use the Republican platform of 1976 as the major source from which a Declaration of Principles can be created and offered to the American people. 

Tonight I want to offer to you my own version of what such a declaration might look like. I make no claim to originality. This declaration I propose is relatively short, taken, for most part, word for word from the Republican platform. It concerns itself with basic principles, not with specific solutions. 

We, the members of the New Republican Party, believe that the preservation and enhancement of the values that strengthen and protect individual freedom, family life, communities and neighborhoods and the liberty of our beloved nation should be at the heart of any legislative or political program presented to the American people. Toward that end, we, therefore, commit ourselves to the following propositions and offer them to each American believing that the New Republican Party, based on such principles, will serve the interest of all the American people . 

We believe that liberty can be measured by how much freedom Americans have to make their own decisions, even their own mistakes. Government must step in when one’s liberties impinge on one’s neighbor’s. Government must protect constitutional rights, deal with other governments, protect citizens from aggressors, assure equal opportunity, and be compassionate in caring for those citizens who are unable to care for themselves. 

Our federal system of local-state-national government is designed to sort out on what level these actions should be taken. Those concerns of a national character—such as air and water pollution that do not respect state boundaries, or the national transportation system, or efforts to safeguard your civil liberties—must, of course, be handled on the national level. 

As a general rule, however, we believe that government action should be taken first by the government that resides as close to you as possible. 

We also believe that Americans, often acting through voluntary organizations, should have the opportunity to solve many of the social problems of their communities. This spirit of freely helping others is uniquely American and should be encouraged in every way by government.

Families must continue to be the foundation of our nation. 

Families—not government programs—are the best way to make sure our children are properly nurtured, our elderly are cared for, our cultural and spiritual heritages are perpetuated, our laws are observed and our values are preserved. 

hus it is imperative that our government’s programs, actions, officials and social welfare institutions never be allowed to jeopardize the family. We fear the government may be powerful enough to destroy our families; we know that it is not powerful enough to replace them. The New Republican Party must be committed to working always in the interest of the American family. 

Every dollar spent by government is a dollar earned by individuals. Government must always ask: Are your dollars being wisely spent? Can we afford it? Is it not better for the country to leave your dollars in your pocket?

Elected officials, their appointees, and government workers are expected to perform their public acts with honesty, openness, diligence, and special integrity.

Government must work for the goal of justice and the elimination of unfair practices, but no government has yet designed a more productive economic system or one which benefits as many people as the American market system.

The beauty of our land is our legacy to our children. It must be protected by us so that they can pass it on intact to their children.

The United States must always stand for peace and liberty in the world and the rights of the individual. We must form sturdy partnerships with our allies for the preservation of freedom. We must be ever willing to negotiate differences, but equally mindful that there are American ideals that cannot be compromised. Given that there are other nations with potentially hostile design, we recognize that we can reach our goals only while maintaining a superior national defense, second to none. 

In his inaugural speech President Carter said that he saw the world “dominated by a new spirit.” He said, and I quote: “The passion for freedom is on the rise.” 

Well, I don’t know how he knows this, but if it is true, then it is the most unrequited passion in human history. The world is being dominated by a new spirit, all right, but it isn’t the spirit of freedom.

It isn’t very often you see a familiar object that shocks and frightens you. But the other day I came across a map of the world created by Freedom House, an organization monitoring the state of freedom in the world for the past 25 years. It is an ordinary map, with one exception: it shows the world’s nations in white for free, shaded for partly free and black for not free. 

Almost all of the great Eurasian land mass is completely colored black, from the western border of East Germany, through middle and eastern Europe, through the awesome spaces of the Soviet Union, on to the Bering Strait in the north, down past the immensity of China, still further down to Vietnam and the South China Sea—in all that huge, sprawling, inconceivably immense area not a single political or personal or religious freedom exists. The entire continent of Africa, from the Mediterranean to the Cape of Good Hope, from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, all that vastness is almost totally unfree. In the tiny nation of Tanzania alone, according to a report in the New York Times, there are 3,000 people in detention for political crimes—that is more than the total being held in South Africa! The Mideast has only one free state: Israel. If a visitor from another planet were to approach earth, and if this planet showed free nations in light and unfree nations in darkness, the pitifully small beacons of light would make him wonder what was hidden in that terrifying, enormous blackness. 

We know what is hidden: gulag. Torture. Families—and human beings—broken apart. No free press, no freedom of religion. The ancient forms of tyranny revived and made even more hideous and strong through what Winston Churchill once called “a perverted science.” Men rotting for years in solitary confinement because they have different political and economic beliefs, solitary confinement that drives the fortunate ones insane and makes the survivors wish for death. 

Only now and then do we in the West hear a voice from out of that darkness. Then there is silence—the silence of human slavery. There is no more terrifying sound in human experience, with one possible exception. Look at that map again. The very heart of the darkness is the Soviet Union and from that heart comes a different sound. It is the whirring sound of machinery and the whisper of the computer technology we ourselves have sold them. It is the sound of building, building of the strongest military machine ever devised by man. Our military strategy is designed to hopefully prevent a war. Theirs is designed to win one. A group of eminent scientists, scholars and intelligence experts offer a survey showing that the Soviet Union is driving for military superiority and are derided as hysterically making, quote, “a worst case,” unquote, concerning Soviet intentions and capabilities. 

But is it not precisely the duty of the national government to be prepared for the worst case? Two senators, after studying the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, have reported to the Armed Forces committee that Soviet forces in Eastern Europe have the capability to launch, with little warning, a “potentially devastating” attack in Central Europe from what is termed a “standing alert.” 

Reading their report, one can almost see the enormous weight of the parts of the earth that are under tyranny shifting in an irresistible tilt toward that tiny portion of land in freedom’s light. Even now in Western Europe we have Communists in the government of Italy. France appeasing terrorists, and England—for centuries the model or the sword of freedom in Western Europe—weak, dispirited, turning inward. 

A “worst case?” How could you make a good case out of the facts as they are known? The Soviet Union, poised on the edge of free Europe, capable of striking from a standing start, has modern tanks in far greater numbers than the outmoded vehicles of NATO. We have taken comfort from NATO’s superiority in the air, but now the Soviet Union has made a dramatic swing away from its historic defensive air posture to one capable of supporting offensive action. NATO’s southern flank is described in the Senate report with a single word: shambles. 

The report is simply reality as it was, with different names and faces, in Europe in the late 1930s when so many refused to believe and thought if we don’t look the threat will go away. 

We don’t want hysteria. We don’t want distortion of Soviet power. We want truth. And above all we want peace. And to have that the United States has to immediately re-examine its entire view of the world and develop a strategy of freedom. We cannot be the second-best super-power for the simple reason that he who is second is last. In this deadly game, there are no silver medals for second. 

President Carter, as a candidate, said he would cut five to seven billion dollars from the defense budget. We must let him know that while we agree, there must be no fat in our armed forces. Those armed forces must be capable of coping with the new reality presented to us by the Russians, and cutting seven billion dollars out of our defense budget is not the way to accomplish this. Some years ago, a young President said we will make any sacrifice, bear any burden and we will to preserve our freedom. 

Our relationship with mainland China is clouded. The so-called “gang of four” are up one day and down the next and we are seeing the pitfalls of making deals with charismatic personalities and living legends. The charisma fades as the living legends die, and those who take their place are interested not in our best wishes but in power. The keyword for China today is turmoil. We should watch and observe and analyze as closely and rationally as we can. 

But in our relationships with the mainland of China we should always remember that the conditions and possibilities for and the realities of freedom exist to an infinitely greater degree with our Chinese friends in Taiwan. We can never go wrong if we do what is morally right, and the moral way—the honorable way—is to keep our commitment, our solemn promise to the people of Taiwan. Our liberal friends have made much of the lack of freedom in some Latin American countries. Senator Edward Kennedy and his colleagues here in Washington let no opportunity pass to let us know about horrors in Chile. 

Well, I think when the United States of America is considering a deal with a country that hasn’t had an election in almost eight years, where the press is under the thumb of a dictatorship, where ordinary citizens are abducted in the night by secret police, where military domination of the country is known to be harsh on dissenters and when these things are documented, we should reject overtures from those who rule such a country. 

But the country I’m describing is not Chile—it is Panama.

We are negotiating with a dictatorship that comes within the portion of that map colored black for no freedom. No civil rights. One-man rule. No free press. 

Candidate Carter said he would never relinquish “actual control” of the Panama Canal. President Carter is negotiating with a dictatorship whose record on civil and human rights is as I have just described and the negotiations concern the rights guaranteed to us by treaty which we will give up under a threat of violence. In only a few weeks we will mark the second anniversary of the death of freedom for the Vietnamese. An estimated 300,000 of them are being “re-educated” in concentration camps to forget about freedom. 

There is only one major question on the agenda of national priorities and that is the state of our national security. I refer, of course, to the state of our armed forces—but also to our state of mind, to the way we perceive the world. We cannot maintain the strength we need to survive, no matter how many missiles we have, no matter how many tanks we build, unless we are willing to reverse: 

  • The trend of deteriorating faith in and continuing abuse of our national intelligence agencies. Let’s stop the sniping and the propaganda and the historical revisionism and let the CIA and the other intelligence agencies do their job! 
  • Let us reverse the trend of public indifference to problems of national security. In every congressional district citizens should join together, enlist and educate neighbors and make certain that congressmen know we care. The front pages of major newspapers on the East Coast recently headlined and told in great detail of a takeover, the takeover of a magazine published in New York—not a nation losing its freedom. You would think, from the attention it received in the media, that it was a matter of blazing national interest whether the magazine lived or died. The tendency of much of the media to ignore the state of our national security is too well documented for me to go on. 

My friends, the time has come to start acting to bring about the great conservative majority party we know is waiting to be created. 

And just to set the record straight, let me say this about our friends who are now Republicans but who do not identify themselves as conservatives: I want the record to show that I do not view the new revitalized Republican Party as one based on a principle of exclusion. After all, you do not get to be a majority party by searching for groups you won’t associate or work with. If we truly believe in our principles, we should sit down and talk. Talk with anyone, anywhere, at any time if it means talking about the principles for the Republican Party. Conservatism is not a narrow ideology, nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists. 

We’ve succeeded better than we know. Little more than a decade ago more than two-thirds of Americans believed the federal government could solve all our problems, and do so without restricting our freedom or bankrupting the nation. 

We warned of things to come, of the danger inherent in unwarranted government involvement in things not its proper province. What we warned against has come to pass. And today more than two-thirds of our citizens are telling us, and each other, that social engineering by the federal government has failed. The Great Society is great only in power, in size and in cost. And so are the problems it set out to solve. Freedom has been diminished and we stand on the brink of economic ruin. 

Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let’s act and talk like it. 

The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when? 

Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society. 

Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite. 

Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. Any organization is in actuality only the lengthened shadow of its members. A political party is a mechanical structure created to further a cause. The cause, not the mechanism, brings and holds the members together. And our cause must be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America’s spiritual heritage to our national affairs. 

Then with God’s help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Star Spangled Banner As You've Never Heard It

The Accurate Story Behind the Star Spangled Banner

Our National Anthem

Our National Anthem
Star Spangled Banner

By Isaac Asimov

Written by the late Isaac Asimov, in March 1991. Asimov was born in Russia, and emigrated in 1923 with his parents when he was a young child. He became an American citizen in 1928.

I have a weakness - I am crazy, absolutely nuts, about our national anthem. The words are difficult, and the tune is almost impossible, but frequently when I'm taking a shower, I sing it with as much power and emotion as I can. It shakes me up every time. I was once asked to speak at a luncheon. Taking my life in my hands, I announced I was going to sing our national anthem - all four stanzas. This was greeted with loud groans. One man closed the door to the kitchen, where the noise of dishes and cutlery was loud and distracting. "Thanks, Herb," I said. "That's all right," he said. "It was at the request of the kitchen staff."

I explained the background of the anthem, and then sang all four stanzas. Let me tell you, those people had never heard it before - or had never really listened. I got a standing ovation. But, it was not me; it was the anthem.

More recently, while conducting a seminar, I told my students the story of the anthem, and sang all four stanzas. Again, there was a wild ovation and prolonged applause. And again, it was the anthem, and not me. So, now let me tell you how it came to be written.
In 1812, the United States went to war with Great Britain, primarily over freedom of the seas. We were in the right. For two years, we held off the British, even though we were still a rather weak country. Great Britain was in a life and death struggle with Napoleon. In fact, just as the United States declared war, Napoleon marched off to invade Russia. If he won, as everyone expected, he would control Europe, and Great Britain would be isolated. It was no time for her to be involved in an American war.

At first, our seamen proved better than the British. After we won a battle on Lake Erie in 1813, the American commander, Oliver Hazard Perry, sent the message "We have met the enemy, and they are ours." However, the weight of the British navy beat down our ships, eventually. New England, hard-hit by a tightening blockade, threatened secession.

Meanwhile, Napoleon was beaten in Russia and, in 1814, was forced to abdicate. Great Britain now turned its attention to the United States, launching a three-pronged attack. The Northern prong was to come down Lake Champlain toward New York, and seize parts of New England. The Southern prong was to go up the Mississippi, take New Orleans and paralyze the West. The Central prong was to head for the Mid-Atlantic states, and then attack Baltimore, the greatest port South of New York. If Baltimore was taken, the nation, which still hugged the Atlantic coast, could be split in two. The fate of the United States, then, rested, to a large extent, on the success or failure of the Central prong.

The British reached the American coast, and on August 24, 1814, took Washington, D.C. Then they moved up the Chesapeake Bay, toward Baltimore. On September 12, they arrived and found 1,000 men in Fort McHenry, whose guns controlled the harbor. If the British wished to take Baltimore, they would have to take the Fort.

On one of the British ships was an aged physician, William Beanes, who had been arrested in Maryland, and brought along as a prisoner. Francis Scott Key, a lawyer and friend of the physician, had come to the ship to negotiate his release. The British Captain was willing, but the two Americans would have to wait. It was now the night of Tuesday, September 13, 1814, and the bombardment of Fort McHenry was about to start.

As twilight deepened, Key and Beanes saw the American flag flying over Fort McHenry. Through the night, they heard bombs bursting, and saw the red glare of rockets. They knew the Fort was resisting, and the American flag was still flying. But, toward morning, the bombardment ceased, and a dreaded silence fell. Either Fort McHenry had surrendered, and the British flag flew above it; or the bombardment had failed, and the American flag still flew.

As dawn began to brighten the Eastern sky, Key and Beanes stared out at the Fort, tyring to see which flag flew over it. He and the physician must have asked each other, over and over, "Can you see the flag?"

After it was all finished, Key wrote a four-stanza poem telling the events of the night. He called it The Defence of Fort McHenry, and it was published in newspapers, and swept the nation. Someone noted that the words fit an old English tune called To Anacreon in Heaven - a difficult melody, with an uncomfortably large vocal range. For obvious reasons, Key's work became known as The Star Spangled Banner, and in 1931, Congress declared it the official anthem of the United States.

Now that you know the story, here are the words. Presumably, the old doctor is speaking. This is what he asks Key:
Star Spangled Banner 

Oh! say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
Oh! say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

("Ramparts," in case you don't know, are the protective walls or other elevations that surround a Fort. The first stanza asks a question. The second gives an answer. )

On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mist of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep.
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream.
'Tis the star-spangled banner. Oh! long may it wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
("The towering steep" is again, the ramparts. The bombardment has failed, and the British can do nothing more but sail away, their mission a failure. In the third stanza, I feel Key allows himself to gloat over the American triumph. In the aftermath of the bombardment, Key probably was in no mood to act otherwise. During World War II, when the British were our staunchest allies, this third stanza was not sung. However, I know it, so here it is)

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave,
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

(The fourth stanza, a pious hope for the future, should be sung more slowly than the other three, and with even deeper feeling. )

Oh! Thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand,
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n - rescued land,
> Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause is just,
And this be our motto - "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
I hope you will look at the national anthem with new eyes. Listen to it, the next time you have a chance, with new ears.

And, don't let them ever take it away

Herman Cain National Anthem!

Beautiful! Oh, how the pinheads and Liberals must hate this country. When you can take something so beautiful and meaningful and not want to stand up and be Proud To Be American! You can always tell who they are when the Anthem is played, They're the ones without their hands over their heart, or talking, or sitting or just showing their disgust by the looks on their faces. Remember, they denied God three times at their convention! Remember, YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID!

Thursday, September 11, 2014

They're beginning to see the light...

Obama isn't capable of swatting a fly by alone destroying the ISIS...Look at Obama's polling on foreign policy...He's about as low as he can go.
His threats are meaningless...he is meaningless and his presidency is that of a massive failure.
I wanted President Obama to be successful. I even voted for him the first time he ran. However, he is so incredibly weak, and empty. He has screwed up all the huge gains in Iraq. He caused the biggest immigration crisis in our history.
Obama has destroyed our economy. Everybody I know is underemployed. I have no hope of making more money in the near future. My expenses keep rising. My health insurance is up to $400/month. Before the govt touched it, it was around $200/month. My car insurance, which is still private enterprise, is thankfully only $25/month (from Insurance Panda). Please, President Obama! Don’t try to socialize car insurance too!
He turned victory in Iraq into the mess we see now. He is doing the same thing in Afghanistan.
I rooted for him. I am saddened by the non-stop lies and spin. I am saddened by the disaster that his Presidency has been. I wanted him to be the best President in our history, for so many reasons. He has likely been our worst.
Shock and Awe to Obama...is having tea & crumpets with the very muslin brothers Obama is trying so hard to protect..

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Obama’s Caliphate…The Truth Exposed

Craig Andresen

Obama’s Caliphate…The Truth Exposed

By Craig Andresen on August 26, 2014 at 4:33 am
demp 1
By Craig Andresen and Diane Sori (RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS)
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, has backtracked on his previously issued statement that we must take out ISIS in Syria, and now says that he will NOT recommend U.S. military airstrikes against ISIS in Syria until he determines that they have become a direct threat to the U.S.
Uh…excuse me but didn’t Dempsey just sit alongside Defense Secretary…and known muslim sympathizer…Chuck Hagel a few short days ago in a joint press briefing, and agree with Hagel when he said ISIS is an “imminent threat to every interest we have” and that ISIS is “beyond anything that we’ve seen.” Yeah…he did.
And didn’t both he and Hagel say that ISIS must also be defeated in Syria as well as Iraq. Yeah… he did.
Gee I wonder what changed his mind…do the words ‘Barack HUSSEIN Obama’ come to mind…they sure do for us. Hey, we wonder if they ‘talked’ over one of Obama’s recent games of golf…or if Obama has ‘something’ on Dempsey.
Sorry folks but it’s just too damn convenient that now Dempsey…who was all gung-ho about taking out ISIS in Syria just a few short days ago…suddenly echoes Obama’s words by saying that he believes ISIS is more of a ‘regional threat’ and is NOT currently plotting or planning attacks against the U.S. or Europe. Guess he hasn’t looked at the ISIS conquest maps for starters or all the Iraqi heads rolling for finishers, and thrown in the middle is all ISIS’ threats to attack the U.S. done through social and conventional media.
Guess Dempsey also forgets when an ISIS spokesman vowed to “raise the flag of Allah in the White House.” Guess he forgets Mosul being demp 2wiped clean of its Christian population as they declared an islamic caliphate covering northeastern Syria and northern and western Iraq with the threat of expanding it all the way to the Americas. Guess he forgets that recently journalist James Foley…an American…was also beheaded and the threat made to do the same to the other American journalist, Steven Sotloff, still being held captive.
Now comparing ISIS to al-Qaeda, Dempsey seems to forget that even al-Qaeda wants NO part of them. Odd isn’t it that while al-Qaeda fears their barbarism it seems Dempsey does NOT as he speaks words of ‘containment’ out of one side of his mouth on one particular day, as in it would be possible to contain” ISIS, but then quickly adds “NOT without going after the group in Syria“…and then out of the other side of his mouth on another day says, and I quote,“This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated,” but obviously to his way of thinking NOT now. But last time we checked ‘end-of-days’ referred to the whole world NOT a small section of it and guess what Gen. Dempsey…the U.S. is indeed part of that world…and so is Israel…more on that in a bit.
And with Gen. Dempsey on his way to Afghanistan to attend today’s change of command ceremony as Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford steps down as the top commander and with Army Gen. John Campbell taking over…you just have to wonder why at this time of war has another General ‘retired’ (yeah right) and is being replaced by an Obama ‘yes man’…sadly, we think we all know why and the thought isn’t pretty.
demp 3Now notice how Dempsey, Hagel, Obama, and others in positions of power keep referring to ISIS as ISIL, or as the Islamic Front, or as Sunni terrorists…any and everything but  ISIS. And why…because referring to them as ISIL means they do NOT recognize Israel as a Jewish state…do NOT recognize Israel’s existence at all, and are sending a message to their muslim brethren to that affect. Remember, ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant with Levant being the land bridge from Egypt to Turkey, as in there is NO Israel at all existing in that land.
And now with this backtracking on Syria what a convenient way to buy time…to buy time for ISIS to take out Israel (or at least try) to do ‘their’ dirty work for them…keeping ‘their’ hands clean so to speak. Think of it this way…currently ISIS is like a shark…a constant killing machine with that machine growing stronger everyday as either you join them or you die. And as their numbers increase they grow stronger, and will push out from Iraq, into Iran, into Afghanistan, to arrive at Pakistan…a country who already supports them (see http://thepatriotfactor.blogspot.com/2014/08/op-ed-hey-pakistan.html). And what does Pakistan have that would give ISIS a weapon of true power to use against both Israel and America… nuclear weapons…in fact between 100 and 120 nuclear warheads.
And once they have control over those countries and bring them into the fold, they will backtrack again towards Israel…gathering up the rest of Syria and Jordan as well…and remember, Jordan, as we know is NO friend of Israel and is directly linked to both Hamas and the Muslimdemp 4 Brotherhood…two barbaric islamic groups who want Israel destroyed and all Jews worldwide…murdered.
And while King Abdullah II tries to portray himself as a moderate Arab, he is anything but. His allegiance lies squarely with both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood…he knows it, Netahyahu knows it, we know it…and Obama both knows it and supports it.
Seeing what Israel is doing in Gaza against the human shield-using Hamas is what is, for now, keeping Abdulla II at bay, but there is something he fears more than Israel’s reprisals. And what is it Abullah fears…he fears ISIS and he’s NOT alone in that fear as both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood exist, for the time being, in Jordan under the shaky protection of Abdulla II, and shaky may well be an understatement of epic proportions.
ISIS, the barbarians of all barbarians, hates HAMAS and the Muslim Brotherhood hence, they harbor a decidedly deadly hatred for those who harbor them and that includes Jordan. To the point…ISIS is threatening an invasion of Jordan and they already hold a few key strategic points from which such an invasion could be launched.
In a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black or, more succinctly, 7th century barbarians calling other 7th century barbarians…barbaric… Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the ‘spiritual father’ of the Muslim Brotherhood and the president of the ‘World Federation of Muslim Scholars,’ leveled the charge that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the defacto leader of ISIS was an “illegitimate Caliph in the Muslim world” which failed to sit well with al-Baghdadi who in turn, accused the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas of being Muslim “apostates” and “followers of witchcraft theology.”
To be clear, it’s a tangled web of islamic mudslinging, but what you need to know is that ISIS is threatening to invade Jordan over it and destroy both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. To that affect, they will execute King Abdullah II in the process, thus extending the reach of demp 5ISIS to the very front door of Israel and if ISIS and its recent history can be any sort of a guide, what they’re doing in Pakistan right now is most likely the way they’ll go about it.
In Pakistan, several factions of the Taliban have already vowed their allegiance to ISIS. Tehreek-i-Khilafat, a Talibani branch is one of them, and let’s be crystal clear from the get go on this…Lashkar-e-Jhangvi’s (Lej) Balochistan and Punjab Talibani groups from Pakistan have been with ISIS since their conception in Turkey. During their building of strength process in Syria they in fact, set up the training camp called, Ghazi Abdul Rasheed, in the Iraqi city of Erbil all the way back in 2013.
And why does Erbil sound familiar…because that’s where U.S. diplomats were trapped by ISIS just a few short weeks ago, so don’t be telling us that Obama was caught off guard by the formation and ascension of ISIS…it was being built right under his nose for the last year or more.
Pakistan, as far as ISIS is concerned, now is starting to show a quantum shift in barbaric thinking, from being only a shark-like killing machine to the incorporation of strategic planning, and that is something exactly like the Benghazi ‘stand down order’ was…which obviously came directly from Obama…and now is being done again in regards to taking out ISIS in Syria.
Here’s the strategy…ISIS intends to overthrow Pakistan’s corrupt government by means of attracting islamist militants and financial resources from within the ranks of the Taliban…courting jihadis…plying them with new power until they are sizable enough to simply topple the Pakistan government.
This should be a major concern tdemp 6o Obama as…once ISIS takes over Pakistan…they will have all the military accoutrements that the 21st century has to offer including nuclear weapons…and if that doesn’t make them an imminent threat, nothing ever could.
However, without such weapons, their task of eliminating Israel from the face of the Earth is much more difficult. And so Obama’s ‘just do enough to make people think we’re trying to “contain” ISIS, but don’t do anything that would really interfere with the growth or strength of the caliphate’ thus slapping down the Kerry State Department, Hagel, and General Dempsey over this past weekend.
ISIS isn’t the only entity in all of this employed strategic thinking…so too is Obama, but his is decidedly in favor of the caliphate and is doing everything he can to help establish it.
Obama knows he has but two years left and we believe, by keeping any involvement of the U.S. military at a bare minimum, he is attempting to buy time for ISIS to make a move in the next year to seize power and the weapons most coveted by 7th century barbarians…the nuclear weapons in Pakistan…along with their sacking of Jordan at which point, NO unilateral military action could end the caliphate.
Israel would be all but surrounded with only Egypt militarily capable of offering assistance, along with the more moderate Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE in support roles.
Right now, the Kurds of all people, NOT being known for their military prowess, are holding the line against ISIS in small enclaves which demonstrates the vulnerability of ISIS to a concentrated, well trained, and ultimately well-equipped military like ours…like the one Obama refuses to deploy to put an end to them. ISIS could indeed be destroyed right now, but Obama…true islamist that he is…wants to hdemp 8old a position of respect amongst 7th century barbarians, and that means clearing the way for and the building of the ISIS caliphate, so simply refuses to do so.
Last week, Obama was blaming the ‘surprise’ that is ISIS on a lack of accurate information from our intel community. “There is no doubt that their advance, their movement, over the last several months has been more rapid than the intelligence estimates, and I think then the expectation of policy makers both in and outside of Iraq.” Are we really to believe that the Director of the CIA, John Brennan, a muslim convert himself, didn’t know what ISIS was up to…oh please…
The Obama doctrine…creating vacuums of power in the Middle East and North Africa…is giving way to the strategic plan of ceding regional power to ISIS in an effort to do away with Israel and complete a caliphate the size and strength of which has never been seen before. And like a garden variety islamist, Obama has moved on from his support of the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda to throw in with ISIS…always bowing to the barbarians who carry the biggest sword.
Those in the media and elsewhere who believe Obama to be some sort of ignorant wuss, simply in over his head so far that he hasn’t a clue what to do…are sadly mistakendemp 9.
None of this is the result of a community organizer trying to feel his way through the world’s most dire chess game. No…this is all being directed by islamic design and Obama is the architect. And so Israel will be surrounded by one of the most brutal of barbaric forces ever to walk this Earth. And Obama and his minions hands will be stained with the blood of millions because he did NOT take ISIS out when he had the chance too.
Oh and by the way, it will be Israel in the end who survives because Israel will in the end do our job for us…and take out ISIS…and then Obama and his minions will truly have something to fear…for payback will indeed be a bitch.
This Wednesday, August 27th from 2-4pm EST…Diane and I will be joined by formed CIA op Dr. Jim Garrow to discuss the growing threat of ISIS…the Obama regime’s lack-luster response and THIS ARTICLE!!!