The Southern Poverty Law Center: Better known as the Poverty Pimps

It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.

–Charles A. Beard

The Southern Poverty Law Center (aka poverty pimps) is a group of left wing radicals created by Morris Dees in 1971. Their sole purpose is to demonize groups they deem as racist by concocting "hate crimes" for one reason or another. According to Ken Silverstein, even though SPLC doesn't receive government funds, they get their money through direct mailing by hyping hate crimes, yet do virtually nothing for the "victims". [FN173]

On their website, they claim: "The Southern Poverty Law Center is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society."

Really? According to Millard Fuller,

"Morris Dees and I, from the first day of our partnership, shared one overriding purpose: to make a pile of money. We were not particular about how we did it; we just wanted to be independently rich. During the eight years we worked together we never wavered in that resolve."

So, their sole purpose is to separate wealthy liberals from their money, yet, do nothing to help those that they claim to be representing. It's noteworthy to add that the American Institute of Philanthropy has repeatedly given SPLC an 'F' rating for nearly a decade.

In a Baltimore Sun article, they characterized the SPLC in a not so flattering way,

“Its business is fund raising, and its success at raking in the cash is based on its ability to sell gullible people on the idea that present-day America is awash in white racism and anti-Semitism, which it will fight tooth-and-nail as the public interest law firm it purports to be.”

In 1994 the Montgomery Advertiser won a journalism award for a series of damaging investigative articles, titled, A complex man: Opportunist or Crusader?, exposing the unethical fund raising practices of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In 1979, Maureen Bass Dees accused Morris of having a homosexual encounter during their marriage and having sexual relationships with his daughter-in-law and his underage step daughter. According to the file, the primary cause of the breakup was due to his mistress, Vicki Booker McGaha, whom he had a permanent relationship with starting in 1977.

Want to see how well Morris Dees has done for himself all these years, helping the down trodden? Visit his residence.

In 2007, the SPLC presented itself to the public as a non partisan watchdog and publicly labeled the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) as a 'hate group'. However, they deliberately withheld the fact that they partnered with the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and not one single person in the media investigated it. With the aid of their media allies, the "Stop the Hate" campaign gained steam and eventually gave FAIR the venomous label as a hate group by the SPLC, which gives credence to the allegations that they became NCLR's propaganda arm.

According to SPLC's most recent IRS Form 990, the top ten earners are,

Morris Dees — Founder and Chief Trial Counsel — $348,420
Richard Cohen — President/CEO — $344,490
Joseph Levin — Director and General Counsel — $189,166
Rhonda Brownstein — Legal Director — $179,806
Jeff Blancett — Former COO — $159,301
Teenie Hutchinson — Chief Financial Officer — $155,414
Mark Potok — Intelligence Director — $143,099
Wendy Via — Development Director — $140,428
Mary Bauer — Director Immigrant Justice — $141,484
Jennifer Holladay –Strategic Affairs — $137,900

Not listed is Michael Toohey, the SPLC’s current COO, because he only earns a paltry five figure salary of $89,975.

Continued...



Rather than being an organization that helps the down trodden and mistreated against 'hate groups', the SPLC has done nothing more than exploit the gullible through direct mailing tactics and much like sex, hate sells. According to Dees' former partner, they weren't above unethical practices and "We were not particular about how we did it..."

As one example of blatantly misleading its donors, the SPLC conducted a mailing campaign in 1995 stating that the, "strain on our current operating budget is the greatest in our 25-year history." However, they failed to mention that they were, and still are, the wealthiest 'civil rights' group in America with a bucket of $60 million during that time.

Their tactic is to smear anyone or any group that has a different point of view as racist hate mongers and their latest target is the Tea Party movement, by attempting to link it with domestic terrorism and militia groups. According to the SPLC:

The Patriot movement — largely comprised of white supremacists — was animated in the 1990s by a shared view of the federal government as the enemy and a belief the Federal Emergency Management Agency secretly runs concentration camps.

“The ‘tea parties’ and similar groups that have sprung up in recent months cannot fairly be considered extremist groups, but they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism,” Mark Potok, director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project, wrote in a piece titled “Rage On The Right: The Year In Hate And Extremism” from the group’s Spring 2010 edition of its Intelligence Report.

Read the rest at the Daily Caller

So, in other words, people that practice their First Amendment rights in regards to smaller government are considered by the SPLC as 'domestic terrorists'? Yet, the mealy mouthed Potok hasn't cited one piece of credible evidence, but, shoots off at the mouth with endless innuendo.

MLK Jr was a Republican, before he was a Democrat

Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally was supposed to transcend political parties and even politics itself. It did just that. Yet, the left wing media hate machine and apparatchik bloggers didn't see it that way; they saw it as an insult to Dr. Martin Luther King's historic speech and many seen it as "stealing" something they think is theirs by right.

To this day, Al Sharpton, who seems to think he's MLK Jr's torchbearer, still gets it wrong:



I wasn't born during MLK Jr's time. However, I can read and comprehend the English language.

Martin Luther King Jr wouldn't have agreed with any of Sharpton's comments. As a matter of fact, Martin Luther King Jr was a Republican before he was compelled to become a democrat. Spreading the wealth around is not a Republican tenet, as it is with democrats who believes in the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and socialism.

The Republican Party was created in 1854 as the anti slavery party, who's platform was freedom and civil rights for blacks. In 1957, Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, introduced the first Civil Rights legislation that was shot down by Lynden B. Johnson and then Senator John Kennedy, both democrats. It was attempted again in 1964, which was thwarted by Al Gore Sr and it's noteworthy to add that President Kennedy was opposed to MLK Jr's march in 1963, which was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed because the Republican Party pushed it through.

In March of 1968, KKK member and kleagle, Senator Robert Byrd referred to MLK Jr as a "trouble maker who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited." On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated.

• It was the Republican Party that added the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.


• It was the Republican Party that passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s


• It was the Republican Party that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866


• It was the Republican Party that passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867


• It was the Republican Party that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964


• It was the Republican Party that started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan

As for affirmative action, it was started by Richard Nixon to counter the harm and damage being caused to blacks when democrat President Woodrow Wilson, a racist, democrat progressive in 1912 removed ALL blacks out of federal government jobs.

During the presidential campaign in 1964, Barry Goldwater wanted to force the democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation. So, those in the left wing media need to be reminded that LBJ's State of the Union Address on January 4, 1965 talked of an enormous amount of federal action on many issues, but, only devoted 35 words to the civil rights movement.

Then towards the end of LBJ's term, he referred to MLK Jr. as a "nigger preacher" when he protested against the Vietnam War.

Remember Trent Lott's remarks about Strom Thurmond (R-SC)? Recall the outcry from democrats after he made them? Isn't it a bit hypocritical of democrats to forget that Thurmond never wore white sheets and a pointy hat, like Robert Byrd did?

Both political parties have been infiltrated by progressives. In their perverted world view, they need to keep giving handouts to minorities to maintain control; all one has to do is count the numerous federal programs that give entitlements to blacks and other minorities, which keeps them coming back for more much like a drug addict looking for their next fix.

Democrats have been running the inner cities for the better part of 35 years. Since LBJ's "War on poverty", $7 trillion has been spent with little, if any measurable impact, yet they continue to blame Republicans for the problems. Since 2006, democrats have had control of both houses of Congress, yet whine like pouting children when they claim that Republicans are keeping more entitlement or tax busting bills from being passed. Here's a news flash:

Democrats don't need Republican support, the democrats have majorities in both houses and can pass their bills without their support.

Why did Martin Luther King Jr. flip sides?

Mrs. Coretta Scott King urged Nixon, who voted for the Civil Rights Act, to help her husband when he was facing jail time. Nixon didn't respond, but Kennedy did and subsequently brought it to the attention of the nation.

Coretta Scott King was pregnant at the time and was very grateful for Kennedy's intervention, urging black voters to cast previously Republican votes for Senator Kennedy even though Kennedy had voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Law.

So, it shouldn't come as a shock that many blacks, particularly Martin Luther King Jr. were Republicans during the sixties.

Equal rights, or equal things

I dedicate this brief missive to a friend who is currently going through a rough patch. I bid my friend to take note of the below quote.

"I've never been poor, only broke. Being poor is a frame of mind. Being broke is only a temporary situation." - Mike Todd

Europe's attitude in regards to the role of government during the days of the Founding Fathers, even to this day, is to take from the "haves" and give it to the "have nots"; in the European mind it made everything "truly equal." But, our Founders seen right through this flaw and decided to take a different approach.

Let's start with a premise.

The American people can't give power to the government to do anything, except that which they have the power, or lawful right,  to do themselves. In other words, if the people don't have the lawful right or power to do anything, they can't very well delegate it to the government.

As an example. We know that every American is entitled to protect his or her life and property. With that in mind, it would be within the governments power to establish a police force. The people are entitled to protect themselves, thus they have the right to delegate that power to government. In that sense, it would also be legitimate for the federal government to establish a police force as well, such as the FBI, DEA, etc.

Now, let's suppose that you live in a neighborhood where you have a car, your neighbor has two and his neighbor has none. You decide one day, out of benevolence, to walk over to your neighbor's house with two cars, relieve him of one of them and give it your neighbor that has none. No doubt that your local police would be paying you a visit for grand theft auto, regardless of your intentions, you stole from someone that has and gave to another that had not.

Because your actions were completely misunderstood, you decide to take action and collect signatures for a ballot on the city council. You want to make it law to take from the haves and give to the have nots, because in your world view, the government's role should provide equal things across the board. Because you were not thinking of the consequences, the city council has made it law; not only has your neighbor lost his car, but now he has lost his rights.

And so have you.

If you don't think so, consider this. When the Soviet Union seized control of Hungary, the peasants were overjoyed with the so-called 'justice' meted out to the wealthy land owners when the Communists confiscated their lands and gave it to the peasants. In the following years after they seized control and gave it the peasants, the communist regime took roughly three quarters of that land back to establish communal farms. The overjoyed peasants weren't so joyful when this happened and vociferously complained about their property rights. During those days, we know what happened when a peasant complained too much.

Our Founders recognized what would happen if the government was allowed to redistribute wealth and goods. If it was authorized to do so, then our government would have the power to give rights and take them away at will, which we all know as tyranny.

Our Founders knew then that the key to prosperity was to protect equal rights and not provide equal things. Samuel Adams even said that the very ideas of a welfare state were purposely made unconstitutional when he stated:

"The Utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government unconstitutional."

Welfare states never last long, just look at Europe now. They are economically collapsing and if we don't look to them and understand the mistakes they have made, we will be following the same collapse as well. With the current administration, we're already on the path.

Glenn Beck's Founders Friday - African American Founders

I am 43 years old and at no time do I ever recall being taught this in grade school or high school. Why? Well, there are probably a variety of reasons, not least of which involves some pinhead, progressive "history" professors in the eighties who thought they knew better than those that were actually there when it happened.

Below are three parts of Glenn Beck's African American Founding Fathers.

Part 1



Part 2



Part 3

Rachel Carson, DDT, Lies and Genocide

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

- Adolf Hitler

Want to get people to believe a lie? It's simple. Make up a story, distort the facts, add a drop of truth and they'll follow you like the mice that followed the Pied Piper of Hamlin.

- Steve LeMaster

If you should find yourself perusing Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", one thing you might notice are the titles she gave some of the chapters in her book, “Rivers of Death,” ”The Human Price,” “The Rumblings of an Avalanche,” and “Beyond the Dreams of the Borgias.” This is typical of anyone who wants to get a message out of untold horrors, whether it's in a work of fiction or nonfiction. It's designed to prepare the reader for what follows in the pages of that chapter, so what better way than to give them titles that portend death and destruction?

Rachel Louise Carson was born on May 27, 1907 and worked for the US Bureau of Fisheries in the 1950's, she was also a nature writer and an environmentalist. Her 1951 book, "The Sea Around Us" became a best seller and secured her financially. In 1962, she published a book that would cause widespread controversy to this very day titled "Silent Spring". Many claim that it started the environmental movement. Filled with half truths, distortions and outright lies, her book caused a reversal of the use of DDT by the United Nations that caused the deaths of millions of people in Africa. According to the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), 2.7 million people die annually of malaria.[1]

Carson starts her first lie right away in the dedication to Albert Schweitzer, "To Albert Schweitzer who said ‘Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the Earth.’” An acquaintance of mine steered me to page 262 of his autobiography. So, I go to the public library find the book and lo and behold, "How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause us ... but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us."

That's interesting. She dedicates her book to Albert Schweitzer, who is more concerned about nuclear warfare than anything else, but, has his hopes set on DDT for those wicked insects? Had she even bothered to check out his autobiography first, she would most likely not have made this error. Sadly, her book is replete with it.

And she wastes little time trying to link insecticides to chemicals used for warfare prior to World War II:

All this has come about because of the sudden rise and the prodigious growth of an industry for the production of man-made or synthetic chemicals with insecticidal properties. This industry is a child of the Second World War. In the course of developing agents of chemical warfare, some of the chemicals created in the laboratory were found to be lethal to insects. The discovery did not come by chance: insects were widely used to test chemicals as agents for death of man.[2]

What she is trying to do is link insecticides to those chemicals used in warfare. By doing so, she is laying a foundation that DDT was tested as an agent "for the death of man" when it was used for nothing of the sort. DDT was first synthesized in 1873, but its insecticidal properties were not discovered until 1939, by the Swiss scientist Paul Hermann Müller, who was awarded the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for his efforts. It was hailed as a major public health success because DDT kills mosquitoes, lice and fleas, which are carriers for more than 20 serious infectious diseases like the bubonic plague, typhus, yellow fever, encephalitis and malaria.[3] It's also known to be non-hazardous to humans! Considering that volunteers have ingested as much as 35 milligrams of it a day for nearly two years and suffered no adverse affects.[4]

She goes on by asserting that insecticides that were used before World War II were simple, organic compounds that were naturally occurring and lists a variety. However, two of those in her list are actually complex organic chemicals, pyrethrum and rotenone.[5] She then goes on to state that arsenic is a carcinogen and links it to the deaths of many English citizens due to chimney soot, which is supported by an anonymous English physician two centuries ago. She then paints a horrific scene of sickness and death among humans and animals.[6] What's of interest here is that on the following page, she goes out of her way to make sure the reader knows that DDT is the deadliest.[7]

Modern insecticides are still more deadly. The vast majority fall into one or two large groups of chemicals. One, represented by DDT, is known as the "chlorinated hydrocarbons."

This indictment of DDT is a travesty and a downright misrepresentation of the facts, better known as pseudo or junk science. As noted earlier, volunteers ingested as much as 35 grams of DDT for two years and not one of them suffered any adverse side effects. Not to mention that millions of people lived with the chemical for years during the mosquito spray programs in 1956.[8] Moreover, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that, "In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths due to malaria, that would otherwise have been inevitable."[9] A leading British scientist stated, "If the pressure groups had succeeded, if there had been a world ban on DDT, then Rachel Carson and Silent Spring would now be killing more people in a single year than Hitler killed in his whole holocaust."

And this last statement sums it up eloquently. What Rachel Carson's book did was nothing short of causing hysterics, which resulted in knee jerk reactions by politicians and bureaucrats in the United Nations to cease the use of DDT. As with any politician, all they care about is getting reelected and typically fall into lockstep with the noise created by alarmists with a complete disregard for the consequences. In this case millions of preventable deaths around the world, or what we call today as genocide.

Then there is the myth of the near extinction of the Bald Eagle caused by DDT. This myth claims that DDT killed these magnificent birds and caused the shells of eggs to become thin, yet as early as 1921 the journal called Ecology reported that Bald Eagles were under threat of extinction 22 years before DDT was even invented. According to the National Museum Bulletin, they all but vanished in the New England area by 1937, which was 10 years prior to widespread use of pesticides.

In an article posted by the Associated Press on July 4, 2006, it was reported that Bald Eagle pairs increased from 3 to 100 between 1983 and 2006. They go on to mention that, "DDT poisoned the birds, killing some adults and making the eggs of those that survived thin. The thin eggs dramatically reduced the chances of eaglets surviving to adulthood. DDT was banned in 1972. The next year, the Endangered Species Act passed and the bald eagles began their dramatic recovery."

The problem is that nowhere has it ever been reported that Bald Eagles were considered as a nuisance and routinely shot by hunters, fisherman and farmers. This is what nearly caused the Bald Eagle's demise and compelled the government to enact a federal law protecting the bird in 1940. The AP, of course, underplaying these facts. Since that time, the Bald Eagle population has dramatically increased.

What was the actual cause of these egg shells thinning? A variety of reasons. Some of them already in the scientific literature prior to an Environmental Protection Agency administrative judge, William Ruckleshaus who presided over the 1971-1972 hearings about whether DDT should be banned.

Lastly, I would like to mention the real reason why DDT was banned. The reason was nothing more than control. In a Seattle Times newspaper (Oct. 5, 1969 edition), senior scientist for the ultra radical Environmental Defense Fund, Charles Wurster stated, "If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before. In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT."

I like to call it genocide via environmental alarmism.

So, it had nothing whatever to do with banning DDT for it's "deadly" properties. It was always about control.

References cited:

[1] National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)

[2] Silent Spring Page 16

[3] Rachel Carson's Ecological Genocide Frontpage Magazine. By: Lisa Makson July 31, 2003

[4] EVALUATION OF THE TOXICITY OF PESTICIDE RESIDUES IN FOOD - FAO Meeting Report No. PL/1965/10/1 WHO/Food Add./27.65

[5] Silent Spring page 16

[6] ibid page 17

[7] ibid page 18

[8] Mosquito Control Program Description

[9] National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) - RE-EMERGING MICROBES

For a more in-depth history of DDT, visit Chemistry Daily - DDT

Racism, Eugenics and Planned Parenthood's Origins

Compare these two statements below and ask yourself who made them:

"Our starting point is not the individual, and we do not subscribe to the view that one should feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, or clothe the naked ... Our objectives are entirely different: We must have a healthy people in order to prevail in the world."

"the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon American society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupid, cruel sentimentalism."

If you said Joseph Goebbels and Margaret Sanger, you'd be correct.

After the full extent of the macabre horrors that took place in the Nazi death camps were revealed to the world, the American Birth Control League quietly changed its name to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Or what we know today as Planned Parenthood and what was really impressive was how swift and silent this change took place.

Why the change? As with any progressive organization, when the populace catches on to what they're really all about, they change their name the same way a chameleon changes its color to blend in with its surroundings; they may have melded into the background, but, their purpose never changes and they think that nobody will notice. Just look at ACORN. People caught on to what they were doing and they were getting hammered, so what did they do? Changed their name, though their purpose hasn't changed.

In 1914, Sanger released her publication called the Woman Rebel where she advocated "No Gods. No Masters." In it she writes, "I hated the wretchedness and hopelessness of the poor, and never experienced that satisfaction in working among them that so many noble women have found." She also openly supported the infanticide program conducted by the Nazi Party in her "Birth Control Review", as well as openly advocating Hitler's Aryan supremacy.

Her mantra was "The elimination of 'human weeds', for the 'cessation of charity' because it prolonged the lives of the unfit, for the 'segregation' of the 'morons, misfits, and the 'maladjusted', and for the sterilization of genetically inferior races."

Ernst Rudin, Dr. Paul Popenoe and Mr. E.S. Gosney

A few years before World War II began, Margaret Sanger commissioned the Director of the German Experiment Programs to serve as an adviser by the name of Ernst Rudin. His work, along with other Nazi elitists, allowed for the passage of the "Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring" to be enacted on July 14, 1933 and become effective on January 1, 1934. This law forced compulsory sterilization of "undesirables."

The leading people in the German sterilization movement have stated ad nauseum, that this law was predicated on the work of Dr. Paul Popenoe and a Mr. E.S. Gosney. Stating that it would have been impossible to carry out the sterilization of 1 million people without drawing on the experience elsewhere. Popenoe was a leading scientist in the eugenics movement who wrote an article titled, "Eugenic Sterilization", in Margaret Sanger's Birth Control Review.

Dr. Popenoe stated that, "The situation in the U.S.A will grow worse instead of better if steps are not taken to control the reproduction of mentally handicapped. Eugenic sterilization represents one such step that is practicable, humanitarian, and certain in its results." How many Americans would be forced to go under this procedure? Between five million and ten million.

In his book, "Killer Angel" George Grant writes that Sanger believed that the unfit should not reproduce and opened a "clinic" in Brownsville, New York. This area was heavily populated with newly arrived immigrants from Slavs, Latins to Jews whom she turned her sights on to save the world from the unfit. In 1939, she organized the "Negro Project" because she was of the belief that they were an inferior race. She justified her crusade against blacks because, "The masses of Negroes ...particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit..."

One of the methods she attempted is typical of any progressive movement and it still holds true today and that's through religion. She tried to recruit black religious ministers to spread her propaganda to churches in the South and later wrote, "The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the Minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

If you think that Margaret Sanger and her organization didn't have any influence consider this: A 1927 case that the Supreme Court upheld was Buck v. Bell. This case shows just how much influence the American Birth Control League had, when the Supreme Court upheld Virginia's ruling that Carrie Buck and her daughter were "mentally defective" and was in need of forced sterilization.

At any rate, Sanger became increasingly hostile to Christianity and individual liberty, as well as anything to do with freedoms under the banner of God. It becomes evident when she wrote, "Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian churches. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday of the tyranny of Christianity no less than Capitalism."

If none of this is sounding familiar, all you have to do is look to President Barack Obama's new spiritual "adviser", Jim Wallis. His message of "social justice" smacks of the typical progressive movement. What better way to spread that propaganda, than through religion?

Lothrop Stoddard

Theodore Lothrop Stoddard was born in Brookline, Massachusetts on June 29, 1883. He was a political scientist, eugenicist, anti-immigration advocate and a self appointed "pacifist. How anyone can be all of these things and claim to be a pacifist is beyond me, but that's progressives for you. He was recruited by Sanger as a board member of the American Birth Control League, the predecessor of today's Planned Parenthood.

In his book, "Into The Darkness" (1940) Stoddard states that the Nazi's had a two fold task:

to increase both the size and the quality of the population. Indiscriminate incentives to big families would result largely in more criminals and morons. So they coupled their encouragements to sound citizens with a drastic curb on the defective elements. That curb was the Sterilization Law.

According to Stefan Kuhl, author of The Nazi Connection (Eugenics, American Racism, And German National Socialism), Stoddard personally witnessed how the Nazis were "weeding out the worst strains in the Germanic stock in a scientific and truly humanitarian way." Moreover, Stoddard states that the Jewish "problem" was "already settled in principle and soon to be settled in fact by the physical elimination of the Jews themselves from the Third Reich."

Now you can see why Planned Parenthood is desperate in trying to erase their past. Margaret Sanger was as evil as they come and people, such as Woodrow Wilson held the same beliefs.

Continued...


What's in a name? Pro abortion and pro choice.

As I stated earlier, progressives change their name when people catch on to what they are up to or when they are trying to hide something. They think that people are ignorant enough that they'll just slip right past them and continue doing what they've always done. So, is there a difference between pro abortion and pro choice?

I have seen no evidence of it; if anything, it only seems pro choice when a woman chooses to abort her fetus. Consider a house bill (HB 1453) that failed to make it through committee in the Illinois State legislature (aka. A Woman's Right To Know). This bill would have required "doctors" (I use this term loosely) to give complete information with regard to the full nature of the procedure, facts about the unborn baby inside them, a list of possible physical and emotional side effects and the consequences of having it done. It would also have required a waiting period of 24 hours.

Another situation cropped up before the Super Bowl. Before a commercial about Tim Tebow even aired, "pro choice" advocates cried fowl because it supposedly "advocated pro life". Well, if they are "pro choice" you would think that they wouldn't have had an issue with Tim Tebow's mother choosing life. Not quite. Even though their attempts failed to have the ad pulled, it most certainly showed their true colors of not being "pro choice" at all.

Another sticky issue that "pro choice" advocates try their best to hide or not mention is, or was their patron saint Norma McCorvey. Who is she? Norma was Roe in Roe v. Wade and she recently changed her point of view and is now a pro life advocate. Why the volte face? In her book, "Won by Love" she writes:

I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma,' I said to myself, 'They're right.' I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth--that's a baby!
I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception.' It wasn't about 'missed periods.' It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion–at any point–was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.

She disavowed lesbianism and in 1998 affirmed her entrance in the Roman Catholic Church. Could this be why "pro choice" advocates no longer hold her in high regards? Possibly.

You can't make something from nothing

Ask any "pro choice" advocate when life begins and your likely to get various answers, yet none of them will have the word conception in it. Merriam Webster defines conception as the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both. If life begins when the heart beats, as "pro choice" people believe, then that begs the question as to how the fetus got to that stage in the first place.

Of course, nobody has ever accused progressives of using rational logic. When this question is posed to them, they typically drool on themselves and launch into a vitriolic tirade. So, we take the issue a step further and really send them into a hissy fit.

Ask a "pro choice" advocate if nature or humans can make something from nothing. If you get a response of "No", then proceed to the next stage that will surely send them into a hissy fit because there's no way around it.

Ask your "pro choice" friend if they know what Creatio Ex Nihilo means (no, I didn't misspell creation). Chances are in your favor that they won't know and this is where you win hands down.

Creatio Ex Nihilo is Latin for creation from nothing. If your "pro choice" pal told you that humans and nature can't create something from nothing, and the dictionary defines conception as the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both, then wouldn't it be logical that life begins at conception?

In order for anything, including a human baby, to be created it must be conceived of first. It is a biological absolute and there is no way around it.

Before an artists puts brush to canvas, the artist must first conceive what he or she is going to paint.

Before a sculptor puts hammer to chisel, the sculptor must first conceive what he or she is going to sculpt.

Before a baby is born, the mother and father must...well, you know the rest.

...Previous

Sources cited:

Margaret Sanger, Sterilization, and the Swastika

Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood: Link to the Occult

The rising tide of color against white world-supremacy - Lothrop Stoddard

BUCK v. BELL, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)

Into The Darkness - Lothrop Stoddard

Killer Angel - George Grant

The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism - Stefan Kuhl

Won by Love: Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe V. Wade, Speaks Out for the Unborn As She Shares Her New Conviction for Life - Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe V. Wade

We Are Overdue For A House Cleaning

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I remember as a kid in elementary school reciting that pledge every morning. I didn't know what it meant then and didn't really come to appreciate it until I donned the uniform of the US Army in 1984, even then I didn't really understand it's meaning. It wasn't until I was about twenty two years old when it's full impact became apparent to me when Iraq invaded Kuwait and you know the rest.

What is patriotism? At the risk over simplifying it, patriotism is an attitude and not a virtue. As much as it sickens me to write this, Nazi's were patriots, though for a disgusting and revolting reason. Suicide bombers are patriots, as well as the Irgun and Stern gangs during the pre-Israel days. But, patriotism wraps cause in its folds; if the zeal of your patriotism calls on you to take up a cause that is immoral and repugnant, then you face condemnation. If your cause musters your patriotism to defend the weak against oppression, then you are lauded for your efforts.

In America, patriotism also means to revere the Founding Fathers and what they created for us. No other country or culture in the history of mankind has done what our Founders did: To create a country that was based on an idea to be pursue life, liberty and happiness where its citizens are considered equal no matter what their social standing is, ethnic background or religion and to keep the fruits of their labor, and to speak out against the government without fear of reprisals.

In other words, to be an American is to be part of an idea.

What's not patriotic is when the will of the people are ignored by our politicians. Thomas Jefferson once said, "When the government fears the people, it's liberty. When the people fears the government, it's tyranny." This is what's going on today with our politicians and current administration, when the majority of the people are telling them that, yes, health care reform is needed, but not the way you're wanting to do it and are being ignored.

This administration has nothing but utter contempt for the Constitution. They see it as a roadblock to their path of creating a national government, rather than maintaining a federal one, like the Founders intended it to be. Remember what Obama has said in the past about the Constitution containing a negative Bill of Rights, yet, he's supposed to be a Constitutional lawyer and should know better. If you don't think so, consider the attempt by Rep. Louise Slaughter to change the rules for the Senate's version of the health care bill. This would have "deemed" the Senate version as passing without actually having to vote on it and it's a blatant violation of Article I, Section VII, clause II of the Constitution.

And don't give me that crap about the Republicans having done it. This completely untrue.

But, as the saying goes, "You are who you are by the company you keep", speaks volumes of Barry Obama and we don't need to go back down that road; if you don't know it by now, then perhaps this isn't the place for you.

Regardless of what happens with this health care bill monstrosity, Barry is a one termer and come this November a good, old fashioned house cleaning is in order. But, here's the key: If anyone running for office during the midterms doesn't have, as part of their platform, the repeal of this health care reform bill, they need to.

All Men Are Created Equal?

"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."

Well, not quite. The Founders new that all men could not be created equal, in the sense that no two people are exactly alike when they are born. When they grow, they have different skill sets, emotions, physical strength, social status, among other attributes. What they were referring to is that all men are created equal under the law, with equally protected rights and all under the sight of God.

It is up to society to accept and uphold those rights of equality, even with all of their individual differences.

As noted by the Constitutional writer, Clarence Carson, all people should have their rights equally protected under the law and each person is equally entitled to pursue life, liberty and happiness afforded under the Declaration of Independence. In terms of the law, every person has the right to have his or her case heard regardless of social standing on an equal playing field.

The Founders put our country on a course that provided something that no other country had ever done, in terms of equality to all citizens. The disconnect comes from society itself when some people are not treated equally for one reason or another. And these people that are mistreated are always the minority and are always kept as outsiders, as long as society allows it to happen, minorities will always consider themselves as being unequal. What's bizarre is that America is a country of minorities.

There is no other country on the face of this planet that has the amount of minorities as America does. The Founding Fathers were geniuses, because they created a society of freedom which allowed for opportunity, which in turn, attracted millions of immigrants and a few generations later, millions were considered first class citizens. Even though it was painful, their acceptance into our society was much faster than other countries. In many other countries, a certain group can reside there for hundreds of years and are never accepted into their society.

Growing up twenty five or thirty years ago, I never recalled a time when I was asked to press 1 for English or 2 for Espaniol. Today, it's common place to the point that if you don't have that option, you can put your business at risk because it is considered by many as racist or ethnically biased because it's excluding a minority.

You can disagree all you want, but the national language of America is English and in order to be accepted into it is to cross the culture gap and learn it. If you decided to relocate to Spain, do you honestly believe that they would change their culture to suit you, who is the minority? If you dialed a business on their phone system, would you hear, press 1 for Spanish or 2 for English?

For a minority to be accepted into society and then assimilated takes patience and can take generations to become an asset. Some times minority groups run out of patience and they choose a different path to acceptance and bloodshed occurs, which can result in that cultures destruction and nothing is gained. Recent history has shown that this has very nearly happened, such as the Jews during World War II and the Hutu and the Tutsi tribes in Africa.

Of course the United States has had her problems with accepting minorities as well.

During the boom of the railroad industry in the 19th century, the Chinese were treated brutally. They worked tirelessly on the railroads, as field workers and ran laundries for a pittance, all the while sleeping on boards and sending their children to school and suffering maltreatment. Yet, they endured with patience and by the 1940's were virtually assimilated into our culture. The Japanese, however, never quite made it due to December 7, 1941.

Just weeks after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese were carted off to concentration camps in the Rocky Mountains and it's a national embarrassment to this day. It particularly doesn't help matters much when J. Edgar Hoover knew there weren't any spies or agent provocateurs among them. He also vehemently protested their movement into these internment camps to no avail.

Did the Japanese hold it against our country? Not quite. They did something that rightly gave our country a black eye and that was to send their sons to war in the American armed forces! They did this knowing that their sons would still be distrusted in the ranks and yet, being loyal, they came out the heroes in the end.

And it was done through patience.

One scar on America that will never be fully healed is the slavery of blacks, even though they have been assimilated and have risen to become first class citizens faster than any other, despite their brutal treatment. If you don't think so, consider this: Within three to four generations, thousands of blacks made leaps and bounds to cross the culture gap. Blacks in other countries noticed the higher standard of living of their kinsmen in America and by the 70's, a black student in high school living in the South had a much better opportunity to get a college education than a white student in Europe.

The crux of the problem, when it comes to the manner in which they were treated, comes down to two issues. Politicians were split as to how blacks could be fully assimilated into American culture. Some felt that they could do it through education and job opportunities, while others asserted it could be accomplished with taxpayer subsidies and government assistance. History has shown that the former is the better way to go, while the latter caused them to be dependent on government handouts, much like a drug addict needs a supplier.

Of course some blacks ran out of patience and took the extreme path.

Eldridge Cleaver was a Marxist radical who spent much of his youth in detention centers for petty crimes. In 1957, he was arrested for committing rape and was convicted of assault with intent to murder and subsequently went to prison for 15 years. During this time, he taught himself Marxist philosophy and the tactics of revolutionaries and in 1967, he became the Minister of Information for the Black Panthers.

Cleaver's agenda was to destroy the economy and social structure of America, so that blacks could enjoy the same rights as others under what he called American Communism. By 1968, the violence was getting worse and only the black ghettos were burning, which the lamestream media tends to always ignore.

At any rate, Cleaver jumped bail on an attempted murder charge in late 1968 and fled to Cuba, then to Algeria. After some trouble with Timothy Leary, he fled to France and in 1975 was eventually repatriated to the United States. Disavowing Marxism he stated:

I was wrong and the Black Panthers were wrong. We Black Americans are inside the system and I feel that the number one objective for Black America is to recognize that they have the same equal rights under the Constitution as Ford or Rockefeller, even if we have no blue-chip stocks. But our membership in the United States is the supreme blue-chip stock and the one we have to exercise.

Part of his retribution to society was to serve several hundred hours of community service. He accepted many speaking engagements at schools, universities and churches professing his profound appreciation for the American idea and way of life. He felt betrayed by Communism when he realized that it wasn't all about human rights.

The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were added to the Constitution after its adoption in 1789. Our Founding Fathers new that there was a difference between equal rights and other areas where it was not possible. They realized that it was up to society to pursue it and to provide it. What many Americans don't realize and don't understand, is that the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence guarantees equal rights, but, it does not guarantee an equal outcome or result.

Revisiting An Old Issue - The Patriot Act

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

- Patrick Henry

On October 26, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, better known as The Patriot Act.

This act allows government law enforcement agencies to track and search telephone, cell phone and other electronic communications, as well as financial and medical records and eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States.

And it's unconstitutional.

What one has to ask is, how much liberty do I need to relinquish to the federal government for my safety? I think Benjamin Franklin summed it up in one sentence. Liberty is the foundation of individual freedom; relinquish a small portion of it and you have opened the door for tyranny.

Playing devils advocate, one may ask how many Americans have been arrested, much less accosted by the Patriot Act. However, that's not the point. The point of it being unconstitutional is giving up ones liberty for temporary safety and when that happens, and we know this to be true, politicians will attempt to take even more.

Let's look at the Constitution and the Patriot Act, side by side.

Amendment I - 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.

The Patriot Act allows the federal government to monitor religious, as well as political institutions without any reasonable suspicion.

Amendment I -...abridging the freedom of speech.

The Patriot Act allows the government to prosecute any organization or group who maintains records that make public any investigation or subpoenas of those records.

Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Patriot Act allows the federal government to seize any documents and effects without probable cause, thus violating the freedom of reasonable search and seizure.

Amendment IV - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The Patriot Act allows the federal government to prosecute and jail Americans indefinitely.

Amendment IV - ...to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The Patriot Act allows the federal government to monitor conversations between clients and their lawyers in federal prisons and deny a lawyer to Americans accused of crimes involving terrorism.

Amendment IV - to be confronted with the witnesses against him...

The Patriot Act gives authority to the federal government to deny the accused any charges and to confront any witnesses. Any American who is accused of any crime related to terrorism can be jailed incommunicado and denied an attorney.

Revisiting Benjamin Franklin's quote, we begin to see what he meant. Yes, it is the federal governments role to protect us from the bad guys, domestically and abroad. But, how much freedom are we willing to forfeit to the federal government for the sake of temporary safety? Remember, if the government can give a right, it can take it away.

I am no Constitutional expert, but watch someone who is.

The Misuse Of Jefferson's "Wall of Separation"

If you spend a modicum of attention to the news, particularly during Christmas, no doubt you will hear something come up about some group or another complaining that a Christmas tree in an airport, or a nativity scene displayed in a library window is a violation of "Separation of Church and State." It's inevitable. This clause is always invoked when these types of issues come up and it's misused and abused by people who don't do a little reading about it.

First, let's read 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.

This applies to the federal government not the individual states.

The Founding Fathers were between a rock and a hard place on the issue of freedom of religion; how does the new government allow religious freedom and equality, but ensure that the federal government doesn't establish a national religion? What many don't know is that when the country was founded, there were already seven states that adopted a "state" religion, preventing many people from fully exercising their religious freedoms.

Justice Joseph Story explains in his Commentaries on the Constitution why the Founding Fathers decided to completely remove the federal government on the issue of religion and allowing the states to deal with those issues themselves.

"It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship."

This is the reason why the Founders decided that Congress shall make NO law respecting ANY one religion, religious establishment, or making any law preventing the free exercise thereof. If they had decided otherwise, there would have been enormous civil unrest.

During his travels in the newly formed America, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that schools incorporated core beliefs of religion along side other academic teachings. He noted that in New England, "every citizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; he is taught, moreover, the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, the history of his country, and the leading features of its Constitution...".

He also noticed a bond resonating from the various churches. He observed that the clergy was fervent to uphold the separation of church and state, yet as a whole have an impact on the morals and customs of every day public life, which, in turn, showed itself when formulating new laws. Alexis de Tocqueville also noted that the clergy didn't hold any political office and were not even represented in any assemblies. This was completely unheard of in Europe where the clergy always belonged to a national church and occupied offices of power.

What de Tocqueville realized during his tour of the newly formed country, was that the clergy removed itself from politics because in their view it was beneath them. However, they also believed that it was their solemn duty to deliver the message of religious principles to the people. Not doing so would put America's freedom and political security at risk.

In terms of religion, the Founders wanted to do something that no other country on earth achieved: To give LEGAL equality to ALL religions, including non-Christians. Recalling the seven states that already established a state religion, these would have to be dissolved and Jefferson tried that in Virginia in 1776, but wasn't actually completed until 1786. Patrick Henry, on the other hand, made an attempt in 1784 to introduce a bill (Provision For Teachers of the Christian Religion) that would have allowed taxpayers to designate which society of Christians their money should go to.

This was counter intuitive to what the Founders had in mind causing James Madison to fire back with his famous Memorial and Remonstrance. Madison argued that the stated goal was to give legal rights to all religions and the government should not show preference of one over others:

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were the two Founders that spearheaded the issue of church and state. Their intent was to completely remove the federal government and at the same time give all religions equality in the law on a national level. During the Virginia conference Madison stated, "There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation."

And Thomas Jefferson took the same stance when he wrote the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, "Resolved that it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the Amendments to the Constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..."

He also went further by making it crystal clear that the Supreme Court was also to be excluded from the jurisdiction of religion. He understood that the Supreme Court's role in the federal government was to act as a sentinel to safeguard the Constitution, not to get involved with making laws and interfering with the individual states. He wrote, "And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another & more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the constitution which expressly declares that ‘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,’ thereby guarding in the same sentence, & under the same words, the freedom of religion of speech & of the press: insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood & defamation, equally with heresy & false religion, ARE WITHHELD FROM THE COGNISANCE OF FEDERAL TRIBUNALS..." (Emphasis added).

Remember that the intent of the First Amendment is to remove the federal government from religious issues of the individual states. When Thomas Jefferson was on the Virginia State legislature, he was among a group that drafted a bill to have a day of fasting and prayer. However, when he was elected president, he stated unequivocally that the federal government had NO authority to proclaim ANY religious holidays.

This is where the famous "wall of separation between church and state." came from. On January 1, 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association explaining his position on the matter:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the WHOLE AMERICAN people which declared THAT THEIR legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Note the operative phrase, "that act of the WHOLE American people which declared THAT THEIR legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This is a plural use in the sense that he was referring to the federal government, not the individual states. Recall the bill he submitted when he was in the state legislature and what he said when he became president.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has either forgotten their role in the three branches of government or they just don't care. They have taken it upon themselves to misuse Thomas Jefferson's metaphor to meddle in states' religious affairs and have forced others to take the same "hands off" stance. This was not the intent of our Founding Fathers and it only applied to the federal government.

When you read the statements of Jefferson, as well as his actions, you begin to see the obvious distortion of his statement to the Danbury Baptist Association. Remember that it was Madison and Jefferson who said that the states had sole authority of religion and that any state giving preference to any one religious establishment should be dissolved. Other Founding Fathers joined and emphasized that ALL religions were to be encouraged to foster the moral fiber, as well as the tone of the people. This would have been impossible if there were a "wall" between church and state on the state level. His statement was intended ONLY for the federal government.

References cited:

Joseph Story Commentaries

Virginia Ratifying Convention

Kentucky Resolution of 1798

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville

Memorial and Remonstrance by James Madison

The Papers of Thomas Jefferson vol 30. January 1, 1798 - January 31, 1799

Tactics Of Tyranny - Disarm The People

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

- Second Amendment

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

- James Madison

"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater."

- Peter Venetoklis

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it."

- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Guns. It is estimated that over 70 million American citizens own one either for hunting, self defense, target shooting, exhibitionist shows and people who just enjoy collecting them. As noted in the Second Amendment, the people's right to own them is guaranteed and cannot be taken away.

Unfortunately, some states, such as California, New York and Washington D.C. get around this by making it extremely difficult to own one legally.

Why did the Founding Fathers put this brief sentence into the Constitution? Well, remember that they were fighting a war to free themselves from the tyrannical rule of King George and at that time, the citizen was the soldier and it was necessary that he had a musket in the home in the event he was called upon. The Founding Fathers could not have possibly known what society in America would be like over two hundred years later. In order to prevent something like this occurring again, the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights.

This is one reason why progressives wrongly assert that the Constitution is a "living" document. In their perverted world, they claim that the Second Amendment is no longer needed because we have a national guard system in each state under the direct control of that state's governor. Although this is correct to some extent, what they fail to understand is that a out of control government, that gains too much power and no longer has its checks and balances, may look to use one tactic to ensure its citizens can't fight back.

By taking their firearms.

A progressive will say that could never happen. However, when you look at the core tenets of the progressive movement and who they always look to for "philosophical" guidance, their claims that our government could never do something like that crumbles.

Then there is the self defense angle. Our country hosts over 300 million citizens and non citizens, people who are here illegally for one reason or another. Many of these illegal aliens are trafficking drugs, guns or both. Banning guns from  legal, law abiding American citizens, when they are easily obtained illegally, is akin to leading a sheep to slaughter. Their are numerous examples where a gun owner was able to fend off an assailant or someone breaking into their homes.

Lastly there are those Americans who hunt, or what many wildlife management agencies call harvesting. This is a two fold past time that puts food on the table and maintains wildlife to prevent a certain species from over populating and potentially destroying crops and removing other species in the food chain.

To take control of a populace, their ability to fight back must be controlled. By taking away firearms, the ability of the people to mount any sort of revolt, uprising or simply defending themselves is diminished greatly. Once this is accomplished, the rest is easy. This tactic is the first step to a tyrannical government and history has proven this again and again.

The video below is a graphical representation of what happens when firearms are taken from people and a cold blooded killer takes over and governs, not with the rule of law, but, the rule of power.

Note: This video is a combination of six clips. You will notice a transition when one completes and the next is loaded. After the credits there are interviews.

And please, leave a comment.

Warning. This video contains graphic images and may not be suitable for children. Parental discretion is advised.

LiveLeak.com - Innocents Betrayed - Gun Control History

The Roots Of Progressivism Didn't Start With Woodrow Wilson

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

- Sun Tzu

Meet Herbert Croly, or as his detractors called him "Crolier than thou." If you really want to know where modern day progressivism gets its roots, then look no further. In 1909, he published a book that was practically required reading in many colleges and universities during the 1960's titled The Promise of American Life. This book, as well as his 1915 book, Progressive Democracy, is to modern day liberal progressivism as the Constitution is to liberty of this country.

In Promise, Croly argues that America can achieve progressivism if it couples "Hamiltonian" means with "Jeffersonion" ends; Hamilton believed in a strong, central government and Jefferson believed in individual freedom. Once you think about that for a moment, you soon begin to realize that these two beliefs can't quite coexist once put into practice.

He stated that, "To achieve a better future, Americans had to be emancipated from their past." Essentially, this means to free ones self from the history of our country and of the blood and sacrifice of our Founding Fathers who created America, in other words to rewrite American history. His mantra was to refound this country and it's Judeo-Christian roots into a French type democracy, based on the Comtean philosophy of worshiping society through Rousseuauean means, which is the belief that those of enlightenment should rule.

I guess one could put the full blame on bad parenting that caused this man to have such perverse and despicable beliefs. Born to successful journalists, David and Jane Cunningham, each had strong beliefs on the nuclear family and society. David Croly was a sexual reformer who held the belief that sexual repression was the cause of social disorder and Jane, "Jennie June" Cunningham was a staunch critic of marriage and a feminist through and through.

Croly had nothing but contempt for English liberalism and preferred the German version. He felt that America's inequality in regards to the economy was caused by capitalist individualism, who's only concern was the bottom line and needed to be fixed by nothing short of state intervention.

Why his detractors referred to him as "Crolier than thou" was due to having a God like attitude that he could lead America into this Utopian society. By giving all manner of trust to the enlightened and educated class he stated, " Democracy must stand or fall on a platform of possible human perfectibility." These are the words of a Marxist radical.

Croly extolled the virtues of the educated and artisan class and was hostile to those Americans who didn't share his view. He also believed that the collective power should be laid at the feet of these enlightened and erudite people in order to reshape the country, because they were the only class of Americans that could do it; the common man was too stupid to lead themselves.

In his other book, Progressive Democracy, which was so intertwined with The Promise he said he should have wrote them collectively, he set his sights on the Constitution. In this book, he believed that the Constitution and those who lived by it, had spawned the "monarchy of the Word." Because of the way in which the Founding Fathers framed the Constitution, it limited government's role in American's day to day lives and was designed to set the conditions and environment to allow citizens to fail or succeed on their own merits.

And Herbert Croly argued that it stymied his version of Democracy, which he felt should be more positive to the industrial workers of the world or what is referred to as syndicalism, or better known as "Workers of the world unite..." Croly's vision of America was to dissolve the federal government and give authority to the individual states, then to organize them into classes from educated elite at the top to the lowly wage earner at the bottom. If you think about it for a moment, California could be one example of this idea when you look at their financial problems. Environmentalist zealots, racial interest groups, illegal aliens and unions have caused that states economic strife.

Liberal progressivism is a mental attitude that takes away individual freedoms and liberty and gives them to the elite class. Time and time again, history has proven that it doesn't work, yet these people continue to push this country in that direction.

Patrick Henry said, "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

Although not a Founding Father, he knew all too well that the value placed on liberty should be cause enough to use force, if necessary, to preserve it and over two hundred years later another man knew it as well, when he said,

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."

References cited -

The Promise of American Life


Progressive Democracy

The Federal Reserve And The Usurpation Of The Constitution

Article 1, section 8 -- The Congress shall have power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the authority to delegate the above clause to a private banking firm. By the very nature of this clause, the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, yet this institution is so deeply embedded into our financial system system, abolishing it would more than likely be more trouble than it's worth. With that in mind, everyone should support Ron Paul's bill to audit the Fed and see what they have been up to for all of these years.

So, where did the Federal Reserve come from? How and why was it unconstitutionally implemented to do what Congress is supposed to do? To answer that, we have to go back to the late 1800's and a little island off the coast of Georgia called Jekyll Island and the group of millionaire financiers that bought it.

In 1886 a group of millionaires purchased Jekyll Island and converted it into a hunting club and winter retreat and by 1900 the club's members boasted 1/6th of the worlds wealth; names like Vanderbilt, Pulitzer and Astor to name a few. Heads of state were refused admission to the club, such as Churchill and President McKinley.

During the first decade of the 1900's we were in the midst of a recession much like today and in 1907, the New York Stock Exchange fell to almost 50% from its peak in 1906. This sudden drop in stocks caused the Panic of 1907 or better known as the 1907 Banker's Panic, which was allegedly caused by J.P. Morgan. Other reasons include a failed attempt to corner the market of the United Copper Company and the downfall of the Knickerbocker Trust Company. The panic spread nationwide causing many banks and businesses to collapse, thus causing runs on banks and trust companies.

Prior to the Panic of 1907 there were several others in the early and mid 1800's. In May of 1908, Congress passed the Aldrich-Vreeland Act which established the National Monetary Commission to look into the panic and to research legislation to regulate banking. Senator Nelson Aldrich (R-RI), who was the chairman, left for Europe and stayed for almost two years to study their banking systems.

In 1910, seven wealthy financiers left by train from Hoboken, New Jersey to Jekyll Island. Supposedly, none of these men referred to each other by their last name as noted by Frank Vanderlip of the Saturday Evening Post:

"There was an occasion near the close of 1910 when I was as secretive, indeed as furtive, as any conspirator. I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System. 'We were told to leave our last names behind us. We were told further that we should avoid dining together on the night of our departure. We were instructed to come one at a time...where Senator Aldrich's private car would be in readiness, attached to the rear end of the train for the South. Once aboard the private car, we began to observe the taboo that had been fixed on last names. Discovery, we knew, simply MUST NOT HAPPEN, or else all our time and effort would be wasted..."

These seven men were:

Nelson Aldrich - Republican whip and father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller Jr.

Charles D. Norton - President of the First National bank of New York.

A. Piat Andrew - Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

Frank A. Vanderlip - President of the National City Bank of New York and representing William Rockefeller.

Henry P. Davison Sr. - J.P. Morgan Partner.

Benjamin Strong - Head of JP Morgan's Bankers Trust and later chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Paul M. Warburg - Partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Company and representing the Rothschilds and Warburgs in Europe.

Paul Warburg was the chief drafter of the plan and it was a relatively simple one using sophistry and deceit. The United States wanted no part of a central bank, so rather than attaching those two words to it they merely gave it another name and it was to be largely controlled by Congress, but, the majority of the members was selected by private banks that owned its stock.

The reason why Americans didn't want anything to do with a central bank was due to the economic chaos going on in Europe. What they witnessed at the time in Europe was large scale deficit spending causing wide spread debt, much like what we are seeing today.

At any rate, the deception was to prevent the public from thinking that the Federal Reserve would be controlled from New York, where a system of twelve regional banks was created and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York controlling the entire system. The President was to select the board and its chairman, however, Colonel Edward House noted that the board would serve a term that would "put them out of the power of the President."

The power given by the Constitution to coin and regulate money was thus usurped and placed in the hands of private bankers, who could then expand and contract credit as they pleased and to whomever they wished.